Jump to content

Talk:Welding/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Plug welds

There is no section inside of wikipedia explicitly covering plug welds (or at least that link to it). Someone with information on the subject needs to create an article. Plug welds are the welds that have a base metal and a hole in the second metal piece to be joined, the hole is filled with the filler metal when on top of the base metal and the two pieces are joined. Similar to spot welds but not at all the same —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.155.97.57 (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to suggest a link for a welding social network , WeldingMedia.com. If its appropriate. Arguably the first and already the largest social network in the welding industry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hallplace (talk • contribs) 01:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Social networking sites fail the Wikipedia Policy on External Links. However, if the site contains a suitable history (etc) section, which is not plastered with adverts, it may be possible to incorporate it that way. EdJogg (talk) 14:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

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) 21:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to suggest a book title for a list of Suggested Reading at the end of the main article. A professor of metallurgical engineering and Fellow of AWS at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute explains the metallurgical principles of welding in... R.W. Messler, Jr., Principles of Welding, John Wiley & Sons Inc., 1999, ISBN 0-471-25376-6. His Manliness (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Stuff

anyone have any info on hammer welding? Suppafly 03:43, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

which kind came first and when was it invented? Aaronbrick 23:22, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On the tv program Rough Science, they made what was basically thermite, out of a ground up aluminum can and rust from a shed as an oxygen source. The maker commented that this method has be used to weld railroad joints before. Anyone have any more info? --63.206.116.16 04:29, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Shot welding

There is a stub on shot welding that isn't referenced here. The description makes it appear like a synonym for spot welding. Could somebody knowledgeable look into this? —Naddy 12:46, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sure thing – I'm doing a bunch of research on this topic, though I will say that I've never heard of shot welding. It may be another name for another resistance welding process, like you suggested. I'll see what I can find. --Spangineer ∞ 13:35, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
The article was likely stubbed as a result of featuring my Pioneer Zephyr article on the front page today. I've copied the patent reference over to the article and merged shotwelding and shotweld into the latter name. The patent text describes the difference between shotwelding and spot welding. slambo 16:30, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Well, I looked at the article and a little bit at the patent description, and all I see is a type of spot welding. Obviously, I need to study it more, but it looks like it's just a method of spot welding that is used on stainless steel. From my point of view, that means that the sentence "The train's construction included innovations such as shotwelding (not to be confused with spot welding) to join the stainless steel" on Pioneer Zephyr should actually be "The train's construction included innovations such as shotwelding (a specialized spot welding method) to join the stainless steel", and that the relation between the two should be better clarified in the shotwelding article. Spangineer ∞ 01:53, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

TIG Weld image

(posted by TTLightningRod) --Spangineer ∞ 19:12, May 15, 2005 (UTC)


Regarding the images that I'm looking for: I guess you could call them line drawings of the individual processes, such as SMA welding and GTA welding, as well as the torches used in GTA welding or Plasma arc welding. I'm not sure how easy that would be to do on CAD... I've done some work in CAD before as well and I tend to think that simply using drawing software would be easier. But my skills in that are limited – so far I've just done the uncomplicated joint design and HAZ images. Now, however, I'm not sure that those will be necessary for the welding article, since we a few more images of the processes used were just added. For the articles the individual processes, however, line drawings would be really useful.

Thanks for that picture of a fillet joint – we just have to figure out where to insert it. I'm planning to do some serious updating to the joinery article so that it includes welding joints as well, and that image could certainly be added there. On this article however, since such a small area is devoted to joint design, I'm not sure if it will fit. If you disagree, we can work something out, but I feel like this is just a general summary of joint design and that the images in the geometry section are of the type we need. Let me know what you think. --Spangineer ∞ 19:12, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

