Learning to weld with a non-aircraft project

[Ed]

Eventually I plan to build a tube-n-fabric aircraft, but now isn't the time.
However, I would like to start developing the skills that I will need.

I've been looking at kids playsets for our yard. Most of them are made from
redwood, and are quite expensive. Several thousand dollars for the more
complex ones. Pressure treated lumber is much cheaper, but I don't want my
kids crawling on it.

Today I got an idea. I could build a frame out of steel tubing, get it
powdercoated, and then deck it with the composite synthetic decking that is
becoming popular for backyard decks. Such a structure would be strong,
durable, impervious to the elements, and would give me an excuse to learn to
weld.

What are the minimum set of tools I'd need to buy to complete the project?
I know I'd need an OA torch. What tools would I need for the cutting,
shaping, and prepping of the steel tubing? Any other suggestions on
construction and materials, especially steel type?

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"Ed" > wrote:

> Eventually I plan to build a tube-n-fabric aircraft, but now isn't the time.
> However, I would like to start developing the skills that I will need.
>
> I've been looking at kids playsets for our yard. Most of them are made from
> redwood, and are quite expensive. Several thousand dollars for the more
> complex ones. Pressure treated lumber is much cheaper, but I don't want my
> kids crawling on it.
>
> Today I got an idea. I could build a frame out of steel tubing, get it
> powdercoated, and then deck it with the composite synthetic decking that is
> becoming popular for backyard decks. Such a structure would be strong,
> durable, impervious to the elements, and would give me an excuse to learn to
> weld.
>
> What are the minimum set of tools I'd need to buy to complete the project?
> I know I'd need an OA torch. What tools would I need for the cutting,
> shaping, and prepping of the steel tubing? Any other suggestions on
> construction and materials, especially steel type?
>
>

You could actually do it with nothing but a torch, hacksaw and file, but
I would recommend some magnetic holding clamps, a good bench sander, etc.

[Bart D. Hull]

Ed,

Your sure you want OA? Why not MIG or TIG for welding?
I have access to all three and prefer to use MIG on steel (as its fast
and you don't go through the gas bottles like OA) and TIG
for every thing else. I use OA to remove bearings (ones
I don't want to re-use) and other heating purposes like softening up loctited
bolts.

As far as other tools a HF Cut-off saw is on the top of my list for
most used tools, as well as a grinding wheel to form the fish mouths
on the tubing for most joints.

See my engine link below to see how I used a MIG to make a engine mount for
a Soob.

I like your idea of using synthetic decking with a tube frame for a playset.
I can't tell you how many dry-rotted playsets (Redwood and other wood
construction) that I have seen here in Arizona. They all look fine until they
break.

Just my 2 cents.

--
Bart D. Hull

Tempe, Arizona

Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/engine.html
for my Subaru Engine Conversion
Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/fuselage.html
for Tango II I'm building.

Remove -nospam to reply via email.

Ed wrote:
> Eventually I plan to build a tube-n-fabric aircraft, but now isn't the time.
> However, I would like to start developing the skills that I will need.
>
> I've been looking at kids playsets for our yard. Most of them are made from
> redwood, and are quite expensive. Several thousand dollars for the more
> complex ones. Pressure treated lumber is much cheaper, but I don't want my
> kids crawling on it.
>
> Today I got an idea. I could build a frame out of steel tubing, get it
> powdercoated, and then deck it with the composite synthetic decking that is
> becoming popular for backyard decks. Such a structure would be strong,
> durable, impervious to the elements, and would give me an excuse to learn to
> weld.
>
> What are the minimum set of tools I'd need to buy to complete the project?
> I know I'd need an OA torch. What tools would I need for the cutting,
> shaping, and prepping of the steel tubing? Any other suggestions on
> construction and materials, especially steel type?
>
>

[Ed]

Bart:

Was going OA mainly because it's cheap to buy a torch. I didn't want to
spend $300 for a MIG just to build a kid's playset. I'm many years away
from starting an aircraft.

What kind of grinding wheel ... a benchtop grinder, or an air grinder?


"Bart D. Hull" > wrote in message
...
> Ed,
>
> Your sure you want OA? Why not MIG or TIG for welding?


> As far as other tools a HF Cut-off saw is on the top of my list for
> most used tools, as well as a grinding wheel to form the fish mouths
> on the tubing for most joints.
>

[Bart D. Hull]

Ed,

A benchtop grinder is REALLY useful. Be sure to get a big one (8" wheels and
1+ HP. (See other threads for the HP rating junk.)

I have a HF 1.5 HP bench grinder and it never bogs on grinding or polishing
with 8" wheels. Throw away the original wheels and get Norton wheels of your
favorite grit. Not only are they better balanced but they cut MUCH faster. I
read about this on this list and am a believer after I tried it.

I use the rol-loc wheels for grinding on a high speed air grinder. NICE but
not a necessary as a good bench grinder.

Bart
--
Bart D. Hull

Tempe, Arizona

Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/engine.html
for my Subaru Engine Conversion
Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/fuselage.html
for Tango II I'm building.

Remove -nospam to reply via email.

