Talk:Arc welding

Valuable Links for Welding

I would like to add an outbound link to two great guides and resources that deal with the proper preparation and selection of material on tungsten electrodes. The link is at: www.diamondground.com/downloads.html. Do you feel that this would be appropriate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.112.164.100 (talk) 20:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this sounds good. Lon of Oakdale (talk) 19:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Arc welding processes

• Consummable electrode
  • Shielded metal arc welding
  • Gas metal arc welding (pulsed gas metal arc welding, short circuit gas metal arc welding)
  • Flux cored arc welding (gas-shielded flux cored arc welding, self-shielded flux cored arc welding)
  • Submerged arc welding (series submerged arc welding)
  • Electrogas welding
  • Bare metal arc welding
• Non-consummable electrode
  • Gas tungsten arc welding (pulsed gas tungsten arc welding)
  • Plasma arc welding
  • Carbon arc welding (gas carbon arc welding, shielded carbon arc welding, twin carbon arc welding)
  • Arc stud welding
  • Atomic hydrogen welding
  • Magnetically impelled arc welding

According to AWS master chart on p21. Cary & Helzer --Spangineer (háblame) 15:09, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

German attack on New York harbor during WWI

As far as I can tell no such event ever happened. I don't know enough on the subject of arc welding to feel comfortable editing this page so if someone could take a look at it that would be great.

Andrew m plamondon 01:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

That comes from a welding textbook that says, "German ships interned in New York Harbor at the outbreak of the war had been scuttled by their crews so that the vessels could not be used in the Allied war effort." The wording is rather poor, since "attack" implies an offensive from the outside, but technically the Germans did damage to the US through this. I'll see about fixing the wording. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 05:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Hidden references

Why are the inline citations in this article hidden? Wouldn't it be better if they were in a form like the recently featured Gas tungsten arc welding or Gas metal arc welding? QmunkE 09:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It probably would be better if they were visible, yes; I just haven't gotten around to converting them. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 12:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

any possibilty of cross referencing Inverter power source's for welding?(Wouse101 22:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC))

Safety Issues

Hexavalent chromium is a new issue in welding safety and protocal. OSHA has begun to set standards and limit exposure to hexavalent chromium. It's a large issue at my work place presently.

(ROBZZZ 15:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC))

OSHA Reference

"New" is a bit inappropriate here, it was well-known when I was working in a research team in 1980. I vaguely remember that measuring the hexavalent chromiumn content was difficult for some reason. rudy 22:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I merely meant that it is now receiving more press. I'm fully aware that it's not new. I should've worded it differently. Of course I wrongly implied that exposure is due only to welding. It can come from cutting and grinding as well.(ROBZZZ 18:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC))

given the importance of SMAW welding, I would have thought that it would have rated more than a paragraph dismissing it as obsoleteRvannatta 00:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is there nothing here about radiation burns on the skin? Im a welder and atm im pealing of dead skin from parts of my body that where left exposed by accident.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.207.185 (talk) 09:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Electrical safety

Why is there nothing about electrical safety - preventing electric shock ?

Be Bold Because you haven't yet had a chance to write up a few carefully-referenced words discussing electrical safety? --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

First kick at the cat in place. Let the merciless editing commence. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Temperature

I was hoping to find some information about the temperatures that arc welding can create. Also, temperature gradients, that is to say, how focused the temperature is, would also be interesting. Come to think of it, I would like to know about typical energy requirements and the definition of low and high penetration. Lon of Oakdale (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

just google arc temperatures —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 08:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Arc welding/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Starting GAR.Pyrotec (talk) 19:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Initial review

The article is quite readable and has a number of relevant illustrations. So on these scores its acceptable for GA.

My main concern is WP:Verify. The article has in-line citations for the "practical" aspects of arc welding, but not very much on other aspects. For example:

• statements about forge welding unrefenced
• Humphry Davy unreferenced
• Welding of ships in WW I

I suspect that I may put the article's GAR On Hold until these problems are fixed.Pyrotec (talk) 20:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

They are actually covered in refs 1 & 4 respectively. Nergaal (talk) 04:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

GAR On Hold

Overall this article has a wide scope and reasonable prose; and it appears to be of the right level of detail to gain GA-status.

