12CB-0006

Improved Mixing Through Advanced Rotor Designs

Richard J. Jorkasky II*

Kobelco Stewart Bolling Inc.

1
 Abstract

This paper deals with internal mixers and improvements in mixing due to new and
advanced rotor designs. Information and comparative data will be presented to show the
effects the different rotor types they have on various parameters such as cycle time,
Mooney viscosity, batch temperature consistency and, where available, other properties
of various rubber systems.

2
 Introduction

Since 1916, when the forerunner of the current day internal intensive mixer and the 2
wing rotor were introduced, rubber has been processed generally in the same manner for
over 90 years. Improvements have been made to the quality and throughput of the
products via a number of mechanical changes. These include modified and/or new rotor
designs, improved chamber designs, rotor cooling and improved product discharging, to
name a few.

An internal intensive mixer consists of 6 main components: the chamber, which houses
the rotors; the hopper, which houses the floating weight and weight cylinder; and the
discharge door (Figure 1). In a typical mix cycle, with the floating weight in the up
position, the discharge door closed and the rotors turning, the material is added through
the hopper door and the floating weight comes down, forcing the material into the
chamber (and keeps the material in the chamber during the mix cycle). The rotors
masticate the material for either a specific amount of time, to a specific temperature or for
a specific amount of energy use (or a combination of any or all) at which time the
discharge door opens and the mixed material exits the mixing chamber. The discharge
door closes and the next cycle is ready to begin.

A number of factors affect the mixing efficiency and cycle times of rubber compounds
and cannot be overlooked. These include: mixer use; rotor speed (rpm); friction or even
drive speed; the temperature of the water circulated through the sides, rotors, discharge
door and sometimes the floating weight of the mixer; the additive type (carbon black,
silica, fiber), grade (such as N-110 vs. N-650 for carbon black) and amount; the mixing
scheme (upside down, right side up, 1 pass systems, multiple pass systems); fill factor;
ram pressure; rotor orientation and human nature. However, the most important
influence on mixing is the design or type of rotor employed for the mixing. Some rotors
are designed for “general” use while others were specifically or originally designed for
either master batching, final or silica mixing. There have been instances where rotors
designed for one style of mixing have been found to be useful for another type of mixing,
albeit in “niche” areas.

Rotors are grouped into two distinctive types: Tangential and Intermeshing. Tangential
rotors include the 2, 4 and 6 wing rotors and are designed to shear and mix the material
between the rotor wing tip and the side wall of the chamber. Both types of rotors can be a
single casting made from high tensile steel or made from separate pieces which are then
heat shrunk together. Both types of rotors can be cooled or heated via a closed loop
system throughout the rotor that allows the water to flow near the surface of the rotor.
The Intermeshing rotor differs from the Tangential rotor as its shear and mix zone is
located in the small area between the wing of one rotor and the body of the other.

Tangential rotors were traditionally designed with the long wings being of the same wing
angle, having the same rotor tip width and constant rotor tip to chamber wall clearance
and on the same end of the rotor. The same was true of the short wings, which would be

3
on the other end of the rotor (Figure 2). Two newer types of single cast rotors from
Kobelco, the patented 6 wing Variable Clearance Mixing Technology (VCMT) and the
patented 4 wing “N” rotors, go against the traditional design of rotors.

As can be seen in the examples in Figure 3, a typical 4 wing rotor with constant rotor tip
width and rotor tip to chamber wall clearance is compared to the advanced patented 6
Wing VCMT rotor. In the 6 wing rotor example, each long wing of the 6 wing rotor is
separated into three different, distinct rotor tip widths and rotor tip to chamber wall
clearances. A better view of the different rotor tip widths and clearances can be seen in
Figure 4. These three different widths and clearances give three different types of
mixing. The small tip clearance with a narrow tip width acts as a wiper to reduce the
dead area on the chamber wall giving better and more uniform cooling, as well as,
providing a high shear mixing area for excellent additive dispersion. The large tip
clearance with wider tip width allows greater movement of the material, decreasing the
frictional heat while increasing material homogeneity. The medium tip clearance
combined with a normal tip width is equivalent to a normal tip clearance. This normal
clearance provides some dispersive mixing while providing both more material
movement and less frictional heat than the small tip clearance.