Ed wrote:
> Bart:
>
> Was going OA mainly because it's cheap to buy a torch. I didn't want to
> spend $300 for a MIG just to build a kid's playset. I'm many years away
> from starting an aircraft.
>
> What kind of grinding wheel ... a benchtop grinder, or an air grinder?
>
>
> "Bart D. Hull" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Ed,
>>
>>Your sure you want OA? Why not MIG or TIG for welding?
>
>
>
>>As far as other tools a HF Cut-off saw is on the top of my list for
>>most used tools, as well as a grinding wheel to form the fish mouths
>>on the tubing for most joints.
>>
>
>
>
>
>

[Del Rawlins]

In > Bart D. Hull wrote:
> Ed,
>
> Your sure you want OA? Why not MIG or TIG for welding?
> I have access to all three and prefer to use MIG on steel (as its fast
> and you don't go through the gas bottles like OA) and TIG
> for every thing else. I use OA to remove bearings (ones
> I don't want to re-use) and other heating purposes like softening up
> loctited bolts.

A novice welder is far better off putting together his airplane using OA
rather than TIG or MIG. A google search will reveal that this has been
hashed out here many times in the past. Pay particular attention to
posts made by a guy called Highflier. I'm using TIG on my project, but
I am not a novice welder. No way would I use MIG for something I wanted
to fly in some day.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

[Richard Lamb]

Del Rawlins wrote:
>
> In > Bart D. Hull wrote:
> > Ed,
> >
> > Your sure you want OA? Why not MIG or TIG for welding?
> > I have access to all three and prefer to use MIG on steel (as its fast
> > and you don't go through the gas bottles like OA) and TIG
> > for every thing else. I use OA to remove bearings (ones
> > I don't want to re-use) and other heating purposes like softening up
> > loctited bolts.
>
> A novice welder is far better off putting together his airplane using OA
> rather than TIG or MIG. A google search will reveal that this has been
> hashed out here many times in the past. Pay particular attention to
> posts made by a guy called Highflier. I'm using TIG on my project, but
> I am not a novice welder. No way would I use MIG for something I wanted
> to fly in some day.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Del Rawlins-
> Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
> Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
> http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/


Del, they say one way to judge another person's intelligence
is by how well he agrees with you.
I think you are bloody brilliant.
(and by the way, thanks for teaching me some of what I think I know)

I know I'm not an expert at it, and never will be,
but I feel like I'm catching on enough to be dangerous.

I built my whole shop with a Hobart 135 running cored wire.
I like it!

With the shielding gas, it gets even better since you can clearly
see what's going down.

But all my aircraft welding is done with O/A.

I've tried the Mig on thin tube.
Invariably my welds started off cold and wound up hot enough to cut
holes.

If I worked slowly enough to avoid burning the tube, the welds weren't
sound.


Grandpa said there is a proper tool for every job,
and it's not always a hammer.


For O/A welding, I've started wearing reading glasses under my goggles
so
I can really see what's going on. Boy, did that make a difference.
I suspect a magnifier in the goggles would be better since I can't see
squat for distance with the glasses on...

I haven't tried a Cobalt Blue filter yet because of the cost, but I've
been reading about it. Supposedly this will reduce the glow of the hot
metal to the point where all you really see is the molten puddle.

I'd like to try one before shelling out that much money.
Has anyone tried one?

Opinions?


Richard

[Del Rawlins]

In > Richard Lamb wrote:

> Del, they say one way to judge another person's intelligence
> is by how well he agrees with you.
> I think you are bloody brilliant.
> (and by the way, thanks for teaching me some of what I think I know)

Now I'm just frightened. You probably have me confused with somebody
else.

> I haven't tried a Cobalt Blue filter yet because of the cost, but I've
> been reading about it. Supposedly this will reduce the glow of the
> hot metal to the point where all you really see is the molten puddle.
>
> I'd like to try one before shelling out that much money.
> Has anyone tried one?

I've never tried one, but word on the Bearhawk list seems to suggest
that the cobalt blue filters are -so- last century. The recommended
item is the TM2000 lens available at http://www.tinmantech.com/html/
tm2000.html but man, the price! That sucker costs about as much as the
fancy auto darkening lens for my TIG welding helmet, but if it works as
well as they say it does it is probably worth it. I don't do enough OA
work to justify the cost at this point.

I tried to buy a cobalt blue filter at one of the local welding supply
houses recently and the guy didn't think they were even manufactured
anymore.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

[Richard Lamb]

Del Rawlins wrote:
>
> In > Richard Lamb wrote:
>
> > Del, they say one way to judge another person's intelligence
> > is by how well he agrees with you.
> > I think you are bloody brilliant.
> > (and by the way, thanks for teaching me some of what I think I know)
>
> Now I'm just frightened. You probably have me confused with somebody
> else.
>
> > I haven't tried a Cobalt Blue filter yet because of the cost, but I've
> > been reading about it. Supposedly this will reduce the glow of the
> > hot metal to the point where all you really see is the molten puddle.
> >
> > I'd like to try one before shelling out that much money.
> > Has anyone tried one?
>
> I've never tried one, but word on the Bearhawk list seems to suggest
> that the cobalt blue filters are -so- last century. The recommended
> item is the TM2000 lens available at http://www.tinmantech.com/html/
> tm2000.html but man, the price! That sucker costs about as much as the
> fancy auto darkening lens for my TIG welding helmet, but if it works as
> well as they say it does it is probably worth it. I don't do enough OA
> work to justify the cost at this point.
>
> I tried to buy a cobalt blue filter at one of the local welding supply
> houses recently and the guy didn't think they were even manufactured
> anymore.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Del Rawlins-
> Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
> Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
> http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/


Yep. That's the one. I confused with the cobolt blue flter.
I've always been a sucker for a catchy name...

