![]() | Gas metal arc welding is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 4, 2005. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I would like to add an outbound link to two great guides and resources that deal with the proper preparation and selection of material on tungsten electrodes. The link is at: www.diamondground.com/downloads.html. Do you feel that this would be appropriate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.112.164.100 ( talk) 21:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
To get this article featured, at least the following should be done:
Please, add to this list if you think something is missing! Spangineer ∞ 18:46, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Electrode
and Section: Flux-Cored Wire-Fed; so these gasless machines operate as DCEP, rather than the DCEN usually used for GMAW to give deeper penetration.[24] DCEP, or DC Electrode Positive, makes the welding wire into the positively-charged anode, which is the hotter side of the arc.[25] Provided that it is switchable from DCEN to DCEP, a gas-shielded wire-feed machine may also be used for flux-cored wire. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
75.107.25.196 (
talk)
02:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I'll make a start on the history bit. I can take a nice pic of my little 150 Amp welder if that's any use? Only slight issue might be it's an unusual make (Ferm/Sealey).
History link: http://www.solarnavigator.net/welding.htm
Mat-C 02:04, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
The welding page looks very good, I'll have a scan through it. I can't really write much on the history without more info (and decent sources hard to come by). Will do other bits as we go along, including the safety rewording. Cheers, Mat-C 03:09, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
I thought we might change the text within the image to simple numbered items, then we can simply have an editable list under the description text. Yes? ( TTLightningRod)
What's the matter... you don't like my cubist representation of a nice finger-formed hand-held trigger-actuated MIG torch grip, with gold-inset name-brand logo? What's wrong with you? : ) Ya, I'll do something a little better with that... I just tossed this off this afternoon, and didn't want to put time into other details before we could start talking about it. Which now we have.
So numbers are the way to go. I'll leave you to fill in their technical description, and still others can translate easier too. I'll also do a bit more work on the actual cut away (you can see that in the talk: Welding page. Changing things around is quite easy, particularly views, perspective, angle, rendering and color.. that's why CAD is so cool. Draw it once in 3D, the rest is kids play. Didn't like my "cubes"... you silly boy.
One other thing.... I would expect other people could pick up on this method of; draft, feedback, change, repost... In this case it's not so important to me, but I don't want to keep posting "latest revisions" without being able to completely delete old versions of a draft that have been superseded. (That's an important dynamic when moving any kind of draft and engineering paperwork around, as you know) The best way to do it would be if I could simply "replace" an image with it's same simple name every time. I personally don't care if the older one is dumped all together, but if the wiki commons system could date stamp, and reshuffle the image history backwards, that would be good for future generations in perpetuity. Otherwise, any person working on an image, especially any future collaborative CAD work, (collaborative DXF's or DWG's in a wiki environment would be super cool) any person working on an image and replacing an older image would have to rename it every time. I do suppose I could add a date/time stamp, but that really isn't the best solution if in the future, many people are working on the same thing simultaneously, and in different time zones.
Basically... What will happen with a wiki-commons filling up with half-baked or old, technical images?
Please let me know what you think. If there are other ways the illistration could be viewed, modified, or otherwise improved... please let me know. TTLightningRod 12:32, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's looking great to me. Once we get this article to peer review, we'll get some more feedback from other users (hopefully), but for now, I think we're in great shape. You may want to specify on the image page that you're releasing these under GDFL or whatever, so that there aren't any concerns later about where these images came from. I'm thinking that putting the two torch end images near each other (perhaps one on top of the other) would be a great visual. I'll work on the caption and on the image placement, and I'll let you know if I see anything that I think needs to be changed. And please, feel free to contribute to this article! You seem to know pretty much about this welding thing, and it would be great to get a little bit of writing collabaration going :). But if you can't, I understand – in any case, your contribution of these images is a fantastic addition. -- Spangineer ∞ 16:50, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
"it can not be used outdoors or in other areas of air volatility." By their very nature, both stick and MIG CAN be used outdoors because they both use some form of flux and/or inert shielding gas because of ambient volatiles everywhere we want oxygen to breath. It would be more correct to even say they work BEST outdoors, if only for the better safety of the operator. TTLightningRod 19:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Can I just say... fantastic work on those cutaway diagrams, with detail right down to the threads on the tip. Mat-C 28 June 2005 15:13 (UTC)
It's not like this exact topic was already featured just a short while ago as a featured picture or anything. No repetition here, nosiree. No crowding out of selected articles that haven't been featured yet either! I'm so glad Wikipedia features a diversity of articles on the front page rather than recycling the same old ones. MrVoluntarist 00:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
The note structure is easy to navigate. Good formatting. hydnjo talk 02:15, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
At what voltage is MIG welding usually done? ― BenFrantzDale 03:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
It is basic to advance turning the nozzle to the traveling direction and spraying the shielding gas from the nozzle. Therefore, I think that the traveling direction and the direction where a semiautomatic welding of this figure is formed the bead are wrong of it.
