rykk
spending too much on rocks
Member since September 2011
Posts: 428
|
Post by rykk on Aug 23, 2012 1:41:12 GMT -5
The drawing looked good - I'll be building everything around the shaft anyhow. I can mail you a check if that will work? C-ya, Rick
|
|
rykk
spending too much on rocks
Member since September 2011
Posts: 428
|
Post by rykk on Aug 22, 2012 16:30:03 GMT -5
Kev - Let me know when you get the offset shaft done. If you have a Paypal account, I can pay you for it before you ship if you'd like. Thanks man, Rick
|
|
rykk
spending too much on rocks
Member since September 2011
Posts: 428
|
Post by rykk on Aug 16, 2012 23:32:22 GMT -5
Kev - Price sounds great! I whipped out my trusty calipers and set them to metric just to get an idea how much the pan ought to shake. Anything more than 3mm looks like it might end up slinging the rocks around too much... I think. So let's go with a 3mm one and i'll see what happens, ok? Thanks a TON! Rick
|
|
rykk
spending too much on rocks
Member since September 2011
Posts: 428
|
Post by rykk on Aug 2, 2012 14:36:25 GMT -5
Hey, Kev - Still interested in doing the offset shaft we talked about? Rick
|
|
rykk
spending too much on rocks
Member since September 2011
Posts: 428
|
Post by rykk on Jul 22, 2012 15:43:38 GMT -5
Kev - Looks like alloy steel is the best. Especially when it comes to fatigue limit. I reckon I could calculate how many times the eccentric will be slinging the pan per day at a few hundred rpm but... well, it's a LOT! C-ya, Rick
|
|
rykk
spending too much on rocks
Member since September 2011
Posts: 428
|
Post by rykk on Jul 20, 2012 1:32:05 GMT -5
Scott - I sent you the info you needed on the Lortone vibe lap motor.
Kev - I'll let you know in a couple of days after I think it through a few more times. If you are familiar with vibrating laps, you've probably figured out that I'm wanting to build my own homemade version with the Reciprolap and newest Lortones' type quasi-reciprocal motion but one that doesn't jiggle as drastically as the Reciprolap does. Its been just such a constant battle trying to minimize the up/down thrust of the old Lortones' spinning weight design and I want to see if I can cobble together a sort of hybrid using the pans from my Lortone that only vibrates laterally without bouncing vertically while it's at it.
My first blush guess is a shaft 1" thick and maybe 6" or 7" long. The eccentric part would need to be a standard diameter like 3/4" and only need to be long enough to fit into a 4-bolt pillow block bearing mounted to the bottom of a 20" vibe pan - maybe 1 1/2" or so long. Would want to minimize the length of the eccentric so as not to create too much shear tension between the pillow block and a second one on the shaft mounted to a solid frame opposite. And then a few inches to yet another bearing and a v-belt pulley stacked below that. Could probably turn down that end concentric to something like 3/4" since I think I've seen sheave pulleys around 5-7" in that bore size. I don't think I'd want to shake the pan in this fashion at 1550rpm. And I'd not need as hefty a bearing on that end and the smaller, the cheaper.
As to material, Aluminum is probably cheaper than hardened stainless but I'd have to see how the shear strength compares to steel. I think I've seen that its at least as good as cast iron but didn't have the need to pay much attention to steel when I was researching and came across that data. The pan I'd shake isn't nearly as heavy as the Reciprolap - Aluminum, maybe like 12lbs - but there'd still be 25-30lbs of rocks and weights in it. And the excursion probably only needs to be 3-5mm rather than the freaken 1/4" or 1/2" the Reciprolap shaft looks like its hauling around and that would mean less shear stress on the shaft.
Anyhow, this is actually a pretty complete guess other than the length. C-ya, Rick
|
|
rykk
spending too much on rocks
Member since September 2011
Posts: 428
|
Post by rykk on Jul 18, 2012 23:59:34 GMT -5
Do you do lathe work/fabrication? I'm looking for a 3/4" shaft with one end about 3-5mm eccentric to the main axis of the shaft. Thanks, Rick
|
|
rykk
spending too much on rocks
Member since September 2011
Posts: 428
|
Post by rykk on Jul 14, 2012 22:56:04 GMT -5
BTW - re: The Lortone belts on a Chicago rotary: The fit will be fairly tight since the Lortone belts are a touch too wide for the pulley on the Chicago and they don't seat completely in the v-groove. So make sure to adjust the drive pulley to as close to the big pulley as possible. If I remember, you just loosen the 4 bolts on the motor and slide it over. Belts breaking were the only problem I've had with these Chicagos other than one of the lid rubbers getting a tear in it because I was tumbling really big, sharp edged rocks in that barrel for 2 months and they wore the rubber thin. And I probably overloaded the barrels pretty regularly. I 4get why I got the 4th one. I *think* it was because the thing broke all 3 belts that came with it and HF was out of replacement belts and so they just sent me off with a whole new tumbler - what a country! lol On both of the replaced ones, they didn't want the old ones in return and so, voila - after 3 or 4 months I had 4 of them.