It forms part of a series of articles on welding; with several common blocks of text used in multiple articles. Some of these other welding articles, with common text, have long standing FA-status, e.g. Welding - May 2005, Gas metal arc welding - September 2005, Shielded metal arc welding - February 2006. However, under the current guidelines this particular article is possibly marginal in respect of WP:Verify and possibly Scope.

Specific problems (possibly common amongst several welding articles):

• Vagueness of dates - not all statements have in-line citations.
  • discovery of electric arc by Davy given as 1800, another ref in my possession states 1808.
  • The Fullagar, misspelt as Fulagar appears to be post WW I, not actually WW I. So I corrected & copedited this part.
• Typical welding currents and voltages are absent from the Power Supplies section.
• The Welding operation is not discussed - a summary of e.g. Shielded metal arc welding#Operation provides an example of how this might be covered.
• No discussion of types of welds, such as butt weld, lap welds, etc, - Welding#Geometry provides a example of how this might be covered.
• No discussion of the problems that can be caused by the heat of welding, such a bending and distortion of the work pieces; and how this might be addresses during welding operations.
• No discussion of the various coatings of the electrodes - Shielded metal arc welding#Electrode provides an example of how this might be covered.

For these reasons, I'm keeping the article on On Hold, but I will reset to date today's date.

I'm sorry if this appears harsh in the light of other welding articles that currently have FA status; as these other welding articles do have some "common problems".Pyrotec (talk) 18:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

GAR

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Article lacks adequate references in some sections, whilst other sections, such as Development and Consumable electrode modes, are well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Article lacks adequate in-line citations in some sections; and some of the statements made are wrong or historically inaccurate.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   A wide range, but a number of areas that aught to be in it are missing.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   {{#if:This welding article is one of a whole series of articles on welding; many of which share common blocks of text. Many of these shared text blocks, some of which are under-referenced and/or inaccurate, also appear in a number of welding articles that were awarded FA status in 2005/6 and which aught to be reviewed (and downgraded where appropriate).Pyrotec (talk) 08:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)|This welding article is one of a whole series of articles on welding; many of which share common blocks of text. Many of these shared text blocks, some of which are under-referenced and/or inaccurate, also appear in a number of welding articles that were awarded FA status in 2005/6 and which aught to be reviewed (and downgraded where appropriate). The article was put On Hold for these to be addressed - no action took place, so the article fails.Pyrotec (talk) 08:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Stick Welding questions

Unlike many technical Wiki subjects: Excellent article! I am so tired of chemists exclusively showing off to other chemists, and the like.

section: Consumable electrode methods

"...(SMAW), which is also known as manual metal arc welding (MMA) or stick welding." "The process is very versatile, requiring little operator training and inexpensive equipment."

Good! This is just the info I'm looking for! (More specifically, I'm seeking to learn the minimum requirements needed for a usable entry level (household-hobby) welder. The ability to occasionally weld up to 1/4 inch plate, or nearly, would be nice.)

To me use of the word "possible" below obscures much practical information from that promising concept:

"Furthermore, the process is generally limited to welding ferrous materials, though specialty electrodes have made possible the welding of cast iron, nickel, aluminium, copper and other metals."

...for example, does "possible" mean possible but difficult, possible with expensive equipment, or does it mean the difficulties have been removed? I'm particularly interested in welding cast iron with an entry-level welder (which seems almost an implied topic or question with stick welding).

Also, in arc welder specifications I often see things like:

• Full Load Amps 20
• Output Amps 80
• Duty Cycle 35% at 80 amps, 60% at 65 amps, 100% at 50 amps

While I understand amps and duty cycle in electronics, I read a comment that said 50% duty cycle in arc welders means 5 minutes on, 5 minutes off! Huh!? ...so does say; 50% duty cycle here imply I'll be waiting around for it to cool off or something? Or is my gut right in thinking that the 100% 50 amp rating is just the real, or most practical rating and the other figures are continuous heat but from a practical view, mostly just technical shenanigans? ...or what?

Thanks again! Doug Bashford--68.127.85.141 (talk) 15:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Added Duty cycle question. Doug Bashford--68.127.85.141 (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

After a year, most of those questions seem to remain unanswered. This seems to fall within two broad categories, the article is : 1)too vague or abstract, 2) too manufacturing-environment or professional centered, meaning the nonspecialist reader's questions (reason for seeking Wikipedia,) may not be addressed.

