[RocketSurgeon]

Mil and NASA specs can be niche techniques that only apply to one or a few applications. The R&D can take years (or sometimes by chance). I've seen overkill work that would be completely unnecessary in the public world, but makes total sense to NASA.

We build man-rated space flight vehicles. Their argument that overkill is necessary is rarely debated, let alone argued.

I completely understand your questioning about the nomenclature used here and the techniques. It isn't the typical AWS or ASME when it comes to the vehicles. It's their own. When all you see is their symbolism and terminology every day, you can not only confuse others, but yourself as well.

[MinnesotaDave]

Mil and NASA specs can be niche techniques that only apply to one or a few applications. The R&D can take years (or sometimes by chance). I've seen overkill work that would be completely unnecessary in the public world, but makes total sense to NASA.

We build man-rated space flight vehicles. Their argument that overkill is necessary is rarely debated, let alone argued.

I completely understand your questioning about the nomenclature used here and the techniques. It isn't the typical AWS or ASME when it comes to the vehicles. It's their own. When all you see is their symbolism and terminology every day, you can not only confuse others, but yourself as well.

You didn't answer the question actually - does NASA and the military label their stuff backwards from the welding industry?

When I select DC- my torch is negative, therefore I am welding DCEN, straight polarity.
When I select DC+ my torch is positive, I am welding DCEP, reverse polarity.

DC+ will melt a 3/32" tungsten super fast.
DC- works great with a 3/32" tungsten.

I am not confused by what I have said.

[RocketSurgeon]

I know for sure that NASA does. They consider the ground clamp as a constant. Everything is based off the ground.

[wheresmejumper]

Ground clamp on the negative leg, torch on the positive (our symbol for this is DC-). We work to WPS that has been used for a couple of decades and approved by our customer: NASA.
These are high grade parent materials that must have 0 porosity and 0 inclusions and 0 contamination.

We've been doing this technique for a while. We don't follow AWS or ASME standards and specs. We follow MilSpec and NASASpec.

I didnt know that different laws of physics apply to NASA and the military?!
0 porosity 0 inclusions etc is a pretty common requirement,even down here on the earth.and away from the front line too.

[DeweyO]

From the limited experience I've had using DC on Al. I would have to support Minnesota Dave. I've personally experimented on Al. castings and found DCEN works surprisingly well. The weld although dirty does clean up easily and full penetration is attained. In my case I used Argon only as that's all I had, and after all, I was experimenting. Basically, I treated the whole job as if it were steel.

[rick9345]

I know for sure that NASA does. They consider the ground clamp as a constant. Everything is based off the ground.

NASA
Government supported
government specs
ya sure-you betcha

budget $'s hidden from public in obfuscation

[Otto Nobedder]

Let's keep the politics out of this, please.

RocketSurgeon works for a contractor, not Uncle Sam himself.

Steve S

[rick9345]

The comment was to help explain the procedures RocketSurgeon needs to follow

Not meant as political statement
If offended someone my apologies

[Otto Nobedder]

We all saw "Men In Black"... and know about those $30,000 toilet seats...

[skepsis]

I signed up for this.. Not intended to put anyone 'out there', but now I'm lost, completely (regarding terminology).
I'm very open/loving to 'controversial'/'gotcha' facts, however, fact being imperative!

To save everyone (including myself) the need to scroll over a number of pages in this thread, please let me start by quoting the posts (as far as relevant) that make me confused/curious/interested..

...
Our recipe:
DC- (reverse polarity)
115-135~ amps, depending on thickness
Pure, dry He @20cfm
2% Thoriated electrode
#7 cup
2sec lead in
5sec lead out

RocketSurgeon - you've got a typo:

DC-, DCEN, straight

DC+, DCEP, reverse

Whoops. You are correct, sir.

DCEP is the polarity we use.

It's what we use at work because of the alloy. 2219 and 2195. 2% Thoriated keeps a nice focused arc and the He keeps the parent material hotter without cranking up the Amps.

Ground clamp on the negative leg, torch on the positive (our symbol for this is DC-). We work to WPS that has been used for a couple of decades and approved by our customer: NASA.
...
We follow MilSpec and NASASpec.

Mil and NASA specs can be niche techniques that only apply to one or a few applications. The R&D can take years (or sometimes by chance). I've seen overkill work that would be completely unnecessary in the public world, but makes total sense to NASA.

