THE EFFECTS O F ROLL DIAMETER ON THE

MECHANICS OF CRUSHING
C. R. MURRY and J. E. HOLT
Defiartment of Mechanical Engineering, Urciversity of Queensland,
Brisbane, Australia
(Presented by Mr. J. L. Clayton)

INTRODUCTION

The effect of roll diameter on crushing mill performance has received a fair amount
of attention in the literature, but, to the authors' knowledge, no experimental results
under controlled conditions have been published. Historically the tendency in the
industry has been towards larger diameter rolls and one suspects that this is based
on sound observation in factory milling. On the other hand occasional reports of the
installation of very large diameter mills never seem to be followed by reports of their
performance and one wonders whether they were not satisfactory in service.
For the purposes of applying results from small experimental mills to factory
size mills, it is important to have some information on diameter effects. Since 3
different roll diameters have been used in the experimental two-roll mill at this
University3~ l4 some data are now available. If the results are to be applied.
49 6g

quantitatively, accurate comparisons of results from mills of different diameters

must be made.
METHOD O F COMPARISON

Theoretical investigations of the mechanics of milling4?5 7 14> 159 l6 have suggested

'9

two dimensionless numbers which specify the milling conditions. The first is the
compression ratio of the mill. This indicates the severity of the crushing and is defined
by

where
C o = compression ratio
q, = mass rate of cane per foot width of mill
W o = worlc opening
S = roll surface speed
do = no void density of cane

The second is Bullock's capacity number which indicates the comparative rate
at which the mill is being fed. This is defined by

C N T 4 C (2)
DSd,
where
C N = capacity number
D = roll diameter
d , = bulk density of cane approaching the mill

These numbers are related by Eq. (3) :

 C. R. MURRY, J . E. HOLT 1°35
If we assume that mills should be compared a t the same compression ratio and
capacity number and that the fineness of preparation in both is the same (same d,)
then we arrive at the result that work opening should be set proportional to diameter.

This result is given by H U G O Tas~ self-evident and seems to be fairly generally

accepted throughout the industry. Then for comparing mills of different diameters,
setting W,/D constant and using the same compression ratio, we have from Eq. (I) :

That is, all mills having q,/SD the same may be compared. No further theory
is immediately available and we must decide whether to compare mills of different
diameters at the same crushing rate, the same surface speed or the same rotational
speed. The choice appears to be quite arbitrary and may be made for convenience
alone.
HUGOT~O believes that comparisons should be made a t the same rotational speed.
Since surface speeds are usually quoted by the Queensland industry one might infer
that they would make comparisons a t the same surface speeds. A case could be built
for comparison at the same crushing rate since a factory usually has a fairly definite
rate which must be maintained.
Of course, the choice of compression ratio and capacity number as criteria is
somewhat arbitrary, but has support from the dimensional analysis point of view.
For the purposes of the following discussion it will be accepted that mills should
be compared a t the same Co and CN and when crushing the same preparation. The
choice of speed will be investigated from experimental results.
I t has already been shown13that speed has no effect on the torque-load number *
and only slight effectson the roll load and roll torque. The major effect of speed is on
the extraction or, since we are considering constant compression ratio comparisons,
on the reabsorption factor.**
There are two other variables known to affect the milling results, namely, feed
depth and fibre-in-cane. Very little information is available about feed depth but the
indications are that this variable has little effect. The effect of fibre-in-cane has not
yet been completely investigated but, from the limited information so far available,l7
we will assume that:
(i) Fibre-in-cane has no simple systematic effect on reabsorption factor.
(ii) Fibre-in-cane has no effect on the torque-load number.
(iiq The torque and roll load increase linearly with increasing fibre-in-cane (at the
same crushing rate in terms of cane).
Attempts will be made to compare experiments with the same fibre-in-cane but
this will not always be possible since experiments have not been specifically conducted

* The torque-load number, N,is defined by

total torque
N = roll load x diameter (see Refs. 13, 14, 15.)

no void volume of bagasse

** Reabsorption factor, k, is defined by k =
volume escribed by mill
(see Refs. 7, 8, 14, 15.)
on the same batches of cane a t different roll diameters. I t is somewhat difficult,
therefore, to make really significant comparisons.

