Slag tracks versus Silicon Islands / Oxides

Date 07-19-2013 18:23 Edited 07-19-2013 20:21

Sir,

With all due respect – a commendable, enjoyable, respectful and profound read.

I do agree. This is one of the lessons that I was allowed to learn here quite early. It is the American Welding Society Forum and good that is. I do not really know any other forum dealing with our trade in such a remarkable, yes I'm almost tempted to say, honourable way.

That, in my opinion, may also be one of the reasons for that it is attracting persons obsessed with welding, even from way beyond the pond.

I do agree. As such, being the AWS forum, specific AWS terminology/nomenclature complying with AWS codes and standards should be recommended being used. Simply for achieving common understanding – entirely independent of ones personal "agreement" or "disagreement" as when it comes to the particular welding/joining topic dealt with.

Nonetheless, couldn't I read somewhere recently, "No one works in a vacuum"?

Hence, I stick to this. The AWS in my eyes wouldn't be the AWS if it would "exist in a vacuum". On the contrary I suppose moreover it is the open discussion with all these different "organisations" and those fellows from around the world, that considerably contributes to its excellent reputation.

This, amongst others, was the reason for me granting "46.00" some humble though but honestly meant comment.

Anyway, coming back to these "few relevant definitions extracted from AWS A3.0-2010 Standard Welding Terms and Definitions" for:

• "Slag: A nonmetallic product resulting from the mutual dissolution of flux and nonmetallic Impurities in some welding and brazing processes."

I should like to stick to the term "nonmetallic impurities" asking moreover, as the Welding Institute's had not particularly covered that in depth; if nonmetallic impurities may cause "slag" to occur and the TWI parent metals (autogeneously welded without employing "fluxes"), wouldn't it be possible then that the sort of "contamination" found along with this study may have been caused through "nonmetallic" parent metal impurities (whatever these were)?

Provided that is so. May we then use the AWS A3.0-2010 Standard term "slag" for what's been found adhering to the weld bead surface?

We could negate this question immediately, when, (and this is just mentioned in order to provide a rather more complete picture) instead of using AWS A3.0-2010, we would comply with the British Standard BS 499-1:2009' definition of "slag" which is stated as:

• "Non-metallic substance that results from fusion of an electrode covering, a flux core or a powdered flux and which, after solidification, partly or totally covers the weld metal".

Further to AWS A3.0-2010.

• "Slag Inclusion: A discontinuity consisting of slag entrapped in weld metal or at the weld interface."

From the aforementioned I dare to suggest then that, provided were allowed using the AWS "slag" term, this definition just implies that TWI has found (in this particular case employing these particular boundary conditions) "slag" irregularly deposited across the bead surface.

Returning to BS 499-1:2009 that defines "inclusion" as:

• "Slag, flux, oxide, copper, tungsten or other foreign matter entrapped during welding; the defect is usually more irregular in shape than a gas pore; inclusions can be linear, isolated or clustered in their formation."

And, something that may eventually fit approximately in to the "non-standard" term "slag track", i.e. "linear inclusion" ("slag line") as:

• "Inclusion of linear form situated parallel to the axis of a weld."

Of course I have to admit. This is confusing at the very least, since TWI = Most Honourable British Institution should have referred to British Standards - I suppose.

As a logical consequence the appreciated fellow that had written the final report should not have made use of the term "slag" for describing his contamination findings.

However, considering the study conducted in 1988 or so I’m certainly unable to say how "slag" was defined at that time in compliance with British Standards.

Finally I do respectfully agree with another part of your statement: "... that's what I call an interesting conversation."

That it is.

Thank you.

EDIT: According to the statement of 'MMyers', saying: "...this thread is kinda useless without a reference link back to the original discussion, paper being discussed..." which I fully agree to, I should like to attach the corresponding link that, in my understanding and amongst others, may have caused this thread:
http://www.twi.co.uk/news-events/bulletin/archive/pre-1998-articles/1988-articles/how-tig-welding-procedure-affects-penetration-and-slag-island-formation-part-1/.

By MMyers

Date 07-19-2013 19:09

Perhaps we need a code and standard for posting on this internet forum? It shall specify acceptance standards for spelling, grammar, usage, terminology, style, and punctuation at a minimum. Further, it shall specify standard terms and definitions that shall be used for all discussions, performance testing that shall be past prior to posting, inspection criteria, qualification testing criteria and re-qualification limits. The forum posting code shall be drafted by a team in industry professionals with expertise in their field. I believe this will assist us in more effectively communicating on this internet forum and eliminate such non-conformant vocabulary usages.

P.S., this thread is kinda useless without a reference link back to the original discussion, paper being discussed, and/or hopefully pictures of the indications being referenced. I hope all of those words were AWS 3.0M/A3.0:2010 compliant; I left my copy at home.

By 803056

Date 07-19-2013 23:47

I get your point Mike.

Al

By 46.00

Date 07-20-2013 01:35

Al,
Thanks for opening a new thread on this subject. Much better!

I appreciate the need for a common standard vocabulary for welding terms and I know your feelings on ‘non-standard’ terminology.

Let me run this thought past the members of this forum:

One definition that has not been covered is that of the term ‘Flux’. Without Flux one cannot have Slag seems to be the argument.

AWS A3.0 says:

Flux. A material used to hinder or prevent the formation
of oxides and other undesirable substances in molten
metal and on solid metal surfaces, and to dissolve or
otherwise facilitate the removal of such substances.
See also active flux, neutral flux and slag.

OK, so we have ‘Flux’ defined as any material that is used to hinder or prevent formations of oxides or any other undesirable substances in the molten metal …..Weld pool!

Here is a completely random quote from a welding wire manufacture. Notice the bold section:

“As part of the Elite series, Spoolarc 29S is a general purpose copper-coated solid wire suitable for many carbon steel welding applications using either the MIG/Gas Metal Arc Welding (GMAW) or the Submerged Arc Welding (SAW) processes. Spoolarc 29S contains moderate amounts of manganese and silicon to provide sufficient deoxidation over light mill scale. Shielding gas choices for Spoolarc 29S in the GMAW mode are 100% carbon dioxide, argon/carbon dioxide mixtures, argon/oxygen mixtures, and other argon based mixed gas blends. In the SAW mode, Spoolarc 29S can be combined with a variety of active and neutral bonded fluxes to achieve better welding performance over Spoolarc 81 wire. Spoolarc 29S is used in a wide variety of applications including heavy equipment, automotive parts, railcars, agricultural equipment, and sheet metal welding.”

Now, here is my question, are not the manganese and silicon in this solid MIG/GMAW wire acting as a ‘Flux’ under the auspice of AWS A3.0 definition of flux? If so, then can the ‘Silicon Islands’ present on GTAW and GMAW welds that we all have seen, legitimately be called ‘Slag’?

By 803056

Date 07-20-2013 02:34

That is a fair question.

Silicon and manganese are deoxidizers. They have a higher affinity for oxygen than does carbon. In the absence of deoxidizers such as manganese, silicon, titanium, etc. porosity from the formation of carbon monoxide gas can result.

Flux on the other hand serves several purposes, one of with is to add deoxidizers to the molten weld to prevent the formation of carbon monoxide and the resulting porosity. In some cases the flux is a vehicle used to add specific alloys to the molten weld pool. Flux can decompose to form carbon monoxide gas that serves to shield the molten weld pool as in the case of cellulose and limestone based fluxes used for SMAW electrodes. Arc stabilizers can be added to the flux covering to make the electrodes more user friendly. The flux also can form a slag layer to protect the molten weld pool and the weld as it solidifies. The only functions the deoxidizers in bare filler metal can serve is to prevent the formation of carbon monoxide and porosity by direct chemical interaction. In that sense the deoxidizers do not fulfill all the functions a flux can. Lastly, flux is a component that is not integrated into the filler metal, it is a separate component that is mixed/made separately from the electrode during manufacturer.

Hey, that's the best I can do. Maybe Mike can add more to the discussion.

