Talk:Gas metal arc welding

Valuable Links for Welding
I would like to add an outbound link to two great guides and resources that deal with the proper preparation and selection of material on tungsten electrodes. The link is at: www.diamondground.com/downloads.html. Do you feel that this would be appropriate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.112.164.100 (talk) 21:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

To-do
To get this article featured, at least the following should be done:


 * Add history section
 * Get good images
 * Add equipment section – torch, power supply, etc.
 * Add sections on process variations: Globular, short-circuiting, spray, pulsed spray. This should include differences like shielding gas used, type/thickness of metals that can be welded, positions, weld appearance, pros/cons, travel speed, learning curve, etc.
 * Add quality section (possibly incorporate into individual process variation pages)
 * Include info on joint design somewhere (maybe quality section)
 * Include info on safety and common applications (maybe in an "Applications" section?)
 * Explain MIG, MAG and MIG vs. MAG.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Velle (talk • contribs) 20:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Please, add to this list if you think something is missing! Spangineer &#8734; 18:46, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Electrode
 * Resolve conflicting anode/Electrode electrical polarities, between Section: Power Supply; electrode is generally positively charged. Since the anode tends to have a greater heat concentration, this results in faster melting of the feed wire, which increases weld penetration and welding speed. The polarity can be reversed only when special emissive-coated electrode wires are used, but since these are not popular, a negatively charged electrode is rarely employed .[16]

and Section: Flux-Cored Wire-Fed; so these gasless machines operate as DCEP, rather than the DCEN usually used for GMAW to give deeper penetration.[24] DCEP, or DC Electrode Positive, makes the welding wire into the positively-charged anode, which is the hotter side of the arc.[25] Provided that it is switchable from DCEN to DCEP, a gas-shielded wire-feed machine may also be used for flux-cored wire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.107.25.196 (talk) 02:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Also
I'll make a start on the history bit. I can take a nice pic of my little 150 Amp welder if that's any use? Only slight issue might be it's an unusual make (Ferm/Sealey).
 * Differences with different metals.
 * General differences (pros/cons) with tig/oxy-acetylene/etc.
 * AC/DC variations perhaps.
 * Notes on usages in industries (eg auto)

History link: http://www.solarnavigator.net/welding.htm

Mat-C 02:04, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Remember, we just want the history of GMAW, not welding in general. There's alot of general history at the main welding article, which was based on printed sources, not the internet.  We can include the stuff that relates to arc welding, but the focus should be on GMAW developments. Incidentally, the website you linked to appears to be a direct quote out of a welding textbook I have (Modern Welding Technology by Cary and Helzer) so if you use the info off the website, I'll reference it with the book.


 * The picture would be great; I doubt the model would matter. User:TTLightningRod already offered to get some good images for this page, but we'll probably need more, and extra options never hurt. AC/DC stuff is a good idea; though I think AC is rarely used.  Thanks for the suggestions!


 * Regarding the safety section, you might find it helpful to take a look at the safety section of the welding article – we probably want to use prose, not lists, and we'll also need to talk about the differences in safety between GMAW and other welding processes. I think I read that GMAW is safer than SMAW, for example.


 * Thanks for showing interest! I wrote the welding article by myself, and while it was fun, it would have been better to have help.  It would be awesome if the next featured welding article could be done with teamwork :)  Spangineer &#8734; 15:18, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

The welding page looks very good, I'll have a scan through it. I can't really write much on the history without more info (and decent sources hard to come by). Will do other bits as we go along, including the safety rewording. Cheers, Mat-C 03:09, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

before placing in article page
I thought we might change the text within the image to simple numbered items, then we can simply have an editable list under the description text. Yes? (TTLightningRod)


 * Yep, I agree – numbered items in the image would be best, because then it's possible to easily change the text and it can also be translated without any trouble. These are great images – you definitely know what you're doing with CAD.  Incidentally, what software do you use?