E F F E C T O F ROLL DIAMETER ON EXTRACTION

Experiments zt~ithconstant comfiression ratio and varying speeds

Since speed influences the extraction we can expect the choice of speed to in-
fluence our comparison of extractions.
Experiments with 18 in. and 26 in. roll diameters at compression ratio 3.0, fine
preparation and with the same worlc opening-diameter ratio i r e available for com-
parison.
For both experiments there were juice grooves in the lower roll, but the 18 in.
experiment had juice groove scrapers integral with the scraper plate while the 26 in.
experiment had no juice groove scrapers. The fibre-in-cane was 13.0% for the 18 in.
experiment and 12.8% for the 26 in, experiment and so was approximately the same.
The results are shown graphically in Fig. I and suggest that at the same surface
sfieed,roll diameter has no effect on extraction between 20 ft./min and 60 ft./min.

Roll surface speed (ft. per mln)

Fig. I. Ex traction as a function of speed a t different diameters.

At speeds above 60 ft./min the extraction drops suddenly for the 18 in, rolls, but it
is felt that this drop is due to juice being carried over in the juice grooves, trapped
by the integral scrapers a t the scraper plate and absorbed in the bagasse.
At speeds below 20 ft./min the extractions from the 18 in. rolls are solnewhat
higher than those from the 26 in. rolls, but this very low speed range is of little prac-
tical interest. I t may be said in general, that the results of the two experiments agree
very well over the practical operating range and i t is suspected that the extraction
is the same at the same surface speed.

Comparison of factorial experiments

Two factorial experiments are available for comparison. For the experiment
using the 18 in. rolls the crushing rate was 8 S cos a Ib./min per ft. were a is the angle
a t which the cane mat contacts the rolls. For the 26 in. diameter rolls the crushing rate
was 11.6 S cos a. Since a was the same for both experiments the rate was proportional
to speed times diameter and hence the condition set out in Eq. (5) is fulfilled. That is,
a t the same compression ratios the work openings are proportional to the diameters.
The experimental conditions are set out in Table I.
 C . R. MURRY, J . E. HOLT 1°77
TABLE I
COMPARISON O F CONDITIONS O F FACTORIAL EXPERIMENTS

For roll dza7neter

18 zn. 26 zn.
Cane variety N.Co. 310 Pindar
Fibre1 % cane 14.7 12.8
Crushing rate per f t . 8 S cos a 11.6 S c o s a
lb. per min.
Preparation pi-49.5 pi-55.0
(bulk density: lb./cu.ft. pc46.5 -
a t 7Blb.lsq.in. pa-43.4 Pz-47.8
-
p4-35.8
p,-35.6 p3-39.4
Compression ratio Cl-3.66 ci-3.89
Czr2.57 C,-2.67
c3-1.95 C3-2.02
C4-1.59 C,1.61
Surface speed (ft./n~in) si-13
Sr20 S2-20
S ,-2 8
Sz-4° S ~ 4 1
S,-62

The bulk densities* of the preparations indicate that the preparations for the
26 in. rolls are somewhat finer than those for the 18 in, rolls. (Corresponding hammer-
mill* treatments are tabulated on the same line in Table I). This is to be expected
since it has been shown that lower fibre canes give finer preparatioils and that greater
depths give somewhat greater bulk densities2>16, l7. I t was decided, therefore, to
select preparations for comparison with approximately constant ratio of bulk densities
as shown ill Table 11.
Since reabsorption factor has been shown to be an approximately linear function
of compression ratio2> 43 l4 the reabsorption factors for the 18 in. rolls have been
' 9

TABLE I1
SELECTION O F PREPARATIONS

For roll diameter

Ratzo
18 zn. 26 zn.
Preparation pr49.5 pr55.0 1.11
(bulk density: pa-43.4 pr47.8 1.10
lb./cu.ft. p.%
a t 79 lb./sq.in.) Pb-35.7 pa-39.4 1.10

Fibre % cane 14.7 12.8 1.15

a adjusted to the same compl:ession ratios as those for the 26 in. rolls by linear inter-
polation.
The tests at the same surface speeds were compared. The results on this basis are

* The hainmermill used has been previously described3. and preparation is soinetimes
designated by the speed and time of treatment (e.g. 750115 means treated a t 750 r.p.in, for 15 sec).
Bulk density a t a standard arbitrary test pressure has been shown to be a satisfactory measure
set out in Table I11 using the designations of the 26 in, experiment (Table I) and Dl
to denote 18 in. roll diameter and D z to denote 26 in. diameter.
Tables I11 and IV show that there is very little diameter effect for these experi-
ments. The significance level of diameter effect is only 0.20 and the diameter effect
is not significant when compared with its interactions with compression ratio or
speed. That is, all difference between diameters can be attributed to these interactions
which are themselves not very significant.

