Changed to Argon/Co2 and now blowing holes.

[matt1978]

Thanks for the warning. The last thing I'd want when welding thin car body panels is better penetration so I'll abandon plans which I had to give argon/CO2 a try some time.

Why is that?

In all motor repair shops I have ever been in, have all used Ar/Co2 gas mix, usually a 5% or 7% Co2, Argoshield light or somthing simerla.

After a little practice, you will have much nicer, better Mig/Mag results using an Argon Co2 mix than a straight 100% Co2. Just because the parent material is thin, you still need good consistant penetration, its just a relevent percentage compared to the parent material thickness.

This is the man, who muddled and purseuvered thru repairing a sill with MMA, so I am sure you'll cope just fine with a Ar/Co2 mix

 

[GeorgeB]

Why is that?
In all motor repair shops I have ever been in, have all used Ar/Co2 gas mix, usually a 5% or 7% Co2, Argoshield light or somthing simerla.
After a little practice, you will have much nicer, better Mig/Mag results using an Argon Co2 mix than a straight 100% Co2. Just because the parent material is thin, you still need good consistant penetration, its just a relevent percentage compared to the parent material thickness.
This is the man, who muddled and purseuvered thru repairing a sill with MMA, so I am sure you'll cope just fine with a Ar/Co2 mix

You ask 'why is that?' It's because two or three people said or implied in this thread that Argon mixes are more likely to blow holes, by the sound of it. Why spend a small fortune on a special gas mix if it makes the welding of thin panels more difficult? Now, I admit this surprised me, because I'd read before that Argon mixes are often recommended as best for thin metals. I don't want to merely cope with an Argon mix, though. It would need to be significantly better than C02 in order to justify the huge price hike over pub CO2.

Is there anyone else here who uses pub CO2 rather than Argon mix, because it's better value and because the Argon mix isn't much, if any, better?

 

[rtbcomp]

What people are trying to say is that given everything else is the same, just switching to Ar/CO2 will tend to blow holes, BUT if you change to Ar/CO2 mix AND reduce the power, perhaps switch to .6mm from .8mm wire then you will end up with a better job.

In other words Ar/CO2 mix is better with all the relevant parameters set for the mixture than CO2 on its own with the other parameters optimised for CO2.

 

[malcolm]

True enough there rtbcomp. My own welder will not operate properly on low amps with plain CO2 - only argon and argon mixes will support the arc down there.

You'll probably find argon mix allows more adjustment on the Clarke (thinner wire, lower wire speed and other techniques to reduce amps) so thin metal will become easier with argon mix.

Though George is also probably correct too - a cheap heap of **** welder might not weld well with either Argon mix or plain CO2, so the change in gas might not justify the extra cost.

 

[shenion]

CO2 lowers the current but adds heat to the weld pool. The penetration is wide. Argon mixes have a narrower, deeper penetration.

I had used both on on my Clarke 120. CO2 worked but when you put too much heat in you blow a big hole. Ar/CO2 penetrated more but is much more controllable. Ar/CO2 does ten to burn back gaps rather than fill them as the arc current is more.

The wide penetration on CO2 is more difficult on vertical as the weld pool is much more fluid.

Both have issues. I find Ar/CO2 mixes much easier to control on thin metal as the penetration is more confined. As my current setup goes down below 20A, I can use either. Just takes practice with both. If your welder minimum current is high; using CO2 may make it easier.

 

[GeorgeB]

Though George is also probably correct too - a cheap heap of **** welder might not weld well with either Argon mix or plain CO2, so the change in gas might not justify the extra cost.

The only MIG machine mentioned in this thread is the OP's when he said he has been "welding 1mm car body panels with a Clarke 135TE."

This thread seems to be challenging the rule book, not only for Argon gas mixes but now, apparently, for a brand of machine which I thought was reasonably well regarded.

 

[malcolm]

You'll probably find argon mix allows more adjustment on the Clarke (thinner wire, lower wire speed and other techniques to reduce amps) so thin metal will become easier with argon mix.