Thanks,

Richard

[Bruce A. Frank]

Looks like you have gotten some good advise from others in the group.
I'll back up some of that. MIG would be great for assembling a swing
set, but it is not a good choice for assembling a 4130 tube fuselage. It
is not just about control of the weld on thin tube but also about final
strength and durability of the welds. The skill you develop with the
oxy/acet torch will serve you well if you ever wish to convert to TIG.

A TIG unit would be a possible choice, requiring only a bit more skill
that the oxy/acet torch. Its primary drawback is the cost. There are
some very good deals out there these days on units like the Lincoln 175
or 185 Pro series of TIG welders....but you can buy 3 or 4 of the best
acet. outfits available for that kind of money. And in the end the welds
will not likely be superior to the oxy/acet welds.

As for tools: A good hacksaw and/or a tubing cutter; a bench grinder
with at least an 8" wheel; I really like a 4.5" angle grinder to help
with coping the fit up; a few clamps and a magnetic positioner is a good
investment. A 6" bench vise.

I would also suggest a good quality dressing tool for the bench grinder.
Dress the grinding wheel so it has a radiused face rather than the
normal square face. This will really help shape the fish mouth weld
joints. As for the grinder itself, someone suggested, I think it was
Orval, getting a good bench grinder. I used to agree with that idea, but
twenty five years ago I bought the least expensive Taiwan bench grinder
I could find. I have used it in two metal fabrication businesses and
years more in my garage shop. I have replaced the electrical push/pull
switch once with a toggle. The unit still runs strong. I have been lucky
but the cheapest bench grinders will probably out last 5 or 10 projects.

Ed wrote:
>
> Eventually I plan to build a tube-n-fabric aircraft, but now isn't the time.
> However, I would like to start developing the skills that I will need.
>
> I've been looking at kids playsets for our yard. Most of them are made from
> redwood, and are quite expensive. Several thousand dollars for the more
> complex ones. Pressure treated lumber is much cheaper, but I don't want my
> kids crawling on it.
>
> Today I got an idea. I could build a frame out of steel tubing, get it
> powdercoated, and then deck it with the composite synthetic decking that is
> becoming popular for backyard decks. Such a structure would be strong,
> durable, impervious to the elements, and would give me an excuse to learn to
> weld.
>
> What are the minimum set of tools I'd need to buy to complete the project?
> I know I'd need an OA torch. What tools would I need for the cutting,
> shaping, and prepping of the steel tubing? Any other suggestions on
> construction and materials, especially steel type?

--
Bruce A. Frank, Editor "Ford 3.8/4.2L Engine and V-6 STOL
Homebuilt Aircraft Newsletter"
| Publishing interesting material|
| on all aspects of alternative |
| engines and homebuilt aircraft.|
*------------------------------**----*
\(-o-)/ AIRCRAFT PROJECTS CO.
\___/ Manufacturing parts & pieces
/ \ for homebuilt aircraft,
0 0 TIG welding

While trying to find the time to finish mine.

[Corky Scott]

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 00:21:58 GMT, Richard Lamb >
wrote:

>
>I haven't tried a Cobalt Blue filter yet because of the cost, but I've
>been reading about it. Supposedly this will reduce the glow of the hot
>metal to the point where all you really see is the molten puddle.
>
>I'd like to try one before shelling out that much money.
>Has anyone tried one?
>
>Opinions?
>
>
>Richard

I just got the filter from Tinman. I bit the bullet and paid for it,
rationalizing that it's my eys and they deserve the best protection I
can get them.

When I first tried using them, I was disappointed. Not because of the
performance of the glasses and tint, but because of the goggles that
you have to use with the plate. The goggles would be fine if I didn't
have bifocal classes, the type that do not have a line demarking the
distance from close up. They have a narrow focal point for closeup
viewing and you really have to look out the bottom of the glasses. No
problem normally, I've long since gotten used to doing that. But the
goggles literally cut off that portion of the view.

At least the face shield I was using allowed me my full range of
viewing. I could tilt my head back and get the focus I needed. Plus
the full face shield blocked the heat from the welding process and
protected my face from spatter.

With the MUCH smaller goggles, even though they protect my eyes, my
face does not get any protection and I SURE noticed the heat from the
weld, something that I'd been oblivious to when welding with a full
face shield.

As to the actual viewing of the puddle, honestly I did not notice an
enormous difference or improvement. I was so busy shifting the
goggles around and tipping them down so I could use the bottom portion
of my glasses that I was a bit put off at first.

Then I did my old trick of simply putting on a second pair of glasses
over my regular glasses, a cheapo pair of X2 reading glasses I bought
at a discount store. That worked fine, if a bit awkwardly. The
goggles fit over both so it's no biggie.

So they do work, but I wasn't having any problems seeing the puddle
with my full face shield. I just thought that they'd REALLY make
things different. They certainly aren't any worse, in terms of seeing
the puddle, when I have both sets of glasses on and in fact Tinman
sells a set of magnafiers that fit into the goggles, if you feel you
want them.