Each long wing of the patented 6 wing VCMT rotor has a different configuration of these
various tip widths and clearances. One long wing will have a small/medium/large
configuration, another will have a medium/large/small configuration and the other long
wing will have a large/small/medium configuration. This is done to ensure that the
different tip widths follow one another leading to a more uniform batch temperature. If
the same rotor tip clearances and widths were to follow one another, colder and hotter
spots would most likely develop in the mixed rubber.

Unlike the long wing, each of the short wings of the 6 wing VCMT rotor has a constant
tip to chamber wall clearance throughout the length of the short wing. However, each
short wing has a different tip width and tip to chamber wall clearance, one wing has a
small tip width and clearance, another has a medium tip width and clearance while the
third short wing has a large tip width and clearance. The geometry of the 6 wing rotors
gives a rectangular mixing pattern in the chamber, compared to that of the standard four
wing rotor where the material is propelled towards the middle of the chamber where it
eddies between the two chamber halves.

Although the 6 wing rotor is more substantial in size than the 2 wing and 4 wing rotors,
giving a smaller chamber volume and batch weight, it usually gives the fastest cycle time
which actually leads to a higher output of material (kilograms/hour) than the other rotor
types. Along with the faster cycle times, the 6 wing rotors also usually consume less
energy (kWh/kilogram) than the other rotors. Other advantages of the 6 wing rotors are:
excellent dispersion, very good intra- and inter-batch temperature uniformity, reduced
mixing steps and a lower Mooney viscosity.

The patented Kobelco 4 wing “N” rotor is was originally designed for final mixing, but it
is beginning to be used for master batch mixing. The patented “N” rotor differs from the

4
traditional rotor design in two areas. First (Figure 5), the small wings are not on the
same end of the rotor, but on both ends of the rotor diagonal from one another. Secondly,
the “N” rotor has two different types of long wings. One long wing has a small angle
which creates a lot of shear. The second long wing has a very large angle, giving little
shear, but moving a tremendous amount of material. These different long wings give a
mixing pattern that can be seen in Figure 6.

Even though the “N” rotor’s long shear wing creates more shear than a typical 4 wing
rotor long wing, the temperature build up is actually slower since only the one long wing
creates the shear in the 4 wing “N” rotors. Depending on what is being mixed and the
length of the mix, the 4 wing “N” rotor will give a batch temperature 3° - 22° C lower
than the batch temperature for a typical 4 wing rotor for the equivalent mix time.
Because of the slower heat buildup of the “N” rotor, it can be run up to 10 rpm faster than
a typical 4 wing rotor for final mixes.

The “N” rotor has a larger batch size than a standard 4 wing rotor and, coupled with the
faster rotor speed at which it can be used, the output (kilograms per hour) is greater.
Also, due to the mixing pattern of the 4 wing “N” rotor, the differences in intra- and
inter-batch temperatures is smaller, yielding a more uniform material.

Equipment and Experimental

The data presented herein, except for where specified, was obtained using a 16 liter pilot
plant sized intensive mixer located at Kobelco’s processing and test facility in Hudson,
Ohio. All the rotor types listed below can be installed in this mixer. Each set of rotors
has a different chamber volume and batch weight. The table below lists the rotor type
used in these comparisons, the chamber volume for the rotor and a typical batch weight
(based upon a specific gravity of 1).

Rotor Type Chamber Volume Batch Weight

2W 17.7 liters 12.74 kg

4 WS Standard 15.7 liters 11.62 kg
4 WH Swirl 16.0 liters 11.84 kg
4 W N (patented) 16.2 liters 11.99 kg
6 VCMT (patented) 14.4 liters 10.94 kg
Intermeshing (IM) 14.5 liters 9.86 kg

Table 1. Kobelco Rotor Comparison: Batch Weight

5
The mixer is controlled by a mixing control and monitoring system which allows the
sample batches to be mixed in manual (controlled by the operator) or pre-programmed
automatic mode (controlled by the unit). All the data presented in this paper was
obtained from mixes done in automatic mode (thus removing errors or variable response
times from manual control).

The 16 liter mixer is driven by a 250 horsepower DC motor, allowing variable rotor
speeds from 0-120 rpm. In addition, the BB-16 is equipped with a special gearbox that
will allow either an even speed (1:1) or friction speed (1.15:1) ratio between the dual
output shafts that are directly coupled to the mixer rotors. The mixer’s sides, rotors and
drop door can be cooled or heated using a single zone temperature control unit (water
temperatures colder than city water temperature can be achieved via a chiller).

