Stump the professor II

Date 11-19-2012 13:39

I can only ask more questions.

1.) What is the effect of increased filler metal and coating chemical constitutents?
2.) What is the weld fusion zone chemistry relative to the melting point vs. the base metal?

Please realize that I have not been involved with any SMAW since 1979, but my THEORY would be that there is a change to the weld zone chemistry that effects melting point.

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 11-19-2012 13:46

"My guess"
Consumable electrode vs unconsumable electrode

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 11-19-2012 14:41

Ok John

But than just think about SMAW (consumable electrode) With EN there would still be greater heat on the work piece wouldn't there? But EP digs deeper... Why oh why?

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 11-19-2012 14:48

SMAW has fluxes to help? GTAW only has current and gas.

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 11-19-2012 17:03

I'm sticking to my Flux theory for now. Physics of Welding, Sub-Chapter named "Covered Electrode Transfer" page # 66 in Vol I 7th edition of the Fundamentals Of Welding Handbook published by the AWS....explains why a covered electrode penetrates better than a bare electrode (and with which DC current direction). I'll let you dig in and read it for yourself vs me trying to explain something that is a bit over my head.

By Oneatatime (**)

Date 11-19-2012 15:48 Edited 11-19-2012 16:41

Current Density. We use EN on GTAW to keep from burning the tungsten up and large diameter electrodes are undesirable with GTAW, and EP on SMAW for deep penetration with a slower deposition.
1/8 SMAW = 120 amps.
3/32 GTAW = 120 amps.
Current density is the amperage per square inch of cross sectional area of an electrode.
Remember there is a direct relationship to penetration and amperage.
So lets take a given amperage of 120 amps.
Area = Pie R2
Pie * .125 squared = .049087385 ( 1/4 electrode) So 120/ .049087385 =   2444.62    DCEP GTAW electrode
Pie * .0625 squared = .012271846 ( 1/8 electrode) So 120/.012271846 =   9778.48    DCEP SMAW electrode
Pie * .046875 squared = .006902914 ( 3/32 electrode) So 120/.006902914 = 17383.96    DCEN GTAW electrode

From this we can see the current density of the smaller electrode is higher at a given amperage, So how does this help us understand this? Well we can
see the an arc with a high current density concentrates more energy at one point than one with a lower current density, creating a more concentrated deposit.

The next portion of the original question can easily be changed with the shielding gases and ionization potentials. So depending upon the shielding gas utilized with GTAW and the Gases created with SMAW, we can begin to understand all of the variables associated with the processes, gases, and electrodes. I would suggest looking at the Praxair Shielding gas manual.

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 11-19-2012 16:01 Edited 11-19-2012 16:04

What about it?

Greater during SMAW vs GTAW?   Why?

Greater SMAW current density in EN vs EP ?   Why.

GTAW penetrates deeper in EN than EP   (this we know)

SMAW penetrates deeper in EP than EN   (this also we know)

The main thrust is why the difference in penetration between the processes as it relates to polarity?... Rather than why does SMAW penetrate more than GTAW... That is not the question.

How exactly does current density enter the conversation...?

By OBEWAN

Date 11-19-2012 16:14

If SMAW EP has the current density focused on the electrode, more of the electode is melted than with SMAW EN which leads me to suspect that there is something about electrode materials being melted that causes increased penetration. But maybe there is a higher current density at the base metal where the electrons are existing but this does not agree with common sense. Surely this must have been published in some textbook somewhere or in a research paper. When Henry comes online he will probably post up a dozen links to the information.

By Oneatatime (**)

Date 11-19-2012 16:19 Edited 11-19-2012 16:21

Because if u use DCEP with GTAW you require a tungsten at least 1/4" to carry 80 - 125 amps

Lets look at the melting point of the tungsten as well 6170* F using DCEN changes the point of the heat to the base metal not the end of the electrode, therefore allowing us enough change to weld without the tungsten melting.

By 99205

Date 11-20-2012 03:24

http://www.asminternational.org/content/ASM/StoreFiles/74575G_CH.pdf

By RonG

Date 11-21-2012 17:11

I am reluctant to enter this discussion for I know I am venturing in amongst some giants in this field.

It seems to me you and many others have provided the answers but are seeking as you say Lawrence “I'm always looking for a more simple way to explain this”.

