Coal - Laboratory Performance Tests of the Humphreys Spiral as a Cleaner of Fine Coal - Discussion

W. M. Bertholf—This is an excellent report of a well-conducted investigation, of sufficient scope to provide generally useful information. Some years ago we had occasion to test the Humphreys spiral on the middling from our table plant. The conclusions reached in this investigation come as no surprise to us. In certain applications it is virtually impossible to improve on the spiral from the monetary returns point of view even though its "efficiency" may be low. We have noted that in all successful applications of the spiral the feed is "classified," hence we were somewhat disappointed in the showing the spiral made on the Poplar Ridge coal, the only one of the four which could really be considered the equivalent of a classified feed. As was noted in the paper, however, this coal contained a considerable amount of middle and high-gravity material, apparently more than enough to make up for the theoretical advantage of small particles in these categories. A comparison of particle size in the various specific gravity classes of the four coals is given in table XXV. Table XXV. Comparison of Particle Size in Various Specific Gravity Classes. (Unit size, 150 m to 0.105 mm) Black Eagle Clements Poplar Ridge Rosly,n 1.3 Float 7.47 10.60 8.68 9.66 1.3 x 1.4 7.89 7.96 7.58 8.20 1.4x1.6 7.24 8.36 5.58 6.85 1.6 x 1.8 7.98 8.31 3.42 7.33 Sink 1.8 7.85 7.13 5.09 7.41 Avg 7.69 10.08 7.15 8.38 This tabulation indicates that there was very little difference in the size of the various gravity fractions for three of the coals, Poplar Ridge varying the most. Examination of figs. 3, 6, 7, and 8 reveals a general similarity of behavior for all coals except Black Eagle. Would the authors care to speculate on the reasons for the difference in the distribution curve for the sink 1.60 material in the washed coal of fig. 3 as compared to the others? This difference is particularly noticeable in the 8xl4-mesh size. Was there a "shape effect"? J. D. Price and W. M. Bertholf—The performance data on three of the coals studied appear to be typical, but there are certain departures from the general pattern in the case of the Poplar Ridge coal which are large enough to deserve special consideration. For example: 1. Despite the high proportion of sink 1.60 material in the feed, it was not possible to make a corresponding proportion of high-ash reject. (See table XVI.) 2. Even though approximately 70 pct of the feed was 1.40 float with an ash content of 6.6 pct, and this