OK, I'm going to back off here. I meant no offence. Alls I was trying to do was hear a way to test this and actually see it, but you're saying that's impossible. Fine. I'll take that. I just don't feel comfortable with it is all.Originally Posted by cbrick
Precision in the wrong place is only a placebo.
But you feel plenty comfortable with what he says?
I teust fully in the kin the nowledge bestowed upon me by the Univ of Nebraska Dept of Chemistry. I am sure that the PhD earned by Dr Fryxell means something too.
I have grown weary of needing to "prove" everything when ONE person doesn't agree. I will no longer be browbeaten by him. My days of taking it sitting down are over.
He can use what he wants and beleive what he wants but I won't sit back and accept his bad science. He doesn't even grasp that we are not reducing anything OUT of the alloy but rather reducing things we want back INTO the alloy.
You can beleive whomever you choose, I don't really care and neither does science.
Think about it Tim. The other day you made fun of those who don't know that spruce is a wood, not the part excess metal we cut from the bullet after castng. In this case someone is failing to understand the term reduce as it pertains to fluxing. Is this any different? Me thinks not. Lack of knowledge is lack of knowledge after all.
You will learn far more at the casting, loading, and shooting bench than you ever will at a computer bench.
Gents, I would like to apologize for any part I had in starting this. I decided to call Glen Fryxell and ask him in person. He told me that these things are as constant as boiling water and don't need to be rehashed.
Basically gave me the answers that Geargnasher and Btroj have verbatim (told me to research Ion exchange chemistry and resins).
Again, I apologize for asking for a way to prove this process effectively. I did not realize that (and still do not understand why) is so offensive, so I will say I'm sorry and just leave it alone.
I use sawdust exclusively. I don't understand why it works, but at least the part that I do understand backs it up as being the best thing there is.
Precision in the wrong place is only a placebo.
Well here is what has and hasn't worked for me. And at this point I've converted around 8 tons or wheel weights and range scrap into clean ingots. I flat out stopped using sawdust. I read about it here, or was it in Fryxell's book, and of course had to try it. What I found is that no matter what I did I could not get it all out of the melt. Of course I found this out when using a Lee bottom pour pot. No sawdust was ever used in that pot. But when I added ingots that were made using sawdust the spout inevitably clogged. I'm really anal retentive so it's not like I half assed making the ingots. Anytime the propane burner is running it's costing me money. I had to remelt about a ton to clean it all up.
So all I use now is wax and metal utensils. The wax can be anything from gulf wax to candle wax. It's usually candle wax because the wife likes to buy the cubes you use in a melter. Once the fragrance is gone there is plenty of wax left over. The wax binds together all the junk in the melt to make scooping it all out easy. I use it in both the bottom pour and dutch oven.
I do not use any wood utensils because you end w/ the same issues like you do w/ sawdust. Using a wood stick in a Lee pot is just asking for the spout to clog. Especially if you scrape the bottom of the pot w/ it.
This is what works for me. I don't expect anyone else to follow it. I've had lead analyzed in many different states. It's the same percentage of elements regardless of if I used sawdust or not. It has the same percentage as a cast bullet as it did in ingot form. Get all the debris out of the lead and you are good to go. Load them up and shoot :beer:
Using sawdust that is either too fine or that is forced under the melt is asking for inclusions. Vigorous stirring to bring debris trapped in the mot to the surface helps. We need to remember that lead is dense enough to hold much debris under the surface even though vastly differening densities would make that seem impossible.
Let the sawdust shoulder on the surface and use a ladle to pour molten metal thru the sawdust. Don't force it under the melt or you invite inclusions. Same thing as scraping the bottom of the pot with a wood stick, you just leave debris under the melt that will cause grief later.
Proper technique matters as much as proper material
You will learn far more at the casting, loading, and shooting bench than you ever will at a computer bench.
Glad to hear that it was cleared up to your satisfaction.
At least you were willing to ask and accept the answer given, not everyone is that wise.
You will learn far more at the casting, loading, and shooting bench than you ever will at a computer bench.
That's true enough. Larry posted in one post in this thread that he agreed with Glen but when I pointed out that I was saying exactly the same thing Glen had in his book Larry responded with . . .
