fluxing technique

[edadmartin]

Ive been reading alot about fluxing and have seen conflicting guidance. I guess fluxing helps bind the unwanted and keeps tin in the mix. One writer says to stir in sawdust and spoon out the slag or droos every time a new ingot is added to the pot to get a shiny surface, another says leave the sawdust covering the lead mix as clean lead will be on the bottom of the pot and all impurities float to the top. I suppose if doing this you would spoon the droos off before adding new lead yes?
Now Im a woodworker and the stuff from the planer Id say was shavings and the stuff in the dust collector was dust. now days the dust bag will have real wood and mdf or particle board dust,is it all good for fluxing? I dont know! what do you all do.

[country gent]

I would be leary of particle board treated lumber and chip board as the glues and chemicals could produve dngerous fumes in the pot. Pet bedding wood shavings from the pet store work well and are true wood with few additives. I use saw dust and a small amount of wax together when fluxing. I give the wood a little time to burn ,oisture out then add a small piece of wax and stir working lead thru the mix. I then skim everything off. I ladle cast and the clean surface is a positive for me.

[mold maker]

Adding a spoon full of sawdust and leaving it, is for bottom pour applications. It is intended as a barrier between the melt and Oxygen in the air. This helps retard oxides from forming.
When adding alloy, I gently add, so it doesn't carry debris to the bottom of the pot. The existing sawdust (carbon) will still be effective. Just wait til the fresh addition has melted, and stir again. You can always add more if needed.

[montana_charlie]

Ive been reading alot about fluxing and have seen conflicting guidance. I guess fluxing helps bind the unwanted and keeps tin in the mix.
There are two (primary) occasions when we melt lead alloy.
1.) when we are breaking down 'scrap' to clean up the metal, combine into a single homogenous alloy, and cast into ingots for storage ... and, 2.) when we are casting bullets.

During '1' (most of us use the term 'smelting' even if it IS incorrect) a lot of us use wax of various kinds. It DOES seem to help the various components 'blend' together, and it helps 'gather' trash into a wad for scooping it out.
Since this is a 'blending / cleaning' process, it seems okay to say we are 'fluxing' the components that we are 'smelting'.

When casting bullets ('2'), we are dealing with clean alloy. So the only thing we might do is cause oxidised metal to re-combine itself with the molten alloy. This change in oxidized metal is called 'reduction', and reducing oxides is done with carbon-based materials.
That includes the waxes, but also includes 'wood' (and almost everything else on the planet).
Allowing the wood to char on top of the lead is good, and it's even better if there is a small fire to help take oxygen molecules out of the oxides. So, wood dust, shavings, chips, and even solid sticks (used while stirring) are commonly used for reduction.


One writer says to stir in sawdust and spoon out the slag or droos every time a new ingot is added to the pot to get a shiny surface, another says leave the sawdust covering the lead mix as clean lead will be on the bottom of the pot and all impurities float to the top.
A thick layer of the resulting ash can be left on top of the alloy, if using a bottom pour pot, where it helps to keep atmospheric air away from the surface ... reducing the need for reduction. (pun intended).
By the way, it's not unusual to hear this reduction process also referred to as 'fluxing', so don't get confused.


I suppose if doing this you would spoon the droos off before adding new lead yes?
A person using a dipper will probably skim all of the ash off and make bullets until dross (oxides) build up enough to clean it again.


Now Im a woodworker and the stuff from the planer Id say was shavings and the stuff in the dust collector was dust. now days the dust bag will have real wood and mdf or particle board dust,is it all good for fluxing? I dont know! what do you all do.
Almost anything will work, but anything that will melt (unless it's a wax) is probably going to leave a mess.

CM

[trixter]

If you have a sawmill near you that cuts pine, ask for for a 5 gallon bucketful of sawdust, then let it dry out as much as you can. If you have a furniture manufacturer, or a nice cabinet shop that uses a lot of pine to frame stuff. Pine is best, fir will be OK and hard woods will work. I would not use plywood or preserved wood sawdust, because of the chemicals.

[cdngunner]

Actually wax is not a true flux. On your first smelt it would be best to use wood products as they are true fluxes.

Wax is good for reducing the tin back into the mix.

My process is to use wood and wax when schmelting. Reduces the tin back in while "cleaning" the alloy.

When casting I will start to add wax or wood shaving dependent on how quick the surface starts to turn yellowish. No yellow no tin no sense fluxing



There are two (primary) occasions when we melt lead alloy.
1.) when we are breaking down 'scrap' to clean up the metal, combine into a single homogenous alloy, and cast into ingots for storage ... and, 2.) when we are casting bullets.

During '1' (most of us use the term 'smelting' even if it IS incorrect) a lot of us use wax of various kinds. It DOES seem to help the various components 'blend' together, and it helps 'gather' trash into a wad for scooping it out.
Since this is a 'blending / cleaning' process, it seems okay to say we are 'fluxing' the components that we are 'smelting'.

When casting bullets ('2'), we are dealing with clean alloy. So the only thing we might do is cause oxidised metal to re-combine itself with the molten alloy. This change in oxidized metal is called 'reduction', and reducing oxides is done with carbon-based materials.
That includes the waxes, but also includes 'wood' (and almost everything else on the planet).
Allowing the wood to char on top of the lead is good, and it's even better if there is a small fire to help take oxygen molecules out of the oxides. So, wood dust, shavings, chips, and even solid sticks (used while stirring) are commonly used for reduction.


A thick layer of the resulting ash can be left on top of the alloy, if using a bottom pour pot, where it helps to keep atmospheric air away from the surface ... reducing the need for reduction. (pun intended).
By the way, it's not unusual to hear this reduction process also referred to as 'fluxing', so don't get confused.


A person using a dipper will probably skim all of the ash off and make bullets until dross (oxides) build up enough to clean it again.


Almost anything will work, but anything that will melt (unless it's a wax) is probably going to leave a mess.

CM

[Garyshome]

I never thought of it as Technique, it is something that just HAS to be done. I have a pile of saw dust under my table saw I use!

[bangerjim]

Simple rule I have always used: for "smelting" - flux 3X with sawdust/savings....last time throw in a little parafin wax for reducer.

In the casting pot, use ONLY beeswax to reduce Sn back in for a nice shiny surface! Beeswax works many times better than standard wax as it flares at a much higher temp (I never get any flare up) and smells great!

Not rocket science........just melting lead.

banger

[edadmartin]

so If you use a dipper youll be cleaning the surface of droos, not so much if you bottom pour, only after adding new ingots I suppose.
Never new about reducers (wax) much to learn. cool stuff here.

[Larry Gibson]

The actual definition of "flux" as used by us in "smelting" and fluxing during casting. The actual definition should not be confused with "notions" of what "flux" is as we use it or as compared to what a flux is as used in soldering and brazing.


From Webster's fluxing is, as we use it; a substance used to promote fusion especially of metals and minerals..........

Wax is a flux because it causes the tin, antimony and sometimes copper to go back into solution with the lead and the tin and antimony to form into the sub metal SbSn. Some waxes work better at fluxing than others.

Wood also is a flux because it does the same as wax; causes the tin, antimony and sometimes copper to go back into solution with the lead. Some woods work better than others.

Both wax and wood meet the criteria of the definition. Other substances do also such as commercial chemical fluxes for mixing alloys.

I've used different woods, different waxes and different commercial fluxes over the years and mostly use paraffin wax for fluxing (2-3 times) when smelting. It is inexpensive, it is readily available and it works quite well. I use beeswax when fluxing during casting. It works very well also as I but a dab on the melted alloy in the pot and then drop 2-3 wood matches on it. The matches light and burn off most of the smoke and reduce the stink considerably. I stir and flux while it is burning. The small amount of residue from the wax and wood along with impurities brought out of the alloy is easily removed. I guess I actually am fluxing with both wax and wood......it works very well.

There are other ways to flux also and many are good. Having tried many I can't say any one is really better at fluxing binary, ternary or Cu enriched alloys better than any other. The method I've come to use just fits my casting methods and techniques is all.

Larry Gibson

[Larry Gibson]

Simple rule I have always used: for "smelting" - flux 3X with sawdust/savings....last time throw in a little parafin wax for reducer.

In the casting pot, use ONLY beeswax to reduce Sn back in for a nice shiny surface! Beeswax works many times better than standard wax as it flares at a much higher temp (I never get any flare up) and smells great!

Not rocket science........just melting lead.

banger

banger

I disagree with wax being referred to as a "reducer". With reference to metals a "reducer" is used to "separate, as pure metal, from a metallic ore." In the case of our use the flux is used to blend the different metals (Pb, Sb, Sn) back into solution which is the opposite of what a "reducer" does by definition. However, I suppose it could be argued the wax, or any flux for that matter, is also a "reducer" as it separates the non metal impurities out of the metal.

Larry Gibson

[bangerjim]

Larry,

I have been beat up many times by some of the "olde guarde" on here by calling waxes flux (which I KNOW IT IS). But to minimize "flames" to me on this thread, I just did not bring it up.

And of course our re-melting of WW's and Pb is DEFINITELY NOT "smelting"!!!!!! But that colloquialism was established many moons ago B4 I joined here and I am not going down that "flaming" road again! I work with the copper and gold industry and what they do is true smelting by definition....NOT what we are doing by just simply re-melting lead WW's.

I am VERY familiar with what oxidation and reduction is, how it works and where it is used and not used.

Just like "those" that say beeswax is NOT what should be used in the casting pot (only sawdust).

You and I agree! But if certain people on here read this, you have started another word war!

banger

[jayjay1]

Well, that´s pretty interesting so.

I have used saw dust in the past, but wasn´t really happy with it.
I fluxed and stirred, then casted, added new alloy, took away the old burned saw dust, added new one, fluxed and stirred again,....

I´m looking for getting as much bullets as I can, when casting, making bullets for more shooting, don´t shoot to cast more bullets so.

Working with saw dust was a time killer for me (maybe I did something wrong, don´t know), so I switched back to normal candle wax/parrafin to become faster.

Bee´s wax as fluxing stuff, really?
Well, why not, I will try this out.

[ShooterAZ]

I use sawdust for "rendering" wheelweights in a cast iron dutch oven, and paraffin in the bottom pour pot. Only clean alloy goes in the pot.

[Old Scribe]

A lot of good info here. I have used bees wax when casting bp round balls, using soft lead. Don't know why I haven't done it when casting hard boolits. I am going to try it.

[Forgetful]

I noticed that WW flux themselves, from all the grease and oil and whatever else is on them. I remove most of the clips but leave most of the dust and some of the clips in there while I pour my refined WW ingots. Never get dross on this step anymore.

I've experimented with several things that I thought would work well as flux or reducer. Cooking oils tend to splatter but seem to work great to reduce the tin. For non-liquids, I found that it should be as fine as possible, like a powder. Chunks of wood don't carbonize very well sitting on the surface of the melt. Crushed walnut shell is slightly too large but works in a pinch, just takes a long time to turn black. I even tried activated charcoal, which wasn't very good but it worked much better after I crushed it to dust.

Fireplace ash should work well. That's my theory.. Or if you want pure carbon, there's always sugar + sulfuric acid and then crush and neutralize it before use. I suppose sugar itself would work okay too, since it'll burn to carbon. I wouldn't put any of this **** in your ladling pot, though, just stick to wood and wax. Wood and wax are the best because you can light it up and they can smell nice.

Don't try DIRT, I had a rock go in and it fn exploded and almost got me.

[bangerjim]

After almost every substance know to man has been discussed and cussed, why not stick to the best...........dry sawdust. (NOT the carp from big box stores!) EVERYBODY has a saw or sander or drill or plane, right? Or if you live in a cave, buy some Walmart pet bedding.

The finer the better. Big chunks do NOT work well at all. Use dust or shavings.

Any DRY carbon-based life form will work, but the above things have been proven the best and readily available to most people. Why mess with anything else?

bangerjim

[cbrick]

We've beat this to death for years on this forum and it seams little progress has been made. The simple truth of the metallurgy of lead alloys is that wax is not flux, wax cannot flux. Wax is and can be used as a reducer but flux it won't/can't.

Yes, it's true that in purely scientific definition boolit casters and printers in the old days use the term "reducer" incorrectly but that's not likely to change and besides, it works perfectly for us. For us and our lead alloys reduce means to return oxidized tin and antimony back into the alloy.

The terms smelting and fluxing probably aren't being used correctly in pure scientific definition either but so what, to any boolit caster "fluxing" means to remove impurities. Wax cannot remove impurities so saying that you flux with wax isn't correct even in boolit casters lingo.

Sawdust is a flux in that it does remove several impurities that we don't want in our boolit alloys. Sawdust is also every bit as good a reducer as is wax. Using both as some seem to think is necessary can't hurt anything, a bit redundant but if it makes you feel better . . .

Rick

[RED333]

Yall just stop, ya got my head hurting, flux, reduce, tin, alloys, and stuff.
I just melt down WW, make ingots and cast boolits to shoot.
I do put stuff in my smelt pot, stuff comes out, I do melt wax in my pour pot and stuff comes out.

[Larry Gibson]

Ah, I see, we disagree, we don't like what was before so we rewrite..........makes perfect sense.........I shall continue to flux with some waxes as they flux perfectly..........but then so does some sawdust........

Larry Gibson

[cbrick]

Ah, I see, we disagree, we don't like what was before so we rewrite..........makes perfect sense.........I shall continue to flux with some waxes as they flux perfectly..........but then so does some sawdust........ Larry Gibson

That makes no sense. Rewritten? What was rewritten?

Please feel free to feel that your fluxing with wax, changes nothing. In the mean while I'll get hold of the metals industry and let them know they have it all wrong.

Rick

[62chevy]

The only thing I know is when I use sawdust and leave it there the oxidation is keep down to a dull roar. When smelting sawdust and and wax at the end seems to work just fine. The time it takes to do both is minimal so I do both.

[Larry Gibson]

cbrick

Please do tell us what the "metals industry" definition of a flux is (not what they use because it is the definition under discussion now) for lead, antimony and tin binary and ternary alloys. You have stated emphatically that wax is not a flux, have you not? Yet you give no reason of definition as to why. All of the casting manuals from 100+ years ago to today plus about every casting article or book say to use beeswax, paraffin or bullet lube to flux the alloy with. I suppose everyone of those were wrong? It is the 100 years of such that suddenly you and a couple others say are wrong and now rewrite that wax is not a flux but a "reducer" now. You make a statement that goes against 100+ years of knowledge by "experts" far more renowned than you. Perhaps you should provide a little proof of what you say? Then if it is proven we can all agree on the new terminology can't we. However, that will still not make wax not be a flux and it will not turn it into a reducer because wax will still flux the binary and ternary alloy and it will not reduce that alloy to it's basic metals..........

So shall we continue to beat the dead horse............

Larry Gibson

[Forgetful]

Yall just stop, ya got my head hurting, flux, reduce, tin, alloys, and stuff.
I just melt down WW, make ingots and cast boolits to shoot.
I do put stuff in my smelt pot, stuff comes out, I do melt wax in my pour pot and stuff comes out.

WW come with flux attached to it! Melt it down, no need to add any flux because its covered in all kinds of hydrocarbons.

[bangerjim]

WW come with flux attached to it! Melt it down, no need to add any flux because its covered in all kinds of hydrocarbons.


