Welding Tips and Tricks

Here's a total noob question.
I was just watching a new video from Jody Collier where he's demoing the CK 200A ACDC TIG machine.
He runs through a bunch of settings such as pulse, AC freq etc for various situations.
Understanding that all machines are different, do the settings generally hold true regardless of the machine?

For example, does the rule of 33 apply regardless of the machine?
(edit- I suppose it wouldn't be a rule if it didn't hold true....)

DavidR8 wrote:Here's a total noob question.
I was just watching a new video from Jody Collier where he's demoing the CK 200A ACDC TIG machine.
He runs through a bunch of settings such as pulse, AC freq etc for various situations.
Understanding that all machines are different, do the settings hold true regardless of the machine?

For example, does the rule of 33 apply regardless of the machine?

The general settings do apply, but you need to keep in mind that each machine is different and needs to be tuned accordingly. Keep in mind that you can't tell exactly how your Primeweld is set for the analog controls, you get a good idea, but you can't tell the exact settings like you could with digital controls.

Also, keep in mind that many machines use the AC Balance in reverse of each other, some control the amount of positive and others control the amount of negative. Miller and I believe some Lincolns use the later, controlling the negative. On the Primeweld it controls the amount of positive.

With that said, now you can get advice from someone that knows what they're doing! The hairsplitters should also be along shortly to criticize my terminology.

Like TTW said, you need to use it to see how it responds. But all in all, I'd expect modern machines to be within 5% of each other. Now a machine from 1975, then that's a different story. But I'd suspect that your machine's 180A would be very close to one of my machine's 180A. You just don't have the granular control from having a digital menu(s), so you have to guesstimate the knobs. So if you set it to 30pps, 28% base amps, 35% peak on-time, I would bet 99 out of 98 people would not know that it is not exactly 33pps/33% base amps/33% peak on-time. You'd be so close it would be functionally identical.

Thanks gents, that’s what I intuitively knew but I’m out of my depth here other than knowing that MIG is spelled different than TIG


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agree with Oscar that most machines should be pretty close to each other regarding those settings; however, different brands and different machines from the same brand will absolutely produce non-identical waveforms relative to each other (all of pulse and AC use waveforms) so that could create some subtle differences in itself. Here, in terms of "different waveforms," I don't mean triangle wave, sine wave, soft square wave, etc., but that each standard square wave can be slightly different between machines depending on how the circuitry handles the ramp up and ramp down times for each cycle. Graphic illustrations show a square wave as being a true square, but in reality this is impossible, since there is a switching time period between the wave peaks that will impact heat input. So, at least in theory, "better" machines that use more expensive electronic components and faster clock speeds would be able to switch faster (same PPS, just more time at peak amperage due to the faster switching) and would therefore put more heat into the part being welded if using the exact same parameters as a machine that was not able to switch as fast and had a more pronounced ramp up/ramp down time for each wave. The difference would be subtle, but certainly detectable on a scope.

This would be true for both DC pulse and any AC waveforms.

Spartan wrote:Agree with Oscar that most machines should be pretty close to each other regarding those settings; however, different brands and different machines from the same brand will absolutely produce non-identical waveforms relative to each other (all of pulse and AC use waveforms) so that could create some subtle differences in itself. Here, in terms of "different waveforms," I don't mean triangle wave, sine wave, soft square wave, etc., but that each standard square wave can be slightly different between machines depending on how the circuitry handles the ramp up and ramp down times for each cycle. Graphic illustrations show a square wave as being a true square, but in reality this is impossible, since there is a switching time period between the wave peaks that will impact heat input. So, at least in theory, "better" machines that use more expensive electronic components and faster clock speeds would be able to switch faster (same PPS, just more time at peak amperage due to the faster switching) and would therefore put more heat into the part being welded if using the exact same parameters as a machine that was not able to switch as fast and had a more pronounced ramp up/ramp down time for each wave. The difference would be subtle, but certainly detectable on a scope.

This would be true for both DC pulse and any AC waveforms.