Well I am as about as simple as anyone can be so I think I’ll take a stab at it.

In the case of GTAW EN; you have already stated that 70% of the heat is on the work side and when you consider the plasma field is forced in the direction of the work (by gas flow) the heat would tend to penetrate deeper (path of least resistance) versus outward to be dissipated or blown away by cooler gas.

GTAW EP; the ball shape of the electrode would tend to spread the heat of the plasma field wider due to a wider arc path, spreading the heat out before it can penetrate.

SMAW EP; if I have this correct the current flow (electron flow notation) is from the work to the electrode. The arc and the plasma field are not confined by flowing gases thus the arc pattern and voltage are greatly affected by the arc gap and we already know the lower voltage gives deeper penetration and the shorter arc gap uses less volts and produces better welds.

SMAW EN; as I see it the electrode would be consumed at a much faster rate and that would greatly hinder penetration.

By Tommyjoking (****)

Date 11-30-2012 03:31

"I am reluctant to enter this discussion for I know I am venturing in amongst some giants in this field."

AHHH no worries RON...most of these giants have soft fists, otherwise I would be a bloody pulp by now.

By electrode (***)

Date 11-24-2012 10:12

Lawrence,

Not sure, but noticing this thread obvisously dropping I now dare to ask:

Could the "19 year old farm girl" draw her own conclusion(s) from what's been discussed among the experts?

Short. Could her thirst for knowledge be allayed?

Just curious.

P.S. Good question(s) and discussion.

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 11-24-2012 11:17

I won't find out until Monday or Tuesday, but I suspect we will have a good talk about all the postings.

I thought it turned out to be a good discussion as well. :)

By electrode (***)

Date 11-24-2012 11:33 Edited 11-24-2012 12:37

Thank you for the quick response, Lawrence.

Being informed on her interpretation of all of this would be nice.

I'm almost sure: "To be continued!".

EDIT:
I must admit. The structure of posting and responding on this forum causes some confusion, at least with me.
E.g. "RonG" shared some valuable technically driven arguments/statements.
Quite underneath however, I can learn from another gentleman ("Oneatatime") how many shelfs it requires to store his welding books.
This brings me to question the latter to have any connection to "RonG's" post - or am I overlooking something here?

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 11-24-2012 16:20

Yes Electrode!

You are... It all depends on which reply label did you click, or anyone else for that matter...

For instance, Let's just say that everyone clicked the last reply label chronologically speaking, the structure of the thread would show the replies cascading in chronological order... :eek:

However, if one would instead click the reply label of any response regardless of the order chronologically speaking of course, then the result is what one sees quite often here. :roll:

Respectfully,
Henry

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 11-24-2012 16:26

Btw, I haven't yet given my opinion because I was hospitalized again and missed the thread until yesterday, but I will post very shortly! :eek:

So forgive me for being so tardy in responding to this thread in particular. :lol:

Respectfully,
Henry

By electrode (***)

Date 11-24-2012 18:13 Edited 11-24-2012 18:18

I suppose that is what everybody (including myself) is patiently waiting for.

Someone should dig a little deeper, before the "19 year old farm girl" may draw her reasonable summary.

EDIT:
Sure you'll be the chosen one.

By electrode (***)

Date 11-24-2012 17:51

I seem to understand.

Then I can learn the response mentioned to be yet referring to "RonG's" post.

I do appreciate your explanation.

Thank you - and get well soon.

By electrode (***)

Date 11-30-2012 14:41

Lawrence,

how blessed I can find myself to yet become aware of the all-embracing answer:

"I am going to say it has to be the burritos."

That clarifies it all.

N.B. You know, I honestly was seriously considering to contribute to this thread in due time. However, never I could have treated this marvellous subject in a better way. Never.

By grizzzly (**)

Date 11-30-2012 02:55

The heat balance between the anode and the cathode is determined by ion balance of the atoms of the atmosphere (shielding gas)

Or how many burritos you ate the night before

I am going to say it has to be the burritos.

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 11-19-2012 16:56

Current flows from negative to positive regardless of process according to all I have been taught.