TABLE I11
REABSORPTION FACTOR

61 c 2 c3 c4
Dl Dz Dl Dz Dl Dz Dl Dz
P~ Sz 1.21 1.24 1.08 1.15 1.07 1.12 1.12 1.03
S4 1.51 1.49 1.19 1.18 1.26 1.15 1.25 1.13

The analysis of variance of these results is set out in Table IV.

TABLE IV
ANALYSIS O F VARIANCE
Degrees of Varzance Significance
Source
freedom ratzo level
C 3 363.51 0.001
P 2 76.22 0.001
S I 160.05 0.001
D I 2.92 0.20
CP 6 38.70 0.001
CS 3 18.37 0.01

PD
SD
CPS
CPD 6 - A

CSD 3 2.05 -
PSD 2 1.30 A

TVPSD 6
Mean square of error interaction = 0.00185

I t may be said with some confidence that the effect of diameter is small compared
with the effects of either compression ratio, preparation, or speed.
Referring to Table I, the five speeds on the 26 in. rolls, when compared with the
speeds for the 18 in. rolls, give, approximately
(i) the same crushing rates (S1 and S,) ;
(ii) the same surface speeds (Sz and S,) ;
(iii) the same rotational speeds (Sa and S 5 ) .
Since there are no major interactions with speeds in Table IV, it is not unreason-
 C. R. MURRY, J. E . HOLT 1°79
able to compare the average reabsorption factors for the various speed combinations.
This comparison is set out in Table V.
Tablevshowsthat thebest agreement isbetweenthe testsat the same surface speed
which agrees with the result of Fig. I. I t must be remembered that there are differences
in fibre between the experiments, but it is thought that reabsorption factor is not
much affected by fibre-in-cane.
Some further evidence is available by comparing the reabsorption factor at
30 ft./min for the experiments of Fig. I with the results of an experiment using 22 in.
TABLE V
AVERAGE REABSORPTION FACTORS
Roll diameter
1 18 zn. 26 zn.
(i) Same crushing rate
(ii) Same surface speed 1.288 I ,267
(iii) Same rotational speed 1.288 , 1.332

diameter rolls. The cane used in this experiment was of 13.1% fibre and so compares
with the experiments of Fig. I. The experimental conditions were: fine preparation,
surface speed 30 ft./min and a range of compression ratios from 1.5 to 3.5. The
crushing rate was such as to compare with the experiments of Fig. I under condition
of Eq. (5). The reabsorption factor for compression ratio 3.0 was 1.24. That for
Fig. I at the same conditions is 1.23.

THE E F F E C T O F ROLL DIAMETER ON ROLL LOAD AND ROLL TORQUE

Dimensional analysis, or examination of the fundamental equations for roll load,

suggests that the roll load will increase as diameter increases14915. The most likely
rate of increase is proportional to diameter. The experimental evidence now available
is set out below.

Fig. 2. Roll load as a function of speed a t different diameters.

Experiments with constant com$ression ratio and varying speeds

The experiments of Fig. I are available for comparison. The results of roll
load are shown graphically in Fig. 2. Since the torque may be deduced immediately
from the torque-load number, it is not necessary to investigate torque separately.
The toraue-load number is discussed in the next section.
ficantly different in slope. If these lines of common slope are compared, the ratio of
the roll loads varies from 1.51 at zero speed to 1.60 at IOO ft./min. The roll-diameter
ratio is 1-44 and on this evidence one would suspect that the roll load would be
proportional to the roll diameter.
This proportionality is further illustrated by Fig. 3 which includes a point from
the experiment on the 22 in. diameter rolls.

D~arneter( ~ )n

Fig. 3. Roll load as a function of diameter (other conditions constant).

Compariso~zof factorial experiments

Unfortunately, the difference in fibre between the two experiments invalidates
any direct comparisons. However, any major interactions might be shown up from an
analysis of variance. This analysis has been carried out after adjusting the results .
from the 18 in, rolls to the compression ratios of the 26 in. diameter experiments
by linear interpolation. Since speed has little effect on the roll load the values have
been averaged over speed. The condensed analysis of variance is set out in Table VI

TABLE VI
ANALYSIS O F VARIANCE
Roll load per f t . (lb. x 1000)