To be less vague or abstract, for example, it seems like there aught to be at least some clues or pointers here to decipher or make some sense out of some of these commonly found descriptions of arc welders:
compare different arc welders:

Input: 120 volts, 20 amps (120 volts), 21 amps (240 volts) amps, single phase, 60 Hz

Rated output current: 10 to 80 amps

Rated output voltage: 27 volts

Max open circuit voltage: 60 volts

Duty cycle: 35% @ 75 amps

Input: 240 volts, 33 amps (AC), 35 amps (DC) amps, single phase, 60 Hz

Rated output current: 55 to 135 amps (AC), 30 to 105 amps (DC)

Rated output voltage: 15 volts @ 110 amps

Max open circuit voltage: 68 volts (AC), 60 volts (DC)

Duty cycle: 30% @ 110 amps

Input: 240 volts, 30 amps, single phase, 60 Hz

Rated output current: 35 to 140 amps

Rated output voltage: 16 volts @ 140 amps

Max open circuit voltage: 32 volts

Duty cycle: 40% @ 140 amps

Input: 120/240 volts, 20 amps (120 volts), 21 amps (240 volts) amps, single phase, 60 Hz

Output current: 30 to 70 amps @ 120 volts, 30 to 120 amps @ 240 volts

Rated output voltage: 22 volts @ 70 amps (120 volts), 19 volts @ 100 amps (240 volts)

Max open circuit voltage: 47.5 volts

Duty cycle: 15% @ 65 amps (120 volts), 6% @ 95 amps (240 volts)

While those arc welders represent a 300% price difference, which of those descriptions best reflect performance differences?...and why/how?

I'd think every expert arc welder already knows that, it might even seem trivial. (Yes, it's basic stuff.) Perhaps that example is too specific, I don't know, but I'm speaking generally. There seems to be a big hole about arc welding in the article.
--68.127.84.95 (talk) 19:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Doug Bashford

OK, I started new section "2.1 Home and Hobby Power supplies" and defined Duty Cycle and why knowing it is not important to commercial welders. It's just a start, a stub. Other specifications are needed.
--68.127.84.95 (talk) 00:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Explanation of some edits

"and/or an evaporating filler material" - This is wholly incorrect. The use of a slag producing flux can shield the weld in the absence of a shielding gas. Shielding in this method is by fumes given off by the burning flux displacing the air local to the weld, and/or by the molten slag produced by the melting flux providing a physical barrier between the molten weld and the air.

"The process of arc welding is widely used because of its low capital and running costs." - As compared with what? Bolting? Riveting? Adhesives? Other welding processes? Also there is a large variation in capital investment and running costs associated with each arc welding process. Statement removed for this reason.

"Getting the arc started is called striking the arc. An arc may be struck by either lightly tapping the electrode against the metal or scratching the electrode against the metal at high speed." - There are many ways of striking an arc, and it varies from process to process. There is no uniform method that will work for all arc welding processes. Statement removed for this reason.

Development

"Main articles: forge welding, resistance welding, oxyfuel welding, and Gas tungsten arc welding" - why is GTAW included here? No change made at this time.

"Typical currents are 50 to 500 amps, depending on the size of weld required; 100 amps is typical for manual welders.[13] Voltage output is typically 20 to 50 volts during welding,[14] though some power supplies also include a small high voltage source to aid in initially striking the arc." - Listing typical voltage and amperage is meaningless without other information such as process, polarity, and electrode size. Statement removed for this reason.

Consumable electrode methods

"...flux that protects the weld area from oxidation and contamination by producing CO2 gas during the welding process." - Copied wording from the SMAW article. The burning flux gives off more than CO2, and the slag also serves to protect the molten weld.

"Flux cored wire generates an effective gas shield precisely at the weld site, permitting application involving more windy conditions or contaminated materials, however the flux cored wire leaves a slag residue and is more expensive than solid wire." - Copied wording from the FCAW article. Not all FCAW electrodes generate shielding gas, some do require externally supplied shielding gas.

"In-position welding is not possible with SAW." - This statement in unclear for the following reasons: The weldment must be positioned so that the joint to be welded is "in position". A joint is said to be "in position" when it is in the 1F, 2F, or 1G position. SAW welds must be made in position, meaning that the weldment must be flipped over, or in the case of cylindrical parts (such as many pressure vessels) turned on a rotary positioner during welding of the circumferential joints.

