These came from my latest bucket of WWs.
I measured them on an XrF looking for Pb, Sn, Sb, and As. The results are shown below:
Attachment 95687
Printable View
These came from my latest bucket of WWs.
I measured them on an XrF looking for Pb, Sn, Sb, and As. The results are shown below:
Attachment 95687
That is some good to know stuff.
Can you do some clippy weights too?
Thanks for the post.
The Clip ons will take longer as there are a million of them.
Great chart! The photo with an example makes all the difference.
Other than the bottom one they are close enough to call pure for me.
Someone sticky this!
Appears that the painted ones are close to COWW and unpainted are about 99% pure. I've seperated like this for the past few years and it's good to have validation. Thank you.
Doing this for COWW will be a big job and very appreciated by many. Excellent visual reference for the SOWW.
Did you measure just one sample of each (like the ones shown on that piece of paper) or is each of those figures representative of several samples?
At the very least, post that pic into the Handsorting WWs sticky. Regardless of the sampling, that's nice baseline info. Thanks, and I wish you strength in analyzing all the COWWs you come across. :P
mike
Believe me, my trembling finger is hovering over the "stick thread" button. I just want to make sure that the figures shown are a true average for that type of weight, or if it's representative of only one sample. As WW's go, the next batch could measure completely different.....or they might measure startlingly similar.
There should also be a link to the other thread where all that testing was already done. That thread should have been a sticky. I just looked for it & didn't find it, will look again a bit later but right now a fellow CastBoolits member needs boolits so I'm off to the shop.
Rick
All the tests in that other thread were done in order to observe the effect flux has on the melt. The tests were done by large batches of alloy and were largely inconclusive as we found out that the impurities in the WW's are nearly impossible to detect even though they are able to be seen in our boolits.
This is a completely different direction, and certainly a worthwhile and very useful test. This is something we can use no doubt......especially if it's consistent.
I'm especially interested in sample #1 and #6. The variance between samples #2-#4 could almost be taken from the same piece of SOWW by measuring different spots, but #1 and #6 sure look like birds of a different feather to me.
In the other thread there are tests done on samples that were not fluxed.
Rick
Regardless, here is the other thread if anybody is interested. Lots and lots of XRF testing of alloys and certainly tons to be learned.
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/show...-using-sawdust
Tim, you make me laugh. I appreciate your determination to test and re-test to KNOW exactly what you are approving. We, as a community, will benefit from this. I agree that one test is not sufficient.Quote:
Originally Posted by goodsteel
Here is what I did:
1) The samples shown are the only samples I tested.
2) I did scratch the surface on the area I tested in order to expose the "real material" below the crud on top. (See #3 square #1 for example)
3) I had the machine set up to only look for the elements shown. (While scanning, you can move your cursor over any peaks and it will tell you what element is "peaking" in that area. In other words, while the scan was taking place, I was confirming that there were no appreciable amounts of other elements present.)
4) Each scan lasted for at least 30 seconds. (The operator starts and stops the scanning.)
I do not remember how many measurements the machine takes per second. The clock counts every other second and you get your first reading after two seconds. So it is at least taking a reading every other second. As time passes, the machine averages all the data. The numbers above are those averages. In short, each number represents the average of at least 15 measurements.
5) I did not go back and recreate these samples, but I have gotten good repeatability on previous samples.
How about I repeat the tests on my next bucket? I hope to do some sorting and smelting this weekend.
That would be very interesting if you care to do it BNE. I'm going to go ahead and stick this baby. This is solid info, and I know I will refer to it.
Thanks for your willingness to help, and your commitment to scientific method!
I was able to do some more testing yeasterday after work. I took one weight and started the scan and then left is scanning while I worked on another project. As stated before, the machine continues to scan and it take a running average of the values over time. So the longer you let it scan, the smaller the standard deviation and this should lead to a more consistent result. The first scan lasted for 25 minutes. I then scanned it for 60 seconds and then for 30 seconds. The data is shown below:
Attachment 96044
Stick on #2 is the same type of weight, but from somewhere else in the bucket, so I THINK it is from a different LOT or Batch of stick on weights.
Stick on #3 is also the same type, and it obviously was on a different car!
Stick on #4 is just a different type than I had tested so far.
In my humble opinion, I think that the 60 sec data is suffient for most of our needs. I would also be willing to argue that the data shown is the same. I worked a few summers in a big ceramic companies lab. I was testing each lot of raw material and each production batch from multiple facilities. The XrF test took one minute of run time. The machine spit out beuatiful data. My boss wanted to be SURE. (Sound familiar Tim?) One element that I was testing for was only supposed to be 0.6%. The XrF would read ~1%. I would then perform a wet chemistry test that took a tedious 6-8 hours to get a reading for that one element! All of that to say that I believe Tin and Antimony and some Arsenic are present in these samples, but not much. I suspect that they are not added intentionally? I would love to talk to a process engineer from a factory that produces WWs.
I then took the samples that I originally posted and retested them for 60 seconds each:
Attachment 96045
The parts tested are not the same size as shown on the original, but they are from the same stick. I had separated them to make them fit into the box on the paper.
My intent was to provide data so that we all can have a better understanding of what alloys we are mixing and hopefully make better boolits with this knowledge.
If nothing else, I am going to put the ones that look like sample #6 in with the clip ons.... I will get some of those tested, but i am not promising when!! If anyone wanted to send me samples...[smilie=1:
lab
BNE, I have half a 5 gallon bucket full of nothing but SOWW!
I'll try to get you a package put together. Can you PM me your address again? I recently cleared my messages and I think you got zorched.