Source Degrees of Variance Significance

freedom ratio level

PD 2
CPD 6

hfean square of error interaction = I I .52

Table VI shows very little diameter effect, but this is almost certainly due to
the compensating effect of lower fibre on the 26 in. rolls. There appears to be a fairly
marked compression ratio-diameter interaction which examination of the experi-
mental results shows is due to a somewhat greater response to compression ratio
changes with the larger diameter rolls. The effect is illustrated by the averages given
in Table VII. I t should be remembered that this interaction might be a fibre effect.
The analysis of the torque results is given in Table VIII. As might be expected
it is similar to the roll-load analysis, but the compression ratio-diameter interaction
is much less marked.
Vevijcation of Eq.(6)fov 22 in. and 26 in.rolls
Before proceeding to discuss the variation in e with roll diameter we must
verify that the form of the function relating the torque-load number to the compres-
sion ratio does not change substantially with diameter. That is, that the variation
.is still proportional to COPas determined experimentally for the 18 in. rolls. For this
purpose the results of an experiment at constant preparation and surface speed on
the 26 in. rolls were selected. The crushing rate was constant and the work opening
was varied to give various compression ratios. The values of e from Eq. (6) as found
from this experiment are set out in Table IX and the analysis of variance of these
results is given in Table X.
There is no evidence in these results that e is affected by compression ratio and
so we may assume that the variation in torque-load number with compression ratio
has the same form. The grand mean value of Q for the experiments is 0.265.
Values of Q for the 22 in.-diameter experiment are given in Table XI which
shows no significant trend with compression ratio.
A further verification is given from the results of the factorial experiment of
Table I for the 26 in. rolls which shows no significant interactions for the values of Q,
TABLE IX
VALUES OF Q FOR 26 in. DIAMETER

" cO2 N
(W,/D):
Compression
ratio 1.5 1.9

0.29 0.25 0.27 0.23 0.28 0.26

0.32 0.29 0.24 0.27 0.26 0.25
0.21 0.26
0.30
0.26
Mean 0.30 0.25 0.26 0.25 0.27 0.27
--

TABLE X
ANALYSIS O F VARIANCE
Values of Q

Degrees of Sun%of Mean Variance

Source
freedom squares square ratto
Between compression ratios 5 0 0045 o.ooogo 1.34
Within compression ratios 10 0.0067 0.00067
Total I5 0.0112
The difference is not significant.

TABLE XI
VALUES OF Q FOR 22 in. DIAMETER

Compresszon Constant Compression Constant

ratao e ratio e
1.49 .296 2.57 .410
1.50 .369 3.10 .262

2.31 .276 Mean .304

no speed effects and a compression-ratio effect significant at only the 0.05 level.
The preparation effect is markedly significant (0.001 level). The mean values of Q
are 0.21, 0.24, and 0.30 for PI, Pz, and Pa respectively.

Q as a function of roll diameter

The constant Q may now be investigated as a function of roll diameter. Results
from experiments on fine preparation have been selected and are set out in Table XII.
Since the available information suggests that the torque-load number is not a func-
tion of the fibre content of the cane, this variable has not been considered in the
 C . R. MURRY, J . E. HOLT

The variation between values at the same diameter are probably due to small
differences in preparation. I t will be seen that, approximately, Q is inversely pro-
portional to the roll diameter.
TABLE XI1
I M E A N VALUESOF Q
(Fine preparation)
Roll diameter Source e
18 in. Ref. 4 0.39
Varying speed experiment (Fig. 2) 0.36
2 2 in. 0.30
26 in. Table IX 0.26
Varying speed experiment (Fig. 2) 0.26
Table I factorial experiment 0.24

Value of Q from Hugot's power formula

H U G O Tsuggests
~~ that
P = 0.0127 RnD (JIF~): .
where
P = horsepower absorbed a t rolls
R = hydraulic load (tons)
n = r.p.m.
D = roll diameter (in.)
J = specific fibre loading (lb./sq.ft./tt.)
d = density of material a t axial plane (lb./cu.ft.)
F = fraction by weight of fibre in bagasse

I t has been shown13 that this is equivalent to

A private communication from M. HUGOTindicates that his formula represents

the power requirements of his factory mills after making proper allowances for
friction losses. On this assumption we may deduce a value of Q from Eq. (7)as follows.
HUGOT suggests
~~ that the fibre content of bagasse after the first mill should be
37% by weight. On this assumption and assuming reabsorption factor of 1.15 it may
easily be shown by volumetric calculatioll that the corresponding compression ratio
is 2.8. Hence from Eqs. (6) and (7):

Hence from HUGOT'S information his mills operate a t a Q of 0.165. The authors
do not have information as to HUGOT'Sroll diameters, but, assuming they follow
g'eneral Queensland practice with which the authors are familiar, it may be assumed
that the diameter is about 36 in. for this result. On this basis, Fig. 4 has been drawn
, using the values of Table XII. I t will be seen that the value of Q deduced from HU-
GOT'S formula does not disagree with the hypothesis that Q is inversely proportional
to the roll diameter.