Larry suggested (several times) that I get a dictionary. I suggest that Larry get a metallurgy book and learn what the definitions are in the context of metallurgy. There are a lot of truths in this hobby and they aren't hard to find if you open your eyes and have a willingness to learn. Much of what is known today regarding bullet casting has come to us fairly recently from the metals industry. I strongly suggest starting with Glen's book. If not then simply follow Larry, that is after all exactly what he is looking for, to be put on a pedestal and looked up to. Me? I would rather know the correct science of it than blindly follow someone that refuses to listen or learn.
http://www.lasc.us/Fryxell_Book_textonly2.pdf
I think I'm done with this post, never had any thought of getting Larry to listen, he's proven for years that will never happen. My efforts have been for the newbie reading this thread that would like to learn and get started in the correct direction.
Rick
Last edited by cbrick; 09-27-2014 at 08:31 PM. Reason: spelling
"The people never give up their freedom . . . Except under some delusion." Edmund Burke
"Let us remember that if we suffer tamely a lawless attack on our liberty, we encourage it." Samuel Adams
NRA Benefactor Life Member
CRPA Life Member
Pretty much the same for me However all Smelting to create my alloy is done in a large pot outside with 3 to 4 applications of sawdust...this cleans the alloy...I ingot this but never use the bottom of the smelting pot! ( turn it over when cold & it is filled with carbon inclusions!) These really clean "Boolit alloy " ingots only go into my bottom pour pot...from this point on there is not wood untensils or sawdust used in that pot! Only wax and steel utensils ... The alloy is very clean!....The spout never plugs and the boolits drop clean! Vary that with any charcoal or wood mixing sticks & you get junk in the bottom of the pot no matter how much you stir or scrape & bring up the sides....this is what I have found works for me in a bottom pour pot!
" Associate with men of good quality, if you esteem your own reputation: for it is better to be alone than in bad company. " George Washington
after reading a bunch of these posts, (and I mean a bunch) I find myself wondering what am i truly getting out of all this..... and how it relates to what comes out of my melting pot. Now I feel I must truly scrap all what I learned so far, remelt all my ingots and start all over. I took bits of what l read, applied it and it made sense... but there were contradictions left to what was supposed to be yielded. Yesturday, i melted some pure lead to make some "slugging" slugs for my 44 mag. and some of that oatmeal looking **** surfaced. ***? One of the posts i just read said maybe a litttle tin may be in there? Now, I do believe that I did not do a good enough job of "cleaning up" (because now i do not know if I am fluxing or reducing) My metal, because I still see **** moving around under the surface of my melt.
Everyone recommends my using a thermometer. Just ordered a new one. Everyone recommended my using a micrometer, now I have 3. I wish I could get all the impurities out of my melt with a simple magnet, got plenty of those. So like the judge says... the truth... the whole truth and nothing but the truth......................................... please.
If you have stuff under the surface then a vigorous stirring will help. Use a motion that brings metal from the bottom of the pot to the surface.
If it was really pure lead and had oatmeal stuff on the surface then it wasn't near hot enough. Pure melts far higher than any of the alloys we normally use.
If I get oatmeal I keep the heat on and use lots of sawdust and stirring. Lots of stirring. Use a ladle to pour molten alloy thru the sawdust as it smolders.
You will learn far more at the casting, loading, and shooting bench than you ever will at a computer bench.
I made it my mission for five years to save people like you the trouble of being steered wrong. When the noise floor grew too loud and tiresome, I quit.
People like you getting fed a lot of garbage from people who are 'respected' here by those who don't know any better breaks my heart. That is the whole reason I broke six months of silence to post on this thread, because people like you are getting ABUSED by those who don't know the facts but want everyone to think they do. Rick was all alone here, still fighting for reason and truth, and I had had enough of watching him do it alone, and all the people who don't know the facts trying to sort out who's right like the answer lies on who wins some sort of popularity contest. Pretty sure that's why Brad showed up, too, he hasn't posted in a long time, either, but I think he'd had enough of the Rick-bashing and denial of truth too. I'm sorry this place has moved away from providing consistent, scientific, objective information like it should and more into the realm of mysticism and sorcery based on who has the most magical powers to entrance and brainwash the membership.