By yojimbo (***)

Date 11-19-2012 21:11

Current flows from negative to positive is my understanding as well. When the work piece is grounded [negative] the electrons pass from base metal into electrode as in DCEP SMAW. I was suggesting this electron flow direction might be the reason for deeper penetration. Suggested without any detailed understanding of the physics involved. My thinking, as incorrect as it probably is, suggested to me, the flow of electrons from the base metal might allow for/cause a deeper/better fusion in that there might be some element of increased melting of the base metal occuring as a result of the electon flow effecting base metal first or prior to effecting electrode consumption. Sheer speculation on my part, looking to see if it's anywhere near the mark or babbling too obtusely to ever hit it.

By Superflux (****)

Date 11-19-2012 23:01 Edited 11-19-2012 23:17

Some observations, and of course one good question Always leads to more questions...

Barring electrical flow and gas ionizations, etc... this is how I see the difference.
GTAW has the arc focused and uninterrupted. This is because the arc is merely the energy (heat) source. Filler metal is deposited outside the arc stream and is melted by radiant heat, and is therefore allowing the arc to stay focused on the puddle and base metal.
SMAW has both the energy and filler metal occupying the same space. With this in mind, then it seems to me logical that the arc energy is being interrupted by the globular transfer of molten metal and flux. A stroboscope as it were.
Without this, I would "guess" that Electrode positive would give dramatic penetration increase if there were no filler metal interference.
This sorta explains why we do not Carbon Arc Gouge on straight polarity.
Just simple observations from a simple (obtuse?) welder.

Has anyone ever seen an etching showing the difference in penetration of a GTAW's arc on a piece of metal under a controlled environment with only the polarity as the variable? I'd like to see that same 1/4" tungsten at say 85 amps on both polarities and then etch and check for depth of penetration.

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 11-19-2012 23:13

No matter how I try to frame the question it's like nobody gets it.

The question is not "Why does SMAW penetrate more than GTAW"

The question is:

GTAW DCEN penetrates more DCEP

SMAW DCEP penetrates more than DCEN

Why?

As to Superflux's question about GTAW arc's on both polarities with etch... Yes... In most cases the DCEP will be a much wider etch profile and shallower... The DCEN will be narrow and a bit deeper, with alternating current as you might suspect showing a profile someplace in between EN and EP

Although the large electrode required for EP must be sharpened and tapered to ignite an EN arc so the surface emitting is not typically the same.

By DaveBoyer (*****)

Date 11-20-2012 02:06 Edited 11-20-2012 02:19

Are we really sure that it does ?

If You take an electrode that works on both polarities, like a 6013, is this a provable point ?

[I have not tried]

Look in an old text, and find where they show how to determine polarity by striking an arc with a carbon electrode.

The shape of the arc IS DIFFERENT on DCEN than on DCEP. I don't know if this explanes a difference in penetration or not.

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 11-20-2012 12:55

Dave,

I have done fillet breaks with 6013 (without macros) and my observations go along with the textbooks as far as your question goes.

With the 6013 EP is definatly better for penetration.... I like EN for smaw of gage or sheetmetal especially vert down.

By Paladin (***)

Date 11-20-2012 13:59

Lawrence,
I have wondered the same thing about the different polarity of DC TIG and Stick welding. I can't seem to get it clear how the electron flow, negative to positive, affects the arc.
Recently I had to weld 14 GA purlins to rafters. I tried a few rods EN with 3/32 6010 and it seems the arc is "wider" more like a spray and less penetration.

Now not to side track your question, but maybe in the same breath someone could explain:
Why does Gas Shielded Flux Core weld with EP and Self Shielded Flux Core (usually) weld with EN? Both seem to get good penetration.

And I also vote for the 19 year old farm girl (from East Texas) explanation.

Floyd

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 11-20-2012 14:21

Oh sure Hijack the thread with an equally good question about FCAW !

Now *current density* has a huge impact when contrasting cored electrodes vs solid electrodes... But thats another story for another day.

Self shielded FCAW (EN) has less penetration vs Gas Shielded FCAW (EP) And this can be verified with similar wire diameters and similar wire feed speeds (Self Shielded typically requires lower voltages to spray)

So we have yet another example given to us by Paladin where EP gives better penetration than EN

So...... With FCAW.....Even though the current is flowing toward the Cathode (EP) where the greater amount of heat would be there is still greater penetration into the work piece (annode) where less heat would reside... If I understand polarity at all.