That makes complete sense to me @Spartan. Faster switching equals more time at the peak pulse amperage.
It would be interesting to see the differences on a scope (I'm way out of my depth here but I get the theory )

DavidR8 wrote:

Spartan wrote:Agree with Oscar that most machines should be pretty close to each other regarding those settings; however, different brands and different machines from the same brand will absolutely produce non-identical waveforms relative to each other (all of pulse and AC use waveforms) so that could create some subtle differences in itself. Here, in terms of "different waveforms," I don't mean triangle wave, sine wave, soft square wave, etc., but that each standard square wave can be slightly different between machines depending on how the circuitry handles the ramp up and ramp down times for each cycle. Graphic illustrations show a square wave as being a true square, but in reality this is impossible, since there is a switching time period between the wave peaks that will impact heat input. So, at least in theory, "better" machines that use more expensive electronic components and faster clock speeds would be able to switch faster (same PPS, just more time at peak amperage due to the faster switching) and would therefore put more heat into the part being welded if using the exact same parameters as a machine that was not able to switch as fast and had a more pronounced ramp up/ramp down time for each wave. The difference would be subtle, but certainly detectable on a scope.

This would be true for both DC pulse and any AC waveforms.

It would be interesting to see the differences on a scope (I'm way out of my depth here but I get the theory )

Don't bother yourself with it; you can't weld the difference. Theory is interesting, actual measurable results in real-world are what matters. And outside of some high precision, factory robotic welding, I can't even begin to believe that 2 different Welders could discern the difference between the switching time (we are talking micro seconds in reality) because each person welds just differently enough to each other that it becomes moot.

cj737 wrote:Don't bother yourself with it; you can't weld the difference. Theory is interesting, actual measurable results in real-world are what matters. And outside of some high precision, factory robotic welding, I can't even begin to believe that 2 different Welders could discern the difference between the switching time (we are talking micro seconds in reality) because each person welds just differently enough to each other that it becomes moot.

Supposedly it is what gives Miller Dynasty's that ultimate "smoothness" to the arc that a lot of people rave about...I dunno since I've never used one.

Oscar wrote:Supposedly it is what gives Miller Dynasty's that ultimate "smoothness" to the arc that a lot of people rave about...I dunno since I've never used one.

But how would you explain cj's comments in the Primeweld thread that stated:

cj737 wrote:I sat down and spent 3 days with him teaching, showing, and welding on a variety of things, even some production aluminum work. I would say it welds as well as my existing Dynasty 200DX, better than my old Lincoln 250 transformer, and has nearly every function I required.

This in no way implies that the Primeweld is built to the same standards and/or even the same quality of the Miller Dynasty, but it proves cj's statement you responded to, that most welders couldn't weld to the difference, even if it does exist. Also enforces your comment above:

Oscar wrote:Like TTW said, you need to use it to see how it responds. But all in all, I'd expect modern machines to be within 5% of each other. Now a machine from 1975, then that's a different story. But I'd suspect that your machine's 180A would be very close to one of my machine's 180A. You just don't have the granular control from having a digital menu(s), so you have to guesstimate the knobs. So if you set it to 30pps, 28% base amps, 35% peak on-time, I would bet 99 out of 98 people would not know that it is not exactly 33pps/33% base amps/33% peak on-time. You'd be so close it would be functionally identical.

Oscar wrote:

cj737 wrote: And outside of some high precision, factory robotic welding, I can't even begin to believe that 2 different Welders could discern the difference between the switching time (we are talking micro seconds in reality) because each person welds just differently enough to each other that it becomes moot.

Supposedly it is what gives Miller Dynasty's that ultimate "smoothness" to the arc that a lot of people rave about...I dunno since I've never used one.

Not quite the point I was making. My point is, 2 people of equal skill welding on the same machine will have different experiences. And the "infamous" Dynasty smooth arc is very anecdotal, wouldn't you say?

cj737 wrote:Not quite the point I was making. My point is, 2 people of equal skill welding on the same machine will have different experiences. And the "infamous" Dynasty smooth arc is very anecdotal, wouldn't you say?

Yup, that's why I said "supposedly".