If ANYTHING needs 3x flux with sawdust it is old dirty WW's! That is the main venue we use fluxing for. And that is the ONLY form of lead I flux heavily. Pretty much every other form of lead and alloy is clean and pure already. Most of the lead/alloy I get goes right into ingots with only a touch of beeswax to give a shiny clean surface. There IS nothing to flux/reduce.

Back in the day when I used to actually find and get WW's, all I ever got were dirty, filthy, grimy ones. But there sure was not enough grease on them to correctly clean/flux them the way I demand it be done.

Either your area has very greasy roads, or you do not mind having unwanted garbage in your ingots. I would recommend you seriously consider using saw dust flux to insure you burn out the unwanted stuff from your melt.

Sawdust is everywhere and can be had for little to no cost. I have 2) 55 gallon drums full of it from my shop. Easy to make if you are not a woodworker. Or buy WalMArt Pet Bedding which will last for a loooooooooooong time. Heck, you can even use dried leaves....fall is coming!!!!!

I am glad your method works for you, but I feel it is not acceptable to most of the rest of us.

bangerjim

[mdi]

As you can see from all the above posts, fluxing (or whatever you wanna call it) it a hotly discussed topic. Some will say yea, some will say nay. So, take all the info available here, digest it and break it down to it's simplest form, and try it (dump some sawdust in yer pot and stir. One time leave it in, another time take it out). When you feel all your alloy is clean and all the components are completely mixed in, you have found the method that works for you. I like experimenting/fiddling so it isn't a problem for me.If you want perfection right outta the gate, I don't think you will find a single, definitive answer here on a forum, experience is a better teacher...

[cbrick]

cbrick

Please do tell us what the "metals industry" definition of a flux is (not what they use because it is the definition under discussion now) for lead, antimony and tin binary and ternary alloys. You have stated emphatically that wax is not a flux, have you not? Yet you give no reason of definition as to why. All of the casting manuals from 100+ years ago to today plus about every casting article or book say to use beeswax, paraffin or bullet lube to flux the alloy with. I suppose everyone of those were wrong? It is the 100 years of such that suddenly you and a couple others say are wrong and now rewrite that wax is not a flux but a "reducer" now. You make a statement that goes against 100+ years of knowledge by "experts" far more renowned than you. Perhaps you should provide a little proof of what you say? Then if it is proven we can all agree on the new terminology can't we. However, that will still not make wax not be a flux and it will not turn it into a reducer because wax will still flux the binary and ternary alloy and it will not reduce that alloy to it's basic metals..........

So shall we continue to beat the dead horse............

Larry Gibson

Nope, you can define fluxing any way you wish, I'm discussing what a flux does, what we want it to do and which of the common "fluxes" do this. 100 years ago? Really? Nothing been learned since then huh? To a bullet caster with bullet casting alloy the definition of FLUX is pretty much universally accepted as "to remove impurities, to remove contaminants and clean the alloy". I have rewritten nothing.

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

Glen's description of bullet alloy FLUXES perfectly describes metals industry papers that I have read. Seems your PROOF that wax fluxes is that 100 years ago that's what they used.

Rick

[snuffy]

We've beat this to death for years on this forum and it seams little progress has been made. The simple truth of the metallurgy of lead alloys is that wax is not flux, wax cannot flux. Wax is and can be used as a reducer but flux it won't/can't.

Ah but I have learned, been willing to admit I was using the wrong stuff to flux with(waxes). Where's gearnasher when we need him. Between gear and Rick, I've converted to using only sawdust to get alloy ready to cast with.


Yes, it's true that in purely scientific definition boolit casters and printers in the old days use the term "reducer" incorrectly but that's not likely to change and besides, it works perfectly for us. For us and our lead alloys reduce means to return oxidized tin and antimony back into the alloy.

The terms smelting and fluxing probably aren't being used correctly in pure scientific definition either but so what, to any boolit caster "fluxing" means to remove impurities. Wax cannot remove impurities so saying that you flux with wax isn't correct even in boolit casters lingo.

Yes arguing that making scrap lead into useable ingots that fit into the pot, being referred to as "smelting" is an incorrect term.

Sawdust is a flux in that it does remove several impurities that we don't want in our boolit alloys. Sawdust is also every bit as good a reducer as is wax. Using both as some seem to think is necessary can't hurt anything, a bit redundant but if it makes you feel better . . .

Yup impurities like aluminum, zinc, other metals.

Rick[/QUOTE]

I predominately am a bottom pour caster. Most of my 6 cav molds are for handgun boolits, while you could/can pour those with a ladle, it's not necessary. SooOO, I leave a good layer of chared pine bedding on top of the melt AFTER it's been stirred into the melt with a spoon. I tried a paint stirring stick, it would flame up and then had to sit and smoke afterwards.

[bangerjim]

As you can see from all the above posts, fluxing (or whatever you wanna call it) it a hotly discussed topic. Some will say yea, some will say nay. So, take all the info available here, digest it and break it down to it's simplest form, and try it (dump some sawdust in yer pot and stir. One time leave it in, another time take it out). When you feel all your alloy is clean and all the components are completely mixed in, you have found the method that works for you. I like experimenting/fiddling so it isn't a problem for me.If you want perfection right outta the gate, I don't think you will find a single, definitive answer here on a forum, experience is a better teacher...

I have done EXACTLY that.......tried everything and arrived at what works best for me.

3X "smelting" dirty filthy grimy WW's with sawdust works perfectly. A bit of wax on the 3rd.

Add beeswax ONLY into casting pot when Sn starts to oxidize on surface. It restores the shiny surface like magic. No need for sawdust because all my ingots are 110% pure and clean!

But people need to try everything and arrive at what they feel is best for their needs.

"Whatever floats your boat!"

banger

[edadmartin]

love it "put stuff in,stuff comes out go shoot" Perfect.

[Forgetful]

Either your area has very greasy roads, or you do not mind having unwanted garbage in your ingots. I would recommend you seriously consider using saw dust flux to insure you burn out the unwanted stuff from your melt.

I heavily flux when I prepare my casting alloy. The lead is melted three times.. First with WW and seems to not need any fluxing. Sure there will be some impurities (<1%) but I deal with it later, I just want to clean the lead a little and remove the steel clips.. I'll leave all the dust in there and remove most of the clips so there is less surface area, and my 1.5lb ladle has a bottom pour so the garbage doesn't get into my ingots. And then keep adding more weights. I never get any Sb on the surface during this phase, so I'm convinced it doesn't need any reducing agent.

Second melt I'll weigh the lead, and add tin and antimony, flux it well and reduce everything into the alloy. Third melt is in the electric pot for ladling, which gets fluxed every time I add more alloy.

I can't say for sure if the roads are greasy, but nearly every vehicle here gets "undercoating" for winter driving so the road salts don't chew our vehicles. So, I guess our roads are fairly greasy..? Every bucket of WW I get smells like it came from a truck garage and everything seems heavily coated in diesel exhaust. I don't wash them first, they just go into the pot.

[bangerjim]

Greasy roads.........!

I lived in the Detroit area for 10 years and drove a ton every day all over the metro area. Between the undercoating, oil, tire wear, POTHOLES!!!!!!!!, and other "stuff", I know there is a lot of petroleum-based gunk on those weights!

Glad you have success! I gave up on WW's almost 2 years ago due to high Zn and Fe content and tire stores "recycle" them and do not give/sell them to private people. I mix all my alloys to the custom mixes I want.

Have fun! And hope you can keep finding those weights that are NOT Zn/Fe!

banger

[MBTcustom]

I honestly don't think there is any solid scientific proof either way. BNE and myself tried to prove this, as we have access to XRF testing equipment. We could not prove anything even with all that state of the art equipment, so this boils down to what the Boolits look like, and how the alloy behaves (which is a test of sorts in and of itself, but not accurate enough to prove anything, as you must be able to measure 5 time more accurately than your target result, in order to define anything.)
So, given my personal experience, wax is useless, with beeswax being the wild card. I wonder if beeswax only feigns positive effect because it takes longer to evaporate/burn off, and while it is on the surface of the melt. I do believe that it does more than just momentarily protect the surface of the melt from oxidization but that's only based on what I think I see.
Sawdust on the other hand, has reduced alloy for me that just wouldn't cooperate with any other flux. Sometimes after building an alloy from several different alloys, you get this oatmeal soup like consistency, that will only disappear after many beatings and coolings. (This has often been misdiagnosed by noobs as zinc contamination, but I have tested samples of this "oatmeal" and it contained the typical trifecta of lead tin and antimony, and there was just no explanation why it would not mix into the main body of alloy) In this situation, sawdust has proven to quickly dissolve this trimetal oatmeal into the melt very quickly, while beeswax doesn't do jack.
This is what I know, what I think I know, and what I believe, and I make no attempt to merge the lines of these three categories.

An old forester told me once that people used to think that when a tree quit producing nuts, it was suffering from an iron deficiency. The cure was to hammer a bunch of nails into the trunk of the tree which would result in a huge yield of nuts next year. Because the solution worked, people thought the diagnosis was accurate. Later they were told that all they were doing was stressing the tree like pruning. Basically, they halfway killed the tree, and it tried to reproduce itself, thus, the impressive crop of nuts.
I truly believe that as boolit casters, dealing with things we have difficulty measuring, we spend a lot of time hammering nails into trees.

[Larry Gibson]

cbrick

I am not defining what a flux is or what it does. That has already been defined for many, many years. Look up the definition which also explains what they do of a flux and a reducer.

It is you who are changing the meaning. If we allow the meanings to change on whims and notions then nothing will mean anything any more will it? No it won't because then you're 4" moa certainly won't be the same as goodsteel's 1" moa. I have 2 Webster's dictionaries; on a few years old and one 40+ years older. The definitions of flux and reducer are the same in each and they both differ from your use and now goodsteel's use.

If we don't have consistent stands of what "is" then it "is" just all BS. That is the point. You are incorrect in your definition and usage of flux and reducer. Look it up.

I have no problem with Fryxell's definition as it is basically correct except you misinterpret his use of "reductants". He is referring to separating the tin from the oxygen and mixing the tin back into the lead/antimony solution. read the next sentence (Unfortunately, they offer no means for removing any Ca, Zn or Al impurities.) and you find the meaning of a "redutant". Read the definitions in the dictionary.

I have Fryxell's book BTW. Since you quoted it you should also take notice of the last part of the quote; "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".

So as numerous of us have pointed out in this thread; waxes do "admirably" work. Some have also pointed out other means to "admirably" flux the COWWs. As has been used for probably a hundred+ years "bullet lube" is also very good for fluxing COWWs as are many other materials.

Read Fryxell's definition and understand what he says by cross referencing with the actual definition in respected dictionaries. Then read your own definition as mentioned in this thread. You will see where you are incorrect. Then let's quit beating the dead horse.

Larry Gibson

[Larry Gibson]

Perhaps this whole thread and discussion has become "reductio ad absurdum"..........

Larry Gibson

[Forgetful]

And hope you can keep finding those weights that are NOT Zn/Fe!

It's getting harder to find them. I posted the other day I found a bucket of WW from 30 years ago, score! 100% lead. When I go get buckets from the scrap yard, they've been anywhere from 50% lead to 95% lead. I went in to Kal Tire near where I work on my lunch, and they told me they only install steel weights nowadays, and most of the vehicles that come in are the same ones they've used steel on, so they only get the odd lead from time to time. Having KT supply me lead would have been awesome because they're so close to the office, and they're always very busy.


Unfortunately, they offer no means for removing any Ca, Zn or Al impurities.

I had moderate success using Magnesium Sulfate (epsom salt) to remove zinc but I may have been adding magnesium. It was reacting to something in the lead and turning black, and it did seem to clean it up after I accidentally melted zinc in my very first batch of smelting. It got rid of the oatmeal, anyway.

edit: logically the epsom salt shouldn't take zinc since Mg is more reactive than Zn. Copper sulfate might be a better zinc flux, sold in plumbing departments as Root Kill. Also adds copper in the mix, and whatever doesn't stay aqueous would float out. This sound right?

[cbrick]

I have no problem with Fryxell's definition as it is basically correct except you misinterpret his use of "reductants". He is referring to separating the tin from the oxygen and mixing the tin back into the lead/antimony solution. read the next sentence (Unfortunately, they offer no means for removing any Ca, Zn or Al impurities.) and you find the meaning of a "redutant". Read the definitions in the dictionary.

I can't even figure out what your trying to say here. What Glen wrote is the same thing I said in my posts. By reductant Glen and myself are referring to reducing oxidized tin back into the melt, that's why I quoted him. Nothing misinterpreted. What your trying to turn that into I can't imagine. Glen said that waxes offer no means for removing Ca, Zn or Al and that is the same thing I said so how is that misinterpreted?


I have Fryxell's book BTW. Since you quoted it you should also take notice of the last part of the quote; "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".

Larry Gibson

That's right but again we are talking about fluxing bullet alloy. Remember, cleaning the alloy, removing contaminants? So if your using "clean" alloy what are you trying to remove? You do still have the need of reducing oxidized tin and antimony back into the melt and just as Glen and I both said (I didn't say otherwise) . . . Yes, waxes can serve admirably for this.

So tell me, what is misinterpreted? Waxes work well at reducing oxidized Sb/Sn back into the melt. Waxes do not remove many of the contaminates in bullet alloy. That's what Glen wrote in his book. That's what I said in this and many other threads. You say you "have no problem with Fryxell's definition as it is basically correct" but if I post the same thing I'm wrong, misinterpreting and rewriting. Huh?

Rick

[bangerjim]

Copper sulphate and sulfur are the only two things I have used (an know of) to remove Zn from intentionally contaminated melts (to actually test the methods). Sulfur is horrible! Sulfate works well. When it turns white, just stir it around (moisture gone).

It also removes all the Sn, and Sb, so you end up with nearly pure Pb with (mabe) a little Cu in there.

Best thing is to sort your WW's B4 melting and keep the temp below Zn liquidus temp!

banger

[Larry Gibson]

Here's the problem; Fryxell took literary license and put in print a word out of it's defined context. "Reductant" is a reducing agent. A reducing agent is "a substance that reduces a chemical compound by donating electrons." The alloys we use are not chemical compounds, they are metals. In reference to metals the proper term is "reducer" and it is; " used to "separate, as pure metal, from a metallic ore." or used to separate the individual selected metals from the others. A "reducer" is not used, as is a flux, to blend the individual metals together in solution but to separate them.

Also most fluxes do not remove "contaminants", as is commonly believed. IMost often it is the temperature of the alloy and the stirring that cause the "contaminants" to float to the surface as they are lighter than the melted alloy. However, some fluxes can act as a reductant as Fryxell mentions (which you don't apparently understand) and can remove some of those chemical "contaminants". However when used as a flux most often the metals are what are simply into solution.

Obviously bangerjim understands the difference between a flux and a reducer as he is using reducers (copper sulfate and sulfur) to separate the metals.

Larry Gibson

[Larry Gibson]

Bottom line; waxes are fluxes just a Fryxell says.

Larry Gibson

[cbrick]

Here's the problem; Fryxell took literary license and put in print a word out of it's defined context. "Reductant" is a reducing agent. A reducing agent is "a substance that reduces a chemical compound by donating electrons." The alloys we use are not chemical compounds, they are metals. In reference to metals the proper term is "reducer" and it is; " used to "separate, as pure metal, from a metallic ore." or used to separate the individual selected metals from the others. A "reducer" is not used, as is a flux, to blend the individual metals together in solution but to separate them.

