I have used overlaping circles befor and red that this should not be
used, just a back and forth motion. Which is right?

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 18:36:03 -0700 (PDT), stryped
wrote:

I have used overlaping circles befor and red that this should not be
used, just a back and forth motion. Which is right?

Whichever works best for you. You will learn by doing a lot faster
and better than you will by asking from a flakey source like RCM has
become.

I have used overlaping circles befor and red that this should not be
used, just a back and forth motion. Which is right?


http://www.millerwelds.com/resources/

--Is this MIG or TIG? I saw a neat demo on one of the Power Block TV
shows where he recommends the crescent weave over the circular or the
back-and-forth stitch for MIG. Once you get good at TIG you won't need to
weave (well not often...).

--
"Steamboat Ed" Haas : Life is a big
Hacking the Trailing Edge! : **** sandwich...
www.nmpproducts.com
---Decks a-wash in a sea of words---

In article
,
stryped wrote:

I have used overlaping circles befor and red that this should not be
used, just a back and forth motion. Which is right?

As your reading should tell you, the overlapping motion increases the
chance of trapping slag in the bead. For structural welding, I recall
that no weave at all was the correct method as taught in class - lay a
stringer, clean off all the slag, lay another stringer. But I've never
gone on to actually applying that (ie, welding for other people, for
money, in a structural setting with certifications and inspections and
all that stuff).

For "sticking stuff together", you can do whatever you like, but when
the stuff needs to be stuck together well, it is worthwhile to use
"good" techniques as developed by years of experience and failure
analysis. Without fancy X-ray equipment, you can't see slag inclusions
if they are not sticking out the surface of the weld, so trying to avoid
the possibility of causing them is good practice.

--
Cats, coffee, chocolate...vices to live by

Don Foreman wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 18:36:03 -0700 (PDT), stryped
wrote:

I have used overlaping circles befor and red that this should not be
used, just a back and forth motion. Which is right?

Whichever works best for you. You will learn by doing a lot faster
and better than you will by asking from a flakey source like RCM has
become.

Well said.

On Apr 21, 1:22*pm, Ecnerwal
wrote:
In article
,

*stryped wrote:
I have used overlaping circles befor and red that this should not be
used, just a back and forth motion. Which is right?

As your reading should tell you, the overlapping motion increases the
chance of trapping slag in the bead. For structural welding, I recall
that no weave at all was the correct method as taught in class - lay a
stringer, clean off all the slag, lay another stringer. But I've never
gone on to actually applying that (ie, welding for other people, for
money, in a structural setting with certifications and inspections and
all that stuff).

For "sticking stuff together", you can do whatever you like, but when
the stuff needs to be stuck together well, it is worthwhile to use
"good" techniques as developed by years of experience and failure
analysis. Without fancy X-ray equipment, you can't see slag inclusions
if they are not sticking out the surface of the weld, so trying to avoid
the possibility of causing them is good practice.

--
Cats, coffee, chocolate...vices to live by

So you were taugth to just use a straight motion?

In article
,
stryped wrote:

So you were taugth to just use a straight motion?

For structural, critical work, yes. For things like padding and
hardfacing, an S or 8 (but not looping the loops) weave was taught. That
would be the "side-to side" pattern.

--
Cats, coffee, chocolate...vices to live by

On Apr 21, 2:49*pm, Ecnerwal
wrote:
In article
,

*stryped wrote:
So you were taugth to just use a straight motion?

For structural, critical work, yes. For things like padding and
hardfacing, an S or 8 (but not looping the loops) weave was taught. That
would be the "side-to side" pattern.

--
Cats, coffee, chocolate...vices to live by

What size rod would you use for joining 1/4 inch thick 4x4 tubing
together? 1/8? WOuld a straight motion cover both sides?

In article
,
stryped wrote:

What size rod would you use for joining 1/4 inch thick 4x4 tubing
together? 1/8? WOuld a straight motion cover both sides?

1/8 is what I stock most of and mostly run, so for a low-volume project
I'd probably use that. I'd have to spend more time practicing with
larger rod to get myself dialed in on not making more of a mess with it.

The way that stringers are done, it's not a matter of filling the vee in
one pass. You weld a root pass, clean the slag, run a stringer, clean
the slag, etc. Each stringer gets full penetration into the parent metal
and a previous stringer bead (or into two previous stringer beads),
until all is full.

Miller suggests that weaving is OK up to 2-1/2 times electrode diameter,
but the recall I have from class is that it is not allowed in some
structural codes.

http://www.millerwelds.com/education...rticles16.html

--
Cats, coffee, chocolate...vices to live by

On Apr 21, 5:05*pm, Ecnerwal
wrote:
In article
,

*stryped wrote:
What size rod would you use for joining 1/4 inch thick 4x4 tubing
together? 1/8? WOuld a straight motion cover both sides?

1/8 is what I stock most of and mostly run, so for a low-volume project
I'd probably use that. I'd have to spend more time practicing with
larger rod to get myself dialed in on not making more of a mess with it.

The way that stringers are done, it's not a matter of filling the vee in
one pass. You weld a root pass, clean the slag, run a stringer, clean
the slag, etc. Each stringer gets full penetration into the parent metal
and a previous stringer bead (or into two previous stringer beads),
until all is full.

Miller suggests that weaving is OK up to 2-1/2 times electrode diameter,
but the recall I have from class is that it is not allowed in some
structural codes.

http://www.millerwelds.com/education...rticles16.html

--
Cats, coffee, chocolate...vices to live by

So you are saying weld a bead in the center of a joint, clean the
slag, then weld another bead on each side of the origional bead?

In article
,
stryped wrote:

So you are saying weld a bead in the center of a joint, clean the
slag, then weld another bead on each side of the origional bead?

Yes. Starting with a Vee preparation on the joint.

--
Cats, coffee, chocolate...vices to live by

On Apr 22, 8:13*am, Ecnerwal
wrote:
In article
,

*stryped wrote:
So you are saying weld a bead in the center of a joint, clean the
slag, then weld another bead on each side of the origional bead?

Yes. Starting with a Vee preparation on the joint.

--
Cats, coffee, chocolate...vices to live by

How wide a joint does this usually have to be to do this?

On Apr 22, 10:07*am, stryped wrote:
On Apr 22, 8:13*am, Ecnerwal
wrote:

In article
,

*stryped wrote:
So you are saying weld a bead in the center of a joint, clean the
slag, then weld another bead on each side of the origional bead?

Yes. Starting with a Vee preparation on the joint.

--
Cats, coffee, chocolate...vices to live by

How wide a joint does this usually have to be to do this?

Cut off two 1" - 2" slices of your square tubing and weld them back
together. Don't let them get too hot or they will weld differently
than longer pieces. Then saw through the welds crosswise and examine
them.

I was taught by both a bridge and a pipe weldor to fill up the vee
with stringer passes on alternate sides and run a cosmetic bead over
them. They were both careful to brush or grind out ALL the slag
between passes. The welds certainly looked good when they did them,
not quite so nice for me. I think different people learn how to make
the various techniques work and then stay with them.

Jim Wilkins