Industrial Minerals - Beneficiation of Industrial Minerals by Heavy-media Separation - Discussion

K. F. TROMP*—In dealing with the question of the most suitable kind of solid media for heavy density suspension processes Walker and Allen point out that the particle size of the solid media should not be taken too fine, as the viscosity increases with the area of the solid media and a low viscosity is essential lor high tonnage and accurate separation. A coarser particle size of the solid media will, in their opinion, of necessity give rise to a differential density in the bath (higher gravity at the bottom of the bath than at the top) but they advocate acceptance of the differential density rather than a higher viscosity. Though I fully agree with the choice the authors have made, I cannot subscribe to their view that only by accepting a differential density in the bath a coarse particle size of the solid media can be used. There certainly is another alternative: stronger agitation. Applying sufficiently strong vertical currents, a uniform gravity can be obtained quite well in a suspension of a coarse solid media. Of course, this is not a very attractive solution, for it means a degradation of the true gravity separation and a step backwards to hydraulic classification, which makes the washing dependent on size and shape of the particles. However, to a greater or lesser extent, this is what actually takes place in all the heavy density suspension processes relying on a uniform gravity in the bath. The so-called "stable" suspension processes make no exception. They all "stabilize" their suspensions by introducing or creating vertical currents, be it upwards or downwards or both, be it by hydraulic or by mechanical means. In fact, there is no such thing as a "stable" suspension in gravity separation, as the very reason for the use of suspensions in this field is the property that the solid media is able to settle and so facilitate the recovery. I have been enlarging on this point because the characteristics of the various processes can only be well understood and viewed from the same angle (from Bar-voys up to Chance) when the fact is recognized that mechanical or hydraulic agitation is a condition sine qua non for obtaining a uniform density from top to bottom in a suspension. Is a Cone-slraped Vessel Essenlial? Of the two alternatives for getting a low viscosity Walker and Allen have preferred correctly the sacrifice of uniform gravity in the bath instead of increasing further their vertical current arid agitation. The resulting differential density of the bath brings the problem of bow to prevent accumulation of intermediate gravity products in the bath, an accumulation which, if not prevented, would ultimately plug their cone. According to the authors an open-top cone combined with a downdraft current of the bath liquid would he the only suitable way to cope with such suspensions and they assume as a fact that "in any vessel other than a cone, such a differential density could not be tolerated." My experience is quilt: different. In my process, which has been in successful operation for more than a decade, differ-ential density of the suspension is applied ranging from values below 0.1 up to differentials above 0.5, according to the prevailing requirements of the individual plant. In this process, which is charac-terized by the use of horizontal currents in a suspension of differential density, the form of the vessel is of secondary importance and different types are in operation. It so happens that none of these are in the, form of a cone. The fact that 24 washboxes on my process have been installed and 12 others are under construction may constitute sufficient proof against the opinion that only a cone-shaped separator would be suited for differential density separation. Horizontal Currents in Differentia1 Den-sity Sepparation I myself have some doubts as to the suitability of a cone with downdraft for dealing with differential density (or, for that matter, any other washbox relying on vertical currents for removing the intermediate gravity products). It ap-pears to me that it is restricted to feed of small size only and even then with watch-fulness. If we take, for example, a piece of 2 in., the draft necessary to pull such a piece down to a zone wherein the den-sity of the suspension is, say, 0.03 higher, is quite considerable. For a suspension of, say, 1.6 sp gr the downdraft will have to be in the region of 3 in. per second. Unfortunately. most of the differential in density is in the part immediately below the reach of the top current which transports the floats. Consequently, we need the downdraft where we like it least: in the upper part of the cone. This entails the risk that light float particles are carried away with the downward current. This current of, say again, 3 in. per second would carry particles up to 1.3 sp gr and 3/8 in. size into the 1.6 gravity zone. This is prohibitive. It is also prohibitive because a downdraft of 3 in. per second in the upper part of the cone would require a tremendous circulation of medium. IIalf way up a 20 ft diam cone, a downdraft of 3 in. per second would correspond with 8500 gpm. With the downward current following the way of least resistance, the strength of the downdraft will not be exactly the same at different places of a cross area. If, as I anticipate, the center of the cone is favored, the strength of the downdraft will fall below the critical value near the