Best regards - Al

By 46.00

Date 07-20-2013 02:51

'flux is a component that is not integrated into the filler metal, it is a separate component that is mixed/made separately from the electrode during manufacturer' -

not according to AWS A3.0 definition.

By electrode (***)

Date 07-22-2013 08:06

46.00,

valuable insight provided by 'MMyers'. Amongst others there are 2 key sentences for me, capable of most properly reflecting the intricacy of this topic – not a trivial one btw.

The first: "In the case of codes/standards, their standardization is only achieved through committee, publishing, and industry acceptance, which by its very nature is prone to providing less than complete and accurate technical information (…)".

To me this topic simply proves the limitations of (only) using standard/code terminology for describing complex welding phenomena. One of the reasons perhaps for me, that I actually do not really like it (the standard/code nomenclature), although I seem to be fully aware of and to agree with its necessity. But I suppose I had already made this clear before.

The second: "46's question about flux is a great one.".

Your question valuably contributes to approve the above stated.

Finally, given the information deduced from this thread, I myself would tend to say.

Slag(s) in conjunction to welding have been deeply investigated for decades by some outstanding clever persons. I suspect it would go way too far to attempt some scientific discussion without running the risk to be blamed "smart a§§" "nitpicker" or whatever else one was able to read already on this forum when it went beyond a certain stage. Sorry for mentioning this. No offence, just facts.

Perhaps worth further consideration, here's my personal $.02 for maybe a compromise. It's based upon the assumption oxides, amongst others, to form main "slag" constituents.

Then, and I guess here's where the gap evolves from what's maybe stated/meant in the codes, and that, what's actually driven through daily practice (see TWI study), consider that "slag" in conjunction to welding, amongst others, should:

• Protect the liquid/solidifying weld pool (mainly) to H2 and N2 (mainly) arising from the surrounding atmosphere
• Delay weld bead cooling rate and reduce heat emission from the deposited weld bead
• De-oxidise, alloy and refine the weld metal
• Affect metallurgical reactions
• Beneficially (whatever that shall mean) "shape" the weld bead
• Increase welding performance (e.g. Electro Slag Welding) and stabilise the arc and affect droplet transfer(s)

Just from the memory and certainly I have forgotten a number of additional effects connected to welding slags. Anyway, I suppose the above is achievable by deliberately applying welding "flux(es)" in different forms (electrode coatings, SAW flux etc.). These fluxes again have different (chemical) characteristics attained by different chemical compositions driven by different elements.

As, amongst others, Manganese (Mn) and Silicon (Si) may prove main constituents of such "fluxes", affecting their chemical final slag character and as such also, amongst others, weld metal purity, we may return to the question:

"are not the manganese and silicon in this solid MIG/GMAW wire acting as a 'Flux' under the auspice of AWS A3.0 definition of flux?"

Through high temperature reaction fluxes are transmuted into "slag(s)", which, I suspect, at least in part confirms the statements from '803056'.

However, even due to containing, amongst others, also oxides the question: "…are not the manganese and silicon in this solid MIG/GMAW wire acting as a 'Flux' under the auspice of AWS A3.0 definition of flux?", is showing the stringent interrelationship between some constituents (e.g. Mn and Si) and their final outcome after the metallurgical reactions driven by the heat supplied by the arc.

To keep the long story short.

Residues or reaction products in welding processes employing no "flux system" may, as we could learn, lead to e.g. "deleterious surface phases", "non-metallic surface phases" or whatever one may call it. However, these particular residues may just arise as a result from reactions, driven by thermal impact (the major driving force for achieving quasi equilibrium phases) and those constituents available either in the parent metal or the filler wire, or the consumables in general.

They must have been there before, must they not? They just have undergone some transformation by reacting with some other elements (e.g. Oxygen) in order to achieve a state of higher chemical/physical stability.

Insofar I dare to suggest that constituents such as Mn and Si may be constituents of "slag" or contribute as "slag formers", but provided their final composition is MnO or SiO2, I myself, in this particular context, would classify them just as "slag components" and as such even having "slag" characteristics.

Again. As noticeable, I'm no metallurgist and thus maybe I'm wrong in my interpretation. Nonetheless, I do consider this an interesting welding topic.

Thank you.

By MMyers

Date 07-20-2013 18:33 Edited 07-20-2013 18:42

Well, I'll see what I can add. I'm generally only good at pointing out the obvious, so I wouldn't expect much.

TWI is an independent research institute. They are not part of a standardized body, nor do they publish standardized literature/codes/standards. As such, applying AWS standard terms and definitions to their works is like applying AWS rules to an ASME vessel. The only correct way to discuss their works is to work within the vocabulary of the published piece being discussed, so slag islands it is for discussions of this article*.

AWS publishes derived works. Meaning, all welding knowledge started with primary research and literature. From there, derived works were created which distill the primary literature into a form that is more readily usable for a given audience. Welding handbooks, codes/standards, terms/definitions, etc. are derived works. In the case of codes/standards, their standardization is only achieved through committee, publishing, and industry acceptance, which by its very nature is prone to providing less than complete and accurate technical information - it is distilled after all. So, to limit discussion to only using standard terms and definitions as defined in a single code's book limits our ability to fully describe the topic and inherently leads to the possibility of errors. 46's question about flux is a great one. Sure, the AWS definition is correct in essence, but it incorrectly provides scope by not defining the necessary qualification that flux is used in addition to the parent/filler metal - simply stating "material" is too vague and leads to confusion and incorrect conclusions. This is an artifact of the information distillation process.

---------

*Now, personally, if an engineer handed me a report to review that included "slag islands", I'd hand it back to him and have him change it. "Slag islands" is not a term that is prevalent in literature, nor is this phenomenon novel enough to warrant the creation of a new term.

So what are the surface discontinuities? From the images provided in the article, they look like surface oxide films to me. Or rather, without accompanying EDS or other analytic evidence, that's how I'd report them. Or possibly even more generically, I'd report them as deleterious surface phases, non-metallic surface phases, etc. - I'd depend on what mood I was in that day and the audience I was writing for.

Now, what I find more interesting than this whole wore usage discussion are the data of the report. The plots in 9 through 13 provide an interesting picture into the relationship between shielding gas composition, current and travel speed. I'd be very interested to see the same tests performed with supplemental trialing shields (I can't tell from the torch setup image if these were used and the report does not specify, so I'll assume they weren't).

I'd also be interested to see mechanical test results of the deposits completed with the 70% Ar - 30% He - 5% H2 mixture. It looks like a single grain in the center with the other grains in the fusion zone growing orthogonal to it.

To complement the article, the deposits complete with 70% Ar - 30% He - 5% H2 are a testament to the interdependent and complex nature of welding. Using that mix was a novel way to overcome the differences in the base metal compositions and the author was fairly complete in his research which is illustrated by the provided plots.

And if two cast heats were welding that differently, I'd be working with my casting vendor to see if that could be resolved. I bet compositional analysis of the two cast heats would be revealing.

By 46.00

Date 07-20-2013 20:29

Mike, You seem to be focused on the article I posted as an example, I don’t really care about that mate! It was just an example to show that the terminology was used in the science world! TWI is a world renowned organization but it is independently financed and so subject to different rules!
The fact remains that AWS definition does cover slag formation on GTAW and GMAW welds?
If we have slag, we can have slag inclusions!

By MMyers

Date 07-22-2013 13:47 Edited 07-22-2013 13:57

Well, of course I'm focused on the article, it was the only provided reference link. If there's more relevant information, I'd certainly be interested to see it.

Careful with "science world". I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this article was not published in a peer reviewed technical journal, so it's "scienceness" (that's a technical term) has limited scope. I think with this, one could argue that "slag island" is really only applicable to discussions of this article and means little outside of it.

If the AWS definition is incorrect, then I'd say sending a well written argument and suggested correction to the applicable committee member(s) would probably go a long way in correcting the definition(s) that allow one to make the argument that the AWS definitions can support slag being present in GTAW and GMAW welds. A literature review will likely support the argument that those processes do not create slag.