We build man-rated space flight vehicles. Their argument that overkill is necessary is rarely debated, let alone argued.

I completely understand your questioning about the nomenclature used here and the techniques. It isn't the typical AWS or ASME when it comes to the vehicles. It's their own. When all you see is their symbolism and terminology every day, you can not only confuse others, but yourself as well.

You didn't answer the question actually - does NASA and the military label their stuff backwards from the welding industry?

When I select DC- my torch is negative, therefore I am welding DCEN, straight polarity.
When I select DC+ my torch is positive, I am welding DCEP, reverse polarity.
...

I know for sure that NASA does. They consider the ground clamp as a constant. Everything is based off the ground.

Now.. I'm really sure I read this a number of times and I'm not mis-interpreting/representing these quotes (neither have I missed anything relevant to it).

So you (RocketSurgeon) state: "Ground clamp on the negative leg, torch on the positive (our symbol for this is DC-)." (emphasis mine) and agree it's DCEP, but call it "reverse polarity" and label it "DC-",

• am I understanding this correctly
• Who exactly is "our"

You continue: "When all you see is their symbolism and terminology every day, you can not only confuse others, but yourself as well."

If you see and set this on a daily basis, I assume that ("DC-") is what the labels on your welding-power-supply say (when you set it to DCEP)?

• Might I ask, which brand and model (you might refer to) uses such a counter-standard labeling (for NASA/MIL spec. environments)? Maybe even post a picture (as this seems to be so rare)

You (RocketSurgeon) also clearly state that (at least) NASA (which you are "certain" of, but you are hinting at military as well) has their DC labeling and terminology ("nomenclature" as you say) REVERSED from the rest of the standardized welding-industry (and electro-technical industry/engineering in general for that matter).

• Can you please provide any authoritative reference(s) to that, preferably where we can all see/verify them online

It's not that I don't (want to) believe this, it's just that I really can't find any reference to such practices at all (in fact I can find plenty of NASA sources that state exactly the opposite of your claim).


Electricians and usually physicists agree that what they call "conventional current" flows in the same direction as potential/voltage/('tension' as the re-discoverers in recent history called it): so from +/positive to -/negative.
However, as we all know (I assume), electrons move from -/negative to +/positive.
For the vast majority of physics and pretty much all circuits, this doesn't matter, the location/distribution of current is the same, just change the sign.
But in some cases, like welding, it does matter: every welder knows there are distinct clearly observable differences in 'polarity' (explaining them seems to enter a sort of electro-chemical world where the direction of electrons actually is important, at least for the explanation/theory, which in turn can lead to improvements based on understanding (almost the seemingly uninteresting difference between: hot air rises vs (the truth:) cold air pushes hot air upwards) ) .
Luckily, regardless of "conventional current" and potential (having the same polarity-designations; that what your standard multimeter tells you) and the theoretical "real current", we have 2 other words to describe this, that in no way suffer from ambiguity:

• Anode (conventional positive)
and
• Cathode (conventional negative).

Let's see what lessons NASA has to offer on http://llis.nasa.gov/lesson/663:

In Gas Tungsten Arc Welding for 2219 aluminum, heat required to join the aluminum is generated through an electrical arc applied at the joint. An inert atmosphere of helium surrounds the arc to prevent oxidation during the welding process. The type of GTAW covered in this practice is direct current, straight polarity (DCSP) in which the torch serves as the negative electrode (cathode) and the work piece as the positive electrode (anode).

...

Among the important practices that will aid in ensuring high reliability welds are welding in the proper position, use of high purity shield and plasma gasses, proper cleaning of the joint prior to welding, operator certification, and computer control of the welding process. The use of 2-percent thoriated tungsten electrodes for GTAW and VPPAW provides arc stability and increases electrode service life over that of standard tungsten electrodes.

...

1. Gas Tungsten Arc Welding (GTAW) (DCSP) for 2219 Aluminum

As shown in Table 1, the flat (downhand) position is preferred for the best weld uniformity and penetration. Welding in the direct current, straight polarity (DCSP) mode while using high purity helium shield gas provides deep penetration without oxidation or contamination. (Welding in the alternating current mode is particularly suitable for welding thin aluminum as it produces less heat and provides good cathodic cleaning.) Pulsing of the weld current can be used to provide better control for some out-of-position welds. Minimizing the number of weld passes will decrease the tendency for distortion. A pointed tip electrode is used in GTAW. A positive torch "lead angle" is desirable for GTAW (DCSP) to provide preheating and more uniform melting.

