Extensive Validation of a New Rock Breakage Test

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The given manuscript entitled "Extensive Validation of a New Rock Breakage Test” presented by a group of authors: Marcos Bueno, Thiago Almeida and Malcolm Powell describes a novel technique for minerals’ breakage testing in order to determine typical comminution parameters e.g. the Axb, DWI and the BWI.

Technically, the usability in the meaning of time and energy-consuming is indisputable advantage of proposed method in relation to other standards however traditional JK Drop Weight Test, the SMC Test as well as The Bond Ball Mill Grindability tests differs also in the meaning of their effects for e.g. designing of the comminution plants, optimize circuit performance etc.

The manuscript describes a prototype of comminuting apparatus and testing procedure, and presents then a set of comparison factors showing out a good correlation in relation to traditional tests.

I found the manuscript as an interesting alternative or complementary to commonly used comminution methods and wish the authors good luck in improving their work as well as being able to force the market for a commercial success.

However the reviewer’s work is to be a critical to improve the quality of information and that is why below I found some insignificant errors to be corrected in the final paper:

Line 111 Table 2: given units “σ (t/m3)” should be presented correctly considering upper index. The same concerns the next table 4 (Line 146) and Line 172 (Table 5).

Line 140 Equation (2): for the formality reasons, one should be informed considering upper abbreviation SG that was not explained in the text.

Line 152: When you use a new symbol BBMWI for the first time, which probably means bond ball mill weight index as in the chapter title if I am correct, one should be informed by specifying this in the text.

Line 159: “The power function described in Equation  XX …” Please name the number properly.

Author Response

Corrections in Tables and Text:

• Tables 2, 4, and 5: We corrected the units "σ (t/m³)" to display the upper index appropriately.
• Line 140 (Equation 2): The abbreviation SG (specific gravity) was previously explained in our text. We've now reiterated this explanation where Equation 2 is introduced for clarity.
• Line 152 (BBMWI): The acronym BBMWi (Bond Ball mill work index) is now clearly defined when first introduced in the manuscript.
• Line 159 (Equation Reference): The erroneous equation number has been corrected.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper shows the validation of a novel rock/mineral breakage test by showing the results of 204 experiments. The authors compare the proposed method with classical and well-known ones. It can be found a good agreement with Axb, Drop Weight test, and Bond ball mill methods. The article is well-written and it is interesting for a wide audience. However, the description of the methodology and index calculation from the test output must be added (or enlarged) in order to clarify the article. 

The are other minor aspects of the article that can be improved:

i) Figure 1. Add a P&ID of the Geopyra

ii) Figure 2, 3, 4. Adjust the axis to the data

iii) I can not understand lines 154 to 161, I miss a paragraph

iv) It can be explained in a better way the meaning of "benchmark Bond test results"

Author Response

1. Methodology and Index Calculation: We have retained our original methodology description, as we believe it provides sufficient clarity. However, we appreciate your perspective on this matter.
2. Figures and Data Presentation:
   • Figure 1: While we decided against adding a P&ID of the Geopyra, we highlighted the instrumentation in the existing image for better understanding.
   • Figures 2, 3, and 4: The axes in these figures have been adjusted for better data representation.
   • Lines 154-161: The mentioned section has been revised for clarity.
   • Benchmark Bond Test Results: We have improved our explanation of the "benchmark Bond test results" to provide greater clarity.

Reviewer 3 Report

The following article presents experimental validation results for a new rock breakage test and compares the results to standard procedures currently used in the industry. The manuscript is well-written and is suitable for publication.

I have the following minor comments for consideration by the authors:

More technical information on the Geopyörä Rock Breakage test should be provided, including the model building and technical analysis.

Different components of the test equipment shown in Figure 1 can be labeled for better illustration.

Data presented in Tables 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 can be included in the text as it only shows one data set.

Author Response

Reviewer 3:

1. Technical Information on the Geopyörä Test: We refer to a prior publication for detailed technical information to avoid redundancy.
2. Labeling in Figure 1: Labels have been added to Figure 1 to identify key components like strain gauges and the speed control box.
3. Data Presentation in Tables: We have retained the data in table format, as we believe this offers better visualization and comprehension.