Also most fluxes do not remove "contaminants", as is commonly believed. IMost often it is the temperature of the alloy and the stirring that cause the "contaminants" to float to the surface as they are lighter than the melted alloy. However, some fluxes can act as a reductant as Fryxell mentions (which you don't apparently understand) and can remove some of those chemical "contaminants". However when used as a flux most often the metals are what are simply into solution.

Obviously bangerjim understands the difference between a flux and a reducer as he is using reducers (copper sulfate and sulfur) to separate the metals. Larry Gibson

Now you change your mind and Glen has it wrong too. Whatever, if I should ever go to work at Los Alamos National Laboratory I'll be sure to use your terminology. As a bullet caster I'll use terms that (all but one) bullet casters understand.

Rick

[cbrick]

For those that chose not to read the book in question here, this is the very next paragraph.

One of the materials that is currently sold as bullet metal flux includes pine rosin. While pine rosin smells nice (it makes the lead pot smell like a pine campfire) and does a reasonably good job, it operates pretty much the same way that the oils and waxes discussed above do, and is therefore limited in its ability to remove detrimental impurities.

Glen said nowhere in the book that wax cleans the alloy or removes impurities which to all but one bullet caster is "fluxing the alloy".

Nowhere have I mentioned "separating metals" when talking of reducing oxidized Sb/Sn back into the melt, your doing the opposite in returning them to the melt. A reducing agent (reductant as Glen stated reducing) does just that, returns oxidized Sb/Sn back into the melt.

You can either use wax to reduce oxidized Sb/Sn back in the melt or use "a flux" that both reduces and removes some of the contaminates. If you "flux" with sawdust you'll get the best of both worlds, reduce oxidized Sb/Sn AND remove some of the contaminates. Larry is correct in that both melt temp and the stirring action is part of fluxing and removing contaminants - assuming a correct fluxing method.

If your looking to separate metals or go to work for Los Alamos National Laboratory I dunno, ask Larry.

Rick

[JWFilips]

I Think what were are seeing here is a true "Clash of the Titans" (Greatest respects to all)
I have learned a few years ago "never to post anything about Fluxes or Reductants"[smilie=1:

[whisler]

I am a degreed chemist but I never worked for Los Alamos. In chemical terms oxidation and reduction are opposite reactions and that which causes an oxide to to give up its oxygen is indeed a "reducer/reducing agent/reductant (all same same). When we deal with oxides we are dealing with chemical compounds and not alloys as alloys are substances made by melting (http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryglossary/a/meltingdef.htm) two or more elements (http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryglossary/a/elementdef.htm) together, at least one of them a metal (http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryglossary/a/metaldef.htm). So we are reducing a chemical compound (oxide) back to its elemental state whether done with wax or sawdust.

[Larry Gibson]

Ok Rick, you win. Call it what you want.....now where is that Los Alomos engineer consultant application.....can I use you for a reference?


:drinks:

Larry Gibson

[detox]

I have finally learned that Glen was correct. Gulf wax or parifin does a poor job of fluxing, but it is better than nothing. Pine sawdust does a much better job of fluxing and it is easy to see if you compare the two. I only use the sawdust in my ladle casting pot.

For my RCBS bottom pour pot I use Vita-Flux. This blue wax works almost as good as sawdust with less residue trapped between melt and walls of pot.. Sawdust leaves a chard mess that always finds it's way thru bottom spout and contaminating bullets causing voids.

[cbrick]

now where is that Los Alomos engineer consultant application.....can I use you for a reference?:drinks:

Larry Gibson

Sure you can, it might (or not) get you a cup of coffee at the guard gate but I can assure you, not any further than that. :mrgreen:

Rick

[Larry Gibson]

Wouldn't expect it any other way.........:lovebooli

Larry Gibson

[williamwaco]

For 50+ years I was sure I knew what fluxing was.

I did a lot of "fluxing". I started with beeswax but changed to scrap candles because they worked just as well and were available in unlimited supply for free.

Now I have learned that the procedure that for 60 years was converting dirty, nasty, greasy wheel weighs (full of dirt and slag) into bright shiny perfectly clean bullets was ineffective and didn't work. (Makes me wonder what has been going on .)

Well, I don't know anything about chemistry, metallurgy, oxidation, reduction, oxides, agents, or stuff like that.

I never heard of sawdust "fluxing" until I joined this forum, I tried it and didn't like it so I went back to candles. At this time I was casting bullets from clean ingots.

Got about 300 pounds of wheel weights and began to "smelt" ( yes, I know that is not the correct use of that word.) them. They were really nasty and I was having trouble cleaning them up so I tried the sawdust again. It did a significantly better job of cleaning up the dirty alloy. so when I got it all ingotized, I tried sawdust again when casting bullets. Again, I did not like the results so I went back to candles.

So! Here is what I know works for me:

Stirring the alloy vigorously with:

. . . Sawdust makes clean pretty ingots.

. . . Candles make clean pretty bullets.

[jayjay1]

I´m not an expert, too.
Have read Dan Fryxell´s book and just reread the chapter about "fluxing".

I´m just a hobbyiest who tries to make boolits as good and effective as possible.
Therefore I came here, learned to love this forum, and highly appreciate all that stuff inhere.
Recognizing that my learning will never end and having to read for years makes me a very happy man.
:mrgreen:

Maybe I´m an idiot, but I didn´t like sawdust for casting too.
I want to see my alloy, when I´m looking into my pot to see what it does (like I said, maybe I´m an idiot) and I had too problems with clogged bottom valves.

So I switched back to candle wax for casting and like the results, even if I´m probably doing it wrong now.

Sawdust for making ingots out of range scrap?
Well, why not, I will try and see what that does.

Over here we say:
"Practice is the death of all theory."

But that´s just me, doing what I do and most time i don´t know why things happen, but am trying to learn from the results and am lookling forward.
[smilie=1:


Best regards,
keep it hot,
Jay
:drinks:

[Ghost101]

I have used Beeswax, sawdust, candle wax and kitty litter. I stopped using the beeswax after being attacked by All the local Bees. I had to stop using sawdust as the neighbors were afraid that there was a house on fire from the smoke and the fumes. So now I'm left with just candle wax an kitty litter. Seems to be working ok. Oh well...

Ghost101

[trixter]

I just use Ponderosa Pine sawdust, because that is what we grow in my neck of the woods, for fluxing my smelting and casting, however I might try using a little candle wax for casting.

[Prospector Howard]

And we have a winner!!! Couldn't have said it better myself. Only took 50 posts to get there.
For 50+ years I was sure I knew what fluxing was.

I did a lot of "fluxing". I started with beeswax but changed to scrap candles because they worked just as well and were available in unlimited supply for free.

Now I have learned that the procedure that for 60 years was converting dirty, nasty, greasy wheel weighs (full of dirt and slag) into bright shiny perfectly clean bullets was ineffective and didn't work. (Makes me wonder what has been going on .)

Well, I don't know anything about chemistry, metallurgy, oxidation, reduction, oxides, agents, or stuff like that.

I never heard of sawdust "fluxing" until I joined this forum, I tried it and didn't like it so I went back to candles. At this time I was casting bullets from clean ingots.

Got about 300 pounds of wheel weights and began to "smelt" ( yes, I know that is not the correct use of that word.) them. They were really nasty and I was having trouble cleaning them up so I tried the sawdust again. It did a significantly better job of cleaning up the dirty alloy. so when I got it all ingotized, I tried sawdust again when casting bullets. Again, I did not like the results so I went back to candles.

So! Here is what I know works for me:

Stirring the alloy vigorously with:

. . . Sawdust makes clean pretty ingots.

. . . Candles make clean pretty bullets.

[wmitty]

Dried red oak leaves crumbled up by hand and left on the surface after charring seem to work. I use a dipper and just push the powdered leaves aside to get to the melt and rarely have any trash contaminated boolits...

[tmc-okc]

Jus lass week Jerom an me rode dwn to the tarr shop anbargined our way into a large bucket of them thar tarr weights to make someboolits from. Gittn home we's bagan tosegrete all them tarr weights from lead (pb) and zink an stele. Tokk bouth ofus'ins most all nite to do the chore.
Bout son rise after feedn the hens we farred up my 3 burnrColemann stove out'n the barn. Ony lite up 2 of them burnrs. Put my olddutchmans pot on them burnrs and began to melt all the stuff. Dug out myther-mom-eter and sit the pot at som whar near 675° on the dial.
This process is what somm in the boolit business is call'nsmeltin but it sure is smellin. Al kindanasty stuff in thar. Ruber tarrr stims, ta-backy spit, smoke buts, an somm othrlevens.. Scoopd out tarr clips and evry otther flotin critter incldin a mouseor 2. Eyeballn the tenchperture wethrowed in a big batch of pine notts. Really improvd the smel. Usin a pine treelimb we stired it al up real good. Produced somm more nasty lookin sfuffs thatwe pulld off'n the pot. We did this bout 6-7 times til we's figerred it most beperty clean as we wasnt gettn notting off the top sept what leavn's thar was ofthem pine notts an al the WW's in the pot was shinne with no othr collors. Noblues or golds or purrples. Then we throwed in a boolit size chunk of cann'nwax and watched the hole mess lite up like the outhouse did when it cot onfarr.
Startd dippin out molten and whaevr else is n the alleys intacorn bread muffn plates. Surnuff comesup a perrty silver collor.
Keep up doin this process til we had rendered al them tarrweights inta litle roun mufn's.
We's hopn we's did al this write. Nxt Saturdy nite we'splann'n on puttn somm of these WW muffn's inta our RcbS buttom perr bollitmakin pot.. Gotta sneak out somm more of moms cann'n wax as she got right upsetwith us'ns when she found out.
Gonna make up somm Lyman devastors fer Jeroms new 40 Smith.
Al this aint easy but we's surnuf havin a ball.

Ronnie

[plainsman456]

I have used both when rendering ww.
The wood to me does smell better and seems to smoke less than wax.
I use a bottom pour so maybe that is why i use it.
Might have to try this ladle thing one day..with some wax.:kidding:

[jayjay1]

Lol!

Puttn sduff in a pistola, shootn into da berm.
Tkin sduff out of berm, puttn in da big pott.
Puttn sduff out of da big pott, pourn´ in muffin plate.
Tkin sduff out of plate, puttn in da lil´pot.
Poorin´ sduff out of lil´pot into da mold.
Tkin sduff from mold to die, pressin in da brass.
Puttn sduff in brass into pistola, shootin in da berm.
Tkin .....

[mozeppa]

i was standing on my toilet hanging a clock, when i fell and hit my head.
suddenly i got the idea for this!

[dondiego]

I use a stick of Georgia fatwood that I got to start my stove up with. Works well. I tried the flux capacitor .............that sure took me back a ways!

[jonp]

After reading much on this forum last year I read Fryxell"s book and even posted a thread on wax/sawdust based on it. I just watched BrassMagnets video and there was no mention of sawdust/wood just wax and this left me a little confused as I understood that there was a distinct difference between a reducer and a flux.

This discussion is very interesting to me as a new caster and smelter. I started with wood shavings, went back to paraffin based on the DVD and Fryxell and then have tried both together. I settled on using wood shavings for melting WW and other lead down into ingots to remove gross impurities and using wax as a final in the pot when casting. It seems to work but does it work better than using one or the other exclusively? IDK. I just find wax cleaner.

[jonp]

I use a stick of Georgia fatwood that I got to start my stove up with. Works well. I tried the flux capacitor .............that sure took me back a ways!

:drinks: Good job

[cbrick]

Oh boy, here we go again. :coffee:

No shortage of folks that will argue the point but . . . Both sawdust and waxes, oils, grease etc are reducers, they all will return oxidized tin and antimony to the melt. Wax isn't much of a flux (when defining flux as removing impurities), sawdust will remove several of the things boolit casters consider contaminates. Using both together can't hurt anything but a bit redundant. Using sawdust only once when making ingots is fine assuming you flux properly and for long enough. Simply stirring it around on top of the melt will reduce the oxides but not clean the alloy much, all of the alloy in the melt must come in contact with the carbon. Using a spoon or ladle the alloy needs to be brought up and poured through the carbon, this needs to be done until all of the alloy has been cleaned. It does take a bit of time to properly flux the pot.

Rick

[MBTcustom]

Oh boy, here we go again. :coffee:

No shortage of folks that will argue the point but . . . Both sawdust and waxes, oils, grease etc are reducers, they all will return oxidized tin and antimony to the melt. Wax isn't much of a flux (when defining flux as removing impurities), sawdust will remove several of the things boolit casters consider contaminates. Using both together can't hurt anything but a bit redundant. Using sawdust only once when making ingots is fine assuming you flux properly and for long enough. Simply stirring it around on top of the melt will reduce the oxides but not clean the alloy much, all of the alloy in the melt must come in contact with the carbon. Using a spoon or ladle the alloy needs to be brought up and poured through the carbon, this needs to be done until all of the alloy has been cleaned. It does take a bit of time to properly flux the pot.

Rick

Question. How was it determined that a reducer actually works? I have tried to prove that it does, and all I have found is that if you find the right flux you can make peanut butter and jelly sandwiches mix into your alloy and cast properly. You can even get a good portion of Zinc to alloy into your melt and behave itself if you flux with the right stuff at the right temperature, but there's a difference between making the metals play nice, and claiming that they are removed or reduced, and if all you have is your eyeball and your bullet molds, that really doesn't mean anything.
I have yet to see even the minutest reduction of anything other than organics in the melt, and I have the ability to test it.
I suspect that all we have is flux (that being an organic compound that helps the different metals marry eachother) and that reducer is a myth.
However, I'm all for a good old fashioned test to demonstrate this "pulling out" of metals from the alloy, but the results will be validated with XRF test data, and I know of no other way you can claim with certainty that the composition of your alloy has been modified.
No disrespect intended.

[cbrick]

As was pointed out during all the testing we did, you would have to know it was in there before you could know it was removed and that never happened. The best I got out of the testing is that WW alloy is considerably cleaner to begin with than any of us including me thought. That makes sense though simply because of how well it works and how poorly I suspect most folks go about fluxing. That leaves me with going with what a PhD devout boolit caster says about it. I've yet to be able disprove any of what Glen had to say so . . .

Rick

[MBTcustom]

As was pointed out during all the testing we did, you would have to know it was in there before you could know it was removed and that never happened. The best I got out of the testing is that WW alloy is considerably cleaner to begin with than any of us including me thought. That makes sense though simply because of how well it works and how poorly I suspect most folks go about fluxing. That leaves me with going with what a PhD devout boolit caster says about it. I've yet to be able disprove any of what Glen had to say so . . .

Rick

That was one test that was conducted in public here on the forum, and it was altogether inconclusive. All we were able to prove for sure is that my crazy claims about the true content of COWW alloy were in fact right on the money (still remember the pounding I got when I first suggested that COWW have much less than the accepted amount of tin, but I digress).
Other than observing and proving the content of COWW alloys, nothing was proven whatsoever about the reducing properties of sawdust.
However, I have not posted every XRF test that I have done on my own alloys over the past three years, and I have observed nothing that would lead me to believe that any sort of flux we are using has any ability to remove "impurities that we don't want". What I have seen is an alloy that casts like garbage and that has "impurities that we don't want" showing a vast improvement in quality and ability to render good cast boolits with repeated fluxing with sawdust and beeswax. The alloy remained the same though. Just got more usable.
This is all a moot point though.
One man believes that the tree is not producing nuts due to a deficiency in iron and hammers a bunch of nails into the trunk of the tree.
Another man believes that pruning the tree and stressing it will produce a better crop of nuts so he lops off a bunch of limbs.
Both men get a good crop of nuts, but they will argue till the cows come home over whether or not the tree had an iron deficiency or not.