Will I continue using them? Of course, they offer the best eyeball
protection from the flares I can buy. I'll put up with a little bit
of annoyance for that protection.

Corky Scott

[Russell Kent]

Corky,
At the risk of sounding completely naive (I know nothing of welding)
couldn't you replace the lens/filter in the full face shield you were using
with a TM2000 lens/filter?

Russell Kent

[Corky Scott]

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 09:55:04 -0600, Russell Kent >
wrote:

>Corky,
>At the risk of sounding completely naive (I know nothing of welding)
>couldn't you replace the lens/filter in the full face shield you were using
>with a TM2000 lens/filter?
>
>Russell Kent
>
Ah, sorry, I did not describe the face shield properly: It's a full
plexiglass shield, not a face shield with a little window in it.

Yes, had it been the face shield with the window in it, I could have
replaced that window with the tinted glass from Tinman. But I would
have experienced the same problematic cutting off of the lower field
of view that I need for proper focusing.

Using the plexiglass face shield, you don't have to worry about
cutting off your field of vision, the entire shield is see through
tinted plastic.

Does that explain things better?

Corky Scott

[Russell Kent]

Corky Scott wrote:

> Ah, sorry, I did not describe the face shield properly: It's a full
> plexiglass shield, not a face shield with a little window in it.
>
> Yes, had it been the face shield with the window in it, I could have
> replaced that window with the tinted glass from Tinman. But I would
> have experienced the same problematic cutting off of the lower field
> of view that I need for proper focusing.
>
> Using the plexiglass face shield, you don't have to worry about
> cutting off your field of vision, the entire shield is see through
> tinted plastic.
>
> Does that explain things better?

Yes, much. So theoretically you could cut a rectangular window in the
plexiglass shield (positioned appropriately for your vision issues) and insert
the tinted glass rectangle from Tinman. That way your primary field of vision
is properly protected, yet you still have some secondary field vision, too.

I have no idea if this is workable, however.

Russell Kent

[Corky Scott]

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 14:06:19 -0600, Russell Kent >
wrote:

>Corky Scott wrote:
>
>> Ah, sorry, I did not describe the face shield properly: It's a full
>> plexiglass shield, not a face shield with a little window in it.
>>
>> Yes, had it been the face shield with the window in it, I could have
>> replaced that window with the tinted glass from Tinman. But I would
>> have experienced the same problematic cutting off of the lower field
>> of view that I need for proper focusing.
>>
>> Using the plexiglass face shield, you don't have to worry about
>> cutting off your field of vision, the entire shield is see through
>> tinted plastic.
>>
>> Does that explain things better?
>
>Yes, much. So theoretically you could cut a rectangular window in the
>plexiglass shield (positioned appropriately for your vision issues) and insert
>the tinted glass rectangle from Tinman. That way your primary field of vision
>is properly protected, yet you still have some secondary field vision, too.
>
>I have no idea if this is workable, however.
>
>Russell Kent
>
There are actually full face shields that are designed to have the
narrow window that the goggles use. These are the shields you often
see guys wearing who are doing TIG and MIG welding, as well as stick
welding. The reason for the full face protection is because there is
often a lot of spatter from the welding process when using MIG and you
definately don't want those molten droplets hitting your face.

The lense in these shields is often so dark that you literally cannot
see your work with the shield down, so you get yourself arranged with
the shield up, and configured so that it will drop down over your face
with a nod. Then you get set to weld, hold you hands where they need
to be, nod your head and begin.

Welding with Oxygen and Acetylene is different. The face shield isn't
so dark, it's more like dark glasses. You can see with it down so you
don't have to get yourself so pre-arranged before dropping the shield:
You can pull the shield down, light the torch, adjust the flame and
begin.

The lense that I got from The Tinman is a bit lighter than what I've
used in the past so this aspect makes it easier to use. It's also
configured to protect your eyes from the flares encountered while
brazing, in addition to protecting your eyes from the damaging rays
produced when welding.

When I said I could replace the lense of a full face shield, I did not
mean that I would take my full face tinted shield and cut a hole in
it. I meant that I could have bought a full face shield that had the
little window, the same size as the lense I got from Tinman, and
exchange them.

But y'know, you've got me thinking. I'll go out to the shop tonight
and have a look at the whole lense enclosure and see if it might be
possible to graft it on to the tinted face shield. That might give me
the best of both worlds. Thanks for the suggestion.

Corky Scott

[m alexander]

In article >,
says...

> There are actually full face shields that are designed to have the
> narrow window that the goggles use. These are the shields you often
> see guys wearing who are doing TIG and MIG welding, as well as stick
> welding. The reason for the full face protection is because there is
> often a lot of spatter from the welding process when using MIG and you
> definately don't want those molten droplets hitting your face.
>
> The lense in these shields is often so dark that you literally cannot
> see your work with the shield down, so you get yourself arranged with
> the shield up, and configured so that it will drop down over your face
> with a nod. Then you get set to weld, hold you hands where they need
> to be, nod your head and begin.