 * Aside from converting the text to numbers, I'm only concerned about a couple things, and hopefully both can be resolved easily. The first is that the head of the gun comes out of a cube shaped thing... based on the welding guns I've seen, that's not what they look like, so if it's possible, it would be cool if the cylindrical part could be extruded farther back so that only it is showing.  I'm also not sure what I think about the perspective of the second image... part of me says it's fine as is (once the cube thing at the bottom is removed), but I'm not sure I'm a fan of having the tip of the gun appear farther away than the handle of the gun.  I'm not sure how easy this stuff is to change, so give me feedback on my comments before changing stuff so that you don't have to do extra work. Again, these images great; thanks for putting the time into making them!  --Spangineer &#8734; 23:17, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Collaborative WikiCAD... now that would be cool
What's the matter... you don't like my cubist representation of a nice finger-formed hand-held trigger-actuated MIG torch grip, with gold-inset name-brand logo? What's wrong with you? : ) Ya, I'll do something a little better with that...  I just tossed this off this afternoon, and didn't want to put time into other details before we could start talking about it. Which now we have.

So numbers are the way to go. I'll leave you to fill in their technical description, and still others can translate easier too. I'll also do a bit more work on the actual cut away (you can see that in the talk:Welding page. Changing things around is quite easy, particularly views, perspective, angle, rendering and color..   that's why CAD is so cool.  Draw it once in 3D, the rest is kids play.  Didn't like my "cubes"...  you silly boy.

One other thing....  I would expect other people could pick up on this method of; draft, feedback, change, repost...   In this case it's not so important to me, but I don't want to keep posting "latest revisions" without being able to completely delete old versions of a draft that have been superseded. (That's an important dynamic when moving any kind of draft and engineering paperwork around, as you know) The best way to do it would be if I could simply "replace" an image with it's same simple name every time. I personally don't care if the older one is dumped all together, but if the wiki commons system could date stamp, and reshuffle the image history backwards, that would be good for future generations in perpetuity. Otherwise, any person working on an image, especially any future collaborative CAD work, (collaborative DXF's or DWG's in a wiki environment would be super cool) any person working on an image and replacing an older image would have to rename it every time. I do suppose I could add a date/time stamp, but that really isn't the best solution if in the future, many people are working on the same thing simultaneously, and in different time zones.

Basically... What will happen with a wiki-commons filling up with half-baked or old, technical images?


 * Yeah, sorry to be so picky about that handle :). As for the images, yes, you can just replace the images by uploading a new one with the same name, which dumps the old one.  I think that you should just reupload the files over top of the last one, and then if you get one that is a major change, don't get rid of the old version, just name the new file something else.  If lots of different people are changing and renaming the image consistently, you can just send it through some sort of delete process, which I think is pretty easy.  Does that answer your question?


 * As for collaborative CAD stuff, though not on a wiki, I know of one CAD package called Alibre that makes that possible. We used it in my engineering design class, and while it's definitely limited in its capabilities (it didn't take me long to find something it couldn't do with its extrusion tools; namely a phillips head screwdriver), it does allow for two people to be looking at the same CAD drawing at the same time and working on it together. It's pretty cool.


 * Also, a minor note – it would be helpful if you signed and dated your talk page posts with ~, since it helps other users keep track of the conversation and all that good stuff. Just a tip. --Spangineer &#8734; 00:48, May 28, 2005 (UTC)



Please let me know what you think. If there are other ways the illistration could be viewed, modified, or otherwise improved... please let me know. TTLightningRod 12:32, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's looking great to me. Once we get this article to peer review, we'll get some more feedback from other users (hopefully), but for now, I think we're in great shape. You may want to specify on the image page that you're releasing these under GDFL or whatever, so that there aren't any concerns later about where these images came from. I'm thinking that putting the two torch end images near each other (perhaps one on top of the other) would be a great visual. I'll work on the caption and on the image placement, and I'll let you know if I see anything that I think needs to be changed. And please, feel free to contribute to this article! You seem to know pretty much about this welding thing, and it would be great to get a little bit of writing collabaration going :). But if you can't, I understand – in any case, your contribution of these images is a fantastic addition.  --Spangineer &#8734; 16:50, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * I added a comment to the image page about my offer under GDFL. Is that the way to do it?  Thanks for the compliment about my "know pretty much about this welding thing" smoke and mirrors.  However, I'm still a bit pensive about what I could really add to the text itself. I think you're doing a great job although I can sympathize with your request for more collaboration. Don't worry, if you say something that makes me want to puke, I'll let you know. TTLightningRod 17:38, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