When the individual batches reached their programmed discharge point (either time,
temperature, power or a combination of any of the three), a discharge door automatically
opened and discharged the material from the mixer into a chute leading to a TSR 125
Twin Screw Extruder/Roller Head fitted with twin 7 inch calender rolls. The sides,
augers and rolls of the TSR can be heated or cooled with temperature controlled water.
The twin augers, which put very little extra work into the material, are driven by a 10
horsepower DC motor, achieving speeds to 30 rpm. The calender rolls are driven by a
7.5 horsepower DC motor allowing roll speeds up to 25 rpm. Since the TSR imparts
virtually no extra work into the samples, the properties achieved are due to the work
imparted by the rotors and not by any extra mixing (such as milling).

The TSR gave a sheeted product approximately 12 inches wide with thicknesses ranging
from 0.25 to 0.4 inches. The subsequent sheets were either air cooled by hanging them
directly on cooling racks or they were first water cooled by immersing the sheeted
material in a stainless steel trough containing cold water (city water at temperatures
ranging from 4° C to 27° C, depending on the time of year the work was done), followed
by hanging on racks to dry. All the samples done for specific comparative series were
handled the same way (either all in a series were water cooled or all were air cooled).

Whenever possible, samples were taken from different sheets of the same sample and
tested as is (no further sample preparation such as milling) using a Visc Tech Mooney
shearing disc viscometer. The test included the standard 100° C, ML1+4 Mooney
viscosity or a 121° C Mooney Scorch. The viscosities are an average of at least two tests
per sample. Dispersion measurements were done on a Dispergrader+ Reflected Light
Microscope.

Discussion

As mentioned previously, the 6 wing VCMT rotors have a number of advantages over the
other type of rotors. For a one pass, EPDM rubber with a high loading of carbon black
and oil in Table 2, when mixed under the same conditions with 3 other types of rotors,

6
the 6W rotors gave the lowest energy consumption per kilogram of product, the fastest
cycle time, the lowest Mooney viscosity and the highest output (kg/hour, 18% greater
output than the next closest rotor, 4 wing H Swirl rotor).

Energy Rotor Cycle ML1+4 16 Liter

Use Speed Time 100° C Output
Rotor kWh/kg (rpm) (sec) Mooney kg/hr

2W 0.0792 30 180 75 313

4WH 0.0814 30 148 74 358
6W VCMT 0.0748 30 115 70 424
Intermesh 0.1166 30 180 77 237

Table 2. Rotor Comparison: EPDM/Carbon Black/Oil

A two pass, retread compound containing natural rubber, with carbon black, silica and oil
was mixed with 4 wing H and 6 wing rotors under the same conditions. In this
comparison in Table 3, the 6W rotors gave equivalent Mooney viscosity and dispersion,
while yielding greater than a 14% increase in output (kg/hour)

Energy Rotor Cycle ML1+4 16 Liter

Use Speed Time 100° C Dispersion Output
Rotor kWh/kg (rpm) (sec) Mooney % kg/hr

4WH 0.1223 60/35 358 47 70 144

6W VCMT 0.1214 60/35 278 47 70 165

Table 3. Rotor Comparison: Natural Rubber/Carbon Black/Silica/Oil

An example of what the 6 wing rotors can do in a production setting is shown in Table 4.
The rotors were changed from 4W Standard to the 6W VCMT in a 270 liter mixer. The
properties for the 6 wing mixed Natural Rubber/Carbon Black/Oil master batch tire
compound were better than the 4 wing properties and the output was significantly
increased.

7
 270 Liter Output ML1+4
Output Increase 100° C
Rotor kg/hr % Mooney

4WS 5227 - 78
6W VCMT 6364 21.7 70

Table 4. 270 Liter Mixer Rotor Comparison: Natural Rubber/Carbon Black/Oil

Another comparison between 4 wing and 6W VCMT rotors can be seen in Table 5. A
master batch tire compound consisting of natural rubber and carbon black was mixed in
270 liter production mixers. The 4 wing ST data is from actual production while the 6
wing mixes were trial mixes without the mix scheme being optimized.

Cycle ML1+4 270 Liter

Time 100° C Dispersion Output
Rotor (sec) Mooney % kg/hr

4W ST 128 80 27 6072
6W VCMT 115 75 40 6305

Table 5. 270 Liter Mixer Rotor Comparison: Natural Rubber/Carbon Black

Again, without being optimized, the 6 wing rotor gave a faster cycle time, lower Mooney
viscosity, significantly improved dispersion and a 4% increase in throughput.