Refer to Welding(Japanese version Wikpedia) for details. 121.200.137.77 16:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
"My name is shilton" doesn't really seem relavent to the topic at hand. Forar 19:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Quote: Originally developed for welding aluminium and other non-ferrous materials in the 1940s, GMAW was soon applied to steels because it allowed for lower welding time compared to other welding processes.
How so, compared to regular electric-arc welding without protective gas? Maikel ( talk) 16:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
It's been a long time since this article was promoted and it still looks good but needs some polish in order to meet the current FA criteria. I've added citation needed tags where there are none. There are questions about a self-published source used in the article. At least two of the books listed in the bibliography are not used for citing the article. One cite needs the its page number listed. Brad ( talk) 10:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I believe the following statement to be plain wrong: "The automobile industry in particular uses GMAW welding almost exclusively." Resistance spot welding is very common in the automotive industry (see e.g. http://www.boschrexroth.com/country_units/europe/united_kingdom/en/industries/automotive/downloads/a_downloads/Bosch_Automotive.pdf), and I believe laser welding is also used on a regular basis. Thus I will remove that sentence from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankid ( talk • contribs) 10:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Is it better to say that this mode is "the most undesirable" (which I've reworded to "least desirable" for clarity) or should we say, "It's simply broken and no-one should use it"?
I'm UK trained, so I've not read the US texts used as sources here, where it seems to be described as an early form of welding that was in common and widespread use until it was supplanted by something better. From my training, and my sources, the view is rather more against it. It's viewed here in one of two ways: an obscure form used only with care and specific need, on thin sheet - even then it has been superseded by machines that allow pulsing. Otherwise, and most commonly, it's seen as "amateur welding", the "pigeon crap" welds produced by DIY car restorers using CO2 gas, poor skill and machines that can't reliably deliver spray transfer mode.
There is a commercial difference between US & UK low-volume or hobby welders, such that it's expensive to use an argon based gas in the UK (because of cylinder rental charges), thus many instead use CO2, even for welds where this is quite inappropriate. The UK welding field is stratified into "CO2 globular welders" (who basically aren't to be trusted) and "competent welders" (professional or amateur). Although globular transfer must be covered, if only as a warning, I'm concerned that listing it first, and as if it's a credible choice in anything other than an obscure situation, is giving it a credence it shouldn't have. Andy Dingley ( talk) 10:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
This article just passed FAR ... Maralia, I am heading out for a long weekend. Could you review this revert by Glrx? Were Maralia's edits saved? Sorry, I haven't time to look closer. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
The article states 'Newer helmet designs feature a liquid crystal-type face plate that self-darken upon exposure to high amounts of UV light.'
My understanding is that in auto-darkening helmets the LCD only acts to reduce the visible light from the arc but the glass itself is a UV filter so if the battery/solar cell power supply fails the user may be dazzled but will not suffer arc eye from UV damage. Could someone who knows more about this check this? Stub Mandrel ( talk) 20:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
"Furthermore, because the use of compressed gases in GMAW pose an explosion and fire risk, some common precautions include limiting the amount of oxygen in the air and keeping combustible materials away from the workplace.(ref) Cary & Helzer 2005, pp. 52–62 (/ref)"
Considering the purpose of the compressed gases is to prevent oxidation, among other things, this is rather hard to believe. Argon and CO2 simply are not combustion hazards. Potential explosion due to compromised container/control equipment, perhaps, but not combustion. Huw Powell ( talk) 06:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
As the primary author of this article about 10 years ago I used American English; however, it appears that when I first began editing it I inadvertently introduced this convention into an article that was not a stub and already had "aluminium" (with an extra "i") and "utilises" in it. Thus it appears that I at least violated the current rendition of WP:RETAIN, which if I recall correctly was in effect at that time as well.
