|
Post by Bob on Sept 20, 2020 22:18:37 GMT -5
Aggravating to work with due to never ending pits! Small L one is odd and different--like granite with obvious crystalline structure. Middle R one is almost perfectly polished, glossy with almost no pits. It's the only one like that I've seen. Bought this rough. I'm fond of this material's appearance. 3-6 months work.
|
|
|
Post by Toad on Sept 21, 2020 4:38:01 GMT -5
Nice job, very difficult stone to get a consistent polish on
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Sept 22, 2020 22:49:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by TheRock on Sept 30, 2020 9:01:43 GMT -5
Never had the opportunity to tumble that stuff. looks like a great batch.
|
|
|
Post by joshuamcduffie on Oct 1, 2020 8:35:19 GMT -5
We received some Dalmatian stone in the kit that came with our first rotary tumbler. It didn't get very shiny, but that whole batch was kind of hazy, we hadn't figured out that we needed a real polish yet. I might throw ours back into the vibe next time I have a polish going.
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Oct 1, 2020 12:02:19 GMT -5
You can see in that first photo there is a pit on the edge of the rock, that really bugs me and I had missed it until the photo. With this material, it seems there are always surface pits. So my goal is to end up with finished ones that at least don't have pits on the edges because pits there show so much and also get worse as rocks bang together a bit over time in a bowl or whatever. So this is how I've come up with doing it. I do rough grind until I like the rock, and if there is a shallow pit on the edge that's okay. But then I do 220 just as long as it takes to eventually by a bit of random chance, end up with no pits on the edges. Then I let it finish to polish as 600, 1,000 seldom open any new pits. By the way, doing 1,000 just before polish did help this material as well as Opticon just before polish.
I'll be putting that one that bugs me back into 220 soon. Also, I've experimented with superglue of many different types, thin and thick, and epoxy too pushed in pits with a toothpick, and I mostly have stopped doing that a couple of years ago. Most of the time, it just doesn't work that well and isn't worth the bother. But sometimes I still do it to save a rock I'm attached to.
Research I did on this material shows these names: Dalmatian Stone; Dalmatian Jasper; Dalmatiner Jasper. It is not jasper. It has such a lousy and porous surface on many stones it reminds me of a form of rhyolite. I don't like rhyolite type material as it seldom shines up well. But this material is so striking that I like it a lot. I've got a big chunk that is about 5x4x3" that I hope to start soon.
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Oct 7, 2020 11:15:20 GMT -5
Here's my attempt to classify this material.
Type: Igneous Rock
Found in Mexico. Mohs 6.5-7.0.
|
|
pizzano
Cave Dweller
Member since February 2018
Posts: 1,390
|
Post by pizzano on Oct 7, 2020 12:14:38 GMT -5
Oh......there's plenty of info on this material if one takes the time to break down it's composition.....: Perthite - Feldspars Amphilboe Arfvedesonite - mineral deposits. It will take to a very nice, better than satin shine/finish if processed like many feldspar of 6 to 7 Mohs.....in a Vibe of course. Here's a link that could help.....for future ID questions. geology.com/
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Oct 7, 2020 14:02:44 GMT -5
Thanks pizzano. I did a search on the site you mentioned and I've revised my classification post to show that it's an igneous rock. I have bought some of this from several different places in last few years, including some pieces that weigh as much as 20lbs. This stuff is hard to break up with a hammer and chisel.