I removed the dark lense from the shield and put in the Tinman's lense.
He offers one lense that fits into this type of shield. I can flip it up
to light the torch and position the work. I flip it down for the actual
welding. It works for me but I do not do high production type welding.


m alexander

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
(m alexander) wrote:

> In article >,
> says...
>
> > There are actually full face shields that are designed to have the
> > narrow window that the goggles use. These are the shields you often
> > see guys wearing who are doing TIG and MIG welding, as well as stick
> > welding. The reason for the full face protection is because there is
> > often a lot of spatter from the welding process when using MIG and you
> > definately don't want those molten droplets hitting your face.
> >
> > The lense in these shields is often so dark that you literally cannot
> > see your work with the shield down, so you get yourself arranged with
> > the shield up, and configured so that it will drop down over your face
> > with a nod. Then you get set to weld, hold you hands where they need
> > to be, nod your head and begin.
>
> I removed the dark lense from the shield and put in the Tinman's lense.
> He offers one lense that fits into this type of shield. I can flip it up
> to light the torch and position the work. I flip it down for the actual
> welding. It works for me but I do not do high production type welding.
>
>
> m alexander


The real reason for the dark and opaque face shields for TIG/MIG welding
is that any electro-arc welding generates lots of UV, which can cause
severe "sunburn" and skin cancer. Be sure to cover up when using any
electro-arc welder!

[Ernest Christley]

Orval Fairbairn wrote:

>
> The real reason for the dark and opaque face shields for TIG/MIG welding
> is that any electro-arc welding generates lots of UV, which can cause
> severe "sunburn" and skin cancer. Be sure to cover up when using any
> electro-arc welder!

Hear!Hear!

And the sunburn hurts, too!

--
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
"Ignorance is mankinds normal state,
alleviated by information and experience."
Veeduber

[Paul]

> The lense in these shields is often so dark that you literally cannot
> see your work with the shield down, so you get yourself arranged with
> the shield up, and configured so that it will drop down over your face
> with a nod. Then you get set to weld, hold you hands where they need
> to be, nod your head and begin.
>


I bought one of these electronic units that allow you to see your work, then
darken as soon as you strike an arc.

A super investment.

Cheers:

Paul
NC2273H

[Morgans]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 09:55:04 -0600, Russell Kent >
> wrote:
>
> >Corky,
> >At the risk of sounding completely naive (I know nothing of welding)
> >couldn't you replace the lens/filter in the full face shield you were
using
> >with a TM2000 lens/filter?
> >
> >Russell Kent
> >
> Ah, sorry, I did not describe the face shield properly: It's a full
> plexiglass shield, not a face shield with a little window in it.
>
> Yes, had it been the face shield with the window in it, I could have
> replaced that window with the tinted glass from Tinman. But I would
> have experienced the same problematic cutting off of the lower field
> of view that I need for proper focusing.
>
> Using the plexiglass face shield, you don't have to worry about
> cutting off your field of vision, the entire shield is see through
> tinted plastic.
>
> Does that explain things better?
>
> Corky Scott

Why don't you get a pair of custom bifocals? You can get them with the
bottom 2/3rds of the lens the strong part, with just a bit over the top for
distance vision. I have a pair like that, and the difference is remarkable.
No more stiff neck.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.629 / Virus Database: 403 - Release Date: 3/17/2004

[Richard Lamb]

Paul wrote:
>
> > The lense in these shields is often so dark that you literally cannot
> > see your work with the shield down, so you get yourself arranged with
> > the shield up, and configured so that it will drop down over your face
> > with a nod. Then you get set to weld, hold you hands where they need
> > to be, nod your head and begin.
> >
>
> I bought one of these electronic units that allow you to see your work, then
> darken as soon as you strike an arc.
>
> A super investment.
>
> Cheers:
>
> Paul
> NC2273H

Amazing how bright that 1/20000 second can be, isn't it.

Rihcard

[Corky Scott]

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 00:23:21 -0500, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 09:55:04 -0600, Russell Kent >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Corky,
>> >At the risk of sounding completely naive (I know nothing of welding)
>> >couldn't you replace the lens/filter in the full face shield you were
>using
>> >with a TM2000 lens/filter?
>> >
>> >Russell Kent
>> >
>> Ah, sorry, I did not describe the face shield properly: It's a full
>> plexiglass shield, not a face shield with a little window in it.
>>
>> Yes, had it been the face shield with the window in it, I could have
>> replaced that window with the tinted glass from Tinman. But I would
>> have experienced the same problematic cutting off of the lower field
>> of view that I need for proper focusing.
>>
>> Using the plexiglass face shield, you don't have to worry about
>> cutting off your field of vision, the entire shield is see through
>> tinted plastic.
>>
>> Does that explain things better?
>>
>> Corky Scott
>
>Why don't you get a pair of custom bifocals? You can get them with the
>bottom 2/3rds of the lens the strong part, with just a bit over the top for
>distance vision. I have a pair like that, and the difference is remarkable.
>No more stiff neck.
>--
>Jim in NC

Didn't know such things existed. Hang around in this group long
enough and you learn all kinds of stuff.

I'll check into it, thanks.

Corky Scott

[Rich S.]

"Richard Lamb" > wrote in message
...
>
> Amazing how bright that 1/20000 second can be, isn't it.

My learned brother and I were discussing those hoods one day and I axed him
if that is the technology used in the military to prevent eye damage from
laser attacks. IIRC, he told me that a laser could burn out your optic nerve
before the glass wen t dark.

