Discussion of Papers Published Prior to 1951 - A New Theory of Comminution (1950) 187, p 871

H. J. Kamack (E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc., Wilmington, Del.)—Rittinger's law usually is stated to the following effect: "The work (or energy) consumed in particle size reduction is proportional to the new surface area produced." The law has been stated substantially in this way by Taggart20 Berry21 Dalla Valle22 Coghill and DeVaney,23 Richards and Locke," Gross,25 and many others, and, according to Gaudin,26 was originally expressed by Rittinger in the same form. Consequently there can be little doubt that this is the understanding of the law among most workers in the field of particle size reduction. Bond and Wang, however, express the law in the form "the useful work accomplished . . . ." (italics theirs). The distinction is critical, for in the form used by Bond and Wang the law becomes, as they themselves remark "merely a more or less arbitrary definition of useful work," while in its usual sense the law expresses a physical hypothesis which has been verified experimentally within certain limitations. Considering the way the law has been used, it might be stated more explicitly as follows: "In a given machine operating under a given set of constant operating conditions, the work consumed in the particle size reduction of a given material is proportional to the new surface area produced." Or, as Coghill and deVaney have said,27 "the (Rittinger) law holds only when the tests being compared are made under analogous conditions." There are occasions when the law transcends these limitations; for example, the surface area produced per unit energy consumption for a given material in a ball mill does not vary much over a fairly wide range of operating conditions. But by and large, the surface area production per unit energy consumption will vary with the operating conditions, the type of machine, and the material. The essence of Rittinger's law is that the surface area production per unit energy consumption is independent of the particle size, and this has been verified experimentally by numerous workers for numerous materials, within certain limits. An important limitation is that when one grinds to very small particle sizes, agglomerative forces may tend to interfere with size reduction so that the surface area increases less rapidly than Rittinger's law would predict. Within such limitations, Rittinger's law can be regarded as empirically established. The law has, however, certain theoretical implications, and it seems to be chiefly against these that Bond and Wang direct their criticism. Solids are believed to possess surface energy which is proportional to surface area. Thus, Rittinger's law implies a proportionality between surface energy produced and mechanical energy expended (for a particular material in a particular machine). It does not imply that all or most of the mechanical energy is transformed into surface energy; in fact it is known that most of the mechanical energy is transformed into heat. Bond and Wang assert that most of this heat arises from the damping of elastic vibrations of stressed particles. This may possibly be true for crushing (with which they are chiefly concerned), although in grinding it is probable that much of the heat arises from friction between particles. However, the fact that the surface energy is small compared to the heat energy does not invalidate Rittinger's law, which implies merely that they are proportional. The authors also criticize Rittinger's law on the grounds that "this theory cannot be justified mathematically, since work is the product of force times distance, and the distance factor is ignored," and "energy input must be the product of force times distance, and the Rittinger theory completely ignores large variations in the distance (strain dimension or deformation) throughout which a force must act to produce breakage of different materials." However, the quantities force and distance as such are irrelevant to Rittinger's law, which considers energy input as an integral quantity. The fact that different materials require different forces and strains (hence, different amounts of energy) to break them is incontrovertible but again is irrelevant to Rittinger's law, which, as mentioned before, applies -only to a single material. Even in theory, it would not be expected that the surface area produced per unit energy consumption would be the same for different materials, because the surface energy per unit area is presumably specific to each material. Bond and Wang advance another argument of a