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 07-22-2013 22:09

The Effect of Trace Elements on the Formation of Slag Spots during Gas Tungsten Arc Welding of 316 Stainless Steel Tubing Systems
Presentation at SEMI Stainless Steel Task Force Meeting
July 14, 2003 San Francisco, CA.
Author - Jan Rau

In this article they are referred to as "oxide islands".

http://www.csidesigns.com/tech/slag.pdf

By 46.00

Date 07-23-2013 01:39

Interesting!

By electrode (***)

Date 07-23-2013 07:18

Shane,

Thanks for sharing this.

I additionally shall want to recommend reading:

http://www.aws.org/wj/supplement/WJ_1988_09_s202.pdf

The latter, in my eyes, a well-considered, thorough investigation. Extraordinarily interesting, in general confirming the correctness/importance of 46.00's original comment on slag(s) in GTAW, and, by the way, proving also some of my very layman assumptions correct - in part at least.

However, twice worth enjoying the read and beneficially listing an additional bunch of references.

Interesting topic, I learned a lot and, before I continue monologising, I rest my case.

Thank you.

PS Interesting also, because that actually was what the original post of this thread was dealing with, which terminology POLLARD has chosen to distinguish both location and character of the slags produced.

By 46.00

Date 07-23-2013 10:18

Another excellent article electrode! I fear it will take my limited mind awhile to fully digest all the information..........!

By MMyers

Date 07-23-2013 14:22

Nice paper Shane, thanks for posting it. A couple points that I think are noteworthy:

The author specifically identifies oxide islands in the downslope region of the weld, Fig. 1. I would characteristically segregate these from the "slag tracks" (refereed to as "oxide films" from here on) present in the TWI paper. They are located in different regions of the weld and at different frequencies and have different shapes. One is located in the crater/sporadically along the weld length and is fairly round, the other is present over an appreciable portion of the weld length and has an irregular geometry. From my experience running mechanized GTAW equipment, the oxide island in the crater can be removed pretty easily like SMAW slags. Oxide films covering the bulk of the weld cannot be removed this way; they must be ground off or removed by some other mechanical means which also removes part of the underlying base metal. Third, and this is pure conjecture because I've never shot surface oxides with EDS, they're different chemically. My guess would be that oxide islands are composed of elements we commonly find in slags (Ca, Al, Ti, Si), while oxide films are composed primarily of metallic oxides derived from the base metal elements (chrome, nickel, iron, etc). I also suspect the composition is dependent on the base/filler materials, i.e., steels will present surface oxide films with different compositions than stainless steels and from nickel based alloys. The paper electrode posted above begins to make this distinction, but still calls all of them "slags" (starting on 211-s and going to 212-s).

The author also identifies that these oxide islands are a result of impurities in the base metal that are brought to the surface during subsequent re-melting operations (Sections 1.2 and 1.3). That this happens to happen during a GTA weld is incidental.

-----------

Looking at some other literature on the topics of GTAW and slags/fluxes, I think these excerpts and points are worth noting:

US Patent 2,274,631 (credited as being the first patent on GTAW weldign):

Another object of my invention is the providing of a means for welding magnesium and its common alloys, in such a manner that a strong weld is made and wherein sagging and deformation of the metal adjacent the weld is controlled, without the application of corrosive welding fluxes commonly used for welding of light alloys generally and magnesium alloys in particular. ..without fluxes... which I'm sure most people would not have an issue saying are the precursor to slags.

Weldign Research Council Bulletin Number 190, December 1973, Fluxes and Slags in Welding, C. E. Jackson

The volume of fluxes used in covered-electrode, submerged-arc, flux-cored wire, electroslag, brazing and oxyacetylene techniques, has grown to a total of probably 400 million pounds power year in the United States. No mention of GMAW or GTAW. Interesting.

Moving on to the definitions section:
The terms "welding flux" and "welding slag" may be considered by some synonymous. The official definitions of the American Welding Society (A3.0 - 69) describe a flux as "a material used to prevent, dissolve, or facilitate the removal of oxides and other undesirable substances." The British Standards Institution presents a broader definition: "Material used during welding, brazing, or braze welding to clean the surface of the joint chemically, to prevent atmospheric oxidization and to reduce impurities or float them to the surface. In arc welding, many other substances, which perform special functions, are added to the flux mixture."

There is no AWS definition for a welding slag. Here again, the British present a definition which may be inadequate: "A Fused, non-metallic residue produced from some welding processes". In flux-metal reactions, a slag is the product formed after the reaction of a fused liquid flux with molten weld metal. Fluxes and their slags provide a blanket to protect the weld metal from the action of extraneous gases. In many flux formulations, deoxidizers, as well as arc stabilizers, are included. Some of the additional functions of welding fluxes which become slags through the action of welding will be discussed in connection with the process they are considered. Seems to indicate that fluxes are used during some welding processes to protect the weld surface from extraneous gasses and when solidified create slags.

-----------

Now, I don't have an issue with someone saying that slags can be present as a result of un-reacted elements/oxidizers in the base/filler metal being pulled to the top of the pool during a welding operation. I think that's pretty clearly spelled out in the literature. I do not think it's correct to say that the GTAW process produces slags - I believe the GTAW patent and Jackson's literature provide sufficient framework for that argument. The rub I have, is that I think there is a distinction between a "slag" and an "oxide film".

From my experience in standing in front of mechanized GTAW equipment for hours watching my welds on monitors, and forgetting to turn on my trialing shields, and having to dress off oxides with a carbide burr for various reasons, I'd like to propose that there are at least five distinct surface phases can be present on GTAW welds (I'm sure I could come up with a few others, but we'll start with this for simplicity):
Oxides that create heat tint
Oxides that create gray scale
Oxides that create irregularly shaped films
Oxides that create dull, round, surface deposits (what the authors in this SS paper are calling slag islands)
Oxides that create shiny surface round deposits (silicates)

-Heat tint can be brushed off and aside from a few very sensitive materials, isn't considered a problem in most applications. These can be prevented by the use of supplemental trailing shields, but will often form regardless if the part is welded at high pre-heat temperatures.
-Gray scale (similar to what is present on GMAW welds), really should be ground off, but usually isn't a problem, through I have had to grind out porosity in areas where gray oxide is present, so it's an indication of a suspect weld. These can also be prevented by the use of supplemental trailing shields.
-Oxide films must be ground off and can sometimes really mess with fluid flow and wetting which can result in poor bead geometry, lack of fusion or inclusions if they're not dealt with properly during welding. They can sometimes be remedied by the addition of supplemental trailing shields, but not always if the alloy being welded contains significant elements which promote their occurrence (I believe this is the mechanism for the oxides present in the TWI samples). I'd be willing to entertain the notion that surface oxides caused by material impurities are different than oxides created because of poor shielding gas coverage, but I don't see much need to make that distinction now.
-Dull, round, surface deposits appear to be, as indicated in the report linked above, to be a minor nuisance, but largely caused by unreacted deoxidisers in the parent/filler material.
-Silicates can just be popped off, and generally don't effect the pool too much or cause lack of fusion. I've found using poor quality filler material with remnant drawing compounds to be the biggest contributor here, but I could easily see some cast materials with especially high silicon content creating these islands, through I've not personally welded a material that's presented this.

The surface indications in the TWI report look most like what I'm describing as oxide films to me.

So I'd say the real argument, at least for me, is are an "oxide film" and a "slag" the same? I'm of the opinion that they are not. As a starting point I'd suggest that what separates an "oxide film" from a "slag" is:
Shape
Surface condition
Elements present in composition
Effective means of removal

By MMyers

Date 07-20-2013 14:40 Edited 07-20-2013 14:45

I understand yours as well, and agree with the sentiment of it.

