That is some good to know stuff.
Can you do some clippy weights too?
Thanks for the post.
Melting Stuff is FUN!Sent from my PC with a keyboard and camera on it with internet too.
Shooting stuff is even funner
L W Knight
The Clip ons will take longer as there are a million of them.
I'm a Happy Clinger.
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?
Precision in the wrong place is only a placebo.
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
I saw this in a cartoon once. I'm pretty sure I can pull it off...
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.
Precision in the wrong place is only a placebo.
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
"The people never give up their freedom . . . Except under some delusion." Edmund Burke
"Let us remember that if we suffer tamely a lawless attack on our liberty, we encourage it." Samuel Adams
NRA Benefactor Life Member
CRPA Life Member
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.
Precision in the wrong place is only a placebo.
In the other thread there are tests done on samples that were not fluxed.
Rick
"The people never give up their freedom . . . Except under some delusion." Edmund Burke
"Let us remember that if we suffer tamely a lawless attack on our liberty, we encourage it." Samuel Adams
NRA Benefactor Life Member
CRPA Life Member
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
Precision in the wrong place is only a placebo.
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.
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.
I'm a Happy Clinger.
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!
Precision in the wrong place is only a placebo.
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:
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:
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...
lab
I'm a Happy Clinger.
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.
Precision in the wrong place is only a placebo.
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.
I'm a Happy Clinger.
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.
Precision in the wrong place is only a placebo.
BP | Bronze Point | IMR | Improved Military Rifle | PTD | Pointed |
BR | Bench Rest | M | Magnum | RN | Round Nose |
BT | Boat Tail | PL | Power-Lokt | SP | Soft Point |
C | Compressed Charge | PR | Primer | SPCL | Soft Point "Core-Lokt" |
HP | Hollow Point | PSPCL | Pointed Soft Point "Core Lokt" | C.O.L. | Cartridge Overall Length |
PSP | Pointed Soft Point | Spz | Spitzer Point | SBT | Spitzer Boat Tail |
LRN | Lead Round Nose | LWC | Lead Wad Cutter | LSWC | Lead Semi Wad Cutter |
GC | Gas Check |