A mention of the ANSI minimum protective shade chart could be a valuable addition to the safety section. No action taken at this time. http://www.thefabricator.com/article/safety/selecting-the-best-lens-for-welders-eye-protection

All the above this section Static-XJ (talk) 05:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Quote:

"Listing typical voltage and amperage is meaningless without other information such as process, polarity, and electrode size. Statement removed for this reason."

No, it is far MORE meaningless being absent. Please revert that, or better yet make the repairs you think are needed. That kind of info is why I came here, (and as I just complained elsewhere;) and there is a big hole regarding power requirements. Anybody can delete another's effort ....but please don't let wishing for the perfect; ruin the good.
68.127.84.95 (talk) 21:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Sorry - I normally just edit articles, but this one is locked (really? arc welding is locked?) and I don't see any discussion on changes. Anyhow, hopefully someone will delete this comment and make the required fix. Under consumable electrode methods, a sentence reads: "serve as a shielding gas and providing a layer of slag". This is incorrect grammar. An easy fix would be to change "providing" to "provide". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.75.253.60 (talk) 10:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

References

Safety Issues section

While on counter-vandalism patrol, STiki taged the safety issues section deletion as possible vandalism. Someone, with a one edit IP address, blanked the entire section. I reverted the edit. If this was an agreed upon edit, please discuss below and revert the change. Thanks. Geraldshields11 (talk) 02:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Visualization

If somebody wants to visualize an electron flow arc, a reverse polarity arc weld is the place to see it! The impact of the electron flow against the weld surface can be seen to be heating up the joint material and pushing it away from the point of contact. And the quality of the weld can be sensed by the quality of the metal build up within the weld and by the smoothness of the welding process.WFPM (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

UV from arc welding can burn skin like sunburn

The UV from arc welding can burn the skin severely if welding for any amount of time, I think this should be mentioned in the article as it is an important safety concern. Burns can be very severe after just a few minutes welding under certain circumstances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.211.8.66 (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2015

Please change "The French electrical inventor Auguste de Méritens produced the first carbon arc torch, patented in 1881, which was successfully used for welding lead in the manufacture of lead-acid batteries. In 1881–1882, a Russian inventor, Nikolai Bernardos and Polish Stanisław Olszewski, created the electric arc welding method for steel known as carbon arc welding, using carbon electrodes." to "Arc welding began with inventing arc welding of metals using a carbon electrode, presented by Nikolai Benardos at the International Exposition of Electricity, Paris in 1881 and patented together with Stanisław Olszewski in 1887. In the same year, French electrical inventor Auguste de Méritens invented also a carbon arc welding method, patented in 1881, which was successfully used for welding lead in the manufacture of lead-acid batteries." because information about the exact date of Méritens' invention doesn't exist. The only known information is that de Méritens patented his invention not until November 24, 1881 (http://www.google.com/patents/US471242). But Benardos demonstrated his invention already at the Paris exhibition of electricity in 1881 which took place from August 15, 1881 through to November 15, 1881 (without Stanisław Olszewski). Some sources: http://en.rime.de/sheet-metalworking/tig-welding/ or http://bulletin.is.gliwice.pl/PDF/2014/03/02_Turyk_Grobosz_Beginnings_of_submerged_arc_welding.pdf or http://www.ijetae.com/files/Volume2Issue12/IJETAE_1212_131.pdf). So there is no proof that Auguste de Méritens was first.

Wolk777 (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: I can't implement the first requested sentence as it is because it is very close paraphrasing of this source and possibly violates WP:COPYVIO. Other than that, your research looks okay, and I will be paraphrasing the sentence later on when I have more time. Mz7 (talk) 23:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Done Mz7 (talk) 05:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

References

Power Supplies

The following paragraph contained in this article needs to be in agreement with another Wikipedia article discussing Shielded_metal_arc_welding:

