Monotype or Linotype

[hornady]

I have read Monotype is harder than Linotype. Is there a way to look at the two. To distinguish between the two. The reason for this question, I ordered a box of Linotype. This was advertised as Linotype. In the past all the Linotype I have gotten was in 1/8 x ½ x 6 or 8 inch strips. The box I got the other day was all single letters on 1/8x1/8 by ½ inch. Would this be monotype.

[old turtle]

Some time ago I was given a 5 gallon bucket of linotype which had been used by a newspaper. Some were long strips of letters making sentences and others were single small letters which were about 1/8" by 1/8". Some were 1/2" square capital letters. In short I would think that you have linotype. Unfortunatly I have not received any free linotype since but I am thankful for that blessing.

[jlchucker]

Many years ago, when I was a college student, I had a summer job in a small print shop. Lots of the equipment was old, to say the least. They had monotype and linotype. Monotype is very hard, and the machines somehow cast those little single letters individually, to be loaded into frames that make up pages. Linotype works kind of like this, but in a print shop is cast up into little strips that individually make up a word or sentence. As I remember it, monotype was much harder. That old print shop is long gone. They printed city directories. At one time my assigned duty was melting up the used type into ingots that eventually found their way to the machines. The two materials, mono and lino, were kept separate all the way.

[harrya]

jlchucker is correct. Lino is from the machine and makes up the columns in the newspapers. The mono-type are single letters used for the headlines, etc. Used for stationary, envelopes, etc also. Mono is factory made (don't know where), while lino is used for that issue, torn down from the sheet/page size holder (forgot the name) and remelted into molds to be used again for the next issue. Sounds like jlchucker and I did about the same type work a hundred years or so ago. I have a few mono-types that I found once about 35 yrs ago at a dump and picked up all I could find. The really good ones are the old photos that were send in from a picture and returned as a mono-type picture. Much larger, some we used to get back were on wooden blocks w/just lead/alloy (1/8") picture, some were starting to use plastic and once in a while all were lead/alloy of some type. Didn't cast boolits then, just fishing sinkers.
harrya

[old turtle]

Chucker is correct. Monotype has more tin and antimony. This is no problem and if you cast some ingots you should be able to tell. If you need it softer you can alloy with lead or wheel weights. You can find advice on mixtures to obtain the hardness you want in some manuals and on line. Good luck.

[hornady]

I did some research on the two. And it sounds like there really is no way of telling one from the other, by simply looking at it. How ever I did find that Linotype was more prominent in the US. And Mono more so in Britain. With the exception of more durable print jobs here in the US.. Books mainly. So chances are this is Lyno. I will cast a slug to compare the BHN with the older Lyno I still have. I just did not know if you could look at it and tell one from the other. I have a mix I am happy with. And don’t want to change it drastically.

[HangFireW8]

I will cast a slug to compare the BHN with the older Lyno I still have.

You don't have to wait to cast a slug to test its BHN... assuming the type fits in your hardness tester.

-HF

[ANeat]

Just to throw some more variables in, here is a listing of several varieties of type metal.

http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h165/aneat/Lead/TypeMetal.jpg

[454PB]

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=1578&d=1149353294

Lines of type.....linotype
Single letter......monotype

[hammerhead357]

Look at the chart Aneat posted you will see that Monotype contains some copper. This can be a real pita. It will freeze up in the pouring spout of a casting pot. It can be refined out by letting the melt cool down some and it will float to the top and can be skimmed off. I used to do this a lot when making lino from WW and monotype....Wes

[454PB]

Not me. I heat and flux it until the "froth" dissolves into the melt. According to the chart, all forms of type metal have a small amount of copper, as does babbitt metal.

[HangFireW8]

Look at the chart Aneat posted you will see that Monotype contains some copper. This can be a real pita. It will freeze up in the pouring spout of a casting pot.

I've used monotype as part of several alloys, and never had this problem. The main problem I have is the resulting alloy comes out harder than expected. I've never needed to make a primarily monotype alloy (>50%), though, but wouldn't hesitate if I thought I needed to.

-HF

[sagacious]

Look at the chart Aneat posted you will see that Monotype contains some copper. This can be a real pita. It will freeze up in the pouring spout of a casting pot. It can be refined out by letting the melt cool down some and it will float to the top and can be skimmed off. I used to do this a lot when making lino from WW and monotype....Wes

This is a common misunderstanding. The copper does not freeze in the spout. The copper is chemically bound to the tin and antimony and does not exist in a 'free' state in type metals. So, it cannot and will not "freeze" out of the melt. One cannot skim off the copper.