that doesn't make sense...
"it can not be used outdoors or in other areas of air volatility." By their very nature, both stick and MIG CAN be used outdoors because they both use some form of flux and/or inert shielding gas because of ambient volatiles everywhere we want oxygen to breath. It would be more correct to even say they work BEST outdoors, if only for the better safety of the operator. TTLightningRod 19:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Maybe something like this.. "Stick welding is one of the best solutions to use in conditions of strong and gusty winds, whereas MIG performs better in calmer air.  Because of the very low flow rates required by the inert gas often used in TIG welding, conditions of very calm ambent air are best, (such as indoors). TTLightningRod 19:34, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * But if the air is moving, the shielding gas being pumped out by the welding gun isn't going to effectively keep the oxygen out, right? Wouldn't the argon get blown away, allowing atmospheric gases into the weld area?  I've heard that outdoors welding is much more commonly done with stick and flux-cored welding.  --Spangineer ( háblame ) 19:43, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * Quite right. Your original sentence was really just kind of confusing to me at first. I see what you're saying....   let me think of it a bit more.  I'm trying to find a way to make it clearer why MIG does work "outdoors", but windy conditions can piss off the operator.  But even for TIG, this CAN be overcome by using more shield gas (and thus consuming more $).  MIG fits in the middle between "Stick" and TIG. From the most adverse conditions ("stick" weld on the open deck of ocean going vessel), to the most idyllic (TIG welds best in a controlled environment like an indoor laboratory workbench within a vacuum vessel). TTLightningRod 19:54, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Did we get rid of the term "volatile air"? Also, I'm looking at the dates here.  2005.  Did everyone go home?  This is the end of 2007.  Let's change it already.69.122.62.231 (talk) 17:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Pics
Can I just say... fantastic work on those cutaway diagrams, with detail right down to the threads on the tip. Mat-C 28 June 2005 15:13 (UTC)

Wow, *great* choice for a featured article
It's not like this exact topic was already featured just a short while ago as a featured picture or anything. No repetition here, nosiree. No crowding out of selected articles that haven't been featured yet either! I'm so glad Wikipedia features a diversity of articles on the front page rather than recycling the same old ones. MrVoluntarist 00:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Was that sarcasm? Because welding was a featured article just a short time ago.--kenb215 01:00, September 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was sarcasm. I'm glad you caught on.  Gas metal arc welding was a featured picture not long ago.  How pathetic. MrVoluntarist 02:24, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Shut up. On another note, I think it's a great example of citing sources. --Cyberman 21:51, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't tell me to shut up. And this isn't a great example of citing sources; it's a great example of citing the same three or four sources.  Anarcho-capitalism, which by the way sacrificed a spot on the front page so that this article could be shown twice, is a great example of citing sources. MrVoluntarist 23:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, the decision to put a featured picture on the main page and a featured article on the main page are entirely separate processes. Perhaps there should be more coordination, but the fact that the article appeared shortly after the picture was a fluke.  As for Anarcho-capitalism, just be patient -- I'm sure it will appear on the front page before long.  GMAW reached featured status nearly a month before Anarcho-capitalism did, which explains why it appeared on the front page first. --Spangineer  (háblame)  01:28, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Could be a loooooooong time if every other article gets to be featured twice... MrVoluntarist 17:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe you could threaten to hold your breath until your page gets the go ahead? Slinky puppet 02:59, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * No personal attacks MrVoluntarist 17:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * That's not ad hominem.

