"Machine" Welding

By js55

Date 02-25-2010 20:32

Yes to both questions.
Been there, tried that. :)

By SFIENG

Date 02-25-2010 20:37

JS55,

Thanks for the quick reply. I keep ending up with yes to the answers but I am trying to find some no answers and why. It doesn't make sense that by performing less of the skilled operations would require additional qualifications.

By js55

Date 02-25-2010 21:45

The logic only holds if you assume "less of a qualification" in all instances.
I can understand your logic. Putting a mig gun on a stand (or using a Buggo) certainly seems like "less" from a logical point of view (made the argument myself many moons ago, and lost), but the qualifications are not necessarily 'less' as you would suppose, they are different.

By js55

Date 02-26-2010 16:38

Take the Buggos for example. I 've run Buggo's. We had a cacozillion of em in a shop I worked in some years ago in a galaxy far far away. Setting oscillation width, speed, and type, with or without dwell, dwell time, etc on the fly and moving around the pipe like Anton Ohno on a short track is not the same as doing so semi auto and can be more challanging in many ways.
Or, how bout machine GMAW-SC on open roots and then transitioning to spray on fill and cap without skipping a beat.

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 02-26-2010 17:16 Edited 02-26-2010 17:21

You only need to use the letter "S" for Short Circuit Jeff. ;) No need to use the letter "C"... I thought you were talking about the "land of Myth" that Ed Craig has on his website! ;)
What a story eh??? :) :) :) ROTFLMAO!!! :) :) ;) "WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN ROBOTS - I ROBOT!!! :) ;) ;)

BTW, them "Buggo's" are made right down the road from here on Carson Street in Pittsburgh and they used to use them to weld the Submarine hull sections together up in good ole "ROTTEN GROTON, CT" @ EB - General Dynamic's Electric Boat Division... Have a great weekend and thanks for the entertainment friend!!! :) :) :)

Respectfully,
Henry

By js55

Date 02-26-2010 17:54

Henry,
You know, the C thing crossed my mind when I typed it. But I like SC better. What a rebel eh??? :)

By Metarinka (****)

Date 03-10-2010 23:56

Henry do you live in the Pittsburgh area? If so I'll show up at your house with my world famous shrimp pasta if you regale me with some of your welding knowledge.

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 03-11-2010 01:28

Hi Joel!

Man-O-man does that ever sound tempting!!! However, I apologize from not being able to eat any sort of shell fish what so ever due to the type of immuno-suppressant drug I take in order to prevent my transplanted liver from being rejected by my body, and there's a substance found in all shell fish which will for all intended purposes, render the immuno-suppressant drug neutralized, therefore putting me at increased risk for experiencing allograft rejection. :(

I do appreciate the offer nonetheless as I do remember how great shrimp tasted at one time in my life, and if your promoting yours like I do my own Cuban recipes, then it must be absolutely delicious indeed!!! :) :) :)

Btw, when do you plan on being in the Pittsburgh area? I could always whip something up that's Cuban cuisine, and then let you have a look at my library if you give me some lead time to clean up my crib a bit beforehand... Next week, I've got to go to NYC for a memorial we're putting together for a very old friend of ours who passed away recently, but anytime afterwards is cool by me. ;)

Respectfully,
Henry

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 02-25-2010 21:46

Hi SFIENG!

First off, "WELDCOME TO THE WORLD'S GREATEST WELDING FORUM!!! :) :) :)"

As I have also wrestled over the years with trying to understand why ASME thinks the way it does, and when an old timer first explained it to me as eloquently as one could possibly do so... The friggin proverbial floodlight lit up like an artificial sun in my head, and everything finally started to make sense when I was reminded again just what the acronym/abbreviation for the American Society of Mechanical Engineers really stands for and means... In other words, "Always, Sometimes, Maybe, Except..."

So every time I get to wondering why the ASME does things the way they do, I'm reminded what the old timer explained to me what was understood to him as the alternative yet sometimes very realistic definition for the acronym/abbreviation - ASME and then it all makes sense to me over and over again!!! :) :) :)
It sometimes defies Logic Always, Sometimes, Maybe, Except... I'll just stop repeating myself right now! ;)

Respectfully,
Henry

By MBSims

Date 02-26-2010 03:48

ummm...is there any other code that does not treat semi-automatic and machine welding operator quals as separate qualifications? Off the top of my head, I don't think this is just ASME.

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 03-11-2010 03:55

Hello guys,
I am a little confused, hopefully someone can clarify.
QW 410.25 states "A change from manual or semi-automatic to machine or automatic welding and vice versa" and this is a non-essential variable.
There is no change in process as it is still FCAW whether it is semi-automatic or machine welding.
For welder qualification I cannot see anything in the essential variables.
Am I missing something ? (other than the difference between a welder and a welding operator)
Regards,
Shane

By js55

Date 03-11-2010 13:37

Shane,
If machine is not written on the WPS the WPS will need to be revised to include it. Though not requaified. I write all of my WPS's to include all three. Well, except semi auto and machine for SMAW.
And for performance qual it is Essential and therefore requires requal.

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 03-12-2010 00:23

Hi Jeff,
I have dug a little deeper and am now even more confused.
Interpretation IX-83-69 has a question regarding QW 410.25.
It states "This variable is a non essential variable for procedure when using the SMAW,SAW,GMAW and GTAW processes."
The question is then asked "Should this also be an essential variable for performance for these processes ?" and the answer is No ?????
The reply then goes on to state that you must be in compliance with the requirements of Article III.
I can find nothing in QW 350 / QW 353 or QW 360 that mentions the change from manual to machine or QW 410.25.
Is the No a typo and should really be - Yes, it is an essential variable for performance qualifications ?
Regards,
Shane

By js55

Date 03-12-2010 14:11

Shane,
Not sure about the present validity of an interpretation written in 83 (they do sometimes become invalid with changes in the code)and the date in which para QW-100.2 was written but QW-100.2 states that the "purpose of the performance qualification test for the welding operator is to determine the welding operator's mechanical ability to operate the welding equipment."
So, if QW-100.2 is valid, how do you do that with a manual or semi auto performance test? You can't.
If QW-100.2 existed when the interpretation was rendered I would have to say that care must be taken in interpreting the interpretation in that no, it is not an 'explicit' essential variable, but you must still comply with QW-100.2.
Note that the question didn't ask about requalification, it asked about an essential variable. Odd, to be sure. But IMO a requal is required due to QW-100.2.

Also, QW-300.3 states that the performance qualification test for welders and welding operators must be documented and 'certified'. How do you do this if the welding operator info wasn't certified at the time?
You can assume for example that there wasn't any 'automatic joint tracking' for example, but is assuming ligit?
How can you certify something you may not have witnessed?

But I do stand corrected on expressing it in terms of an Essential Variable. Good comment. I had to dig out the book on that one.