I think people make too big a deal out of exact settings. I end up tweaking known settings a bit just because of my mental state, or the temperature in the shop changes. I start out using the rule of thumb 1 amp per thousandth. For mild steel I add 10 to 15% for a faster puddle. For Aluminium, I add 50 to 70% for a quick puddle and the higher heat requirement. Run a quick test weld, and tweak if needed. Those settings get me close enough to try a weld without blowing holes in everything. Would start with the same settings on any brand of welder.
Bottom line.... guesstimate, test, tweak, weld.

cj737 wrote:

DavidR8 wrote:

Spartan wrote:Agree with Oscar that most machines should be pretty close to each other regarding those settings; however, different brands and different machines from the same brand will absolutely produce non-identical waveforms relative to each other (all of pulse and AC use waveforms) so that could create some subtle differences in itself. Here, in terms of "different waveforms," I don't mean triangle wave, sine wave, soft square wave, etc., but that each standard square wave can be slightly different between machines depending on how the circuitry handles the ramp up and ramp down times for each cycle. Graphic illustrations show a square wave as being a true square, but in reality this is impossible, since there is a switching time period between the wave peaks that will impact heat input. So, at least in theory, "better" machines that use more expensive electronic components and faster clock speeds would be able to switch faster (same PPS, just more time at peak amperage due to the faster switching) and would therefore put more heat into the part being welded if using the exact same parameters as a machine that was not able to switch as fast and had a more pronounced ramp up/ramp down time for each wave. The difference would be subtle, but certainly detectable on a scope.

This would be true for both DC pulse and any AC waveforms.

It would be interesting to see the differences on a scope (I'm way out of my depth here but I get the theory )

Don't bother yourself with it; you can't weld the difference. Theory is interesting, actual measurable results in real-world are what matters. And outside of some high precision, factory robotic welding, I can't even begin to believe that 2 different Welders could discern the difference between the switching time (we are talking micro seconds in reality) because each person welds just differently enough to each other that it becomes moot.

Do a controlled test and you may be surprised in the differences you see, especially on AC. The differences will also be much more apparent when running high PPS (let's say 150Hz+) on DC since the higher PPS frequencies greatly increase the number of switching events per second, and this is the leading cause of why the higher frequency pulse settings provide noticeably less penetration, all other things being equal.

People often talk about machines having their own "personalities" when it comes to how those machines weld, and I believe it is these subtle waveform differences that have the greatest impact on a machine's personality.

cj737 wrote:

Oscar wrote:Supposedly it is what gives Miller Dynasty's that ultimate "smoothness" to the arc that a lot of people rave about...I dunno since I've never used one.

Not quite the point I was making. My point is, 2 people of equal skill welding on the same machine will have different experiences. And the "infamous" Dynasty smooth arc is very anecdotal, wouldn't you say?

I have a dynasty but I don't have a lot of experience with other machines. Coming from the very nice Transformer machine that I had before, I can say the Lions share the improvements come from the abilities of an inverter machine.

Knowing a little of what I do about Electronics, I would be surprised if there is a dramatic amount of difference in the rise time of one scr versus another. Scr meaning silicon controlled rectifier, the Gizmo that switches the power on and off. Most every machine has the ability to control that wave shape which means they can make decisions about how much power to apply in real time, on every single wave. Most likely using pwm or some similar technique to ramp up and down. I'm not sure I would buy it if someone told me the Miller is smoother because of Rise and Fall times. Sounds like marketing BS to me.

That said, the Dynasty is one hell of a nice welder.

BugHunter wrote:

cj737 wrote:

Oscar wrote:Supposedly it is what gives Miller Dynasty's that ultimate "smoothness" to the arc that a lot of people rave about...I dunno since I've never used one.

Not quite the point I was making. My point is, 2 people of equal skill welding on the same machine will have different experiences. And the "infamous" Dynasty smooth arc is very anecdotal, wouldn't you say?

I have a dynasty but I don't have a lot of experience with other machines. Coming from the very nice Transformer machine that I had before, I can say the Lions share the improvements come from the abilities of an inverter machine.

Knowing a little of what I do about Electronics, I would be surprised if there is a dramatic amount of difference in the rise time of one scr versus another. Scr meaning silicon controlled rectifier, the Gizmo that switches the power on and off. Most every machine has the ability to control that wave shape which means they can make decisions about how much power to apply in real time, on every single wave. Most likely using pwm or some similar technique to ramp up and down. I'm not sure I would buy it if someone told me the Miller is smoother because of Rise and Fall times. Sounds like marketing BS to me.