Tim, I should have put that comment in purple! I just figured that if EVERY person on the forum sent me a different WW, then I would have a decent collection going. Thanks for offering. I will pull samples from my current 5 gallon bucket and start posting as I get them analyzed. If you have a weird one that I don't have, then we can talk about shipping them to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by goodsteel
OK cool. I'll rummage around in the bucket and see if I have any oddballs, but I gotta say, I think you got most of them covered.
I have several hundred pounds (and thousands coming) of ww and will be happy to provide samples if you will analyze for us. I'm in western NC - where in SC are you??Quote:
Originally Posted by BNE
Jim
So, I'm seeing that I can treat SOWW about the same as COWW, PLUS they will respond to heat treating. Is that basically correct?
That is incorrect.
The painted SOWW are about the same as COWW.
Unpainted SOWW while not pure Pb are close.
That's wrong on both questions. When heat treating a lead alloy it's the antimony (Sb) that causes the increase in hardness and without Sb there will be no increase. Stick-on WW has from very little to no Sb and only a trace of tin (Sn). Most casters treat stick-on weights as pure lead and unless your a front stuffer purist it can be considered as pure. Clip-on weights if done properly can be oven heat treated as high as 30 BHN, the stickies little to no increase.Quote:
Originally Posted by scottfire1957
I add 2% Sn to my WW alloys and even so the stick-on weights will age to about 7-8 BHN. Clip-on weights with 2% added Sn will age harden to 11-12 BHN. Thus a significant difference between the two. When processing raw WW's always separate the stick-on and clip-on weights and make ingots of both.
A good average of clip-on weights is about 2% SB and 0.5% Sn. The stick-on weights will have at best a trace of either.
Rick
Looking at BNE's photos, all three, there is a good mix of Sn, Sb and As in his samples. Heck, you throw sample 6 (I think) in the alloy calculator, you get a BHN of 12! By itself!
I'm new, I admit. My usual practice is to mix 45-48# of COWW with 1# pewter. Looking at the alloy calculator, I'd be real close using either COWW or SOWW with the results posted . It would be BHN 8-14 vs 12-14, and with the pewter I'd have the Sn and Sb, along with the already As to heat treat or water quench.
EDIT: All estimates, of course.
This is great stuff for those who are particular about their alloys! Me personally, I don't shoot much blackpowder so I have a stash of pure lead devoted to that; otherwise once I cull out zinc/steel WW's it's "everybody into the pool", stick-ons included. I think it's a fantastic thing when those with the resources, time or inclination actually do some solid analysis and share with everyone else here. Thanks much!!!
Glad I found this thread. I just finished sorting a bucket of WW's and was wondering how much softer the stick on type were.
I just did a batch of sowws and ended up with 57lbs of 99.99% lead
Today I rendered down my SOWW's and separated the ones as shown at the bottom of BNE's photo and info in post#1. Those ingots had a definitive "clink" when de-molded onto the cement. They look just like my 50/50 alloy, almost a galvanized look.
The other SOWW's came out looking shiney like pure lead and "thudded" onto the cement.
From 4 buckets of WW's, I got about 130 lbs of SOWW's and they ran just about 50-50 between the "clink" type and the "thud" type. This was my first time smelting stick-on WW's and is all new to me..
I know I'm a "little" late on this thread, but I just finished sorting wheel weights today and ended up with about 75# of the various stick-on weights. I'm getting ready to do my first smelt as soon as my pot gets here, so I'm wondering if I should separate the stick-ons by type, or can I just toss them all in one smelting pot? I have very few of the ones in the last column of the first photograph example. Would it be best to toss those in with the WW?
I mix them all up, except for the last type. I throw those in with the COWW, because they have about the same amount of antimony. If you don't have a lot of them, just throw them in all the other SOWW. A little antimony won't hurt.
Thanks. That's what I've done. So now all I have to do is wait on the pot I ordered from ncbearman.
Great info, thank you for sharing.Quote:
Originally Posted by BNE
There are a few COWW that are most common in my experience. I get loads of the "P" and "MC" marked ones. A while back I separated a bucket by type and smelted each separately. They have differing characteristics and hardness. Some had a very sharp edge on the surface of the cooled ingots, while others had a much rounder edge or meniscus. Some were very shiny, some dull. I also got some reddish and bluish surface coloring on some.
Attachment 180109
They all made good boolit in the end. I wish I had access to an XrF to have accurate composition data.
I sorted a bucket of stick-on weights today and may have found a few new types. I tried to expand the pictures and I can't tell. Maybe if BNE sees this he can commit. If they are new I will gladly send them to you.
http://i788.photobucket.com/albums/y...o/IMG_1245.jpg
All three cut like the softer stick-ons.
BNE just sent me the results of some samples that I sent for test. It seems that stick-on weight alloy is still about the same as it was 4 years ago when the samples were posted at the beginning of this thread. The two samples that I sent in were from ingots randomly selected from two 350# batches of weights.
Sample #1 Sample #2
PB - 99.7 PB - 99.4
SB - 0.3 SB - 0.4
SN - 0.0 SN - 0. 2
These were 100% stick-on weights. They were not sorted by brand but the painted weights that usually test like clip-on weights were removed. These were mostly new looking weights and some were new and unused.
Nice!
Good info. Years ago I realized my soww ingots weren't as soft as I thought they should have been. The socc ingots shouldn't "ring" when dropped, but those would. Not sure how I figured out it was due to the few #6s in the melt...they have been going into the coww ingots ever since.