I choose to refrain from "strong opinion" as to what would be "best", so don't worry about having to debate that stuff out with me. Instead, I like to just put something (almost anything) in, and let time replace it with ever "better" imagery. CAD is not so tough, especially when I have a clear description of what someone wants, or what I want to illustrate. We could also just take real photos of the items you want. "TIG Torch", "Stick Electrode, in holder", "Wire Feed torch expelling wire"... things like that? Let me know... I'll put my boots on, and go out to the shop with my camera. TTLightningRod 19:35, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
The benefit of line drawings is that you can "see" the inside of things like TIG torches that are otherwise quite mysterious, since you can't take a cross-section image with a camera. Still, photographs are awesome, and clear pictures of the torches used in all those processes would be great. We are in definite need of good pictures on the individual welding process pages. I'd love to see wikipedia become a much better source for manufacturing information. --Spangineer ∞ 21:02, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
A richer source for manufacturing information... you got that right. That will be fantastic. As for CAD, rendering with "cut away" or cross-sectioning can speak volumes. Clear photos too. I would ask that you get this started by deciding on a first image you most want. Define the items you want to point out, and any actions. You might be surprised with the speed and resulting illustration. But I would ask that you define the scope of this first part... I can get too carried away and waist time. TTLightningRod 16:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the awesome offer! I was just looking over the GMAW article, and boy, does it need help. There's hardly anything there, and half of the info is inaccurate besides. And since we have no pictures of GMA welding anywhere, it would be awesome to get a clear picture of a welder performing the welding (perhaps out of position; ie, not flat/horizontal), and a cross-sectional view of the weld area and the torch - I'm thinking of something that shows the base metal, the already laid weld metal behind the torch, the gaseous shield around the welding arc, the three "tubes" in the torch (that is, the shielding gas tube, the solid electrode wire, and the current conductor), and the wire guide and contact tube (the part near the tip of the torch from which the electrode exits). I don't care so much about all the interworkings of how the tube and wires interact, but just so long as you can see them at the top of the torch, say, it would be great. How they all come together into the wire guide/contact tube doesn't really matter so much to me; go ahead and cover that up with the outside of the torch. Hopefully that's clear. Let me know if you have any questions, and of course, if you want to make any changes that you think might be helpful, go ahead.
One more thing - when you upload these, please do so on the wikimedia commons – that way any of the wikipedia projects can use those images, and if someday I get around to putting all this info on the spanish wikipedia, it would be really helpful. Thanks again! --Spangineer ∞ 17:43, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

GMAW torch head, cut-away view

Congratulations on achieving Featured Article status.... Very cool. I'm doing some of my regular money making business today, however I should be able to do a roughed-out cut away GMAW that we can use to haggle over the details with. I should be able to work on that this evening, and if not, tomorrow then. I'll post the rough draft JPEG in the commons, and link here for comments. Talk to you soon.... TTLightningRod 18:02, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

oxy-acetylene gas???

Oxy-acetylene is not a gas, but a kind of torch that uses a mixture of gases. You could say "oxy-acetylene torch" or process or even " oxy-acetylene welding", but strictly speaking, not " oxy-acetylene gas". I am also surprised that robotic welding is called "robot welding," which might better mean the welding of parts to make robots, but I guess if that is the term used in the trade, it has to be used.

Also in the first diagram you are intending to put in place you have two different spellings in the same picture: "electrafied" and "electrified" - the latter being the correct one. Better fix it before displaying it.

Also, simultaneously, at the same time you write "also flows simultaneously" which is redundant - "simultaneously" is enough already.

Also you have used the word "effect" instead of "affect" in "adversely effect the work piece" and I *think* you mean "workpiece" not "work piece". "Workpiece" is in Merriam Webster~ and I really think it is more appropriate. Pdn

Good points - first, regarding oxy-acetylene, I changed the lead to say "oxygen-acetylene gas mixture", since according to what I've read, those torches use a mixture of the gases to create the flame (it's acetylene burning in oxygen). I agree with you on robot welding, but based on what I've read, I believe that robot welding is the more commonly used term. I'll check my sources to verify that soon. As for the diagrams, the text is going to be converted to numbers for easier captioning, so we'll take care of the errors you pointed out. Thanks for that. --Spangineer ∞ 14:45, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, is not the source of the energy in gas welding the combustion of acetylene in oxygen? They are both required for combustion to take place, and thus, the mixture of the two is what provides the energy for welding. That's what I'm trying to say in the lead of the article. Do you disagree? --Spangineer ∞ 16:52, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

forgive the delay

File:MIG torch discussion image 1.jpg File:MIG torch discussion image 2.jpg

1) from MIG torch handle with finger trigger. 2) Nozzle, an ectrically isolated cup to "focus" shield gas and protect wire Contact Tip. 3) output face of the nozzle. Filler wire is "pushed" into the hot work piece while enveloped by the shielding gas. 4) Molded dielectric between outer cup and threaded metal nut insert, shown in yellow. 5) Diffuser nut for shield gas output. 6) Contact Tip, with a guide orifice "sized" to the filler wire.

Let's discuss how the images and text can be made more effective.

Please use these illustrations to create translatable numbered list tables for the identified parts. If people find these type of images useful, please let me know where else they would be desired. They are rather simple to create, and it would seem that engineering and drafting students may find that their school projects could have a useful home here in the wiki, instead of just being forgotten after the graded class. TTLightningRod 12:40, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Although the actual images have been replaced by revisions, (click the image) the thumbnails do not seem to update immediately... however, placing the image link in a new location, brings the latest version into view. TTLightningRod 12:56, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delhi iron pillar

Why is there an image of the Delhi iron pillar on this page? It doesn't appear to be referred to in the text at all, and has little to do with welding.