Henry? Al?

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 11-20-2012 15:07

You can't win Lawrence, we are all so self centered and interested in our own topics we just keep changing your posts to fit our current needs. :lol:

OH, I have no answer except to say, are you trying to compare apples with oranges? I'm not sure you can really ask that question and get a definitive answer that will apply the way you want in order to answer a quizzical student's query.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By Oneatatime (**)

Date 11-20-2012 15:29

I agree with this, like i said at a given amperage with the current density, but we don't use a given amperage with GTAW, as compared to SMAW. With SMAW we are limited to core diameter and flux coating, to much amperage renders the flux useless and the resistance of the wire burns up the electrode. What we do know with GTAW we use EN to keep from burning up the electrode, so it actually is comparing apples to oranges IMO.

By Oneatatime (**)

Date 11-20-2012 15:33

There is one VERY LARGE VARIABLE that has yet to be discussed....Electrode type with SMAW, What are we comparing it to.
6010 Deep Penetration
7018 Moderate penetration
6013 Light penetration

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 11-20-2012 15:55

I touched on this in a response to Dave B.

of the 3 electrodes you mentioned... E6013 is the only one that is rated (designed) for all 3 polarities.

With E6013

DCEP has greater Penn

DCEN Has least Penn

AC has Penn in between EN and EP...

GTAW exact opposite (except for AC)

Now were talkin Oneatatime!

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 11-20-2012 16:12

SMAW Electrode type...doesn't this still fall back on the flux coating issue that I was harping on earlier? The bare electrode underneath is still a steel core, it's the fluxes that make up the rod's welding characteristics.(deep penetration, moderate penetration, light penetration) Wish there was an online version of the text I was reading earlier from the AWS Welding Handbook Vol I, 7th edition....I hate to have to copy and type all of that out right now.

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 11-20-2012 15:51 Edited 11-20-2012 15:57

Brent, Jon

I agree completely (sort of) that it is apples and oranges.

Still... In some processes EN penetrates deeper

In other processes EP penetrates deeper.

Even with apples and oranges.. we should be able to get down to some discussion as to why eh?

Every piece of learning I've ever experienced with one exception.... States without ambiguity, that during an AC GTAW operation, Penetration occurs EN and cleaning occurs EP

With a multi-polarity SMAW comparison... EN penetrates... EP reduces penetration comparaitively and AC is someplace in between.

By Oneatatime (**)

Date 11-20-2012 16:13

The difference in the heat generated between the anode and the cathode can be determine how certain types of arcs are used. For example, GTAW aluminum using argon gas the electrode as a cathode can use about ten times more current without melting than when used as an anode. This indicates that more heat is generated at the anode than at the cathode. The submerged arc welding process generates more heat at the cathode rather than the anode, as evidenced by the higher melt off rate when the electrode is negative, the same is true for EXX10 Electrode welding.
In welding the acr not only provides the heat needed to melt the electrode and the base metal but under certain conditions must also supply the means to transport the molten metal from the tip of the electrode to the work.

More of the heat developed by the arc is transferred to the weld pool with consumable electrodes than with non consumable electrodes, This produces higher thermal efficiencies and narrower heat affected zones. Typical thermal efficiencies for metal arc welding are 75 to 80 percent, for welding with non consumable electrodes 50 to 60 percent
( Cited ) Procedure Handbook Of Arc Welding 2000 Pages 1.3-2 Through `1.3-3
I would say this would be your answer

By OBEWAN

Date 11-20-2012 16:22

IMHO that is the best answer yet but perhaps not what Lawerence is looking for. Molten metal has heat, and heat causes penetration. Reverse polarity melts causes more molten metal which transfers more heat. That seems logical to me.

By bozaktwo1 (***)

Date 11-20-2012 17:52

I'm going with Magic. Sometimes, as a process manager, I already can't see the forest for the trees. Magic. Yep, works for me!

