A preliminary investigation of dry gravity separation with low specific gravity ores using a laboratory Knelson Concentrator
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has become an active research area for treating low specific gravity (SG) deposits by centrifugal separation due to its high efficiency, low cost and minor environmental impact. Laboratory Knelson Concentrator has shown its potential for processing high density ores on a dry basis. This study investigated the feasibility and the optimum operating conditions when processing a dry low SG feed with a modified Knelson Concentrator. A synthetic mixture of magnetite and quartz with a grade of 1% magnetite was used to mimic a low-density ratio ore. Bowl speed (G), air fluidizing pressure (psi) and solids feed rate (g/min) were chosen as the operating variables. Box-Behnken design was used to design the experiments and response surface method was used for optimization. The effects of each individual factors and their interactions on concentrate grade and magnetite recovery were evaluated. The dry process achieved up to 60 % magnetite recovery with an upgrade ratio of 5. The optimized values for the concentration with the highest recovery and grade of bowl speed, solids feed rate and air fluidizing pressure are 27 G, 200 g/min and 12 psi, respectively.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it