First time using sawdust

[rattletrap1970]

Umm. did I miss something?

[cbrick]

Umm. did I miss something?

rattletrap, see post #53 from this thread.

Just to be clear, I have a friend that does these tests for me, and I don't want to wear out that avenue, so I am willing to do this test but I don't want 10 folks asking me for free tests. If it were mine to do with what I pleased, that would be different, but as it is, I have to ask humbly, and hope I don't wear out my welcome savvy?

Rick

[rattletrap1970]

I'm sorry I implied I wanted it done for free. But I believe I followd up that I'd pay. I would, if the opportunity came up, like to pay just to see if there are any major flaws in my casting material.

[cbrick]

All nine samples have been carefully prepped and given to the man that runs the tester for a full spectrum analysis.
I am completely unaware of which sample is which (I sure as heck hope Rick remembers!) so this should be a totally blind test.

What? You didn't keep track?

Well, just so happens that I wouldn't trust all 9 samples to memory so I kept careful notes as each sample was prepared and numbered.

Now if I could only remember what I did with those notes!

Rick

[cbrick]

Oh, and as a just in case or a oops or ah chit . . . Each sample was made from un-fluxed alloy and then poured into ingots after the sample was taken, each of those ingots was numbered the same as the sample and I have all the numbered ingots set aside waiting for the results.

If there are no problems I'll blend them all together and give them my usual saw dust fluxing (see post #23), box them up and return the alloy to jsizemore.

Rick

[MBTcustom]

Now, some of these samples you sent are the same alloy having been fluxed correct?

[jmort]

"Anyone interested in these results should shoot a big thank you to jsizemore, Goodsteel and his friend at work. Without any one of them this would never have come to be."

Thanks to all concerned and cbrick
This is most interesting. Missed the recent posts, hence the belated thanks.

[cbrick]

Now, some of these samples you sent are the same alloy having been fluxed correct?

Yes, of course. That's the prime reason/purpose. You've not been paying attention huh?

All of the clip-on weights from jsizemore were melted into one sample. A sample was taken from this before fluxing, all of it was then poured into 5 pound ingots. A few of these ingots were re-melted and fluxed with one of the fluxes, this alloy was poured back into ingots and numbered the same as the sample. More un-fluxed ingots were melted and fluxed with a different flux, this was then poured back into ingots and numbered and so on.

That is how I managed to spend 7 hours and get 35 boolits (samples) cast.

RIck

[aspangler]

WOW!! When I started this thread I had no idea it would turn out like this! Thanks to Goodsteel and his friend and to cbrick and all the others involved with this. I will be very interested in the results of all this testing. Thanks to all of you. This is a GREAT board and I am proud to be a member of it.

[cbrick]

I tried sawdust today as a flux when I smelted some WW. Worked good but it tended to go to the bottom of the pot. It did what I wanted it to do and get the metals back in the mix but it was a little dirty when I got to the bottom of the pot. Bottom line, it works and is cheap. I cast 55 ingots of pure and 46 of WW for about a total of 100 lbs today. Not bad for a morning.

Oh yeah, I've been meaning to reply to your OP. I can assure you that whatever you found on the bottom of the pot it was NOT sawdust. Nothing you could do could get sawdust placed on top of the melt to the bottom. Stirring with a charred wood stick may leave something trapped under the melt but you'll not get saw dust, fresh or burned to the bottom. Stir with a stainless spoon and bring the alloy up to the saw dust to eliminate whatever is on the bottom.

Rick

[Chill Wills]

Thank you to all for the time , $ and effort!

I assume that as this is a favor, we should be patient for a while....

Many thanks again!
Michael Rix

[wch]

[url]www.lasc.us/] "From Ingot to target":Fryxell and friends will teach you about fluxes and fluxing.

[cbrick]

www.lasc.us- Fryxell will teach you about fluxes and fluxing.

Glen is aware of this thread and like the rest of us is waiting to see the results, I received the following PM from him.

Very interesting! I look forward to seeing your results. I predict that the main difference observed with sawdust will be reduced levels of the electropositive metals, like calcium, aluminum, magnesium, etc. Glen

[MBTcustom]

I've read your stuff Glen. Since you're following this thread, I just want to take a second and tell you how much I appreciate "from ingot to target". You did us all a great service with that work, so on behalf of every booliteer who has benefited from your hard work, Let me say: "Thank you!"

[cbrick]

Disappointing results from the lead testing. Tim says his friend told him he did the full test on all the samples but I just can't wrap my mind around clip-on WW that has never been fluxed being perfectly clean. In fact none of the three different fluxes used did anything at all to the clip-on's. I don't know what might be learned from this but here are the results, what was tested and how . . .

Samples #1, #2. #3, #4 are all exactly the same alloy, clip-on weights from jsizemore on the eastern seaboard, different fluxing for each of the first four samples.

Sample #1 > All 40 pounds of the clip-on weights were melted in one batch NO fluxing of any kind, simply the clips & crud moved out of the way and a boolit poured by ladle. Clips & crud skimmed off the top and all of this alloy was then poured into 5 pound ingots & marked as not fluxed, sample #1.

Pb 96.32
Sb 2.89
Sn .79

Sample #2 > Three of the 5 pound un-fluxed ingots were melted and fluxed with beeswax. This was then poured into 3 ingots and ingots marked as Sample #2.

