Page 1 of 1
Tungsten inclusion
Posted: Tue Oct 15, 2013 8:20 pm
by Jason123177
If you dip your tungsten in your puddle, does it automatically leave a piece in there or does the tungsten actually have to break off to be seen on X-Ray
Re: Tungsten inclusion
Posted: Tue Oct 15, 2013 8:52 pm
by Otto Nobedder
On stainless and carbon, with an alloyed tungsten, usually a touch of the puddle without a "stick" is not an issue, unless you are near the current limit for the size of tungsten. Observe the tungsten after the touch. If it's still sharp, you're probably good.
On aluminum HFAC, the end of the tungsten is hot enough to leave something behind with just a touch, particularly with pure.
Steve S
Re: Tungsten inclusion
Posted: Tue Oct 15, 2013 9:05 pm
by RedIron881
Jason,
If you have dipped your tungsten in a weld that needs to pass x-ray... In my experience its best to get a pencil grinder and grind out that little spot and reweld it. You don't have to dip your tungsten to get inclusion though. While you're welding the tungsten can spit small pieces into the weld. This can be from a previous contamination, hairline crack in the tungsten, using the wrong tungsten for the material being welded, settings, and so on. These little specs will show up like a flashlight on a x-ray! Just nature of the beast. Cleaner Everything is the Better results every time
Hope that helps a little
Re: Tungsten inclusion
Posted: Tue Oct 15, 2013 9:12 pm
by Otto Nobedder
Jason, I'll defer to RedIron, here,
Just because I've got away with it doesn't mean it's always true.
Err on the side of caution, where bad shots add up against you.
Steve S
Re: Tungsten inclusion
Posted: Tue Oct 15, 2013 11:13 pm
by Jason123177
Thank yall. I appreciate the info. I have to say that this is the most informational site out there and I am very happy I stumbled upon it!!
Re: Tungsten inclusion
Posted: Thu Oct 17, 2013 1:24 pm
by ajlskater1
I agree with otto and red. Better to fix it when its easy to fix verse having to grind out multiple passes to get rid of a bad inclusion and then trying to re tie everything in again. That can suck especially on your root on the bottom.
Re: Tungsten inclusion
Posted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:56 pm
by Wes917
If I even think I hear "it" I hit it with a ball burr just to be sure. I do aerospace work and there's no wiggle room. If you think you dip fix it while its easy
Re: Tungsten inclusion
Posted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 12:08 am
by Otto Nobedder
Wes,
You'd have had heart-failure listening to me today... Aluminum doublers (repairs), with crap behind them puking on my welds...
We've a new member exploring his options, and I suggested aerospace (he seems to be a natural at TIG so I suggested studying "exotics"). Do you have any suggestions for him, i.e. specific metals or processes to study?
Steve S
Re: Tungsten inclusion
Posted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 12:19 pm
by Wes917
To qualify where I work we had to do two test plates full pen on .030 and .080 plate on stainless, aluminum, titanium, inconel, and Haynes 188. Practice, practice, practice. There's a lot of "tig" welders out there but a large amount that can't pass an x ray. A lot is part specific as to control warpage etc. we have a few part that require their own seperate qualification tests to.
Re: Tungsten inclusion
Posted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 5:50 pm
by Otto Nobedder
Thanks, Wes,
Personally, I can do the SS and aluminum, but I've never welded Inconel, and, frankly, I've not heard of Haynes 188.
For an x-ray weld, I make a point of coming in just slightly hung-over. Oddly, it steadies my hands, and possibly keeps me from "overthinking it"...
I'll pass your information on to the fellow.
My supervisor at work worked at NASA's Michoud facility building external fuel tanks for the shuttle. He's horribly near-sighted, and I envy him that. He takes off his glasses, gets his hood close, and sees the weld in "HD". I have to use a large-lens hood so I can look down at the weld through my damn bifocals!
Steve S
Re: Tungsten inclusion
Posted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 6:05 pm
by Wes917
Otto Nobedder wrote:Thanks, Wes,
Personally, I can do the SS and aluminum, but I've never welded Inconel, and, frankly, I've not heard of Haynes 188.
For an x-ray weld, I make a point of coming in just slightly hung-over. Oddly, it steadies my hands, and possibly keeps me from "overthinking it"...
Steve S
Lol I think there's something to that, when I first started my highest success rate days were hungover. It probably has something to do with over thinking it. Now no big deal, but again now I'm comfortable so I don't over think it now. Honestly if you can do those two it would most likely get your foot in the door. We also have a robotic accuwelder and an eb welder which I've been training on now.
Re: Tungsten inclusion
Posted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 6:15 pm
by Otto Nobedder
If I were doing x-ray every day, I'm sure I'd be more comfortable, too. My duties kind-of contradict each other where x-ray welds are concerned. Sometimes I'll do helium leak detection for two or three weeks (I work on liquid hydrogen vessels), and then if the leak is in the inner vessel, it's a ASME code weld requiring x-ray, and I haven't struck an arc in two or three weeks...
Steve S
Re: Tungsten inclusion
Posted: Tue Nov 26, 2013 7:55 pm
by 54jdeere
To bad when you strike an arc your x-rays FAIL. Or the welding on your TIG like MIG isn't your own but one of your co-workers that actually worked on the project.
