Comminuting machine

Details Comminuting machine Comminuting machine

1999-10-28

2001-05-08

Rosenbaum, Mark (Department: 3725)

Solid material comminution or disintegration

Apparatus

Rotary striking member with feed or discharge conveyor or...

C241S190000, C241S189100

Reexamination Certificate

active

06227469

ABSTRACT:

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
1. Field of the Invention
This invention relates to the field of comminuting machines, such as the types employed for reducing demolition waste, land clearing debris, construction waste, trimmings, cuttings, and recyclables. The invention is directed more particularly toward an apparatus that employs a hammermill oriented along a horizontal axis of rotation with a horizontal in-feed of material, though the elements of the present invention can be practiced effectively in machines wherein the axis of rotation lies along an alternate plane, or in which the in-feed is of a different direction or orientation.
2. Description of Related Art
This invention relates specifically to a high-capacity horizontal-feed wood and debris shredding system, though it is to be understood that the invention is equally applicable to consumer grinders, mulchers, chippers, and other relatively low capacity waste reducers and recyclers. It is generally known in the art that horizontal feed mechanisms, such as conveyors or compression drives, can be utilized to feed material into a rapidly spinning “hammermill.” A hammermill is essentially a drum, rotor, or series of plates substantially forming a cylinder, possessing teeth protruding from the outer surface of the drum, which teeth, (“cutting heads”), incrementally chop away the material being fed by the feed mechanism.
Such horizontal feed mechanisms are desirable because they allow for continuous, rather than batch, feeding of material to be comminuted. From the standpoint of effective and efficient comminuting, the in-feed should preferably deliver material to a horizontal hammermill in a manner that the hammermill will strike the material on the hammermill's downstroke. When material is struck by the downstroke of the hammermill, the material, while being struck, is momentarily wedged securely between the cutting head and the body of the apparatus, which houses the hammermill, resulting in a stable surface upon which the cutting heads of the hammermill can act. This stability allows substantially each stroke to impact the material in an optimum position, and each subsequent stroke to impact the material at the subsequent optimal position.
By contrast, when the in-feed delivers material to the hammermill at the up-stroke (i.e., “up-running hammermills”), the efficiency of the apparatus is significantly reduced. Because the upward rotation of the hammermill prevents the body of the apparatus from positioning and securing the material for a firm strike. Instead, the material tends to bounce away from the hammermill in response to the strike of the cutting heads. Elemental physics teaches that this results in an inefficient dissipation of the energy of the hammermill's strike. Furthermore, because of the bouncing effect, the subsequent strike point of the cutting heads on the material is a matter of chance. As a result, each strike is likely to be too shallow or too deep for efficiency.
Furthermore, the down-striking (i.e., “down-running”) hammermill of the current invention maximizes safety, as material that is broken free by the hammermill is immediately directed downward and within the mechanism. Conventional ‘tub grinders’ and up-running hammermills may throw material relatively long distances away from the mechanism, increasing the potential for bodily injury or property damage. This known tendency prevents recommended use of tub grinders in urban areas because of the distance objects potentially may be thrown. The users of tub grinders are accustomed to determining a “danger zone” in which thrown objects may land. A significant advantage of the hammermill of the current invention, however, is the reduced size of this “danger zone.” The improved characteristics of the present invention create a smaller “danger zone” and under appropriate conditions and precautions potentially allow the use of the apparatus in urban areas and more populated spaces than tub grinders, with a greater expectation of safety in these areas.
Although the efficiency and safety of a down-running horizontal hammermill is recognized in the art, the application of the conventional construction of comminuting machines to such horizontal configurations has lead to unacceptable binding of material between the cutting heads and the body of the apparatus. The difficulties arise from relatively slender material of high compression strength, having lost contact with a restricting feed mechanism, entering the cutting area while oriented substantially parallel to the axis of rotation of the hammermill. When this occurs, the slender material can enter the hammermill cutting radius between the recessed portions of the cutting heads and the in-feed platform or the body of the apparatus. When this causes the material to exert pressure against a substantial length of the hammermill, of the hammermill may either jam or be damaged.
Numerous attempts in the art have been made to overcome the operational inefficiencies caused by binding jamming of hammermills. Some attempts have misidentified the problem, or at best, addressed relatively minor issues affecting performance of hammermills. A primary example is U.S. Pat. No. 5,628,467, issued to Graveman, which is primarily applied to up-running hammermills. Graveman identifies the problem with hammermill efficiency as caused by (1) windage, and (2) material becoming caught between cutting heads and rotating with the hammermill. To address these problems, Graveman teaches the use of “comb” fingers which extend into the circle defined by hammer elements, specifically, into the interstices between hammer elements. Graveman's combs fail to address the problem of material jamming between the hammers and the apparatus floor. Rather, they have the dual purpose of (1) raking out material from the hammermill which has become caught between adjacent hammers, and (2) preventing windage. In fact, Graveman initially places the comb at the outlet of the apparatus, rather than at the inlet. In such a configuration the combs cannot prevent material from being jammed between the hammer and the apparatus body.
Furthermore, while Graveman does supply an alternate embodiment employing combs at the inlet, the configuration taught still allows binding of the material against the housing, due to the placement and curvature of the housing. Additionally, the combs extend into interstices between all of the cutting heads regardless of length, which requires the comb teeth to be offset from the cutting heads; this arrangement necessitates a gap between each set of cutting heads that is large enough to allow clearance for the combs. This same clearance causes substantial material to remain uncut. Specifically, hardwoods and other resilient material will remain uncut at locations corresponding to the interstices between cutting heads. In real-world conditions, the material will take on a configuration similar to that of the comb, with fingers extending into the interstices. As the material is driven more deeply into the hammermill, the fingers of the material are forced against the shaft or other non-cutting elements of the hammermill, causing it to bind. The current invention, by contrast, orients shredders directly in line with shorter cutting heads, rather than maintaining some off-set from all cutting heads, as in Graveman. Also, the Graveman patent employs pivoting cutting heads, indicating that Graveman has not overcome the potential for binding addressed by the present invention. The orientation of the Graveman combs and the pivoting action of the cutting heads fails to address the dual problems of lengthwise entry of material and binding against the drive mechanism.
To avoid striking the comb elements that are positioned to remove major accumulation, Graveman discloses hammering elements of longer and shorter lengths. Graveman retains interstices between even the short and long hammers, and extends comb fingers into these interstices as well. These interstices produce the very drawback that the current invention seeks to add

Affiliated with

Also associated with

Rating

Comminuting machine does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.

If you have personal experience with Comminuting machine, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Comminuting machine will most certainly appreciate the feedback.

Rate now

Comments { 0 }

Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-2523158