So what is the truth about reducing oxides and adsorbing impurities from our dirty scrap metal? Read the article Rick linked many times, "The 'simple' act of fluxing", by Dr. Glen Fryxell. That's all anyone ever needed to do in the first place.
Gear
I have always found it sound thinking, if someone wishes to shoot them self in the foot, to stand back, and give them a clear firing line. It amuses me. I'm so fortunate that I am never wrong about anything. At least, that's what I always told my X.
The solid soft lead bullet is undoubtably the best and most satisfactory expanding bullet that has ever been designed. It invariably mushrooms perfectly, and never breaks up. With the metal base that is essential for velocities of 2000 f.s. and upwards to protect the naked base, these metal-based soft lead bullets are splendid.
John Taylor - "African Rifles and Cartridges"
Forget everything you know about loading jacketed bullets. This is a whole new ball game!
Several do indeed manage that.
I, like probably most everyone here who read what 3 of you are saying have to wonder why you keep using Fryxell as your "source"? Especially when he disagrees with everything you are saying about the topic. Here is an earlier quote from one of your own;
Here is a cut & paste from Ingot To Target, written by Glen E. Fryxell, a PhD chemist that works with heavy metals.
Various waxes have also been used to clean bullet metal. Most commonly these have been paraffin, beeswax, various forms of tallow, or even lard. These have the advantage of being cheap, universally available, and working reasonably well (depending on the alloy). These materials are very good at satisfying two out of the three selection criteria for bullet metal flux in that they are excellent reductants and can reduce any oxidized tin present, and they can be used in sufficient quantity to form an excellent barrier layer, thereby preventing any subsequent oxidation of the alloy. Unfortunately, they offer no means for removing any Ca, Zn or Al impurities. If one is working with a relatively clean source of bullet metal (e.g. linotype or foundry metal), then the waxes can serve admirably in this capacity. However, if one is using a dirtier source of lead (e.g. range scrap, battery plates, or WW alloy), then there are probably better choices.
Here is a link to the whole book, you might want to read it. (Bold and underlined enhancements in quote are mine).
http://www.lasc.us/Fryxell_Book_textonly2.pdf
You should read very carefully what Fryxell says about waxes as a flux and a reductant (incorrect though that is) that "can reduce any oxidized tin present". The only criticism Fryxell has of waxes as a flux is "Unfortunately, they offer no means for removing any Ca, Zn or Al impurities." And removing those (the real use of a "reducer/reductant) isn't what this thread is about......it is simply about fluxing. Thus we see your own quoted "expert", Mr. Fryxell, disagrees with the 3 of you and agrees with me and the rest of us who like to use waxes as a flux. So you like to use sawdust or something else, who cares? What you use doesn't make waxes any less effective at fluxing. You 3 are the ones leading other astray by you insistence a wax is not a flux. Your own "expert" says it is. The 3 of you can't read a definition in a dictionary and prefer your own opinion. So who cares.......no one is who.
Everything Mr. Fryxell says that I have bolded is exactly what you say the waxes can't do. Talk about shooting one's self in the foot or mouth! The 3 of you sure do that.......
Larry Gibson
Last edited by Larry Gibson; 09-28-2014 at 12:42 AM.
This is still nagging on me, and I'm not letting it go because I actually care that you learn this, or else we all lose. This is not theory. What five educated people have now all told you is not "deduced" from probabilities or clues, it is the basic math of high-school chemistry. How can you still think we're saying that it is impossible to see? We've been telling you it's a freakin' simple chemical equation. You see one of those, can't you? Here's one I copied from the internet 'cuz it's quick, easy, accurate, and I already used the example in a previous post:
Question: What Is the Equation for the Reaction Between Baking Soda and Vinegar?
The reaction between baking soda (sodium bicarbonate) and vinegar (dilute acetic acid) generates carbon dioxide gas, which is used in chemical volcanoes and other projects. Here is a look at the reaction between baking soda and vinegar and the equation for the reaction.