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 07-26-2013 18:07

Aside from trying to define slag vs silicon islands;
I have performed alot of welder qualification testing at small local facilities who needed some help with their welder qualification programs. Having said that, I have had several welders, at these locations where GMAW is the primary welding process, fail simple bend testing because they had this notion that because they were welding with a solid wire that didn't employ a slag system, that they were not required to chip the slag/silicon islands/oxides as they progressed and ran layer after layer of stringers without ever removing them. In between the layers, the welds would open up when the coupon strap started to bend and some of them would even fracture completely in two pieces.

My Point? Regardless of what term or definition that you may asign to this "matter" that forms on the face of each subsequent bead...it needs to be removed completely before depositing additional weld material.

By 803056

Date 07-26-2013 18:31

Very few things gets the welder's undivided attention like a failed bend test.

Al

By js55

Date 07-26-2013 20:49

An under compensated paycheck?

By 803056

Date 07-26-2013 21:00

Can't argue that. You win!

Al :wink:

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 07-29-2013 12:01

>Can't argue that. You win!

To borrow a quote from you......Al :razz:

It appears that over the weekend this thread went off course. There seems to be mis-understandings within mis-understandings amongst our forum members. Not sure but it looks like the written word doesn't come across with the correct perspective when read and leads to mis-understandings within mis-understandings. Taking offense to these mis-understandings and issueing out other offenses to get back at or to some how take jabs at the person we think is offending is not getting us anywhere. Always trying to "win" seems to be a theme in these threads where one person tries to best another in the next jab.

Folks, please keep in mind that issueing Personal attacks do nothing to advance, and negates the whole point of having a forum to ask, teach and learn all things concerning welding and the joining of materials. Let's watch our words and choose them wisely.

By 803056

Date 07-30-2013 00:27

Well stated.

Got a problem - use PM.

Spare the rest of us.

Al

By JTMcC

Date 08-28-2013 20:10

This is really kind of humorous.

I do understand that all people are different and don't expect others to be just like me. That would be very goofy.

But I (by choice) feed the kids at the point where consumable meets parent metal. I love my work, there's a LOT to be said for that, I don't have to go to work I GET to go to work, life is happy.

Working inside, shuffling paper is like being in state prison to me, I tried it years ago. The great outdoors is my prefered work place and soothes my soul. Others thrive in climate controled environments : )

I speak in the venacular that's used in my money making environment. Period. A few people on the interwebs with really high post counts just don't win that hard money contract for me. I've never made a dime by garnering internet adolation. I make it out in the dirt and mud, rain and snow, sunshine and goodness with mountains all around : ) and it's worked really well for over 21 years now for us. Fun and exitement every day.

I'm not a failed businessman who's had to move to inspection to survive and I'm not a cat who considers a paperwork job to be an "advancement of my career". If I liked working inside, I'd of chose a different path many years ago. I'm also not an old decrepid dude who can't make a real weld anymore or a kid who had limited options and chose a manual craft hoping to move beyond it at some point. I just chose to weld because I love it. I understand the differing thinking and career paths of others, but it is not a universal frame of mind by a long shot.

I'm glad there are people who enjoy paperwork, to me it's a necessity to get to the actual work where I am happy, and the checks roll. Good on people with differing preferences, but don't jam on me because there is considerable income being made at the point of impact across the globe.
And don't jam on worker guys as if they are all stupid farm code hands, that might help foster an "I'm mo better than you" self image, it has nothing to do with intelligence or marketability. If welders in YOUR sector are stupid, that speaks to your sector, not to me or a lot of others.

If the term "slag track" is foriegn to you I understand that. Most people here live in structural steel land, a very lax form of welding and inspection, one step above the often derided farm code unless you're working in SoCal/NoCal and even then it's pretty lenient. Forgive me for using it but in my little part of welding land it's well known and understood.

I understand that AWS inspectors may live and die by AWS 3.0, keep in mind that lot's of people happily bill out in sectors where it's unknown and irrelevant.

The welding world is a large diverse place. My small experience means nothing to people happily working with great success in other sectors. Good on all of them, all of you.

I see a lot of young able bodied men/women happily riding the welfare train, ANYBODY who is working and making a living, in any field that works for them and I don't care if they are welding agricultural equipment to the farm code or arranging flowers (and some folks are doing well in both of those fields), has my respect.
My take only, feel free to disagree.
Just don't expect me to be hanging on every word, I'm kinda busy right now : )
J

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 08-28-2013 21:07

Hello JT,

Not sure where we stepped on the toes of a fair number of welders that got you shook up. (comments about worker guys)

Without reading this entire thread again, this has been directed at inspectors and application of codes and language to describe conditions when writing reports.

It transitioned into an excellent piece on definitions, from many sources, of slag in a variety of forms, processes, and applications.

But, you don't need to defend welders to us as many of us have been and even still are welders. Any worker is only as good as their training and personal character. Most welders are only doing as told and don't know much beyond a lot of miscommunicated ideas and concepts. That included me once upon a time. We all need to do all we can to improve our knowledge base. I believe there has been some training in the form of knowledge in this thread. (and really, failed businessmen, or decrepid dudes?? I for one am neither and I don't look at any more of my fellow inspectors that way than I look at every welder as an uneducated idiot. I like welding so much that after 12 hrs away from home the first thing I do when I get up the hill is go to the shop and weld on money paying projects for 2-3 hrs. But I turn away far more work than I take in, no time.)

You are right. We all must choose our own paths. We must like the aspects of that choice to do it good. Report writing, research, blueprint reading, Code reading (boring, but interesting-to me) and much more that is part of our job.

Now, I don't mean to start a hijack of thread debate, I just want to state that I didn't see any attack on a particular segment of welding here. Maybe I was too interested in the information available and how it applied to me. As this thread goes on, there is quite a debate thrown at ourselves for a bit. But not at a particular segment of the forum. Or the profession.

Bottom line: I am as happy as you that there are many out there working and not living off of me, and you. And I hope they are doing their best at what they do. But, sometimes I wish more people would try to learn proper applications of their chosen profession. Rather that includes terminology so they are not calling SMAW out as arc welding. Or rather it includes knowledge of the types of welds so they know the difference between fillet welds and groove welds. And so much more. And we as inspectors do need to know many of these things. But, occassionally there are disagreements on how to piece some of it together. And it doesn't help when codes from different organizations use conflicting terms.

It is not welders in general that are at fault. It is anyone with an I don't care attitude or an always done it this way attitude. Basically, attitude and character. Anyone who wants to better themselves and learn is good to go in my book. Even if their current knowledge and skills base is minimal.

Also, often times the same terminology issue comes up where we say 'all' when we meant many or some. Just as when we talk with the wife, kids or others. Communications are fragile. But I don't think anyone here was slamming hard working welders and thinking that we are head and shoulders better than they are. As in any trade, inspectors, welders, helpers, there are good ones...and there are bad ones.

I'm going to stop. Probably only muddied the waters. I understand that this may not be important to some. But, ultimately, it is important to all of us.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By JTMcC

Date 08-28-2013 21:51 Edited 08-28-2013 22:10

brent,

Shook up????

Unless you (and several of your friends) are actually shooting at me or laying in mortar fire, you haven't "shook me up".

The OP refered to MY comments. You can take the thread however you want.

There is, by you and other inspection posters on this forum, a condencending attitude toward anyone actually working "in the field".
Maybe you only run into idiot welders up at the Schuff shop in Belmont, maybe 80??? does too in his workday.
That's a shame but it doesn't apply to every welder out there in the big, bad old world. Don't fall into that trap. Shuff's low buck welders are just that, nothing more. They don't define welding in all it's phases.

And yes, failed welding business owners are pretty common in my experience the last 6 years. Can't speak for anybody else. If I had a hundred dollar bill for every inspector who told me all about "thier" welding business, I'd just sit at home and watch Arizona Diamondbacks baseball games. Spare me please.

The old decrepit welders, the guys who had no other career track cept welding but really wanted to work in the office, I'm happy they are where they are. They are a success story overall. A good thing.