[cbrick]

Arguing? Feel free to argue all you want. As for me I'm not arguing, simply stating my view on it and where that view comes from including reading many metals industry papers on non ferrous metals. Those papers by the way agree with Glen Fryxell's summation of fluxing. So argue all you want, believe what you want, it changes nothing least of all the metallurgy of lead alloys.

I've been saying for years that CWW has aprox 0.5% Sn, that's in several of the articles that I wrote and are on my web site. Most of those articles were written before there was a CastBoolits forum.

Rick

[Larry Gibson]

"I suspect that all we have is flux (that being an organic compound that helps the different metals marry eachother) and that reducer is a myth......Other than observing and proving the content of COWW alloys, nothing was proven whatsoever about the reducing properties of sawdust. ."

I suspect that is correct as I previously stated the defined difference between a "flux" and a "reducer". We "flux", we do not "reduce" our cast bullet alloys. I use that "we" as in 99.9999999999% of us as there are one or two who know how to "reduce" and go to the trouble......as I also previously mentioned.

To state ones "view" on the subject based on one's own interpretation outside of definitions leads us to the category of "myths". One can believe what one wants but the facts remain consistent with defined terminology. I have learned over the years through proper testing and proving the facts of what is real with cast bullets and their ballistics is that what I accepted as "facts" many times were myths. Yes they were made by very credible individuals who made the observations that when repeated over and over became "fact". That in and of itself did not make them factual.

I have advanced my own learning by admitting a "fact" as I had known it was factually a myth. Once understood and we accept and admit the misunderstanding we can advance our knowledge. Regurgitating "myths" as "facts" simply stymies our advancement and confuses newcomers to our beloved endeavor of casting and shooting bullets.

Larry Gibson

[jmort]

"That leaves me with going with what a PhD devout boolit caster says about it. I've yet to be able disprove any of what Glen had to say so . . ."

Makes sense

[MBTcustom]

Arguing? Feel free to argue all you want. As for me I'm not arguing, simply stating my view on it and where that view comes from including reading many metals industry papers on non ferrous metals. Those papers by the way agree with Glen Fryxell's summation of fluxing. So argue all you want, believe what you want, it changes nothing least of all the metallurgy of lead alloys.

I've been saying for years that CWW has aprox 0.5% Sn, that's in several of the articles that I wrote and are on my web site. Most of those articles were written before there was a CastBoolits forum.

Rick

Rick, I'm not arguing. I was simply saying that this subject is argued about quite a bit, but the end result is what we are after. One person claims that the alloy is reduced and impurities are taken out. Another says that the alloy is fluxed, and the impurities are grafted into the mix perfectly. Neither have proof, both get good results. Who cares?
For myself, I have seen that this sport is awash with myths and bad science, and there are limits imposed on cast boolits that don't necessarily mean jack. (for instance, we are regularly launching cast boolits at 2600FPS + with accuracy, and at one time, I would have called BS because that flies in the face of conventional thinking and what I had been taught). Everything we know about cast boolits has been written by very intelligent men who believed they had a perfect handle on things, and has been parroted ad nausium for decades without the proponents really understanding anything about what they are saying or defending.
Meanwhile, I have more instruments of measure than your average Joe, and I trust them more than information that has been copied and pastes a bazillion times. Every now and then, I find something that just doesn't square with my instruments, and I tend to part ways with the herd at times like that.

Please don't take offence that I give my opinion. My respect for Glen Fryxel is immeasurable, but I don't follow anybody blindly (had a few pastors get all upset when I point out they took scripture out of context too. LOL!)
All I'm saying here is that I have proven flux works, and the XRF data backs that up in spades. Reducing agents? not so much.
There's no sense getting mad at inanimate instruments or science. It is what it is. I'm just calling it like I see it.
That said, I never pin my banner on anything permanently. If I find something that leads me to believe that sawdust actually pulls stuff out then I'll modify my thinking to reflect that observation.
I'm after truth. Not apprenticeship.

[geargnasher]

Rick, the problem here is that you are attempting to explain something to people who don't understand the basic chemistry of the processes, but think they do, automatically think that they are right, and are not open to learning otherwise. If Larry and Tim could solve a redox problem mathematically, they wouldn't be arguing with you because they would see on paper what is going on. If they understood the process of ionic adsorption, they wouldn't argue about that, either. If they understood the active process of balancing reduction with adsorption, and how the different oxidation rates of different metals and impurities at certain temperatures in the presence of certain other substances all works together to ultimately reduce what we want to keep and remove what we want rid of, they would be embarrassed to make statements like "beeswax is a flux" or that sawdust doesn't do anything that beeswax doesn't. I admire your doggedness in trying to bring light to people who insist on being trapped in their own ignorance, but you know as well as I do that the further down that rabbit hole you chase them, the more they resist. Lots of reasons for that, you know what those are, too.

To everyone else, if you can read, with comprehension of the chemical processes discussed, the article that Glen Fryxell so generously wrote for the benefit of all of us years ago, they will understand what's going on. If you don't understand it, but feel like making a game of arguing about it with those who do, well, you're going to get threads like these that don't help anyone. Don't anyone ask me to explain this fluxing reducing thing again, I have already done that in great detail, both technically and in layman's terms, many, many, many times on this forum. Go look it up. Or, if you just want to argue poorly understood facts until you exhaust those fighting for truth and are the last one standing, go ahead. Whatever.

Gear

[cbrick]

Reducing agents? not so much. I'm after truth. Not apprenticeship.

Then you haven't been paying attention. Try this, take a fairly high Sb alloy and heat it up slowly, not to full liquidus but just to where it starts to melt and watch the lumpy, silver oatmeal stuff form on top of the melt. That's Sb and little of it will "go away" on it's own. As the pot continues to heat up sprinkle sawdust on top, don't stir, don't do anything but sprinkle it on top. It's not magic when it disappears, as the sawdust turns to carbon you have just "reduced" the Sb back into the melt.

Reducing agent not so much? Really? While your bottom pouring and especially with the pot temp too high what do you suppose that dull stuff is floating on top of the melt that continues to build up? That's oxidation plain and simple. Why do you then "flux" the pot? Actually your not, your "reducing" the oxidized metals back into the melt. Many refer to this as fluxing but it's not.

Larry can attempt to redefine the terms all he wants but it changes nothing. Ask any bullet caster anywhere why they flux and they will tell you "to clean the metal". Most casters outside of this forum will be stumped by "reducing" but if they have been at it for any length of time they will tell you "to return oxidized metal to the melt".

Those are two different functions, both can accomplished at the same time with sawdust. Waxes and oils will "reduce" oxidation but clean the alloy . . . Not so much.

Your friendly apprentice, spreading myths everywhere.

Rick

[bangerjim]

As was pointed out during all the testing we did, you would have to know it was in there before you could know it was removed and that never happened. The best I got out of the testing is that WW alloy is considerably cleaner to begin with than any of us including me thought. That makes sense though simply because of how well it works and how poorly I suspect most folks go about fluxing. That leaves me with going with what a PhD devout boolit caster says about it. I've yet to be able disprove any of what Glen had to say so . . .

Rick

Just like ..."you've got to pass the bill before we know what is in there"!

HA........ha!

My humble opinion.......use what you feel works for you! Who cares about the chemistry of it, just as long as you get good clean castable ingots and clean gunk-free boolits!

That is the problem with the internet......too much info (right OR wrong) and way too many ignorant people reading it. (Notice I said ignorant as in un-exposed to or lacking knowledge there of....not stupid as in totally unable or willing to learn.) Reading is good. Too much is detrimental to good old seat-of-the-pants common sense. I suggest to people starting out to just do it......your mistakes will be self-evident in a very short time. Then you read for detailed solutions....not before you even heat up the pot to solve here-to (and mabe NEVER!) un-encountered problems like so many post about on here.

1. read a little
2. cast a lot
3. if problems do occur, see #1 and repeat
Melting stuff is fun. Shooting stuff is fun. Are we having fun yet??????????????? [smilie=w:

banger

[geargnasher]

I am a degreed chemist but I never worked for Los Alamos. In chemical terms oxidation and reduction are opposite reactions and that which causes an oxide to to give up its oxygen is indeed a "reducer/reducing agent/reductant (all same same). When we deal with oxides we are dealing with chemical compounds and not alloys as alloys are substances made by melting (http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryglossary/a/meltingdef.htm) two or more elements (http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryglossary/a/elementdef.htm) together, at least one of them a metal (http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryglossary/a/metaldef.htm). So we are reducing a chemical compound (oxide) back to its elemental state whether done with wax or sawdust.

You are correct. Oxidation and reduction, by definition, happen simultaneously in a "redox" reaction, which involves the transfer of electrons. Others may understand this better if they realize that is how a lead-acid battery works.

Now, the other part of the argument, the one which involves what some of us lump under the term "flux", has to do with adsorption of oxidized metal. To effectively remove certain "contaminants" such as zinc, aluminum, copper, cadmium, iron whose presence impedes the flow, or "flux" of our bullet metal, the hobby caster is pretty much limited to adsorbing them in activated carbon, which can only occur when said contaminants are in their oxidized state. The adsorption "media" (for lack of a better term) will also remove oxidized tin, lead, and antimony, too, so one must set up conditions that reduce those metals and return them safely to the alloy yet isolate the other things so they can be physically removed.

Some confusion exists about the use of the term "flux", and I won't attempt to disseminate it fully here, but it anyone brings up rosin as a flux in electrical soldering, it really is just a reducant. The oxidized surfaces of metals won't bond when melted together, so rosin is used in combination with heat to set up a redox reaction to revert the oxidized surface to elemental metal. Rosin also provides a molten oxygen shield on the surface of the flowing metal, and we all know that metal without an oxide skin on it has a lower surface tension and flows more freely. Flux, as I understand it, is the Latin for "flow", hence the use of the term. Fluxing, or gas shielding, are essential to any sort of welding, soldering, or brazing of metals, and for the same reason. Really it should be called reducing and shielding, but oxide reduction and inert gas or molten clay oxygen shields do effectively make the metal "flux", just not in the sense that I choose to use regarding bullet-casting alloys, which is to improve "flux" by removing certain "contaminating metals" from the alloy. I think we bullet casters need a better term for isolating "bad" stuff and removing it from our alloys.

Gear

[montana_charlie]

Question. How was it determined that a reducer actually works? I have tried to prove that it does, and all I have found is that if you find the right flux you can make peanut butter and jelly sandwiches mix into your alloy and cast properly. You can even get a good portion of Zinc to alloy into your melt and behave itself if you flux with the right stuff at the right temperature, but there's a difference between making the metals play nice, and claiming that they are removed or reduced, ...
Removed and reduced are two different terms with no similarity in their meanings when used in our context.

Yes, if you can 'remove' some copper from your molten alloy you have 'reduced' the amount of copper.
But, that definition of 'reduce' isn't correct in a discussion about oxides on a potful of bullet alloy.

Reduction of oxides describes 'removing oxygen molecules' in order to return the material to it's metallic state.
Take a potful of pure (certified) lead and let it remain molten for 30 minutes.

You already know that a grey scum will form on the surface.
You can even stir it to expose more metal to the air, and the scum will get thicker ... and eventually begin to clump a little.
This is oxidized lead. (We know it's oxidized lead because there was nothing else in the pot to start with.) If it gets inside a bullet, it will mess it up.

When you stir sawdust or beeswax around on the surface of that scum, it smokes and (perhaps) catches fire. Fire consumes oxygen, and it pulls the oxygen molecules out of the lead oxide on the surface of the molten metal. The presence of a very carbon-rich environment prevents immediate reoxidation, so the scum disappears and the remaining ash can be removed.

What was 'scum' (lead oxide) is now usable lead, again.
The same amount of metal is in the pot as there was when you started, so there has been no 'removal'.
But 'reduction' has occurred and the evidence detected by "your eyeball" (scum is gone) is sufficient proof.


I won't go into 'removal' because I don't use any scrap which requires it. So, my knowledge in that area is quite limited.

CM

[btroj]

I question the validity of using an XRF gun as "proof" of anything. Unless you use a proven analytical method of determining alloy composition I'm not buying it. Having had a few samples tested I got results that I seriously question, very seriously.

As for reduction we are taking metalloc odixed and removing the oxygen from them by adding electrons to the metal. This is easily done in a reducing atmosphere such as we see when low order combustion occurs as carbon monoxide is a good reducing agent.

As a guy with a BS in Chemistry it is quite obvious to me that this occurs easily in out pots. I never did an apprenticeship in Chemisty but did spend better than a year as an actual analytical chemist before going back to school.

[btroj]

MC, excellent description of what reduction is, and is not, in this discussion.

[geargnasher]

Now that's funny right there. It would be difficult to find two people on this forum who rub each other's fur the wrong way worse than Montana Charlie and I do, but we can agree 100% on how a chemical process works and describe it accurately to others because we both UNDERSTAND it. The other factor is at least a certain, basic, respect for each other regarding the things upon which we disagree. Those disagreements usually are not about facts of science, though, but about differing opinions to which we are both entitled.

A good example of what can happen on threads like these is if someone asked what temperature water boils. I say 211.5F, Charlie might say something less, like 210? We could argue until the cows come home and both be right, but still disagree. That won't happen because we both understand that air pressure affects boiling point, how much, and also that air pressure is not the same at his house as it is at mine. If one or both of us were ignorant of that little detail, and our egos compelled us to keep arguing about it, we would have a mess.

Gear

[cbrick]

Thank you Charlie, well said. Just because you cannot see and count the electrons or measure them with an XrF gun has no bearing on the metallurgy. There is only one way to alter the metallurgy and that is with an extremely expensive and rare piece of equipment . . . A magic wand.

Yes Tim, reduction is very real, it does happen and it even happens for those that don't understand how or why. Closing your eyes just won't work as a substitute for that magic wand.

Rick

[btroj]

I tried reducing a pot of lad once, left it for hpirs and it never reduced in volume. Drives me nuts, works great for sauces.
Amazing how a basic understanding of the CONTEXT determines the definition of reduction we need to understand. Pretty simple, sort of like knowing the difference between a spruce and a sprue.

[geargnasher]

Hooboy, brace yourselves for the retorts......

Gear

[btroj]

Retorts? Why?
I simply pointed out that some words have multiple meanings and that understanding the context of the usage helps one know which meaning is relevant.

[MBTcustom]

I believe I was mistaken about what "reduction" is. I think of flux as something that returns metal into the alloy, and I have observed, and tested that happening.
What I'm just not sure about is this bit about removing the impurities in the activated carbon.

GG, good to see you back! And you brought Btroj!
Alright, I'm speaking in this thread about what I have personally witnessed, observed, and tested to be true in my shop. Certain things I can stamp my feet on, and others I have nothing but someone's word (granted it's someone I respect very much) that the other part is so.

However, you're a descerning person. If someone tells you the earth is flat, you are not the type to take their word for it. So tell me: how have you demonstrated to yourself beyond just the printed word that what you claim is true? How did you prove the concept?

[MBTcustom]

Oh and there is no reason for retorts. We're trying to have an enlightening discussion.
Whoop it on me. How do I prove this?