Another problem I had was the little plastic barrel keeper tabs on either end wore down. I had some 1/8" thick teflon from work and just cut myself out some new ones and those have lasted a long time.
If anyone gets a Chicago rotary from Harbor Freight, be sure to use the heck out of it right away so that, if you've gotten a bad one, whatever isn't nominal will fail within the 90 day guarantee window.
Rick
|
|
rykk
spending too much on rocks
Member since September 2011
Posts: 428
|
Post by rykk on Jul 14, 2012 22:46:00 GMT -5
Well, I picked the Raytech up for $35. It was missing the lid so I got one for a TV-5 on ebay for $4.95. Hopefully the vibe is a TV-5! Couldn't tell from the pix and the seller had no clue. We'll see in a few days, I reckon.
I had, earlier, gotten into a minor bidding war for a Mini Sonic MT4-SV but had to bail on it. My good friend, Don Knight, has one and he seems to like it. Super quiet, too. Sux not having the "horsepower" in bidding that I used to have. Oh well; all things must pass, be they tumble stones, kidney stones, or cuts in the space budget.
If the Raytech is loud, maybe half a roll of duct tape around the outside of the bowl and/or a double layer of cardboard for an air gap might shut 'er up a little bit. Would sure be ironic if it turned out to be louder than my Lortone vibe lap since I now have that bearly louder than a whisper other than the occasional clatter of the rocks in it... C-ya, Rick
|
|
rykk
spending too much on rocks
Member since September 2011
Posts: 428
|
Post by rykk on Jul 14, 2012 15:47:49 GMT -5
Yeah, the UV-10 (too big, also) and the other good ones are pretty much out of the question right now unless I run into a decent new job. I would probably have to wait until next year to get a pricey one. Might take a stab at the Raytech I saw for cheap so that I could shine up the few cabs I have made now and also be motivated to make more.
I have 6 rotary tumblers - 2 Lortone QT-66's and 4 dual Chicagos. Neat thing about the Chicagos is that I got 2 of them for free because, when one of the rubber lid liners wore out, HF just gave me a whole new one twice. The Chicagos have worked just fine after I replaced the drive belts with Lortone belts. I'd use the rotaries but think they are too rough. I have a ton of Koroit opal I want to cab up and finish in a vibe tumbler so I really can't have them bashing around. C-ya, Rick
|
|
rykk
spending too much on rocks
Member since September 2011
Posts: 428
|
Post by rykk on Jul 14, 2012 1:24:05 GMT -5
Thanks y'all. I reckon the Chicago is out. So, what are the cons associated with the Raytech units? I've found one for cheap without a lid on ebay. They call it "Rayteck" with a K. It has a light blue bowl that seems like it is plastic because it appears smooth and shiny. I'd imagine it'd make more noise than a rubber bowl, right? Is the bowl thick enough to last awhile? (Remember - I'll only be doing cabs in it and only the polish phase and maybe an occasional prepolish - no SiC grits) Thanks, Rick
|
|
rykk
spending too much on rocks
Member since September 2011
Posts: 428
|
Post by rykk on Jul 5, 2012 18:38:37 GMT -5
I was looking to use it with a vibe lap. I tried AlO but it didn't work in the lap. Might have been a problem I was having with end play in the motor, though. Might try TiO2 with a leather polish wheel, though. I got a pretty good shine with the Thumler's on a spinning lap felt disk. Thanks, Rick
|
|
rykk
spending too much on rocks
Member since September 2011
Posts: 428
|
Post by rykk on Jul 5, 2012 1:15:59 GMT -5
Hi, y'all - I was looking around for a vibe tumbler and happened across a site that offered titanium Oxide polish. Has anyone here used this and how does it compare with, say, cerium or tin oxide? Rick
|
|
rykk
spending too much on rocks
Member since September 2011
Posts: 428
|
Post by rykk on Jul 4, 2012 23:17:41 GMT -5
Ok, so I've read a lot of threads and the consensus seems to be either a Lot-O-Tumbler, a Thumler's, or a Gy-Rock.
Problem? Well, according to Google, it seems there is only ONE dealer online that sells the UV-3 and he is "out of stock". My other choice was the single Lot-O but it costs even more than the Thumlers.
