Minerals Beneficiation - Energy Transfer By Impact - Discussion

Referring to the article by R. J. Charles and P. L. de Bruyn, let us assume that W = weight of glass bar; P = weight of hammer; e = total deformation; K = unit of deformation; K = potential stress energy; E = modulus of elasticity; L = length of the bar; 7 = coefficient of inertia; h = height, ft; V = velocity, fps; and a = cross section area. The portion of kinetic energy which is effective in producing stress energy in a fixed bar struck horizontally is given by the formula" 1 + 1/3 W/P K =1+1/3w/p/(1+1/2w/p)2 P.V2/2g = Ph where 1 + 1/3 W/P ? (1 + 3W/P/(1=1/2w/p)2 [8] Putting e e = W/P =------------ From the above equation it can be seen that the maximum transfer of kinetic energy to stress energy is when e = 0 or W/P = 0 which indicates that the weight of the hammer must be very large as compared with the weight of the impacted rod. Eq. 8 diametrically opposes the conclusions reached by the authors of this article. In fact, if their suggestions were followed to the extreme when e = co when P = 0, there would be no transfer of kinetic energy to stress energy at all, as 7, becomes zero. Eq. 8 presumes that the velocity with which the stress is propagated through the bar is infinite, whereas the authors claim that the compression waves reflected are reaching the struck end of the bar prior to the complete transfer of the kinetic energy to cause such modification of the conditions there as to make them reach the reverse conclusions demonstrated by the above formula. That such interference exists is unquestionably demonstrated by the authors and others. However, if my observations are correct, such interference for this specific experiment and also for practical comminu- tion is insignificant, and the conclusions of the authors are in error and must be reversed to comply with Eq. 8. Eq. 5, w. = AE 2/2, given by the authors on page 51, is derived from the following equation (Eq. 9): K = 1/2Pe, where P = Sa, S = ?E, e = EL, and L = 1. The above formula, Eq. 9, cannot be applied in this case. This formula is applicable for static loads where the load increases from zero up to its final value, P, in such a way that the deformation at different instants is proportional to the loads acting at those instants and actually represents the area of a right triangle in the strain load diagram of base e and height P. The typical photographs shown in Figs. 3 and 4 represent the familiar strain load diagrams, and since the line of the wave marks the existence and intensity of the strain with the unquestionable conclusion that such strain has been caused by the action of a load acting continuously all along the wave until it reached the horizontal axis, the work stored at this point is represented by the area under the wave line and the horizontal axis and not by the area of the fictitious triangle given by the authors. Then if this is correct, even visual estimation of these areas at gage stations given in the typical photographs of Figs. 3 and 4 suffice to contradict the authors' calculation given in Figs. 6a and 6b and Figs. 7a and 7b. The typical photographs presented by Charles and de Bruyn show a considerable variation of the intensity of the strain at different stations but very small variation of areas which actually represent the stress energy at the corresponding stations. And, apparently, by squaring the small quantities, the authors magnified their error tenfold. J. M. Frankland's paperV iscusses the relative strain intensity and not the total energy for different types of impact loading. He states in his paper, "The reader is explicitly warned not to confuse the results in this report with those obtained when the load is applied by a blow as from a hammer. In this case the peak load rises to very large but mostly unknown values. The accompanying large deflections and stresses are the result of high values of P, not of the dynamic load factor n. According to Frankland "the dynamic load factor" is the numerical maximum of the response factor. It therefore appears that the authors followed the same procedure in obtaining the relative strain energy ab-