[btroj]

Simple. Carbon, such as produced by low order combustion, excels at aDsorption. Notice, it aDsorbs, not aBsorbs. Adsorption is the binding of agents to a physical surface. Carbon like we are talking has a huge surface area. That surface can bind to many things in our melt. A wax simply does not produce any meaningful amount of absorptive surface.

What we want is a "flux" that does two things. We need low order combustion to produce Carbon monoxide. We also want to produce a charred substance with lots of surface area. Sawdust does both of these.

A couple key points to remember. Rick mentioned time and close contact between impurities and the absorptive surface. For our charred material to adsorb anything it must come in close physical contact with that substance. This means lots of stirring, pouring, and mixing of the charred material and the molten alloy. I think a minute or more isn't out of the question. We also need to remember that the charring of the material produces our reducing atmosphere at the surface of the melt. This is why using activated carbon doesn't really help, it just adsorbs everything yet doesn't reduce anything as it produces no reducing atmosphere. I also don't liek the extremely fine nature of some activated charcoal on the market, the small particle size makes it far easier for those particles to remain in suspension within the melt. Why use a flux that can possibly become an impurity? Sawdust reduces this likelihood as it produces residue of a particle size that is far less likely to remain in suspension.

I have never done an actual wet lab analysis to back up my theory on this. What I use is my strong chemistry background, 30 years of casting experience, and a reliance on my ability to observe what happens and what works. I used to use wax, since I went to wood shavings I have found my melt is cleaner and I get far more of the oxides and oatmeal like junk on the surface to mix into the melt. The stuff I skim from the surface contains far less obvious metal.

As a side note it was pointed out earlier that many load manuals and other shooting references mention the use of wax as a flux. This is true but I will point out that while Lyman manuals mention the use of wax as a flux they also point out that linotype bullets are required for any level of accuracy above 1600 fps in micro groove rifled barrels. Just pointing out that sometimes personal experience outshines the printed word particularly if that printed word is merely a rehashing of old knowledge and misinformation.

[btroj]

Oh and there is no reason for retorts. We're trying to have an enlightening discussion.
Whoop it on me. How do I prove this?

Easy. Take samples from the pot using a variety of fluxes. Melts some wheel weights and don't flux. Take a sample. Flux them and take another sample. Have each sample analyzed for both exact alloy composition but also for particulate matter suspended in the melt, things like dirt and grit.

I said easy, I didn't say it was gonna a be cheap. I bet you are looking at a couple hundred bucks for a full element analysis of each sample using ICP or AA. Particulate matter won't be cheap either.

In short, if you want proof then you need to pony up at least $10K in my opinion. How bad do you want that proof?

[cbrick]

Ok Tim, I just re-read your posts in this thread and your confusion (yes, your confused) comes from an incorrect use of the word "reduce". When you reduce oxidation to the melt your not removing anything. In metallurgy to reduce means to return to the melt, not remove it. It is still there but no longer as oxidation on the surface but in a molten metallic state.

To clean the alloy via fluxing is to remove contaminates (things we don't want in there). To "know" something has been removed we must first know it was in there. In none of the XrF testing did I see any example of this. That means the WW samples were cleaner than any of us thought or the XrF testing is flawed in some way as Brad suggested. I suspect that it may well be a combination of the two but have no way prove either.

Larry can argue all he wants but in metallurgy "reduce" means to return oxidation to the melt. To "flux" means to remove contaminates. To many bullet casters "fluxing" simply means to clean the alloy even if they don't understand the metallurgy of reducing. Sawdust does do both, it is a reductant and it can remove impurities (assuming they were there in the first place). Larry has accused me in this thread of re-writing and spreading myths. Larry clearly doesn't understand the metallurgy of reducing and cleaning an alloy. Larry clearly has no intention of learning it, much easier to slander me.

Rick

[geargnasher]

Simple. Carbon, such as produced by low order combustion, excels at aDsorption. Notice, it aDsorbs, not aBsorbs. Adsorption is the binding of agents to a physical surface. Carbon like we are talking has a huge surface area. That surface can bind to many things in our melt. A wax simply does not produce any meaningful amount of absorptive surface.

What we want is a "flux" that does two things. We need low order combustion to produce Carbon monoxide. We also want to produce a charred substance with lots of surface area. Sawdust does both of these.

A couple key points to remember. Rick mentioned time and close contact between impurities and the absorptive surface. For our charred material to adsorb anything it must come in close physical contact with that substance. This means lots of stirring, pouring, and mixing of the charred material and the molten alloy. I think a minute or more isn't out of the question. We also need to remember that the charring of the material produces our reducing atmosphere at the surface of the melt. This is why using activated carbon doesn't really help, it just adsorbs everything yet doesn't reduce anything as it produces no reducing atmosphere. I also don't liek the extremely fine nature of some activated charcoal on the market, the small particle size makes it far easier for those particles to remain in suspension within the melt. Why use a flux that can possibly become an impurity? Sawdust reduces this likelihood as it produces residue of a particle size that is far less likely to remain in suspension.

I have never done an actual wet lab analysis to back up my theory on this. What I use is my strong chemistry background, 30 years of casting experience, and a reliance on my ability to observe what happens and what works. I used to use wax, since I went to wood shavings I have found my melt is cleaner and I get far more of the oxides and oatmeal like junk on the surface to mix into the melt. The stuff I skim from the surface contains far less obvious metal.
[snip]

This is what I was alluding to earlier. Since adsorption removes all metal oxides, including the ones we want to keep, we need to first reduce the good stuff, which can easily be accomplished via charring wood. Combustion is a redox reaction itself, actually. The oxides of things we want to remove are less easily reduced by the same means, and hang around to get caught in our adsorptive trap forming as the wood carbonizes. Physically expose the unwanted oxides to the trap via the sluice method and voila'! You got them. Now, if the unwanteds are already in elemental form, in the alloy solution, you're stuck with them more or less until you can coax them into oxidizing again or add things that they will bond with in elemental form. Nobody claimed this was process was perfect, but it's quite effective in what it does accomplish.

Gear

[btroj]

Imperfect as it may be it is far better than anything else we have.

Worse thing to use is Marvelux as it just grabs all the oxides and removes them. That stuff would be awesome for removing particulates but the resulting residue it leaves is hygroscopic as all get out and it removes too much stuff we want in the melt. Maybe it would have a use in smelting range scrap after a good fluxing with sawdust to reduce the oxides and get rid of most of the grit?

[cbrick]

This is what I was alluding to earlier. Since adsorption removes all metal oxides, including the ones we want to keep, Gear

Precisely!

A good example of this that many bullet casters are familiar with is Marvalux. It is a true flux but it is not a reductant, it removes everything it comes in contact with including our tin and antimony. Many other problems with using Marvalux such as highly hydroscopic, rusts up everything and my biggest pet peeve with it is that it so horribly gunks up everything, tools, your pot, everything. But it is a true flux.

Rick

[cbrick]

Imperfect as it may be it is far better than anything else we have.

Worse thing to use is Marvelux as it just grabs all the oxides and removes them. That stuff would be awesome for removing particulates but the resulting residue it leaves is hygroscopic as all get out and it removes too much stuff we want in the melt. Maybe it would have a use in smelting range scrap after a good fluxing with sawdust to reduce the oxides and get rid of most of the grit?

Great minds think alike. :mrgreen:

Rick

[btroj]

http://www.chemguide.co.uk/inorganic/extraction/introduction.html

This Is how a blast furnace works to produce pig iron from iron ores.

I don't use a dictionary to explain chemical terms that I learns while earning a BS in Chemistry. I KNOW what reduction is as it pertains to metal oxides and getting them back into the melt.

[btroj]

http://www.chem.memphis.edu/bridson/FundChem/T12a1100.htm

Oh no, a specific example of a metal oxide being reduced at the bottom of the page. Oh the horrors, a university publishing such falsehoods.

[jonp]

Removed and reduced are two different terms with no similarity in their meanings when used in our context.

Yes, if you can 'remove' some copper from your molten alloy you have 'reduced' the amount of copper.
But, that definition of 'reduce' isn't correct in a discussion about oxides on a potful of bullet alloy.

Reduction of oxides describes 'removing oxygen molecules' in order to return the material to it's metallic state.
Take a potful of pure (certified) lead and let it remain molten for 30 minutes.

You already know that a grey scum will form on the surface.
You can even stir it to expose more metal to the air, and the scum will get thicker ... and eventually begin to clump a little.
This is oxidized lead. (We know it's oxidized lead because there was nothing else in the pot to start with.) If it gets inside a bullet, it will mess it up.

When you stir sawdust or beeswax around on the surface of that scum, it smokes and (perhaps) catches fire. Fire consumes oxygen, and it pulls the oxygen molecules out of the lead oxide on the surface of the molten metal. The presence of a very carbon-rich environment prevents immediate reoxidation, so the scum disappears and the remaining ash can be removed.

What was 'scum' (lead oxide) is now usable lead, again.
The same amount of metal is in the pot as there was when you started, so there has been no 'removal'.
But 'reduction' has occurred and the evidence detected by "your eyeball" (scum is gone) is sufficient proof.


I won't go into 'removal' because I don't use any scrap which requires it. So, my knowledge in that area is quite limited.

CM
That is one of the clearest, easy to read definitions I have read in sometime. [smilie=p:

[btroj]

Neither Gear not Rick implied, stated, or otherwise commented on a metal reducing from the alloy as the alloy melts.

We are speaking of metal oxides such as tin oxide that forms on the surface of raw ingots, range scrap, and the surface of the melt. We are reducing the tin oxide with which adds electrons to the tin and gives us back metallic tin. This metalloc tin is then able to be returned to the alloy.

Tin oxide isn't going to mix with the alloy and becomes an impurity. It would be an inclusion if it got inside the mould cavity.

We are reducing the metal oxides back to base metals so they can remix into the alloy. Nothing else.

This is is simple science, smelters use reduction all the time to get base metal from various metal ores where the desired metal is found as an oxide.

[Larry Gibson]

Ok, you experts continue using what you want to flux or reduce your alloys all you want. I couldn't care less. I like many others will continue to use wax to flux my alloys with. I'm sure the rest of the bullet casting world that uses wax (most of that world) to flux their alloys with will also go on continuing to flux with wax........because it works very well.........

I guess all you experts still think that grey oxide "scum" up on top is just tin?

Larry Gibson

[geargnasher]

I believe I was mistaken about what "reduction" is. I think of flux as something that returns metal into the alloy, and I have observed, and tested that happening.
What I'm just not sure about is this bit about removing the impurities in the activated carbon. Might try a Google search for "Adsorption" and have a read.

GG, good to see you back! And you brought Btroj! There you go, jumping to conclusions again. C'mon, Tim, please try to somehow learn to stop assuming things without basis, ok? You made this same mistake in a post the other day after I told you on the phone exactly what the score was, why do you have such difficulty retaining correct information, do you think that reality for others is what you choose to make up?
Alright, I'm speaking in this thread about what I have personally witnessed, observed, and tested to be true in my shop. Certain things I can stamp my feet on, and others I have nothing but someone's word (granted it's someone I respect very much) that the other part is so. The problem that seems to be haunting you here is you only accept two ways of learning: That which you personally witness, and what others tell you. You judge the validity of what you are told or read by your feelings. Not very scientific. So if you can't physically see it, and seem to think that that leaves you only with "nothing but someone's word", you won't know it to be true. That's not going to get you very far in understanding things like fluxing alloys. What you need to nurture, for your better understanding, is scientific understanding of phenomena you cannot see. You can't see a valence electron, and in a lot of cases can't see an ionic attraction, but smart people have developed simple ways to mathematically demonstrate exactly what and how happens in a chemical reaction. You put such-and-such amounts of x,y, and z together under certain conditions, a reaction follows, you get certain amounts of a and b and depending on the molarity, possibly leftovers of x, y, and z. It's like Algebra, and like Algebra, if properly worked gives definitive answers without needing physical experiments. The experiments that prove the math have already been done generations or centuries ago by people a lot smarter than you or me.

However, you're a descerning person. If someone tells you the earth is flat, you are not the type to take their word for it. So tell me: how have you demonstrated to yourself beyond just the printed word that what you claim is true? I have, in fact, written the chemical equations for the reduction of several metal oxides on this site. I have written exactly what happens when you combine certain metal oxides with hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide, and what the result of that WHOLE reaction is (It's actually two half-reactions, reduction is only one half, the conversion of CO to CO2 is the oxidation half of the reaction which takes place at the same time), and what all the by-products are. Please do go look it up, I weary of repeating myself. How did you prove the concept? I proved it via a chemical equation. If you saw it and understood it, it would be obvious. You also need to research how industrial non-ferrous ore smelting is accomplished.

Now, this is going to sound condescending but it isn't meant that way, I'm only responding you what you tell me is your only two ways of knowing the world around you. One of them is ok in some instances, like reading a mic or making observations through a bore scope, but still very limited. The other way leaves you at the mercy of believing who ever shmoozes you the most or whatever it is that makes you trust them. I'm sorry, but if I'm taking people only on word and credentials, do you think that regarding non-ferrous metallurgy, I'm going to believe what Dr. Fryxell writes or Larry Gibson? If YOU are only taking people on word or credentials, how is Dr. Fryxell not good enough for you? HOW? Because he didn't shmooze you enough? I don't get it. If I have my doubts about either, I find out how each came to their conclusions and figure it out for myself. You HAVE to expand that if you're going to get any of this. The physical world has been explained through chemistry and physics in great detail. The reason for those sciences is to measure, understand, and predict things we cannot see or touch. You add vinegar and baking soda and you get water (aq), CO2 (gas), and sodium acetate, and a little heat energy is exchanged. I don't need to react vinegar and baking soda and send the reactants to a lab to have them analyzed to know, chemically, what that white powder and clear liquid is that I have left because I can do the math on paper. Make sense?

Oh, and I know the world is spherical because it has gravity in the downward direction (toward center) and there is a horizon perpendicular to gravity in all directions. I also know it must also be spinning due to those things as well. I didn't need pictures taken from the surface of the moon or to fly around the earth to know for sure.

Gear

[MBTcustom]

OK, I was obviously confused about the terms.
I'd still like to know how anybody knows for sure that there is anything more than carbon and oxidized metal in the dust we scrape off the top of the melt.
I'm obviously very confused as well on where the burden of proof lies when a theory is stated as fact.......

[btroj]

Obviously someone is held back by the basic chemistry knowledge threshold.

Tim, if I asked how you know for certain something you machined was precise what would you say? Part of it would be that you KNOw what you are speaking of. This is no different.

Some of us have specific knowledge in specific areas beyond what the average forum member knows. At some point you can either trust that knowledge or you can go down a different path.

I choose to trust my education and experience as you trust yours as a machinist. The fact others fail to grasp the basic concepts is not my problem, it is theirs. Arguing with those who don't understand the concept being discussed borders on ridiculous. I suppose I just need to come to grips with the fact that some people are never, and have never, been wrong.

I apologize to Don Quixote for steppng on his toes, I should know better than to tilt at windmills.

[cbrick]

OK, I was obviously confused about the terms.

I'd still like to know how anybody knows for sure that there is anything more than carbon and oxidized metal in the dust we scrape off the top of the melt.
I'm obviously very confused as well on where the burden of proof lies when a theory is stated as fact.......

Geez, I'm about to give up. Tim . . . It is not theory. It is the science of metallurgy. Period. Exactly what we are trying to tell you is taught in universities around the world and it is not taught as theory.

Rick

[MBTcustom]

Obviously someone is held back by the basic chemistry knowledge threshold.