Answer: The reaction between baking soda and vinegar actually occurs in two steps, but the overall process can be summarized by the following word equation:
Baking soda (sodium bicarbonate) plus vinegar (acetic acid) yields carbon dioxide plus water plus sodium ion plus acetate ion
The chemical equation for the overall reaction is:
NaHCO3(s) + CH3COOH(l) → CO2(g) + H2O(l) + Na+(aq) + CH3COO-(aq)
with s = solid, l = liquid, g = gas, aq = aqueous or in water solution
Another common way to write this reaction is:
NaHCO3 + HC2H3O2 → NaC2H3O2 + H2O + CO2
The above reaction, while technically correct, does not account for the dissociation of the sodium acetate in water.
The chemical reaction actually occurs in two steps. First, there is double displacement reaction in which acetic acid in vinegar reacts with sodium bicarbonate to form sodium acetate and carbonic acid:
NaHCO3 + HC2H3O2 → NaC2H3O2 + H2CO3
Carbonic acid is unstable and undergoes a decomposition reaction to produce the carbon dioxide gas:
H2CO3 → H2O + CO2
The carbon dioxide escapes the solution as bubbles. The bubbles are heavier than air, so the carbon dioxide collects at the surface of the container or overflows it. In a baking soda volcano, detergent usually is added to collect the gas and form bubbles that flow somewhat like lava down the side of the 'volcano'. A dilute sodium acetate solution remains after the reaction.
Now, Tim, ask Glen to write the series of balanced equations for you that describe how the essential compounds in sawdust plus tin oxide and enough heat to provide combustion will create a whole series of reactions that ultimately yield elemental tin, carbon dioxide, water vapor, elemental carbon, and probably some hydroxide compounds. THEN you can actually SEE IT. If you don't understand it, there should be plenty of qualified tutors or teachers in your area that can sort it out for you. Once you understand that, move on to adsorption and ion attraction. Once you understand that, you will be as much an authority as any to recommend sawdust for the complete job of reducing and fluxing, and know just exactly what "reducing oxides" and "fluxing out impurities" really means to the bullet caster.
You will also know exactly why beeswax is a lousy flux for bullet alloy. Excellent reducant, but lousy flux. Don't poop out on us, the point isn't to convince you, but to teach you so you can be confident in your understanding.
Gear
Not a single meaningful word about how any of us that point out how and why beeswax does one job and sawdust does that same job and more, are wrong in what we say. How can explaining the benefits and limits of a few simple chemical processes, accurately, be wrong?
For the record, one more time:
GEARGNASHER UNDERSTANDS THAT GREASE/WAX/OIL IS A SACRIFICIAL REDUCANT TO OXIDES OF TIN, LEAD, AND ANTIMONY WHEN ADDED TO A MOLTEN POT OF BULLET ALLOY. "SACRIFICIAL REDUCANT" MEANS THAT THE WAX GETS TURNED INTO OTHER THINGS, LIKE CO, THAT TRADE ELECTRONS WITH THE AFOREMENTIONED METAL OXIDES, THUS LEAVING THEM AS ELEMENTAL METALS WHICH RETURN TO THE ALLOY MIXTURE. FURTHER, GEARNASHER UNDERSTANDS THAT A SIMILAR REDUCTION/OXIDATION REACTION OCCURS WHEN SAWDUST IS ADDED TO A MOLTEN POT OF BULLET METAL, AND IN ADDITION, AS DIFFERENT COMPOUNDS AND ELEMENTS ARE FORMED FROM THE DECOMPOSITION OF SAWDUST THROUGH THE REDUCTION/OXIDATION PROCESS, THESE COMPOUNDS ADSORB THE METAL OXIDES THAT ARE CONSIDERED "CONTAMINANTS" THROUGH A MEANS KNOWN AS FORMING AN IONIC BOND. THE ADSORBED CONTAMINANTS CAN BE SKIMMED FROM THE SURFACE OF THE MELT AND REMOVED. THIS ADSORPTION IS THE SAME PROCESS BY WHICH COMMERCIAL FLUXES SUCH AS MARVELLUX WORK TO REMOVE METAL OXIDES FROM MOLTEN BULLET ALLOYS. BEESWAX DOES NOT REMOVE UN-REDUCED METAL OXIDES BECAUSE IT DOESN'T LEAVE BEHIND A SIGNIFICANT ADSORPTIVE CARBON MASS.
There, Larry, argue with that and tell me where I'm wrong, and how I disagree with Glen, and if not, how we're both wrong.