So here's where I'm coming from: All I ever intend to put into the vibe tumbler is cabochons. And, I don't ever expect to be putting anything rougher than AlO pre-polish into the bowl/tub. Maybe not even that and only tin or cerium oxide and ceramic media. All my grinds will be either on my Inland lap, arbor/wheels, or the "suicide" grinder I'm going to build.
Given the above, seems to me I could/should be able to get by with one of the cheaper models like Raytech or even Chicago since I won't be putting heavy weight nor overly abrasive media into the bowls and shouldn't be putting a lot of stress/wear on them. And I figure I'd only do maybe a half dozen batches per year anyhow. What do y'all think?
(Please be subjective - I'd really rather get one of the "good ones" but it's gonna have to be either used, an el-cheapo, or nothing since I and a bunch of others got "greyed off" a few months ago from the company I used to work for and I need to pinch pennies even more than ever to keep doing this hobby...) Thanks, Rick
|
|
rykk
spending too much on rocks
Member since September 2011
Posts: 428
|
Post by rykk on Jul 1, 2012 0:22:31 GMT -5
Sounds to me like this action will cost a number of folks a whole lot of money, possibly their livelihoods. I think all of the claim holders should band together and hire one of those libertarian Tea Party lawyers and sue the Idaho BLM. Maybe even set up a website where rockhounds can contribute to help with legal fees.
The more we just roll over and take this stuff, the more they will do it. In Europe, when the gov tries to pull a fast one they get 300,000 people raising a ruckus in the streets and their gov backs down.
Idaho isn't the only state doing this junk to small-scale miners. There are rockhounds and miners all over the US and not just on the west coast. Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Arkansas and Texas all have mines - mostly for amethyst, quartz, agate, and emeralds. What needs to happen is for leaders to come forward and organize rockhounds and miners nationally and fight this stuff HARD in the courts wherever our rights are threatened. The thing that ticks me off the most is the effect on the average rockhound like me. Shoot man, I'm not looking to go in anywhere with a track hoe. I just want to wander around in the wilds with a small shovel, a hammer, and a chisel.
Anyhow, it seems to me that a decent legal team could come up with a number of tort issues pertaining to the livelihoods of the Bruneau miners. Also, the bighorn sheep were reintroduced in Idaho in the 70's or 80's according to the pdf linked above. It might be the California sheep isn't even the natural denizen of the Indian Hot Springs area. Sounds like maybe they grabbed the closest thing to the sheep that died out in Idaho they could find (from California) to repopulate with. One could argue that the California sheep are an "invasive species" and the rules don't apply outside of their NATURAL habitat. They repopulated the Florida Panther using mountain lions from Texas and out west. Not genetically the same cat but close enough to fill the niche in the habitat and look pretty much the same, just a tad bigger.
The BLM should be required to show conclusively any damage actually done by the miners in the time period they were active to any of the species they mention. ie: "disruption in the riparian zones COULD (read, "might") have adverse effects on bull trout" (sic) It sounds like some of the BLM's assertions are merely hypothetical. If years of jasper mining haven't bothered them, why should it all of a sudden be a problem? Of course this assumes ALL 7 miners have been conscientious in their operations and haven't done anything dumb like I heard happened in Oregon where some guy just hauled off and dozed an access without filing the paperwork and got everybody shut down in one of the areas. (just hearsay, btw - I surely don't know this first-hand) We must all police ourselves so as not to give BLM any excuses. C-ya, Rick
|
|
rykk
spending too much on rocks
Member since September 2011
Posts: 428
|
Post by rykk on Jun 18, 2012 10:52:44 GMT -5
[glow=red,2,300]GR [/glow]- I usually don't weight the larger t-eggs. What I was doing with smaller ones was finding a river rock with a shape that would work well and duct taping it atop the nodule. Since you need to cover most or all of a t-egg with tape anyhow to prevent any of the little bits that vibrate off from getting into the pan, you just put a layer across the top of the t-egg, wrap around your weight rock with a strip of tape, stick a wad between it and the tape on top of the nodule, and then strap the rock down. You can either offset the weight rock or add a second, smaller one if you have a nodule that's markedly thinner on one side.