Voltage
At what voltage is MIG welding usually done? ―BenFrantzDale 03:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems to be around 15-30 volts, depending on the application. It's normally set by the operator.  I'll try to find a more explicit reference and add that to the power supply section. --Spangineer  (háblame)  04:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no usual voltage, instead it depends on the type of joint, the thickness of the metal, and the number of runs. Since there is no real measure of how much voltage you're putting into the weld (welding machines only have fairly ambiguous "settings" with the maximum being the exact rating of the machine, IE 180 volts) we can only guess roughly how many volts are going into it. To give you an idea though, if I was doing 10mm steel welds I'd probably go up to the maximum setting on a 180 volt machine (LOL even though it would cut out every 6 minutes and require billions of runs). For 1.6 mm steel, I'd use a 180 volt machine, and set the voltage on 2, 10 being the maximum, 1 being the minimum, and the amps on about 4 (totally meaningless to you or anyone else lol but that's what I'd set it at), putting the amps up a bit higher for a T fillet joint which absorbs more heat - that would be the absolute highest I'd go, and even then I'd have to go very careful to avoid burning through. If I was doing positional work like on a vertical surface, I'd put the settings up a wee bit so that I could move faster to stay ahead of the molten weld pool, without losing penetration. So you see it depends on the circumstances. Hope that answers your question. ▫Bad▫ harlick♠  00:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Badharlick is referring to amps, not volts. Measuring voltage is fairly precise, measuring amps, less so. As Spangineer noted, betweek 15-33 volts, Typically 16-19 volts for short-circuit and 26-33 volts for spray. Volts will be adjusted in that range for electrode diameter and type, vertical up/down, thickness of material, shield gas, flux-core, etc.. Volts are controlled directly on the welding machine, amps are controlled indirectly, primarily by the wire feed rate and size of the power source, less so by the electrode stickout, shielding gas and other parameters.Drillerguy 13:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it a wrong traveling direction?
It is basic to advance turning the nozzle to the traveling direction and spraying the shielding gas from the nozzle. Therefore, I think that the traveling direction and the direction where a semiautomatic welding of this figure is formed the bead are wrong of it.

Refer toWelding(Japanese version Wikpedia) for details. 121.200.137.77 16:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * From the article: "The travel angle or lead angle is the angle of the torch with respect to the direction of travel, and it should generally remain approximately vertical. However, the desirable angle changes somewhat depending on the type of shielding gas used—with pure inert gases, the bottom of the torch is out often slightly in front of the upper section, while the opposite is true when the welding atmosphere is carbon dioxide." The diagram is a modified version of an image appearing in a respected welding text; there's no problem. --Spangineeres  (háblame)  16:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism removed
"My name is shilton" doesn't really seem relavent to the topic at hand. Forar 19:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Faster
Quote: Originally developed for welding aluminium and other non-ferrous materials in the 1940s, GMAW was soon applied to steels because it allowed for lower welding time compared to other welding processes.

How so, compared to regular electric-arc welding without protective gas? Maikel (talk) 16:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You need some shielding from something, either from a continuous gas supply or else a flux-coated manual filler rod. Manual rods need to stop repeatedly to change rods, which obviously slows down the work. Apart from continuous gasflow, there wasn't another way to weld long runs continuously. Submerged arc (plain wire covered with a pile of loose flux powder) and "gasless" wire (flux as a core) are later developments.


 * More important though was the quality aspect, not the welding speed. Stopping to change rods, or more accurately the cool-down associated with it, is infamous as a cause of most welding quality problems (voids, inclusions etc.). If you can find a way to work continuously, you stop these at source. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Featured article concerns
It's been a long time since this article was promoted and it still looks good but needs some polish in order to meet the current FA criteria. I've added citation needed tags where there are none. There are questions about a self-published source used in the article. At least two of the books listed in the bibliography are not used for citing the article. One cite needs the its page number listed. Brad (talk) 10:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Fact checking
I believe the following statement to be plain wrong: "The automobile industry in particular uses GMAW welding almost exclusively." Resistance spot welding is very common in the automotive industry (see e.g. http://www.boschrexroth.com/country_units/europe/united_kingdom/en/industries/automotive/downloads/a_downloads/Bosch_Automotive.pdf), and I believe laser welding is also used on a regular basis. Thus I will remove that sentence from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankid (talk • contribs) 10:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you are right to make that removal, pending a source (which I doubt exists). --Spangineerws (háblame)  17:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Globular transfer
Is it better to say that this mode is "the most undesirable" (which I've reworded to "least desirable" for clarity) or should we say, "It's simply broken and no-one should use it"?

