Papers - Preparation - Coal-cleaning Performance-Comparison of Pneumatic Jig, Pneumatic Table and Baum- type Jig (T. P. 1888)

Investigations of the fundamental factors involved in the performance of various coal-cleaning processes have constituted a substantial portion of the research 011 coal cleaning conducted by the Bureau of Mines. These detailed studies of the mechanism of separating coal from impurity in various cleaning devices were undertaken to provide the coal industry with information that is helpful in selecting the type of cleaner most suitable for treating a particular coal. Previous reports describing these investigations have dealt with the wet table,1 the pneumatic table,' and the plunger,3 pulsator.4 and Baum types5 of jigs. The present report compares the performance of three commonly used units treating the same coal—a pneumatic jig, also known as the air-flow. cleaner, a pneumatic table, and a Baum-type jig. Object and Plan The fact that pneumatic coal-cleaning processes are less efficient than wet-washing methods because they are unable to make as sharp a separation between coal and impurity is well recogilized. The literature, however, contains little quantitative in- formation on the relative performances of the two types of cleaners. The object of the present report is to present a detailed comparison of the performances of two pneumatic units and one wet-washing process treating coal from the same bed. Although the information in this report demonstrates that the performance of the pneumatic cleaners is not as good as that of those employing water, it must not be construed as reflecting on the usefullless of such equipment. Performance is often secondary to other factors in the selection of coal-cleaning equipment, and the advantages inherent in pneumatic processes frequently outweigh the limitations imposed by their performance. Specific gravity and particle size are the principal factors that influence the separation of coal from impurity in either pneumatic or wet processes; consequently, the tools available for this investigation were the float-and-sink bath and the screen. Accordingly, the raw coal, clean coal, and refuse samples representing the operation of each type of cleaning unit were first separated into a series of density fractions by means of the float-and-sink bath, and then each density fraction was screened into a series of size fractions. By this procedure the raw coal, clean coal, and refuse were subdivided into components of restricted ranges in density and size. From these data it was possible to determine how the cleaning unit disposed of each component of the raw coal; that is. what proportion of each component is sent to clean coal or rejected as refuse.