The history section was cut significantly and that mention was part of what was removed. I have restored the history section that was there several hours ago, and hope that any future desires to condense that section are first discussed here. --Spangineer ∞ 23:41, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Request for editing

Second line in the History section: " Welding was used in practical in welding until about 1900, when a suitable blowtorch was developed." Any ideas what the author may have intended? I would think fire, but I'm not about to guess the intent. Hard to believe that got approved to the main page.

Unfortunately, someone attempted to drastically shorten the history section and it wasn't immediately caught, so for several hours yesterday the history section was in disrepair. It's back to normal now. --Spangineer ∞ 11:31, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Wikimania writing contest grand prize

This article won the overall Grand Prize for the Wikimania writing contest, as well as the Natural science & Technology category. Congratulations! Spangineer, if you would be so kind as to drop me a line, I'll see about transferring over the big bag of wiki you've won. +sj + 22:57, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

For those of you not watching the awards ceremony, said bag is 2'x1'x6" with a massive "Wiki" on each side (thanks, Webzen), and riddled with goodness.

Friction Stir Welding

I notice that this type of welding, which is increasing in popularity (particularly in the aviation industry, where it was recently FAA approved as a fabrication process for the new Eclipse personal jet), gets somewhat short-shrift in the welding section. At the least, a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friction_Stir_Welding would seem appropriate, yes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkh (talk • contribs)

It's tough cover everything in a topic as broad as this, but you're right; that link is a good idea, especially since we have a fairly good article on friction stir welding. I've added it to the solid-state welding section. --Spangineer (háblame) 06:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I might have misunderstood, but the third paragraph of the summary starts 'Until the end of the 19th century' and then goes on to mention siginificant developments in the 1800s. Shouldn't it be 18th century ? (I guess I should 'be bold' and change it) Lee Elms 08:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Put MIG torch image in article

It seems the above MIG torch image would improve the article. This isn't a specialized item of narrow interest. Close up views of a MIG torch are seen every week on popular Discovery Channel TV shows, including American Chopper. Lots of viewers probably wonder what it is and how it works. Putting the above image in the article would make easy to recognize by sight, even if they didn't know the name. Joema 14:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that I'm not sure where it would fit. There isn't much discussion of welding torches in this article because of the wide amount of variation between different processes (laser beam welding vs. spot welding vs. MIG welding, etc.). The image is used on GMAW, and may be used on arc welding once that article is properly fleshed out. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 04:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I missed the image in GMAW. My concern was the proliferation of educational/entertainment shows repeatedly picturing various welding torches (esp. MIG torches), and that viewers would come to Wikipedia trying to identify it by sight. The first place they'd probably look is this article. E.g, American Chopper frequently runs a bumper segment showing a close up view of a MIG torch. Joema 05:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Weld Symbols and Drawings

Recommend adding short section on weld symbols or a reference to a new page/longer article on weld symbols. See http://www.welding.com/weld_symbols_welding_symbols.shtml for detailed info from welding.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.209.206.1 (talk • contribs)

Good idea. There's already an article on Engineering drawing, so I think that they would be good to mention there, but creating a separate page would be good too. Probably Welding symbols. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 16:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


Sculptors and the history of welding

Reinserted the discussion of sculptors who weld -- using American sculptor Jim Gary as an example of one who developed the skill of welding before becoming a sculptor and was renowned for his extremely effective use of the skill. Please let me know what type of references would suffice if the ones provided are not what the editor who deleted the edit had in mind... ---- kb -

This article is already on the long side, and focusing on one particular sculptor is too much detail and does not fit in with the broad style of this article. Mention of something related to sculptors is perhaps worth including, but this material should be on another article. I'm removing the material for now; we can get it back and move it somewhere later. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 16:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Why not insert the begining discussion of the few sculptors who are skilled welders and refer to Gary with a simple, such as Jim Gary and let the link to his article provide details. I have been present when welders "gushed" over his welds as being practically invisible--in his "Universal Woman" for instance, it can be viewed from any direction without seeing the welds--yet they hold the large sculpture of washers and hardware together as if it were cast. The welds in his gigantic dinosaurs are just as "invisible". Sorry about the extensive references, but thought that was the reason for the infomation being edited out... I agree that all that detail is irrelevant for this article, was merely trying to provide the information I thought was called for when it was excluded previously. I disagree about the length -- it is a very good article -- and I think consideration of its highly skilled artistic application would be an additional aspect considered to complete the topic. Let me know here whether that appeals to you and I will write it if you prefer. ---- kb - 2006.06.04
How about this idea: in the "Costs and trends" section, include a general paragraph on the use of welding in non-manufacturing environments (such as art and anything else you can think of), condense the information on costs, and rename the section. Or, potentially even better, is there a specific welding procedure that is most frequently used for artistic welds, such as GTAW? If so, it'd be better to include the information alongside the description of the process. What do you think? --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 15:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I do not know enough about the technical aspects of welding to put that together and my only contact with an artist who was highly skilled in welding, was Jim Gary, who died early this year. His large works were composed of automobile parts -- I presume steel. I know that other hardware, tools, and parts he included in his sculpture were steel also -- but he used copper in some small works. I just thought that a discussion of his use of welding in fine art (that drew such compliments from welders) would be another facet of the skill that should be discussed under welding... I would be willing to release a photograph of Universal Woman as an example or the one I provided to the New York Times on their article about his death, which shows him in a field of his dinosaurs. I know that there are few artists who are considered skilled welders, so I thought it would be best here. Let me see what I can find -- looking into it further. ---- kb - 2006.06.06