PLAGERISM even in photo's isn't funny and you should stop ripping other people's work off as your own.
Re: Tungsten inclusion
Posted: Tue Nov 26, 2013 8:15 pm
by Otto Nobedder
54jdeere wrote:To bad when you strike an arc your x-rays FAIL. Or the welding on your TIG like MIG isn't your own but one of your co-workers that actually worked on the project.
PLAGERISM even in photo's isn't funny and you should stop ripping other people's work off as your own.
Please explain.
Who are you accusing of plaigerism? Examples, please, as it won't be tolerated here, but you'd better be right.
It shows you have one post here at this time? Nice hello!
Steve S
Steve S
Re: Tungsten inclusion
Posted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 1:14 am
by JDIGGS82
You guys completely lost me in this thread wtf are the exotics you speak of i once knew a few dancers considered that
Re: Tungsten inclusion
Posted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 3:05 pm
by Wes917
JDIGGS82 wrote:You guys completely lost me in this thread wtf are the exotics you speak of i once knew a few dancers considered that
Exotics refers to the material ie: titanium, inconel etc.
Re: Tungsten inclusion
Posted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 3:07 pm
by Wes917
Otto Nobedder wrote:54jdeere wrote:To bad when you strike an arc your x-rays FAIL. Or the welding on your TIG like MIG isn't your own but one of your co-workers that actually worked on the project.
PLAGERISM even in photo's isn't funny and you should stop ripping other people's work off as your own.
Please explain.
Who are you accusing of plaigerism? Examples, please, as it won't be tolerated here, but you'd better be right.
It shows you have one post here at this time? Nice hello!
Steve S
Steve S
I was wondering why this thread bumped back up. You would think if you were going to make a statement like that it would at least be directed at someone.
Re: Tungsten inclusion
Posted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:38 pm
by Otto Nobedder
Must've been a troll.
No response, or other post at all from 54jdeere since the accusation that, by the wording, I think was aimed at me.
I challenge him to provide examples of "plaigerized" photos, because any photo I've claimed as mine has several other shots of the same weld that exist ONLY on my computer, because I take many and only post the clearest. Wherever he saw a photo of one of my welds that someone else has claimed cannot say the same.
I hope he comes back with examples, so I can publically embarrass whoever may have claimed my welds as theirs.
If I were trying to BS my way through a site with stolen photos, MY welds are not the ones I would choose. My welds look okay, but if I were to steal photos, I'd go for a higher class.
Steve S
Re: Tungsten inclusion
Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 12:31 pm
by Wes917
Otto Nobedder wrote:Must've been a troll.
No response, or other post at all from 54jdeere since the accusation that, by the wording, I think was aimed at me.
I challenge him to provide examples of "plaigerized" photos, because any photo I've claimed as mine has several other shots of the same weld that exist ONLY on my computer, because I take many and only post the clearest. Wherever he saw a photo of one of my welds that someone else has claimed cannot say the same.
I hope he comes back with examples, so I can publically embarrass whoever may have claimed my welds as theirs.
If I were trying to BS my way through a site with stolen photos, MY welds are not the ones I would choose. My welds look okay, but if I were to steal photos, I'd go for a higher class.
Steve S
I've never quite understood how someone could be so bored that trolling was fun
Re: Tungsten inclusion
Posted: Fri Nov 29, 2013 8:41 pm
by krazziee
Well Steve S,
I would not worry with that idiot. The short time I have been on this site I see that you knowledge and skill level is up there with the best here. I don't post a lot but I do read a lot and have learned a good bit from you as well as a lot of the others on here, and; I thank all of you at this time for your help. I also trust your advice as well as some of the others on here. I have learned more about my tungsten conditions from this post. I am pretty sure I will never see an X-Ray of my work, but; knowledge is power. A nice weld is art.
I weld as a hobby or out of necessity at this time but need to make some money to pay for all this stuff at some point.
Thank you all,
Richard
Inman, SC
Re: Tungsten inclusion
Posted: Mon Dec 02, 2013 7:52 pm
by Otto Nobedder
Thank you, Richard,
My reply was meant to put the burden on the accuser, who has yet to respond. As a moderator, I could simply ban him, but I'd rather challenge him.
Steve S.
Re: Tungsten inclusion
Posted: Tue Dec 03, 2013 4:22 pm
by ajlskater1
Wes I am jealous you work in the aerospace field. That has been goal for sometime but not many oppurtunities up here in minnesota in that area. Kinda curious about that haynes 88. I have welded carpentar, hastelloy and monel does the haynes weld similiar? I would assume it would at least that is what I have found with a lot of exoctic metals especially the nickel based alloys.
Re: Tungsten inclusion
Posted: Tue Dec 03, 2013 6:50 pm
by Wes917
ajlskater1 wrote:Wes I am jealous you work in the aerospace field. That has been goal for sometime but not many oppurtunities up here in minnesota in that area. Kinda curious about that haynes 88. I have welded carpentar, hastelloy and monel does the haynes weld similiar? I would assume it would at least that is what I have found with a lot of exoctic metals especially the nickel based alloys.
There's some similarities, it drops easy for easy penetration, flows kind of like solder. Hard to describe but if you can do the others you can do it just fine.