Barrel Dimension Considerations
Jan 9, 2020 21:50:28 GMT -5
MommaGem, RocksInNJ, and 1 more like this
Post by Benathema on Jan 9, 2020 21:50:28 GMT -5
I've had some experience with all the barrels on this list, starting with the 3 pound barrel. When I was pushing the limits of material size, it seemed like the 3 pound barrel did okay-ish. I could fit something a little smaller than a tennis ball in there and it would handle it without anything getting stuck. As my desire to do bigger material grew, I ultimately added the QT66 to my arsenal. While the barrels do have a larger diameter, the depth was a constricting factor. The quartz in my Avatar was done in the 6 pound barrel, but I had to rotate it 90 degrees each week because it couldn't rotate freely between the barrel lid and bottom. Since then I placed a different piece in the 6 pound barrel that actually got stuck between the barrel bottom and lid and wore a groove into the gasket (eep!). That drove me to pick up the 12 pound barrel, and now everything seems right with the world.
Essentially what I'm getting at here is that some barrels have a better height/width ratio than others that may make them more suitable for different material sizes.
For larger material, you want it to be able to rotate about the x-y-z axes freely. This means having the available space equivalent to a sphere inside the barrel that has a diameter the max dimension of the object you want to tumble. If not, it can get stuck, causing damage to the barrel and not tumbling worth a dang. A long winded way of saying it has to fit... nicely fit.
So in quantifying that, I grabbed the barrel dimensions from Lortone, divided them out and came up with some ratios. (they're outside dimensions, inside dimensions get tricker) Turns out, the experience with the 3 and 12 pounders corresponds to a depth/width ratio near 1. Makes sense, yea? It's about as deep as it is wide, so if I can fit something by width it should fit by depth as well, free to rotate. The 6 pounder is near 0.5, so half as deep as wide, meaning I should limit what I put in there by depth, not width.
I feel like this is all obvious, but at the same time.... a lesson learned the hard way. Yes, material can get stuck in the tumbler, even with rocks beating on it, even if there are one or two dimensions for it to not get stuck... all 3 dimensions have to be accounted for.
Essentially what I'm getting at here is that some barrels have a better height/width ratio than others that may make them more suitable for different material sizes.
Barrel | Depth (in) | Width (in) | Depth/Width |
1.5B | 3.375 | 4.500 | 0.750 |
3A | 4.750 | 4.500 | 1.056 |
45C | 3.500 | 5.750 | 0.609 |
QT6 | 3.625 | 6.750 | 0.537 |
QT12 | 7.500 | 6.750 | 1.111 |
For larger material, you want it to be able to rotate about the x-y-z axes freely. This means having the available space equivalent to a sphere inside the barrel that has a diameter the max dimension of the object you want to tumble. If not, it can get stuck, causing damage to the barrel and not tumbling worth a dang. A long winded way of saying it has to fit... nicely fit.
So in quantifying that, I grabbed the barrel dimensions from Lortone, divided them out and came up with some ratios. (they're outside dimensions, inside dimensions get tricker) Turns out, the experience with the 3 and 12 pounders corresponds to a depth/width ratio near 1. Makes sense, yea? It's about as deep as it is wide, so if I can fit something by width it should fit by depth as well, free to rotate. The 6 pounder is near 0.5, so half as deep as wide, meaning I should limit what I put in there by depth, not width.
I feel like this is all obvious, but at the same time.... a lesson learned the hard way. Yes, material can get stuck in the tumbler, even with rocks beating on it, even if there are one or two dimensions for it to not get stuck... all 3 dimensions have to be accounted for.