Welding terms: need definition of positions

The Submerged arc welding article mentions some welding positions (1F, 1G, 2F, 2G) but doesn't say what they are. The main Welding article should define all of the welding positions. I did some searching and found a page on the JEFF BONNER R&D, INC. website which describes his capabilities; it includes the following text (not to be used as-is, but for informational content only):

Sheet groove weld position: 1G; flat, 2G; horizontal, 3G; vertical, and 4G; overhead position:

Sheet fillet weld position: 1F; flat, 2F; horizontal, 3F; vertical , and 4F; overhead

Tube groove weld position: 1G; horizontal rolled, 2G; vertical, 5G; horizontal fixed, and 6G; inclined position.

Tube fillet weld position: 1F; flat, 2F; horizontal, 4F; overhead, and 5F; multiple position.

I'm guessing the "G" suffix means "groove", and the "F" suffix means "fillet", but we really need confirmation all of this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dtgriscom (talk • contribs) 02:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

That's getting rather technical for a general article on welding; besides, there probably isn't an international standard for those anyway. Probably the best way to go would be to have a separate article that lists those abbreviations, but we could also just expand the SAW article so that the actual position names are used. --Spangineerws (háblame) 02:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe these terms are standard; when I find these terms on the Web, the context almost always implies that the viewer should know what they mean. In addition, the implied meanings seem very consistent. I also think they should be included in the Welding article rather than any subsidiary article. (If we won't include the definitions in the main page, then I agree that the SAW page should use the position names.)

Here's another page that gets a bit more explicit on the terms (although there's still ambiguity: what's the difference between the "Flat" and the "Horizontal" position?): Sim Welder Features Dan Griscom 11:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Bingo. I finally found a relevant page at Fundamentals of Professional Welding: Welding Positions. This states that the various welding positions are defined by the American Welding Society, and then defines each one. Dan Griscom 11:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Semi-Protect

I think that this article should be semi-protected. It's been vandalized by anonymous IPs 3-4 times a week. It needs to stop. 138 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I was reading the article for the first time and found that someone had vandalized the names of the sections. Took only a second to change, but changes like that should not be allowed. --the authentic david christians (talk) 14:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Comparison with rivetting??

I was very surprised to see that this is a Featured Article (although I'm not suggesting it does not deserve the accolade). I came here while checking links I was adding to boiler, in a section mentioning how earlier boilers used rivetted construction and later ones were welded. In the UK, at least, the earliest bridges, fabricated frameworks, boilers, fireboxes, and ships were all constructed using rivets, and welding only came on the scene much later. Therefore, how come this article doesn't describe the relationship between the two joining technologies? nor even provide a link to rivet? This would appear to be a significant omission from the topic coverage (for example, when did welding establish itself as the preferred technology, compared to rivetting?).

EdJogg (talk) 13:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

New wiki for welding procedures

Previous post was premature. Watch this page for subsequent announcement about this wiki.

ProfAck (talk) 20:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Add x-ray welding?

It's an obscure and experimental technique and the wiki page only has one reference, but it may be worth mentioning briefly. Tevonic (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's worth it, so I added it. Wizard191 (talk) 18:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

ERW and EFW

Right now ERW is redirected to Resistance welding without any explanation of what the E stands for. ERW and EFW are mentioned at Pipe (material) but with no links. If anyone knows about these topics please add a line or two.-Crunchy Numbers (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I just tried to correct a link and promptly not only had my revision reverted but the link itself deleted. The link was to "The Welding Institute" at www.twi.co.uk. This name was inaccurate as twi.co.uk is the homepage of TWI Ltd, a research organisation focused around welding, wheras 'The Welding Institute" refers to a professional body for welders. Therefore the name of the link needed to be changed. If it's felt that using TWI's full name 'TWI - World Centre for Materials Joining Technology' is unnecessary then fair enough, but the link should not be called 'The Welding Institute'.

