"SteveB" <toquerville,utah at (no spam) zionvistas> wrote in message
news:hu4hf5-vil2.ln1 at (no spam) news.infowest.com...
"Private" <please at (no spam) dont.bother> wrote
If absolutely necessary, I can use the DC part of the welder and 3/32"
6011 DCSP.
You have commented previously on your use of 6011 with DCSP. I have (as
tactfully as possible) suggested that NONE of my electrode
manufacturer's
electrode manuals suggest or approve of running 6011 on DCSP, YMMV. You
may
have a source for electrodes from a manufacturer who does approve of
their
use with DCSP or as I like to say, YMMV. We all do what ever works, and
this does occasionally cause us to modify approved procedures, but ONLY
when working on non-critical or work without a specified or required
procedure. At all times the manufacturer's recommendations are your
best
guide as they have tested their products extensively and know what
procedures yield satisfactory results, and they have every motivation to
recommend their products for as wide a range of usage as possible.
I bought a Miller Thunderbolt once. I had a variety of rods. I was
looking for something that I could use in the field to repair weld
ornamental metal, mostly fences and gates. I put some tubing together,
and tried the small 6011. When I tried it with the stinger negative, it
would allow me to put down very small puddles and whip the rod, or if I
turned the current low enough, to make a continuous weld without burning
through. Very slight rod motions, very short arc, and very small
puddles, and as soon as one formed, whip out of it.
I do know that the rod is not RECOMMENDED for that polarity, but for THAT
specific application, it works great. I used it for years in the field,
and amazed a lot of people who said small ornamental tubing had to be
wirefed, as it could not be rod welded. Over the years, I have also been
amazed at the number of people who swear that the rod just plain will not
burn in that configuration. I do not know about anything larger than the
3/32" rod, and possibly the bigger ones won't do it. Maybe there's just
the right circumstances for that small one to work.
Sometimes if you don't know what you're doing, it's a little easier, as
not so much space is taken up in the brain with facts and absolutes. Or,
at least, I have found this to be true for me. I do know that a lot of
processes and inventions (the vulcanization of rubber for one) were the
results of pure accidents, carelessness, or trying something that
everyone said would NOT work.
If you ever get a chance, try it. You may be surprised. Make it just
hot enough to keep an arc.
Steve
We all do what ever works, and
this does occasionally cause us to modify approved procedures, but ONLY
when working on non-critical or work without a specified or required
procedure.
There is lots of work done using non standard procedures, but it is often
wise to keep this usage to yourself. A local mine company used to demand
their welders pass a pipe test using a 7018 (DCSP) root in order to
receive the top pay rate. A new weldor reported that when he used his own
6010s for the test, that the inspector told him that (the quite different
appearance of the xx10 root) was the best root that he had ever seen and
that it was very unusual for anyone to pass this test (which was the
reason the company used it, as they thought it saved them money on wages).
There are also approved procedures calling for use of a 7018 DCSP root
pass on structural plate. This procedure is not normally referenced by
the manufacturer's electrode guide but if the responsible engineer has
specified this procedure then its use is required and approved. It is
similar to a Doctor prescribing drugs for 'off label' use. A plain dumb
weldor should be very careful about using non-approved procedures as this
can expose them to expensive issues of liability and failed quality
control.
Ornamental iron, fences and gates certainly fall into the 'non-critical'
classification. Your technique as described seems correct and the results
speak for themselves. I suspect that the same technique would yield even
better results with 6013 but YMMV, I would be interested in your
comparison report. I do very little work with AC welders and have not
used much 6011. Some weldors prefer 6011 even on DC, but most have greater
trust in xx10 to pass x-ray testing and almost all jobs specify xx10.
The high quality of your SA200 will give you excellent control at very low
power settings, and you may find you like it for very small rods and as a
TIG power source (except for aluminum, which is possible with proper flux
but is less desirable than AC) particularly if you can find (or build) a
high freq unit.
Good luck, YMMV