|
|
|
Post by stephan on Oct 7, 2020 16:04:45 GMT -5
You can see in that first photo there is a pit on the edge of the rock, that really bugs me and I had missed it until the photo. With this material, it seems there are always surface pits. So my goal is to end up with finished ones that at least don't have pits on the edges because pits there show so much and also get worse as rocks bang together a bit over time in a bowl or whatever. So this is how I've come up with doing it. I do rough grind until I like the rock, and if there is a shallow pit on the edge that's okay. But then I do 220 just as long as it takes to eventually by a bit of random chance, end up with no pits on the edges. Then I let it finish to polish as 600, 1,000 seldom open any new pits. By the way, doing 1,000 just before polish did help this material as well as Opticon just before polish. I'll be putting that one that bugs me back into 220 soon. Also, I've experimented with superglue of many different types, thin and thick, and epoxy too pushed in pits with a toothpick, and I mostly have stopped doing that a couple of years ago. Most of the time, it just doesn't work that well and isn't worth the bother. But sometimes I still do it to save a rock I'm attached to. Research I did on this material shows these names: Dalmatian Stone; Dalmatian Jasper; Dalmatiner Jasper. It is not jasper. It has such a lousy and porous surface on many stones it reminds me of a form of rhyolite. I don't like rhyolite type material as it seldom shines up well. But this material is so striking that I like it a lot. I've got a big chunk that is about 5x4x3" that I hope to start soon. Almost seems closer to granite than jasper -- largish, discrete quartz crystals and feldspar. I can see where it would be challenging to get a good surface. Anytime two stones knock together seems like a chance to knock out a crystal and create a pit. One of those "as good as it gets" stones with frustratingly high potential and rarely perfect results. You did good. As for stabilizing, I've given up on that with cabbing. Better to try to find the fractures and work around them and punky areas. I do have a few slabs of dino bone left that I stabilized years ago that I'll work on at some point, but not going to put the effort into stabilizing more. Cyanoacrylate doesn't get up to Mohs 7, so it usually ends up undercutting. Or it doesn't penetrate deep enough to hold up to the wheels. Or it creates a relatively dull spot. I haven't tried some of the other materials, but in my experience, the various cyanoacrylate compounds aren't generally up to the job. PaleoBond, though, generally does better than superglue, at least.
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Oct 7, 2020 16:12:02 GMT -5
Never heard of Paleobond. Will have to look into it. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by stephan on Oct 7, 2020 18:19:16 GMT -5
Never heard of Paleobond. Will have to look into it. Thanks! Initially created to stabilize dinosaur skeletons for display. It comes in a variety of viscosities. Thin for penetrating, thing for repairing. It looks like their product range is expanding. No idea how well it works for tumbling. I do know cyanoacrylate slowly softens in water, so with the long exposure for tumbling... I just don't know. paleobond.com/
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Oct 8, 2020 12:14:01 GMT -5
I just read about Paleobond. Am I correct you have never used it in tumbling? If not I guess I will contact the company and ask them how hard it is when cured.
Reading about it reminded me of a product I used in the late 1970s when I prepared skulls in a vertebrate museum. If the skull was fragile, or was going to be handled by a lot of people, after degreasing and bleaching we soaked it in this fluid that looked like thinned Elmers wood glue. Then we took it out and it dried. I really liked it because it was hard to see and so didn't change the appearance or feel of the skulls much. Lacquer for instance is shiny. But this also penetrated and strengthened. I know a guy who uses diluted Elmer's wood glue for this purpose, however, it would deteriorate with hard washing. Whereas that special product I used, once dried, was waterproof. So I could lend a skull to a gradeschool class, the kids could get it all dirty, then I could scrub it immersed in soap and water and get it like new. It did have a very slight yellowish tinge to it.
There is a chance that if this paleobond goes back in time that far, that it could be the same or a related product today. I'm going to guess that it's not hard enough to handle SC tumbling. It's certainly not cheap.
|
|
|
Post by stephan on Oct 8, 2020 18:55:15 GMT -5
I just read about Paleobond. Am I correct you have never used it in tumbling? If not I guess I will contact the company and ask them how hard it is when cured. Reading about it reminded me of a product I used in the late 1970s when I prepared skulls in a vertebrate museum. If the skull was fragile, or was going to be handled by a lot of people, after degreasing and bleaching we soaked it in this fluid that looked like thinned Elmers wood glue. Then we took it out and it dried. I really liked it because it was hard to see and so didn't change the appearance or feel of the skulls much. Lacquer for instance is shiny. But this also penetrated and strengthened. I know a guy who uses diluted Elmer's wood glue for this purpose, however, it would deteriorate with hard washing. Whereas that special product I used, once dried, was waterproof. So I could lend a skull to a gradeschool class, the kids could get it all dirty, then I could scrub it immersed in soap and water and get it like new. It did have a very slight yellowish tinge to it. There is a chance that if this paleobond goes back in time that far, that it could be the same or a related product today. I'm going to guess that it's not hard enough to handle SC tumbling. It's certainly not cheap. You are correct. I don't have a tumbler, I was just making some semi-educated guesses, based on on my cabbing experience. This material does not appear to yellow. It does have a slight shine to it, and some surface residue, but that polishes off well enough with even relatively fine grit. You're right it isn't cheap. My best guess for its use would be (if you have any cabbing equipment at all) to fill a pit on a finished, but damaged stone, and then to do a touch-up polish.
|
|