DieBlast Cryogenic Deflashing & Deburring Media Won't Work For Us

The last blog post I made was about the introduction of DieBlast Cryogenic Grade Polycarbonate Media into our facility. We were able to try a sample of both the .020 and .060 media.

Our first sample was a current part that we already run for one of our present customers using the .020 media. We split the order into three batches. One was using our current Maxi-Blast media for the original cycle time of ten minutes. Out of a set of 230 parts, 26 parts were rejected. This means that 12% out of 230 parts needed to be run a second time. You would think 12% was high but then we ran the DieBlast media.

When we were offered a sample of DieBlast, we were told that it reduces cycle times, and cycle rpms, as well as liquid nitrogen intake. No matter what we would not change the temperatures of our recipes. So the only way liquid nitrogen intake would be reduced is by shorter cycle times. We ran the same rpm for the throw wheel and a seven minute cycle instead of a ten minute. Out of 230 parts, 55 parts were rejected. So 24% out of 230 parts needed more time to remove all the burrs. Then we ran our third lot which was identical to the original recipe besides the fact that it was using DieBlast media. Out of 230 parts, 44 were rejected. 19% of 230 parts needed a longer cycle time.

Needless to say, I was surprised by the results and expected DieBlast to do a lot better. It failed to meet our expectations. Therefore, we will continue to use Maxi-Blast and Polyblast media that we have always used. Their media is very similar in shape and lifetime.