That laser light must be a lot faster than reg'lar light, huh?

Rich S.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"Rich S." > wrote:

> "Richard Lamb" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Amazing how bright that 1/20000 second can be, isn't it.
>
> My learned brother and I were discussing those hoods one day and I axed him
> if that is the technology used in the military to prevent eye damage from
> laser attacks. IIRC, he told me that a laser could burn out your optic nerve
> before the glass wen t dark.
>
> That laser light must be a lot faster than reg'lar light, huh?
>
> Rich S.
>
>

I hope that you didn't injure your brother too much when you axed him!

[Rich S.]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
>
> I hope that you didn't injure your brother too much when you axed him!

Naw. He's too smart to get hit. PhD's in physics & math, Master's in
languages & economics. Speaks english, rooshian, japanese, german, klingon,
and C plus. Or something like that. Ex-fighter pilot, too. He's my hero.

Rich "The dumb one" S.

[Rich S.]

"Todd Pattist" > wrote in message
...
>
> It's not speed, it's brightness. If you can squeeze enough
> energy into the 1/20000 second, you can do the eye damage
> before the glass darkens. Lasers can make high energy
> femtosecond pulses. Welders can't.

Todd............

Jes' kidding about the speed - but you knew that. :o)

But - I didn't know what other quality might be responsible for retinal
damage - color, frequency, brightness or penetration of the shield.

Thanks,
Rich

[Veeduber]

>But - I didn't know what other quality might be responsible for retinal
>damage - color, frequency, brightness or penetration of the shield.

------------------------------------------------

'Red Eye' -- various complaints of sore eyes -- is a common hazard in any
welding environment. You may not even be aware of it butarc light can enter
your eye at an angle and do plenty of damage to your retina at sites other than
the point of focus. SOP is to block the light at the source -- drape every
welding station with UV barriers -- or keep the people out of the area.

----------------------------------------------------

As for the original thread, I've found vee-blocks, step-drills and a couple of
throw-away angle-head grinders to be handier than any of the tools mentioned,
other than basic hacksaw & files. Being able to maintain the axis of your
notches is more important than a perfect fit.

Real-world practice projects are tables & benches of every size, gate & door
frames, car-top carriers, racks for pipe, lumber and tubing, booms and cranes
for shop lights and electrical extensions, and so on.

-------------------------------------------------

Gas -- oxy-acetylene -- is the best teacher, probably because you can SEE when
you have the chemistry of the flame correct. Beyond that, it's all about the
puddle. Gas is slow, which is good for the novice. You can transfer a
majority of your gas-derived skills to other welding methods, each of which is
valid for airframe fabrication when properly applied.

---------------------------------------------------

A point most novice builders fail to appreciate is that the actual amount of
time spent welding is insignificant in relation to the overall project. It
looms large simply because you don't know how to do it or lack confidence in
your skills. The key to success is the same as for any other manual art, be it
typing or car-quals -- you have to practice. The basic principles can be
mastered in about thirty minutes. You'll then need about twenty hours of
practice to produce welds deemed 'safe for flight' (which doesn't mean they'll
be pretty :-)

-R.S.Hoover

[Rich S.]

"Veeduber" > wrote in message
...
> >But - I didn't know what other quality might be responsible for retinal
> >damage - color, frequency, brightness or penetration of the shield.
>
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> 'Red Eye' -- various complaints of sore eyes -- is a common hazard in any
> welding environment. You may not even be aware of it butarc light can
enter
> your eye at an angle and do plenty of damage to your retina at sites other
than
> the point of focus. SOP is to block the light at the source -- drape
every
> welding station with UV barriers -- or keep the people out of the area.

Many's the night I've laid awake from the "sand" in my eyes. I used to keep
a vial of optical anesthetic handy until my stepdad lost a cornea by
ignoring an irritation. It turned out to be a rock chip scratching the lens.
After that, I'd go to the E.R., get the dye in my eye and lettum look me
over with a loupe.

Another danger from the "rays". Back in the thirties, my dad was
moonlighting at a job doing production bench welding. One day he came down
with a penile discharge. He went to the fire department doc, who informed
him he had a STD and demanded to know the name of his "partner". For once in
his life, the old man had been truly faithful and my mom was given a clean
bill of health. The Fire Department threatened to fire him unless he came
clean about his extracurricular activities.

In desperation, dad went to see the public health doctor who examined him
and believed his story. He asked dad what he had been doing lately. Finally
the story came out about the off-shift job. When dad told him he had been
sitting down, welding at a bench, the doc exclaimed, "What Amperage?"

It turned out that the radiation from the arc was causing the problem. Dad
quit the job and the discharge went away. That's his story and he stuck to
it.

Rich

[Ed Haywood]

Don't know much about the science of it, but I know that the different types
of laser protective glasses that I've been issued in the military are not
dark at all. They are simple plastic safety glasses with a very light
colored, slightly reflective coating. I assume it employs some sort of
polarizing or refractory principle to disrupt the beam. We never carry
them.

