3 ms·

Honestly that's super impressive. Sand casting can be difficult to get right. The metal was likely aluminum? Did he use motor oil to wet the sand?

wikidani 5y ago
I don't think it was aluminum because he mentioned it was during the '30s. I believe it wasn't as widespread as it is nowadays
PeterisP 5y ago
For 1930s, I'd assume that lead is much common than aluminum, and it's also much easier to melt.
- dugditches 5y ago
  Most likely it was Babbit. Which is... possibly feasible for someone to be carrying back then. As it could have been used(in a pinch) to repour bearings in the field. Or maybe he was simply just carrying lead for weights used for getting lines up into trees. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babbitt_(alloy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babbitt_(alloy)
pessimizer 5y ago
I'd think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_metal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_metal
zamfi 5y ago
Aluminum is easy to cut, but not melt — twice the melting point of lead, and hard to achieve without knowing what you’re doing.
- kragen 5y ago
  No, aluminum melts at 1.55 times the melting point of lead, and I've melted aluminum many times by accident, even 1000-series aluminum.
  - PostThisTooFast 5y ago
  - zamfi 5y ago
    > No, aluminum melts at 1.55 times the melting point of lead I guess it depends on your definition of "double" -- Al @ 1221°F / 660°C vs. Pb @ 621.5°F / 327°C, but sure, in Kelvin it's 1.55 thanks to the higher baseline. Still ~twice the delta-T from room temp, though. > I've melted aluminum many times by accident, even 1000-series aluminum. Really? With a wood-based fire?
    - kragen 5y ago
      It only depends on using a coherent definition of "double". It doesn't make sense to multiply and divide temperatures measured in °F or °C; those are interval scales, not ratio scales. In the US men's shoe size 3 is 9.25 inches long, and shoe size 12 is 12.25 inches long. Would you say that size-12 feet are four times as long as size-3 feet? Multiplying and dividing temperatures measured in °F or °C is the same error. (Multiplying and dividing ΔT measured in °F is fine, though.) It's easy enough to melt 1000-series aluminum foil with a wood fire, and people commonly melt parts of beer cans in wood fires as well (ten times thicker but with a lower melting point). Aluminum ingots usually require at least a charcoal fire, and usually forced-air convection as well. But, as someone commented in another thread, babbitt is a much more likely candidate for the metal in question, because why would a logger be carrying around aluminum ingots in their truck? Especially in the 01930s. Ingots are for remelting, and that's a sensible thing to do in the field with babbitt in a non-emergency situation, much less so with aluminum.

wikidani 5y ago

I don't think it was aluminum because he mentioned it was during the '30s. I believe it wasn't as widespread as it is nowadays

PeterisP 5y ago

For 1930s, I'd assume that lead is much common than aluminum, and it's also much easier to melt.

dugditches 5y ago
Most likely it was Babbit. Which is... possibly feasible for someone to be carrying back then. As it could have been used(in a pinch) to repour bearings in the field. Or maybe he was simply just carrying lead for weights used for getting lines up into trees. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babbitt_(alloy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babbitt_(alloy)

pessimizer 5y ago

I'd think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_metal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_metal

zamfi 5y ago

Aluminum is easy to cut, but not melt — twice the melting point of lead, and hard to achieve without knowing what you’re doing.

kragen 5y ago
No, aluminum melts at 1.55 times the melting point of lead, and I've melted aluminum many times by accident, even 1000-series aluminum.
- PostThisTooFast 5y ago
- zamfi 5y ago
  > No, aluminum melts at 1.55 times the melting point of lead I guess it depends on your definition of "double" -- Al @ 1221°F / 660°C vs. Pb @ 621.5°F / 327°C, but sure, in Kelvin it's 1.55 thanks to the higher baseline. Still ~twice the delta-T from room temp, though. > I've melted aluminum many times by accident, even 1000-series aluminum. Really? With a wood-based fire?
  - kragen 5y ago
    It only depends on using a coherent definition of "double". It doesn't make sense to multiply and divide temperatures measured in °F or °C; those are interval scales, not ratio scales. In the US men's shoe size 3 is 9.25 inches long, and shoe size 12 is 12.25 inches long. Would you say that size-12 feet are four times as long as size-3 feet? Multiplying and dividing temperatures measured in °F or °C is the same error. (Multiplying and dividing ΔT measured in °F is fine, though.) It's easy enough to melt 1000-series aluminum foil with a wood fire, and people commonly melt parts of beer cans in wood fires as well (ten times thicker but with a lower melting point). Aluminum ingots usually require at least a charcoal fire, and usually forced-air convection as well. But, as someone commented in another thread, babbitt is a much more likely candidate for the metal in question, because why would a logger be carrying around aluminum ingots in their truck? Especially in the 01930s. Ingots are for remelting, and that's a sensible thing to do in the field with babbitt in a non-emergency situation, much less so with aluminum.