Alloys

[OS OK]

Painful

------------------------------------------------------
I have this kind of trouble with spelling. The vowels in some words give me fits.

All of us struggle with something!

And, All of us like casting and shooting bullets.

Painful is not the half of it....right when I'm convinced that I've been wrong all my life about RATIOS and convinced so by an Engineer...here comes another guy who gave us the Lead Calculator we love so dearly and he agrees with what I tried to reason out in the first place.

So....I'm not going to panic, I'll do like I shoulda done a long time ago. Go to the internet and find out for sure and certain about RATIOS. <(might be a mistake!)
I did & here's the easiest to digest explanation I could find...[ from, http://www.webmath.com/ ]

Here is some information about your ratio:
You entered 20:1. This is a ratio that is read "20 to 1."

Here 20 is called the antecedent, and 1 is called the consequent. The first term is always called the antecedent and the second term is always called the consequent.

Ratios sometimes mean how each number relates to some whole amount. For example, your ratio is 20:1. Since, 20 + 1 = 21, 21 is your whole amount. So, 20 is one part of 21, and 1 is the other part of 21.

So your ratio means 20/21 forms one part, and 1/21 forms the other part. This is what is meant by "ratios compare the size of one number to another number."
The size of these two parts is what a ratio compares.

Notice that 20/21 = 0.952381 (95.2381%), and 1/21 = 0.047619 (4.7619%) (these are the two parts), and 0.952381 + 0.047619 = 1 (they add to be 1 whole).
This can also be stated in terms of percentages, like 95.2381% + 4.7619% = 100%.

This sounds reasonable to me & it's what my little 'pea-brain' had already figured out BUT...I have this new question now that two qualified men have given two different answers...Is there another type of ratio out there among the educated that us RedNecks are not ware of?

[Chill Wills]

It is like a mini story problem.
It is however, very easy to see the ambiguity if you think about this.


1 in 20 (one in twenty) 1 part is tin leaving the other 19 to be lead - totaling 20 parts
or

20 to 1 (twenty to one) 20 parts (lead) to every 1 part tin totals 21 parts

A few people in above posts are right when they point out, unless some exact science is at stake, no caster, no target, and no game animal would ever know the difference.
cheers, -CW

[RogerDat]

Cast with 5% body solder where there is no math? +1 on download the alloy calculator from the sticky in this forum.

Little of what I have seen is pure tin. Pewter is high tin but also has antimony and copper. Solder cut with plain lead is best approach at a accurate binary Pb/Sn alloy. Whole lot easier to plug in amount of some solder and lead into the alloy calculator. I do the math with phone calculator to get an accurate guestimate of what I might do, I make my alloy using the calculator.

[Land Owner]

What since is a 4.76% alloy (rounded to 5%)? Five percent (5%) is correct. Think of it like the "fraction" that it is (1/20).

And, there are ever only 2 parts to these alloys.

1:1 is 100% (1/1) of each of 2 component.

1:2 is 50% (1/2) of one component to every one whole of the other.

1:3 is 33% (1/3) of one component and 2/3 (67%) of the other.

That's logical math. The other way gets you Summer School for remedial instruction.

No matter how it is debated, others have pointed out BE CONSISTENT.

Exactitude is not required of this hobby.

[kevin c]

If I may state your point another way, Land Owner?

In a 1:1 (1 to 1) mix, the weight of the first component is 100% of the second, and is half the total weight.

In a 1:2 (1 to 2) mix, the weight of the first component is 50% of the second, and is a third of the total weight.

In a 1:3 (1 to 3) mix, the weight of the first component is 33.3% of the second, and is one quarter of the total weight.

ETA: sometimes math is neat, but sometimes it's a stupendous headache...

ETA: and yes to alloy consistency, whatever way it gets calculated!

ETA: and double yes to consistent alloy hardness, however you get there!

[Land Owner]

Yes. By weight. Thank you.

[Chill Wills]

What since is a 4.76% alloy (rounded to 5%)? Five percent (5%) is correct. Think of it like the "fraction" that it is (1/20).

And, there are ever only 2 parts to these alloys.

1:1 is 100% (1/1) of each of 2 component.

1:2 is 50% (1/2) of one component to every one whole of the other.

1:3 is 33% (1/3) of one component and 2/3 (67%) of the other.

That's logical math. The other way gets you Summer School for remedial instruction.

No matter how it is debated, others have pointed out BE CONSISTENT.

Exactitude is not required of this hobby.

Land owner, you might want to look at what you wrote again. Just saying.

[gwpercle]

Thanks. I always used to let my brother do the math but since he has passed I have to do it. Math makes my head hurt.

ACC

Me Too ... I'm so bad at math I have to use a calculator to add two numbers .
I'm reading Elmer Keith's 1936 book "Sixgun Cartridges & Loads " chapter 4 , Bullet Casting and the simple way he explains it is if you want a mix of 1 part tin to 20 parts lead then melt 1 pound tin and 20 pounds lead...if your pot is too small the cut that in half , 1/2 pound tin and 10 pounds lead .

He advises the following ( tin / lead) pound for pound mixes:

Light and mid-range revolver - 1/20 (1 pound tin / 20 pounds lead )
Heavy revolver loads - 1/15 (1 pound tin / 15 pounds lead)
Auto pistol loads - 1 / 10 ( 1 pound tin / 10 pounds lead)

He doesn't mention wheel weights or pewter or where he obtains his lead and tin . I believe he simply bought pure lead and pure tin .... I haven't finished this chapter yet, maybe some light will be shed of where he got the metals and how .