I don't know why the link was deleted althogether: it's been on this page for some time and quite rightly. Twi.co.uk hosts a major online database of information on welding (possibly the worlds biggest) much of which can be accessed by creating a free account and is a major source of welding information on the web. It's also one of the most influential welding organisations in the world, and is several times larger than EWI which has a similar role and continues to be linked from this page.

This longstanding link was removed completely with no explanation. Unless someone's got a good reason for taking it off (while leaving the link to EWI on) I'll replace it as (the correct) TWI Ltd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.128.9.129 (talk) 12:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Just seen "Wizard191 (talk | contribs) (44,945 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by 194.128.9.129; Rmv per WP:ELNO point 6. using TW"

This is not correct. ELNO point 6 discourages "Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content", but much of the relevant content on TWI requires neither payment nor registration. See, for example, the comprehensive seventy plus webpages on 'Job knowledge for welders' (http://www.twi.co.uk/content/prof_jobknow.html). These are undeniably valuable, covering everything from cutting and gouging, health and safety, standards, weldability of materials, avoidance of defects, equipment, processes, etc. and are accessible without any payment or registration whatsoever. ELNO doesn't forbid linking to sites with valuable, accessible and "relevant" content just because they have other content which requires registration so long as there is relevant content which justifies its inclusion. I'll restore the link, please explain here if there is any reason why it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.128.9.129 (talk) 13:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how a link to a "global company delivering world class value" can be anything other than WP:SPAM, and no amount of wikilawyering around how much of their site you have to pay for will alter that. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

If you're concerned about the front page then why don't we link directly to the technical information page rather than removing the link althogether: http://www.twi.co.uk/content/tec_index.html ? It seems rather extreme to completely remove a longstanding link to a site with a huge amount of free technical information on welding just because of a slightly bombastic front page! Accusations of 'laywering' are rather unfair: if a site contains over 70 pages of high quality, free content without requiring registration does it really matter if they ask for payment or registration to access other content? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.128.9.129 (talk) 13:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Mr 194.128.9.129, Would you mind stating what professional relationship you have with TWI ltd? - MrOllie (talk) 14:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear MrOllie, I've worked there in the past, which is why I noticed the name of the link on this page was seriously out of date. I spent part of my time there working on website content which is why I was frustrated at the kneejerk assumption that because it's a commercial site there's no valuable free content on there: I know that the welder knowledge pages in particular are some of the best free content available on the web. Thank you for your note regarding the 'three revert limit' by the way. I'm afraid I hadn't edited wikipedia before and I apologise if I broke any rules. If it's decided that the link doesn't add any value to the page then please delete it, I only wanted to draw attention to the technical information available on the site (which is presumably the reason why the link was put on and then remained on a formerly featured page for so long before I drew attention to it by correcting the name). I just ask that you look at the link I provided earlier in the talk before you make a decision. The exchanges surrounding this page have convinced me that I don't have the detailed knowledge of wikipedia's rules and guidelines (or the commitment needed to gain such knowledge!) necessary to make a useful contribution to the site so I won't post any more edits and I'll leave you and the other experienced contributers to decide what should be done with this page. I apologise if I've wasted your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.168.241.1 (talk) 16:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Update to add Hybrid Laser Arc Welding

There should be an update for recent advances in the HLAW process I found this article to be informative

http://www.twi.co.uk/content/laser_hybrid.html

also there is this for the ESAB site

http://www.esabna.com/us/en/news/ESAB-INTRODUCES-NEW-HYBRID-LASER-WELDING-SYSTEM.cfm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Careater1 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Nano-welding

The development of nanotechnology has had a noticeable impact on welding techniques. Perhaps there should be an entry on the topic of nano-welding which would present these new methods. [1][2][3] ADM (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Butt Welding

One thing I am confused about in the Butt Welding section are the advantages/disadvantages of using closed welds instead of open welds. I would think that using open welds would be more advantageous because it allows the molten metal to flow in between the two pieces and provides a larger surface area to bind to, yielding a stronger weld. My thinking may be wrong, but it would be interesting to have an explination on when both types of welds are used. Also, it mentions that open welds have a small gap in between the two pieces, but how small of a gap is it? It may be helpful to try to include some numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abethke (talk • contribs) 19:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused as to where it says one is better than the other. Can you please point it out? Thanks. Wizard191 (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Safety issues

Appearantly, there also exist "welding/tool belt quilts". I saw it being used by Kiki Pettit at Junkyard Mega Wars. Although I don't want to make a point about the quilts themselves, what struck me is the fabric they were made of; I don't think that this material is already discussed here (ie btw neither is the NASCAR carbon fibre mentioned in Smash Labs: "Forest fire"). 91.182.169.138 (talk) 12:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Symbol

