State Rittinger’s crushing law in terms of energy–size reduction: which statement correctly represents its core idea?

Introduction / Context:
Among the classical size-reduction laws, Rittinger’s law best fits fine grinding where surface area change dominates. It is fundamental for estimating energy when large increases in surface area occur.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• We compare verbal statements of different laws.
• We want the one proportional to new surface area.

Concept / Approach:
Rittinger’s law: E ∝ ΔA. Kick’s law: E ∝ ln(d1/d2). Bond’s law: E ∝ (1/√d2 − 1/√d1). Only Rittinger ties energy directly to newly created surface, which is especially relevant as particle size approaches fine ranges.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Identify the statement matching Rittinger’s proportionality to surface area.Select the option expressing “energy ∝ new surface.”

Verification / Alternative check:
Fine milling design calculations and literature consistently pair Rittinger’s law with surface area creation.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Options (a), (b), (d), (e) do not reflect Rittinger’s formulation.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing Bond and Kick with Rittinger due to overlapping usage domains.

Final Answer:
Energy required is proportional to the new surface created