Flotation Machine Dynamics

During the first four decades of flotation practice, close to 200 machine designs were patented, although only about a score were ever used commercially. By the end of that period, the rigors of use had resulted in obsolescence of most pneumatic cells, with a few mechanical cells dominating the field. After World War II, newer designs began to appear but most were modifications in varying degrees of older designs with special features added. Of the dozen or so most recent developments, almost all are pneumatic, relying on compressed air instead of impellers for motive power, although in several cases pumps supplement compressors. Table 1 lists a few of the more fully documented new cells, with their significant characteristics, along with similar characteristics of a widely used mechanical cell. New designs in general are emphasizing: bubble size control; in several cases, methods for delivering feed directly to the froth; methods for introducing and dispersing air through nozzles, eductors, packed beds, or permeable walls; and variable cell volumes, relative to capacities, ranging from very small, with less than a second of retention time, to the largest, with retention times of over 20 min. An important question is the extent to which any of the newer designs are based on locating weaknesses in current mechanical cell designs and then using these as a starting point for innovations. In the present study, the key subprocesses which must take place in a cell are outlined; mechanical cells are analyzed to establish where weaknesses may exist; and then alternative subprocesses are considered which could effect improvements. COMPONENTS FOR CELL DESIGN It is assumed that mineral surface chemistry has been modified as necessary to provide optimum potential floatability. While the cell process may affect this to a degree, cell design is primarily concerned with actualizing the existing potential floatability. The cell design problem is to provide more effectively for the following: 1) Dispersion of air to obtain an optimum bubble size distribution at an optimum ratio of air volume to feed volume. 2) A hydraulic environment which permits most effective contact of potentially floatable particles with bubbles: [Table I - Cell Comparisons* Cell Type Mechanical Column Deister Miller ASH No. of units Multiple Single Single Single Retention time min.10/20 17/27 3.8 ca. is Capacities mt/m3s 0.022/0.066 0.066/0.20 0.11 10.4 st/ft3d 1/3 0.3//0.9 m5.0 469 Air hold-up % 15/20 20 n.a. 50/80 Air escape velocity m/s 0.015/0.0200.020/0.025 n.a. n.a. ft/m 3/4 4/5 n.a. n.a. * References: Mechanical (Harris, 1976,1985), (Bassarear, 1985); Column (Travis, et al. 1987); Deister (Zipperian and Christophersen, 1985); ASH (Air-Sparged Hydrocyclone) (Miller 1989).]