Recently someone (or several people) editing anonymously have insisted on introduction of "aluminium" into this article. I originally opposed this and reverted, as I saw it as a violation of WP:RETAIN. However, in light of my further digging into the history I see that British spelling should have been retained across the board.
Thus, given that the article currently includes "aluminium," I hope someone with knowledge of British English can make the article use that spelling consistently; I am not qualified to do so. — Spangineer ws (háblame) 22:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gas metal arc welding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
IDK anything about the term "metal active gas (MAG) welding", but presumably it includes atomic hydrogen welding. I intend to put a link to atomic hydrogen welding unless I see objections soon. CountMacula ( talk) 21:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
I removed the section on flux-core welding and gave my reasons in the comments. Flux core is not GMAW---GAS welding, and so it is off-topic in the present article. Its relation to GMAW is that the two are often done with the same machinery, which I mentioned in my revision. Mechanical feeding of the wire is not even an essential element of either. Gas shielding IS an essential element, and so I moved a sentence stating so into the first paragraph. Further, I added a See Also section with a link to Flux-cored arc welding. All my edits were reverted without any useful comment. /info/en/?search=Template:Section_blanking recommends giving reasons when removing a whole section. I did so. None of my reasons were discussed in the reversion, and the reverter gave no reason at all. CountMacula ( talk) 02:13, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
My welding teacher said so 75.172.83.43 ( talk) 02:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Someone arc welding and any all Weldings . 157.39.65.88 ( talk) 07:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
The person who does welding is called a weldor. The machine itself is called a welder. That terminology difference was one of the first things taught when I started welding classes in the late 1950s.
![]() | Gas metal arc welding is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 4, 2005. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I would like to add an outbound link to two great guides and resources that deal with the proper preparation and selection of material on tungsten electrodes. The link is at: www.diamondground.com/downloads.html. Do you feel that this would be appropriate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.112.164.100 ( talk) 21:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
To get this article featured, at least the following should be done:
Please, add to this list if you think something is missing! Spangineer ∞ 18:46, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Electrode
and Section: Flux-Cored Wire-Fed; so these gasless machines operate as DCEP, rather than the DCEN usually used for GMAW to give deeper penetration.[24] DCEP, or DC Electrode Positive, makes the welding wire into the positively-charged anode, which is the hotter side of the arc.[25] Provided that it is switchable from DCEN to DCEP, a gas-shielded wire-feed machine may also be used for flux-cored wire. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
75.107.25.196 (
talk)
02:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I'll make a start on the history bit. I can take a nice pic of my little 150 Amp welder if that's any use? Only slight issue might be it's an unusual make (Ferm/Sealey).
History link: http://www.solarnavigator.net/welding.htm
Mat-C 02:04, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
The welding page looks very good, I'll have a scan through it. I can't really write much on the history without more info (and decent sources hard to come by). Will do other bits as we go along, including the safety rewording. Cheers, Mat-C 03:09, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
I thought we might change the text within the image to simple numbered items, then we can simply have an editable list under the description text. Yes? ( TTLightningRod)
What's the matter... you don't like my cubist representation of a nice finger-formed hand-held trigger-actuated MIG torch grip, with gold-inset name-brand logo? What's wrong with you? : ) Ya, I'll do something a little better with that... I just tossed this off this afternoon, and didn't want to put time into other details before we could start talking about it. Which now we have.
So numbers are the way to go. I'll leave you to fill in their technical description, and still others can translate easier too. I'll also do a bit more work on the actual cut away (you can see that in the talk: Welding page. Changing things around is quite easy, particularly views, perspective, angle, rendering and color.. that's why CAD is so cool. Draw it once in 3D, the rest is kids play. Didn't like my "cubes"... you silly boy.
