Tests On The Hardinge Conical Mill? Discussion

JOHN W. BELL, *Montreal, Quebec, Canada (communication to the Secretary?). The test results in Mr. Taggart's paper will, I am sure, be recognized as a notable contribution, and of great assistance in the study of the performance of the Hardinge mill. I regret, however, being obliged to note that Mr. Taggart still retains. such confidence in the Kick-Stadler method of computing the ?relative mechanical efficiency" of crushing machines. The Rittinger-Kick graph submitted by Mr. Gates and the tests made at McGill University disclosed precisely the same fundamental defect in the Kick-Stadler theory. Consequently, I have been obliged to recalculate in terms of Rittinger surface units the results obtained in the 28 rock-crushing tests cited by Mr. Taggart, in order to find- out what the relative efficiencies really were. In order to show the large discrepancies between the Stadler and Rittinger R. M. R's, the most, efficient result disclosed by each method is represented by the number 100, and the R.. M. E.'s for the other tests have been recalculated on this basis. The results will be found in Table 1. Personally, I look forward to the time when we shall cease to talk about "relative mechanical efficiency" and merely refer to the "efficiency" of a crusher. All that is required to accomplish this is to agree on a standard method for determining the "crushing constant" of a given rock and a standard method for calculating the efficiency. The figures in the fourth column of Table 1 have been derived by assuming a constant of 2,000 for the quartzite crushed in the Yale tests. The Stadler method sometimes indicates changes in efficiency produced by, changes in operating conditions, as I pointed out in a paper describing rock-crushing tests made at McGill University. It is, however, not enough to determine that certain changes increase or decrease efficiency; surely it is equally important to determine the magnitude of these variations. By examination of Mr. Taggart's results, I have been obliged to conclude that the size of feed and amount of reduction greatly influence the Stadler R. M. E. figures, that they are positively misleading. It should be mentioned that since the majority of the tests have been made at the least efficient feed rates, and since, moreover, it is one of the evidently very important factors affecting efficiency, it is possible that different results might be obtained by a high-tonnage feed series, and that