[Otto Nobedder]

The short-and-sweet of this is simple. Mr. Voltaire got it wrong in the beginning, and it's been wrong ever since.

Electrons flow FROM what we commonly call the "-" potential TO the "+" potential.

If that screwy Frenchman had gotten it right, we would not be having conversations like this.

It appears NASA uses actual physics, rather than conventional speech, to describe current flow.

Go figure...

Steve S

[GreinTime]

And the even simpler answer is that NASA and the military utilize Electron Theory vs Conventional Theory when describing electrical theory.

Electrons have a negative charge, protons have a positive charge. Electricity is the flow of Electrons, which by nature flow from a "negative" to a "positive" due to the age old "Opposites Attract" theory.

[skepsis]

Respectfully... that really doesn't answer the question... at all (and 'it appears' rieks like 'opinion'/'guess'/'deduction' whilst we are talking about black and white written facts).
I (think) I already clearly described the flow of electrons (in reality and 'conventional') in my question (and suggested the possibility of looking at it from the point of current-flow).

I'm still looking for for actual examples of welding-power-supplies with reversed terminology and specifications with reversed terminology/labeling: being 'reversed' and 'DC-'...

Because the NASA sources I could find (in abundance) do NOT reverse terminology or label(sign) (as claimed by RocketSurgeon), something I have very clearly quoted.
They do however also include a correct description of electron-flow (next to common terminology and UN-ambigous identifying anode/cathode). I can not find ANY NASA text with terminology reversed, neither can I find any hardware with the terminology reversed. (But I feel I'm repeating text and references from my previous post and wonder If you really read my question).

If this is such common knowledge that NASA and the MILITARY REVERSE terminology and hardware-labeling, then.. it should be easy to provide a proper answer (that might better fit the >4 hours I put into just typing and formatting my question, not talking about close to 30 hours of research.. which according to Google results... all lead back to ONLY this thread on this forum).

PS: Mr. Voltaire??? Don't you mean Benjamin Franklin (and William Watson at about the same time) who defined "positive" and "negative"?

[Otto Nobedder]

Well, skepsis,

(and thank you for choosing not to give a name like bob or joe that would make you familiar to us),

I guess you're going to have to be patient and wait for a reply from Rocketsurgeon, since he seems to be the target of your animosity/curiousity.

Steve S

[Braehill]

skepsis,
Was there something in the introduction section that you construed as an offer of some kind consolation prize for being right. Or maybe there was something that made you think you were entitled to having one of our members publicly apologize to you for having different views.

You mentioned that you spent countless hours researching and typing and editing your post and through all that it seems that it still doesn't insulate you from being an asshole in your approach. You seem to have found the facts that make you happy and found a delivery system that leaves those receiving them with a bad taste in our mouth.

You come here demanding answers that you're not owed and offered up very little in return. We so glad you signed up for this, I feel we all just got a little worse for it, thanks. Please come back when you feel less combative and a little more neighborly and maybe we'll get a chance to learn something from you or by the very slight chance, teach you something.

Len

[DeweyO]

Or-- I think it safe to say the horse is quite dead by now.

Can we get back to the topic?

Dewey

[rick9345]

skepsis

Countless hours?

any of that actually welding?
does the vernacular really make a difference?

[skepsis]

Dear Mr. Nobedder,

It truly makes me sad if you perceive me as targeting Rocketsurgeon with "Violent hatred leading to active opposition; active enmity; energetic dislike" (which is the explanation given to my by https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/animosity (I'm not a 'native speaker')).
That was NEVER my intention! (but I honestly can not find such attitude or behavior in my question)

Even tough I really tried to make it clear that my question was "not intended to put anyone out there" and I only attributed (behavior which is expected and encouraged in the communities I'm usually active in) the quotes (being the origin/foundation) of my "chain of thought" leading to my confusion/question.

The very first question is even: "am I understanding this correctly?" (something that indeed only Rocketsurgeon can answer, just as what equipment he uses and who "our" is ("our" could refer to for example the company where he works (I don't need the name of that company of course) or his colleagues/peers or the community he is active in, etc.).)

I also said: "It's not that I don't (want to) believe this, it's just that I really can't find any reference to such practices at all (in fact I can find plenty of NASA sources that state exactly the opposite of your claim)."