The direction of current used in arc welding also plays an important role in welding. Consumable electrode processes such as shielded metal arc welding and gas metal arc welding generally use direct current, but the electrode can be charged either positively or negatively. In welding, the positively charged anode ( should be electrode?) will have a greater heat concentration (around 60%)[2] and, as a result, changing the polarity of the electrode has an impact on weld properties. If the electrode is positively charged, it will melt more quickly, increasing weld penetration and welding speed. Alternatively, a negatively charged electrode results in more shallow welds.[3] Non-consumable electrode processes, such as gas tungsten arc welding, can use either type of direct current (DC), as well as alternating current (AC). With direct current however, because the electrode only creates the arc and does not provide filler material, a positively charged electrode causes shallow welds, while a negatively charged electrode makes deeper welds.[4]

Shielded_metal_arc_welding#Power_supply The preferred polarity of the SMAW system depends primarily upon the electrode being used and the desired properties of the weld. Direct current with a negatively charged electrode (DCEN) causes heat to build up on the electrode, increasing the electrode melting rate and decreasing the depth of the weld. Reversing the polarity so that the electrode is positively charged (DCEP) and the workpiece is negatively charged increases the weld penetration. With alternating current the polarity changes over 100 times per second, creating an even heat distribution and providing a balance between electrode melting rate and penetration.[19]

I believe there is quite a bit of confusion between these two articles / paragraphs at least in the way written. --Lbecque (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm tired of this and you trying to push an inappropriate term into the article [1][2][3], based on your incorrect understanding of anode. See section below, pasted from my talk: Your changes make no more sense than your other changes and re-defining Coulombs as "ampere per second." Andy Dingley (talk) 22:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Andy Dingley It is you, my friend, who is pushing an inappropriate term into the article by adding the word anode into a paragraph which is consistently using the term electrode. Just look at the previous sentence which starts as "Consumable electrode processes....." and ends with "but the electrode can be charged either positively or negatively". So in the sentence in question when you say "the positively charged anode" are you referring to a positive or negatively charged electrode? I think you are referring to a positively charged electrode and if that is the case why not just say so to be consistent with the paragraph, clear up any confusion and reduce the complexity of introducing another term such as anode? This way it will also be consistent with the following sentence which says "If the electrode is positively charged, it will melt more quickly....".

I also think you should not switch terms in the middle of a paragraph from electrode to anode to maximize clarity. Either consistently use the term electrode or anode but pick only one. Since the article is about welding and the term electrode is used by most welders that should be the term used. Anode is a term used more often by scientists when discussing electronics.

I also must protest your inappropriate behavior attacking me personally by bringing up an edit I made on another article which did not even concern you or anything you participate. That discussion originated by a typographical error which was quickly and professionally resolved between myself and the third party. No need for you to weigh in on that and further it gives no credibility to your argument on the subject here. In fact, it just makes you look bad. Lbecque (talk) 12:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Arc Welding

Andy, I noticed you made a number of edits but in doing so you undid my previous edit. I'm assuming you made a mistake so I will make my edit again changing the word anode to electrode. An anode by definition is negatively charged. A postitively charged electrode is called a cathode. The context of the rest of the paragraph keeps talking about a positively charged electrode so I strongly believe the latter is the proper term to be used here. If you disagree for some reason please explain your rationale. Thanks. Lbecque (talk) 19:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the very detailed ref I added will explain it? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

No Andy, in fact your reference supports that the anode is negatively charged and is a concentration of electrons. BY DEFINITION an anode is negatively charged and a cathode is positively charged. This needs to either say cathode or positively charged electrode to be consistent with the rest of the paragraph. The very next sentence says "If the electrode is positively charged, it will melt more quickly,...". Please change this back to positively charged electrode. --Lbecque (talk) 20:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

No, anode is much better.

The point here is that in welding, either terminal (torch or workpiece) can be the anode, depending on how you connect it. Yet the anode (whichever that is) is always the one that gets hotter. Conventionally it's wired so that the workpiece is the anode, thus the pool gets hotter. Sometimes you want the filler hotter, such as for wire-feed MIG, so you reverse the polarity to make the electrode positive (DCEP).

The anode, whichever piece that is, gets hotter.

The definition of anode / cathode depends on the direction of current flow, so it reverses (by polarity or charge) when something is either a producer or consumer. " An anode by definition is negatively charged. " is only true for a producer of current. In this case it's backwards. Consider the analogous case of a vacuum tube: the cathode has to be heated to emit electrons which are then attracted to the positively charged anode.

