I agree with you in principle, if this were an exacting procedure and method. However, the original premise is not a precision operation from the outset. Based on the idea of approximately 1amp per thou of material thickness and then a multiplier based on wire diameter gives only a calculated approximate feed rate. The welder feed rates obtained by measurement are subject to some error and slight variation as well. Once the rate is set close to the calculated mark, the range of voltages are trialled until the balanced arc is found. None of this is done to any significant degree of precision. This is, at best, a "ballpark" method of obtaining settings and I would think that at the end of the process, and after doing test welds, the wire feed may then require fine tuning adjustment anyway.
There would probably, or at least possibly, be variation in burnoff rates from one wire manufacturer to the next or even across batches. I think I now have an understanding of the problem I encountered and sufficient information to set this welder up to run based on metal thickness and wire diameter including FCAW. I've now added adjusted columns to my spreedsheat table so I'll put it to the test and see what happens.
EDIT: Just to throw a spanner into the works, in the material thickness range I have been using here, the weld settings guide table inside the cover of the Cigwled 150 MIG shows that the wire feed setting for fluxcore should be slower than for solid wire of the same diameter with the same voltage setting. For very thin material they are suggesting the same settings but above 1.5mm they say that fluxcore should be slower.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/7bde6/7bde687559e9214b2d6caebb9aa8c107a132c3d1" alt="Confused :?"
This is directly opposite to the theory so far.
I suppose the disclaimer is that these are "suggested" settings only and that personal experience and ability will affect the results.
Sent from my SGP521 using Tapatalk