A series of the same silica containing master batch was “re-milled”, simply mixed to
130° C with nothing additional added to the mixer, with the 4W standard rotor in its
preferred 0° rotor orientation and the 6W VCMT rotor in its preferred 180° orientation
(Table 6). The 6 wing rotors gave a lower energy consumption and Mooney viscosity
with better dispersion while giving a 9% higher output.

8
 Energy Rotor Cycle ML1+4 16 Liter
Use Speed Time 100° C Dispersion Output
Rotor kWh/kg (rpm) (sec) Mooney % kg/hr

4WS 0.0803 50 94 83 74 552

6W VCMT 0.0792 50 84 77 79 602

Table 6. Rotor Comparison: Silica Containing Master Batch

Many people in the industry are pushing Intermeshing rotors as the rotor of choice for
silica mixing, citing superior dispersion, Mooney viscosity reduction and other property
improvements. As can be seen for the synthetic rubber/silica master batch mixed in
Table 7, the 6 wing rotor not only matches the Intermeshing rotor in Mooney viscosity
reduction, but uses less energy, gives slightly better dispersion and a 20+% increase in
output.

Energy Rotor Cycle ML1+4 16 Liter

Use Speed Time 100° C Dispersion Output
Rotor kWh/kg (rpm) (sec) Mooney % kg/hr

IM 0.306 40 341 71 82 106

6W VCMT 0.260 40 304 71 85 128

Table 7. Rotor Comparison: Synthetic Rubber/Silica Master Batch

Continuing the comparison of the 6W VCMT rotors and Intermeshing rotors, it has been
said that the lower output one experiences from an IM mixer can be made up by mixing
at faster speeds. This is true if the material one is mixing is not sensitive to higher speed
mixing. There are some materials that mix better at higher speeds, some materials that
mix better at lower speeds and a number of materials that mix the same at any speed.
The only way one will make up for the lower output of an IM mixer will be to do so with
a material that doesn’t mix well at higher tangential rotor speeds. In Table 8, an EPDM
rubber with high loadings of carbon black and oil was mixed at various speeds with the 6
wing and Intermeshing rotors. At all the speeds tested, the 6 wing rotor continued to give
the best Mooney viscosity reduction, lowest energy consumption, fastest cycle time and
substantially higher output than the IM rotors (77% greater output at 30 rpm, 62% at 40
rpm and 65% at 50 rpm).

9
 Energy Rotor Cycle ML1+4 16 Liter
Use Speed Time 100° C Output
Rotor kWh/kg (rpm) (sec) Mooney kg/hr

IM 0.1298 30 225 52 190

6W VCMT 0.0814 30 148 47 337

IM 0.1188 40 149 50 286

6W VCMT 0.0792 40 106 49 465

IM 0.1100 50 133 51 321

6W VCMT 0.0792 50 93 46 530

Table 8. Rotor Comparison: EPDM/Carbon Black/Oil

Up to now, all the examples cited for the 6 wing rotor highlighted what affect the rotor
alone had on mixing and mixing properties. The results shown in Table 9 illustrate what
can be achieved when numerous mixing parameters, other than just the 6 wing rotors, are
employed. The goal of this work was to obtain the desired properties of a right side up, 2
pass EPDM mix in one pass.

The compound was originally mixed in two passes (2P) with a right side up addition
(RSUP) with 2 wing rotors using 35° C circulating water, at 40 rpm for the first pass and
20 rpm for the second pass (first example). The compound was then mixed under the
same 2 pass conditions using the 6W VCMT rotors (second example). The 6 wing rotors
significantly reduced the mix cycle time, increased the output (by 39%) and lowered the
Mooney viscosity. The next step was to mix right side up in one pass with the 6 wing
rotors. This proved to be unsuccessful (very poor Mooney viscosity with either the 2 or 6
wing rotors) until the addition scheme was changed to an upside down mix (third
example). With the 6 wing rotors and an upside down addition scheme, the mix cycle
time was significantly shortened to where the output was increased to over 3 times
(310%) that of the original mix. However, the viscosity, 69 MU, was considered a little
too high.

Again a number of batches were mixed investigating various rotor speeds and water
circulating temperatures. Finally, by combining four different mixing parameters;
changing the rotors from 2 wing to 6W VCMT, going from a 2 pass right side up mix to a
1 pass upside down addition scheme, using 8° C circulating water instead of 35° C water
and mixing at 60 rpm for the first part of the mix before slowing the rotor speed to 40
rpm for the remainder of the mix, the desired properties where obtained. In doing so, the
total cycle time was reduced 330 seconds (5.5 minutes) and the output was increased
333% over the original 2 wing mix.

