HomeButton

About Mixing
(or Evaluating the Autocon Process)
<-- RETURN TO BEGINNING

Continuous Process AnimationThe efficiency of the "Continuous Mixing" process is dependent upon two conditions:

1] The degree of control over the flowrates; and
2] The effectiveness of the mixing device through which the materials flow.

Marked advances over the past 10 years in the area of flow control technology for both solids and liquids have elevated Continuous Processing as a viable industrial process -- one in which close tolerances can be held.

However, in addition to a well-designed flow control scheme, the value of the Continuous Mixing of material ultimately rests upon the efficiency of the mixing device itself.

In describing the efficiency of any mixer, two questions must be answered:

a] What amount of time is required for the satisfactory processing of the material and,
b] How much energy is required to achieve it?

Quite obviously, the mixer requiring the least amount of time and the least amount of energy to complete a given process would enjoy the highest comparative efficiency rate. The Autocon RAD and DID Mixers require far less energy than a comparative mixer -- generally between 20% to 50% the typical horsepower requirement -- and have short residence times (amount of time the materials spend in the mixing device) of between 4 and 8 seconds.


What we have just done is to describe the rationale for calling The Autocon RAD and DID Mixers high efficiency mixers. And, coincidentally, a case has been made for placing both mixers at the top of the comparative efficiency list.

We at Autocon not only invite your comparisons, but actively seek them out. Please see our request information page to submit test information.


Statistics from the Field: Six years of comparative testing exercises have demonstrated that Autocon Continuous Processing equipment produce an improvement in the compressive strength of Portland Cement Concrete of between 10 and 15 percent. Coincidental with this improvement is the lower consumption of energy. Rough estimates point to a 30% reduction in energy consumption.