Doggggboy
Ultra Member
I'd like this a hundred times if I could.Obstacles are made to be overcome. People asked me why learn how to TIG weld at age 72. Answer: Why NOT?
Plasma cutting: same.
Jim G
Go hard Jim.
I'd like this a hundred times if I could.Obstacles are made to be overcome. People asked me why learn how to TIG weld at age 72. Answer: Why NOT?
Plasma cutting: same.
Jim G
Nope, not a shielding gas. Requires flow at pressure, in order to push the molten material out of the kerf, and keep the plasma stream cutting new material.Above my pay grade but more for curiosity. Is plasma cutter gas requirement kind of like TIG torch where its relatively low pressure & flow rate at the regulator so it delivers I guess just above atmospheric pressure blanket gas? Or is it more analogous to like a power tool where it needs elevated pressure AT some flow rate to (I dunno) blow the molten material out of the kerf?
Not me. It's one thing to learn a new skill, another entirely, to attempt to reinvent it, before you have a real clue how it works when you do it the way that is accepted as 'normal' first.I'd like this a hundred times if I could.
Go hard Jim.
Excellent question, and one that I have been researching with limited success until yesterday. Most of the websites you go to, including even the ones by organizations like Hypertherm, Miller, etc, are too vague in answering this question, implying that the right "combination" of amperage and psi is needed to get a reasonably successful compromise among cutting speed, cutting quality, and cutting dimensional precision.Above my pay grade but more for curiosity. Is plasma cutter gas requirement kind of like TIG torch where its relatively low pressure & flow rate at the regulator so it delivers I guess just above atmospheric pressure blanket gas? Or is it more analogous to like a power tool where it needs elevated pressure AT some flow rate to (I dunno) blow the molten material out of the kerf?
Excellent question, and one that I have been researching with limited success until yesterday. Most of the websites you go to, including even the ones by organizations like Hypertherm, Miller, etc, are too vague in answering this question, implying that the right "combination" of amperage and psi is needed to get a reasonably successful compromise among cutting speed, cutting quality, and cutting dimensional precision.
Yesterday I found an online video on Youtube by an individual experienced plasma cutter practitioner in which he progressively varied amperage and air psi:
He confirms what the other websites have said, but shows that air psi is more important than amperage, for cutting speed, quality of cut, and aesthetics of the cut. And, his presentation seems to show that a fairly high air pressure is needed.
The user manual that comes with my specific small "lunchbox sized" plasma cutter with only a deceptively optimistic 50 amp rating, seems to also say that you need to have a high CFM as well, like 6 CFM, even though the manual calls for only 30 to 45 psi for many typical thicknesses of material, AND cautions you to not feed any more than about 70 psi through it (through, not to - it has its own built-in user adjustable regulator).
So, I again saw what I have been suspecting and saying throughout my recent investigation of what plasma cutters REALLY require: They appear to need an amperage range appropriate to the thicknesses and types of metals you will be cutting, a psi range that encompasses approximately 30 to 100 psi for small typical metal "workshop" (not metal "industry" which can need much more), and AT LEAST 6 CFM of air VOLUME which is not adversely reduced by too-small air delivery lines.
Your question "Or is it more analogous to like a power tool where it needs elevated pressure AT some flow rate to (I dunno) blow the molten material out of the kerf?" is pretty much right on. The air supply DOES in fact "blow the molten metal out of the kerf".
To me, this all suggests a pretty high powered air compressor - one that gets plenty of starting current 240 volt power, has a large tank (like 80 gallons, which is barely over 10 cubic feet) requires notable floor space, is only marginally portable, and makes a lot of noise to serenade you while you work.
Sure, we see lots of Youtube videos where guys cut metal with small plasma cutters, but the cut rate is slow (way below the 20 inches per minute and higher that is recommended), and quality is poor, and the metal ebing cut is thin.
And yes, the "good well known" brands of plasma cutters do even offer models that have a "builit-in" air compressor within a surprisingly small machine, BUT those machines do thin gage metals only, AND their manufacturers have preset the combination of internal air compressor CFM and psi and machine amperage to work within a carefully controlled thickness range. Their specs look feeble compared to the Chinese "50 amp" units because of the limitations imposed by that tiny built-in air compressor.
The more I learn, the more I am convinced that my approach of a gas cylinder supply versus an air compressor is the right solution for my specific circumstances, which I have described pretty fully in the course of this thread. Your best solution might vary from mine, since my objectives are much more hobby and art oriented than a typical small shop metal practitioner. Unlike many (most?) of you on this forum, I have no other need for a high CFM air compressor.
Jim G
@JimGniteckiI'd like this a hundred times if I could.
Go hard Jim.
He confirms what the other websites have said, but shows that air psi is more important than amperage, for cutting speed, quality of cut, and aesthetics of the cut. And, his presentation seems to show that a fairly high air pressure is needed.
The more I learn, the more I am convinced that my approach of a gas cylinder supply versus an air compressor is the right solution for my specific circumstances, which I have described pretty fully in the course of this thread.
Let's be just ab it more specific and accurate. In your exmaple, the "244 cf" means that the gas contained in that full cylinder would occupy 244 cubic feet if it was uncompressed and at "standard" temperature, sea level, etc". When compressed in the tank, it is obviously a much smaller volume.I thought about the Boyles law thing as well, but I believe cylinders are rated at say 244cf at 2400psi...or whattever that cylinder is rated, I believe that to mean at 2400psi that cylinder contains 244cf, but the relationship between pressure on the gauge and volume in the tank is not linear....probabaly the reason tanks seems to take longer to go from 1000 to 0 vs 2000 to 1000
Maybe we are saying the same thing, maybe not LOL. The volume of the physical tank is of course fixed, so I think what they are specifying is the equivalent gas volume at standard (atmospheric) conditions. More tank pressure = more available gas volume. Larger physical tank volume at same pressure = more available gas volume.
I found this welding excerpt which I think is like the 'simple' calculation I mentioned. But again, this is atmospheric delivery pressure so can go a long ways to deplete the tank vs elevated pressure delivery. Also welding at 20 CFH (cubic feet per hour) is only 20/60=0.33 cf/min. That's very low compared to any kind of tool demand.
View attachment 30731