The problem of clogged spouts is caused by improper fluxing (or not fluxing at all) more than any other factor.

If one skims unfluxed ww alloy or linotype, one is simply removing part of the tin and antimony component of those alloys. Fluxing is necessary to re-incorporate that antimony into the melt. There is no subsitute for this.

Fluxing is your friend. Flux early, flux often.

[Lloyd Smale]

sure dont agree with that statement. Ive seen more problems in casting from over fluxing then underfluxing. Cast two pots of lead starting with a flux. On one pot dont flux again and on the other one flux 3 or 4 times before you are done then weight your bullets. Flux is a contaminate itself and not something i want in my lead. I do it only to clean dirty lead not to make sure a minute ammount of tin oxide is returned to the melt.

[sagacious]

sure dont agree with that statement. Ive seen more problems in casting from over fluxing then underfluxing. Cast two pots of lead starting with a flux. On one pot dont flux again and on the other one flux 3 or 4 times before you are done then weight your bullets. Flux is a contaminate itself and not something i want in my lead. I do it only to clean dirty lead not to make sure a minute ammount of tin oxide is returned to the melt.

The dross is a contaminant in the melt, the flux is not a 'contaminant' in any way. If one doesn't understand that flux removes the dross and oxide inclusions and particulate matter from the melt, then he simply does not understand the process. There is no way possible to 'overflux' the melt, and that's one of the great things about it-- done correctly, not even the newbie can 'over-do' it. Once the fluxing agent has returned the oxides to the melt, and removed the entrained particulate matter, repeated immediate fluxing does not act on the melt.

If one has problems associated with fluxing, then he is not fluxing correctly. Fluxing is vital to the maintenance of the melt. There's no other way to put it.

Many, many knowledgeable casters flux as necessary-- which often means several times during an extended casting session. I flux as necessary during the course of the melt, which is not a set number of times.

"I don't believe in fluxing" is a personal choice. "I suggest that others do not flux" is very bad advice indeed.

Everyone should read and understand this article by Glenn Fryxell, it's a must read:
http://www.lasc.us/FryxellFluxing.htm

Hope this this helps.

[hammerhead357]

Well I got this information from the Cast Bullet Association....And have had it freeze up in the nozzle or pouring spout. Also talked to Bill Ferguson about it and he said what I was doing was correct. I know it worked for me and I did flux well several times and then froze the copper out with the instructions from the CBA I think it was written by Dennis Marshall. I am not at home where I can access the info right now but I had the problem and then followed the information that was furnished and the problem went away just my experience.
I did it a lot when I needed to make linotype from wheel weights and mono type.
I usually don't flux while casting but float a layer of clean cat litter on top of the melt and my ingots are added right through the litter but I use ingot feeders that suspend the ingot over the pot and so don't affect the temp. much and I use a premelt pot that feeds the casting pot.
I used to sell about 40,000 hand cast bullets per week and they were all linotype so had to do a lot of things to keep enough metal on hand. This one worked for me you mileage may vary......Wes

[sagacious]

Well I got this information from the Cast Bullet Association....And have had it freeze up in the nozzle or pouring spout. Also talked to Bill Ferguson about it and he said what I was doing was correct. I know it worked for me and I did flux well several times and then froze the copper out with the instructions from the CBA I think it was written by Dennis Marshall. I am not at home where I can access the info right now but I had the problem and then followed the information that was furnished and the problem went away just my experience.
.....Wes

Wes,
I'm certainly not at all discounting your experience, I'm just saying that it's not the copper "freezing" out of the alloy and causing the clogging problem.

Again, I'm not discounting that you had a clogging problem, or that Bill Ferguson said your casting technique wasn't spot-on. Since, as I recall, Bill Ferguson is a metallurgist, it seems like he might perhaps be the least likely of anyone to suggest that copper is freezing out of lino/monotype alloys and causing any kind clogging problem. I don't believe it's even chemically possible for copper to freeze out of any lino/monotype alloy.

But I have seen exactly what you're describing. The culprit causing the clogging problem is likely to be the increased antimony in those alloys. When antimony drosses and oxidizes, it becomes insoluable in the melt and can clog the spout. It can and will oxidize in the area of the spout, even when not in contact with open air. The LASC site has several articles that detail this occasionally troublesome fact. It is well-known that antimony drosses heavily, and this causes exactly the problem you describe. Skimming the frothy dross from melt reduces the antimony content, and that's likely to be the mechansim that has stopped the clogging for you. As an added example, in my experience, Pb/Sn/Cu alloys do not dross heavily at all, so it's almost surely not the copper causing the clogging.