Tim, if I asked how you know for certain something you machined was precise what would you say? Part of it would be that you KNOw what you are speaking of. This is no different.

Some of us have specific knowledge in specific areas beyond what the average forum member knows. At some point you can either trust that knowledge or you can go down a different path.

I choose to trust my education and experience as you trust yours as a machinist. The fact others fail to grasp the basic concepts is not my problem, it is theirs. Arguing with those who don't understand the concept being discussed borders on ridiculous. I suppose I just need to come to grips with the fact that some people are never, and have never, been wrong.

I apologize to Don Quixote for steppng on his toes, I should know better than to tilt at windmills.

See, that's not true at all! As a machinist, everything I do is double and triple checked by people with measuring equipment. If I told somebody to just "trust me, my parts are always right" they'd laugh in my face. And let me tell ya, it really sucks when the guy in R&I holds his micrometer different than you do and scraps a tight tolerance part. Happens all the time.
In my world, Theory and deduced outcomes are good for......well.....crumpling up an fluxing your pot with LOL!

[MBTcustom]

Geez, I'm about to give up. Tim . . . It is not theory. It is the science of metallurgy. Period. Exactly what we are trying to tell you is taught in universities around the world and it is not taught as theory.

Rick

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.

[btroj]

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.

[MBTcustom]

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.

[dragon813gt]

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:

[btroj]

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

[btroj]

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.

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.

[cbrick]

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.

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 . . .


Here's the problem; Fryxell took literary license and put in print a word out of it's defined context.

Larry Gibson

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 (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

[JWFilips]

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:

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!

[triggerhappy243]

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.

[btroj]

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.

[geargnasher]

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.

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

[waksupi]

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.

[Larry Gibson]

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....... [smilie=b:

Larry Gibson

[geargnasher]

See, that's not true at all! As a machinist, everything I do is double and triple checked by people with measuring equipment. If I told somebody to just "trust me, my parts are always right" they'd laugh in my face. And let me tell ya, it really sucks when the guy in R&I holds his micrometer different than you do and scraps a tight tolerance part. Happens all the time.
In my world, Theory and deduced outcomes are good for......well.....crumpling up an fluxing your pot with LOL!


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.

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

[geargnasher]

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

[cbrick]

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

[geargnasher]

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

[triggerhappy243]

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.

[cbrick]

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

[geargnasher]

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

[triggerhappy243]

what I have is about 400 pounds of ingots that were smelted from 100 % COWW,( not properly cleaned) that I was casting into 45 acp bullets and just started casting keith style 44 mag bullets. some i see inclusions in the drive bands. it is the visual dirt i see in the ingots that I see that has me bugged. also when I dump the melt into the ingot moulds, their is either black "SOOT" looking powder or a light olive drab powdery dust that pours out when i dump the pot. I know the melt is not as clean as i would like or as clean as it should be.

My goal was to have all the ingots have the same content of tin and antimony. Now I am not so sure. this is one of the reasons I thought to remelt and blend all of it so it would be closer in content across the board.......... if that makes any sense.

Turn out? well.... the 45's are ok. I use a lee 2 cavity mould. 200 swc. and they shoot and feed good enough for me. the 44's well that is where i need help. they do not fill out as well as i would like. rounded edges of the drive bands mainly. it is a lyman 4 hole 429421. both ends do not fill out good and most always are rejects. this thing frustrates me. Not to mention how the bullet Dia. changes over time. I still am lapping out the cavities to cast a little larger dia. shooting for .432 after about 2 weeks sitting.

someone said on one of the threads that I might not have enough tin percentage in the melt. now I know what all that shiny stuff was that went into the trash. Now I think I need to replace it.... the other reason to remelt all the ingots all over again. maybe build a bigger melting pot. I can only do about 50-60 pounds at a throw.

[geargnasher]

You do realize that mentioning tin content will start a whole new fight here, don't you? :kidding:

Seriously, though, it will, but it ought to be fun because relative tin content affects a lot of things ACTUALLY, but whether those things are good, bad, or neutral is mostly subjective and falls into the category of individual opinions and what works best for each of us in each individual gun or load combination. Rick and I don't even agree on how much tin is "best" for a given alloy, but we both have a pretty solid idea what it does and what works for each of us. Thing is, you won't find either of us trying ram a solid constant number down YOUR throat about what tin content you should strive to maintain in wheel weight metal. Others will. When they do, you will just have do try some things and make your own decisions, like you should be doing with everything once you have armed yourself with knowledge.

Sounds like you are having more trouble with controlling mould temperature than you are with your alloy's flow properties. Alloy temperature and mould temperature are two different things, and yet another hotly contested point between those who know what's really up and those who are in denial of basic, metallurgical facts. The recent quality and consistency of Lyman moulds, or rather the lack of both, is still another sticking point. You might be in for quite a ride if this keeps up. Whatever you do, DO NOT purchase a Swedish Mauser and attempt to shoot cast bullets in it, or if you do, don't post publicly about it. Trust me on that :p. Back to the topic at hand, the gunk in the pot and inclusions in your alloy and bullets is likely just oxidized metals, possibly good metals, possibly bad, but the proper use of sawdust like Brad explained with the ladling metal through it repeatedly will take care of it either way. A really slick trick for getting that powdery junk and clinging dross out of your pot is to scrape at it with a DRY paint stir stick while the empty pot is still on and up to melting temperature. Don't be surprised if little shiny droplets of clean, reduced metal start to form out of the oxidized powder and dross.

Gear

[leftiye]

This may have been said before here, but it IS simpler than all of this. Carbon will take oxygen away from lead oxide, tin oxide, and the oxides of the metals we use to make boolit alloy. Leaving (and returning to the melt) pure metals. Almost anything containing carbon will do this. Remember there are two actions we want to have happen here, reduction as just described, and true fluxing which is cleaning the metal of dirt, and etc. from the metal. Some fluxes like Marvellux will also trap the dirt and etc. (and coat your pot with borax). I use sawdust. But for some types of carp "fluxes" like buck beaver flux and some others do work much better where removing inclusion causing items from the lead. I'm sure there's more to it than this, but professional linotype fluxes appear to be micro fine graphite in a carrier of high temp oil.

[jonp]

I guess I ran sideways into something. I certainly am not smarter in this than most of the others posting on this question and have absolutely less experience gaining most of what I know on this forum and from reading but somehow I came to the conclusion that I was adding woodshavings when melting down the wheelweights to get rid of the trash and then adding paraffin to "reduce" the tin back into the melt after cleaning and keep it there as a final step after adding a little pewter back in to make up for any lost during the casting of the ingots skimming the carbon from the top. That is, keep the final melt where I want it. Adding the wax to my pot took the place of, say, Marvelux. I was not preventing the oxidation from happening in the first place by blocking the oxygen/ melt interaction just continuing to treat the results of it.

Probably wrong reasoning but apparently the right results. I have thought back to the dvd on casting that brassmagnet sent out and it seemed odd to me that sawdust/shavings were never mentioned, only wax. I took that as being because they were melting clean ingots not other "trash lead" so omitted the wood part as removing contaminants was not needed. Maybe yes, maybe no. Some of my ingots seem nice and shiney, some not so much. I've not figured out why but just chalked it up to a variable in the melt and temperature and have not noticed any difference in the pouring of boolits. I do not, however, test the different boolits based on the appearance of the ingots used to see if there is a variation in bhn which would indicate to me a difference in tin/antimony content.

Any comments on this?

[JonB_in_Glencoe]

...snip...
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.


...snip...
someone said on one of the threads that I might not have enough tin percentage in the melt. now I know what all that shiny stuff was that went into the trash. Now I think I need to replace it


You do realize that mentioning tin content will start a whole new fight here, don't you? :kidding:
...snip...
The question I'm about to ask, has been asked before, But I think it bares mentioning again.

I'm gonna ask this question in a number of different manners, so as to best get my intent across.

Regarding the "oxide scum" that is floating on our molten COWW alloy, that we reduce with wax or sawdust...doesn't that contain a similar percentage of elemental metals of what the molten alloy contains ?

Typically COWW is about 97% Lead...So isn't the "Oxide scum" contain about 97% Lead oxide ?

I realize that the three metals in our COWW alloy, will oxidize at different rates, but are the rates so different to lower the percentage of one of them in our molten alloy, let's say "TIN" for example, when melting/casting in a normal manner at temperatures ranging from 625º to no higher than 750º, Isn't it NOT likely that we can cook out the "TIN" in our alloy ?

Lastly, to address triggerhappy243 and anyone else in a similar situation:
...OK, we are smelting a bunch of COWW's in about 20lb batches. Other than the fact that it appears that a lack of reducing and fluxing occured so as that there are some black particals in some ingots, isn't it highly unlikely that the typical 0.5% of tin content is different throughout the 20lb batches or is significantly below 0.5% because of poor reducing and fluxing ?

=====
I ask all this, as I am under the impression that it is nearly impossible to lower the content of tin in a COWW alloy, that is enough to be a detriment to boolit casting ...and I wish to be corrected if I am wrong.

[cbrick]

Trigger, Unless it's something you want to do don't re-melt 400 pounds of ingots, just flux well (and properly) as you add ingots to your casting pot.

Adding tin is not mandatory. Is it beneficial? Oh yes, very much. First, I never add anything to my WW ingots. The ingots are either well fluxed COWW poured in 5 pound ingots or well fluxed SOWW in 5 pound ingots. I use 2% Sn in most all of my handgun and rifle bullets and I add it at the casting pot by weighing the ingot and adding 2% of that weight in Sn. The reason I don't add Sn to ingots when making them is because the WW alloy is my basic metal and there is no way to know what the future might bring regarding alloy needs. If I made up all of base alloy into one alloy now you have what you have. Down the road if I want/need a different alloy for some reason I still have the base alloy that I can do with as I need at the time.

If you do add Sn the metallurgy of a Sb/Sn alloy says to not use more tin than antimony. There's been a lot of testing done on the make up of WW's from different parts of the country and the Sb percentage runs right 2% with rather surprising (to me anyway) consistency so 2% Sn is what I use. The COWW's will also run fairly consistent at 0.5% Sn. Yes that's 2.5% Sn but close enough.

When you flux your ingot's as you use them and I do even though they were well fluxed when making ingots I still use the sawdust. Lot's of folks here say to not use sawdust in the casting pot because it will cause inclusions in the bullets. Probably would if not done correctly, I've used sawdust in my casting pot for many years and I have no inclusions. I never try to force the sawdust below the surface and I NEVER use a wood stick to stir or scrape or anything else. If you use the wood stick it will char as your stirring and you have pushed that charring stick down to the bottom of the pot. The charred pieces that come off the stick will be suspended in the alloy and end up in your bullets and the bottom pour spout especially when bottom pouring. Fluxing takes time and some effort, simply stirring any kind of flux around on top of the melt will only clean the alloy at the surface. Use a spoon or a ladle to bring up metal from the bottom and pour it through the layer of carbon, keep doing this until your reasonably sure all of the alloy has gone through the carbon. Yep, time consuming and boring and worth it if you have inclusions or something in your alloy that you don't want in there.

None of it is rocket science and you certainly don't need to be a metallurgist to cast bullets but an understanding of the basics can sure make life (and bullet casting) a lot easier.

Rick

[cbrick]

Jon B, perhaps this will help answer your questions. For some time I took all of the sawdust that I had fluxed COWW with and put it into metal coffee cans, took quite awhile to fill two three pound coffee cans and they were both quite heavy so I knew there was good metal in there. I put both cans full in my smelting pot and melted out the metal from the used sawdust and got enough to make a four pound ingot. That ingot sat around for a few years until the opportunity to do the XrF testing via Tim's place of work. Samples from this ingot tested surprisingly close to the same percentages of the WW alloy it came from. This was another XrF test that made me realize that WW alloy was much more consistent than I ever thought. The metal in that 4 pound ingot had been fluxed twice with sawdust, once when it was made into ingots and again when the ingot went into the casting pot, this is where the used sawdust flux came from, not the smelting pot.

All of the results of these XrF tests where posted into a thread that was made a sticky, someone in their infinite wisdom decided that info didn't warrant a sticky and is now gone. Sad.

Rick

[Larry Gibson]

Cbrick

Mr. Fryxell is incorrect only in referring to wax as a “reductant”which it is not. Either you have lookedup the definition of a “reducer” in the dictionary as I mentioned or you haven’t. If you haven’t you argument is baseless. If you have looked up the definition and readit you understand your argument is wrong but don’t want to admit it; that isanother matter………read the definition of “flux” and of “reducer” in Webster’sdictionary (the definition hasn’t changed in 40+ years) and then read Mr.Frxell again. You will see where he wasquite correct, where he misused the term “reductant” and where you aremistaken.

Geargnasher

I suggest you also need to read the definitions of “flux”and “reducer”. And no, I’m not “smokingcrack”. Is it necessary to start with the personalattacks? You and cbrick fail to provethe point with facts so, as usual; you begin with the personal attacks andinsults. Such is perhaps better servedover on the other forum?

I’m stating facts. I’m sure the more facts I post on this the less “sense” it makes to you asyou claim. Simply read the definitionsof “flux” and “reducer”. They are factspublished in Webster’s dictionaries of which I had nothing to do with. Those are the definitions “the rest of us”use. I’m sure you can understand thosedefinitions if you’d bother reading them. I’m sure most everyone else has read them and see who is making ‘sense”and who isn’t.

Also I have notsaid you are wrong for using sawdust as a flux. In fact just the opposite; I have consistently stated that some sawdustmakes very good flux too. You continueto try to convince me sawdust is a good flux when no convincing is needed as Ido not argue that point with you.

Since you who asked mje to tell you where you arewrong; It is you, geargnasher, and acouple others who say to the rest of us that wax is not a flux and that a fluxis a reducer. That is where you arewrong and that is the crux of this argument/discussion. No one is saying sawdust is not a flux. You’re arguing with yourself.

Triggerhappy243

No need to re smelt all that alloy. Just add 2 % tin to it when you melt it tocast bullets. Let it heat up at 700 – 725*for 15 – 20 minutes and then flux it real well with whatever works foryou. I use beeswax for this. A small piece on the melted alloy and then2-3 wood matches (they light and burn instantly) then keep the smoke to aminimum. I make get some benefit fromthe wood also. Stir vigorously (but don’tsplash the molten alloy out) and the alloy will flux (the tin will mix with theantimony forming the sub metal SbSN which better goes into solution with thelead and the resulting alloy will be much better. If it is too hard for the bullets wanted youcan then cut it with lead upwards of 50% for still very good casting alloy.

Larry Gibson

[Larry Gibson]

JonB_in_Glencoe

The question I'm about to ask, has been asked before, But I think it bares mentioning again.

I'm gonna ask this question in a number of different manners, so as to best get my intent across.


You've gotten your point across very well thank you.

Regarding the "oxide scum" that is floating on our molten COWW alloy, that we reduce with wax or sawdust...doesn't that contain a similar percentage of elemental metals of what the molten alloy contains ?

You are correct; the "scum" on top is oxidized alloy of that underneath in the same percentages.

Typically COWW is about 97% Lead...So isn't the "Oxide scum" contain about 97% Lead oxide ?

You are absolutely correct.

I realize that the three metals in our COWW alloy, will oxidize at different rates, but are the rates so different to lower the percentage of one of them in our molten alloy, let's say "TIN" for example, when melting/casting in a normal manner at temperatures ranging from 625º to no higher than 750º, Isn't it NOT likely that we can cook out the "TIN" in our alloy ?