A section about the symbol called out on engineering drawings is needed. Wizard191 (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's necessary to put a full section on the topic in this article, but perhaps it should be mentioned in the Geometry section and linked to a page with more details. --Spangineerws (háblame) 17:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
You think there's enough info there to warrant a new article? I don't think there is, but maybe I'm missing something. Wizard191 (talk) 17:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not really sure; I don't have much knowledge of engineering diagrams with respect to welds. It seems to me that the best place to put such information would be Welding joints, with mention of it here and a link directly to the appropriate section of that article. --Spangineerws (háblame) 17:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok, putting it in welding joints makes more sense to me. Maybe if I get time I'll see what I can put together. Wizard191 (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Referencing improvement needed

This article could use some referencing improvements. There are places that would be helped by having additions of cites, to satisfy verifiability for the reader. If not objected to by significant contributors to the article, I would be willing to identify some of these deficient locations in the article with {{fact}} tags. However, it might be best to address in the form of WP:FAR, and give the article a more thorough overall review. -- Cirt (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I wrote the article, but unfortunately no longer have access to the welding textbooks I used as sources. When the article passed FAC, everything in it was sourced (though sometimes that only required a end-of-paragraph reference). Since then there have been changes that I have not always kept abreast of. As we go through the review, it will be helpful to compare the existing article with the one that passed FAC, so as to tell which statements are actually unsourced and which ones have "lost" their reference.
Personally, I would prefer going through the WP:FAR process, if you wish. --Spangineerws (háblame) 11:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Spangineer, I thank you, very much, for your polite and professional and matter-of-fact response addressing the content of my initial comment - that behavior is most appreciated. :) I will look over the article again and see about bringing it for review, probably about a week from now. -- Cirt (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

aluminothermy

In "history" chapter, it reads: "During the 1920s, major advances were made in welding technology, including [...] During the following decade, further advances allowed for the welding of reactive metals like aluminum and magnesium. "

Does this refer to Aluminothermic reaction? In that case, I think we should link to this article. 116.6.52.10 (talk) 05:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

English-Spanish Welding Dictionary

--92.226.117.129 (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Weld monitoring, testing and analysis article

(see the talk page for the full story) For a while we deliberated on an article (Signature image processing) which appeared to be about a general technology for real-time weld monitoring but was actually about a particular supplier's product and method. Has a large amount of interesting content. We also noticed that there was no article on weld monitoring / testing, nor much on it in the welding article. We elected to morph the article into one on Weld monitoring, testing and analysis in general, making the previous article a (mere) section in the new article. Also knowing that the other sections would be stubs for now, but that such would hopefully be an impetus for developing them. We recently did it and the article is not in that state at Weld monitoring, testing and analysis. Of course, all are welcome to edit, including fleshing out those stub sections. North8000 (talk) 11:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of Bias Weld?

I have just discovered this type of weld myself, and cannot find it referred to anywhere on Wikipedia. A bias weld is used in the oil and gas industry in the manufacturing of coiled tubing. Rference here: http://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com/DisplayImage.cfm?ID=601 Should I create a new article, or add it to this one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.244.72.5 (talk) 08:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

You are most welcome to do either. I've never heard of the method myself, so I did a little digging and found a better description here: http://www.nov.com/uploadedFiles/Business_Groups/Quality_Tubing/Coiled_Tubing_Products_and_Service/Coiled_Tubing_Products/QTI%20procedures.pdf To break it down, spools of flat metal strips are fed through a machine that forms them into U-shaped troughs. They are then cupped together to form a tube and passed through an induction coil, to induction weld them at the seams. Finally, the tube is formed into the final shape and size and coiled around a spool for shipping. The bias weld occurs when the spools of flat metal strips run out. New spools are brought in, and the strips are joined by a butt weld that is at a 45 degree angle to the length of the strip. When the strips are formed into the U-shape, and welded to make the tube, they are joined in such a way that the end of one 45 degree weld meets the other. So, instead of a standard butt weld, the weld begins at one seam, wraps around the tube in a helical fashon, and ends at the same seam, only farther down the tube. The purpose is to distribute welding stresses down the length of the tube instead of concentrating it in one standard butt weld.
It's a pretty interesting idea. However, there are a few things you will want to consider before creating a new article. The main one is WP:Notability. This is a patented process that is used almost exclusively by the oil industry. The process is fairly new, and there doesn't seem to be much literature out there, except for a few oil field brochures. Typically, there will need to be substantial information about a subject before creating an article ... or, at least enough info to make a decent article. This should come from multiple sources, so as to avoid any accidental plagiarism. You may have an easier time putting a simple summary in this article, say a paragraph or two, but still may need to find independent (non-oil field) sources on this. (You may not, depending on what others say.) At any rate, you are welcome to give it a shot. Zaereth (talk) 19:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I should also add that if a new article is created then a brief summary should be placed here. I just noticed that induction welding has not been added to this article. I don't have time right now to do that, but you can feel free to do so if you wish. (I may in the future, but, hopefully, someone'll beat me to it.) Zaereth (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Welding non-metals