Anyway, hope that sheds some light on it. Good shooting! :drinks:

[hammerhead357]

Sagacious, well I stand corrected on this. I just got off the phone with Bill Ferguson. He said that the information from 25 years ago was outdated. That it was good information for that time but things have improved. He could not tell me for sure what I was removing that stopped the nozzle freeze up but what ever it was worked. He also told me that a way around this is to raise the temp. of the casting pot to the point that the freeze up doesn't occur. So it could have been the antiomny that I was removing. But I fluxed the melt well before reducing the heat of the melt and then skimmed the melt. So what ever I was removing was the problem.
Now as far as raising the temp. of the melt. I was casting commecially at the time and needed to cast as fast as I could in order to keep production up so wasn't interested in more wait time for the sprues to set up. But I may try this in the future since I don't have to be concerned so much about out put.....Wes

[sagacious]

Wes,
Sounds good! I wasn't trying to "correct" you so much as I was just trying to clarify some of the details. Sometimes the small details can make a big difference.

And you're right-- commercial casting is a whole different ballgame than hobby-level casting. There are a lot of times when conditions have to be adjusted to suit the tooling, such as raising the temp of the melt, etc.

A critical point that new casters should remember is that there is almost always a solution for their situation... but it may not be the same fix as for someone else's situation.

Hope all is well in your neck of the woods. :drinks:

[jlchucker]

jlchucker is correct. Lino is from the machine and makes up the columns in the newspapers. The mono-type are single letters used for the headlines, etc. Used for stationary, envelopes, etc also. Mono is factory made (don't know where), while lino is used for that issue, torn down from the sheet/page size holder (forgot the name) and remelted into molds to be used again for the next issue. Sounds like jlchucker and I did about the same type work a hundred years or so ago. I have a few mono-types that I found once about 35 yrs ago at a dump and picked up all I could find. The really good ones are the old photos that were send in from a picture and returned as a mono-type picture. Much larger, some we used to get back were on wooden blocks w/just lead/alloy (1/8") picture, some were starting to use plastic and once in a while all were lead/alloy of some type. Didn't cast boolits then, just fishing sinkers.
harrya

Was it that long ago, Harry? Where I worked they used all sizes of monotype letters--even little ones. After a while, and a lot of squinting, if you worked on the proofreading bench, you could read that type backwards and pick out the busted/miscast little letters from the frame and replace them individually. I didn't cast or load boolits back then either. After a while I recall you could tell mono from lino by looking. Mono as I remember was shinier, and a broken letter would have a grainy-looking interior. Since it was a hundred years ago I don't remember what we fluxed ingots with, but I wish I did.

[jlchucker]

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=1578&d=1149353294

Lines of type.....linotype
Single letter......monotype

Yup. That's what it all looks like. I remember it very well, even though, as Harrya says, it was about a hundred years ago. Funny how you can remember jobs that paid $1.15 and hour. If you break one of those mono letters in half, the inside will be shiny and grainy. Noticeably different than lino.

[cbrick]

sure dont agree with that statement. Ive seen more problems in casting from over fluxing then underfluxing. Cast two pots of lead starting with a flux. On one pot dont flux again and on the other one flux 3 or 4 times before you are done then weight your bullets. Flux is a contaminate itself and not something i want in my lead. I do it only to clean dirty lead not to make sure a minute ammount of tin oxide is returned to the melt.


The dross is a contaminant in the melt, the flux is not a 'contaminant' in any way. If one doesn't understand that flux removes the dross and oxide inclusions and particulate matter from the melt, then he simply does not understand the process. There is no way possible to 'overflux' the melt, and that's one of the great things about it-- done correctly, not even the newbie can 'over-do' it. Once the fluxing agent has returned the oxides to the melt, and removed the entrained particulate matter, repeated immediate fluxing does not act on the melt.

If one has problems associated with fluxing, then he is not fluxing correctly. Fluxing is vital to the maintenance of the melt. There's no other way to put it.

Many, many knowledgeable casters flux as necessary-- which often means several times during an extended casting session. I flux as necessary during the course of the melt, which is not a set number of times.

"I don't believe in fluxing" is a personal choice. "I suggest that others do not flux" is very bad advice indeed.

sagacious is 110% correct. If anyone is not fluxing and is happy with their results then they shouldn't flux but to tell the folks here that are new to casting that it's damaging is just plain wrong and irresponsible. Look at it this way, the metals industry is down right anal about fluxing lead alloys and they don't do this because they want to damage the alloy or because they have too much time and money on their hands. They do it because it is mandatory to producing the proper quality final product.