I've added a bit of highlighting - for the no difference or worse I was thinking more along the lines of the sub £100 welder you might buy from a supermarket or the really bad hobby ones. A SIP user changed over to argoshield after a session here so the welder would need to be bad for no improvement on car bodywork.

 

[Drains]

turn the welder down a bit and drop the wire feed rate the argon mix is giveing better penetration

George, is this the statement from "two or three people" that says or implies that an argon mix was "likely to blow holes"? (let's ignore the OP for the sake of this argument- he was looking for answers)

Get your facts right chap. The narrower penetration argon mix gives is no reason not to use it. It's not an excuse to jump on it and publicise the fact you're not going to use it because it's so expensive and obviously, in your mind, doesn't work.

You really should try and understand that welding is a complex subject and should not be treated simply. Just because one aspect of something is poor doesn't mean it is all poor. Just because one aspect of something is good doesn't mean it's all good. A balanced view is a handy thing to have. Everything has its place, wouldn't you agree?

(Even if it is at the end of an anchor chain)

 

[GeorgeB]

George, is this the statement from "two or three people" that says or implies that an argon mix was "likely to blow holes"? (let's ignore the OP for the sake of this argument- he was looking for answers)

Get your facts right chap. The narrower penetration argon mix gives is no reason not to use it. It's not an excuse to jump on it and publicise the fact you're not going to use it because it's so expensive and obviously, in your mind, doesn't work.

You really should try and understand that welding is a complex subject and should not be treated simply. Just because one aspect of something is poor doesn't mean it is all poor. Just because one aspect of something is good doesn't mean it's all good. A balanced view is a handy thing to have. Everything has its place, wouldn't you agree?

(Even if it is at the end of an anchor chain)

Yes, Madk's was one of the three people in addition to the OP and shenion, I think - all talking about greater penetration which struck me as maybe going in the wrong direction when you're trying hard to avoid blowing holes in thin metal with a MIG welder (according to many accounts on this forum).I agree that welding is a complex subject.

 

[the snooper]

you get less spatter and a smoother weld with argon and if your main task is welding thin sheet steel then ideally you want to buy a welder with the lowest possible amps to suit the job in hand

 

[Wastedd]

Wow. That resulted in quite a debate.

I now have plain CO2 again and I'm getting on as before.

Out of interest I did some experiments with new clean new panals and found that the co2 just does not seem to make them as hot and I can produce a longer bead before the puddle starts looking to big and hot. I also found the argon caused the panels to pull in more. I assume that means more heat in them. I bet it would be better for thicker metal (more penetration)

I'm sure its my poor technique or lack of experience but I'm definitely getting better results with the plain co2. When I say better I dont mean prettier, I mean no holes and less panel warpage . And yes they are stuck together properly as its holding my boot floor together and I can jump up and down in it without it splitting or moving.

I'm sure that argon mix would be better for a more experienced welder but for my setup, technique and 1mm panels I get better results.

Thanks for all the input.

 

[Sparkey]

Wow. That resulted in quite a debate.

Yes it did! Don't worry it has nothing to do with you, they do that all the time!!
The most important thing is that you got your problem sorted by getting back to plain Co2!
Welcome to the nuthouse!

 

[GeorgeB]

Yes it did! Don't worry it has nothing to do with you, they do that all the time!!
The most important thing is that you got your problem sorted by getting back to plain Co2!
Welcome to the nuthouse!

Yes, this is quite a breakthrough in that it seems cheap, plain C02 can't be dismissed for everyone. And yet you imply that anyone prompting such a debate, which results in what may be a mini breakthrough conclusion, is a nutter?

This follows on from a previous 'nuthouse' debate which overturned previous dogma stating that thick arc rods couldn't possibly be used with a small buzz box, until several people found they could be.

I know you probably didn't mean to use the word 'nuthouse' in that way but you still appear to take the view that the debate is like larking around, a bit of fun and not terribly relevant.

 

[rtbcomp]

Thread closed because it's reached its natural conclusion.