But some of us really like to bid work, get work, do work. And AWS terms are not used in 95% of the work I bid. So I speak the language that involves income. My Kids must be fed regardless of your take on "SMAW" vs "stick", I'm going with what's used and what feeds my young Daughters.

I'm glad you are happy, I'm happy, doing what I've done for 21 years. I like happy people, but you are a fairly new inspector, huh?

Non standard AWS terms might of been used in this message. PLEASE, PLEASE forgive me. Or don't. I don't give a hoot unless YOU are awarding contracts and issuing P.O.'s.

J

I should add that I have a stupid number of welding and welding related code books in my little shack. From AWWA to ASME to the "traveling carnival life threatening-caint-do-it-wrong or kiddies will die code". The customer specs it, I buy it, live it, learn it, quote it, work to it: )
But everyday speak has no connection to AWS terminology. Contract price documents even rarely do. You may be totally differnt.

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 08-28-2013 22:22 Edited 08-29-2013 20:26

JT,

I really do not believe I have a condescending attitude toward welders working in the field. There are a good many great people, men and women, out there with far superior knowledge of welding than I have. And skills that I envy, though I do consider myself a pretty fair welder/fitter.

If anyone thinks that just because we try to promote a common usage of terminology so that there is minimal confusion when discussing anything welding that we are more educated, skilled, or just plain better than others then they are sadly mistaken.

And just because some of us like doing research when issues arise on our jobs and sharing that new found knowledge with others doesn't make us better. We only want to help others better themsleves. That's what the human ability to pool knowledge is all about, helping one another so others can improve on the learning curve. Why take years to learn and apply something that someone else has already gone through when you can learn it in a few days?

But people who only want to get their backs up when someone is trying to help them out will never be all they could be. You know that. You would not be where you are if you never improved on what you knew 20 years ago. That's all this conversation and this forum is about...helping others.

None of us has a lock on wisdom, knowledge, truth, skills, etc. We all have room for improvement. Yes, I have made statements, though the most recent was not about Schuff Bellemont, I haven't been there since mid June, about welders I am working around. You want to know how often I have the same issues with 'Field Hands'? They are no better than the shop. Meaning, there are good and bad in both environments.

BUT, please, we all know that everything rises and falls on leadership. The welders do most of what they do because they were told to do it that way. So, we as inspectors try to educate those who will listen both in management and on the floor so as to better the entire industry. Not to put down. Even when in our frustration it sounds like it.

I don't have to brag on my welding business even though I do. It hasn't been about me. It has been how the good Lord has provided for my family and still does. I get to be home almost every night and have worked alongside my wife and all five of our kids one of whom has been with me for over 15 years in the shop and is now an inspector working with me on the job I currently have. And I have been in it enough years to know it has been and is successful. I have been doing inspections as part of that business for a lot longer than I have been doing mostly inspections. And I enjoy both parts of it.

If you want to have a low opinion of me without ever having stopped in to say hi and see my operation, so be it. It has taken very good care of my family. I understand there are many who have failed of late. Not always due to poor business practices. The work has taken quite a turn in the last few years. I don't brag on myself, only on my God who provides for me and my family. He gives and He takes away. He gives the power to produce, wisdom, and talents. I only do my best to be a wise steward and hone those skills.

And I didn't say SMAW vs stick, I understand that usage. But I have to laugh when someone comes in and says they are an arc welder. Yep, I hope so. That's what 'MOST' welding is... arc welding. So what kind do you do? The one where you put that long rod in the holder. OKAY.

Well, I don't know if you want to hear. And I see what you mean about the OP. But I honestly think this new thread was not intended to be critical of you for your original comment. It was meant as a moment of clarification. Take it otherwise if you want.

I have appreciated our conversations, now and past. You really should drop by sometime.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 08-29-2013 19:07

I added a link to the bottom of the first post in this thread, because JTMcC's comments threw me for a loop. I had to go back and do a little digging through the forum to figure out where this was coming from and who it was being aimed at.

By 803056

Date 07-20-2013 20:58 Edited 07-20-2013 21:06

Thanks for your insight Mike.

Both 46.00 and you have made some interesting points and offered some interesting perspectives on the subject.

It matters not if we ever agree on any particular point, but it is always educations to hear multiple points of view.

I don't mind being chided for being wrong, thin skinned, or dumb as long as I can learn something new. So, if someone wants to introduce a new term, let them go for it, but I would like a definition of what the term means that is based on a recognized standard whether it is an AWS, British, or (Lord forbid) Chinese standard.

I believe it would be foolish to assume that every term used by any author is correct, i.e., they cannot include a term that is nonstandard. All you have to do is look through API 1104. That standard lists AWS A3.0 as a reference for welding terminology yet it uses the terms root face and land. Even AWS publications include nonstandard terminology on occasion. No one is perfect.

Best regards - Al

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 07-22-2013 01:23

I like to focus on minutiae when it is important to do so.

A good conversation has happened here that made me think.. Thank you gents!

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 07-23-2013 10:57

This is a very interesting topic and I must admit it has got me thinking.
Initially I was firmly on Al's side of the arguement that you cannot have slag or a slag inclusion when using the GTAW process.
Now I am not so sure.
Everyone seems to be in agreement that we can have "silicon islands" or "oxide islands" with GTAW but what exactly are they.
The AWS 3.0 explanation for flux (while not quoted verbatim) is a material that assists in the dissolution of or facilitates the removal of oxides or undesirable substances.
So the deoxidisers absorb the oxides and undesirable elements and then they float to the surface of the molten pool - these then form little "islands" on the surface after cooling of the molten puddle.
These require chipping, filing, grinding or mechanical wire brushing before the next run is administered.
If these were not removed, what would they be classified as if they showed up on the radiograph ?
Obviously not slag inclusions - everybody knows you can't have slag inclusions with GTAW :grin:

.
Would they be remelted if they were welded over ?
They would obviously have a density less than the weld metal so if they were still there they should show up.
I spent 4 years as a radiographer and I never saw any examples of this - all I can assume is the "islands" were removed before continuing the welding, or remelted with the next run.

Keep it coming guys, I love learning after hours with a beer in hand. LOL !
Cheers,
Shane

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 07-23-2013 15:32

I really appreciate the level to which each of the main posters here has taken this topic. Not to mention the level headed way any disagreement has been handled.

While everything I have ever been taught originally led me to 'side' with Al and his contribution, as Shane, with all of the additional information here I have had to take a serious look at how I view slag and other deposits left on the surface of welds by ANY process.

It is indeed very informative and well presented gentlemen. Keep going. I am learning much here. Way beyond my paygrade and current resources, which I am thankful for the links that have added to my resources.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By electrode (***)

Date 07-23-2013 19:39

welderbrent,

am I allowed to join you?

Great topic; thanks to the OP.

Being tiny part of this was (or yet is) fun.

And ... at the risk of repeating myself ... not trivial - as the most recent comments could imposingly show.

Thank you.

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 07-23-2013 19:57 Edited 07-23-2013 20:00

Well sir, you most certainly may join me, and not need to ask to do so.

I am also thankful to Al for moving/starting this apart from the other thread where it rather got it's start.

Now, if you are referring to Lawrence's comment when you say you don't see it as trivial, then he may have been misunderstood. For myself, I believe it to be a topic that many would have considered of little import because we thought we had all the understanding of 'slag' that we needed in order to accomplish our job. But, as can often be the case, when a challenge and much intelligent conversation supported by many documents of various research and analysis comes along we get enlightened and forced to think outside the box. At least, outside of our personal box of preconceived ideas and definitions.

Now, sometimes that just helps us to better understand and continue to stand our own ground. At other times we are forced to recognize a need for new direction. Then, there are those times when, though we acknowledge we may not be perfect in our stand, the evidence is really inconclusive and needs further investigation before a truly dogmatic stand may be taken.