Lower energy inputs generally increase weld strength. GTAW (DCSP) is a preferred process for tack welding of aluminum. GTAW (DCSP) also can be used for welding steels (including stainless steel), titanium, magnesium (with care), and refractory metals. The 2219 aluminum is an excellent alloy for maximum strength in cryogenic applications with good weldability.

NOTE: there is also a picture on there that clearly labels "anode"="+" !!!


Here is another source (of many): http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi. ... 139717.pdf from 2004:

Polarity and Why It Matters

The energy to pull an electron out of a metal is expressed as a voltage drop called the "work function."

At the anode or positive electrode the heat that must be supplied to maintain equilibrium is approximately (neglecting thermal radiation effects) the heat conducted "away" by the electrode metal. Besides heat generated by the higher resistance of a locally cooled plasma, heat is brought to the surface by the amount of the energy gained when an electron enters the electrode metal (work function) and by the greater plasma temperature of the entering electrons.

Because the electrons extract heat from the cathode and deliver heat to the anode, the welding process is considered to be more efficient when operated in "straight polarity", when the torch electrode is negative, the workpiece positive, and electrons flow to the workpiece. Unless there’s a reason not to, welding torches are operated in the straight polarity mode.

But there is a reason to weld in "reverse polarity", where the electrons flow away from the workpiece: the cathodic cleaning effect. A high speed movie of the vicinity of a GTA weld pool in the reverse polarity mode will reveal a display of sparkling points of light, miniature explosions continually occurring all over the surface. This is thought to be caused by electrostatic breakdown of a thin surface oxide layer. The positive ions in the arc accumulate on the surface of the oxide layer and induce a balancing negative charge. If the oxide layer is thin, it doesn’t take a lot of charge to produce an electric field (volts per distance) big enough to cause the oxide layer to break down in a mini-explosion. Cleaned surface is distinct and visible around the crown of a weld made in reverse polarity.

But to get the cleaning necessary to weld aluminum alloys one takes a hit in power available for welding, and the effective capability of the machine is reduced.

yes, the rest of the text mainly talks about PAW, but as you might know, the basic properties overlap with GTA

Hmm, let's see, am I comparing apples and pears?
Material: 2219 aluminum (check, that's what you and this NASA text talk about)
Tip: 2-percent thoriated tungsten electrodes (check)
GTAW.. (check).
Nope, I'm comparing apples with apples..

Is it authoritative.. well.. I'm not sure, but, it does say NASA.gov ...

'Clearly', in these texts, "they" (nasa.gov) UN-ambigously say:

• direct current, straight polarity (DCSP) in which the torch serves as the negative electrode (cathode) and the work piece as the positive electrode (anode) and electrons flow to the workpiece
  (Which we also call "DCEN" and label "DC-")
• "reverse polarity", where the electrons flow away from the workpiece: the cathodic cleaning effect
  (("DCRP") Which we also call "DCEP" and label "DC+")

Clearly, the terminology "they" use in these texts (spanning >10 years) is not reversed ("straight"="DSCP"/"+"(/DCEN) and "reverse" is the opposite of "straight" (and if "+" is for straight, then logically "-" must be for reverse)).

Using the same terminology as the rest of the world (and labeling on general welding appliances) really would make sense, especially to NASA who re-confirmed (using millions of tax-payer-hard-earned cash) on September 23 1999 that it's rather important to get your units (and terminology) "straight" (pun intended)..


Here is where I get lost even further. You say (seemingly with the intention of explaining the reasoning): "They consider the ground clamp as a constant. Everything is based off the ground."