By Oneatatime (**)

Date 11-20-2012 18:11

Okay, here is the issue i have, EN penetrates deeper on GTAW, The amperage requirements of the GTAW weld are higher therefore its hard to actually compare them to one another. I was trying to show this with the Current density illustration, i don't have a big enough tig torch to fit a tungsten large enough to carry the currents required of EP.
According to Edward Bonhart, ( With DCEN higher currents may be used on tungsten electrodes of the same size. This increased current density will yield deeper penetration, permit higher speeds, and form a narrow, deep bead, The narrower bead is due to the smaller electrode used, while increased penetration is due to the heat being carried by the electrons. ) The SMAW process also has the electrons, but they create what? A faster burn off rate on EN with the SMAW process due to the base metal having 70% of the heat created in it. What is the melting temperature of a SMAW electrode 2900*. roughly, vs Tungsten 6200* roughly. Even with EN i can vaporize a tungsten but not to the effect of EP due to the electrons flowing from negative to positive.

The burn off rate is accelerated on EN with SMAW and according to literature the penetration is reduced, but as i stated we are limited with amperage due to the flux coatings, no matter what polarity where as with GTAW we are limited with amperage by diameter of the electrode as well but not to the effect of SMAW. The different type of flux coating, the faster or slower the burn off rate, and the variation in penetration characteristics. We know this.

I am going to get my 6013 out and run some samples and etch them, the problem is do we actually know it penetrates deeper at a given amperage or are we just assuming this? The function of the flux coating has alot to do with the penetration characteristics of SMAW, the problem with trying to compare them to 6013 is it is a light penetrating rod. So we are back to one thing, at a given amperage and a given voltage with 6013 of 1/8" diameter and GTAW tungsten 1/8" diameter what polarity produces what well i cant actually do this, because the 1/8" tungsten on EP will vaporize at the amperages required. There is a problem with trying to compare them, they are not the same thing. The GTAW tungsten provides a deep narrow weld with EN, A wide Shallow with EP at a given amperage. A SMAW electrode provides for a narrower weld with a faster burn off rate on EN due to the same thing with a larger area. Look at the effects of Tungsten sharpening angles, we cannot assume they are the same diameter as the tungsten is concentrated to a point, not 180* as the SMAW electrode.

So the problem with actually comparing them is we shouldn't they are not the same thing.

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 11-20-2012 23:18

Oh but we should compare them... Absolutly we should.

Just like preparing a DCEN tungsten... We sharpen our minds when we compare them!

I appreciate your valliant attempts to communicate.

You see Oneatatime... The questions will come and come and come and come.

You will hear this question again one day in the future...

Do you think you will answer it with a quick two words "current density" and skip off on your merry way?

I doubt it friend.

By Oneatatime (**)

Date 11-21-2012 01:01

Non Consumable Electrode

Because the GTAW En is a Inert gas with an ionization potential of 15.7 volts, the EP GTAW electrode cannot handle the electron bombardment therefore it vaporizes.
Argon Thermal conductivity, 9.69 at 32F
Ionization Potential 15.7 volts
Pure argon, when used as a shielding gas has mild thermal conductivity, and produces an arc which has two zones: a narrow hot core and a considerably cooler outer zone. As a result, the
penetration profile of a typical weld fusion area is characterized by a narrow “finger” at the root and a wider top. ( Cited Praxair Shielding Gas Handbook)

Consumable Electrode
The SMAW EP is an Active gas with an ionization potential upwards of 23.8 volts The consumable electrode can handle the electron bombardment of either polarity producing either a shallow or a deep penetrating characteristic.
C02 Thermal Conductivity 8.62 at 32F
Ionization potential 14.4 volts
A gas with high thermal conductivity conducts more of the heat outward from the arc core. This results in a broader, hotter arc. This type of heat distribution, which occurs with helium, argon/hydrogen, and argon/carbon dioxide mixtures is more uniform and produces a generally wider profile throughout the fusion zone. (Cited Praxair Shielding Gas Handbook)

When heated to the high temperatures present in the arc plasma (12-15,000 F), these gases break down, or dissociate into their separate atoms. They are then at least partially ionized,
producing free electrons and improved current flow. As the dissociated gas comes in contact with the relatively cool work surface, the atoms recombine, and it releases energy to
the base material in the form of heat. This process does not occur with gases such as argon, which consists of a single atom. Therefore, for the same arc temperature, the heat
generated at the work surface can be greater with gases such as carbon dioxide, hydrogen, and oxygen. ( Cited Praxair Shielding Gas Handbook)

Here is the next problem, we are trying to compare a Argon Atmosphere with a C02 or Carbon Monoxide Oxygen atmosphere, coupled with other flux agents creating i have no idea what.
When i stated current density and i stand behind it, you simply cannot produce the same type of weld with GTAW on EP as you can on SMAW EP due to the fact carrying 200 amps would require a electrode 1/2" in Dia. It all has to do with many more variables than simply saying its cause of the polarity, or cause of the atmosphere, or cause of the current, or cause of the burn off rate, or cause ones consumable and ones not, Here is the problem i have come to realize i am in wrong in comparison of the two during lecture and may need to change some materials because of it. They simply should not be compared in such a way.

