Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

SICK OF BAD CONNECTIONS? SEE THE SPUT WELDER - NOW AVAILABLE

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Fibergeek
    replied
    Caswell is now maintaining a stock of sputwelders, these will now ship as fast as any other stocked Caswell product.

    Should Caswell's stock be depleted faster than I can resupply them we will revert to drop shipping product from me to the end customer. We have identified and corrected a shipping notification problem. From now on Caswell will provide me with the end customer's email address, so that I can provide that customer the UPS tracking number the day his order ships.

    Thanks again for your support.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fibergeek
    replied
    Unfortunately no.

    The advantage of a switch is obvious, and I wanted to have one. This is the problem; a switch that can handle 2000 Amps is necessary, and it has to have no more than 0.005 Ohms of on resistance. I tried ganging ten real big power MOSFETs together, and it worked exactly once, the CDW reduced all ten MOSFETs to toast on the first shot. A very high current pulse transformer would also work, but the transformer is twice the size of the entire Type 5 and would cost $350.00 each, just for the transformer. The way the Industry does this is to use large SCR switches but the voltage would need to be in the 150- 300 Volt range, definitely dangerous, I won't go there.

    The manual included describes a method to get a "pseudo switch" action that can be used if your work is of suitable size and shape.

    Leave a comment:


  • jtsuttle
    replied
    Thanks for the examples. $250 is starting to look pretty darn good. Now let me ask you this: would it be possible for the end user (me) to add a foot pedal to activate the welding action? The places where I would like to weld my wire are in tight nooks and crannies. The wire could be bent into hooks or other shapes to get there but it would be highly likely to arc off in the wrong place on the way in with the wire. Kind of like the old Operation game we played as kids, you know the one where you tried to remove bones, organs, ect. without touching the side and setting off the buzzer. Well anyways, I never was worth a [email protected] at it so a foot pedal would be nice.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fibergeek
    replied
    The closest things that I have been able to find:

    DCC Corporation, NJ.

    Hotspot Thermocouple Welder (50 Joule) $689.00
    Hotspot II Thermocouple Welder (250 Joule) $965.00

    Triad, Inc. MA.

    Sparkie $700
    Sparkie II $1000
    The Flash Mini Tack Welder $800

    Could the sputwelders be made and sold for under $100 like sophisticated electronics at Wal-Mart? Sure, if they were made in China in batches of 100,000, cash up front. Does anyone here want to make an investment like that? If this catches on the investment would be justified, and the price will go down, it would take a year starting now to find out.

    Be careful of judging the price of electronics by the pound; the "competing" products mentioned above use old fashioned 60 Hz. step up transformers driving primitive linear regulators, big, heavy, and expensive. Both sputwelders are based on 100 KHz. pulse width modulated DC/DC converters, much smaller, cheaper, and more efficient for the same power.

    Leave a comment:


  • jtsuttle
    replied
    Originally posted by Fibergeek
    ...The pricing will put it within reach of everyone here...
    Originally posted by Fibergeek
    ...(5X cheaper than anything on the Market)...
    What would be a comparable item on the market? I've never seen anything like it. I hope no one takes this the wrong way, it sounds like a wonderful tool, I just like shopping around before making a purchase. And in a world where we can go to Wal-Mart and buy sophisticated electronics (like TVs, dvd players, ect.) for under $100, its hard to believe that a tiny welder could cost $150/$250. After some research I'm sure I'll find that it is indeed a good deal, but I would like something to compare it to. It's just a higher price than I was expecting.

    Leave a comment:


  • mcaswell
    replied
    http://www.caswellplating.com/kits/sput_weld.html

    Leave a comment:


  • Fibergeek
    replied
    Finally!
    We have our act together enough to give you all some information that we can be sure of:

    There will be two models of the CDW.

    1. The Type 5, which is vastly improved, faster, and more powerful than the prototype "Sput Welder" in Caswell's movie. It will put out 100 Joules of Energy ( the Sput Welder would do 85 Joules) Is much more accurate, and is designed to stand up to continuous commercial use.

    2. The Type 6, A vastly cost reduced Sput Welder. This one puts out 44 Joules, which will handle aluminum wire up to (and including) 14 AWG. It is intended for occasional (hobby) use. The Type 6 is 1/2 the price of a Sput Welder but will handle nearly any job that the Sput Welder can, just slower.

    The prices are:

    $250.00 each for the 100 Joule Type 5. (only the Type 6 is cheaper)

    $150.00 each for the 44 Joule Type 6. (5X cheaper than anything on the Market)

    You can place orders with Caswell right now. Lead time is 4-6 weeks for the Type 6, the Type 5 will take 2-4 weeks longer (sorry). The lead times will improve substantially in a month or two.

    Each unit comes complete, ready to use, nothing to buy. They both include a 10 ft. coil of 16 AWG coil of aluminum wire, the necessary power cube, the necessary copper alligator clips, and a very detailed user's manual.

    If you require a European 220 VAC power cube, specify this at time of order.

    (edited to add)

    Caswell is working on the web page that will have pictures and detailed descriptions.