That said, the Dynasty is one hell of a nice welder.

That reminds me of a point that I realized too late that I had failed to make in one of my previous posts. The waveform differences are not only impacted by rise/fall times (ramp up/ramp down), but also by overshoot/undershoot of the target amperage in the generated waveform. Sure, this overshoot/undershoot is often only micro seconds or less, but again, when dealing with higher frequency waveforms (DC pulse PPS or AC) those microseconds really begin to add up.

Spartan wrote:That reminds me of a point that I realized too late that I had failed to make in one of my previous posts. The waveform differences are not only impacted by rise/fall times (ramp up/ramp down), but also by overshoot/undershoot of the target amperage in the generated waveform. Sure, this overshoot/undershoot is often only micro seconds or less, but again, when dealing with higher frequency waveforms (DC pulse PPS or AC) those microseconds really begin to add up.

I would like to also say "Well, there shouldn't be any issues with the overshoot because the designers should have that 100% under control also... bla bla bla..." but the truth is, often they don't. For example, I recently watched a video review of a reasonably well known brand and model oscilloscope, and it showed an anomaly in a waveform at high frequency. Upon further review, and using a vastly higher speed, higher resolution scopes from 3 other manufacturers, it showed that the waveform being displayed on the review scope bore little resemblance to the actual waveform being input at the probe. It was kind of interesting to see an instrument show fictional waveforms. Now, it didn't take the most expensive of scopes to show the problem, but it did somewhat illustrate the old adage, 'you get what you pay for'.

Can't say my Dynasty was 'worth the money', but it has never failed to do anything I've expected it to. I set it to do xyz, and it does it.

BugHunter wrote:Can't say my Dynasty was 'worth the money', but it has never failed to do anything I've expected it to. I set it to do xyz, and it does it.

I think we really need to be honest in that Miller is the gold standard and what others strive to achieve, even Lincoln. But Lincoln seems to have ventured down the more affordable line and made quality compromises, I think that will have an effect on their customer base in the overall picture.

What we need to all be honest about is that even though Miller has similar parts inside of the, the construction and quality of the machine build in general is just better than you get from other inverters. HTP seems to be good quality also, but I still see Miller being the gold standard. While Fronius seems of possible equal or better build quality, they just don't have the user base like Miller. My $0.02.

This is to say, machines like Everlast or even the less expensive types like Primeweld will always be a compromise. As long as they last all is good. If/when they fail it sucks, but OTOH even Millers and Lincolns, even Fronius and HTP are not immune to failures. All electronics are, IMO. That goes for older transformer machines.

The biggest problem with all these machines is the price spread between all of them, and we all have a lot of factors in how we select the quality and price point we prefer...quality though seems like a big question mark, most machines look great on the outside, it's when you open them up and start digging into the internals is where you really learn about build quality.

My $0.02, worth what you paid for it.

TTW- it’s that price spread that has me looking to pick up my fourth Everlast TIG machine here soon. Millers are about 3 times the price for comparable features and capability, machine for machine. That’s just too much of a difference for me based on supposed “better quality”. With that said, if the Miller was only 1.5 to 2 times the price of the Everlasts, I’d probably be buying the Millers.

Spartan,

I completely understand, and more so I think I get it. I do have a Primeweld sitting in my shop as I type, if Miller wasn't so much more I would probably have one, or even an HTP, but I just needed to pick what I felt I was willing to spend at this time, or just wait.

Even by your admission you would rather have the Miller. There is no denying it is the gold standard.

Miller has gained a reputation for providing reliable welding machines, that is why they are the gold standard. So while there certainly can be issues with Miller, they are not known for failures.

Folks always have brand loyalty when their product is working, but look at VA-Sawyer as an example of someone that is not too happy with Everlast.

When the chips are down as long as Everlast takes care of you I'm sure you will be happy, but like many others your decision on buying Everlast was based on more for less. And really the point of my last post was that even though you can say a lot can be done in the IGBT inverters, there's a lot more to the equation.