I'm UK trained, so I've not read the US texts used as sources here, where it seems to be described as an early form of welding that was in common and widespread use until it was supplanted by something better. From my training, and my sources, the view is rather more against it. It's viewed here in one of two ways: an obscure form used only with care and specific need, on thin sheet - even then it has been superseded by machines that allow pulsing. Otherwise, and most commonly, it's seen as "amateur welding", the "pigeon crap" welds produced by DIY car restorers using CO2 gas, poor skill and machines that can't reliably deliver spray transfer mode.

There is a commercial difference between US & UK low-volume or hobby welders, such that it's expensive to use an argon based gas in the UK (because of cylinder rental charges), thus many instead use CO2, even for welds where this is quite inappropriate. The UK welding field is stratified into "CO2 globular welders" (who basically aren't to be trusted) and "competent welders" (professional or amateur). Although globular transfer must be covered, if only as a warning, I'm concerned that listing it first, and as if it's a credible choice in anything other than an obscure situation, is giving it a credence it shouldn't have. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Revert
This article just passed FAR ..., I am heading out for a long weekend. Could you review this revert by ? Were Maralia's edits saved? Sorry, I haven't time to look closer. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I saw the revert, and am okay with it; I was on the fence about retaining the edit anyway. Maralia (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Welding Eye Shields
The article states 'Newer helmet designs feature a liquid crystal-type face plate that self-darken upon exposure to high amounts of UV light.'

My understanding is that in auto-darkening helmets the LCD only acts to reduce the visible light from the arc but the glass itself is a UV filter so if the battery/solar cell power supply fails the user may be dazzled but will not suffer arc eye from UV damage. Could someone who knows more about this check this? Stub Mandrel (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. The glass filters the UV, the active LCD filters the visible light, when needed. Also the plate doesn't "self darken" (like photochromic sunglasses), there is an electrical circuit that measures the light level and controls the LCD panel, much more quickly. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Odd bit in "safety" section
"Furthermore, because the use of compressed gases in GMAW pose an explosion and fire risk, some common precautions include limiting the amount of oxygen in the air and keeping combustible materials away from the workplace.(ref)(/ref)"

Considering the purpose of the compressed gases is to prevent oxidation, among other things, this is rather hard to believe. Argon and CO2 simply are not combustion hazards. Potential explosion due to compromised container/control equipment, perhaps, but not combustion. Huw Powell (talk) 06:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

British English vs. American English
As the primary author of this article about 10 years ago I used American English; however, it appears that when I first began editing it I inadvertently introduced this convention into an article that was not a stub and already had "aluminium" (with an extra "i") and "utilises" in it. Thus it appears that I at least violated the current rendition of WP:RETAIN, which if I recall correctly was in effect at that time as well.

Recently someone (or several people) editing anonymously have insisted on introduction of "aluminium" into this article. I originally opposed this and reverted, as I saw it as a violation of WP:RETAIN. However, in light of my further digging into the history I see that British spelling should have been retained across the board.

Thus, given that the article currently includes "aluminium," I hope someone with knowledge of British English can make the article use that spelling consistently; I am not qualified to do so. —Spangineerws (háblame)  22:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi. I was one of the people who has recently have been involved in -um to -ium. My comments here are:-
 * - noting your graciousness in the above.
 * - aluminium is not 'British' spelling as this is the recognised spelling in most countries, by IUPAC and Wikipedia.
 * - much so called 'British' spelling is far more widespread that the UK. Often the spellings said to be 'British' would be more accurately described as 'non-US'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.116.181.137 (talk) 14:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that perhaps "aluminium" is more accurately "non-North America" (Canada uses *aluminum* too) than "British." But I do not see any clear indication that it is "the recognised spelling [...] by [...] Wikipedia." Sure, that's the name of the article, but that's different from "aluminium must be used in all articles, even those using US spelling conventions." If you can find a quote anywhere along those lines in the WP:MOS, that'd be helpful, but I don't think there is one. —Spangineerws (háblame)  11:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia article and Naming conventions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.212.86.30 (talk) 19:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The latter link is very helpful. I don't know if GMAW would be considered "chemistry-related" but that's fine. —Spangineerws  (háblame)  20:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gas metal arc welding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160816123118/http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/you-can-now-3d-print-with-metal-at-home to http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/you-can-now-3d-print-with-metal-at-home