By all means, that would depend on the welding-power-supply (I intentionally use this word as it doesn't implicate the working, neither a earth-reference)..
An old trafo AC-out 'buzzbox' would have it's 'ground' referenced to 'earth' because the neutral wire is connected to earth in your home/shop's power-entry-point (because that saves the electricity-distribution-company 25% wire), which is why the 'ground' is 'safe' as there is a minimal potential between trafo-'ground>you>earth. In electronics we also call it neutral or cold or (misleading "-" as general accepted symbol). The other wire "hot"/"live"/"+" (were you connect your electrode-clamp) swings above and below this "neutral"/"cold"/"ground"/"-"..
Now, judging from the published specs and waveforms of most of the manufacturers I've seen, inverter-based ac-TIGgers do the same (swing a hot around a ground).
DC-Out buzzboxes are often 'not floating', so again, they have a reasonably safe end and a "hot end" (with respect to the earth). Reversing polarity by reversing the clamp and torch-leads therefore just shifts the 'danger'-part from torch to workpiece and vice-versa. At the very least, cheaper models do the same by flicking a switch.

However, since we get AC (revolving around earth-potential) from the wall-outlet to start with (unless you use dc car-battaries), setups (that one could compare with an audio-power-amp) could keep one lead referenced to earth regardless of polarity (a 'simple' matter of choosing which half (positive or negative referenced to earth)) of the power-supply is to be used. Naturally there are other methods and tricks..

Now, assuming that most welding-power-supply have one 'lead'/'output' referenced to 'ground' ('earth' Is what I assume you really mean), or even just any potential-difference referenced to another potential,

• why should (for example) +70 volt (so 70 above reference) be labeled with "-" (or be called "reverse") as you say

One could answer that by stating that (based on theory) the current will be minus something (as resistance will also come into play, making it pretty awkward to talk/reason about, etc. etc. and a lot of proverbial horses beaten after death..).

So please, RocketSurgeon (who planted the seed of reversal-doubt') or anyone else, help clear this up:
What machine(s) and What NASA (or anything else in current use) specifications have this terminology and/or labeling reversed , and please point to an acceptable reference!

Thank you very much!!

[Otto Nobedder]

The short-and-sweet of this is simple. Mr. Voltaire got it wrong in the beginning, and it's been wrong ever since.

Electrons flow FROM what we commonly call the "-" potential TO the "+" potential.

If that screwy Frenchman had gotten it right, we would not be having conversations like this.

It appears NASA uses actual physics, rather than conventional speech, to describe current flow.

Go figure...

Steve S

[GreinTime]

And the even simpler answer is that NASA and the military utilize Electron Theory vs Conventional Theory when describing electrical theory.

Electrons have a negative charge, protons have a positive charge. Electricity is the flow of Electrons, which by nature flow from a "negative" to a "positive" due to the age old "Opposites Attract" theory.

[skepsis]

Respectfully... that really doesn't answer the question... at all (and 'it appears' rieks like 'opinion'/'guess'/'deduction' whilst we are talking about black and white written facts).
I (think) I already clearly described the flow of electrons (in reality and 'conventional') in my question (and suggested the possibility of looking at it from the point of current-flow).

I'm still looking for for actual examples of welding-power-supplies with reversed terminology and specifications with reversed terminology/labeling: being 'reversed' and 'DC-'...

Because the NASA sources I could find (in abundance) do NOT reverse terminology or label(sign) (as claimed by RocketSurgeon), something I have very clearly quoted.
They do however also include a correct description of electron-flow (next to common terminology and UN-ambigous identifying anode/cathode). I can not find ANY NASA text with terminology reversed, neither can I find any hardware with the terminology reversed. (But I feel I'm repeating text and references from my previous post and wonder If you really read my question).

If this is such common knowledge that NASA and the MILITARY REVERSE terminology and hardware-labeling, then.. it should be easy to provide a proper answer (that might better fit the >4 hours I put into just typing and formatting my question, not talking about close to 30 hours of research.. which according to Google results... all lead back to ONLY this thread on this forum).

PS: Mr. Voltaire??? Don't you mean Benjamin Franklin (and William Watson at about the same time) who defined "positive" and "negative"?

[Otto Nobedder]

Well, skepsis,

(and thank you for choosing not to give a name like bob or joe that would make you familiar to us),

I guess you're going to have to be patient and wait for a reply from Rocketsurgeon, since he seems to be the target of your animosity/curiousity.

Steve S

[Braehill]

skepsis,
Was there something in the introduction section that you construed as an offer of some kind consolation prize for being right. Or maybe there was something that made you think you were entitled to having one of our members publicly apologize to you for having different views.

You mentioned that you spent countless hours researching and typing and editing your post and through all that it seems that it still doesn't insulate you from being an asshole in your approach. You seem to have found the facts that make you happy and found a delivery system that leaves those receiving them with a bad taste in our mouth.