Interaction betweea $reparation and diameter effects on Q

Really accurate information about ally possible interaction between preparation
and diameter will require experiments on the same batch of cane a t different roll
diameters - no such experiments have been carried out to date. However, the mean
values from Ref. 13 may be compared with the mean values from the factorial
experiment of Table I for the 26 in. diameter rolls, but comparison is only approxi-
mate because of possible differences in preparations.
The ratios are in fair agreement with the roll-diameter ratio of 1.44 but there is a
suggestion that there is rather more response to roll diameter at finer preparations.

0
0 0 . 0 2 0.04 0.06
Rec~procalof Roll D~arneter
(In:')

Fig. 4. Constant Q as funcLion of diameter. (Fine preparation.)

TABLE XITI
M E A N VALUES OF Q
For voll dzalneter
Ratio
26 zn. 18 zn.
Fine preparation 0.21 0.36 1.71
Mediuin preparation 0.24 0.39 1.62
Coarse preparation 0.30 0.42 1.40

E F F E C T O F ROLL DIAMETER O N E N E R G Y CONSUMED P E R TON CANE

The variation in energy consumed per ton with roll diameter may immediately be
deduced as follows.
Froln the foregoing information, assume that the roll load is proportional to
the diameter and the torque-load number inversely proportional to the diameter at
the same coinpression ratio, work opening-diameter ratio, and preparation. That is:

Also both R and N are almost independent of speed. The power P is given by
P cc RSN
Hence
P oc S and is independent of D.
Now crushing rate is given by
Qc = C oL W o S d o
where
L = roll length
that is
Qc cc D S since W , cc D
 C . R. MURRY, J . E. HOLT 1085

Therefore, the energy absorbed per unit weight of cane crushed is given by
w = P/QGcc I/D

Since R is almost independent of speed and N is independent of speed, this result

will hold approximately a t all speeds. That is, the energy per ton of cane is inversely
proportional to the roll diameter, and in this sense larger diameter mills are more
efficient than smaUer diameter mills.
Since at the same surface speeds the extraction appears to be independent of
diameter we can expect to crush more cane for the same power in a large diameter
mill and to obtain the same extraction at the same surface speed.
Extra$olatiort to 36 in, diameter
I t is interesting to extrapolate these results to 36 in. diameter to obtain figures
comparable with factory mills. If the line of Fig. 3 is extrapolated to 36 in. diameter,
the roll load is 77,000 lb./ft or 34.4 tons/ft. However, factory first mills operate a t a
somewhat higher compression ratio than 3.0, say 3.5. Assuming that R is proportional
to (Co - I) which represents approximately the results obtained from the experimen-
tal mill we get a load of 43 tons/ft. When it is remembered that the preparation used
in experimeilts is somewhat finer than most factory preparations and that allowances
must be made for the geometry of three roll mills, this estimate is comparable to
hydraulic loadings used in practice and to the figure of 50 tons/ft. recommended by
the Sugar Research Institute l.
Assuming that the mill is crushing at 30 ft./min and I in. work opening (crushing
rate 116 tons cane/hr i11 a 7 ft. mill) we may calculate the power required for crushing.
From Fig. 4 for 36 in. diameter, Q is 0.19 and hence N equals 0.081. The horsepower,
P, is given by
p=--
2 SATR
-
2 x 30 x o.081 x 96400 x 7
= h,p. approx.
33,000 33,000

This is the power for crushing only and allowance must be made for the friction
power of gearing, bearings, and trash plate (if any). Results obtained by SMART^^
suggest that the actual crushing power is only about 58% of the total engine power.
Hence the engine power required is about 170 h.p. which is a not unreasonable esti-
mate for a first mill at 116 toils cane/h.