I'm am waiting to see if more evidence is available in this particular regard but I am definitely sifting through my 'box' to see how it all comes together in my own mind. And again, I appreciate it when such distinguished minds take the time to pull together such a valuable discussion without thowing stones. Thus far, I only see challenges worthy of consideration. And I can accept that in the end we may part friends and co-labourers together in presenting the truths of this trade without coming to complete agreement in the full defining of the terms and applications at hand.

I hope I don't miss anyone, but: Al, Glyn, Mike, Niekie, Shane, and electrode (forgot your actual name if I ever knew it), I thank all of you for your input. Well done.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By electrode (***)

Date 07-24-2013 07:52

Sir,

many thanks.

Please allow me nonetheless to quickly clarifying some, to me, most important detail.

I'm not sure actually what Lawrence did say in respect of, or in conjunction to, "trivial" or "not trivial".

Due to some rather considerable amount of own experiences, "not trivial" is just my very own try to say: "This subject proves much more complex, than appearing on a first, or even second, view."

As a very matter of fact. I do most appreciate Lawrence; not only because he was always treating myself (please note European Alien) uprightly and friendly, but also due to his vast knowledge* on what's driving all of us - welding.

Thus finally. No misunderstanding, no offence and... no disagreement.

Thank you again.

* Actually no need to even mention this.

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 07-24-2013 15:11

Then the whole impression was just my own mistake in how I 'heard' the words you typed. Not a problem.

It is all to easy to take things wrong with differences on speech patterns, words used, context, not able to 'hear' the tone of voice, and so much more. I like to make sure I am correctly understanding people before I claim that we disagree. Though, as most of us, sometimes I get my back up too quickly and jump in with a ferver where I should have remained silent.

Anyway, thank you for that clarification. I hope there are many others here besides the very commendable Lawrence who have not tainted your view of time spent with us. Having spent better than a week in England and most of a week in Ireland I know how difficult it can be when we understand the words but can't make sense of the sentence. Communications are so very fragile. But I have appreciated your contributions even when I have disagreed with certain aspects (don't ask for a clarification- it was quite some time back and not worth the brain cells required to retain the difference, and nothing to part ways over for sure).

Hope you had a wonderful day.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By ozniek

Date 07-23-2013 13:49

Hi Al

I have been reading all the comments, and tend towards the reality that the world is rarely "black and white", but mostly multi-coloured. (Notice my spelling of the word colour. Is it right or wrong?) We can always make rules that make sense to ourselves, and then believe that others should follow them, (This approach generally does not lead to winning the popularity stakes!) or just accept that people are different and have their own ways of expression. Even in the technical field, I have often come across circular definitions of terms which end up being ambiguous. (Why else would there be so many code interpretations? And half of those interpretations are then again ambiguous due to the wording of the question!) I have even made some of these myself after thinking and discussing (usually in some or other technical committee) endlessly the unambiguous way to define a term, and then finally just settling on "the best we could come up with at the time". No doubt this happens even at AWS technical committee meetings.

Within the thinking above, I believe that the author of an article has some licence in deciding which terms s/he uses, (Codes and standards should be much more standardised, but as you have pointed out, even there we constantly find evidence of the non "black and white"!) and the context within which they are used. Obviously if they get too obtuse in their terms then they will be seriously misunderstood, but if the reader believes the article worth reading, then they would probably try their best to also understand the particular terminology and context used by the author. Within this context, the term "slag" does have a meaning understood widely within the metallurgical industry. One (of many) dictionary definition being: "The vitreous mass left as a residue by the smelting of metallic ore". (There is also a definition relating to women of ill repute, but that would not be applicable to our conversation:-) Within the dictionary definition, it would be totally possible to have "slag" forming while melting metal using the GTAW (Notice AWS terminology is GTAW, not TIG, although 99% of us here would understand both terms.) process. A flux is added to perform a certain job. Slag on the other hand is what is formed as a result of the melting process, whether flux is added or not, so using that to describe defects in a GTAW weld would not be wrong from my perspective, although such a defect would be rather improbable to occur, and in all probability the defect could have been incorrectly identified. If this was the case, then it would be a mistake by the author due to the "experimental method" rather than an issue of terminology. (In other words, s/he got the facts wrong, rather than the terminology.)

I agree that if we want to communicate technical topics effectively, the use of standard terms aid us in the process, but also acknowledge that sometimes we are limited by these very same terms and their definitions, and then need to just get a little more creative. This can even lead to an interesting discussion such as this one, which if the term was not used, would have left the article unread by some people who have now done it solely because of the use of the possibly erroneous term. From a marketing perspective, this would be a win for the author!

Just my 2c worth.

Regards
Niekie

By 803056

Date 07-24-2013 19:07 Edited 07-24-2013 19:09

Effective, unambiguous communication is the goal. The English language is functional as well as versatile, but it can also be confusing when the writer or the reader isn't a familiar with the terminology or if English isn't their primary language.

I am always amazed that so many people from so many corners of the world are able to write, read, and speak English. I am ashamed to say that I am limited to English. I tried Spanish for several semesters in my younger years, but my teacher said it was hopeless and told me to give up and take a different subject.

I guess the best approach is to ask questions when we are unsure of what the meaning of an unfamiliar term is.

I typically tell my people that they have to use the terminology that is acceptable by the welding standard they are using. In the case of ASME Section VIII; you do not reject a weld because there is undercut along the toe of the weld, you don't accept the weld because of base metal thinning due to the manufacturing process. I don't accept a report that contains the terms "stick welding," or MIG or TIG. I expect the report to use the word dross, not slag when describing the oxides that accumulate along the edges of a cut on the bottom side of a carbon steel plate that was severed using the oxy-fuel cutting process. I expect the report to use terminology that is appropriate for the industrial sector.

When dealing with a welder, inspector, or engineer, I strive to use the proper terminology and only resort to the vernacular if the person isn't familiar with the terminology I am using. After all, the goal is to communicate effectively. It all the more valuable if the communication can educate at the same time.

It has been mentioned several times that very little in life is black or white. Maybe it is the inspector in me that tries to make it black or white. As an inspector I am making decisions all the time. Does the widget meet the requirements of the specification or not? I am not usually in the position to say, "It isn't right, but it is good enough." That type of decision is up to the Engineer.

It has been and educational discussion to say the least.

Thanks everyone. I have to go chip some slag so I can check the Mig weld for slag tracks.

Best regards - Al

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 07-25-2013 03:51

Well Al,I beg to differ from your observation partly because I'm of the opinion that I am pretty darn good with the use of American English as opposed to The King's English, or as opposed to Cockney, or when it comes to speaking Spanish is concerned; I prefer the Cuban/Dominican dialect as opposed to the traditional Castillian dialect spoken in most of Spain... after all, this is the "AMERICAN Welding Society and NOT The Welding Institute which some think that we should always refer to their world and just disregard the practices of how the AWS works as well as how we derive our standard definitions!

The British still haven't let go of that lousy habit they have of insisting that things should be done exclusively their way only, and have forgotten that over 200 years ago, we told them what we thought of their way of doing things by forming our own destiny and our own institutions by establishing These United States of America and even though they came real close to eradicating us during the war of 1812 yet eventually lost, they still insist on being the standard bearers of just about everything created including welding terms and definitions but then again, that is just my observation as well as my own opinion, and you know how that goes because everyone in here has one including my own! :lol:

Although, there are times when one could easily notice more than one coming from certain participants. :eek:

I think Mike really got into understanding as well as expressing to all of us .some of the reasons why standard term should not be mixed without expecting some miscommunication and confusion and has established the differences between the AWS and TWI which was brilliant IMHO! Then further articulated by our old friend Ozniek otherwise affectionately known as Nieke who has IMHO, always has been the voice of reason in this forum and very happy to see him participating more in here recently!

