Post by revco on Jul 1, 2010 2:12:10 GMT -5
This may be a less than interesting topic, but I'm curious about what others might have to say. I'm an engineer by trade and I tend to "geek out" in my various hobbies, so please bear with me because I do have some interesting info to share.
About 4 months ago, I started tracking the weight of rocks that I "harvest" from the rough stage every 5 or 6 days. I felt it would give me better insight over "~1/8lb" and "x number of rocks" method I used before - and it has. I'm curious if anyone is doing the same and calculating their efficiency in the rough stage?
Following this equation, we can determine the relative efficiency of the rough stage:
[total harvest in oz] / [total rough capacity in oz] * 100 = Output efficiency
With a 24lb rough capacity, I fairly consistently harvest about 8 oz every recharge. Following the equation above, this amounts to about 2.08% efficiency.
Obviously, this calculation will only work if you tend to keep a full load in rough with every recharge and only applies when you have a relatively good balance of rocks with varying levels of "doneness" in the same load. It could obviously also be greatly affected by the personal preference of the tumbler and their standards for when a rock is "done" with rough. One who has less strict standards would clearly have greater efficiency than that of a person who is much more picky. It is also very dependent on the types of rocks tumbled. So it IS an arbitrary number...but for me, it's helped with personal insight into different techniques in rough.
Here's why I bring it up and where it might get interesting for you! I did an efficiency test over four months of trying rough loads both with pellets and without pellets. It's supposedly common knowledge that pellets tend to "slow" the rough stage down due to their ability to cushion and create a less aggressive tumble, therefore theoretically making the rough stage less efficient. I, however, have found that without pellets, I tend to get more fracturing - particularly in micro-crystalline rocks - which adds time to the tumble.
By tracking these two methods over four months for decent averages, I figured out the efficiencies of the two methods. Without pellets and a fair amount of regular fractures, I found that I had about a 1% efficiency. By adding pellets and experiencing less fracturing, my efficiency doubled up to around 2%. This would seem, at least in my setup, to counter the theory that pellets are generally undesirable in rough. Point in fact, they increased production by 100%!
If one got really crazy with this, we could calculate the efficiency of the various tumblers and barrel sizes. For those who built their tumblers, it is possible to measure the difference between various RPM's. It can give you a means of defining whether some change in technique actually results in improvement.
Anyhow, sorry for the long winded post, but I feel like I have learned something about tumbling, can quantify it, and that it might help others. Curious, as always, what the fine folks here have to say.
About 4 months ago, I started tracking the weight of rocks that I "harvest" from the rough stage every 5 or 6 days. I felt it would give me better insight over "~1/8lb" and "x number of rocks" method I used before - and it has. I'm curious if anyone is doing the same and calculating their efficiency in the rough stage?
Following this equation, we can determine the relative efficiency of the rough stage:
[total harvest in oz] / [total rough capacity in oz] * 100 = Output efficiency
With a 24lb rough capacity, I fairly consistently harvest about 8 oz every recharge. Following the equation above, this amounts to about 2.08% efficiency.
Obviously, this calculation will only work if you tend to keep a full load in rough with every recharge and only applies when you have a relatively good balance of rocks with varying levels of "doneness" in the same load. It could obviously also be greatly affected by the personal preference of the tumbler and their standards for when a rock is "done" with rough. One who has less strict standards would clearly have greater efficiency than that of a person who is much more picky. It is also very dependent on the types of rocks tumbled. So it IS an arbitrary number...but for me, it's helped with personal insight into different techniques in rough.
Here's why I bring it up and where it might get interesting for you! I did an efficiency test over four months of trying rough loads both with pellets and without pellets. It's supposedly common knowledge that pellets tend to "slow" the rough stage down due to their ability to cushion and create a less aggressive tumble, therefore theoretically making the rough stage less efficient. I, however, have found that without pellets, I tend to get more fracturing - particularly in micro-crystalline rocks - which adds time to the tumble.
By tracking these two methods over four months for decent averages, I figured out the efficiencies of the two methods. Without pellets and a fair amount of regular fractures, I found that I had about a 1% efficiency. By adding pellets and experiencing less fracturing, my efficiency doubled up to around 2%. This would seem, at least in my setup, to counter the theory that pellets are generally undesirable in rough. Point in fact, they increased production by 100%!
If one got really crazy with this, we could calculate the efficiency of the various tumblers and barrel sizes. For those who built their tumblers, it is possible to measure the difference between various RPM's. It can give you a means of defining whether some change in technique actually results in improvement.
Anyhow, sorry for the long winded post, but I feel like I have learned something about tumbling, can quantify it, and that it might help others. Curious, as always, what the fine folks here have to say.