One other thing.... I would expect other people could pick up on this method of; draft, feedback, change, repost... In this case it's not so important to me, but I don't want to keep posting "latest revisions" without being able to completely delete old versions of a draft that have been superseded. (That's an important dynamic when moving any kind of draft and engineering paperwork around, as you know) The best way to do it would be if I could simply "replace" an image with it's same simple name every time. I personally don't care if the older one is dumped all together, but if the wiki commons system could date stamp, and reshuffle the image history backwards, that would be good for future generations in perpetuity. Otherwise, any person working on an image, especially any future collaborative CAD work, (collaborative DXF's or DWG's in a wiki environment would be super cool) any person working on an image and replacing an older image would have to rename it every time. I do suppose I could add a date/time stamp, but that really isn't the best solution if in the future, many people are working on the same thing simultaneously, and in different time zones.
Basically... What will happen with a wiki-commons filling up with half-baked or old, technical images?
Please let me know what you think. If there are other ways the illistration could be viewed, modified, or otherwise improved... please let me know. TTLightningRod 12:32, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's looking great to me. Once we get this article to peer review, we'll get some more feedback from other users (hopefully), but for now, I think we're in great shape. You may want to specify on the image page that you're releasing these under GDFL or whatever, so that there aren't any concerns later about where these images came from. I'm thinking that putting the two torch end images near each other (perhaps one on top of the other) would be a great visual. I'll work on the caption and on the image placement, and I'll let you know if I see anything that I think needs to be changed. And please, feel free to contribute to this article! You seem to know pretty much about this welding thing, and it would be great to get a little bit of writing collabaration going :). But if you can't, I understand – in any case, your contribution of these images is a fantastic addition. -- Spangineer ∞ 16:50, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
"it can not be used outdoors or in other areas of air volatility." By their very nature, both stick and MIG CAN be used outdoors because they both use some form of flux and/or inert shielding gas because of ambient volatiles everywhere we want oxygen to breath. It would be more correct to even say they work BEST outdoors, if only for the better safety of the operator. TTLightningRod 19:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Can I just say... fantastic work on those cutaway diagrams, with detail right down to the threads on the tip. Mat-C 28 June 2005 15:13 (UTC)
It's not like this exact topic was already featured just a short while ago as a featured picture or anything. No repetition here, nosiree. No crowding out of selected articles that haven't been featured yet either! I'm so glad Wikipedia features a diversity of articles on the front page rather than recycling the same old ones. MrVoluntarist 00:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
The note structure is easy to navigate. Good formatting. hydnjo talk 02:15, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
At what voltage is MIG welding usually done? ― BenFrantzDale 03:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
It is basic to advance turning the nozzle to the traveling direction and spraying the shielding gas from the nozzle. Therefore, I think that the traveling direction and the direction where a semiautomatic welding of this figure is formed the bead are wrong of it.
Refer to Welding(Japanese version Wikpedia) for details. 121.200.137.77 16:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
"My name is shilton" doesn't really seem relavent to the topic at hand. Forar 19:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Quote: Originally developed for welding aluminium and other non-ferrous materials in the 1940s, GMAW was soon applied to steels because it allowed for lower welding time compared to other welding processes.
How so, compared to regular electric-arc welding without protective gas? Maikel ( talk) 16:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
It's been a long time since this article was promoted and it still looks good but needs some polish in order to meet the current FA criteria. I've added citation needed tags where there are none. There are questions about a self-published source used in the article. At least two of the books listed in the bibliography are not used for citing the article. One cite needs the its page number listed. Brad ( talk) 10:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I believe the following statement to be plain wrong: "The automobile industry in particular uses GMAW welding almost exclusively." Resistance spot welding is very common in the automotive industry (see e.g. http://www.boschrexroth.com/country_units/europe/united_kingdom/en/industries/automotive/downloads/a_downloads/Bosch_Automotive.pdf), and I believe laser welding is also used on a regular basis. Thus I will remove that sentence from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankid ( talk • contribs) 10:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Is it better to say that this mode is "the most undesirable" (which I've reworded to "least desirable" for clarity) or should we say, "It's simply broken and no-one should use it"?
