- Thread starter Gingle
- Start date
Laser $27000
Mig $2000
As soon as I saw the welds it was obvious the mig would be far better. Having said that if he had upped the wire feed and gone slower on the laser I suspect the results would be the same. I can't see any advantage at all on steel but maybe on aluminium yes!
Mig $2000
As soon as I saw the welds it was obvious the mig would be far better. Having said that if he had upped the wire feed and gone slower on the laser I suspect the results would be the same. I can't see any advantage at all on steel but maybe on aluminium yes!
Munkul
Jack of some trades, Master of none
- Messages
- 7,766
- Location
- Cumbria
I’ve said this before – I had a demo on a laser welder for stainless steel, steel and aluminium. Great for small autogenous welds. No good for structurally sound welds, and they wouldn’t come near passing a coded weld test or give any visual penetration.
I have no doubt you could eventually make it pass, but at that point you’d have slowed it down so far that you may as well be using TIG or MIG anyway.
I have no doubt you could eventually make it pass, but at that point you’d have slowed it down so far that you may as well be using TIG or MIG anyway.
Jelly_Sheffield
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.
- Messages
- 1,229
- Location
- Sheffield, UK
Cool, but it would have been much more interesting if either:
- the laser welder was demonstrated by someone competent with it (no disrespect to the presenter, but he literally says that he's got almost no experience with the technique), or
- both welds were done according to a WPS designed to achieve the same ultimate strength in the joint.
As it is, it mostly demonstrated that a massively under-reinforced joint done with a technique inadequate to the thickness of parent metal is extremely weak, which a layman could have figured without a demonstration.
I did find it interesting to see how the metallurgy of the filler metal differs with the two techniques, after the destructive test...
But even that would have been more interesting if they sectioned the workpiece to do both a destructive test, and microscopy after polish + etch.
- TIG welded for aesthetic requirements, or
- TIG/MIG welded with secondary processing to meet a surface finish requirement.
In those scenarios I can see how a laser welder might well both increase productivity and decrease welder skill requirements (and thus wages
) in production settings...
Hell, once the technique reaches sufficient market penetration to bring the price of equipment down to sensible levels, it could conceivably make it cheaper to cut and weld assemblies in cheap tat [ahem, fast moving consumer goods] that sre currently stamped or deep drawn from tinplate.
- the laser welder was demonstrated by someone competent with it (no disrespect to the presenter, but he literally says that he's got almost no experience with the technique), or
- both welds were done according to a WPS designed to achieve the same ultimate strength in the joint.
As it is, it mostly demonstrated that a massively under-reinforced joint done with a technique inadequate to the thickness of parent metal is extremely weak, which a layman could have figured without a demonstration.
I did find it interesting to see how the metallurgy of the filler metal differs with the two techniques, after the destructive test...
But even that would have been more interesting if they sectioned the workpiece to do both a destructive test, and microscopy after polish + etch.
Not having any experience with the technique, my initial impression on watching that demo was that the obvious application is for very thin sheet metal parts, which are currently:
- TIG welded for aesthetic requirements, or
- TIG/MIG welded with secondary processing to meet a surface finish requirement.
In those scenarios I can see how a laser welder might well both increase productivity and decrease welder skill requirements (and thus wages
) in production settings...Hell, once the technique reaches sufficient market penetration to bring the price of equipment down to sensible levels, it could conceivably make it cheaper to cut and weld assemblies in cheap tat [ahem, fast moving consumer goods] that sre currently stamped or deep drawn from tinplate.
Munkul
Jack of some trades, Master of none
- Messages
- 7,766
- Location
- Cumbria
We had an interesting application for 2mm thick stainless steel panels, which were for structural requirements.
We ended up TIGing everything. It was the only way to meet NDT and inspection.
Jelly_Sheffield
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.
- Messages
- 1,229
- Location
- Sheffield, UK
Makes complete sense.
As the technique improves they may reach a point where it achieves the requirements for structural work, has validated standards, and all the kinks are worked out, but putting your neck on the line by being first is always risky.
When thinking about applying novel welding techniques in regulated/safety critical applications, my mind immediately jumps to the Centrical Rough Explosion† where in the investigation Forensic Engineers at HSL Buxton discovered an entirely novel phenomenon and associated failure mode, which couldn't reasonably have been foreseen, much less tested for!
†To save anyone looking it up...
When building the Rough B platform Centrica used a novel design of heat exchangers that had been lined with a thin skin of titanium on the tube side only using Explosive Reaction Welding.
Subsequently, the HE had entirely normal, and planned for corrosion on the unlined side of the tube-sheet.
Unfortunately, it turns out that hydrogen generated by that corrosion was able to migrate through the steel to the ERW joint where an electrochemical reaction rapidly formed Titanium Hydride critically weakening the joint.
The tube sheet then ruptured during a routine startup, burst the HE and a massive gas release engulfed the platform in flames.
Thankfully, through good design and a little bit of luck, no one was killed, and only one person got injured (and wouldn't have, had he not worn a polyester hoodie under his FR Overalls).
All initial investigations assumed the oy way it could have separated was a manufacturing defect, so fingers were pointed at the Pressure Vessel Manufacturer, on the basis a tube-sheet defect must have been missed at NDT.
The strength of evidence from the manufacturer's paper trail was so strong that HSE decided that they needed more detailed metallurgical analysis of the HE, and sent it to Buxton, where it was only during the forensic analysis that the true failure mode was discovered...
Which must have meant months of Squeeky Bum Time and massive legal bills for everyone involved in the fabrication!!!
