Text version of the page

Diamond is the Most Cost-Effective Solution

In terms of total cost-effectiveness, diamond easily outperforms conventional abrasives, such as aluminum oxide and silicon carbide. Here’s why:

Conventional Abrasive Costs Spillage and Mixing Costs

While diamond costs more, gram per gram, you must buy substantially larger volumes of conventional abrasives to achieve the same results produced by a single unit of diamond… Conventional abrasives have to be mixed on-site with the vehicle/carrier to make a lapping slurry. These messy operations often lead to extra costs in spillage and waste, as well as hidden costs created by improper mixing ratios.

Conventional Vehicle/Carrier for Abrasive Costs Cleaning Costs

…And when you’re paying for more conventional abrasives, you’re also paying for larger volumes of vehicle/carrier fl uids, as well. Unlike diamond, conventional abrasives require an extra cleaning step. In some applications, both mechanical and an ultrasonic cleaning process are required, driving costs up and productivity down.

Shipping, Handling & Storage Costs Disposal Costs

Conventional abrasives are heavy and typically stored in drums. You’re paying more for shipping, on-site handling and a larger storage footprint. A major cost factor in using conventional abrasives is the disposal of the large volumes of spent slurry/swarf, as well as disposal of empty abrasive & vehicle containers. Diamond slurries generate less waste by volume and are more environmentally friendly.

Stock Removal and Surface Finish Generation Diamond vs. Conventional Abrasives

5