Fine Crushing In Ball-Mills -Discussion

A. L. BLOMFIELD, ? Colorado Springs, Colo. (written discussion?).¬I congratulate the author on bringing out a paper of real service to the profession. His contention of uniform size in balls is borne out by my own experience; in coarse crushing at the Golden Cycle in 6 by 6-ft. (1.8 by 1.8-m.) ball-mills we unquestionably gain by screening out the small balls once or twice a month. The point of gaging the ball size to be used by the uniformity of screen sizing is of particular interest. The necessity of sufficient return feed from classifier to the ball-mill is sound and clearly shown. In connection with this, I wish two further points had been gone into as thoroughly: (1) The effect of the quality of classification. In general, it is true that the smaller the per cent. of undersize in the feed the more effective is the mill's work. This is true on a bucking board, in tube-mills, ball-mills, and grinding pans. Given the possibility of returning. a full-feed load to any mill, it has been my experience that the effective work in the grinder is almost proportional to the quality of the return feed. (2) Again speaking generally, the shorter the tube-mill the greater is the quantity of return feed necessary to keep it loaded. The classification thus keeps the oversize in the mill more free from finished product and thus the crushing more efficient. It is very easy to overload any long mill with too much return