10
 Rotor Water Cycle ML1+4 16 Liter
Add Speed Temp Time 100° C Output
Rotor Scheme (rpm) (°F) (sec) Mooney (kg/hr)

2W 2P/RSUP 40/20 35 415 67 135

6W VCMT 2P/RSUP 40/20 35 259 64 188
6W VCMT 1P/UPSD 40 35 90 69 553
6W VCMT 1P/UPSD 60/40 8 85 66 585

Table 9. Combining Mixing Parameters: EPDM/Carbon Black/Oil

The 6W VCMT rotors, as well as the 4 wing “N” rotors, have very good batch
temperature uniformity both intra-batch and inter-batch. This is due to the way the rotors
mix the material in the chamber. When compared to the 4 wing standard rotor, Table 10,
both rotors give very uniform material. A number of batches of natural rubber were
masticated with each type of rotor. When the material was discharged, each batch was
probed a number of times with a hand held thermocouple and for each probe, a
temperature was recorded. The numerous probes for each batch mixed with that rotor
were then listed and the highest and lowest temperatures recorded were noted. The
lowest temperature was subtracted from the highest temperature, which gave the
temperature differential (ΔT) between measurements of all the batches for that rotor.
Both the 4 wing “N” rotors and the 6W VCMT rotors had only a 4° C difference in
temperature between the lowest and highest probed temperature measurements, giving
very uniform intra- and inter-batch mixing. The 4 wing standard rotors had a 23° C
difference, which means it was not giving a very uniform mix nor uniformity between
batches.

This example also shows how the 4 wing N rotor gives a lower batch temperature for an
equivalent mix time compared to the 4 wing standard rotor. When the 4W standard
samples dropped at 154° C, the average batch temperature for the 4WN mixes after 125
seconds of mixing was 146° C.

Rotor Cycle ML1+4

Speed Time 100° C ΔT° C Temperature
Rotor (rpm) (sec) Mooney @ Drop @ 125 sec of mix

4WN 60 139 38 4 146° C

6W VCMT 60 115 36 4 -

4WS 60 125 40 23 154° C

Table 10. Comparing Material Uniformity: Masticated Natural Rubber

11
It has been found that some materials mix better in friction speed and some mix better in
even speed. For a natural rubber with carbon black and oil (Table 11), the material
displayed better results when mixed with a 4WN rotor with 90° orientation in even speed.

Rotor Cycle Ram ML1+4 16 Liter Energy

Drive Speed Time Seat 100° C Output Use
Rotor Speed (rpm) (sec) (sec) Mooney (kg/hr) (kWh/kg)

4WN Even 30 145 73 73 373 0.0550

4WN Fric. 30 171 83 78 316 0.0572

Table 11. 4W “N” Even vs. Friction Drive: Natural Rubber/Carbon Black

In this example, the sample mixed in even speed yielded a significantly faster cycle time,
faster ram seat time, a lower Mooney value, higher output and lower energy consumption
than the friction speed sample.

There are various ways that the rotor wings can be oriented to one another in an even
speed mixer and this can affect the way the material is pulled into the chamber, the ram
seat time, the cycle time and the dispersion and distribution of additives. A natural
rubber/high carbon black loaded compound (Table 12) was mixed with 4WN rotors with
the rotors in 0° orientation and with the rotors in the recommended 90° orientation.

Rotor Cycle Ram ML1+4 16 Liter Energy

Speed ° Rotor Time Seat 100° C Output Use
Rotor (rpm) Orien. (sec) (sec) Mooney (kg/hr) (kWh/kg)

4WN 50 90 166 115 86 290 0.132

4WN 50 0 181 119 88 268 0.143

Table 12. 4W ”N” Rotor Orientation: Natural Rubber/Carbon Black

The 90° recommended orientation gave a faster mix time and ram seat time, slightly
lower Mooney, higher output and used less energy in the mix. In addition, the 0°
orientation didn’t pull in the material as smoothly as with the 90° orientation, actually

12
slowing the rotor speed momentarily as the material was ingested. No such slowdown
was seen with the 90° orientation.

As previously mentioned, the 4WN rotor was initially designed for final (addition of cure
package) mixing. In Table 13, a comparison of final mixes for a series of materials was
done with 270 liter mixers with both the 4WN and 4W Standard rotors.

