The Mechanics of Operation of Column Flotation Machines

"In January 1983, Gibraltar Mines Ltd. started an exploratory program on Column Flotation with hopes of improving performance of the Molybdenum Cleaning circuit. The encouraging results led to a column test trial in the Bulk Copper Cleaner circuit where the test unit has per¬formed well. A program was undertaken to understand the mechanics of column operation. A year and a half later, Gibraltar is considering the replacement of existing Bulk Copper and Moly Cleaning flotation cells with a fully computer con¬trolled Column Flotation circuit.BRIEF SUMMARY OF TESTWORKInitial testwork was done with a home made 20 inch diameter x 31 foot high column, equipped with a doppler flow-meter at the tail line and automatic level conrol. This loop maintained constant level in the column by throttling the tail valve. This column was placed in a variety of locations around the Moly circuit as shown on Figure 1 a, b. Test re¬sults indicated that the column could achieve much higher grades than the conventional cells, but recovery wise, the performance was low. Spillages from overloaded pump boxes were a common frustration during this time.Column control strategy was reviewed; and, in light of information received from McGill University, changed to conform with the methods that had been employed by D. Wheeler, of the Column Co. of Canada4 and Gaspe Copper Mines3.The column was tested replacing a portion of the bank, figure lc. The results obtained were more or less equal to the circuit. However, as we had Nitrogen gas connected to the column and not the regular cells, the column was kept in service. With the use of Nitrogen in the column, the usual copper depressant, Sodium Cyanide could be replaced with Sodium Hydrosulphide, hence lower operating cost.As time went on, a 10 inch diameter column was added in series to re-treat the concentrate of the 20 inch diameter column with hopes that the copper content would decrease from 0.6% down to 0.3% in order to save on subsequent leach¬ing costs. So far, results indicate there has been some im-provement, hut we are not achieving 0.3% copper. (See figure 1d)."