[AndersK]

...and that's a perfect example of where you should have cooked the weld to get that gray finnish Dave

Nice work though

[MinnesotaDave]

...and that's a perfect example of where you should have cooked the weld to get that gray finnish Dave

Nice work though

Haha!! Didn't think of that

[Oscar]

There is actually a lot wrong with the welds.

-The weld did not wet out at the toes.
-The weld contacts the metal at the toe at too steep of an angle creating a notch effect for a crack to propagate.
-Visually it was mostly put in too cold with too much fill creating an overly convex weld that created the problem above.
-Since the weld is cold, there is likely a lack of fusion at the root as well.

I had to look a few things up after reading that.

Too cold...I'm trying to figure out how that happened. I was getting a big puddle, and I kept dipping the filler to keep the puddle from getting too big and melting way into the upper bar. I would have expected "too cold" to mean a small shallow puddle.

I thought I was too hot, because the metal was heating up a lot, and not just close to the weld.

Remember, heat is not just about "setting the amps at the machine". Amperage is one thing, and voltage is the other variable. Not in the sense that you yourself set the voltage via knob/setting, but voltage manifests itself in the form of extra heat from too much torch angle and/or too much arc length. Both (too much arc length and/or torch angle) increase the size of the arc cone, by way of the machine increasing the voltage for you in order to maintain the electric arc lit. This dumps extra heat into the piece, but not like a water hose with a nice perfect cylindrical flow. It flares out a lot at the base metal, so the actual energy delivery (energy density) is less dense (watts/mm²) than if you have the optimum arc length/angle, because it's so spread out. So not all of your 160A are going where you want them go to/think they are going.

[zank]

Not to mention travel speed.

[Turbo]

Are you on DC-? Sorry for the obvious question, but three things make me wonder. First is the balling of the tungsten. Second is the required 160 amps. And third is how there is a sootie looking deposit in a band away from the weld. It almost looks like there is some cleaning action and then some soot. Or my phone isn't let me see the picture in enough detail.

Good question. Another obvious question: Are you using pure Argon?

[pgk]

Keep at it Chips, you'll get there. Looks a heck of a lot better than your first welds that you posted.


Pete

[Gene.243]

My hat is off to you Chips for posting your work.
I hope to get that good some day.
Mine still look like this.