"Rich S." > wrote in message
...
> "Richard Lamb" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Amazing how bright that 1/20000 second can be, isn't it.
>
> My learned brother and I were discussing those hoods one day and I axed
him
> if that is the technology used in the military to prevent eye damage from
> laser attacks. IIRC, he told me that a laser could burn out your optic
nerve
> before the glass wen t dark.
>
> That laser light must be a lot faster than reg'lar light, huh?
>
> Rich S.
>
>
>

[Bruce A. Frank]

Actually, none of the automatic lenses on the market today will allow
damage to your eyes even if they do not darken fast enough or properly.
The early auto-darken lenses were virtually transparent to UV until they
darkened. Speed of transition became the code of the day, but the
solution was to tint the un-activated lens and use UV filtering
materials as part of the lens. Today's lens' speed reduces or eliminates
the "dazzle" of the arc strike, but even if the activation section of
the lens is blocked so that it doesn't activate you don't get flash
(sunburn of the retina).

"Rich S." wrote:
>
> "Todd Pattist" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > It's not speed, it's brightness. If you can squeeze enough
> > energy into the 1/20000 second, you can do the eye damage
> > before the glass darkens. Lasers can make high energy
> > femtosecond pulses. Welders can't.
>
> Todd............
>
> Jes' kidding about the speed - but you knew that. :o)
>
> But - I didn't know what other quality might be responsible for retinal
> damage - color, frequency, brightness or penetration of the shield.
>
> Thanks,
> Rich

--
Bruce A. Frank, Editor "Ford 3.8/4.2L Engine and V-6 STOL
Homebuilt Aircraft Newsletter"
| Publishing interesting material|
| on all aspects of alternative |
| engines and homebuilt aircraft.|
*------------------------------**----*
\(-o-)/ AIRCRAFT PROJECTS CO.
\___/ Manufacturing parts & pieces
/ \ for homebuilt aircraft,
0 0 TIG welding

While trying to find the time to finish mine.

[Ernest Christley]

Veeduber wrote:

> As for the original thread, I've found vee-blocks, step-drills and a couple of
> throw-away angle-head grinders to be handier than any of the tools mentioned,
> other than basic hacksaw & files. Being able to maintain the axis of your
> notches is more important than a perfect fit.

Again, Tubemiter program to the rescue. I can't overstress how much my
work improved after I got ahold of this program. It prints a template
for the fitup. Well, part of the template is a couple of lines running
down the side. You first use these lines to get the template wrapped
correctly around the tube, using the bottom one to make sure you're not
wrapping a helix. The lines down the side now run parallel to the tubes
axis. Put a template on both ends, lay the tube on a table and roll a
smaller diameter piece or a yardstick up against it. You'll easily see
when the lines are colinear and be able to maintain the axis.

> A point most novice builders fail to appreciate is that the actual amount of
> time spent welding is insignificant in relation to the overall project. It
> looms large simply because you don't know how to do it or lack confidence in
> your skills. The key to success is the same as for any other manual art, be it
> typing or car-quals -- you have to practice. The basic principles can be
> mastered in about thirty minutes. You'll then need about twenty hours of
> practice to produce welds deemed 'safe for flight' (which doesn't mean they'll
> be pretty :-)
>
> -R.S.Hoover

I spent 2 hours in the garage today. 1.75hrs in preparation and .25hrs
welding.

--
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
"Ignorance is mankinds normal state,
alleviated by information and experience."
Veeduber

[Ernest Christley]

Ed Haywood wrote:
> Don't know much about the science of it, but I know that the different types
> of laser protective glasses that I've been issued in the military are not
> dark at all. They are simple plastic safety glasses with a very light
> colored, slightly reflective coating. I assume it employs some sort of
> polarizing or refractory principle to disrupt the beam. We never carry
> them.
>

LASER is special in that it is monochromatic, or one color. If you know
the type of laser, you can build a lens that will filter exactly one
wavelength. A dark lens takes the brute fore method of blocking everything.

--
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
"Ignorance is mankinds normal state,
alleviated by information and experience."
Veeduber

[Veeduber]

>Again, Tubemiter program to the rescue. I can't overstress how much my
>work improved after I got ahold of this program. It prints a template
>for the fitup.

-----------------------------------------------------------

This is yet another nice example of how computers can ease the task of
airplane-building. (The Old Fashioned Way is to coat the tubing with soot or
Dykem, fix the thing at the proper angle, then slide a flat-sided scriber
around the intersecting tube.)

While templates for tubing joints are an especially good example of using
computer-generated patterns, the same principle may be applied to any part
requiring the lay-out of holes, bending lines and so forth. For those
interested, the article for the carb heat box in the Fly5kfiles Group archive
uses this method to create both the box and the tubular ducting connectors.

-R.S.Hoover

[Ernest Christley]

Veeduber wrote:
>>Again, Tubemiter program to the rescue. I can't overstress how much my
>>work improved after I got ahold of this program. It prints a template
>>for the fitup.
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> This is yet another nice example of how computers can ease the task of
> airplane-building. (The Old Fashioned Way is to coat the tubing with soot or
> Dykem, fix the thing at the proper angle, then slide a flat-sided scriber
> around the intersecting tube.)
>
> While templates for tubing joints are an especially good example of using
> computer-generated patterns, the same principle may be applied to any part
> requiring the lay-out of holes, bending lines and so forth. For those
> interested, the article for the carb heat box in the Fly5kfiles Group archive
> uses this method to create both the box and the tubular ducting connectors.
>
> -R.S.Hoover

Find a friend with a plotter (or the Kinko's type places charge about
$1/linear foot), and you can have full size rib layouts done. Get an
exact curve EVERY time.