Again, absolutely correct. The tin forms with the antimony forming the sub metal SbSn which then goes into solution with the lead. Once in solution with the lead (this is what "fluxing" does) the alloys stay together. Simply melting and remelting the alloy will not separate the metals. The "oxidized" scum on top is the alloy, not just the tin.
Lastly, to address triggerhappy243 and anyone else in a similar situation:
...OK, we are smelting a bunch of COWW's in about 20lb batches. Other than the fact that it appears that a lack of reducing and fluxing occured so as that there are some black particals in some ingots, isn't it highly unlikely that the typical 0.5% of tin content is different throughout the 20lb batches or is significantly below 0.5% because of poor reducing and fluxing ?

Absolutely very "unlikely", the poor fluxing does not reduce the tin content of the COWWs. this is because the COWWs are already an alloy (from their manufacture). Thus as in the previous question/answer the tin will not separate during smelting whether fluxed poorly or not. The gray "scum" on top of the initially, once again that many refer to as "tin", to be saved is merely oxidized COWW alloy. It is not the tin separated from the lead and antimony.
=====
I ask all this, as I am under the impression that it is nearly impossible to lower the content of tin in a COWW alloy, that is enough to be a detriment to boolit casting ...and I wish to be corrected if I am wrong.

You are not wrong. The tin content of COWWs is very low. Adding 2% tin and fluxing with whatever works makes for a much better alloy.

Larry Gibson

[btroj]

Directly from Merriam-Webster dictionary-
11
a : to bring to the metallic state by removal of nonmetallic elements <reduce an ore by heat>
b : deoxidize (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deoxidize)
c : to combine with or subject to the action of hydrogen
d (1) : to change (an element or ion) from a higher to a lower oxidation state (2) : to add one or more electrons to (an atom or ion or molecule)

This is EXACTLY what we have been stating all along.

Also, please follow proper etiquette, he is Dr Fryxell when we discuss his education and professional works.

Also from Merriam-Webster we have adsorption-: the adhesion in an extremely thin layer of molecules (as of gases, solutes, or liquids) to the surfaces of solid bodies or liquids with which they are in contact. We also get from the same site this explanation-Capability of a solid (http://www.merriam-webster.com/concise/solid) substance (adsorbent) to attract to its surface molecules (http://www.merriam-webster.com/concise/molecule) of a gas (http://www.merriam-webster.com/concise/gas) or solution (http://www.merriam-webster.com/concise/solution) (adsorbate) with which it is in contact.

While a wax does provide a reducing atmosphere it does NOT provide any solid residue which can act to adsorb any impurities. Sawdust does provide just such a substance.



Again I turn to Merriam-Webster as it seems to be the preferred reference source and we get activated carbon: a highly adsorbent powdered or granular carbon made usually by carbonization and chemical activation and used chiefly for purifying by adsorption. While we do produce a powdered or granular carbon we don't chemically activate it, per se, so it is not quite as effective at adsorbing impurities but it is better than nothing.

While some may prefer to get there entire chemistry knowledge from a dictionary I do not. I have absolutely no reason to disregard the professional knowledge of Dr Fryxell and his Ph D in Chemistry. I can assure you he didn't get that from a dictionary.

So yes, I think it is safe to say that one must be smoking crack in order to argue the facts of a chemical reaction with a a man who has reached the pinnacle of education in the appropriate area of study. I can think of another potential cause but will refer you Merriam-Webster to look in the N's.

[geargnasher]

JonB, the short version is I thought I used to know because some authorities said tin oxidizes out faster than other things and is lost through skimming dross without reducing, but after comparing results of my tests with several others I'm still not sure. I really doubt you're going to affect the already low tin percentage of WW much, Lyman #2, you might IF you abuse it.

the test to which Rick referred where he reconstituted the skimmings and compared to the base metal via XR has changed the way I think about the losing tin through excess oxidation. A few years before that, I did a test myself to see if it would be true to say that "overheating your alloy burns out tin". I ran a pot of WW+2%Sn at 850F for several hours, repeatedly skimming the dross. I then reduced and cast the dross into a few bullets that came in a great deal lighter (I don't remember how much exactly, something like 15% lighter) than bullets cast from the alloy from which the dross was generated. I don't know why my results were so different, except that I had added tin to the WW (during "smelting", after fluxing/cleaning) so there was a lot more tin in my mix than in Rick's reconstituted COWW smelt skimmings, and also I let my pot expose to air over and over again and just skimmed the clean oxide layer that formed over time which I'm pretty sure he didn't do when "smelting". What this tells me is that it is still probable that one can lose more tin than other metals in an overheated casting pot, but it may actually not be that way at all, and it may depend entirely on the relative tin percentage, and it may not. Whether it is or not really doesn't matter that much if you reduce and flux according to the methods Glen and the rest of us advocate, because whatever oxidizes is put right back in.

Now, regarding tin/antimony-rich metals like the type metals, was there not a commercial 'sweetener' that was supposed to be used to maintain the eutectic point of linotype alloy because it was depleted through repeated heating/cooling/skimming? Another thing, I have a box of Monotype letters and they hardness-test anywhere from 8 bhn to about 13. I bought them with the drawer and they are heavily ink-smudged from use. Still looking for a good explanation for that one.

Gear

[btroj]

Good point Gear. If tin and antimony were not depleted over time from type metal why would any business spend good money on a specific alloy to replenesh those metals in the type metal being used? I am pretty sure that the companies that made type casting machines and the metals used in them knew a fair amount about the science of the alloys. Maybe we should just consider that they knew something and we should listen?

[triggerhappy243]

Ok, so now I am getting somewhere. Now that I see the whats, wheres and the hows, I can say this. I use the same pot to cast bullets as I use to smelt. it effectively holds 50 pounds of finished melt. the pot is a 4 qt. cast iron dutch oven and the heat source is a turkey fryer burner.

The reason I thought I needed to remelt everything was solely to get more of the trash out of the lead... so when I sat down to start casting bullets, I knew I was working with the cleanest lead I had available. As things were going along, I had ingots of different levels of clean. This just confused me even more.

In a previous post, I stated that my ingots were noticeably different in appearance because of dirt and trash that i did not correctly clean out. Sorry, I am a clean and organized freak. I just wanted as clean as possible ingot stack to work with. I will put off remelting everything for a while and concentrate on one batch... see if I can clean that up nice, going the route prescribed above.... and repeat it til I see good clean metal. Then I will start over, casting for shootable bullets.

I am not looking for match grade cast bullets. I just want bullets that are consistent from melt to melt. devoid of inclusions and any thing that might be abrasive.

[btroj]

Bullets that are consistent in weight and devoid of inclusions ARE match grade.

[5Shot]

Do you guys think that crushed walnut bedding would work as well as sawdust? I have a 20 lb bag that was too coarse to use for tumbling. I tried it, and it appeared to work, leaving some grey dust to be skimmed off.

Just curious...

[geargnasher]

I've been digging through an older edition of The Metals Handbook and haven't found much specific to the Sb/Sn bond, I think it falls into the ultra-trivial category called "little-known things about little-known things". What Larry mentioned about Sb/Sn staying together even when oxidizing on the surface makes a lot of sense and explains the linotype sweetener as well as the dross analysis results, but I have a difficult time drawing an SbSn (oxide) molecule in my head. It is my understanding that SbSn is only bonded when in the alloy solution, it just has to do with how the elements link up in the soup based on the presence of other elements. That may mean that Sb and Sn oxidize at the same time, but separately on the surface. What Rick's results seem to show is that it doesn't matter the intermetallic bonds, the percentages of oxides forming on the alloy surface are virtually the same as the percentages in the alloy.

That said, I have read repeatedly that tin flash-oxidizes on the surface of the melt, and does so before either Sb or Pb does, thus forming a protective oxide coating that breaks and reforms like the crust on a lava flow. This "crust" as I'll call it, being composed mainly of tin (due to lowest oxidation point or possibly highest reactivity of the mix?) is more flexible and breaks more easily than the oxides of Sb and Pb, thus a certain tin percentage SEEMS to effectively lower the surface tension of the metal and make it flow. IDK. At this point I have reached my "Threshold of Information of Molecular Chemistry". Maybe someone can help me push it up?

Gear

[geargnasher]

Do you guys think that crushed walnut bedding would work as well as sawdust? I have a 20 lb bag that was too coarse to use for tumbling. I tried it, and it appeared to work, leaving some grey dust to be skimmed off.

Just curious...

You should do a little research about the naturally occurring toxins in walnut shells. I guarantee that walnut shell smoke will kill mosquitoes in mid-air if they catch a whiff, and some members here have reported serious illness from inhaling said smoke, though no doubt some are more sensitive to it than others. Just educate yourself and be careful. Not sure there is any advantage to using the walnut media except for possibly the convenience.

Gear

[5Shot]

Thanks...not worth risking other issues. I thought that since I had it I could use it...but I can get other material.

[geargnasher]

Here is MY personal recommendation for "The Best" flux: Sappy Yellow Pine sawdust. I hook up my compound miter saw to a clean shop-vac and powder all my yellow pine dimensional lumber scraps from time to time. Works better than anything else I've tried, including a lot of things from the pantry. YMMV.

Goodsteel, how are you doing with that reaction equation?

Gear

[btroj]

Yellow pine would be good. I should really do the same thing and just make a bunch but I have all this animal bedding left. It is aspen I believe.

The reaction equation isn't gonna come Gear, it is like the great pumpkin. It doesn't really exist.

[Larry Gibson]

btroj

BTW; Dr. Fryxell is also Mr. Fryxell. I was not discussing his education but what he said. Either is correct etiquette. Addressing me with no at all isn't quite proper etiquette is it. However, I don't mind and I don't make personal insults because it's what we do on the internet. You want to turn spelling or grammar Nazi on the internet then you go ahead but at least then correct everyone, not just me. Try sticking to the facts of the topic (fluxing) instead of personal attacks.

The definitions relevant to the topic of the thread (fluxing) is "flux" and "reducer". Since you can't seem to look those up (perhaps because the definition did not agree with your misconception?) I'll do it for you and the other two.

From Webster's Dictionary of the English Language:.....flux;....metal. the substance used to promote the fusion of metals or minerals (fusion; a melting by heat; the uniting of various element into a whole as if by melting together).

Note nothing in that definition mentions removing anything from the metals. Fluxing only refers to the fusion of the metals together.

"Reduce" (same dictionary):.....metal; to separate, as pure metal, from a metallic ore.

"Reduction" (same dictionary):......metal; the operation of obtaining pure metals from metal ores.

Note the use of a flux (fusing metals together into ore (alloys) is the exact opposite of reduce or reduction (separating the metals from the ore (alloys).

No one has been arguing with you (other than among yourselves) what oxidation or deoxidizing is or isn't. Oxidation and/or deoxidizing are not the topic of this thread; fluxing is. The dissention is simply whether waxes (some of them) are fluxes. Most of us (most of the rest of the bullet casting world for the last 100+ years) say yes and a couple of you say no. The correct answer is yes. Even your own self proclaimed expert (to which I agree he is an expert on the subject), Mr./Dr. Fryxell says so. The tangents of you and a couple or three others go off on to attempting to obfuscate the issue is ridiculous to the sublime. It fits the definition of "reduction ad absurdum": from the same dictionary; The refuting of a proposition by disclosure of the absurdity of its conclusion if carried to it's logical end". Thus your continual refusal to use the correct definition of "flux" and "reduce" and throwing out tangent discussions bring the purpose of this discussion to a redundant "reduction ad absurdum".

Larry Gibson

[btroj]

I DID look up the definitions, did you even read my post?

Merriam Webster also gives us this definition-
Definition of ORE

1
: a naturally occurring mineral containing a valuable constituent (as metal) for which it is mined and worked

And this-
1al·loy

noun \ˈa-ˌlȯi also ə-ˈlȯi\ : a metal made by melting and mixing two or more metals or a metal and another material together

Notice that an ore is what is mined from the earth. It contain metals but they are not in the form of the elemental metal but rather as a chemical compound within the ore. These are NOT what we are using in casting at all- this would be like adding raw galena to your pot. Galena is lead(ll)sulfide and it won't alloy with the lead in your pot. Galena would be an impurity unless it is refined and the sulfide removed at a smelting plant-from Wikipedia- Plants for the production of lead (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead) are generally referred to as lead smelters. Primary lead production begins with sintering. Concentrated lead ore is fed into a sintering machine with iron, silica, limestone fluxes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flux_%28metallurgy%29), coke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coke_%28fuel%29), soda ash (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soda_ash), pyrite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrite), zinc (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinc), caustics or pollution control (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution_control) particulates. Smelting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smelting) uses suitable reducing substances (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduction_%28chemistry%29) that will combine with those oxidizing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxidation_%28chemistry%29) elements to free the metal. Reduction is the final, high-temperature step in smelting. It is here that the oxide becomes the elemental metal. A reducing environment (often provided by carbon monoxide in an air-starved furnace) pulls the final oxygen atoms from the raw metal.

You lack of knowledge on basic chemistry and metallurgy betray you. An ore is vastly different from an alloy.

I ask you this- at what point did Rick, Gear, or I make any comments about reduction being the removal of anything from our alloy? We have been consistent and steadfast in one thing- that we are REDUCING the OXIDES on the surface of the melt. By REDUCING the OXIDES back to elemental metal we alloy them to mix back into the melt rather than be skimmed off or form an inclusion within a bullet.

When we speak of removing impurities we are talking about adsorption, not reduction.

Take the time to look into what a lead smelter does. It will clear so much of this up for you. Understanding the difference between an ore and an elemental metal is pretty significant.

[geargnasher]

Brad, there were only two people who were ever confused about the specific, metallurgical meaning of those terms on this thread. One of them chose to stop, drop, and and learn about it and now mostly understands, the other one insists on shifting to a piddling argument of semantics and language rather than address the facts of what reducing and what fluxing really does.

I'm actually looking forward to a scientific explanation for how any substance such as a 'flux' can make pure liquid metals stick together when they otherwise would not, except by the oxide reduction and oxygen shielding I mentioned earlier on this thread. Basically reducants take away the oxides and certain elemental, pure metals naturally alloy together and stick on their own.

I really look at the whole subject of "fluxing" as three distinct things, but that's my own way of understanding it and if anyone else doesn't think that way, that's fine with me, I'm not going to insist that they do. It would be nice to have a standardized definition, though. Oh, wait, Dr. Fryxell offered us one many years ago.

1. Reduction of oxides. Grease, wax, oil, any hydrocarbon that will burn will create a redox reaction that yields some compounds which 'steal' O2 from metallic 02 compounds such as oxidized lead, tin, and antimony. This returns un-meltable, unusable metallic oxides back into good alloy and pulls those oxides out of the alloy solution where they could form inclusions in the bullets. Reduction of heavily oxidized scrap metal is essential to preventing inclusions and improving casting quality of an alloy.

2. Fluxing. Further improving the flux, or flow of an alloy and thus its casting qualities by isolating and enabling the removal of further oxidized metals which we don't want in our alloy at all. This is achieved through first reducing the stuff we want to keep with a suitable reducant, then providing an adsorptive flux to attract the remaining metal oxides that we want removed. Removing or reducing all of the oxidized metals, both good and bad, is key to improving casting quality and ensuring the alloy is homogenous. Sawdust does both of these things, in the correct order.