TraditionalToolworks wrote:but look at VA-Sawyer as an example of someone that is not too happy with Everlast.

When the chips are down as long as Everlast takes care of you I'm sure you will be happy,

I think they pick-n-choose who to bend over backwards for. If you didn't spend a lot of money already, then they already have your money. If you bought a machine from their upper-echelon, then you are the kind of customer that would buy more machines if they did make sure you were completely satisfied.

Oscar wrote:I think they pick-n-choose who to bend over backwards for. If you didn't spend a lot of money already, then they already have your money. If you bought a machine from their upper-echelon, then you are the kind of customer that would buy more machines if they did make sure you were completely satisfied.

I absolutely believe this to be true. Take someone doing videos on YT, they will go out of their way to provide XLNT service/support so the person will say, "Wow, the service and support is just amazing!", but as you imply the little guy is kind of left hanging...because they pick and choose.

This doesn't mean they have bad machines, in Spartan's case he's had good luck with the machines he's purchased and after a few it becomes more moot because it like continuing to roll the dice but not increasing your bet. As long as you keep winning, even a loss once in a while won't break the bank. Even so, he admits to be willing to purchase a Miller if it had been 1.5x-2x the cost of his Everlast. Yes, therein lies a big factor, when you're looking at a machine that is 4x-5x the cost it makes pulling the trigger much more difficult. Even in my case the HTP was about 4x the cost of my Primeweld and the Miller would have been about 5x-6x the cost. Starts getting more difficult to justify for a non-professional. This is the reality we all face.

Will be interesting to see what happens with welding equipment and consumables with this China trade war developing. I would say China is not in a good bargaining position. I wonder what other alternatives will start to emerge? Maybe we'll see the quality go up, along with the price as well...

When I bought mine I didn't really think it was that much worse than some of the other brands. Maybe on the order of double the price but I certainly didn't think it was Triple. More like one and a half. My other choice actually was a Lincoln Square wave. Quite a bit smaller and did not have the water cooling, nor did it have anywhere near the duty cycle. But since I don't live in a big city I knew I was going to need available service and since I was buying it for my business, I couldn't afford to have the machine down. It doesn't get used everyday but when it is used, it's really working. It needed to be a locally available brand name.

At the time I considered a DX 280 but the additional cost simply wasn't justifiable given that most of the things I weld are small. With a little preheat and cranking the power up to 210 amps, I've been able to weld three-quarter inch aluminum with it so it's pretty well covered all the requirements I have had.

Maybe I'm mistaken but I think you guys who are saying they are three times the money, I don't think you're really looking at Apples to Apples considering all the features. I bought my complete Turn-Key set up from cyberweld and I want to say it was about $5,800. Including shipping. For a self-contained liquid-cooled machine that has 100% duty cycle at 175 amps and 70% at full power, 400 Hertz AC capability, and a host of other features, I think the price of just about any machine that does those things is a big pill to swallow.

If I had been buying it for my home shop, there's no way I would have spent this kind of money. Not even close.

BugHunter wrote:Maybe I'm mistaken but I think you guys who are saying they are three times the money, I don't think you're really looking at Apples to Apples considering all the features. I bought my complete Turn-Key set up from cyberweld and I want to say it was about $5,800. Including shipping. For a self-contained liquid-cooled machine that has 100% duty cycle at 175 amps and 70% at full power, 400 Hertz AC capability, and a host of other features, I think the price of just about any machine that does those things is a big pill to swallow.

In my case I bought a Primeweld 225, it has 225 amps peak, 100% duty on 180 amps, no cooling, gas torch only but $775 shipping included with a 3 year warranty. The HTP was about $3100 for a similar 120v/240v machine. I think a Dynasty 210DX would cost me about $4500-$5000 without cooler. My Primeweld came with a genuine CK Worldwide torch (CK 17 Flexhead).

In Spartan's case he's might be talking about his most recent machine which was an Everlast 350EXT, I think about $2500-$2900 (depending when he bought it), but 350 amps. One would need a Dynasty 400 to be competitive in features, if I'm not mistaken, but he can probably describe better.