I'm UK trained, so I've not read the US texts used as sources here, where it seems to be described as an early form of welding that was in common and widespread use until it was supplanted by something better. From my training, and my sources, the view is rather more against it. It's viewed here in one of two ways: an obscure form used only with care and specific need, on thin sheet - even then it has been superseded by machines that allow pulsing. Otherwise, and most commonly, it's seen as "amateur welding", the "pigeon crap" welds produced by DIY car restorers using CO2 gas, poor skill and machines that can't reliably deliver spray transfer mode.
There is a commercial difference between US & UK low-volume or hobby welders, such that it's expensive to use an argon based gas in the UK (because of cylinder rental charges), thus many instead use CO2, even for welds where this is quite inappropriate. The UK welding field is stratified into "CO2 globular welders" (who basically aren't to be trusted) and "competent welders" (professional or amateur). Although globular transfer must be covered, if only as a warning, I'm concerned that listing it first, and as if it's a credible choice in anything other than an obscure situation, is giving it a credence it shouldn't have. Andy Dingley ( talk) 10:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
This article just passed FAR ... Maralia, I am heading out for a long weekend. Could you review this revert by Glrx? Were Maralia's edits saved? Sorry, I haven't time to look closer. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
The article states 'Newer helmet designs feature a liquid crystal-type face plate that self-darken upon exposure to high amounts of UV light.'
My understanding is that in auto-darkening helmets the LCD only acts to reduce the visible light from the arc but the glass itself is a UV filter so if the battery/solar cell power supply fails the user may be dazzled but will not suffer arc eye from UV damage. Could someone who knows more about this check this? Stub Mandrel ( talk) 20:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
"Furthermore, because the use of compressed gases in GMAW pose an explosion and fire risk, some common precautions include limiting the amount of oxygen in the air and keeping combustible materials away from the workplace.(ref) Cary & Helzer 2005, pp. 52–62 (/ref)"
Considering the purpose of the compressed gases is to prevent oxidation, among other things, this is rather hard to believe. Argon and CO2 simply are not combustion hazards. Potential explosion due to compromised container/control equipment, perhaps, but not combustion. Huw Powell ( talk) 06:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
As the primary author of this article about 10 years ago I used American English; however, it appears that when I first began editing it I inadvertently introduced this convention into an article that was not a stub and already had "aluminium" (with an extra "i") and "utilises" in it. Thus it appears that I at least violated the current rendition of WP:RETAIN, which if I recall correctly was in effect at that time as well.
Recently someone (or several people) editing anonymously have insisted on introduction of "aluminium" into this article. I originally opposed this and reverted, as I saw it as a violation of WP:RETAIN. However, in light of my further digging into the history I see that British spelling should have been retained across the board.
Thus, given that the article currently includes "aluminium," I hope someone with knowledge of British English can make the article use that spelling consistently; I am not qualified to do so. — Spangineer ws (háblame) 22:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gas metal arc welding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
IDK anything about the term "metal active gas (MAG) welding", but presumably it includes atomic hydrogen welding. I intend to put a link to atomic hydrogen welding unless I see objections soon. CountMacula ( talk) 21:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
I removed the section on flux-core welding and gave my reasons in the comments. Flux core is not GMAW---GAS welding, and so it is off-topic in the present article. Its relation to GMAW is that the two are often done with the same machinery, which I mentioned in my revision. Mechanical feeding of the wire is not even an essential element of either. Gas shielding IS an essential element, and so I moved a sentence stating so into the first paragraph. Further, I added a See Also section with a link to Flux-cored arc welding. All my edits were reverted without any useful comment. /info/en/?search=Template:Section_blanking recommends giving reasons when removing a whole section. I did so. None of my reasons were discussed in the reversion, and the reverter gave no reason at all. CountMacula ( talk) 02:13, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
My welding teacher said so 75.172.83.43 ( talk) 02:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Someone arc welding and any all Weldings . 157.39.65.88 ( talk) 07:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
The person who does welding is called a weldor. The machine itself is called a welder. That terminology difference was one of the first things taught when I started welding classes in the late 1950s.