I also (tried to) demonstrate effort that I already made trying to answer the question myself and both quoted and linked to sources relevant to the question (quotes that in itself also attribute to the overall context of this thread, sourced from authoritative sources).

I also took great care in trying not to paraphrase (unintentionally put things in someone else's mouth thy didn't say) and tried to make it clear whenever I made an assumption/guess.

Besides, after putting in a lot of time and effort in the subject, then again by writing/formatting my post, trying to be objective, clear and founded, credit and attribute and be complete (not requiring several posts trying to narrow down the what/why to my question), then why on earth would I want to rub the people that I'm asking my question the wrong way?

Yes, people, as in multiple, because the essential core of my question is not exclusive to Rocketsurgeon because I ended my question with:
"So please, RocketSurgeon (who planted the seed of reversal-doubt') or anyone else, help clear this up:
What machine(s) and What NASA (or anything else in current use) specifications have this terminology and/or labeling reversed , and please point to an acceptable reference!"
knowing that bryce39 "had the luxury of working with some pretty sharp NDT guys over the years in the space program" and expect there are more experienced users here (with NASA/MIL stuff).

I'm sorry if I still came across 'hostile' (I'm failing to produce a sentence using the word animosity).
If you meant something entirely different with the word 'animosity', then.. well.. please disregard the above (and explain what you meant, thank you).

I'm however not sorry for respectfully pointing out when something just doesn't answer the question. My question already described the flow of electrons and established that the quoted nasa-sources utilize Electron Theory (as correctly labeled by GreinTime) when describing electrical theory.

Let's make the essence of my question as short as possible (for full context read the thread or my original question or both if you don't trust me).

RocketSurgeon wrote:
-"DC- (reverse polarity)"
-"DCEP is the polarity we use."
-"Ground clamp on the negative leg, torch on the positive (our symbol for this is DC-)."
MinnesotaDave repeated his question: "does NASA and the military label their stuff backwards from the welding industry?"
(by 'stuff' I assume MinnesotaDave meant atleast the label/symbol "DC-" and maybe/possibly terminology "reverse polarity" as well).
RocketSurgeon replied: "I know for sure that NASA does."

All I tried to do was to ask to clear this up (with some sources), especially as the NASA sources I could find state:
- direct current, straight polarity (DCSP) in which the torch serves as the negative electrode (cathode) and the work piece as the positive electrode (anode) and electrons flow to the workpiece (And labels it "DC-" in pictures)
- "reverse polarity", where the electrons flow away from the workpiece (which they label "DC+" in pictures).
Clearly these nasa-texts I found do NOT "label their stuff backwards".

Again, I never said I didn't believe it, I just ask for some proof/reference/clarification. If that is wrong then maybe it is really time to start feeding our crops with gatorade instead of water.

PS: I still don't know what you mean by "Mr. Voltaire got it wrong in the beginning, and it's been wrong ever since."


EDIT: I see that there came some other responses while I was typing (and translating etc.).

Dear Braehill, you might want to read the above as well.
-"consolation prize for being right"
?? When did I say I was right? The first line of my post states "I'm lost, completely (regarding terminology)", My first question was: "am I understanding this correctly?"
-"you think you were entitled to having one of our members publicly apologize to you for having different views"
I never ever asked for a public apology in any way (why on earth would I? He never harmed or attacked me in any way). "different views"? I thought he was talking about NASA standards, not his personal view..
-"You seem to have found the facts that make you happy"
I said: "It's not that I don't (want to) believe this, it's just that I really can't find any reference.." but above all, I ASKED about it on a forum with experienced welders.
-"and found a delivery system"
for what? stating that I don't know and that I couldn't find references? asking for some references?
-"You come here demanding answers that you're not owed"
I never demanded anything neither do I think that anyone 'owes' me anything (other than humanely assuming best intentions), I used (and meant) the words "Please" (more than once) and "might I ask" (as opposed to TELL ME!!).
-"and offered up very little in return" uhu.. quoting (for if the link goes down) and linking to NASA sources outlining practices on quality (even preferred) aluminum welding in DC offers nothing of value to a thread titled "TIG Welding Aluminum on DC" from NASA sources, backing up the claims that really it is true (the openingpost from this thread itself already stated "They all say you Can't do it!"), you don't need AC and DC is capable of an arguably better weld (at the very least on par).
From where did you get all this??? None of these 'accusations' hold any water (as anyone can verify).
Anyway, I still am sorry that apparently I came across as an "asshole". In no way was that ever my intention (I already explained above why I did what/the way I did it, with the best intentions).

