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