A comparison of ore pre-concentration efficiency between two high voltage pulse generator systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• High voltage pulse pre-concentration was compared between two generators. • A gold-copper ore was tested. • Different pre-concentration efficiencies were observed. • Likely caused by differences in the selective breakage of high-grade rocks. High Voltage Pulse (HVP) enabled ore pre-concentration can potentially provide large energy savings and the ability to upgrade low-grade ores for the mining industry. Two types of pulse generator systems commonly used in HVP breakage are Marx generators and pulse transformers. This initial assessment compares the pre-concentration performance of a SelFrag Lab Unit (utilising a Marx generator) and a custom-built HVP machine (employing a pulse transformer) from Huazhong University of Science and Technology (HUST). Eight sets of experimental results using the two generator systems were collected. Two approaches were taken to analyse the data; a trendline approach using all eight sets of data, and a single-point comparison approach with matched specific energy inputs. The results show that there are significant differences in pre-concentration efficiencies with the HUST machine performing better. To elucidate the potential causes, the degree of size reduction (t 10 ), breakage probability, and selective breakage were investigated for the two generator systems. It is likely that the efficiency of selective breakage is one of the major causes, with the HUST machine presenting better results at selectively breaking high-grade particles and consuming less energy. Additionally, the two generator systems have different energy per discharge levels; the effect of this difference should be investigated in future work.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".