fluxing technique

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

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 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, coke, soda ash, pyrite, zinc, caustics or pollution control particulates. Smelting uses suitable reducing substances that will combine with those oxidizing 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.

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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...

---

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cdngunner

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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).

"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.

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.

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

Rick

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.

"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.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expanman

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/show...=1#post2942588

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!

Two good suggestions! Thanks x2!

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

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

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”.

Apology accepted. I appreciate the corrections.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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