You are incorrect here on two counts: your anode definition is wrong for consumers of current, it's only true for producers. As is relevant to the article here, "anode" is better than "electrode" because it's describing the heat behaviour (which tracks the anode) whereas "electrode" could be either and strongly implies that it's the hand held electrode and not the workpiece (which is generally going to be the wrong way round for stick welding). Andy Dingley (talk) 22:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Andy I have created a power supplies section on the talk page of arc welding to discuss this further with all users. --Lbecque (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Andy Dingley Regarding your statement "Yet the anode (whichever that is) is always the one that gets hotter." I agree is generally true except in the case of GTAW when DCEN is used and according to Gas_tungsten_arc_welding "the negatively charged electrode generates heat by emitting electrons, which travel across the arc, causing thermal ionization of the shielding gas and increasing the temperature of the base material." In this special case, the cathode gets hotter because of the flow of shielding gas plasma.

I also have no issue with your statement "The definition of anode / cathode depends on the direction of current flow, so it reverses (by polarity or charge) when something is either a producer or consumer" as this is clearly supported in the Electrode article. My problem with that is that we are not talking about vacuum tubes, rechargeable batteries, semiconductors, etc. We are talking about one thing in this article, welding and the welding power supply and the polarity used. It is my belief based on our own discussion that all this talk about cathode, anode and which is the producer and consumer unnecessarily complicates the article and makes it easy to misunderstand. My suggestion is that this article should stick to the welding terms DCEN, DCEP, electrode, the work piece and the positive and negative terminals of the welding power supply that is the topic of this part of the article.

I still have an issue with the use of the phrase "the positively charged anode" from two perspectives: 1) It is inconsistent with the following sentences, rest of the paragraph (and article) which consistently makes reference to the electrode and whether it is connected positively or negatively. There is no other reference to anode. You can search the entire article and it only occurs this one time. Again my suggestion is to stick to simple welding terminology and not refer to anode at all to be clear. 2) "positively charged anode" may be technically incorrect in this context depending on which SMAW polarity you are referring to, which is very unclear to me now. If you are referring to SMAW DCEP, which I think you are and the reference supports, then the work piece is the anode, it does result in deeper weld penetration due to increased heat at the anode, however the work piece is connected to the negative terminal of the power supply not the positive as you seem to indicate. If instead you were referring to SMAW DCEN, then the anode is the electrode and the electrode will melt faster because the heat concentration is at the electrode and this will result in more shallow welds. See the article Shielded_metal_arc_welding which correctly makes the statement "Direct current with a negatively charged electrode (DCEN) causes heat to build up on the electrode, increasing the electrode melting rate and decreasing the depth of the weld. Reversing the polarity so that the electrode is positively charged (DCEP) and the workpiece is negatively charged increases the weld penetration."

It appears to me that the statements about increasing electrode melting rate and increasing weld penetration are mutually exclusive to DCEN and DCEP respectively and the current sentence incorrectly combines them for one configuration. --Lbecque (talk) 20:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm getting tired with this. Read GTAW, try to understand it. "Direct current with a positively charged electrode (DCEP) [...] less heat is generated in the base material."

The positive electrode gets hotter than the negative electrode. This happens whichever way round the polarity is. Just the same as when I posted the first added ref.

""positively charged anode" may be technically incorrect in this context depending on which SMAW polarity you are referring to"

No. Never. The "positively charged anode" is the one that is positively charged and the one that's the anode, no matter which polarity you use. That's the whole point of using the term "anode" rather than "electrode", which could be connected either way.

Look at the terms DCEP and DCEN. The "electrode" here is always used to refer to the free electrode, the torch or filler rod. Never the base material. That's why using "electrode" would be misleading to use in this case. The text refers to polarity and heat, the point being that this follows the positive polarity.

I am not interested in discussing this further when you give no sources, put WP articles forward as WP:RS (they aren't - and SMAW has it the wrong way round) and you're still wedded to " An anode by definition is negatively charged." References, real ones, or don't argue with the real references that are here. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Andy Dingley, you must be joking when you refer to your addition as a WP:RS. Your additional source url=https://canteach.candu.org/Content%20Library/20053426.pdf is a scanned copy in PDF form of a PowerPoint presentation with no author given or any other references to check the material as being reliable! How is that a 'real reference' as you say? Furthermore, the words 'positively charged anode' for which you are using this reference cannot be found in it. Additionally, you have used this reference out of context by using it in a sentence referring to consumable electrode processes when the cited article clearly refers to the GTAW process on page 7 when discussing thermionic cathodes.

