Interesting.  Thanks for that info Lawrence.  I know I have been chided previously for some of my stands on both Pulsed and Globular but that rather sums up some of my concerns as well.  Operators are too prone to making adjustments outside of tested, proven, documented and approved parameters.  I think some issues need to be clarified within the industry and especially the codes.  That does not mean there is absolutely no place for these processes.  Technology is a great thing.  I am not one to oppose all change.  But new things have to be watched, tested, proven. 

We all get the welders who think it is terrible that we would even suggest removing any amount of control from them.  I won't take the space to go through all of the objections and snide comments.  They think the whole WPS and machines that lock them out are going too far and removing their ability to get the job done.  But the truth is they, and some of us when we were there before becoming inspectors, have brought it upon themselves.  Many of us can recall times we changed a machine and did a job in a non orthodox method.  The Northridge earthquake was just one of the more dramatic events that brought many factors into the light and caused a lot of change because of this very issue. 

Now we have a system that does not totally exclude short arc, GTAW, and many other processes, but it does bring it into additional testing to prove the contractor and their welders understand the limitations, have proven they have a correct set of parameters to accomplish the job, and are willing to be monitored to prove they have stayed within those parameters.

That said, for the average person, I still think these are not a wise choice.  It takes training, testing, and experience along with a great desire to be true to the limitations imposed to make it work.  And it is difficult to monitor some of these for the reasons you name as well as the FACT that most of us do not have the resources behind us to get some of the very expensive equipment that would be needed to monitor them as they need to be. 

Bottom line once again, it is up to the engineers, contractor, and inspectors to get a process approved before beginning a job that all can agree will accomplish the work at hand in a satisfactory and successful way with the ability of the inspectors to verify compliance and the ability of the contractor to make money while also producing safe, satisfactory, compliant welds and products.

Many of those same welders named above have more than once claimed they were using Globular when they don't have a clue how to get there or what the difference is between Short Circuit Transfer, Globular, and Spray.  Most of them can't even tell you rather they are using FCAW or GMAW.  Many of them think that being qualified to any one wire electrode process means they can use any at all wire electrode process.  Metal-core, innershield, dual-shield, solid wire gas shielded, etc.  And I agree, it can be confusing in its multitude of specifications and classifications.  But they need to check it out before they begin the job and make sure they are qualified in the one they want to use.

That's why we are supposed to have pre-fabrication meetings, that I have almost never been called in for.  Always backtracking because they have at least part if not all of the work done before they call us. 

If engineers and City Building Officials would stand solid and back us up and make them do it right we would not be going over this so often.  They like playing dumb and then asking forgiveness later.  And way too often the engineers and city officials let them slide.

Now, I know I have gone a little astray from the OP here.  Just my two tin pennies worth on the matter of both Pulsed and Globular, both of which managed to come up here in this thread.

Have a Great Day,  Brent

Henry,

Lawrence answered the original question with some info to which Al asked a question about the source in regards to pulsed usage.  They went back and forth a couple of times.  But within Lawrence's answer was a comment directed toward globular.  So, I was conversing with him about that.   You are right, Al said nothing about globular, though he did ask Lawrence where the quotes had come from concerning info about globular and then commented about pulsed.

Me, I'm just an outside trouble maker, throwing out my two tin pennies of personal opinion which qualifies for any of the infamous applications of opinions one would care to attach to it. 

I understand your comments about how the precise workings of SMAW and occasionally FCAW function in the arc in order to transfer material.  But in it's application of operation when used for GMAW I have great reservations.

Now, that is not to say it does not have a place.  I see it in automotive but the results are far from what I consider to be good or even acceptable.  I have seen few uses where it could not be done much more properly within the limits of either spray or short arc transfers. 

You have seen much more than I.  You have been involved in much more technical applications than I.  Or than a good many others as well.  I respect your position. 

Where I run into problems with Globular is that way too many fabricators THINK they know what they are doing and attempt to claim they are using Globular on structural jobs just to excuse their lack of switching to spray but they turned the short arc way up.  And, they are not qualified/certified in it's operation anyway.  All they have done is try to skip proper procedures.  They have no WPS's or certs to operate within the bounds of Globular. 

Anyway, best wishes for the Holidays Henry.  Glad you are doing well. 

Have a Great Day,  Brent