IMHO, metallurgically speaking, there are also many metals as well as alloys that have what is termed "Interstitials" which can be made up of certain elements in between their grain boundries and when the metals are coalesced in such a manner to form a weld, those interstitials may rise to the top and form what is also known as oxide layers as a result of the chemical reaction induced by the injection of heat and therefore oxidizing these interstitials (clumps of garbage elements that are not part of establishing certain mechanical properties desired when welding as well as when producing these metals and their alloys... So excess interstitials found usually in the base/parent metal can produce these so-called oxide "islands" or sometimes known as "slag islands" also... I also agree with Nieke's, Mike's as well as Al's understanding of how and why these islands of what is basically garbage are formed as a result of welding using the Gas Tungsten Arc Welding process which is a form of Tungsten Inert Gas (Where's the letter representing the word "Arc" :eek:

?) welding to some also That's my observation. :grin:

Respectfully to most,
Henry

By 46.00

Date 07-25-2013 05:03 Edited 07-25-2013 05:24

Henry, are you OK?

http://www.aws.org/wj/supplement/WJ_1988_09_s202.pdf is actually an American Paper!

As is

http://www.csidesigns.com/tech/slag.pdf !

I must admit to not knowing what exactly you are meaning?

BTW the war of 1812 was a draw, even though we burnt the white house down lol!Not really sure how they figured that a draw! The other war, well technically, no one was american then, you were all either english (sorry british) or european!

BTW2 Nieke is not american!

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 07-25-2013 12:34

First off, We became independent of England with the founding of our nation if you want to get technical, and were no longer considered subjects of the crown... In fact, we were then considered criminally treasonous, and since we renounced our English citizenship at the start of our independence and throughout the revolutionary war, we were no longer subjects of the English crown even though the British would refuse to honor this basic American right by the impressment of American sailors who were considered deserters of the Royal Navy... We nonetheless earned our independence from the British once again even before the treaty of Ghent or Paris in 1814... This was further solidified, and was one of the main reasons why we went to war with the British in 1812...

From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812 Under the section titled "Impressment." I would also advise for anyone who's interested to check out the links listed.

"During the Napoleonic Wars, the Royal Navy expanded to 175 ships of the line and 600 ships overall, requiring 140,000 sailors to man.[13] While the Royal Navy could man its ships with volunteers in peacetime, it competed in wartime with merchant shipping and privateers for a small pool of experienced sailors and turned to impressment when it could not operate ships with volunteers alone. Britain did not recognize the right of a British subject to relinquish his status as a British subject, emigrate and transfer his national allegiance as a naturalized citizen to any other country. Thus while the United States recognized British-born sailors on American ships as Americans, Britain did not. It was estimated that there were 11,000 naturalized sailors on United States ships in 1805. Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin stated that 9,000 were born in Britain.[14] The Royal Navy went after them by intercepting and searching U.S. merchant ships for deserters. Impressment actions such as the Leander Affair and the Chesapeake–Leopard Affair outraged Americans, because they infringed on national sovereignty and denied America's ability to naturalize foreigners.[15] Moreover, a great number of British sailors serving as naturalized Americans on U.S. ships were Irish. An investigation by Captain Isaac Chauncey in 1808 found that 58% of the sailors based in New York City were either naturalized citizens or recent immigrants, the majority of foreign sailors (134 of 150) being from Britain. Moreover, eighty of the 134 British sailors were Irish.[16]

The United States believed that British deserters had a right to become United States citizens. Britain did not recognize naturalized United States citizenship, so in addition to recovering deserters, it considered United States citizens born British liable for impressment. Aggravating the situation was the widespread use of forged identity papers by sailors. This made it difficult for the Royal Navy to distinguish Americans from non-Americans and led it to impress some Americans who had never been British. (Some gained freedom on appeal.)[17] American anger at impressment grew when British frigates were stationed just outside U.S. harbours in view of U.S. shores and searched ships for contraband and impressed men while in U.S. territorial waters.[18] "Free trade and sailors' rights" was a rallying cry for the United States throughout the conflict."

So in conclusion, we didn't lose the war nor did we do enough to proclaim victory and neither did the British... You mention that the White House in Washington D.C. was burned which is true but, do you really know why it was burned or the fact that other public buildings were also set ablaze?

It was purely unadulterated retaliation for the burning of the Parliment building as well as other less important structures in the city of York located @ what is currently known as the nation of Canada... The British along with their French and Native American allies more likely won more battles than the Americans yet, the most of the important ones were won by the USA... Think of it like a boxing match where the British being the favorite in the beginning of the match took an overwhelming lead in points scored and almost knocked their opponent, The USA out and yet in the later rounds, it was the Americans who rallied to come back and end up scoring a draw with the British as well as gaining more in the long run as part of manifest destiny when one compares both the gains and losses as a result of the conflict and afterwards.

The end result according to the Treaty of Ghent which is located in Belgium was this... All territories gained or lost on both sides were returned to their respective pre-war conditions... The biggest losers of this conflict were the native Americans by virtue of the war's end initiating Manifest destiny and ultimately the start of the expansion of These United States of America. This is why I wrote that the Americans almost lost even though they really ended up gaining more than their opponents in the long run...

Yes, I know this because he's from South Africa if I remember correctly and nonetheless has been a long time contributor to this forum even before I started to post here and way before you started which is besides the point since he has always accepted and acknowledged the differences in nomenclature/terminology used world wide and to my knowledge never discredited the AWS or any of us ever in here because there was a misunderstanding in communication... Instead, he has always made an extra effort to find agreement during any debate hence, earning my personal title of him being the voice of reason here...

I really couldn't care less where anyone comes from in this forum per se... It's only when some people think that they can just come here to intentionally instigate disputes by posting their opinions and critique the AWS as being inferior to their own knowledge base and attempting to re-educate the participants in how we should express ourselves, or how their terminology is superior to our own which in this particular thread is totally irrelevant! That is where I take issue...

Finally, thanks for asking and expressing your concern as to whether or not I'm in a sound state of mind regardless of my physical condition... Everyday, even though some days are not as markedly observable compared to other days when my health is easily observed as improving, I'm coping with my illnesses one day at a time = I'm okay! :eek:

Respectfully to most!
Henry

By ozniek

Date 07-25-2013 13:31

Hi Henry

Thanks for the history lesson in early American independence. As a non-American I am not exposed to the finer details of these events. I only know events like "the Boston tea party" and a couple of other notable quotes often found in movies. (I spend way too much time watching movies.) How it all fits together is still a little sketchy!

As for the differences in interpretation of historical events, (e.g. Yours and those that appear to be of UK extraction) as a South African, I have known that history is seldom factual. It changes based on the party that writes it and then passes it on. The history of South Africa that I was taught at school during the apartheid era was a lot different to that taught to my kids. I even went out of my way to try and get hold of some history books that appeared more impartial to try and see if I could figure it out! At the end I had to conclude that there were heroes and villains on all sides of the conflicts of our nation.

I have come to accept the saying: "History is written by the victors, not impartial observers."

In short, there will always be many different histories, depending on view points. This does not make any of them less compelling, or necessarily less correct. (OK, some of them are just plain weird.) What it does, is illustrate the point that humans are emotional and prone to conflicts of interest and also rather diverse, which brings us back to the initial question of this post regarding clarity of communication. Clarity of communication is worthy to pursue, as is impartial histories, but in both cases it is something we will never achieve consistently. The best we can aspire to, is to deal with the differences admirably.

Niekie

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 07-25-2013 17:09

Like I wrote in my previous post in this thread, Nieke is my personal choice of being nominated as one of the voices of reason within this American Welding Society forum along with Al, Allen, Big Mike, Giovanni, Gerald, Chet, CWI555, Dbigk, Larry, Le Torneau U Steve, (Obewan) Bozak, Jon, JW, (You know who you are :wink:

)Joe Kane, Marshall, Mr. "Quarterhorse :lol:

," Shane, Stephan and some more excellent folks I may have failed to mention here, or sadly are no longer with us. :sad:

Anywho, once again thank you for your words of wisdom Nieke! :cool:

Yes indeed! There's always at least three versions that include both opponents views and sometimes external observations... The third requirement is the actual & impartial truth which is typically the most elusive of the minimal three required versions of any sort of history. :lol:

Hey Marshall! Long time no read pal! You that busy these days?
Ditto to you as far as being blessed with your counsel and sincere friendship! :smile:

Respectfully to most,
Henry

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 07-25-2013 18:33

"I have come to accept the saying: "History is written by the victors, not impartial observers.""

