Industrial Minerals - Efficiency and Sharpness of Separation in Evaluating Coal-Washery Performance - Discussion

John Grifien (Pittsburgh)—I wish to congratulate the authors on this paper, which, I am sure, will promote a clearer conception of the various criteria which have been advanced as measures of coal-cleaning performance. Their clear descriptions of the more important criteria that have been advanced and explanations of their meaning and application have been sorely needed and, if widely promulgated and followed, should remove much of the confusion which, heretofore, has been evident. I suggest that much of this confusion has also arisen from lack of common agreement as to the exact meaning of the words and terms used in our discussions of this subject. I am sure I have been equally guilty in this respect and suggest it is time that we select a committee to study vocabulary as well as criteria, so that common understanding and agreement can be had. Thus, I suggest, that the title of this paper should have used the words "coal-cleaning performance" and not "coal-washery performance." My understanding is that "washery" refers to a complete plant and it has additional functions to that of coal-cleaning, such as control of size, moisture, etc. Also, I do not agree with the authors that the formulas given in their paper, the Fraser and Yancey formulas, are necessarily the only ones that can be called efficiency formulas. When a dictionary is consulted one realizes that the words "efficiency" and "efficient" have not precise meanings but only very general ones and must be further defined for each particular use, if they are to have any precise meaning. To my mind, the first of the Fraser and Yancey formulas given should never be used as expressing "efficiency" alone but only by the fuller phrase which truly expresses the kind of efficiency it states, which is "coal recovery efficiency." For complete clarity we then need only define "coal" for the particular circumstances under which the formula is used. This would recognize the fact, fully explained by the authors, that the limits in coal qualities imposed by the market have imposed a factor—and a variable factor—which has influenced any answer obtained by this formula. Such a procedure makes it entirely practical and logical to use the values of any of the qualities of coal—ash, sulphur, phosphorus, specific gravity—or a combination of them to define what is coal for that particular use of the formula. Further, it is clear to me that the criteria to be used must be dictated by the objective in view and the use for which the data are obtained. The authors clearly point out that the Fraser and Yancey coal-recovery efficiency formula is influenced by three factors, "one is determined by the coal, one is dictated by market or use conditions, and one is an inherent characteristic of the cleaning unit itself." The formula which uses the inverse of misplaced material as a measure of efficiency is also a coal recovery efficiency formula and is influenced in like manner by these three factors. As the authors point out, both are useless in obtaining data which enables a direct and valid comparison of the performance of a given cleaning unit on two coals where the other two factors vary or of the performance of two or more cleaning units of different types unless the values of the other two factors are identical. Much of the confusion in our discussions of and literature on coal cleaning has come from failure to understand clearly this fact. Many such comparisons have been made from which erroneous conclusions have been drawn. I am, therefore, particularly glad to see the authors' emphasis on 4?-1e criteria which indicate the "sharpness of separation. I feel that these are the essential criteria