Professional Documents
Culture Documents
BatchType Equip
BatchType Equip
BatchType Equip
Many of Falcon’s customers have asked what to look for when selecting their enhanced gravity
concentration equipment. Those that take the time to do an in-depth technical review quickly
conclude that Falcon’s technology delivers superior performance based on a number of criteria:
CSA Calculation:
A B
1 Dimensions SB5200
2 Diameter, top of retention zone (inches) 45.50
3 Retention zone slope length (inches) 10.00
4 Diameter, bottom of migration zone (inches) 43.50
5 Migration zone slop length (inches) 33.00
6 Diameter, bottom of migration zone (inches) 28.00
7 CONCENTRATING SURFACE AREA (sq. inches) 5126.31
CSA=1.5708*((B3*(B2+B4))+(B5*(B4+B6)))+(PI()*B6/4)
* Based on Formula for Frustum of a cone
Acceleration of Pulp
There tends to be a lot of slippage between the pulp being processed and the bowl of the
concentrating machine. This reduces the effective centrifugal field. In Falcon machines, there is
a low-cost impeller that accelerates the pulp. Although there is still some slippage, it is much less
than in devices with no impeller. Reducing the relative velocity between the bowl and the pulp
being processed also lessens wear on the expensive bowl parts.
Unit Capacity
Falcon has recently released its Model SB5200 Superbowl complete with 5200 in.2 concentrating
surface area and 100 HP electric motor. The 5200 shares many components with Falcon’s well-
proven Model C4000 so in reality it is not a “new” machine. With a conservative minimum
capacity of more than 240 t/h solids, it has the industry’s largest unit capacity.
Note:
On the other hand, early designs for this type of device fluidize the entire wall of the rotor. For
example, MacNicol obtained a patent in Australia in 1935. Other manufacturers have copied
MacNicol’s pioneering work:
Note:
By reducing the fluidized area, Falcon has reduced unit fluidization water demand to
unprecedented low levels.
Off-Line Time
The Falcon Superbowl machine must be taken off line periodically to rinse out the concentrate.
Falcon's AutoPAC control includes not only a variable frequency drive, but also a dynamic brake
that brings the rotor from concentrating speed to rinsing speed very quickly, usually <10 seconds.
Upon reaching rinsing speed, a high-pressure water spray is activated automatically. As the rotor
continues to turn very slowly, the concentrate is quickly and completely washed from the riffles.
High pressure minimizes rinse water demand. Once the concentrate is washed out, the rotor is
accelerated very smoothly back to concentrating speed and then the feed is started again. The
whole rinsing procedure usually takes < 1 minute and is very easy on the drive train.
Automated rinsing systems that involve coasting to rest followed by across-the-line starting may
experience premature failure of drive and electrical components and much longer off-line times.
In addition, rinsing systems based on bowl flooding have been known to cause water balance
problems.
Falcon’s off-line time is the shortest in the industry.
Internal Pressurization
The Falcon Superbowl actually increases the pressure of the fluidizing water within the machine.
Water is introduced to the fluidized zone of the rotor through a hollow rotating shaft, and then
through spokes and hoses. The centrifugal field actually pumps the fluidizing water into the
fluidized zone at a higher pressure than where it is introduced to the non-rotating frame. This
pressurization effect is a function of bowl diameter and thus is most pronounced in the Falcon
Superbowl Model SB5200, a 240-t/h machine weighing 10 tonnes:
Rotor Bowl
Rotor Shaft
Pressure
Fluidization Water
Internal pressurization reduces the pressure at which fluidizing water must be delivered to
the Falcon machines.
Centrifugal force
Control Philosophy
Fluidization water injection holes become plugged even in the Falcon Superbowl over time.
Falcon controls fluidization water injection rate to its Superbowl machines with pressure. With
this strategy, the fluidization conditions around each open hole remain in a constant optimized
state. Falcon considered and rejected the strategy of injecting a constant total volume of water
over time since the conditions around each open hole change from being optimum when all of the
holes are open to very much less than optimum as holes become plugged. Further, open holes are
subjected to higher and higher velocities as more of the holes become plugged. In addition to
poor metallurgical performance, controlling flow rate and monitoring pressure creates a risk of
damage to the rotor from excessive velocity. Falcon’s strategy of controlling fluidization water
pressure and monitoring flow rate is clearly superior.
Conclusions
Falcon’s recent gains in market share have been achieved by delivering superior equipment at
realistic prices. Those that take the time to make even a cursory technical comparison can see
how Falcon has distinguished itself from competition.