You come here demanding answers that you're not owed and offered up very little in return. We so glad you signed up for this, I feel we all just got a little worse for it, thanks. Please come back when you feel less combative and a little more neighborly and maybe we'll get a chance to learn something from you or by the very slight chance, teach you something.

Len

[DeweyO]

Or-- I think it safe to say the horse is quite dead by now.

Can we get back to the topic?

Dewey

[rick9345]

skepsis

Countless hours?

any of that actually welding?
does the vernacular really make a difference?

[skepsis]

Dear Mr. Nobedder,

It truly makes me sad if you perceive me as targeting Rocketsurgeon with "Violent hatred leading to active opposition; active enmity; energetic dislike" (which is the explanation given to my by https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/animosity (I'm not a 'native speaker')).
That was NEVER my intention! (but I honestly can not find such attitude or behavior in my question)

Even tough I really tried to make it clear that my question was "not intended to put anyone out there" and I only attributed (behavior which is expected and encouraged in the communities I'm usually active in) the quotes (being the origin/foundation) of my "chain of thought" leading to my confusion/question.

The very first question is even: "am I understanding this correctly?" (something that indeed only Rocketsurgeon can answer, just as what equipment he uses and who "our" is ("our" could refer to for example the company where he works (I don't need the name of that company of course) or his colleagues/peers or the community he is active in, etc.).)

I also said: "It's not that I don't (want to) believe this, it's just that I really can't find any reference to such practices at all (in fact I can find plenty of NASA sources that state exactly the opposite of your claim)."

I also (tried to) demonstrate effort that I already made trying to answer the question myself and both quoted and linked to sources relevant to the question (quotes that in itself also attribute to the overall context of this thread, sourced from authoritative sources).

I also took great care in trying not to paraphrase (unintentionally put things in someone else's mouth thy didn't say) and tried to make it clear whenever I made an assumption/guess.

Besides, after putting in a lot of time and effort in the subject, then again by writing/formatting my post, trying to be objective, clear and founded, credit and attribute and be complete (not requiring several posts trying to narrow down the what/why to my question), then why on earth would I want to rub the people that I'm asking my question the wrong way?

Yes, people, as in multiple, because the essential core of my question is not exclusive to Rocketsurgeon because I ended my question with:
"So please, RocketSurgeon (who planted the seed of reversal-doubt') or anyone else, help clear this up:
What machine(s) and What NASA (or anything else in current use) specifications have this terminology and/or labeling reversed , and please point to an acceptable reference!"
knowing that bryce39 "had the luxury of working with some pretty sharp NDT guys over the years in the space program" and expect there are more experienced users here (with NASA/MIL stuff).

I'm sorry if I still came across 'hostile' (I'm failing to produce a sentence using the word animosity).
If you meant something entirely different with the word 'animosity', then.. well.. please disregard the above (and explain what you meant, thank you).

I'm however not sorry for respectfully pointing out when something just doesn't answer the question. My question already described the flow of electrons and established that the quoted nasa-sources utilize Electron Theory (as correctly labeled by GreinTime) when describing electrical theory.

Let's make the essence of my question as short as possible (for full context read the thread or my original question or both if you don't trust me).

RocketSurgeon wrote:
-"DC- (reverse polarity)"
-"DCEP is the polarity we use."
-"Ground clamp on the negative leg, torch on the positive (our symbol for this is DC-)."
MinnesotaDave repeated his question: "does NASA and the military label their stuff backwards from the welding industry?"
(by 'stuff' I assume MinnesotaDave meant atleast the label/symbol "DC-" and maybe/possibly terminology "reverse polarity" as well).
RocketSurgeon replied: "I know for sure that NASA does."

All I tried to do was to ask to clear this up (with some sources), especially as the NASA sources I could find state:
- direct current, straight polarity (DCSP) in which the torch serves as the negative electrode (cathode) and the work piece as the positive electrode (anode) and electrons flow to the workpiece (And labels it "DC-" in pictures)
- "reverse polarity", where the electrons flow away from the workpiece (which they label "DC+" in pictures).
Clearly these nasa-texts I found do NOT "label their stuff backwards".

Again, I never said I didn't believe it, I just ask for some proof/reference/clarification. If that is wrong then maybe it is really time to start feeding our crops with gatorade instead of water.

