Pdwight
has rocks in the head
Member since June 2003
Posts: 619
|
Post by Pdwight on Aug 9, 2003 16:40:56 GMT -5
Well no pay per view here !. I did a non scientific head to head test here and I thought I would post the results. I tumbled some Ocean Jasper, Amethyst...Citrine, and some quartz river rocks from here in North Alabama. I did 4 separate tumblers 7 days each on 60 Grit, 120 Grit, 500 Grit. Then I washed very well and ran each for 2 hours with Borax and rewashed again. Then I loaded the tumblers back and used the Tin Oxide on 1 barrel of Ocean Jasper and Citrine, the other barrels I used Cerium Oxide on the River rocks and the Amethysts. Now I have only been polishing for 24 hours but the Tin Oxide looks much brighter and more even than does the Cerium Oxide. I will post more as I approach the 5 day mark on polishing. Oh 1 more thing, in the polish stage I also added some sugar to each tumbler along with the Tin and Cerium in the appropriate barrels.
Thanks Dwight P
|
|
donwrob
has rocks in the head
Member since June 2003
Posts: 509
|
Post by donwrob on Aug 9, 2003 20:29:35 GMT -5
Thanks Dwight, that is interesting. I'll be curious to see if there is a lot of difference in the end. Maybe the cerium will catch up with the tin and they will finish head to head. Make sure you keep us posted. I was fooling with a material we have at work tonight. I don't know if it will be useful, it consists of about 50% silica oxide, 30% alum oxide, and a mess of other stuff in trace amounts. It is fairly fine with the bulk of it ranging from about 50 to 70 microns. I ran that through the smallest sieve I could find which was 200 mesh, so nothing bigger than 75 microns is in the final product. I know it is fairly abraisive, as it cuts through stainless pipe over time and leaves the surface shiny. Will it work on rocks? Don't know, but I'll find out. It is a waste material and would be easy to get a bunch of it with a little effort. Talk to you later, Don
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Aug 9, 2003 20:29:48 GMT -5
Pdwight,
What do you really think sugar does for the tumble?
My personal view (after so much tumbling) is that adding soaps and sugars - is Bull.
I can't seem to fathom any molecular sized changes which soap or sugar could cause on the surface of anything above a 2 on the scale.
Isnt soap the same as "talc" ?
Also, if either of these substances leaves a coating - then isnt that just going to wear off in time anyway?
Cheers Andy.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Aug 9, 2003 20:41:19 GMT -5
Donwrob,
Nice thinking with the micron level post - cheers for that.
On top of what you said - do you think that the effectiveness of a given polish on the micron scale is relative to the pre-polish you use?
For example, lets say I stood at 400 Silicon carbide for my last grind phase.
What would be the best particle size?
or
Lets say I stood at 600 SC for a my last grind.
Is the particle size different for the polish now than that which I might use for a 400 pre-polish stage?
Are we talking about time reduction here or quality of finish?
Do you work for a living doing rock tumbling?
Soz for asking so many questions.
Cheers and thanks for the input......... Andrew.
|
|
hurk
starting to shine!
Member since March 2003
Posts: 37
|
Post by hurk on Aug 12, 2003 11:17:25 GMT -5
I use tin oxide for most of my polish cuz for some reason cerium oxide is really expensive where i live? for the agates and harder materials in the #7-8 class I use a polish called ray bright but I am not sure what it is though?>>>>>>>as for Don using the silica mix I could be wrong here but we come across silica quite abit in my work and Im not sure if the oxide is the same ...silica sand is known to cause cancer in my neck of the woods you might want to check with OHSA or in Canada the workers compensation board in your province for means of protecting youself from the dust... Just a thought when experimenting with new materials HURK
|
|
donwrob
has rocks in the head
Member since June 2003
Posts: 509
|
Post by donwrob on Aug 12, 2003 14:16:30 GMT -5
Thanks for the cheers Andy. Hehe, no I don't tumble for a living, that would be fun huh? I just work at a power plant as an equip operator for a living. I am a new tumbler, I have fooled with rocks for a few years now, making arrowheads, but tumbling is all new to me. I was thinking about particle size the same as grit. As you move closer step by step to the final product, the finer you get. I know there are diamond polishes that have been run through a 50,000 mesh sieve and the particle size is no bigger than 0.5 micron. That is hard to imagine that kind of fineness isn't it? My thinking on the silica and alum oxide was to get it as fine as I could since I was going to try it as a final polish. That way, no larger particles would be present to scratch up the rocks or act more as a pre-polish than a final polish. I may be way off base and even at 75 microns, it may just be more like a fine grit or pre-polish stage or not even have enough hardness to work at all. I really don't know what the standard micron size would be for a final polish of cerium oxide or alum oxide? It would be nice to know. Also Andy, I was thinking about quality of the finish and not time reduction. I had a problem with the grit/polish kit I had bought. After I got through the course and med. SC grit, I switched to alum oxide pre-polish, then alum oxide final polish. I just figured the final was a smaller micron size than the pre-polish. I ran the final for almost 3 weeks and they never glossed up much more than they were when I started the final stage. I'm still not sure if I got sent a double load of pre-polish (all though the final appears to be somewhat finer than the pre) or if the alum oxide itself wasn't right for the flints and agates I was tumbling. The cerium oxide did the trick though, but I don't know for sure if it was because of it's finess compared to the alum oxide I have or because of it's hardness. WOW now I'm even more confused than I was Andy! Heheh. I hope this clears up what I was thinking a little, buddy, if you would like to retract your cheers now, it's OK ;D And Hurk, thanks for the heads-up on the silica. Yes silica dust is bad for you, no doubt. It causes silicosis or scarring of the lungs that may turn into a lung cancer. The sharp little microscopic shards of silica are the culprit. I'm not sure about silica oxide, but the place I work is fairly safety aware. We are urged to use a dust mask when working around the ash (silica oxide), but I suspect if it were as bad as the silica dust we would use a respirator instead of a dust mask as we do when working around aspestos and other hazards. Who knows though, so many things are bad for ya, and it is usually the fun stuff! Take care guys, later, Don
|
|