Welding Tips and Tricks

The first batch or alum tig wire I bought is 4043 1/16 and 3/32. I was told this will cover me for lots of kinds of alum grades. Where am I going to hit a wall I can't get through with this rod?

It doesn't give consistent color if anodized, it isn't strong enough to match some grades of aluminum. Mostly, 4943 has rendered it obsolete. If you have it, use it. Try 4943, it wets easier, and is stronger.

Ok.
Is there any kind of common things I might run across that I shouldn't try to weld other than stuff that's anodized. .

I'm not the expert. I'm a couple and change years into aluminum. I think you can weld anodized aluminum with 4043 after brushing it off. It's when after welding, should it be anodized, It discolors.

I sometimes don't know what series aluminum I'm working with. If strength is critical, look for other welds. Some varieties of aluminum are difficult to weld without cracking. Don't repair broken ladders for example.

Home shop/Job shop
4043--5356
old stand bys LWS availability, cost

Lots of new mixtures/formulas developed for high end industries with lots of promise.
COST and Availability(minimum quantity orders) at LWS?

Yeah it was cheap and easy to get. Got 10 lbs of the 3/32 for like 11$ including tax.

As a very general rule, I use 4043 for 4XXX and most 5XXX base metals, and 5356 for 5XXX and 6XXX series base metals.

There's a lot of interpretation to be made here. 6061, especially T6, seems to be less prone to cracking with 5356.
6063, OTOH, welds fine with either.

I have no experience with 4943 yet. I'm going to have to do some research to get the boss to buy it so I can try it. A valid WPS for ASME IX would help.

Steve S

Do most castings fall in one of those categories or is it a crap shoot if it's not marked?

When I started, I studied this chart.
http://www.hobartbrothers.com/downloads ... _TtqVG.pdf

Unmarked castings are a real crapshoot.

Here's a thought... Ever use an auto-punch? One of those generally worthless spring-loaded center punches? They strike with a consistent force, so you can compare the hardness of an unknown casting (by dimple depth) by comparing it to known alloys in your junk pile.

I won't assume it's universal, due to differing hardnesses available in different alloys, but you could make an educated guess about the series of an alloy by it's hardness, gauged this way. When in doubt, you could even try annealing your sample in question, and hitting it again, as heat effects will tell you something about the alloy and temper.

I've only now thought of this (strange way to learn something new, in a completely random thought), and it will take some study to see if it has value.

Steve S

Sweet the chart is just what I needed

I've heard of doing that for other metals but it never occurred to try it with the cast.

I use 4047 for dirty old Harley Davidson castings, like crank cases and trans cases.

Rick do you do that because the weld is harder or can you tell what kind of alum the casting is.

C'mon Bill, really! 4943 has rendered it obsolete! Where in the world is that even close to true? That was just a ridiculous statement.

Len


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sorry about the double post.
Len

Braehill wrote:C'mon Bill, really! 4943 has rendered it obsolete! Where in the world is that even close to true? That was just a ridiculous statement.

Len


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Gee, I didn't feel it was a big exaggeration. For every purpose I've tried it, it's a better filler. Not better than 5356 for some applications, but better than 4043 for those I've experienced. It seems to wet quicker, flow to the bottom of a joint that can be stubborn with 4043. I think the net heat pumped into a workpiece is reduced, narrowing the HAZ. I like the stuff.

Poland308 wrote:Rick do you do that because the weld is harder or can you tell what kind of alum the casting is.

I find it wets in better on those dirty,sand cast, oil soaked engine/trans parts. Seems am always getting pre 70's broken ears and cracks. Grind out ,butter in with 4047, clean, finish fill 4043.

Well, two weeks ago I called 19 different welding supply stores within a 50 mi radius of my home and not one stocked 4943 and every single one stocked 4043 in numerous sizes. How can you make a statement that 4043 is obsolete and especially rendered that way by a rod that's only made by one company worldwide and is not stocked by any welding supply. I'll stick by what I said, ridiculous. I can agree with you on 4943's merits but it hasn't caused the obsolescence of anything at this point.

Len

Braehill wrote:Well, two weeks ago I called 19 different welding supply stores within a 50 mi radius of my home and not one stocked 4943 and every single one stocked 4043 in numerous sizes. How can you make a statement that 4043 is obsolete and especially rendered that way by a rod that's only made by one company worldwide and is not stocked by any welding supply. I'll stick by what I said, ridiculous. I can agree with you on 4943's merits but it hasn't caused the obsolescence of anything at this point.

Len

Yes dear.

Poland308 wrote:Rick do you do that because the weld is harder or can you tell what kind of alum the casting is.

4047 has a higher silicon amount in the filler. This silicon helps prevent leaks, and its rated for automotive applications where high temps become a factor. I use 4043 and 4047 on all my cast aluminum jobs with good results. I wouldn't say its an end all filler for cast because I'm still learning myself, but it has worked really well so far.

So 4043 is tried & tested & produced my many firms so is readily available whereas 4943 may well be superior in many respects and in time will / may replace it - but until there is more than one manufacturer stock will be limited & costly plus your LWS will not want to stock it all the time they have 4043 remaining - so I agree with Bill & Len ! it's a bit like 2% Lanthanated - yes it's a better all round tungsten but try to find it in the UK from a known maker - they all have 1% or 1.5% which I would'nt use even if it were free ! - but glow in the dark ( ! ) Thoriated - oh yes sir - we keep that - many places have told me there is no such tungsten as 2% Lanthanated ! so the chances of ever seeing lazer or tri blends are slim.

noddybrian wrote:So 4043 is tried & tested & produced my many firms so is readily available whereas 4943 may well be superior in many respects and in time will / may replace it - but until there is more than one manufacturer stock will be limited & costly plus your LWS will not want to stock it all the time they have 4043 remaining - so I agree with Bill & Len ! it's a bit like 2% Lanthanated - yes it's a better all round tungsten but try to find it in the UK from a known maker - they all have 1% or 1.5% which I would'nt use even if it were free ! - but glow in the dark ( ! ) Thoriated - oh yes sir - we keep that - many places have told me there is no such tungsten as 2% Lanthanated ! so the chances of ever seeing lazer or tri blends are slim.

I feel most tungsten reported differences are the result of advertising. I haven't tried 1% Lanthanated. While acknowledging pure is different, other varieties aren't a lot different.
4943 is not revolutionary. It is a good product. I did not find it hard to get. 7A749 gave me a phone #. It was a bit more expensive, I feel it was worth it.

They may not stock it, but any LWS can hop on the phone with Hobart and order it.

zank wrote:They may not stock it, but any LWS can hop on the phone with Hobart and order it.

My Praxair didn't find the Hobart part# in their system, and didn't even offer to call to order a 10lb box for me. Even when I asked, they just said that even if they could have Hobart send it, they wouldn't be able to ring me up for it because it is not in their system to create an actual invoice. Go figure. Airgas on the other hand, did have it in another store and had it sent right quick.