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

metal active gas (MAG) welding mentioned as a subtype but never described
IDK anything about the term "metal active gas (MAG) welding", but presumably it includes atomic hydrogen welding. I intend to put a link to atomic hydrogen welding unless I see objections soon.CountMacula (talk) 21:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion of Flux-core arc welding does not belong here
I removed the section on flux-core welding and gave my reasons in the comments. Flux core is not GMAW---GAS welding, and so it is off-topic in the present article. Its relation to GMAW is that the two are often done with the same machinery, which I mentioned in my revision. Mechanical feeding of the wire is not even an essential element of either. Gas shielding IS an essential element, and so I moved a sentence stating so into the first paragraph. Further, I added a See Also section with a link to Flux-cored arc welding. All my edits were reverted without any useful comment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Section_blanking recommends giving reasons when removing a whole section. I did so. None of my reasons were discussed in the reversion, and the reverter gave no reason at all. CountMacula (talk) 02:13, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I moved the comparison with flux-cored wire-fed welding to its own top-level section. Please discuss here if needed.CountMacula (talk) 03:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * remedied laughable inclusion of a four paragraph section on flux-core welding is hardly an objective reason for blanking a whole section. Maybe you consider it "laughable", but then as you think that CO2-shielded GMAW is the same thing as atomic hydrogen welding, then your judgement is doubtful anyway.
 * Flux-cored arc welding belongs here. It is a constant voltage process with automatically fed wire and inherently self-regulating control of the arc length. The fact that it generates its gas shield by decomposing a powdered flux in the wire, rather than from a bottle, is a difference in implementation, not a fundamental one in the process. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:09, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I never said CO2-shielded GMAW is the same thing as atomic hydrogen welding. Note the use of "includes", not any claim of being "the same thing as".  No claim at all really.  As I indicated, a presumption to be dispelled if false.
 * "The fact that it generates its gas shield by decomposing a powdered flux ... is a difference in implementation, not a fundamental one ..." Interesting thinking.  Then should we merge the SMAW and FCAW articles into this GMAW article, since according to your thinking, those also use gas shielding?
 * "constant voltage process", "automatically fed wire", "inherently self-regulating control of the arc length": As I understand it, those are usual features of both, but none of them are essential features of GMAW and so are not listed in the intro.  Of the three, the intro to the FCAW article mentions only continuously-fed electrode as essential.
 * FCAW is not a kind of GMAW, so it would seem that any mention of FCAW should only be in comparison to GAS MAW.CountMacula (talk) 04:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

It’s called multiple inert gas
My welding teacher said so 75.172.83.43 (talk) 02:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Actually, it is not called that.


 * The correct term for the subject process is “gas metal arc welding” (GMAW) or the older term “metallic inert gas” (MIG).  The most commonly-used shielding gas in industrial processes is pure carbon dioxide, which patently is not a “multiple inert gas.”  While CO2 was not the first shielding gas to be used, it was the development of CO2 as a welding atmosphere that popularized GMAW for large-scale industrial use.


 * Many shielding gases used in GMAW are mixtures, such as the widely-used 75/25 argon/CO2 combination, which is especially suitable in light sheet metal work due to the less-aggressive arc as compared to CO2 use.


 * 216.152.18.132 (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

GSS WELDING
Someone arc welding and any all Weldings. 157.39.65.88 (talk) 07:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Pedantry alert
The person who does welding is called a weldor. The machine itself is called a welder. That terminology difference was one of the first things taught when I started welding classes in the late 1950s.


 * 216.152.18.132 (talk) 01:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)