Coal - Discussion - Comparative Effectiveness of Coal Cleaning Equipment

- Organization:
- The American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers
- Pages:
- 2
- File Size:
- 169 KB
- Publication Date:
- Jan 1, 1953
Abstract
DISCUSSION Judson S. Hubbard (The Humphreys Investment Co., Denver)—In this very interesting paper several brief references are made to the Humphreys spiral, a device used for cleaning fine coal. In Table I, Plants 76 and 77, data are given on spiral performance treating Raton and Trinidad coal. The fine coal, as fed to the spiral in these instances, is actually a table middling, hence the more easily treated material was previously removed and a large number of particles were present which were difficult to clean. Mr. W. M. Bertholf of the Colorado Fuel and Iron Co. presented a paper in February, 1946, Cleaning Table Middlings from a Coal Washery with the Humphreys Spiral Concentrator, from which I quote: "In considering the results of our tests it should be noted that the feed was our table middling, and that any real separation is a 'moral victory' as there is little material that could properly be called coal and practically no heavy rock, the consequences being that previous attempts to clean the middling have not at all been successful." Referring again to Table I, Plants 72, 73, 74, and 75, these data were obtained by Yancey and Geer and others and presented at the February 1950 Meeting, AIME, in a paper entitled Laboratory Performance Tests of the Humphreys Spiral as a Cleaner of Fine Coal. Results shown for those tests involve all particles from 8 mesh through the colloids, which admittedly is not an ideal situation for spiral feed if much refuse is contained in the —80 mesh or —100 mesh size range. As an illustration of the effect of treating too broad a size range, let us consider Plant No. 75, Kentucky No. 9 seam. Spiral feed was 8 mesh x 0. Now had this been 8x100 mesh the percentage of misplaced material would have been 8.0 pct instead of the reported 15.26 pct. Similar comparisons can be made on the other data presented with respect to the spiral. Other types of equipment show a similar trend in that whenever too fine a size is treated in a given unit process the percentage of misplaced material increases. Since the spiral is working near the finer end of the size range, it will sometimes be advantageous to treat the entire range of —8 mesh material rather than to deslime and make a fair showing on, say, the +80 or + I00 mesh. Desliming is subsequently done in any case in the dewatering or thickening operation. Results obtained by spiraling any given coal depend on factors too numerous and complex to discuss here, but there are strong indications that proper preparation of feed to the spiral can improve results obtained on some of the raw coals tested. This is clearly pointed out at the end of the aforementioned paper by Yancey and Geer. "The spiral is an extremely simple device which involves no moving parts and is constructed almost entirely of unmachined castings. Since it is such an uncomplicated mechanism, operation is simple and virtually foolproof. These characteristics, which go far toward insuring low cost operation, are attractive attributes in any coal cleaning unit." Certain equipment used in conjunction with the spiral has resulted in a decrease in the percentage of misplaced material, notably in actual practice the launder screen which is used to remove objectionable high ash fines from a spiral-washed coal product. Private correspondence with the U. S. Bureau of Mines has intimated that an additional yield of coal is possible by flotation of the spiral middling. Possible future improvements and developments may result from other methods now under consideration. Finally, some compromise must be made between the best metallurgical performance and the best practical or economical results. Mr. Lyons emphasizes in his summary this objective of overall economy in selection of equipment. G. B. Walker (American Cyanamid Co., Stamford, Conn.)—I had the pleasure of reviewing the draft of this paper and my curiosity was aroused by the data given for Tromp plants, in that all of the examples shown appeared to be 2-product separations, whereas all the Tromp plants with which I am familiar have been 3-product units. The data given for plants No. 101 and 102 appear to be taken from Tromp's brochure on his process and represent the results obtained at the Dominale plant in Holland which was operated for many years by Mr. Tromp. The plant, which was designed to treat 58 tons per hr, was sampled while treating 35 tons per hr of 3Y4x-in. coal. Example 101 appears to conform to what would result if the middling product were calculated into the refuse product, while Example 102 represents the calculation of the middling into the coal product. It is believed that Examples 103 and 104 represent the operation of the Willem-Sophie Mine in Holland recalculated on the same basis. In checking the English examples given by numbers 14, 15, 16, and 17, the same procedure seems to have been followed. These results have, apparently, been taken from an article in Colliery Engineering in August 1941, describing the initial operation of the Williamthorpe Colliery of the Hardwick Colliery Co. Two vessels are employed in this plant, one to treat soft coal and one to treat hard coal. Example No. 14 presents the results that could be obtained from the soft coal bath if the middling were calculated into the refuse, and Example 15 the results when the middling is calculated into the coal. Examples 16 and 17 represent the same expedient in the case of the hard coal bath. Of interest to this discussion is the fact that during the past year the Simon-Carves Engineering Co. in England has installed in the Williamthorpe plant their new "Sim-Car" medium cleaning system which is based on magnetic extraction and control and which is licensed under the Heavy-Media Separation Processes patents by the American Zinc, Lead and Smelting Co. This system has been described in the December 1951, issue of Colliery Engineering. It is reported that since the Williamthorpe Colliery was changed from the Tromp system of medium cleaning to the Magneto-Motive method of medium control the opera-
Citation
APA:
(1953) Coal - Discussion - Comparative Effectiveness of Coal Cleaning EquipmentMLA: Coal - Discussion - Comparative Effectiveness of Coal Cleaning Equipment. The American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, 1953.