Talk:Electron-beam welding

84.42.225.153 (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Electron-beam welding was a good article, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.
Review: November 13, 2006.

GA Comments

The article is overall of good quality, but here's a few things I saw:

Distortion is slight, and the workpiece cools rapidly, and while normally an advantage, this can lead to cracking in high-carbon steel. -> since the article is talking about advantages here, the cracking seems out of place and interrupts the flow of the text.
At points, it needs a bit more wikifying, in order to be less technical.
Perhaps add an advantages and disadvantages section?
If possible, could we get an image on the article?

Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inventor of Electron Beam Welding

The physicist Karl-Heinz Steigerwald started the development of electron beam treatment in 1947 in AEG Research institute in Morsbach Germany. See www.deutsches-museum-bonn.de He buildt the first electron beam welding machine in 1952. This machine is exposed in "Deutsches Museum Munich". See www.steigerwald-eb.de/eng/profile_a.html

Good Article review

in a 3 to 0 vote, this article has been delisted, primarily for lack of references and not actually discussing what sort of things this kind of welding specifically is used for. Chop shop welding? Construction beam welding? These questions really could use answers for an article to be broad enough concerning a method of welding. Dispute archive here: Wikipedia:Good articles/Disputes/Archive 8 Homestarmy 16:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been nice to know about this before just delisting it—how am I supposed to be able to improve the article when I don't know that anyone wants it to be improved? When articles are listed for WP:FAR, it's a requirement that the nominator put notes on the talk page and on the talk page of any primary contributers. But no matter; GA status isn't important anyway. Now, to the article: I'm not sure what is meant by "lack of references"; all the material in the article came from the Electron Beam Welding chapter of the book listed in the references. I'm a citation nazi, and even I think it's overkill to cite page numbers when all the information comes from a few pages of a single source. As for the applications of the welding, that's a good idea. I'll try to get ahold of that source again and see what I can do. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 16:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the references, generally, using a single source for any article can tend to end up leaving something out of a topic, (Since, of course, a book can't be updated too much) and also, I personally don't like delisting GA's for this criteria alone, but in WP:WIAGA inline citations are a kind of quasi-requirement. (Primarily because alot of scientific type editors don't like the idea.) Homestarmy 22:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a problem with Spangineer re-editing this page back to his edits and in fact altering history. He is claiming Electron beam welding technology was developed in France. It was not. It was developed by Karl-Heinz Steigerwald who also sold the first two units.

Your are a student, and I have been in this business for over 30 years.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrandrzejak (talk • contribs).

Actually, I left that part in there. The France connection is documented in the source I provided at the bottom of the page; I'm not claiming anything, just repeating what a source says. I'll take a look at this later, but feel free to change things around if you like. Remember though that lists in general aren't optimal (these are encyclopedia articles, not lists). --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 21:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not called a "hot cathode" emitter

The device that emits the electrons when heated isn't the hot cathode, its called a filament, and is made out of tungsten or molybdenem. The source for this is Welding Skills Second Edition By R.T. Miller pg. 340-345. 138 (talk) 15:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC) note: MOLYBDENUM is NOT used in electron beam welders. Most often it is tungsten, and only exceptionally it is tantalum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.42.225.153 (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

not always vacuum

It is my understanding that although the beam is generated in a vacuum, the weld does not need to be preformed in a vacuum. for large parts (such as car frames) the welds were not done in a vacuum, but rather the beam was generated, and then shot out of the vacuum onto the part. I think GE did it this way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.189.158 (talk) 23:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the technology. There are low vacuum EB systems that have their columns pumped down to a very high vacuum (>=1x10^-5 Torr) while the chamber is is pumped to a "low/medium vacuum" pressure using only a mechanical pump (1x10^-1 to 1x10^-2 Torr). The problem is the beam can be dispersed or even arc out in the presence of too much air due to ionization. I believe the lower voltage machines run at 60kV or less. There is a new system being developed called plasma arc window EB welding which allows welding of materials at full atmospheric pressure. The column is isolated from the atmosphere by the plasma of an electric arc. The column vacuum is again very high, 1x10^-5 Torr or lower to facilitate beam generation and shaping. The only disadvantage is the beam can only travel about 2cm in free air before its power significantly drops off due to loss from ionization. 24.186.130.27 (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Supplemented edition

I have found the previous version of the article (written in 2008) not sufficient and exact. As a specialist with 40 years experience in the field of electron beam welding, I dare present a new, supplemented version of the subject. I would appreciate any comments to its content.84.42.225.153 (talk) 06:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone this rewrite for now due to problems it had with compliance to the Manual of Style. I'm going to try to work on reincorporating your efforts into the article gradually. Thanks! Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 19:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you, please, explain the ".....problems it had with compliance to the Manual of Style. - and whose efforts ? Thanks.84.42.225.153 (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was completely devoid of any internal links or references. I'll work on adding these. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just restored it to the content-based version. There's a big wet fish in the post to you. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to wikify this four-month-old content, then? Shall I expect that work within the 24 hours you apparently expect it to be performed in by other editors? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I might do, I might not. It's irrelevant - either is better than deletion. If it needs work (which I don't dispute), then work on it. Working on it in-situ, in a collaborative editing environment like Electron beam welding would seem the obvious way to proceed. It's certainly better than deleting it, with a vague hope in the future that one single editor might get round to fixing it (Anyone for WP:OWN?), let alone the WP:BITE issue to the original editor who wrote this. But then what do they know? Wikipedia just hates subject experts. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm following this discussion with interest, please go on. Author of the article, 84.42.225.153 (talk) 10:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Applications?

I know nothing about EB welding, however this seems to be a fair summary of methods. I agree with the section 'Good Article review' that it needs a section on applications for completeness. Old Aylesburian (talk) 11:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Electron beam welding. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://web.mit.edu/invent/iow/russell.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Acronym "NDE" needs definition

Not sure what "NDE" means in this context. Non Destructive Examination? John Nagle (talk) 08:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]