I completely agree with you, if I was doing it where I needed the reliability for my business I would most likely do the same and get the Miller that has local support and will provide a loaner. But this is for my hobby to build a log home and other machining/tooling projects. I'm struggling to build out of pocket, so that limited my spending.

TraditionalToolworks wrote:In my case I bought a Primeweld 225, it has 225 amps peak, 100% duty on 180 amps, no cooling, gas torch only but $775 shipping included with a 3 year warranty. The HTP was about $3100 for a similar 120v/240v machine. I think a Dynasty 210DX would cost me about $4500-$5000 without cooler. My Primeweld came with a genuine CK Worldwide torch (CK 17 Flexhead).

In Spartan's case he's might be talking about his most recent machine which was an Everlast 350EXT, I think about $2500-$2900 (depending when he bought it), but 350 amps. One would need a Dynasty 400 to be competitive in features, if I'm not mistaken, but he can probably describe better.

I completely agree with you, if I was doing it where I needed the reliability for my business I would most likely do the same and get the Miller that has local support and will provide a loaner. But this is for my hobby to build a log home and other machining/tooling projects. I'm struggling to build out of pocket, so that limited my spending.

The deals on Cyberweld sorta come and go... I see there's a 210DX on there for 3855 now, comes with a Miller Helmet (I'm guessing it's a nice one). Still, looking at the other models with the full package like I got, they seem more money today than when I bought mine back in '16. Back then the "Spiff" they were offering was if you bought the whole Dynasty package they'd throw in the wireless footpedal (worth it's weight in gold!). Since either Feb/Mar of 2016, I have never put batteries in it.

There's not a doubt in my mind I could sit down with just about any machine and be perfectly happy. I also own a machine from Lincoln and a Hobart, so I'm not a 'fanboy' perse. I would love to sit down and use some of the import machines just to know what the differences are. For "cheap", I'd love to have a 400A inverter TIG, but for me to upgrade and get a Dynasty 400, my water cooler won't work, so I'd need the entire package, and that's just a bridge too far. I also don't really need a big machine.

I didn't mean to assist in this epic derailment of the thread. Most of the answers were already given so I guess it's all good.

TraditionalToolworks wrote:

BugHunter wrote:Maybe I'm mistaken but I think you guys who are saying they are three times the money, I don't think you're really looking at Apples to Apples considering all the features. I bought my complete Turn-Key set up from cyberweld and I want to say it was about $5,800. Including shipping. For a self-contained liquid-cooled machine that has 100% duty cycle at 175 amps and 70% at full power, 400 Hertz AC capability, and a host of other features, I think the price of just about any machine that does those things is a big pill to swallow.

In my case I bought a Primeweld 225, it has 225 amps peak, 100% duty on 180 amps, no cooling, gas torch only but $775 shipping included with a 3 year warranty. The HTP was about $3100 for a similar 120v/240v machine. I think a Dynasty 210DX would cost me about $4500-$5000 without cooler. My Primeweld came with a genuine CK Worldwide torch (CK 17 Flexhead).

In Spartan's case he's might be talking about his most recent machine which was an Everlast 350EXT, I think about $2500-$2900 (depending when he bought it), but 350 amps. One would need a Dynasty 400 to be competitive in features, if I'm not mistaken, but he can probably describe better.

I completely agree with you, if I was doing it where I needed the reliability for my business I would most likely do the same and get the Miller that has local support and will provide a loaner. But this is for my hobby to build a log home and other machining/tooling projects. I'm struggling to build out of pocket, so that limited my spending.

I did have my most recent machine (the 350EXT) in mind. I paid $2,800 for it as a complete kit (leads, torches, foot pedal, etc.) There's really no close amperage comparison to the 350EXT in Miller's line, but the Dynasty 280 and 400 are on both sides. The 280 is about $6,000 and the 400 is about $7,500 for only the machine. Add another grand for leads, torches, foot pedal, etc. Miller also nicely adds in an extra cost if you want the machine to simply have an output voltage for a water cooler (CPS) and that's about $500 or so extra if I recall. Note that is not for a cooler, just the ability to plug a cooler into the welder's power supply.

So I'd say the cost to strike an arc with a Miller is about 2.5-3 times as much as it is to strike an arc with an Everlast.