Arc length behaviour and voltage predictions for GMAW-Sp aluminum procedures in the Lincoln Procedure Hand Book
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Heat input is a key component of a welding procedure, which is dependent on the several fall voltages composing a total voltage loss. As current practice is primarily reliant on trial and error to determine voltage settings for a desired heat input, a means to understand and predict the voltage loss is of interest to welding engineers. Voltage, amperage, and arc length measurements using ER4043 1.2 mm at varying voltages were used to break down fall voltage constituents for a given weld with GMAW-Sp. Arc length was defined as the distance from the weld pool to the point where the metal vapour and ionized gas boundary attach to the consumable, and measured over 5 droplet cycles to obtain a time average. Aluminum procedures in the Lincoln Procedure Hand Book (LPHB) with 1.2, 1.6, and 2.4 mm consumables were analyzed to predict the individual fall voltage constituents using experimental results. Expected arc lengths ranged from 13-26 mm depending on voltage prescribed in the procedure, and agreed with comparative experiments. Combined anode/cathode, and the arc column were major contributors to overall fall voltage with 64±3%, and 34±3%, respectively. Contact tip, electrode extension, and lead cables were minor contributors, each contributing less than 1.2% to the overall voltage loss.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".