Thin wall -arc

6013 rod as small as you can get it, probably 3/32" but ideally 1/16", run DCEN (normally you'd run it DCEP for best penetration but for sheet metal you really are more concerned with not blowing holes and DCEN is said to have significantly less penetration) amps as low as you can get 'em without it sticking, maybe 30?

GWE

3/32" 6013 or 7014 would be the best choices. I prefer 7014. Very easy rod to run. Pretty welds. DCEN or DCEP.

Hmmm....on something that thin, I think I'd reach for my TurboTorch

silver solder it.

Last night, I arc welded 1/4" round stock to the butt edge of 14 ga sheet metal to reinforce the tray edge of a bandsaw stand I'm building with reference to drawings found here:

Welder: Lincoln AC-225C Filler: 6013, 3/32" dia. Current: 55 Amps

Comments: 6013, 3/32" dia. rod is rated for 60-90 Amps with optimal being 85 Amps. I am accustomed to running this rod at 90 Amps. I found that at a low amperage, the arc was so small that it was difficult to see both the work and the puddle, using a #8 filter setting on my auto-dark helmet, the lowest I could dial in. I used chalk to highlight the weld path, but it did not help much, resulting in weld beads that meandered all over the place due to the inability to see where I was welding. The trade off was between cranking up the amps so I could see where I was welding and cranking down to amps to avoid burn through -- I did a lot of fiddling with the amp setting. I just looked this morning -- the welder is set at 55 Amps -- what it was when I finished last night. I am not at all pleased with the results. If I had to do it over again, I'd seriously consider silver soldering, even though it would be rather costly when compared to arc welding.

I used to own a welding service. We fixed a lot of .065 tubing gates and fences.

I used 3/32" 6011 with the stinger negative. You can get an incredibly small arc and puddle, and weld pretty good with it once you catch on. You have to play with the amperage until you get it JUST right.

HTH

STeve

Yipes...my auto-dark helmet worked flawlessly ever since I got it, so I just took it for granted and never really looked at it closely. There was enough grinder dust on it to add up to at least a #3 filter. No wonder I couldn't see. Oooh, I feel so foolish...

Thanks for the tip. :)

Aha! I'm glad someone else mentioned 6011. I needed to fix an inexepensive day-bed frame made out of very thin all tubing (16 gauge or less) with solid

5/16" rods welded on. In the original construction, the solid rods had been tacked on to the tubing with what looked like a quick squirt from a MIG, but every one of the rods had torn out the welds from the thin wall tubing.

I tried various combinations of 6013, 7014, different amperages, but found that I got the best results--much to my surprise--from the 6011. The problem with 6013/7014 was that I could not maintain a satisfactory arc at a low enough amperage to run decent beads. I did not have any 1/16" 6013, so the smallest I could use was 3/32". However, I did have some 1/16" 7014 (as well as 3/32"), and that did not seem to work, either. **It may be that if I'd had DC, rather than AC only, that I could have managed a lower amperage. But as it was, I either burned through or globbed up with slag.

When I used the 3/32" 6011, it was so much better. Of course, I had to be quick--apply the arc, and then flick away before burning through. But with

6011, it was not a problem to go back and forth--no slag build up--and the fast-freeze feature helped tremendously. For a couple of particularly problematic holes, I used a thin rod of steel as an additional "filler" rod.

With 11 gauge tubing, I will usually use 6013 or 7014, 3/32", but if I run into trouble, I find that the 6011 still can do the job where the other rods just lead to headaches. Of course, YMMV!

Andy

Weight Watchers?

Well, 6011 is made for AC, so that makes sense.

GWE

No, children that liked to hang on the ends and wiggle the bed back and forth. Plus, the construction wasn't all that great to begin with. It's much better now. :)

Yep ... but so is 6013, IIRC. It would interesting to know what I could have if I had had DCEN to work with ...

Also - "fast freeze" is identical with saying that you are not trapping a great load of heat under the large thick insulating layer of slag you get with 6013 and most other rods. Not trapping loads of heat which is going to sag through the thin tubing you are welding...

Correct me if I am mistaken - the reason 6013's and 7018 downhand are smooth is that the slag keeps the metal molten for long enough for surface tension to pull the weld pool flat. ???

But that time under the thick insulating layer of slag is time the meltpool is trying to fall through thin metal.

OTOH with 6011 (and 6010 if you are using that) the virtual absence of slag means a fast freeze - and as you say, with little slag you can have the rod flitting around putting heat and metal where you need it.

Now some people can make a smooth weld bead with a 6011 by putting the right amount of metal just where it is needed at the just right time, whipping backwards and forwards...

Furthermore - as the flux is mainly cellulose, it makes a lot of shielding gas, which keeps the atmosphere out even if you are darting around manipulating the rod a lot. With 6013 there is a fair amount of shielding from moisture content and cellulose which is often there at the 3% level, so you can also "wave the rod around" a bit - but you do have to avoid doing anything too lurid which produces slag inclusions.

But 7018 - no. You have CO2 shielding from CaCO3 (limestone) -> CaO (flux) + CO2 (shield)

- which is why you still get shielding when the rod is baked to "low hydrogen" but there is only so much shielding gas from this reaction and you need to keep short arc-length and slow steady manipulation..

As Ernie L. kindly took time to advise me regarding 7018 - to quote - "and the weave is extremely s...l...o....w.". Who could express the difference better! That's mainly advising about avoiding slag inclusions, but does apply to shielding.

Major qualification I am more of a beginner around here (I'm a scientist so know of and see this stuff happening) - so I will certainly look out for further advice and corrections on these things.

Richard Smith