Coal - Operating Data for a Bird Centrifuge - Discussion

F. X. Ferney—We are pleased that this paper was presented at this meeting and thank Mr. Richardson and Mr. Lyons for their effort and work in preparing it. We agree with the authors that it was unfortunate that more comprehensive data were not available when the paper was prepared, this being particularly true since we had no knowledge that the paper was being written and could not make available data which were in our process files. Further, it is our opinion that because the data are not sufficiently comprehensive the results which are presented are erratic and will lead to false conclusions. As we see it, there are three Specific reasons why the data which are presented cannot be considered accurate. 1. The preparation plant was not at equilibrium while the samples were being taken. This is indicated by the fact that the percent of solids in the circulating water varied from 3.9 pct to 10.7 pct during the period when the plant was sampled. 2. We do not believe that the samples of Bird feed which were taken were representative and could indicatc the true feed to the filter. Evidence of this is shown in the data where the dewatered product leaving the centrifuge contains more coarse material than the feed to it, that is, material which is +6-mesh in size. 3. We question if the data concerning screen analysis in the fine sizes is accurate and would conclude (from the data) that these tests were made by a dry-screen method. We have found that wet screening is always necessary to obtain a true picture of the quantity of —200-mesh fines which is present. The test work described in the Lyons-Richardson paper was conducted some time ago and the tests were carried on during a period when the preparation plant had not ironed out all of their start-up problems. Since that time most of these problems have been corrected and now this is a smooth running, well-operated prep-