It seems to me that this article should have a section about the welding of non-metals. I see that we briefly mention plastic welding in passing, but do not describe it in any detail. There is also chemical welding of plastics, and welding of glass, which is a common glass blower's practice. (Any others?) If no one has any objections, I may add something in the near future. Zaereth (talk) 23:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Please add it; this is much needed. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 19:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2014

Existing: Acetylene was discovered in 1836 by Edmund Davy, but its use was not practical in welding until about 1900, when a suitable blowtorch was developed.[7]

Proposed change: Acetylene was discovered in 1836 by Edmund Davy, but its use was not practical in welding until about 1900, when a suitable torch was developed.[7]

Reason: A blowtorch is not the same thing as a welding torch or cutting torch. See the Wikipedia article "Blowtorch". 68.111.209.95 (talk) 23:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit done with a more specific link to Gas welding#Torch. Glrx (talk) 23:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Metallurgy

This section seems pretty well-written, as an article on Metallurgy in general, but doesn't really have much to say about how welding processes affect the metallurgy or about how different metallurgical states affect the welding process, which is what I was expecting here. Perhaps there is something here that should be merged with Metallurgy. In any case, someone who knows more about the subject should replace this with something more relevant to the subject of the article.--Wcoole (talk) 22:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree. The section would likely make a good intro section in an article dedicated to welding metallurgy. The subject is vast enough to have its own article. The problem is that there is so much information that it is difficult to summarize here. There is fluid-flow dynamics, gas-metal reactions, solute-metal reactions, fusion process, heat-flow dynamics, metal composition and evaporation, and a whole slew of other things involved in the metallurgy.
I assume that you are looking specifically for info on the fusion zone. In this case, there is still a lot of information, depending on what metals are being welded, what the filler metal is, and which process is being used. All of these have similarities and differences in phase transitions (liquid/solid interfaces), surface tension, solute/impurity distribution, porosity, slag inclusions, heat-affected zone, etc... Trying to summarize it all in just a few paragraphs will be difficult at best. It might be easier to actually write a welding metallurgy article first and then summarize its key points here. I can probably help with this next winter, but will be too busy during the summer months to do anything myself. Zaereth (talk) 23:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

wire welding machine

welding is important matter. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SW3-nDrXB38 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.161.76.196 (talk) 07:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

aluminum / aluminium

The entry contains the word "aluminum" (6 times) as well as the word "aluminium" (once, and once in the notes). Only one spelling should be used - I'd go with "aluminium", because that's the title of the Wikipedia page, but either way is fine, just not both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.62.109.204 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 10 January 2016

Sounds like the article is American English. See WP:ENGVAR. Glrx (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Welding Safety Issues: Electric Shock

It appears to me that electric shock, or electrocution avoidance should be added, in summary and links, to the Welding Safety Issues discussion. If it is already there somehow, I did not find it; and think it is worthy of emphasis. Aside from personal safety, It might be a factor for novices choosing electric vs gas welding, or in comparing shock safety of the many welding types? I am not expert re this, but Lincoln Electric and other sources have extensive information that could be inserted and referenced. Malcolm Knapp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.96.148 (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 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:

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Cast iron *is* a ferrous material

Under the heading "PROCESSES: Processes", the final sentence of the second paragraph reads "Furthermore, the process is generally limited to welding ferrous materials, though special electrodes have made possible the welding of cast iron, nickel, aluminum, copper, and other metals." Of course, cast iron is a ferrous material, so I think the sentence should be rephrased to acknowledge that fact, or perhaps cast iron should be dealt with in a separate sentence. Any suggestions? Bricology (talk) 05:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The word "ferrous material" here is clearly not referring to wrought iron either, so why not simply change it to "steel?' That covers just about every ferrous material, with the exception of some exotic alloys, from mild to alloy steel. Zaereth (talk) 08:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Welding plastics is not welding?

"In some linguistic and physics circles, it is debated if welding can ever refer to joining non-metals. Many dictionaries refer to welding as a process specific to metal unless identified otherwise. aka Cambridge https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/weld."

I reverted this edit twice now, so per policy I am bringing it to the talk page for discussion. The problems with this addition are many. First are the use of weasel words, such as the all-knowing "they" or in this case "in some circles." What circles specifically say this. We need a source that specifically names these circles, which the dictionary does not.

