jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,555
|
Post by jamesp on Feb 3, 2017 8:04:01 GMT -5
Will return these. They shipped the wrong grit. Will try for a refund and try to get 30 grit diamond pads. Hoping that the tumbler will wear the rubber slowly and expose the sharp diamonds. Not too fast though so they can be reused hopefully many times. Each diamond pad has 7 circles ascending by 6 blocks/circle. 48 + 42 + 36 + 30 + 24 + 18 + 12 = 210 little blocks per pad. Cut up 8 pads and have 8 X 210 = 1680 little blocks for 8 X $1.60 = $12.80. Looks to be a good distribution of grit for a rotary tumbler if each block has just 6 diamonds exposed. 8 pads = 6 diamonds X 1680 blocks = 10,000 diamonds. Keep in mind loose grit only makes contact where roundish rocks make contact. At the 'nip' point. These little blocks should increase contact area. Certainly if you ran half blocks and half rocks. Nice if velcro was not there. It may tumble off, doubt it though. These 4" 100 grit pads are white, so diamond distribution shows up well. Closer Velcro side
|
|
|
Post by orrum on Feb 3, 2017 8:49:53 GMT -5
Aww now I gotta wait on the experiment!
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,555
|
Post by jamesp on Feb 3, 2017 9:09:31 GMT -5
Aww now I gotta wait on the experiment! Delayed and waylaid Bill. May get a chance to replace with 30 grit instead of 50 grit pads though. Going for aggressive. 30 grit is the most aggressive pad I could find.
|
|
|
Post by orrum on Feb 3, 2017 10:31:49 GMT -5
Good luvk, I will be watching. My interest is also in not having to buy a bunch of grit and a easier clean out. Plus if all diamong could be figured out crystal vugs could maintain their beauty without being ground out or permanently stained. Look at the sphere people and their diamond pad spheres with vugs! Fast easy cleanup and great looking vugs!
|
|
|
Post by MrMike on Feb 3, 2017 17:17:09 GMT -5
Aww now I gotta wait on the experiment! Dangggg
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,555
|
Post by jamesp on Feb 4, 2017 9:22:04 GMT -5
52 of these pads cost $83 and will fill a lady's shoe box(~6 pound barrel). To give an idea of volume.
That would be before cutting them up into small pieces. If cut into individual blocks they would have added void volume
Question is, should they be cut into the smallest individual blocks ?
Each block is 3/16" X 3/16" X 1/8".
Or should they be cut into pieces with 4 blocks each or 8 blocks each or bigger ? Pads left whole ? If the pads are left whole they would wedge in the rocks constantly and cause heavier forces as the rocks rolled/slid against them as the should continually jam temporarily. Maybe two pads should be glued back to back together to make a 2 sided cutting face. Removing the velcro backing is vanity. Very difficult to remove. Sacrifices ability to stay whole too, backing is their strength.
Should they be run 1/4 pads and 3/4 rocks ? That is about the maximum ratio I use when coarse tumbling with (time release) broken up grinding wheels.
If the ratio of pads to rocks is increased to say 1/2 rocks and 1/2 pads-Will the pads cut away the rubber too fast and expose more diamonds and/or release more diamonds ?
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,555
|
Post by jamesp on Feb 4, 2017 10:03:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by melhill1659 on Feb 4, 2017 10:24:50 GMT -5
Wow great idea!
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,555
|
Post by jamesp on Feb 4, 2017 10:58:59 GMT -5
Will see Mel. Only in conception, no real world runs at this point. Academic so to speak, so useless till proven. The bottleneck in tumbling is the coarse grind step, takes forever. And takes a lot of silicon carbide grit. Synthetic diamond to replace silicon carbide is about the only alternative left.
|
|
|
Post by HankRocks on Feb 4, 2017 11:30:59 GMT -5
I would think you would want more rocks than pads, 70/30 or even 80/20. If you go higher than that you would have more pad to pad impacts. Which might diminish their life quicker. I suppose that might not be too much of an issue if you are grinding at an accelerated rate.
What about buoyancy of the pads versus rocks?, they will be lighter and stay on top. Is that what you want? And if you have a 50/50 blend, the top half of your load will tend be all pad, I think?
A lot of moving parts in this experiment!!
|
|
|
Post by HankRocks on Feb 4, 2017 11:33:59 GMT -5
Looking at the pictures, maybe they are not all that less buoyant than the rocks as you are grinding most of the backing away.
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,555
|
Post by jamesp on Feb 4, 2017 12:08:51 GMT -5
Looking at the pictures, maybe they are not all that less buoyant than the rocks as you are grinding most of the backing away. Rubber is heavier than water Henry. Rubber laced with diamonds yet heavier. They sink like a rock in a glass of water. Should circulate easily in the tumbler. The ratios you mentioned seem appropriate. Impact needs to be considered. Rubber is resilient to abrasion though.
|
|
|
Post by HankRocks on Feb 4, 2017 13:01:15 GMT -5
It may be heavier than water, but not heavier than the rocks, correct? .If so I suspect they will tend to be in the top half the load.
It would be nice if you had a plexi-glass lid, or a whole barrel for that matter to use for test cases so you could observe movement. That way you would know before switching to the regular barrel.
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,555
|
Post by jamesp on Feb 4, 2017 14:13:21 GMT -5
It may be heavier than water, but not heavier than the rocks, correct? .If so I suspect they will tend to be in the top half the load. It would be nice if you had a plexi-glass lid, or a whole barrel for that matter to use for test cases so you could observe movement. That way you would know before switching to the regular barrel. If you start with clean water slurry and have mud the next day success is achieved. If there is clean water the next day a defeat has occurred. Hoping for a thick mud slurry in hours. Optimum scenario and wishful thinking. Run pads full size or cut up ?
|
|
vera
spending too much on rocks
Member since December 2016
Posts: 259
|
Post by vera on Feb 4, 2017 14:41:17 GMT -5
I think the pads would be more effective if they were cut up, because they would tumble more freely.
|
|
|
Post by orrum on Feb 4, 2017 15:41:10 GMT -5
Hey Jim I like the double sided diamond!!!
|
|
|
Post by HankRocks on Feb 4, 2017 17:13:27 GMT -5
I would agree it seems that cut up is the way to go, not sure how small. It will probably vary in a range of 3 to 8 of the individual sections depending on the area being cut up. Don't see any reason to be consistent in the size.
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,555
|
Post by jamesp on Feb 4, 2017 19:00:54 GMT -5
I would agree it seems that cut up is the way to go, not sure how small. It will probably vary in a range of 3 to 8 of the individual sections depending on the area being cut up. Don't see any reason to be consistent in the size. I think the pads would be more effective if they were cut up, because they would tumble more freely. I will have plenty enough to run them cut up or whole. Thanks for the input.
|
|