Discussion of Papers Published Prior to 1951 - Progress Report on Grinding at Tennessee Copper Co. (1950) 187, p. 1133

DISCUSSION L. E. Djingheuzian (Canadian Dept. of Mines and Technical Surveys, Ottawa)—In their Summary the authors say: "Reconciling the grinding efficiency with good metallurgy is still a problem." In the discussion of the first paper8 in his reply to W. I. Garms, Mr. Myers states: "Our grinding process with smooth I-in. balls has reduced by nearly one half the metallic losses in the fine micron sizes of the tailing. This is simply because less of the fine micron sizes are produced. Since the + 65 mesh size is the same as formerly, a higher percentage of the intermediate sizes are developed. These sizes have the highest floatability, require the least reagents, and use less floating time. "These factors contribute so heavily to the overall economies that dropping our power grinding gain from 28 pct back to 19 pct is a small detail. However, we feel that this is only a momentary situation and that eventually the best features of the grinding and flotation processes can be brought together, which is as it should be." Italics are mine. The above statements, to me, appear to be the answer to the opening statement in the Summary. Denoting the costs at different power grinding gains as: Power Grinding Power Grinding Gain, 28 Pct Gala, 19 Pct Cost of grinding G G1 Cost of flotation F F1 Value of metallic losses T T1 where G1 > G2 F3 < F, and T1 < T, we have: G1+Fl+T1<G +F+T. Since the authors accept the idea that "grinding in flotation plants becomes part of the &apos;conditioning&apos; of the feed to flotation",4 i.e., that in flotation the ball mill is primarily a conditioning machine, it can be postulated that Tennessee Copper grinding at cost G1 is more efficient than grinding at lower cost G. This can be directly inferred from the Conclusion of the paper. Mr. Myers also emphasizes this at the end of his reply to Mr. Garms: "that grinding is for the purpose of preparing flotation feed and not grinding per se." This, to me, in the final analysis means that when the efficiency of grinding is weighted against the conditioning factor, the former becomes a function of efficient conditioning, hence, within the system in which proper conditioning is the dominant factor, the best grinding efficiency is provided by grinding which will contribute towards the optimum conditioning. This brings us again to the statement: "that if every grinding unit were considered as a conditioner for each following step, efficient grinding plants would become much easier to design."&apos; In other words, grinding equipment should be balanced against the flotation equipment and against chemical reactions taking place in the system. F. C. Bond (Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co., Milwaukee)— The authors&apos; discussion of the probable ball motion in a slow speed high dilution mill is very interesting. When the 1-in. balls have worn down to about one fourth of their original weight they apparently first develop a flat surface; as wear progresses this flat face becomes concave, and other concave faces appear. It seems more probable that the first flat face may form at the softest part of the ball surface, and that each succeeding contact tends to force this flat face into sliding contact with a larger round ball; than that the flat faced ball tends to pair off with a particular round ball and to travel with it continuously. When the small worn ball has a flat face and is in sliding contact with a large round ball, the surrounding large balls will assume a more or less definite pattern, and slide against the worn ball, thus producing secondary concave faces. The primary concave face seems to be larger and better developed than the secondary faces. The ball charge can be divided into "concaves" which show at least one concave surface, "intermediates" which have developed flats or incipient concaves, and "rounds." Ball slippage is always present in a tumbling mill, and the mutual ball movement is necessarily a combination of rolling and sliding. The sliding motion is apparently concentrated upon the smaller worn balls which nest between the surrounding larger round balls. When each worn ball starts its upward path in the mill its primary flat or concave surface fits against a larger round ball, and the round ball slides upon it. The action may be something like that of the ball separator in a ball bearing, except that the worn sliding balls are always under considerable pressure. The material is ground under the combined influence of breakage 1—by impacts between falling balls and between falling and supported balls, 2—by being nipped between rolling balls, and 3—by being rubbed between the sliding balls. The rubbing action will be increased in the presence of worn balls with concave surfaces. The rubbing action probably produces a considerable portion of the finely ground slimes in the product. The worn balls commonly approach tetrahedrons in shape, and are very different from concavex, each of which has two equal opposed concave surfaces. Concavex were designed only to grind upon themselves, and not for use in combination with grinding balls. Their action in a grinding charge is very different from