Discussion - Autogenous Grinding in Tumbling Mills – Transactions SME/AIME, Vol. 250, No. 3, September 1971, pp. 188-193 – Kerl, Johann F.

Bunting S. Crocker (Executive Vice President, Kilborn Engineering Ltd., Toronto, Ont., Canada)-This is an interesting report on laboratory-scale testing with pebble charges in 12-in.-diam mills, and the author correctly concludes that useful laboratory testing can be done. In the opening paragraphs he states, "laboratory pebble-milling tests have been considered too difficult to perform and not relevant enough to the actual grinding situation"!! This is definitely not so! The writer published detailed tests done in a 12-in.-diam mill comparing pebble and steel balls in 1952 6 and again in 1954 7. We note that our review paper in 1963 was the only one mentioned in the References. The author states that "a smooth lining is more frequently used in commercial-scale pebble grinding." The writer has designed some 22 plants treating 134,000 tpd in North America and Australia. He has also visited pebble installations in Norway, Sweden, Finland, and South Africa. All these plants correctly use heavier lifters than would be considered standard for ball mills of a similar size. Smooth liners are not recommended in wet ore treating plants. In the 1952 paper6 it was clearly demonstrated in the test work that the individual ore pebbles had to be the same weight-not the same diameter or size-as the steel balls if comparable grinding results were to be obtained. In the tests performed in this study most of the pebbles "passed 50-mm round hole screen openings and remained on a 40-mm round hole sieve. Correspondingly most of the ball mill experiments were performed with 50 or 40-mm steel balls". Thus, the balls and pebbles were essentially the same size or diameter. This means we are comparing apples and oranges. When the feed being ground is fine enough the pebbles will be superior. When the feed is coarse the steel balls will be the better. This is similar to grinding tests in which two sizes of steel balls are compared. In the middle of the article, "Crocker5 has reported that equal weights of pebbles and steel balls achieve the same grinding capacities under similar conditions …", then he proceeds to question this postulate. In the eight reports that I have published, I have never made this statement. What I have said is "for comparable grinding, the individual pebbles in the mill charge should be the same weight as the individual steel balls." This is not the first time that I have been misquoted on this point! It is most unfortunate that this test work has been done with a ball and pebble of the same diameter and not the same weight. It is impossible to properly evaluate the results. I also regret the fact that the screen analyses of the tests were not shown. Many of us who have been 40 years or less in the grinding game can easily read screen analyses at a glance. We can tell whether the top meshes are being ground by the ball charge, etc., etc. The graphs are fine for the summary or to illustrate conclusions but are often misleading in the report itself. However, we do agree that useful pebble grinding tests can be done in a 12-in. mill.