This is especially important with a Delta aircraft. Each rib is
different, and small variations can really ruin your day.

BTW, I took your advice...sort've...on building my elevon ribs. The
part about beating the edges down to form a flange. Found a new friend
who has a shear and a brake. Cut and then bent the ribs, but being less
than an expert, the ribs once again did not taper properly. So I cut
some blanks out of an old oak shipping skid. I put matching ribs back
to back with a form inside each, ran a few bolts through the 'sandwich'
and beat the flanges down to the forms. I'm still welding the ribs into
place, but both sides should be exactly the same when I'm done.

--
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
"Ignorance is mankinds normal state,
alleviated by information and experience."
Veeduber

[Corky Scott]

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 03:23:08 GMT, Ernest Christley
> wrote:

>Veeduber wrote:
>
>> As for the original thread, I've found vee-blocks, step-drills and a couple of
>> throw-away angle-head grinders to be handier than any of the tools mentioned,
>> other than basic hacksaw & files. Being able to maintain the axis of your
>> notches is more important than a perfect fit.
>
>Again, Tubemiter program to the rescue. I can't overstress how much my
>work improved after I got ahold of this program. It prints a template
>for the fitup. Well, part of the template is a couple of lines running
>down the side. You first use these lines to get the template wrapped
>correctly around the tube, using the bottom one to make sure you're not
>wrapping a helix. The lines down the side now run parallel to the tubes
>axis. Put a template on both ends, lay the tube on a table and roll a
>smaller diameter piece or a yardstick up against it. You'll easily see
>when the lines are colinear and be able to maintain the axis.
>
>> A point most novice builders fail to appreciate is that the actual amount of
>> time spent welding is insignificant in relation to the overall project. It
>> looms large simply because you don't know how to do it or lack confidence in
>> your skills. The key to success is the same as for any other manual art, be it
>> typing or car-quals -- you have to practice. The basic principles can be
>> mastered in about thirty minutes. You'll then need about twenty hours of
>> practice to produce welds deemed 'safe for flight' (which doesn't mean they'll
>> be pretty :-)
>>
>> -R.S.Hoover
>
>I spent 2 hours in the garage today. 1.75hrs in preparation and .25hrs
>welding.

I just fishmouthed one end so that it fit properly and then guaged how
the other end should line up by holding a tube in the already
fishmouthed end and marking the opposite end by eye.

Then I went to the grinder and cut the other fishmouth. I always left
it a bit long so that I could adjust the opening one way or the other
if necessary.

Even if the tube ends up having an eighth inch play or slightly more,
it doesn't matter. You will be putting enough filler material on the
weld that the fuselage won't care, and no one will be able to tell
that it wasn't precisely flush. Won't matter in terms of strength and
safety either.

Corky Scott

[Veeduber]

>Even if the tube ends up having an eighth inch play or slightly more,
Corky writes:

>it doesn't matter. You will be putting enough filler material on the
>weld that the fuselage won't care, and no one will be able to tell
>that it wasn't precisely flush. Won't matter in terms of strength and
>safety either.
>

---------------------------------------------------

I try to keep the gap to the diameter of the filler rod or less. In fact, I've
found a tiny piece of filler rod or snippet of MIG wire to be a handy means of
wedging a tube in place.

The typical fillet produced by gas welding is 3x to 5x the thickness of the
wall, depending on the included angle of the joint. Anything more serves no
purpose since that is all it takes to equal the strength of the tube. Some
amount of filler is required but standard practice is to keep the gaps fairly
small so as to conserve weight.

Overall, I've personally never found it to be a major concern. Some of my
welds are prettier than others but all are sufficiently strong. The only
definitive study I've seen comparing TIG, MIG & gas for welded tubular
structures was a thing for helicopter tail booms. All met spec for strength
but they went with MIG. It was fractionally heavier but it was faster,
produced the boom at least cost. Someone like NASA, with a virtually unlimited
budget but critical weight constraints, would probably have gone with TIG.
Home-builder or someone doing repairs, O/A will usually win the Practical
Factors test.

Folks who get all excited over things like welding procedures or 1020 vs 4130
are usually telling us more about themselves than about airplanes :-)

-R.S.Hoover

[Ernest Christley]

Corky Scott wrote:

> Even if the tube ends up having an eighth inch play or slightly more,
> it doesn't matter. You will be putting enough filler material on the
> weld that the fuselage won't care, and no one will be able to tell
> that it wasn't precisely flush. Won't matter in terms of strength and
> safety either.
>
> Corky Scott
>

My experience has been that the tighter I get the fitup, the less warp I
get in the finish piece.

Another tip. When welding intersecting tubes, especially when at an
angle, weld in 1/4 round steps. Weld each side (ie, the tips of the
fishmouth) and let it cool. Then go back and fill in the crease.
Welding the sides first pull the tubes straight together, then the extra
material help to hold them in place when the crease weld tries to pull
them out of whack.

--
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
"Ignorance is mankinds normal state,
alleviated by information and experience."
Veeduber