I guess scince I mentioned publish, I need to answer to this.
I don't feel that one has to be published to have an opinion.
HOWEVER since not particularly constructive criticisim comes so easy for some people, I offered up the challange to that individual to do a better job than Giovanni did, get it published, and stand the review process themself.
You mention what a gentleman Chuck was, I miss Him too. If it wasn't constructive, HE didn't post it.
I never met Him, but I am sure He was a better man than Me in many respects.
As to being a nobody in the welding world, I am not ashamed of it, I come here to learn.
By electrode
Date 03-03-2012 10:36
Edited 03-03-2012 15:19
46.00,
well done.
I also want to say thanks to Mr John Wright for the apologies stated - even though unnecessary, since I wasn't hurt by what's been said. However, I came to the decision to delete everything that I had to say on the OP and please believe me, I was considering a while before posting this.
A newbie, active at least, to this forum, I simply found it rude how nantong was treated. To me namely, I must repeat myself, he is an exception, having a rare ability. That is, to get to the point, straight and concise. Simply put - someone, able to call a spade a spade without the need to fill two additional pages with hollow phrases.
Anyway, I guess nantong has rest his case already on this - more than understandable, when reading male bovine excrement such as: "...you sound like one of the educated idiots who has pissed me off for 40 years".
You know, I devoted the effort to trawl through the amount of posts and comments nantong has dropped here all along.
And I must admit. I couldn't find anything that dramatic, justifying the offending approach chosen by some of the forum fellow members. As he posted: "Gents, it is well noted that none of you attempted to address any of the technical issues I raised."; the reaction was: "I haven't read the article but did read your disrespectful post above and you do have serious "technical issues." This again raised nantong's answer: "Before you start making comments get a hold off the report and read it otherwise you cannot make any input."
Understandable? Absolutely, to me.
And he also said something quite valuable: "I do no not care if Crisi has written here for twelve years, that means nothing to me."
He is right - of course he is! It shouldn't mean anything, neither the title the OP bears, nor the amount of time the OP is active, nor the number of comments he'd posted in this forum. I seem to understand, and here's no offence intended, that a few among the 3rd stage level fellows have gained their 'diamonds', amongst others of course, also for posting smilies or single word comments. So what. If this is ok - let it go. I don't care.
To me hardly understandable however. Is there eventually some sort of subtle 'bigotry' noticeable herein? For instance I could find comments in the forum such as: "Stop being such a cheap bastard and take another test. Pay for it with your own money, and get them in your name."
Answered by: "Wow! That's taking em out to the ol woodshed there. Maybe he isn't a cheap bastard.. Maybe he is a poor bastard."
Causing:
"Did I whip ass a little too hard?", finally causing the answer: "I love you ...".
Strange? No way, since I could learn: "There is an acceptable way to disagree and there is an unacceptable way to disagree."
You know, it was also nice to learn all these funny martial terms such as "toss hand grenades"; "hit with some of the shrapnel"; bleed from the grenades we elect to toss"... I couldn't consider nantong a warrior - as yet. Oh dear, what ridiculous!
Anyway, and please note, this is the point in time where myself is becoming extremely serious - it proves a severe difference to me, when it comes to welding. Reading an article, not an advert, in one of the world's most respected welding trade journals that leaves me confused is, to say the very least, a serious issue.
A brief excerpt of what's been written in the "report":
Page 25 / 2nd column: "The bevels were hand made with an oxyacetylene torch and then cleaned with a grinding disk".
Page 25 / 3rd column: "Oxyacetylene cutting was chosen".
Page 25 / 3rd column: "The intention was to reproduce as closely as possible the real conditions existing in practice.".
Page 26 / 2nd column: "The bevel was cut with an oxyacetylene torch and cleaned with grinding disk".
Page 26 / 2nd column: "The bevel angle was 60 deg which we considered acceptable...".
Page 26 / 2nd column: Brazil is a tropical country and welds were never made at a room temperature of less than 25°C.".
Page 27 / 2nd column: "The average grain size of the heat affected zones were not significantly different from the base metal. That is due to the fact the sizes were not measured in the region immediately next to the weld bead...".
Page 27 / 3rd column: "The research demonstrated that the cutting and welding operation in the same region can be performed safely at least six times on low carbon steel.".
So, again. No information on welding parameters, no information on heat input measurement, no information on welding procedure (stringer bead- weaving-technique), no information on the arc mode generated, no explanation on the decision to choose a 60° bevel, even though a 45° would have proven better for Impact testing (BTW the 'why' was excellently described by nantong), no further constraints on the "conclusion"; by e.g. explicitly defining the trial boundary conditions again(!). Instead of that. Generalisation, repetition, rambling - or as likely you would use to say - ranting.
No. I would have expected somewhat more from "four Professors" dealing with such an extraordinary intricate topic. Again. I do appreciate both time and effort Prof Crisi et al. have devoted to even deal with this interesting topic. But as some have said already, it seems too important and too interesting to just provide such a generalised and simplistic view.
You know. I remain hopeful, nevertheless. Since I could read some of the questions I would have asked as well, but coming from 803056 who was saying: "Could this experiment been done differently?" Even though I tend to disagree with his assumption of using a Gleeble, the question asked is wonderful. So why not incorporating such an idea into the article instead of tripple repeating that an oxyacetylene torch was used for cutting?
Or, "They could have used an electrode meeting a different classification had they chose to do so. Would changing the experiment altered the test results?".
Good point! Go ahead. Could that alter the experimental results?
However, as long as the document is due of the minimum data which I, at least, expect from an AWS Welding Journal technical article* (written by individuals showing the highest education level), as long it will be difficult to answer these questions.
That, amongst others, was the reason for me, to 100% agree with nantong and you, 46.00.
BTW wouldn't it make sense that the OP finally provides us with his appreciated feedback? Such as, yes, I seem to recall it was nantong also, already requested?
I suppose that would help all of us, to rest this case here finally!
*) By the way, the same journal provides a very positive article in this respect. "Ten Signs You're Ready for an Automated Plasma Retrofit" beginning at page 34. That supplies technical data and facts making it possible to everyone to replicate the results.