Coal - Quantitative Efficiency of Separation of Coal Cleaning Equipment - Discussion

John Griffen—The author has called attention to an important phase of coal cleaning since there has been considerable loose thinking regarding efficiency formulae and particularly inaccurate application of ones that have been advanced. The unanimous acceptance of an efficiency formula has been prevented because the issue has been beclouded by the fact that the objective of cleaning—-the control of chemical characteristics of the coal such as ash or sulphur content—is attained by an indirect rather than a direct method. The indirect method is usually to effect separation according to differences in specific gravity. Such separation relies on the fact that the desired chemical qualities are roughly inversely proportional to the specific gravity of the particles being separated. However, the sulphur content of the materials found in raw coal usually exhibit a far from straight line relationship with their specific gravities. Mr. Anderson meets this issue squarely by basing his formula on the efficiency of separation according to specific gravity only. It is true that machines that effect primarily a specific gravity separation are in no way directly influenced by the chemical analysis of the materials being handled and it can be argued that it is illogical to measure their efficiency by any criterion other than that of separation according to specific gravity. For the moment, let us accept this basis and analyze the application of the efficiency conception and formula proposed by Mr. Anderson under conditions which he has not considered but that will readily be found. Let us take the separation shown in his table III as an example. He terms this an example of a high order of quantitative efficiency. We will show the weight distribution of the various gravity fractions as between clean coal and refuse in table XV. Only in the gravity range of 1.50 to 1.70 has material been misplaced and, on the assumption that the cleaned coal and refuse are equal in weight, Anderson shows a quantitative efficiency of 99 pet. The gravity of separation is 1.60 and one third of the 1.50 to 1.60 sp gr fraction is misplaced in the refuse while one third of the 1.60 to 1.70 sp gr fraction is misplaced in the cleaned coal. Let us now see what effect the gravity distribution of the total products has on the quantitative efficiency calculated by his formula. Still using the data in table