[Negativentropy]

I went back in the shop and had another crack at it. My ceramic #8 cup with gas lens gets great coverage at 15SCFM with 15mm of stickout and at less than 10 SCFM at 10mm stick out - no problems at all. Switch to the stubby with pyrex, total disaster - even at 30 SCFM, made no difference. It feels like gas is coming out of the nozzle, it must just be totally turbulent and crap.

Im done, they are garbage, ah well at least ill get my money back. Interestingly, both those products were cheapies from China. The working ceramic cup/gas lens from ebay "RIVERWELDstore" and the shitty pyrex cup/gas lens from banggood. Who knows...

[Oscar]

I went back in the shop and had another crack at it. My ceramic #8 cup with gas lens gets great coverage at 15SCFM with 15mm of stickout and at less than 10 SCFM at 10mm stick out - no problems at all. Switch to the stubby with pyrex, total disaster - even at 30 SCFM, made no difference. It feels like gas is coming out of the nozzle, it must just be totally turbulent and crap.

Im done, they are garbage, ah well at least ill get my money back. Interestingly, both those products were cheapies from China. The working ceramic cup/gas lens from ebay "RIVERWELDstore" and the shitty pyrex cup/gas lens from banggood. Who knows...

Can you post a close-up pic of the gas lens collet body and the mesh screens? Just out of curiosity.

[Negativentropy]

Honestly I think they are just too small. That said, I did try with 1/16 tungstens and it didnt make a difference.

The frustrating thing is, they LOOK good. They are well machined and put together...

DSC_0917.JPG (27.5 KiB) Viewed 4182 times

DSC_0916.JPG (45.42 KiB) Viewed 4182 times

Here I had to grind off the deformed copper to remove the brass retaining piece.

20170530_201045.jpg (33.56 KiB) Viewed 4182 times

20170530_201215.jpg (29.03 KiB) Viewed 4182 times

[AndersK]

Have you tried with a regular #8 alumina cup on the stubby lens?
If you get better result you know the lens and everything behind up to the back cap is alright.

[ESENTI]

Hi actually there is a specific relation between gas flow per minute , diameter of alumina , seems easy but in action is not
I get get good results with alumina 6 and 7.5 liters per minute 25 cfh aprox.2.4 tungsten Where I don't get same results If I switch to
alumina 8. Alumina nozzle 8 works better on a flat level wide surface welding like a lap joint .Seems that there is a turbulence
some kind or the argon pressure behaves funny .

[ESENTI]

in previous posting was 15 cfh where is says 25 please correct it ...

[Oscar]

15 CFM sounds about right for a #6/7. I usually use around 15 CFM for my gas lenses, but then I keep a very short stickout to minimize argon use, around 1/16" 1.6mm stickout. I've gone as low as 12-13 CFM on a #8 gas lens like that.

[Negativentropy]

Have you tried with a regular #8 alumina cup on the stubby lens?
If you get better result you know the lens and everything behind up to the back cap is alright.

No the subby lens is a smaller size and wont thread onto the #8 cup.

[AndersK]

The cup for a 9/20 torch gas lens should fit.

[entity-unknown]

I notice in your video your torch angle is horrible. Fix that!

I also notice you did not swap insulators. The stock Everlast Insulator and the Stubby Gas Insulator look ALMOST identical. In fact I really can't tell the difference but there was a difference when you connect them. Using the pyrex stubby, I actually believe I recall the insulator for the Everlast being almost blatantly bigger. Still you didn't swap, so you're using the wrong insulator for one of your setups.

Prob like .1mm diff or something like that but that's huge when it comes to fluids and gas. Also I've got a Stubby Gas lens for my #8 and #20 torches from Everlast. I've used the 1/8, 3/32, and 1/16 for the #20 and 3/32 setup on the #8 and I use about 8-15 CFH depending on the job/material but I've had zero issues with gas.

I did find the stock insulator vs. the stubby insulator as said looks identical but they were not and the Everlast/stock one did not mesh quite right with the stubby lens.

A couple other common issues with gas is poor ground and/or bad electrical path to your part. I.e. if you're clipping onto a dirty welding table, and you didn't clamp your part, you can expect what will appear as bad gas coverage.

If you're alumina cup is dirty from no gas runs and just a bunch of crap that might have gotten in there, you will also experience something that's similar to having no gas. In this case your arc is just wandering around the inside and/or rim of the cup. Not as stimulating as your first rim job.

Another interesting thing I've been realizing lately is doing a bunch of practice on thin pieces of metal. You burn through and oxidize the other side and at that point you've trapped contaminates inside your piece. You will never fix this and you will continue to have really crappy results. Move to another spot or another test piece.

The last issue I've seen is a poor tungsten grind. If you have flat spots you'll have interesting Arc wander but it actually may not wander at all. Still, you will experience something like radiation burns on Aluminum if you do this. Steel wasn't as bad but that's AC vs. DC.

[ESENTI]

I have not watched the video while I post now I've seen it seem clear that there must be an air leak the tig bits cannot create
such behavior I think ...