    Leave a comment:


  • jtsuttle
    replied
    Any new news on when the sput welder will be available?

    Leave a comment:


  • M_D
    replied
    One thing I forgot to mention is that when you want to dye more than one color in a batch, it's a lot more convienent with individual wires. It's difficult and risky to transfer parts from a rigid rack to various dyes tanks after they are anodized.

    I haven't done the complete 2011 tests I mentioned before. I think it is something that may be attractive to certain people though, since 2011 is popular in automatic lathes for a couple of reasons, one major one being the chips break up better and don't foul the tools up with stringy chips like 6061 and other alloys do. I know for a fact that dying multiple pieces of 2011 on a rack causes dye quality problems, that much I have proven to myself. If the parts are anodized and dyed on a rack, they will get spotty before dying to a deep color. If a light to medium color is ok, then a short dye time will lessen the problem.

    If they are removed and hung on individual wires, either Ti or aluminum, the problem goes away. The dark colors, especially black, is not as noticable. I have anodized a rack of 2011 parts (not just once, but numerous times), pulled half off and hung them individually to dye, and dyed the rest on the rack. The individually hung parts can then be dyed untill the color is deep and will stay spot free, the racked ones will get spots every single time if left in the dye too long.

    Anyway, except that the 2011 anodizes to a duller finish than 6061, everything else being equal, you can get a pretty decent finish on it that way. The welded wire method could be the answer for select people who would like to improve certain high value 2011 parts. If you would like, I would sent a batch of small machined 2011 parts for you to test with.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fibergeek
    replied
    Thanks M_D.

    I noticed a piece that I anodized was swinging wildly in the tank, the agitation was so vigorous that the part hydro-planed. My agitation system cycles all of the electrolyte in 43 sec (the proverbial "tempest in a teapot"). This is actually more agitation than anyone would need short of Type III (hardcoat). Nothing broke, and it was very small wire (22 AWG). More careful wire placement would have elliminated the hydroplane effect.

    Another idea for multiple large-ish pieces is to weld the wire to the work and to an aluminum bar which suspends them and controls the part spacing, don't make the wires any longer than necessary. The bar becomes the common connection point. If the job will tolerate this, use a second wire for stability and/or larger wire. The bar stays out of the electrolyte, this removes nearly all parasitic resistance (no rack) which will improve accuracy, reduce the required current, and lower the power dissipation.

    I now have over $ 9K of my own money invested in the CDW, and 8 months of work, I'm not about to post the schematics and just give it away. I know I promised more information in July; sorry guys, I need a little more time. When you know why; you will understand, and you will be pleased that I went the extra distance.

    Leave a comment:


  • M_D
    replied
    I wrote a fairly extensive post the other day about the sput welder and the parts done with it, and just when it was posting lighting caused a power failure. So I finally found a few minutes to do it over.

    These parts are some I have anodized while testing the welded wire method. They turned out good, if I do say so myself. (Note that the black pieces are black oxided tool steel) It takes a fair amount of work to machine parts like this, so it's always a bit of relief to get them finished with no problems. Not that there's any doubt on the electrical aspect with a welded wire.

    The large part has over 300 square inches of surface area, and was done with over 20 amps of current just for the one large piece. With the welded wire there isn't any worry about connections causing a problem.

    I have noticed one distinct disadvantage when processing parts with the sput welder, although people who normally use hanging wires anyway wouldn't likely notice this. I find that rigid racking is more convienient in one sense, especially when doing multiple parts per batch (which is 99.99% of the case with us). With only a wire to use for handling, it is more difficult to handle the parts while cleaning, rinsing, and placing in the tanks so they don't touch or get banged up.

    Of course the bullet proof connection (electrically speaking, since the wire could be broken off if handled roughly) of a welded wire is attractive when you need to be eliminate all possible problems. Next time, on parts such as these, I think I will attach a wire to the part to ensure the best possible electrical connection, and fixture the parts on a rack for ease of handling. This would give the best of both worlds, the parts would be securely seperated and easy to handle, and the electrical connection would be postitive.

    Leave a comment:


  • borgen
    replied
    Originally posted by dropride
    Hi Fibergeek, any idea of how long before it will be available for sale.
    Or post the schematics just like for the power supply. That will do fine for me.

    Regards, Danny

    Leave a comment:


  • dropride
    replied
    Hi Fibergeek, any idea of how long before it will be available for sale.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fibergeek
    replied
    Borgen,
    We will be able to provide the unit set up for 220 VAC European use.

    Skiddz,
    Don't forget about the weld blemish. If you're pulling a dent out its probably in a place where it will show. Interesting idea, it might work.

    If by powder coat application you mean to weld a wire to the work for the electrical connection, yes it will work. Use iron or mild steel wire (bailing wire) on steel. Since you only need to maintain a charge on the work to attract the paint particles (very low current) you can use very small wire, which makes the weld blemish even smaller.

    Leave a comment:


  • borgen
    replied
    Fibergeek,

    I think i can wait a bit longer for this remarkable equipment but pls. can you also account for non usa customers, 220 V supply versus 110 V USA.

    Looking forward to the final product.

    Best regards,

    Danny

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X