Dear rick9345,
-"Countless hours? " .. of research into the subject if such terminology/labeling is backwards in some areas and finding examples and references.
-"any of that actually welding?"
Why, can I find references to written standards and hardware by looking at a puddle of liquid metal? (that is a joke)
-"does the vernacular really make a difference?"
But of-course.. it is very important to know when terminology might mean something else then one would expect it to be, and know when to expect that one should interpret information (or 'welding recipes') differently from the standard. It's equally useful to be aware that the labeling on a welding-power-supply might not mean what you'd expect it to mean. Besides that, I can not see why it would be wrong to try to understand what your equipment and material does and why, which also leads to better understanding why some recipes work better in some cases (especially now that one can program any imaginable wave-form and patterns).

[rick9345]

Ahhhhh!! This is a test with no answers
"MMPI"

[MinnesotaDave]

Skepsis - you seem to be an argumentative type - bad day or something?

If you stay on this website you'll notice that your type of posts are not generally the norm.

"Less is more"

[Otto Nobedder]

I get the impression that part of our perception of Skepsis' posts come from a language barrier.

He did mention he's not a native speaker.

I'll grant that these are fair questions, as there is some confusion in the posts he quoted.

I'll see if I can get Chris' attention by e-mail, and ask if he wants to weigh in on this (though it's a daunting read at this point).

Steve S

P.S. Despite our perceptions/inferences, no rules have been broken that I can see. The questions have been far more "matter of fact" lacking emotion (the language barrier?) than combative in any way. I'll be interested to see where this goes.

[soutthpaw]

I know a couple pros that are really good at DC aluminum TIG. I just got a tank of helium myself, Got some hands on help from one of the pros. I just need a bunch of practice at it. The arc and the weld pool look much different from AC TIG. Just need to.play with it more. Only do it for fun anyway.

[chadwilliam1]

Thanks OP. I just did some DC tig on aluminum with 4043 and It came out pretty good. I am interested in to try it on something heavy.

[Nikolai]

Hi,
I have a DC only machine and after some learning on steel I'd like to try aluminium .
Somebody mentioned a bit of argon in the helium helps clean the puddle . Will a 90/10 He/Ar mix work ?


Cheers

[johnnynightstick]

I like using nouns as verbs and adverbs.

Since his profile says he's from Munich... I would say English is not his first language.
English and German share similar grammar but they can be very different.
No need to be childish. You end up looking like a jackass.


Sent from my SM-P605V using Tapatalk

[Oilman]

I saw some discussion here wondering why Helium/DC welding gives greater penetration yet seems to be a "colder" weld.

I certainly don't grasp some of the physics going on here. This is in the realm of plasma/gas interaction physics.
I suspect that this is a simple function of thermodynamics. Aluminum is a fast conductor of heat. (we all know this) Helium has a much higher ability to carry heat before becoming ionized. Therefore, heat is transferred into the base metal faster than other shielding gases. This is why welding aluminum with helium requires less amperage vs argon. So the heat is more concentrated in a smaller area giving greater fusion penetration. It is a "colder" (welds solidify quicker) weld however because the surrounding metal has not absorbed as much heat over time/distance form the weld and will act as a quench to the heated/molten area.

This can be clearly observed with cut and etched samples of DC welded aluminum. The root fusion is awesome.

I am currently welding aluminum tanks for my business. I got pissed over failed welds from our company supplied equipment. I suspect the supplied equipment was MIG welded and poorly executed. All of the failures were lack of root fusion. They might have well stuck the plate together with JB weld. I have added a small amount of helium in with argon and off the cuff find the welds look better and seem to be a bit easier. I will have to check to see if root penetration is better. While I am using an AC inverter machine I just might have to learn to DC weld aluminum.

[MarKlane99]

I have worked in the high-tech field and have used DC aluminum welding on most of the products we have worked on. The process provides a greater penetration on thicker parts, so it is primarily used when these parts are to be machined down. It is almost incomparable to AC when doing this, because AC welding has a tendency to crack when grinding or machining the welds down, especially when welding a smaller or thinner part to a larger, thicker part. This isn't the case with the DC process. This is why we have preferred it.