I usually also wrap a strip of tape to cover the gaps between the weight rock and the nodule because a lot of grit can splash into the gaps and get hung up there. Since it's not in the bottom of the pan, it is basically useless and you waste $$ because you end up having to add more grit during the grind. I hate when that happens... In a 20" pan with 15-20 nodules, you can end up losing a good 2 or more tablespoons of grit. I usually do this with slabs, too, because since they are only 1/4" tall, a TON of grit tries to cadge a ride on them so as to avoid working. :-)
Lately, I've found that you can buy molded ingots of lead on ebay pretty darn cheap and am phasing out most of the specialized chunks of rock I've been using for weights. For now, I strap them to small sheets of veneer wood wrapped in duct tape and held to the slab or a flat-ish nodule with double sided mounting tape and/or duct tape. At least for the polish phase. I'm a little hesitant to use such heavy weights in my grind pan because I worry that it will cause it to wear a lot faster and don't want to have to buy a new one any time soon. Especially since I've drilled a ton of 1/4" "dimples" in a 2" grid in my grind pan to try to speed things up (btw - I didn't see much difference!) and you can really tell by their shrinking sizes that the pan is definitely getting thinner when you have them as an indicator or reference point. (yikes!) That said, it surely would make the initial saw mark removal/flattening stage go a lot faster. I've seen my polish phase times cut from over 24 hours down to 5-8 hours. Some of that might be due to me using a LOT less water in the polish pan than I used to since I'm temporarily home to keep an eye on it these days.
I found some lead shot on ebay and have made the guy an offer for 10lbs of it. I had an idea that it might do the trick for nodules if I could make up 1 or 2lb sorta "beanie bags" and lay them atop nodules. Seems to me that they would conform to the shape of the nodule and maybe only need a dab of tape to keep them on. Might also end up being "self-levelling" as it would seem that more shot would end up in the low/thin spots of a nodule. We''ll see, I reckon.
C-ya, Rick
|
|
rykk
spending too much on rocks
Member since September 2011
Posts: 428
|
Post by rykk on May 12, 2012 19:24:45 GMT -5
Ho-lee coprolite! That IS humongous! And her I thought that the nodule half - more like an end cut, only an inch thick - at ebay last year was the biggest I'd seen but it's *only* 9in across. What an egg!! I just GOTTA get myself up there to dig for stuff like this! The only rock in Florida are asphalt... Rick
|
|
rykk
spending too much on rocks
Member since September 2011
Posts: 428
|
Post by rykk on May 12, 2012 19:11:37 GMT -5
The tiger eye one is Tiger Iron from Australia... Rick
|
|
rykk
spending too much on rocks
Member since September 2011
Posts: 428
|
Post by rykk on May 7, 2012 16:19:58 GMT -5
Thanks, r-h7058 - So, how tightly is the belt that runs the rig off the motor adjusted? I'm guessing that the motor is stationary while it runs but everything else, including the pulley/peg is vibrating, right? Rick
|
|
rykk
spending too much on rocks
Member since September 2011
Posts: 428
|
Post by rykk on May 6, 2012 23:03:44 GMT -5
Hi, y'all - I watched a video on u-tube last night where the guy was demonstrating a Reciprolap. Looks like it is set up with the motor running a pulley that has a shaft with a weight on it rather than the weight being directly attached to the motor's shaft. My question is, how is the motor/belt/pulley set up? ie: Is the belt just left kinda loose so that the pan that's attached to the pulley/weight assembly is able to do its jiggy thing? I didn't see any sort of spring mounting on the motor, which is bolted to the main base/frame of the Reciprolap.
I have an old Lortone 20" "jiggle pan" that I bought very used. The reason I'm asking is that I'm getting REALLY tired of trying to minimize the up/down axis bouncing from the excessive end thrust of the motor - which I fixed with washers in the motor - coupled with the offset weight on the motor shaft not spinning in a perfectly horizontal plane. I've been unable to get a decent polish on ANYTHING ever since the motor I replaced the original with died and I found a used one (3M-576 Dayton) that looks exactly like the original. I fixed the motor that died but it had always required attaching a fan blowing upwards into it that it wouldn't go into thermal protection shutdown in these wretched Florida summers - a real p.i.t.a - so I haven't wanted/needed to put it back on. I've tried all 3 oxides to no avail. Things were just fine until a couple months ago. I can get a decent shine if the rock I'm doing is like a 5+ pounder. I'm *guessing* that maybe my problem is the up/down bouncing of the pan is so excessive that all but the heaviest of rocks (yes, I put rocks as weights on the smaller ones) of the rocks end up spending 50% of the time with the inertia created by the pan going downward causing them to be virtually weightless or even airborne and sorta skipping along the top of the polish pad. Ive got the rig running really quiet but the impetus for the the bouncing is still there. You just can't hear it. Anyhow, it's got me seriously thinking of just tearing this old Lortone down and setting it up with the motor running a pulley/weight assembly that jiggles a pan suspended by springs from 4 posts like a homemade one that I saw on u-tube.
Thanks, Rick
|
|