Gear
Last edited by MBTcustom; 09-28-2014 at 09:25 AM.
triggerhappy, here is the short version . . .
http://www.lasc.us/Fryxell_Fluxing.pdf
Here is the long version, says the same but in more detail. See chapter 4 on fluxing.
http://www.lasc.us/Fryxell_Book_textonly2.pdf
One of the truly great things about Glen's writing is that he takes what could be a very complicated subject and explains it in very easy to understand English. A true mark of a great writer.
Rick
"The people never give up their freedom . . . Except under some delusion." Edmund Burke
"Let us remember that if we suffer tamely a lawless attack on our liberty, we encourage it." Samuel Adams
NRA Benefactor Life Member
CRPA Life Member
Also a true mark of someone who is a master of the subject material. Those who wish to explain and teach for the benefit of an audience's education do this, those who have less noble motivations tend to do the opposite in front of an audience.
Gear
OK Cbrick, I read the short version and I got a grip on it. So I will need to remelt all of my ingots and whatever I have cast so far and flux and reduce all over again. i thought something was not right. because the ingots still had dirt looking stuff surface while i poured the melt into my ingot moulds. they feel rough..... except for 1. that was an ingot i used sawdust and wax alternating back and forth 3 or 4 times. the frozen surface of this 1 ingot is clean and smooth. it did not crater like all the other ingots. Now what I am P.O'ed about is all that tin and antimony I thought was trash that I skimmed off went into the trash dumpster.
So you see what we have been trying to explain? That's good.
Without knowing more about what your casting for, how much alloy your talking about or what your alloy is I wouldn't necessarily recommend melting it all down. If it's for a low pressure short range firearm such as the 45 ACP it could well be fine. How did your bullets turn out? If your reasonably happy with them shoot'em. The important lesson is that now you've learned correctly for moving forward.
Lot's of folks use wax and if after learning the metallurgy of fluxing/reducing if they decide to continue using or go back to wax that's not the end of the world. If they are happy with their results they are doing it right for them.
So no, don't melt everything down, better plan is to continue to learn and go forward from here.
Rick
"The people never give up their freedom . . . Except under some delusion." Edmund Burke
"Let us remember that if we suffer tamely a lawless attack on our liberty, we encourage it." Samuel Adams
NRA Benefactor Life Member
CRPA Life Member
Another point to reiterate is that how much cleaning you need to do depends on how contaminated is your scrap. If you're using clean, foundry metal, you really only need to reduce the oxide scum that forms in your casting pot from the skins of ingots, sprues, and cull bullets you return to it. Pea-sized blob of candle wax, beeswax, or bullet lube and a little stir with a stick or even a stainless-steel spoon does the trick.
Wheel weights are generally self-reducing due to the, um, organics mixed in with them. Self-fluxing, they are not. Roofing metal and range scrap is often highly oxidized and needs lots of additional reducants. Other sources of scrap lead alloy can contain a variety of nasty stuff like Fryxell has mentioned, and some serious and repeated sawdust fluxing (or borate glass fluxing once a good reduction of tin/lead/antimony oxides has been performed) is in order to remove as much of that stuff as you can before casting ingots. Do you HAVE to do this? No, but it is easy, cheap, and makes life a lot simpler when you put those ingots in your casting pot, even if you just cast bullets to sling at steel plates close-up. If you get a pot full of alloy that doesn't want to cast well, guess what? You can always flux it with sawdust! Like Rick said, if it casts fine the way it is, don't worry about it.
Gear
Posting Permissions
| BP | Bronze Point | IMR | Improved Military Rifle | PTD | Pointed |
| BR | Bench Rest | M | Magnum | RN | Round Nose |
| BT | Boat Tail | PL | Power-Lokt | SP | Soft Point |
| C | Compressed Charge | PR | Primer | SPCL | Soft Point "Core-Lokt" |
| HP | Hollow Point | PSPCL | Pointed Soft Point "Core Lokt" | C.O.L. | Cartridge Overall Length |
| PSP | Pointed Soft Point | Spz | Spitzer Point | SBT | Spitzer Boat Tail |
| LRN | Lead Round Nose | LWC | Lead Wad Cutter | LSWC | Lead Semi Wad Cutter |
| GC | Gas Check |