When you told me to reread GTAW, try to understand it, I think you are the one not understanding GTAW which is completely different from the other processes in that you not only have the flow of electrons via electrical current but also the flow of ionized gas back to the base metal in the form of plasma. That is why DCEN produces deeper penetration for GTAW while DCEN produces shallow welds for consumable electrode processes. Tell me, is your perspective from the standpoint of welding or electrical theory? Lbecque (talk) 13:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

And Andy, if "SMAW has it the wrong way round" why aren't you correcting that article also to be consistent? I think you are not because you know others may disagree with your edits. Lbecque (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Gasless MIG

Gasless MIG is the normal name in Australia for what is rapidly becoming the most common method of arc welding (it may already be) and should redirect somewhere... not sure where. It's in some ways a misnomer but readers will still search for it. Andrewa (talk) 22:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

It's nothing like the "most common method of arc welding". This is an encyclopedia, not a hobbyist guide for amateurs fixing up their ute. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for creating the redirect... [4] but is it to the correct place? Gas metal arc welding makes no mention of gasless anything. It seems to violate the principle of least astonishment at the very least.

And sorry if what I said was ambiguous, but my information is based on that supplied by the staff at my local hardware stores, where I've been asking questions about converting from stick to gasless MIG myself on my brother's advice... and neither of us have ever owned utes, just BTW. I was perhaps not clear that my information is specific to Australia, where I live. I take it that gasless MIG is not so prevalent in the UK, where you live? That's surprising to me... one of the reasons I was prompted to ask right now is that Aldi (Australia) currently have a gasless MIG set on sale, and as they're German-based I would have guessed that Europe was on to the gasless MIG thing too, and by that name. (I've decided against the Aldi unit anyway.) What's the source of your information?

Agree that This is an encyclopedia, but you seem to think that this means we shouldn't be any use to amateurs fixing up their ute? If so disagree strongly... all readers are readers and deserve respect and consideration.

It seems to me that at present, anyone (ute owner or otherwise) searching for information on gasless MIG is not going to be very well served. And that's a shame. Andrewa (talk) 02:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

So add something. But don't add "most common method of arc welding" because that is so obviously wrong. Welding is done by more people than those shopping in Aldi(!) and even if it's the only form of welding that Aldi sell (and there are a lot of Aldis), that doesn't mean it's the most common form. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I will add what I can source to the article space, no more nor less. Suggest you do the same. The point of the Aldi reference was just that the term appears to be widely enough used that it would be good to have some information available to those who search on it... and I mean sourced information, not pointless redirects. Andrewa (talk) 11:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Fixed thank you

Target and redir... Well done Andy Dingley, we got there in the end... and quite quickly, too! Andrewa (talk) 23:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Arc welding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060315092327/http://www.phx-international.com/moisture_article.html to http://www.phx-international.com/moisture_article.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ufn.ru/ufn99/ufn99_12/Russian/r9912h.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090203133252/http://oregonstate.edu:80/instruct/me480/Lecture/W03/CS2/CaseStudyShips.html to http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/me480/Lecture/W03/CS2/CaseStudyShips.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Arc welding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060421214659/http://httd.njuct.edu.cn/matweb/corrosie/c_iga.htm to http://httd.njuct.edu.cn/MatWeb/corrosie/c_iga.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ufn.ru/ufn99/ufn99_12/Russian/r9912h.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arc welding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304070057/http://bulletin.is.gliwice.pl/PDF/2014/03/02_Turyk_Grobosz_Beginnings_of_submerged_arc_welding.pdf to http://bulletin.is.gliwice.pl/PDF/2014/03/02_Turyk_Grobosz_Beginnings_of_submerged_arc_welding.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Clearer explanation of "slag"?

The term slag is introduced with minimal explanation, and, at least in the introduction section, doesn't have a link. Not being a welding expert, I genuinely can't figure out what it is and how it relates to welding. Add an explanation and/or link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.214.15 (talk) 15:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Merge Arc Blow in.

I think the content from that article belongs here. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Do not merge I think that the article Arc blow is large enough to keep. Kolano123 (talk) 18:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Closing, given the uncontested objection and no support with stale discussion. Klbrain (talk) 17:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)