The dictionary doesn't even say this. It simply defines the process as joining two pieces of metal together. Other dictionaries, such as https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/welding specifically say "plastics and metals", while yet others put the word metal in parentheses, indicating the word is most often used for metals, but not solely. And no dictionary would ever say that language could never change, because they all change constantly. The Oxford English department has written extensively on this, plus nearly every dictionary describes it in detail right in the front of the book.

The main problem is that a dictionary is only good for defining words, not for defining things. An encyclopedia is about defining things, so, unless the article is about a word, a dictionary is a useless source for defining the thing. Many other sources such as the book Fabrication and Welding Engineering by Roger Timings, Handbook of Laser Welding Technologies by S Katayama, or Welding of Plastics by TWI Core Research are much more reliable sources about the subject. Zaereth (talk) 22:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree; welding of plastics should be included as welding. There is an immense amount of sourcing that it is applied to certain processes of joining plastics. Now, on to the topic of the disputed material. Right now the main statements in it as written are unsourced. The first sentence is completely unsourced, and the second "Many" is uncourced......giving one example does not source a many statement. Both should ideally be found in secondary sources to be included in their current form. Failing that, perhaps a dialed back statement could be included like "some definitions limit the use of the term welding to only the joining of metals." North8000 (talk) 19:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
The problem with that, as I see it, is that a dictionary does not limit the language in any way. They simply follow the changing language, whatever it does. In fact, they try to take great care not to distort the language in any way with their own view, and most go into great detail about their methods in the beginning of the book. If they controlled or limited the use of words we'd still be speaking Old English today. (For example, in Old English, the word "cattle" meant "any kind of domesticated animal" including your dogs and cats. "Deer" meant "any kind of wild animal", including wolves and bears. "Hund (hound) was any kind of canine, while the word "dog" mysteriously appeared in Middle English, originally referring to a specific breed of canine, but eventually it replaced "hund" as a word for all canines and "hound" became a specific breed. "Gear" originally meant "habits and mannerisms", but it was only in the last century it came to mean "a wheel with interlocking teeth". And don't even get me started on "moose".)
Dictionaries just follow the changing language, and the way it changes is determined by society which often occurs in illogical and unpredictable ways. Dictionaries are often slow to catch up to the language, both in the scientific and general context. (If you think writing an encyclopedia is hard, just imagine trying to go through the entire language, and find every possible meaning, and then condense that all down the just a few simple sentences.) They're not made to be detailed, just to give the gist of the meaning so you can understand it in a sentence. To keep from giving our own synthesis, I think at best we could say, "some sources limit their definitions..."
Really, though, where this info belongs is in an etymology section, which would then be about the word. For example, the term "weld" is one of English origin, containing no cognates in other European languages. It was derived from the Middle English word "well", meaning "to heat, or bring to a boil". Or rather, it was derived from the past-tense participle, "welled". As a method of joining metals, the first recorded use was in 1590. Etc., etc., etc... Zaereth (talk) 20:28, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree 100%. One point that I was knitting into my post is that the meaning of the word is a part of what defines the article. For example, this article is about: material joining methods which are commonly called welding. North8000 (talk) 21:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, this confusion between words and things comes up a lot. For example, "glass", to a general audience, only refers to silicate glass. In a scientific context, "glass" is any material that exhibits a glass transition", including plastics, porcelain, sugars and candies, metals, even water if cooled correctly. One person on my talk page even showed me an article about welding chocolate (actually building model bridges out of it). Although that's not common use of the word, it certainly could be in the future. Words like "alloy steel" or "alloy wheel" come from a time when steel was not considered to be an alloy, yet these words are still in use. And "Viking"! There are still ongoing discussions at the Viking article this very moment about whether this refers to raiders or Norsemen in general, as many Scandinavians resent the term not understanding that the meaning in modern English is different from its original meaning in Norway. Language is a funny thing (personally fascinating to me). Zaereth (talk) 21:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Photo

This article has (and it's children have) a bunch of great images. What we really need, and what I can't find anywhere on the 'net is a photo taken through welding glass of what the welder sees. I might get a friend and try to get a good picture, but if anyone wants to beat me to it, feel free. I'm not making plans right now. —BenFrantzDale 04:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Good idea; though I'm not sure where we would put it. Anyway, that has been suggested before, but never acted on—getting a camera into those helmets might be a little tricky. But an image like that would be really great. --Spangineer (háblame) 00:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The photo with the comment "arc welding" has the title of Smaw. The photo is not of stick, it's a photo of either flux core (fcaw-s) or dual shield (fcaw-g). Judging from the amount of fumes coming off his arc, I would say it's dual shield, but I can't say that for sure as I can't see his welder. Not a huge thing, I just thought people shouldn't be confused by the article. 138 (talk) 20:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 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:

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) 22:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Welding/Archive_1&oldid=1137313069"