Papers - Crushing - The Law of Crushing (Mining Technology, Jan. 1942) (with discussion)

In the introduction to an excellent pamphlet, John Gross' makes the following statements: Although marked progress has been made along mechanical lines, the theory and conception of underlying principles have not advanced so rapidly. This lack of advance in theory may be attributed to the unfortunate situation resulting from the controversy as to whether the Rittinger or Kick law is applicable to crushing. Many pages of the technical literature are burdened with theoretical discussions in favor of one or the other of these laws, which have tended to cloud rather than to clear the atmosphere. Realizing the situation, the Milling Committee of the American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers, through its secretary, E. A. Hersam, studied the milling industry and, because of the apparently hopeless lack of agreement in the Kick versus Rittinger dispute (5, 13, 14, 16, 18. 19. 21, 22, 23, 24, 30, 34). concluded that a foundation lor the theory of crushing was of primary importance. The numbers in the paragraph quoted refer to papers listed by Mr. Gross in his Bibliography on Crushing and Grinding.I One is obliged to infer that these papers show "hopeless lack of agreement in the Kick versus Rittinger dispute." No. 22 is a paper by Arthur 0. Gates2 and No. 23 is one by the writer.3 Employing the subject matter contained in papers Nos. 22 and 232,3 the writer will show that their authors formulated identical conclusions, based solely on experimental evidence. Exactly the same defect in the Stadler hypothesis was described in each of the two papers, although entirely different experimental methods were employed in uncovering it. Both of the authors, independently, formulated the conclusion that Rittinger's was a true hypothesis and Stadler's false. The evidence in a third paper4 will be employed to prove that Stadler's hypothesis, when examined experimentally, is worthless. Stadler's Hypothesis Worthless It is the writer's opinion that the evidence available in 1915 and the corroborating evidence in 1916 was amply sufficient to eliminate the need for any further consideration of Stadler's hypothesis. Certainly the evidence produced in 1918 dealt this hypothesis its coup de grace. It follows, therefore, that in the year 1918 there was only one credible hypothesis left—the Rittinger hypothesis. Gates' Opinion What information is available in Mr. Gates' paper?2 His conclusions are not consecutively summarized, none the less they are perfectly clear. On page 876, Gates says, and it is a very significant utterance: But my results show, among other things. that many more of Stadler's energy units are obtained per foot-pound-applied in coarse than in finc crushing. This suggests a doubt as to the correctness of his unit, since one would expect a foot-pound-applied to produce the same number of "energy units," whether the feed and resulting product were coarse or fine. When Rittinger's theory is applied, the number of mesh-tons (my unit of surface produced) is