wermix
- 21
- 0
this style isn't necessary but i don't have about any other style :)russ_watters said:Is there a particular reason why it needs to be that style?
this style isn't necessary but i don't have about any other style :)russ_watters said:Is there a particular reason why it needs to be that style?
Then a paddle blender is perhaps not a good choice.wermix said:you are right :) almost :) but true is i don't need to segregate components i just need to make sure every part have same chance to be in sample :) and sample is going ot laboratory ...
any better idea ?Asymptotic said:Then a paddle blender is perhaps not a good choice.

I'd go with @russ_watters cement mixer and see how that works out.wermix said:any better idea ?![]()
Such things don't get calculated by users or even plant engineers because equipment manufactuers have been refining the designs of appropriate equipment for many years (in this case, millenia). What you do is select an already existing product to use. Here's one that fits your requirements:wermix said:so no idea how to calculate it :D
If I needed to find out how much power was necessary, my approach would be to place a weighed sample of the trash in the existing coal ash blender, and measure power usage. Provided both the existing and (proposed, larger) blenders operate at the same paddle speed, power may scale reasonably well with mass. Keep in mind to add a safety factor for the increase in surface area, and accompanying increase in frictional losses.wermix said:we have same machine but for blending coal ash and it have capacity about 40dm3 and engine power is 0.18kw