Coal - Sampling of Coal for Float-and-sink Tests - Discussion

W. W. ANDERSON and G. E. KELLER*—We want to compliment the authors on this very thorough paper. It gives information which the coal industry has needed for some time. We hope that the additional information which the authors are collecting will he available shortly. The mixing and riffling procedure that was followed for experimental purposes is obviously not practical in routine float-and-sink testing because of the particle size degradation which would result in handling the sample so many times. It is important to obtain our tloat-and-sink fractions with a minimum amount of handling of material. A statement is made in the paper (p. 80) that "the variable most likely to affect the size of sample required to meet a given preassigned accuracy would be the state or degree of mixing of the coal." We agree that this is a large factor, but do not believe it is the most important factor. Our own opinion is that the most important single factor governing the total gross weight of sample that must be collected is the percentage of the weight of material in the smallest fraction that results from the screening and float-and-\ink operations. In other words, size of sample is governed by the total number of fractionations that must he made, and the distribution of material within the fractions. We can imagine a coal with perfect mixing, but with such a small amount of material in some float-and-sink fraction in one of the coarse sizes that a much larger sample would have to be taken than would be the case with very poorly mixed material, but with a large percentage of coarse material more evenly distributed in all float-and-sink fractions. Our own observation of many float-and-sink tests that we have run in our own organization on many types of coal is that the size of sample that must be used on fine size float and sink is governed more by the requirements for weight of material to be used for analysis in the laboratory than by weight of material necessary to obtain accurate float and sink percentage of weight values. In other words, it is our opinion that very small samples can be used for float-and-sink fractionation in the fine sizes, but that accurate analysis of the fractions will depend on a larger weight of sample being pulverized for the laboratory than is necessary to establish the float-and-sink distribution with respect to weight. A. L. BAILEY and B. A. LANDRY (authors' reply)—The authors thank Messrs. Anderson and Keller for their comments based on long experience. It is agreed that the involved mixing and riming technique used may be disadvantageous from the standpoint of degradation. Fortunately, the paper does point out that the extended riming was unrewarding in causing further mixing. Two large unknowns remain, however: (1) how much of the mixing from the presumed highly unmixed state in the bed was achieved toward the random state during blasting, loading, transportation, screening, and further transportation to the point where the gross sample was taken, and (2) how much of the mixing took place during the preparation described preceding riming. As has been pointed out by one of the authors.6 the degree of mixing has a very large effect on the size of sample required and there are still too few experimental data to show at what stage of coal handling most of the mixing occurs. The discussion states that the weight of material in a screened fraction, or in a float-and-sink fraction, is more important than the mixing factor. We do not believe that these factors are comparable in this instance inasmuch as our purpose was to give minimum sampling requirements to achieve a preassigned accuracy in the percentages of float, middlings, or sink, and nothing more. The gross sample had already been screened and no further division by screening was made or contemplated; also, it was not intended that the middlings and sink fractions would necessarily be adequate for percentage ash or other determination. In other words, the sample obtained by the method outlined is not intended for washability studies but only for preparation plant control. Further experimental work has been done, since the paper was prepared, to investigate the effect of increasingly larger top and bottom sizes on the variability of float, etc., of a double-screened coal from Western Pennsylvania. Results will be published and eventually attention is to be given to the preparation of sampling specifications. E. H. M. BADGER*—I should like the authors to explain more fully the fundamental assumptions on which their Eq 4 is based. The equation is of the form s2 = p(l - p) which is the usual expression for the (standard deviation)2 when the chance of finding a particular kind of particle in the sample is proportional to the number fraetion, p. But instead of the number fraction, the authors have used the weight fraction, WF/W. The chance of finding a particular kind of particle in the sample can only be proportional to the weight fraction, if the average ?eig?ts of all kinds of particles, that is, float, midlings, or sink, are the same. Surely a much more justifiable assumption would be that the average volumes of the particles are the same, and, if this is so, Eq 4 would not be true. This may be demonstrated as follows: Let be the weight fraction of float, middlings, or sink, dl the density of this fraction, and d2 the density of the rest of the coal. Then assuming that the average volumes of the pieces in the three classes are the same, the number fraction, p, is given by ? P = d1/l-?/d2 + ?/d1 = ?d2/d1 + ?(d2-d1) The weight fraction, w, in terms of p is given by ? = pd1/(l-p)d2 + pd1 = pd1/d2 + p(d1-d2) _____ [61