As far as I'm concerned ain't NO Math Logical except Elmer Keith's logical way of doing it....may not be logical or correct but I'm going with it .

Gary

[OS OK]

What since is a 4.76% alloy (rounded to 5%)? Five percent (5%) is correct. Think of it like the "fraction" that it is (1/20).

And, there are ever only 2 parts to these alloys.

1:1 is 100% (1/1) of each of 2 component.

1:2 is 50% (1/2) of one component to every one whole of the other.
Here is some information about your ratio:
You entered 1:2. This is a ratio that is read "1 to 2."
Here 1 is called the antecedent, and 2 is called the consequent. The first term is always called the antecedent and the second term is always called the consequent.
Ratios sometimes mean how each number relates to some whole amount. For example, your ratio is 1:2. Since, 1 + 2 = 3, 3 is your whole amount. So, 1 is one part of 3, and 2 is the other part of 3.
So your ratio means 1/3 forms one part, and 2/3 forms the other part. This is what is meant by "ratios compare the size of one number to another number." The size of these two parts is what a ratio compares.
Notice that 1/3 = 0.333333 (33.3333%), and 2/3 = 0.666667 (66.6667%) (these are the two parts), and 0.333333 + 0.666667 = 1 (they add to be 1 whole).
This can also be stated in terms of percentages, like 33.3333% + 66.6667% = 100%.

1:3 is 33% (1/3) of one component and 2/3 (67%) of the other.
Here is some information about your ratio:
You entered 1:3. This is a ratio that is read "1 to 3."
Here 1 is called the antecedent, and 3 is called the consequent. The first term is always called the antecedent and the second term is always called the consequent.
Ratios sometimes mean how each number relates to some whole amount. For example, your ratio is 1:3. Since, 1 + 3 = 4, 4 is your whole amount. So, 1 is one part of 4, and 3 is the other part of 4.
So your ratio means 1/4 forms one part, and 3/4 forms the other part. This is what is meant by "ratios compare the size of one number to another number." The size of these two parts is what a ratio compares.
Notice that 1/4 = 0.25 (25%), and 3/4 = 0.75 (75%) (these are the two parts), and 0.25 + 0.75 = 1 (they add to be 1 whole).
This can also be stated in terms of percentages, like 25% + 75% = 100%.

That's logical math. The other way gets you Summer School for remedial instruction. Is this meant to be an insult or?

No matter how it is debated, others have pointed out BE CONSISTENT.

Exactitude is not required of this hobby.

It's just not lining up to the proportions you state...see...that's the confusing part.
Perhaps we are confusing ratios and fractions at the onset, the ratio is stated yet we look at it as a fraction without considering the whole ?

The above examples are taken from > http://www.webmath.com/

[bmortell]

oh my, I think its time to stop..

making something 5% one thing and 95% the other thing shouldn't look like your calculating orbital mechanics for a moon landing lol

[Land Owner]

Not intended to be an insult. I apologize to you if it sounded that way. It got ME Summer School...

kevin c stated it in proportions BY WEIGHT. my words just didn't "get it".

[OS OK]

Not intended to be an insult. I apologize to you if it sounded that way. It got ME Summer School...

kevin c stated it in proportions BY WEIGHT. my words just didn't "get it".

Thanks but no apology is necessary since it wasn't meant that way.

[alamogunr]

A ratio is a relationship between two numbers indicating how many times the larger number contains the smaller.

A ratio of 1:20 is 1 part in 20 parts. The final alloy does not equal 21 parts in total.

bmortell was partially right in that 1 part in 20 parts is 5%. The remaining parts are nineteen (19) twentieths (20ths) equaling 95%.

To make the 1:20 alloy correct in terms of PURE tin and lead, combine 1 pound of tin with 19 pounds of lead (1 part + 19 parts = 20 parts total).



If only 18 pounds can be accommodated in a Lee pot, then multiply 18 pounds by 5% (0.05) for tin (0.9 #'s tin), convert pounds to units of ounces (multiply by 16 oz. per #) for 14.4 ounces of tin.

To maintain the ratio (1:20) the remaining 95% of the 18# alloy has to be lead. Multiply 18 by 0.95 (= 17.1 #'s), convert pounds to units of ounces (multiply by 16 oz. per #) for 273.6 ounces of lead.

Check Sum:

14.4 oz + 273.6 oz = 288 oz

288 oz /16 oz per pound = 18 pounds

Realizing that 273.6 is a large number of oz's, return to the number of pounds of lead (17.1 #'s) and add 17 #'s plus 1.6 oz of lead to the pot (17.1# - 17# = 0.1# * 16 oz per pound = 1.6 oz.)



THIS MATH IS CORRECT and as a Professional Engineer (PE) I approve of this message.

I knew there was a reason I didn't take the EIT exam 55 years ago.

From what little I know, most of the calculations above will give a usable alloy. When it is all said and done, no one will ever know the difference.

I have a few lbs of pure tin but I don't use it when making up alloy. I have a lot of both salvage solder and roll solder in 25# rolls that I accept the estimate on the salvage and the spool info on the rolls. Then I use one of the calculators that have been available on this board from time to time.