PS: I still don't know what you mean by "Mr. Voltaire got it wrong in the beginning, and it's been wrong ever since."


EDIT: I see that there came some other responses while I was typing (and translating etc.).

Dear Braehill, you might want to read the above as well.
-"consolation prize for being right"
?? When did I say I was right? The first line of my post states "I'm lost, completely (regarding terminology)", My first question was: "am I understanding this correctly?"
-"you think you were entitled to having one of our members publicly apologize to you for having different views"
I never ever asked for a public apology in any way (why on earth would I? He never harmed or attacked me in any way). "different views"? I thought he was talking about NASA standards, not his personal view..
-"You seem to have found the facts that make you happy"
I said: "It's not that I don't (want to) believe this, it's just that I really can't find any reference.." but above all, I ASKED about it on a forum with experienced welders.
-"and found a delivery system"
for what? stating that I don't know and that I couldn't find references? asking for some references?
-"You come here demanding answers that you're not owed"
I never demanded anything neither do I think that anyone 'owes' me anything (other than humanely assuming best intentions), I used (and meant) the words "Please" (more than once) and "might I ask" (as opposed to TELL ME!!).
-"and offered up very little in return" uhu.. quoting (for if the link goes down) and linking to NASA sources outlining practices on quality (even preferred) aluminum welding in DC offers nothing of value to a thread titled "TIG Welding Aluminum on DC" from NASA sources, backing up the claims that really it is true (the openingpost from this thread itself already stated "They all say you Can't do it!"), you don't need AC and DC is capable of an arguably better weld (at the very least on par).
From where did you get all this??? None of these 'accusations' hold any water (as anyone can verify).
Anyway, I still am sorry that apparently I came across as an "asshole". In no way was that ever my intention (I already explained above why I did what/the way I did it, with the best intentions).

Dear rick9345,
-"Countless hours? " .. of research into the subject if such terminology/labeling is backwards in some areas and finding examples and references.
-"any of that actually welding?"
Why, can I find references to written standards and hardware by looking at a puddle of liquid metal? (that is a joke)
-"does the vernacular really make a difference?"
But of-course.. it is very important to know when terminology might mean something else then one would expect it to be, and know when to expect that one should interpret information (or 'welding recipes') differently from the standard. It's equally useful to be aware that the labeling on a welding-power-supply might not mean what you'd expect it to mean. Besides that, I can not see why it would be wrong to try to understand what your equipment and material does and why, which also leads to better understanding why some recipes work better in some cases (especially now that one can program any imaginable wave-form and patterns).

[rick9345]

Ahhhhh!! This is a test with no answers
"MMPI"

[MinnesotaDave]

Skepsis - you seem to be an argumentative type - bad day or something?

If you stay on this website you'll notice that your type of posts are not generally the norm.

"Less is more"

[Otto Nobedder]

I get the impression that part of our perception of Skepsis' posts come from a language barrier.

He did mention he's not a native speaker.

I'll grant that these are fair questions, as there is some confusion in the posts he quoted.

I'll see if I can get Chris' attention by e-mail, and ask if he wants to weigh in on this (though it's a daunting read at this point).

Steve S

P.S. Despite our perceptions/inferences, no rules have been broken that I can see. The questions have been far more "matter of fact" lacking emotion (the language barrier?) than combative in any way. I'll be interested to see where this goes.

[soutthpaw]

I know a couple pros that are really good at DC aluminum TIG. I just got a tank of helium myself, Got some hands on help from one of the pros. I just need a bunch of practice at it. The arc and the weld pool look much different from AC TIG. Just need to.play with it more. Only do it for fun anyway.

[chadwilliam1]

Thanks OP. I just did some DC tig on aluminum with 4043 and It came out pretty good. I am interested in to try it on something heavy.

[Nikolai]

Hi,
I have a DC only machine and after some learning on steel I'd like to try aluminium .
Somebody mentioned a bit of argon in the helium helps clean the puddle . Will a 90/10 He/Ar mix work ?


Cheers

[johnnynightstick]

I like using nouns as verbs and adverbs.

Since his profile says he's from Munich... I would say English is not his first language.
English and German share similar grammar but they can be very different.
No need to be childish. You end up looking like a jackass.


Sent from my SM-P605V using Tapatalk