3. Cleaning. Fluxing is cleaning, but there's other stuff, too. Silica. Ash. Calcium Carbonate. Plain ol' DIRT. These things don't burn off and can't be removed by the other means. They all do, however, float in lead. Agitation and skimming after reducing and fluxing usually takes care of them. A re-flux or two with sawdust can help remove "finings".

Works for me.

Gear

[geargnasher]

No, but a full understanding takes about a high-school level of chemistry knowledge. You only need that level of understanding if you need to know what is correct so you don't go spreading misinformation all over the web.

Gear

[leftiye]

Do you guys think that crushed walnut bedding would work as well as sawdust? I have a 20 lb bag that was too coarse to use for tumbling. I tried it, and it appeared to work, leaving some grey dust to be skimmed off.

Just curious...

Could be, probably just peachy. But crushed charcoal briquets (think BBQ) would be better. While they might be in the way of a "dipper", they will all but stop oxidation in a bottom pour if left to float on top while casting. A second pot to melt lead in to replenish your pot from (and to return sprues to) will pour right through this layer and hardly produce any oxide. Stirring with a stick will do the rest. Cast on, your 10 lb pot will keep up with the bigger pots (but not with a machine).

[btroj]

Apparently it is very, very close to being rocket science:holysheep


It isn't even close to rocket science. Problem with rocket science is always the guy who says it can't work because a car requires oxygen and there is no oxygen in space.

[leftiye]

I've been digging through an older edition of The Metals Handbook and haven't found much specific to the Sb/Sn bond, I think it falls into the ultra-trivial category called "little-known things about little-known things". What Larry mentioned about Sb/Sn staying together even when oxidizing on the surface makes a lot of sense and explains the linotype sweetener as well as the dross analysis results, but I have a difficult time drawing an SbSn (oxide) molecule in my head. It is my understanding that SbSn is only bonded when in the alloy solution, it just has to do with how the elements link up in the soup based on the presence of other elements. That may mean that Sb and Sn oxidize at the same time, but separately on the surface. What Rick's results seem to show is that it doesn't matter the intermetallic bonds, the percentages of oxides forming on the alloy surface are virtually the same as the percentages in the alloy.

That said, I have read repeatedly that tin flash-oxidizes on the surface of the melt, and does so before either Sb or Pb does, thus forming a protective oxide coating that breaks and reforms like the crust on a lava flow. This "crust" as I'll call it, being composed mainly of tin (due to lowest oxidation point or possibly highest reactivity of the mix?) is more flexible and breaks more easily than the oxides of Sb and Pb, thus a certain tin percentage SEEMS to effectively lower the surface tension of the metal and make it flow. IDK. At this point I have reached my "Threshold of Information of Molecular Chemistry". Maybe someone can help me push it up?

Gear

Could make sense. Tin is supposed to coat the antimony crystals in the cooled alloy. This wouldn't happen if there didn't exist an "affinity" between the metals. On the other hand antimony will "flux" into an alloy at lead temps while the melting point of antimony is much higher. FWIW, copper also is alloyed with lead by first combining it with tin (kinda an catylitic action as a little tin as in soldering the copper will do it).

[jmort]

"On the other hand antimony will "flux" into an alloy at lead temps while the melting point of antimony is much higher."

I think alloying antimony in lead at lower temperatures is more akin to dissolving.

[Hannibal]

Ummm . . . guys? I'm gonna stick my neck under the guillotine here. Feel free to pull the lever if you must. However. Basically what I'm getting out of all this is, the last time I ran my bottom-pour pot I had a problem with impurities in the spout. Ie - no/highly reduced flow. I removed the clog with a thin piece of stainless wire and a pair of pliers. But, it bothered me. I've bought pre-smelted lead from a reputable source and I am reasonably sure it is 'clean' enough. So, what happened? Well, I was fluxing/reducing/? with sawdust. Oak from chainsaw cuttings, to be precise. SO, what have I gleaned from all this? If impurities are in my spout, they are probably in my cast bullets, too. Which would explain why even though I 'appearance' sort them, the weights vary quite widely. What do I plan to do? Why, I'm gonna try wax for the next few sessions and see what happens then. And I appreciate the input from ALL of you. but at the end of the day, all I'm interested in is a more consistent bullet. Not a precise definition. Savvy?
The beheading may now commence.

[cbrick]

Expanman, read post #149 in this thread and compare the second to last paragraph with your fluxing methods.

Rick

[Hannibal]

I've read the whole thread, though it's become long enough so as to become difficult to remember specifics. So I went back and referred to the specific post to which you referred to. It is quite likely I did not use proper form/technique when using the sawdust/oak shavings. I do not empty my pot after a casting session, but fill it and then allow it to cool. perhaps a cardinal sin in and among itself? Anyway, I still plan to test wax over several casting sessions as it will obviously take several batches to 'flush' contaminates from the pot, because they clearly got there somehow. If I find the results to be dis-satisfactory, then obviously I'll try something else again. But my goal is to reduce inclusions/voids as much as possible.

[btroj]

"Note the use of a flux (fusing metals together into ore (alloys) is the exact opposite of reduce or reduction (separating the metals from the ore (alloys).". Post 165 by you. You did add alloys in parentheses after alloys, was that just poor grammar on your part? Sure looks like equating alloy and ore to me.

As for the Lyman cast bullet handbook, I have spent many hours reading those sections. My 1982 copy of the Lyman Reloading Handbook has such a section. they do metnion the use of wax or bullet lube as flux. They also mention Marvelux. Would you use Marvelux? I won't.

Speaking of this section I do notice it has been replaced in the latest edition of the Cast Bullet Handbook. I find no real references to fluxing in that handbook, possibly because the author of those sections, Mike Venturino, tends to use foundry alloys for all casting.

I will say that the Lyman manuals such as my 46th Edition Reloading Handbook, page 327, mention the following as it pertains to the 35 Remington "With cast bullets, the bullet should be sized to, or slightly above, the exact groove diameter. If the rifle has multi- or shallow-groove rifling, then the cast bullet velocities must be held to around 1600 fps, or less, if best accuracy is to be obtained". Notice the word must, an absolute. How many people on this site, today, would agree with that statement? That myth has long since been put to rest. Yes, something stated by Lyman as a MUST has since been debunked. Interesting.

As for obfuscation I bow down to you, you are surely the board expert on the subject.

Larry- do you even pay attention to who you are addressing? You begin by stating my username and state :Your post #28; “definition of FLUXis pretty much universally accepted as "to remove impurities, to removecontaminants and clean the alloy". I have rewritten nothing.” yet that post was made by Rick, not me. This isnt obfuscation, it is mere fact. You can't keep even simple facts straight. Think you were addressing Rick? Nope, previous line in your post was :I ask you this: "at what point did Rick,Gear, or I make any comments about reduction being the removal of anything fromour alloy?" You really ask thatquestion.........ok..... Seeing that the quoted section refers to Rick and I don't think he ever refers to himself in the first person I will state, for the record, that I made the quoted post. Yep, it was old BTroj yet you attribute comments made by Rick to the person who asked you that question. Again, are you even cognizant of whom you are addressing? I sure am beginning to wonder. Wait, post 63 is attributed to me also? Again, made by Rick. Hmmm, are Rick and I really the same person? Not to my knowledge, I'm sure Rick is nowhere near as handsome as I.
You were good enough to close that entire section with this gem:[COLOR=#3E3E3E][FONT=Tahoma]That should be enough examples of "at what point did Rick, Gear, or I make any comments about reduction being the removal of anything from our alloy?" as you go on and on forquite a few more pages. Again, a quote from a post by ME yet all those posts attributed to ME were made by Rick. You really need to watch this, I could be accused of plagarism!




YOU attributed posts made by another person to me. This was done for the sole purpose of making me look bad. I'm a big enough man to forgive this transgression. Next time someone asks a question and you decide to quote them in the answer at least be polite enough to quote the proper person. not only is failure to do so slanderous it also tends to make you look rather vacuous.

.

[JonB_in_Glencoe]

I've read the whole thread, though it's become long enough so as to become difficult to remember specifics. So I went back and referred to the specific post to which you referred to. It is quite likely I did not use proper form/technique when using the sawdust/oak shavings. I do not empty my pot after a casting session, but fill it and then allow it to cool. perhaps a cardinal sin in and among itself? Anyway, I still plan to test wax over several casting sessions as it will obviously take several batches to 'flush' contaminates from the pot, because they clearly got there somehow. If I find the results to be dis-satisfactory, then obviously I'll try something else again. But my goal is to reduce inclusions/voids as much as possible.
Expanman,
It may be worth you while to clean the pot.
I recently got a pot from a fellow member who was at his wits end with clogging problems. It's not all that hard to safely clean it, that way you'll be starting fresh with your wax experiment.
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?42865-How-to-clean-the-pot&p=2942588&viewfull=1#post2942588

[btroj]

Don't push the stuff under the surface of the melt and stir, stir, stir. Worse thing you can do is leave saw dust on the surface, let the pot cool, the add metal and remelt. Great way to get inclusions in bullets and plug the spout. Ask me how I know!

[Hannibal]

Two good suggestions! Thanks x2!

[btroj]

Experience is always the best teacher with this stuff. Get ideas online but always think it thru, see what happens, and draw conclusions.

[Larry Gibson]

Expanman

No need for a beheading at all. The sawdust you use is a good flux. I doubt any of us disagree with that. As I stated back in post #11;
“banger

I disagree with wax being referred to as a "reducer". With referenceto metals a "reducer" is used to "separate, as pure metal,from a metallic ore." In the case of our use the flux is used to blendthe different metals (Pb, Sb, Sn) back into solution which is the opposite ofwhat a "reducer" does by definition. However, I suppose it could beargued the wax, or any flux for that matter, is also a "reducer" as itseparates the non metal impurities out of the metal.”

As we see the sawdust you use is alsoremoving the impurities, it is just does not “separate” the metals as does areal “reducer”.

LarryGibson

[Larry Gibson]

btroj

You are correct, the quotes were made by cbrick (Rick) with the one exception of the one made by geargnasher. I have changed the post to address him and gearnasher. You ask the question naming the 3 of you collectively so I was answering the question collectively. I used posts made by Rick and Gear. My apology for singling you out. I have edited the post noting such.

I will add also that you in fact are correct regarding the “reducing” of the oxygen out of the scum on top before the flux blends the metals back in the molten alloy. As I stated in post #11; “I disagree with wax being referred to as a"reducer". With reference to metals a "reducer" is used to"separate, as pure metal, from a metallic ore." In the case ofour use the flux is used to blend the different metals (Pb, Sb, Sn) back into solution which is the opposite of what a "reducer" does by definition. However, I suppose it could be argued the wax, or any flux for that matter, is also a "reducer" as it separates the non metal impurities out of the metal.” In this thread you argue correctly it is the oxygen out of the oxidized metal on top that is "reduced" before the flux blends the metals back into the molten alloy.

As I’ve stated numerous times in other threads (one just recently) I, and obviously many of us, disagree with numerous things many of the manuals, including Lyman’s, say as absolutes. As I’ve stated in this thread numerous times Mr. Fryxell is correct. He states waxes(some of them) are very good fluxes.

I obviously confused you when I put alloys in ()’s after ore. I did that to clarify that the metals we are discussing are alloys. Apparently you and the other two have real heart burn here and don’t want to really discuss anything I mention. That’s fine.

So I bow to your obviously superior knowledge and intellect and agree with you; a flux will separate the oxygen from the metal/alloy formed as an oxide on top of the molten alloy and cause the metal(s) to mix back into solution in the molten alloy. I also, once again, agree with Mr./Dr.Fryxell that waxes are very good fluxes. I’ll also agree, again, with Mr./Dr. Fryxell that wax fluxes do not make good "reductants" even though I just admitted they do in agreeing with you with regards to how the wax separates the oxygen (which isn’t a metal by the way) from the oxidized metal(s) so the metal(s) could then be melted back into the molten alloy. (I am caught between the rock and the hard spot there; do I continue to disagree with you or disagree with Mr./Dr. Fryxell? I choose to agree with you because you are correct) And I also agree with you that sawdust (some of them) make very good fluxes also. Can’t do any more than agree with you.

Larry Gibson

BTW; read your own (correct btw) definition of “slander”. Pay attention to the word “spoken”. We do not “speak” here, we write. The correct legal word you wanted is “libel”.

[btroj]

Apology accepted. I appreciate the corrections.

[cbrick]

Expanman

No need for a beheading at all. The sawdust you use is a good flux. I doubt any of us disagree with that. As I stated back in post #11;
“banger

I disagree with wax being referred to as a "reducer". With referenceto metals a "reducer" is used to "separate, as pure metal,from a metallic ore." In the case of our use the flux is used to blendthe different metals (Pb, Sb, Sn) back into solution which is the opposite ofwhat a "reducer" does by definition. However, I suppose it could beargued the wax, or any flux for that matter, is also a "reducer" as itseparates the non metal impurities out of the metal.”

As we see the sawdust you use is alsoremoving the impurities, it is just does not “separate” the metals as does areal “reducer”. LarryGibson

I have quoted Dr. Fryxell several times in this thread, Larry has misquoted Dr. Fryxell even more times. So who is this Dr. Fryxell and why should his scientific expertise be accepted here? I spent a couple of hours this afternoon researching those questions. There is far more valid info on this man than could be reasonably placed in a single thread. He has more awards, degrees, citations than would be practical to cut & paste here. In short, he is: Chief Scientist; Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Adjunct Professor of Chemistry, One of the countries leading scientists in nanotechnology, been published in scientific journal's to many to list, author of several books in his field, over 2,700 citations by his peers and far more, I could go on and on.

That is the man that Larry self proclaims to be smarter than. Larry after all has a dictionary.

So what does Dr. Fryxell say about reducing?

The elemental state of a metal is that in which it has its original compliment of electrons, it is neither positively nor negatively charged. This is also referred to as the metallic state. Removal of one or more of those electrons is called oxidation, and the most common form of oxidation is for a metal to combine with oxygen (hence the name). Addition of one or more electrons is called reduction, so if we have a metal oxide and want to get back to the metallic state, we must reduce it and we do this by adding some material that can give up electrons easily.

And there is more?:

[COLOR=#800000][I]Different metals undergo oxidation with varying ease. By placing the metals in descending order of reactivity, we obtain what is called the "activity series" (also called the "electromotive series"). Those metals high on the activity series are easily oxidized, while those lower on the activity series are less easily oxidized. Of importance to the current discussion is the fact that calcium, magnesium, aluminum and zinc are all fairly high on the activity series (i.e. easily oxidized), while lead and tin are much lower (less easily oxidized, or conversely, their oxides are more readily reduced back to the metallic state).


Rick

[btroj]

It isn't that I don't want to discuss thing it is that words matter. I work in a job where communication is exceptionally important.

There is a significant difference between an ore and an alloy. They just aren't the same.

Do do I argue semantics at times? Damn right I do because sometimes those seemingly small nuances matter. Calling International Clays just Clays is wrong and it matters. Some would call it semantics, call it a major problem.

Yes, wax reduces the oxides but it won't remove the impurities. For a guy like MC who is using foundry pure alloys was is fine. When I smelt, wrong word but it is what we call it here, range scrap wax doesn't cut it in helping remove the grit and grunge in that scrap. Wax would reduce the oxides but I am far more concerned with removing dirt, gravel, jackets, and all the other stuff I pick up by accident.

I will say I have two brothers who married English majors, one of them had a Masters in English. I am the worst grammarian and speller in the family and am constantly corrected for even a minor misstep. It quickly becomes habit.