I
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

411 attempt has been made to develop a logical method of comparing the performance of mills of
different diameters and it was suggested that mills should be compared a t the same compression
ratio and work opening-diameter ratio when crushing cane of the saine fineness of preparation
(this is a t the saine capacity number). I t was found that under these conditions the crushing rate
must be proportional to the product of roll speed and diameter and that, therefore, an arbitrary
qhoice o f speed could be made.
Analysis of the experimental results suggested t h a t the extraction was not dependent on
diameter a t the saine surface speed and, slnce roll load and torque are almost independent of
speed, it seems that null performances should be compared a t the saine surface speeds.
On this basis it appears that the reabsorption factor 1s illdependent of roll diameter, that the
roll load IS proportional to the roll diameter and t h a t the torque-load number IS Inversely pro-
portlonal to the roll diameter From this it may be deduced that the torque is proportional to the
roll diameter Also ~thas been shown that the energy absorbed per ton cane crushed is lilrely to
be Inversely proportional to the roll diameter and that, in this sense, larger rolls are more efficient.
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are indebted to Professor M. SHAWfor his encouragement and advice,
to Mr. F. P. SMITHfor assistance in the laboratory and in preparation of the results
for publication and to the Sugar Research Institute and Colonial Sugar Refining
Co. Ltd, for provision of the fellowships under which much of the work is being
carried out.
REFERENCES

S u m m a r y of Cane 1?.tillingand sugar manufacturing research work. Sug. Res. Inst. Mackay, 1960,
p. 12.
The influence of roller load and speed on the performance of a hydraulically loaded No. 2 mill.
Tech. Rep. Sug. Res. Inst. Mackay, N o . 68, p. 31.
3 BULLOCK, I<.J., 1956. Self-feeding characterlstlcs of an experimental sugar mill. Proc. ilzt. Soc.
Sug. Cane Tech., 9 [z] : 166-85.
BULLOCIZ, K. J., 1957. A n investigation into the cvushilzg and physical properties of sugar cane and
bagasse. Ph. D . Thesis, Univ. Queensland.
BULLOCIZ, I<. J., 1958 The capacity of sugar cane mills. Sugar J., N.Orleans, 21 [5], [GI, [7].
0 BULLOCIZ, I<. J , and MURRY,C. R., 1960. Extraction as a function of roll load in the experimental
mill. Proc. znt. Soc. Sug. Cane Tech., 10 : 111-7.1.
7 CRAWFORD, W. R., 1957. Improving extraction a t No. I mill. Proc. Qd Soc. Sug. Cane Tech.,
24 : 89-103.
CRAWFORD, W. R., 1960. Reabsorption - A limiting factor in mill performance. Pvoc, i n t . Soc.
Sug. Cane Tech., 10 : 100-11.
9 HUGOT, E., 1960. Handbook of Cane Sugar Engzneering. Elsevier Publ. Co., Amsterdam, p. 112.
lo HUGOT, E., IbZd , pp. 143-147.
11 HUGOT, E., Ibid., p. 187.
l2 HUGOT, E., Ibzd., p. 168.
13 MURRY, C. R., 1959. Mill torque as a function of roll loading. I n t . Sug. J.,61 : 46.
l4 MURRY,C. R., 1960. Sugar crushing research - A survey of the theory developed and experi-
mentation carried out in Queensland since 1952. Trans. Inst. Engrs. Aust., Elec. G. Mech.
Eng., EM2 No. 2 : 31
15 MURRY, C. R., 1960. A theoretzcal and exfierimelztal investzgation znto the mechanics of crushing
firefiared sugar cane. Ph. D. Thesis, Univ. Queensland.
16 MURRY,C. R., 1960 The pressure required to feed cane mills. I n t . Sug. J., 62 : 346-349;
63 : 7-10,
17 MURRY, C. R., 1961 Milling Studies - The effects of fibre-in-cane and roll diameter. Proc. Qd
Soc. Sug. Cane Tech., 28 : 109-115.
18 MURRY,C. R. and SHANN, D. S., 1960. Effects of degree of preparation on the Queensland
experimental mills. Proc. iint. Soc. Sug. Cane Tech., 10 : 122-31.
19 SMART, H. P . , 1961. A mill steam turbine drive investigation. Proc. Qd Soc. S u g . Cane Tech.,
28 : 163-172.

DISCUSSIONS

H. JENIZINS (Australia) : One would expect extraction for different size of rolls to be the same a t
similar rotational speed since time under pressure would appear to be an important factor in
juice drainage and therefore in extraction. This suggests that rotational speed rather than surface
speed would be the main factor influencing extraction. If Fig. I be replotted to give extraction
as a function of rotational speed the points for the two different roller diameters fall almost on
the same line.
J. CLAYTON (Australia) : I cannot accept that the governing factor is time because in one
case there is only a short way for the juice to travel whilst in the other the juice travels a con-
siderably longer distance.