Amen, Niekie. And that applies to much more than just wars and freedoms won or lost. Many a decision on even our codes is often made based upon the loudest voice, the best orator, the most charismatic presenter, or the most emotional plea instead of the facts of science and research. And then to think that just because a select committee of how ever many members voted on it that it now becomes indisputable fact is often a much misused position.

Also, I know he would be laughed out for including himself in his list, but Henry is on my list as one of those voices as well. Regardless of differences had with any one over any particular issue, they have all made very respectable pleas/presentations of their beliefs and the application of those beliefs. Those are people you wish to meet and glean wisdom from and can part as friends even without total agreement on all issues.

Great List Henry. I'm sure there are others who have not come to mind presently, but a great place to start by saying thanks to all for their contributions and character.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By waccobird (****)

Date 07-25-2013 13:35

ssbn727

Thank You Henry

We are Blessed

Marshall

By cddolan74 (**)

Date 07-25-2013 18:08

Thanks for this discussion and the post of the articles. does any body know of similar studies done an nickel based alloys. I am interested in the oxide formations on the weld pool surface. Or can we come to the same conclusion that weld pool flow and patch " slag types" affect both SS and nickel alloys.
thanks

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 07-27-2013 08:11 Edited 07-28-2013 08:41

Hi cddolan74,

You query got me curious as well and I found some interesting links that may just be helpful towards answering some of the many questions regarding your request...

The Marangoni flow is what you're referring to when you mention "weld pool flow" in your query correct? If so, then, there's a whole lot of data and articles for you to digest and absorb. I also believe these links will satisfy 46.00 disappointment for not finding any input from myself regarding this discussion.. :roll:

.

1) I'll start with this one since after all, it's from TWI and I'm sure both Electrode and 46.00 will get a kick out of me posting this in here :lol:

http://books.google.com/books?id=CJ8GDU89tSgC&pg=PA2&lpg=PA2&dq=Oxide+islands+found+in+inconel+weld+surfaces+from+TIG&source=bl&ots=BGAAVI2Bc5&sig=SVa3xHWJHBo23e7IAejshGg9fiE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ytLyUfGDIMuLrQGE-IAg&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Oxide%20islands%20found%20in%20inconel%20weld%20surfaces%20from%20TIG&f=false

2) I don't remember much about this one and it may not even belong in this post... Hmmm? :eek:

http://www.electrochemsci.org/papers/vol8/80202069.pdf

3) On page 45 of 53, figure 4 in this .pdf from Svetsaren, a publication from ESAB shows photographs of oxide islands formed on the surface of the welds as a result of the different choices used for gas shielding GMAW or MAG (Why use the abbreviation for Metal Active Gas? because a reactive gas is used in the blend with argon with all three photo's) of Duplex Stainless steels...

http://www.wpsamerica.com/library/Svetsaren_1_2007.pdf

4) In this .pdf there 2 other nonstandard terms used to describe slag or oxide islands... They are "scum and lumps or as a film." This article was written way back in 1977:

http://www.aws.org/wj/supplement/WJ_1977_05_s133.pdf

Btw, I figured out why the link posted by 46.00 in an earlier post on this thread would not open for me... The Adobe version of the .pdf is an obsolete one as is this one also...

5) Now here's a power point presentation that briefly covers AWS weld visual inspection criteria for Austenitic Stainless steel tubing in sanitary systems, D18.1 and Weld discoloration inside SS tubing - D18.2... Refer to slide #17 in the .ppt :

http://www.otpnet.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/welding.ppt

6) Guidelines for the welded fabrication of nickel alloys for corrosion-resistant service From the Nickel Development Institute.
Refer to pages 2-3 (10-11), 5-6 (13-14) in this .pdf:

http://www.nickelinstitute.org/~/Media/Files/TechnicalLiterature/GuidelinesfortheWeldedFabricationofNickelAlloysforCorrosion_ResistantService_11012_.pdf

7) This one is ALMOST identical to the previous .pdf except that this is for:
Guidelines for the welded fabrication of "nickel-containing stainless steels" for corrosion resistant services... Notice the slight difference?

http://www.nickelinstitute.org/~/Media/Files/TechnicalLiterature/GuidelinesfortheWeldedFabricationofNickelStainlessSteelsforCorrosionResistantService_11007_.pdf

8) This is the Avesta Pickling Handbook For Stainless Steels and on page 11, an illustration shows slag residues and other surface items on just welded stainless steels, and they are very similar to Nickel weld deposit conditions also:

http://www.misterstainless.com/assets/Pickling_Handbook.pdf

9) Another paper from TWI, and this time covering Intermetallic Phases that form in Duplex SS, and Nickel alloys and their effect on corrosion resistance:

http://www.twi.co.uk/technical-knowledge/published-papers/effect-of-intermetallic-phases/

10) And this one too:

http://www.twi.co.uk/technical-knowledge/job-knowledge/weldability-of-materials-nickel-and-nickel-alloys-022/

Edit: Link was not working properly.

Well, that's about all I could muster up for now... If I find anything else that's relevant, I'll post here. :lol:

Respectfully to most,
Henry

By cddolan74 (**)

Date 07-27-2013 15:48

thanks henry for the links.
The first one was the closest to what I am looking for. I have not spent the limited time I have in searching for studies done on nickel based alloys as I have seen on SS. I am curios to see if surface active elements affect the positive or negative flow in NiCrMo type alloys. In my dealing with different mills I have seen different levels of oxide islands in the weld pool. This most likely due to the deoxidizers used and or the refining process. Like the original posted links I see the same effects of these oxide islands as inclusions and how they collect at the toes of the weld affecting weld tie ins in NiCrMo alloys. I know I in no way am the only person observing this, just have not come across enough studies showing the same results in nickel alloys as seen in SS.

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 07-26-2013 19:42

46.00, I want to bring to your attention regarding the first link you posted as it seems to open up to blank pages for some reason or another... :eek:

So, you may want to review what you posted. :smile:

Now as far as the following paper you're referring to;The author's name is: *Jan Rau of Dockweiler AG, An der Autobahn 10, 19306 Neustadt-Glewe, Germany... The conference may have been held in San Francisco but, the Author most likely either is German or is affiliated with the above mentioned German address/entity. :eek:

I apologize to Js55 for not adding his name also as one of my favorite voices of reason in this forum and there's no way one cannot overlook his many contributions to this forum especially all welding matters related to topics found within the scope of ASME also. :cool:

I also apologize for not including Superflux within my previous list as well... It's always refreshing to read about your experiences abroad as well as overall...
And when I used to have an affinity for alcohol, we would have probably had some pretty outrageous times tying one on if we ever got together back in the day! :eek:

It's always a pleasure to read about your travels as well as your own out of the box takes and experiences on solving certain technical situations. :cool:

Brent, you have come a long way "Grasshopper" and, I applaud you for your efforts to become a more knowledgeable by questioning what you didn't know previously therefore, resulting in acquiring such knowledge and comprehension of whatever topic that was being discussed in here... Such a passion and desire to understand any topic as well as contributing from your own experience as well as your own knowledge base confirms that that you're no longer where you were when you first started to post in here many moons ago...

In fact, it shows me at least, just how far you have progressed as well as your determination to continually educate yourself more by keeping such an open mind as well as the willingness to ask questions when unfamiliar with certain topics and your excellence in retaining the subject matter... I for one, consider you as one of the most informative individuals in here when it's a D1.1 or a D1.5 or seismic discussion taking place, and I was proud to read your recent article in Inspection Trends covering Arc Strikes...

I guess what I'm attempting to express to you Brent is that you do contribute just as much as anyone else in either of our lists also!
So you stand amongst Giants as well my friend! :lol:

Respectfully to most,
Henry