Archive for October, 2008
Columbac II Use in Engine Blocks
Posted by Eugene from Newark, CA, US on October 23, 2008
I want to fill up an engine block with the Columbac II and want to know if I would be able to drill and tap this material for head-bolt studs and if it would be strong enough to hold. Also will it hold up to the heat produced by th engine.
The use of crusher backing material in your engine block filling application is an excellent use of this product. The minimal shrinkage incurred with this material under the cyclic heated and creepage prone atmosphere a cast engine block endures, makes the use of this kind of hi-density epoxy, as good a choice as it gets. Personal experience with this material in that application is fairly extensive. Having raced supercharged gas, nitro & alcohol dragsters for 30 years, filling blocks was part of the drill. I’ve used this type of epoxy material as far back as in the late 60’s, in cast iron 392 C.I. fuel Chrysler A-1 blocks, to support cylinder walls. Prior to the advent of billet aluminum cylinder heads, for K-B type Hemi’s, crusher backing material was used to fill cast iron Mopar type heads and the first cast aluminum heads like stage V’s. The late Hemi type heads had a propensity towards cracking between the seats and from the seats through the exhaust ports. The fix was to weld the cracks and fill the heads with crusher epoxy, in order to support the combustion chamber. That’s where the propensity for minimal shrinkage of the material became very apparent. The back, or water side of the cast head combustion chambers gets a lot of heat and the crusher backing material responds to that with excellent properties.
A later use of the product came about in stopping the potential water leakage in preparing 400” small block Chev’s to accept 4.000” stroker cranks. The bottom of the block was filled with the backing material to the low soft plug hole and water drain holes cross drilled to use the stock drain plug holes in their intended manner, as well as a ¼” N.P.T. source for external water plumbing. The crusher backing material works well in that atmosphere of heat and prevention of water leaks through grinding through the block for stroker clearance. As far as this material providing enough strength to drill and tap for head stud installation, I’d say, no on its own. However if you needed to drill thru the deck for stud clearance while still relying on the deck for primary thread strength, you could drill and tap this material. Easier way to accomplish your need for through deck stud clearance, would be to install the stud with heavily greased threads, intended as a release agent, through the deck. Pour the backing material, letting it catalyze, then remove the stud and you’ll have your necessary clearance to properly install your head studs.
Your need is an excellent application for this material. Your easiest source of obtaining our product or something similar would be from Compass Equipment, in Oroville, CA. Tele 530-533-7284.
Stationary Jaw Wears Faster than Movable Jaw
Posted by Doug from Atlanta, GA, US on October 2, 2008
Why does the stationary jaw wear out faster than the movable jaw?
The stationary jaw gets more of a rubbing and gouging action against it than does the moving jaw. This is due to the moving jaw's tendency to push the crushed material against the immobile frame side of the crusher. This same rock will roll somewhat against the moving jaw, resulting in lesser rubbing or gouging action.
Typical wear ratios between the stationary side and the moving side are 2:1 stationary wear. This higher wear rate on the fixed side is true with cone crushers as well, though there we've found that the ratio of bowl liner to mantle wear normally runs between 1.2 and 1.5:1.
In both types of rock crushers you'll see design exaggerations to the fixed side in an effort to even out those ratios. That's so that service related maintenance can be carried out at the same time to both sides of the crusher.