Cycle %
Drive Time Output
Material Rotor Speed (sec) Improvement

A 4N Even 93 15.3
A 4S Even 110 -

B 4N Even 98 17.6
B 4S Even 119 -

C 4N Even 88 25.8
C 4S Even 118 -

D 4N Even 95 17.2
D 4S Even 115 -

E 4N Even 79 30.5
E 4S Even 114 -

Table 13. 270 Liter Mixer Final Mixing Comparison

For the examples listed in Table 13, the output improvement information was
accumulated after mixing anywhere from 500 to greater than 10,000 batches of each of
the materials. However, since different materials mix differently with different rotors, it
must be pointed out, to be fair, that out of 25 different final materials mixed (covering
over 30 million pounds) with the N rotor, the improvement in output (kg/hr) ranged from
0-30.5% with an average improvement of 15%. The N rotor not only has a faster cycle
time, but it also has close to a 4% larger batch size than the S rotor to start with.

The 4WN rotors were also compared to the 4WS rotors for re-milling materials (simply
mixing materials to further lower the viscosity). As can be seen in Table 14, a tire
compound master batch (all from the same batch mixed in a 370 liter mixer) was simply
re-mixed in a 16 liter mixer with both types of rotors at 50 rpm. The 4WS rotors were in
the preferred 0° orientation and the 4WN rotors were in the preferred 90° orientation.

13
The materials re-milled with the 4WN rotors gave a significantly more uniform batch
temperature (ΔC of 3° versus 19° for the 4WS rotor), a lower Mooney viscosity, lower
energy consumption, lower drop temperature and a higher output for the same mix time.

Rotor Cycle Drop Batch ML1+4 16 Liter Energy

Speed Time Temp Temp 100° C Output Use
Rotor (rpm) (sec) (C) ΔC Mooney (kg/hr) (kWh/kg)

4WN 50 94 145 3 81 570 0.0752

4WS 50 94 151 19 83 550 0.0801

Table 14. Rotor Comparison: Re-Mill of a Tire Compound Master Batch

The 4WN rotor also showed improved additive dispersion when compared to the 4WH
(H Swirl) rotor for mixing pigment master batches. From the comparisons seen in Table
15, the N rotor gave a better dispersion (as measured on a Dispergrader) as well as a
lower maximum temperature than that achieved with the H rotor for equivalent mix times
and mix schemes.
Maximum
Mix % Temperature
Pigment Rotor Scheme Dispersion (C)

Red 4N 1 78 109
4H 1 68 114

Red 4N 2 71 103
4H 2 64 109

Blue 4N 1 78 115
4H 1 67 118

Blue 4N 2 80 97
4H 2 70 103

Table 15. 4W ”N” Comparison of Pigment Mixing

14
 Summary

As can be seen from the data presented herein, two different types of rotors (the patented
4 wing N and the patented 6 wing VCMT) which have atypical rotor features can have
significant positive effects on the cycle time, Mooney viscosity, dispersion, energy
consumption, reduction of mixing steps and output of various rubber systems.

15
 CHAMBER

Figure 1: Internal Mixer

16
 Short Wings on Drive End

Long Wings on Water End

Typical Rotor Features: Long Wings on one end of the rotor and the Short
Wings on the other end. Both the Short Wings have the same wing angle
and rotor tip to chamber wall clearance. Both the Long Wings have the
same wing angle and rotor tip to chamber wall clearance.

Figure 2: Typical Rotor Features

17
 4 Wing Rotor with constant rotor tip width
and tip to chamber wall clearance.

Patented 6 Wing VCMT Rotor with various rotor

tip widths and tip to chamber wall clearances.

Figure 3: Differences in Rotor Tip Design

18
 Short Wing: Small Tip
Small Tip Width Width and Clearance
Small Tip Clearance

Large Tip Width

Large Tip Clearance

Medium Tip Width

Medium Tip Clearance

Figure 4: Patented 6 Wing VCMT Long Wing Rotor Tip Clearances

19
 One Long Wing on each
rotor has a small angle

Short Wing
Short Wing

One Long Wing on each

rotor has a large angle

The Short Wings alternate ends, not on same end as typical rotor design.
The Long Wings each have a different angle, one with a large angle for
material movement and one with a small angle for high shear mixing.

Figure 5: Patented 4 Wing N Rotor

20
Figure 6: 4 Wing N Rotor Mixing Pattern in the Chamber

21