New TIG welder - weld issues - prior TIG experience

admin

Hello, I have just got my Eastwood 200 A/C D/C machine and spent a little time with it over the weekend and today.   My first attempts at a beautiful bead on AL were fairly good. 'Good shape, good consistency, good (personal) control of heat, puddle, and feeding filler. It was not perfect but it was a good start (after many years).  The next day, I tried mild steel and had lots of sparking and a result of porosity. I researched a bit and realized that my filler rod was incorrect. It was an RG45 meant for O/A welding.   I also tried AL again sometime after that and had a difficult time with initiating a puddle and feeding a rod into it. It seemed to not flow into a bead but rather wanted to ball-up.   The "bead" also wasn't one. It looked like a "slag of AL deposited in a line" (but with penetration). I am thinking maybe not enough shielding gas flow or some sort of contamination.   How important is to avoid steel contamination - such as from a wire brush - onto an AL surface (to be welded)? Would that cause big problems?   To backtrack, I will say that for the first couple of sessions, I used the provided tungsten - which was a thoriated one. I knew that this was not going to be optimal for AL but it seemed to work just fine (at first). Since then, (as of today) I have been using one that is probably new. It's called "E3" (annealed).  So as right now I will hopefully get some good replies. Thank you.
Reply:Both AL and mild steel were 1/8 inch. 1/16 inch thoriated electrode and 3/32 inch "E3"inch electrode. Ground was by contact (material on grounded surface) in most situations but directly clamped in others.Also, may an unclean rod affect welds greatly?
Reply:Post up picts of your welds, both "good" and "bad" along with all the settings used.I can think of several "common" issues new tig welders have with alum and tig in general, but without picts and setting info, it's all just a blind guess..No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth! Ronald Reagan
Reply:I have the same machine and I did experience issues with the provided tungstens. I've been using ceriated from my LWS pretty successfully on both steel and AL. My very basic (noob) understanding of the GTAW process is that everything (including filler) should be super clean and cross contamination should be avoided. I have separate stainless brushes labeled to identify the material they are used on.Good Luck
Reply:Thanks, brianjk. My local welding supply did not have the one that I was after - which was 2% lanthanated. I went with an apparent new one called E3. I do not know much about it. Maybe someone can elaborate.
Reply:Originally Posted by GlennTXThanks, brianjk. My local welding supply did not have the one that I was after - which was 2% lanthanated. I went with an apparent new one called E3. I do not know much about it. Maybe someone can elaborate.
Reply:you likely had cross contamination from using the steel brushes to clean aluminum.  You really need dedicated stainless steel brushes to clean aluminum to hell and back, with acetone.  Don't bother looking for advice for TIG'ing aluminum if you're not doing this already--it's pretty much mandatory.  The "toothbrush" SS wire brushes with the thin SS bristles work great, so long as you use it for aluminum only. Scrub, acetone, scrub, acetone, scrub, acetone, etc--you get the idea.You might also have incorrect machine settings for AC balance (clearance effect on that machine).  You could also have balled/splintered the tungsten tip without even knowing it.  You could also have not had enough current and you tried to feed the filler to "get the puddle started" like it is sometimes done with steel---except you can't do this until you have a shiny puddle formed with a surrounding white HAZ indicative of proper cleaning action via the AC balance from the machine. Without pictures, it's a blind guess as has been mentioned.  For example, you suspected you might not have used enough shielding gas-----why on earth would you not mention how much CFH gas flow you set it at??  AmperageTungsten blend/sizeArgon Flow CFHAC balancematerial thicknesspre-weld prep routinecollet body stylecup stylepre-flowpost-flowpictures of torch angle, travel direction, speed descriptions ....it all forms one great big ol' picture that you can easily recall from memory, but an image we can only hope to achieve on the other side of the internet.
Reply:Originally Posted by shovelonE3 is just a rebadged rare earth blend. The company is touting these as a replacement for "Evil" thoriated tungstens, which are in my opinion the all time best for DC tigging.http://www.arc-zone.com/index.php?ma...oducts_id=4898
Reply:Thorium is pretty nasty stuff.  Decades ago people believed asbestos and lead were OK and that's since been proven to be a fallicy.  Most of us won't inhale enough thorium dust to be concerned but if you were welding in production every day for an entire career around thorium dust you would be at risk of thorium poisoning.Enough stuff to build and repair wrinkled up race cars or bring a classic back to life...
Reply:Originally Posted by WeldingMachineI have to agree, I've tried the Ceriated, Lanthanated, & I even serenaded them, they still don't compare, I stocked up years ago, gotta have em!
Reply:As a welding engineer I would never endorse the use of an electrode that would not comply with a standard and/or would not list its chemical analysis in the description.How can you be sure that they will keep the same analysis in the rare earths the have put in (cerium, lanthanum, ytrium etc)?Of course the tungsten electrode in most codes is a non-essential variable but still I would not be happy about it.
Reply:Thanks for all of your help. My gas flow was at 12-15. I am going to try it again with the info that I have gotten.   I only acquired the "E3" because there were only 2 choices (at this supply) and I already had the Thoriated type. I will be posting photos of my new results.
Reply:Originally Posted by GlennTXThanks for all of your help. My gas flow was at 12-15. I am going to try it again with the info that I have gotten.   I only acquired the "E3" because there were only 2 choices (at this supply) and I already had the Thoriated type. I will be posting photos of my new results.
Reply:Originally Posted by GlennTXThanks for all of your help. My gas flow was at 12-15. I am going to try it again with the info that I have gotten.   I only acquired the "E3" because there were only 2 choices (at this supply) and I already had the Thoriated type. I will be posting photos of my new results.
Reply:Alright. I finally got the nerve to go back to "my practice". I am not going to list the weld variables here - "no importa" for this post. I am back to success! I had thought on it for awhile and just as a spur of the moment, I decided to run another bead, real quick.   Just as I had suspected, I was "heat-sinking" my welds before - and probably too contaminated. This time, I made sure that the piece was not resting on the "grounding surface" that I had been using before - which was a plate of "diamond-patterned" AL. And also, I scrubbed the AL to a state of overkill except without chemical cleaning,  I had excellent control of heat and puddle profile (shape) this time. The completed weld was shiny and uniform. I will, in future posts, include photos.It seems to be the simple things that are often overlooked.Anyway, thanks to all who offered their assistance.Last edited by GlennTX; 03-10-2013 at 08:03 PM.Reason: corrections