Coal - The Rupp-Frantz Vibrating Filter - Discussion

W. J. PARTON*—I have not had the opportunity to read this paper, and I do not have a written discussion. However, I thought it might be interesting for me to relate some of the experiences we had with equipment similar to the vibrating filter as described by the' authors. At the Tamaqua flotation plant of the Lebigh Navigation Coal Co. approximately 40 tons per hour of froth concentrate carrying 60 pct by weight moisture are produced. The major problem encountered at this plant is the dewatering of this coal froth so that a satisfactory product can be sent to market. In the original design of the plant a centrifuge of solid bowl type was included for de-watering this material. The centrifuge did not work out as well as we had hoped. High maintenance costs and moisture content in the cake were obtained. A Robbins dewatering screen was installed at a later date with the idea of using it in conjunction with the centrifuge. The froth concentrate from the flotation cells was fed directly to the Robbins dewatering screen. The cake from the screen carried approximately 55 pct of the feed solids. Moisture in the cake was approximately 24 pct by weight. The underflow from the screen carried 45 pct of the feed tonnage at about 80 pct moisture by weight. The underflow product was then pumped into the centrifuge with the idea of using the cen-trifuge for recovering the tonnage lost through the screen. This circuit did not operate as satisfactorily as we expected. The only benefit derived was in the reduction in the power consumed by the centrifuge. The maintenance on the centrifuge was approximately the same as previously. The next step in our experiments was to pump the underflow from the screen into a cyclone thickener which was mounted directly over the vibrating screen. This thickener increased the concentration of the solids to approximately 60 pct by weight and dropped the mate- rial back 011 the filter cake which had formed toward the discharge end of the screen. Unfortunately, the screen was not capable of handling this additional tonnage, and our experiments stopped at that point. We have been considering installing a second screen to make possible the complete mechanical dewatering of this product by the use of the dewatering screen and the cyclone thickener. Another possibility under study is to pump the underflow from this screen to a thickener which is available in the flotation plant, and to combine this thickeued underflow with the original feed going to the screen. Again, however, a second dewatering screen will be required to handle the total tonnage. 0. R. LYONS*—I had an opportunity to read this paper ahead of the meeting, and I did a little pencil engineering on it. As Mr. Bertholf said, it is very difficult to make a comparison and to carry the results of work at one plant over to what might be expected at another. What I did was to find information on filtering operations more or less comparable to the type of operation that Mr. Bertholf has with his vibrating filter. The only information that I was able to find was for drum type filters, and I found the operating characteristics of the vibrating filter and the drum type filters were very similar. The moisture contents of the cakes were almost identical. The output per square foot was about the only way that I could compare their capacities— using square foot of screen area against square foot of filter area—and I found the capacity of the vibrating filter to be slightly greater per unit area than the capacity of the drum-type filters. W. H. NEWTON†—Do I understand that the only escape for the solids is by overflowing the thickener? That is, does the filter have a chance to recover all the solids except that lost in the thickener overflow ? W. M. BERTHOLF (authors' reply)— Actually, the only escapc from that part of the circuit is over the top of the thickener. There are other places the fines could be lost in the washery. but once they get into that part of the circuit, they must go over the top to escape. W. H. NEWTON—I would like to ask Mr. Lyons if, in the study of rotary filters, he has any basis for comparison of operating costs? 0. R. LYONS—No, I had no information on costs. The only information I was able to find was on screen size, moisture content, and tonnage output per unit area. W. L. McMORRIS*—Are you wasting that overflow water or re-using it? W. M. BERTHOLF—Right now, we are not re-using it. D. R. MITCHELL† —What is the approximate per capita cost of one of these units? W. M. BERTHOLF—It appears to be somewhere in the neighborhood of $200, for the screen. W. H. NEWTON—The cost would be about $2500 for the complete unit including the vibrating power unit. G. A. VISSAC‡—I do not like to come on the floor after I have been talking so long, but I thought you might be interested in our experience in dewatering, as well as drying our very fine coals. We have used both centrifuge and vibrating screens. The type of vibrating screens we have used in Canada are called the Zimmer. That is a screen of German construction, and I guess it is along the same lines as the dewatering screens you are using now. We use wedge wires, and the minimum size opening is a quarter of a millimeter. In our experience, the cheapest way is still a dewatering bin. A dewatering bin takes 48 hr to do work that takes 20 min in a dewatering screen. We use old wedge wire from our driers which we cover with brattice cloth, and