Made fresh. Given time to cure. Shipped free within 3 business days
Pumice Stone for Drill: Rebuilt to Hold More Water — Here’s the Test
A side-by-side test of an earlier TurboStone SL3 formulation and a conventional grill block measured dry mass and water retention. Updated October 4, 2026.
Sam Miller — Founder & Inventor, TurboStone.
8/31/20263 min read
Rebuilt Pumice, Measured Side by Side
TurboStone was developed to put the abrasive action of pumice behind the rotation of a cordless drill. Reconstructing selected pumice particles gives me control over the working body’s structure, shape, and behavior.
During development, I compared a conventional pumice grill block with a reconstructed TurboStone SL3 block of approximately the same external size. Using a scale and a timed soak-and-drip procedure, I measured their dry weights and how much water each retained.
The SL3 sample had approximately 3.9 times the dry mass and retained 17 times as much water in this comparison.
This article documents that earlier SL3 formulation. The current TurboStone lineup has since moved to one evolved, durable formulation with substantially stronger shape retention. The original measurements and photographs remain here as a record of the material tested.
First: Approximately the Same External Size
I compared the blocks side by side and used the same mold cavity to check their relative size. They occupied roughly the same external space, although their dimensions were not precisely identical.
That makes the difference in dry weight particularly interesting: two similarly sized blocks contained very different amounts of material.
Approximately 3.9 Times the Dry Mass
The conventional grill block weighed 2.619 oz dry.
The reconstructed TurboStone SL3 block weighed 10.237 oz dry.
Dividing those measurements gives approximately 3.9 times the dry mass in roughly the same external volume.
The comparison illustrates a substantial difference in material construction. The SL3 sample packed considerably more total material into a similarly sized working body while retaining a porous structure.
For TurboStone, developing that structure was part of building an abrasive body for powered wet cleaning.
Then I Tested Water Retention
Next, I measured how much water each block retained after the same brief exposure.
The procedure: five seconds submerged, followed by five seconds of gravity dripping. No blotting.
Each block was weighed dry, submerged, allowed to drip freely, and immediately weighed again.
Conventional Pumice Grill Block
Dry weight: 2.619 oz
Wet weight: 2.850 oz
Water retained: 0.231 oz
TurboStone SL3 Comparison Block
Dry weight: 10.237 oz
Wet weight: 14.161 oz
Water retained: 3.924 oz
The weight gain records the water retained after that procedure, including water inside the body and any remaining on its surface.
Why Water Retention Matters
TurboStone is designed for wet cleaning. Its reconstructed body provides spaces between pumice particles where water can enter and collect.
This test showed a substantial difference in retained water between the two samples after a brief soak. It measured water retention rather than cleaning speed, service life, or scratch resistance.
During use, water at the contact area helps carry loosened pumice and cleaning debris away. Fully wet the stone before starting and replenish water while cleaning to keep the working area wet.
Why Rebuild Pumice at All?
Putting pumice on a drill raised several connected challenges: the abrasive body needed to hold together, carry water, maintain a useful working shape, and connect securely to the drive system.
Reconstructing selected pumice particles allowed me to develop the material around those demands. The finished cleaning attachment combines that abrasive body with internal reinforcement and a removable matched adapter.
The dry-weight and water-retention comparisons documented two measurable differences during that development. Cleaning demonstrations and durability trials addressed how the tool performed in use.
How TurboStone Has Evolved Since This Test
SL3 was one of five earlier formulations in the StoneLife system. Further development led to the current durable formulation, designed for substantially stronger shape retention during powered cleaning.
Today’s TurboStone lineup uses that evolved formulation. Customers no longer need to select a StoneLife level.
In my extended, heavy-pressure demonstrations, the current formulation continued cleaning with much of its working body remaining. That durability improvement is the central development since the material comparison documented here.
The photographs, measurements, and video on this page show the earlier SL3 test. They provide a clear record of that experiment alongside the ongoing development of TurboStone.
Pumice, rebuilt for the job.
Explore the current TurboStone lineup and cleaning demonstrations.