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 11-21-2012 01:22

I think what you say about GTAW electrodes size for each polarity and the current they carry is key!

lot's of discussion, lots of sources... But I think the trail you followed back to one of the original things you said is best.

Nice to jaw with you Jon!

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 11-21-2012 12:21

>I think what you say about GTAW electrodes size for each polarity and the current they carry is key!

Exactly...and then when you add a flux coating you change those digging characteristics and the way that those electrons bombard the base metal(arc force). Adding all of those elements from the flux in that high heat atmosphere of the arc, things change(welding characteristics, sheilding, ionization, arc force, ect) vs having nothing but a bare electrode that is not being consumed and the arc force created in that argon atmosphere...I think there is a point where the electrode size/current carrying capacity makes the pedulum swing over from EN to EP promoting the best penetration when comparing non-consumables and consumables.

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 11-21-2012 15:04

Lawrence,

I think you hit something square on with that statement: "We sharpen our minds when we comapre them".

I went to the Welding Handbook Volumne 1: Welding Science and Technology and found some interesting information in chapter 2.

In my opinion there are way too many variables to compare on any scale: How the Argon shielded plasma stream affects the arc plasma stream vs. the shielding from the consumed flux, width of the arc path from a sharpened tungsten vs the width of SMAW electrode arc paths, frequency of the current from the power source for SMAW vs the frequency from The GTAW power source, etc, etc. Is the arc voltage the same for both in order to do a proper comparison? Is the Volt/Amp ratio the same? Is the base metal being used for this experiment/comparison the same? Is the size of the tungsten the same as the electrode diameter for SMAW (at least puts it in the same ballpark)?

If we are to examine all features and do a proper comparison of depth of fusion with as many of the variables as possible brought into equality we may find it isn't as different as one would think when studying the textbook that says one is deeper than the other with DCEN while the other is deeper with DCEP. Textbook descriptions can be over simplified so as to not confuse the beginner student with too much technical information that they are not ready to digest. Truth be known, I think we are generally talking about such insignificant differences that it can be measured in 1000ths of an inch. But, they felt it was worth mentioning just for the sake of giving the student a comparison of the process variables.

So, the next question I have in our apples to oranges discussion is this: are they Granny Smith, Gala, or Red Delicious apples?? :lol:

Just my two tin pennies worth.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 11-21-2012 15:41

I like the very tart green ones :)

By MMyers

Date 11-20-2012 19:51

Current flow and electron flow are different.

Current flow is positive to negative (also called conventional flow)
Electron flow is negative to positive.

To say current flows from negative to positive is incorrect.

This is because at one point in the infancy of electricity the charge carrier was thought to be positively charged. Only later did we discover that the electron (negatively charged) is the charge carrier. In my opinion, when looking at the details of any given system (an arc for example, or a diode, or a transistor, or a tube) it only makes sense in electron flow. When looking at a schematic, it only makes sense in current flow. Pain in the butt, but that's the system we're stuck with.

By Stringer (***)

Date 11-21-2012 01:49

It's apples and oranges. TIG blows. And when you're small, that 'arc force' matters and you get 'in proportion' great penetration. TIG is basketball. SMAW is football and there's a lot more contact away from the ball and it's much more violent and you can only get the player size down so much before football doesn't work.

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 11-21-2012 12:55

Mike,
I think you are confusing "conventional" electrical current flow with welding current flow.
You talk about schematic - when does a schematic come into play when talking about welding ?
Welding current "flows" from negative to positive, that is a given (I have spent the last 1 1/2 days on google researching this in numerous articles) as I like to learn while everyone else is spouting info I can't understand. LOL !
Cheers,
Shane