To say "Flux is a contaminate itself and not something i want in my lead" is also just plain wrong. There is no way to "get flux into" your alloy. Period. It is on top of the alloy and I can't imagine what type of flux or method of fluxing could possibly get it "into the alloy". Simply not possible.

Rick

[zomby woof]

.....

[zomby woof]

My Monotype is a little different


http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/medium/100_2994.jpg

[lwknight]

I'm not a big fan of fluxing all the time either. Linotype has a lot of surface area to oxidize and when you melt it , you will have a substantial amount of dross. Knowing that you started with pure good alloy. You can bet that the dross is good stuff and tossing it out will change the alloy.

[Snyd]

I got this stuff today and by reading this thread, it sounds like I got linotype and monotype here?


http://homepage.mac.com/perryschneider/.Pictures/pics/lino_02.jpg

[303Guy]

I've seen more problems in casting from over fluxing then underfluxing.I'd like to know what's behind this statement. If I may ask, Lloyd Smale? Thanks.

[jlchucker]

I got this stuff today and by reading this thread, it sounds like I got linotype and monotype here?


http://homepage.mac.com/perryschneider/.Pictures/pics/lino_02.jpg

Judging just by your photo it looks like you've got some of both.

[lwknight]

The only problem with overfluxing is that you have to get some more flux sooner..

[sagacious]

The only problem with overfluxing is that you have to get some more flux sooner..

:) True nuf!

303Guy,
Overfluxing is a myth.

There is no way to 'overflux' lead. Fluxing reduces the oxides and returns the pure metal to the melt; removes particulate matter; reduces dross formation; increases melt fluidity and cavity fill-out, and removes several unwanted metallic and non-metallic impurities.

One cannot reduce the oxides too much, or return too much pure metal back to the melt. And once the particulate matter is gone, it's gone. Can't damage the melt by fluxing again... or again.

Fluxing protects the melt. If one is damaging his melt in any way at all through the practice of fluxing, then by simple definition he is not fluxing correctly.

In all the articles written by trained metallurgists and printed in the various reloading manuals, in all the handloading/casting resources available online, there appears to be zero mention of 'overfluxing'. In fact, in the excellent Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook article on casting, there is a section on fluxing. Consider this quote from that article:


Flux the metal whenever, by appearance, it seems to need it.

That's about as 'bottom-line' as it gets. Those new to casting should buy a copy of the Lyman casting Handook and memorize the info in the casting articles. Flux early, flux often.

Newbies should not be told that they risk damaging their melt by fluxing. To do so does a huge disservice to those just getting into casting/pouring.

Hope this helps. :drinks:

[evan price]

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=1578&d=1149353294

Lines of type.....linotype
Single letter......monotype

I will go farther and say that there is also Foundry Type which has more tin and antimony than monotype. Foundry type is typically large, complex items such as the banner headline characters, complex pictographs or drawings, etc. or just very large letters, but large size is not a 100% indicator of foundry type alloy.

Also, while monotype is indeed individual letters regardless of actual pica size, some print shops could and did cast their own monotype. It is also possible that those shops weren't very strict about what alloy they used for their monotype. Linotype alloy can and did get used to make monotype, especially the smaller characters, emms and enns, punctuation, etc. So, simply saying that all monotype is monotype alloy is not 100% going to be correct. It will still require verification of the actual alloy- however, that said, I certainly would tend to believe that monotype blocks would tend to actually be monotype alloy.

By the same token, a lot of the spacers- emms and enns- that do not actually contact the printed page were commonly cast in linotype alloy because they did not ever wear out since they never touched the page.

Just be aware that monotype blocks might have been cast with linotype alloy, especially small stuff.

Linotype is going to have the least tin and antimony of all the type metals because it was intended for use in a "disposable" format- usually newspapers and such- and was quickly remelted and reused and wear wasn't a problem so much. Linotype is going to be in lines with the print on the edges in complete words, with ridges on the side for spacing. Sometimes these will have been sawn up to smaller lengths.

Monotype has more tin and antimony than linotype, because it was intended to be reused after a print job was finished. It will be individual characters, wingdings, spaces, punctuation, etc.

Foundry type has more tin and antimony than monotype, because these were supposed to be special items that were used rarely but regularly, and were expensive to make, requiring molds that a print foundry would have and the average print shop would not. I've gotten some of the special pictographs such as column-sized graphics for holidays, or company logos, which are foundry type.

Lots of sellers online list monotype incorrectly as linotype- some don't know the difference. I've gotten great deals on foundry type offered as linotype.