Pb 96.02
Sb 2.75
Sn 1.22

Sample #3 > Three more of the un-fluxed ingots were melted and fluxed with sawdust. The alloy was poured back into ingots & ingots marked sample #3.

Pb 96.36
Sb 2.63
Sn 1.00

Sample #4 > More un-fluxed ingots melted and fluxed with Marvalux, alloy returned to 5 pound ingots & the ingots marked sample #4.

Pb 95.98
Sb 3.03
Sn .99

Sample #5 > I had melted out of used sawdust flux a 4 pound ingot a few years ago. It was of course fluxed when I made the ingot, it did after all come out of used sawdust flux but it wasn't fluxed again, simply a boolit ladled from it.

Pb 94.05
Sb 2.77
Sn 2.32

Sample #6 > Is from straight stick-on WW with 2% pure bar tin added & fluxed with sawdust, the sample was a 12 gauge sabot slug that I had previously poured.

Pb 97.18
Sb .29
Sn 2.53

Sample #7 > I had a quarter bucket of stick-on weights from the west coast, these were melted and fluxed with sawdust.

Pb 99.58
Sb .12
Sn .3

Sample #8 > The same stick-on weights from sample #7 with NO fluxing. Simply melted and the crud pushed out of the way and the sample poured.

Pb 95.44
Sn .56
Sulfur 4.00

Sample #9 > A few years ago a friend on the west coast gave me a piece of ballast, I melted it down into 10 five pound ingots & fluxed it with sawdust. It was again fluxed with sawdust when the sample was poured.

Pb 98.33
Sulfur 1.67

As a comparison test, from post #23 of this thread is the results of my clip-on weights from the west coast with 2% Sn added and fluxed with sawdust that was the simple test, not a full spectrum test as this was supposed to be.

Pb= 95.1%
Sb= 2.6%
Sn= 2.2%

There are some things interesting here, the un-fluxed stick-on weights had 4.0% sulfur and fluxed with sawdust the sulfur was 0.0%.

Rick

[MBTcustom]

Indeed, very disappointing for the purpose of our demonstration, but other things can be learned from these results. Check out the amount of tin in those COWW eh? I got chewed up one side and down the other a year ago for casually suggesting that COWW have barely 1% tin and often less than that.

I really apologize for the results, but honestly, the one we need to be looking at is the SOWW and the sulfur content. See, the feller brought down the results and I could see right off there weren't very many figures in the test. I asked him in the politest way I could if he had done the FSA, and he said he had, but that there was nothing really noteworthy in the test except the holy trinity. He said the graph was basically a flat line, except for one huge blip for Pb and two teensy weensy ones for Sb and Sn. He apologized and said he was very sorry, but he can't make there be impurities when there are none. He said the only trace that seemed like it might be worth mentioning was a tiny trace of gold, but it was not reproducible and was less than .2% when it did show up. I asked about sulfur, nickle, copper, cadmium, zinc? He said there was no discernible trace there at all.
From this I have to conclude that we just got a really clean batch of COWW. Maybe they have strict controls out there on the east coast that require new alloy or something? Who knows?
I do know that we needed an alloy that had large amounts of impurities in it, in order to see the effect sawdust had, and we assumed that COWW of any kind would give us that.
Welcome to my world! I had many many samples tested before, and the results were never what I thought they would be. In fact, only by keeping the strictest control of my alloy did I get to the point where I could mix a batch and it would come out reading what it was supposed to.

All I can do is apologize.

[geargnasher]

Like all the kids say today, "it is what it is". Thank all of you so much for contributing and doing this!

Not all boolit metal is sourced from wheel weights, and I can tell from my own, kitchen-counter chemistry that there is often stuff other than the Trinity in the filthy scrap lead alloys I scrounge up. I can tell by casting quality and by determining what's in the skimmed ash.

Gear

[jsizemore]

In post #62 one of my initial concerns was what if there wasn't contamination of the sample and then no results of various types of fluxing materials. I didn't persue this because I thought it would be dishonest to intentionally contaminate a sample if it wasn't what the regular caster would find at the scrapyard, or tire shop. I feel like an oppurtunity has slipped by and an end to the fluxing squabble is no nearer. It's like finding Bigfoot, an end to Government borrowing, the Bermuda Triangle and how you flux is still waiting to be answered. Good luck with your pet method.

[MBTcustom]

In post #62 one of my initial concerns was what if there wasn't contamination of the sample and then no results of various types of fluxing materials. I didn't persue this because I thought it would be dishonest to intentionally contaminate a sample if it wasn't what the regular caster would find at the scrapyard, or tire shop. I feel like an oppurtunity has slipped by and an end to the fluxing squabble is no nearer. It's like finding Bigfoot, an end to Government borrowing, the Bermuda Triangle and how you flux is still waiting to be answered. Good luck with your pet method.

Now now, not all of the alloy up yonder was uncontaminated. The clean alloy was clean before and after, which tells us nothing, but the stuff that had been contaminated with sulfur was greatly reduced. That's got to count for something.

[jmort]

Well I need to thank all concerned. Very excited to follow this thread. It may be an exercise in futility, but I'm thinking it might be worth sending "Sample # 1" to Rotometals. I just don't see how the alloy could be so clean across the board. Makes no sense and I mean no disrespect to goodsteel's buddy. So if cbrick will send #1 to RotoMetals, I'll pay for analysis. I'm betting there are far more elements in the alloy. If any others are willing to chip in, we could do #1, #2, and #3.