Welcome, Register :: Log In		Welcome to our newest member, Agent67.
Users active in this forum:
Users active in this thread:

people online in the last 1 minutes - 0 members, 0 anon and 0 guests. (Most ever was 29 at 13:36:32 Sat Aug 3 2002)

Pages: [ 1 ]

[ Notify of replies made to this post ]

[ Print ]

[ Send To Friend ]

[ Watch ]

[ < ] [ Add Reply ] [ > ]

RUSTY_HAPPY_CAM 05:10:36 Mon Nov 2 2009 Offline 258 posts Reply

Re: Teichert tables Interact Reply Quote Report To Mod Last Posts Ignore User Global Ignore Whisper I got a first hand look at them when I went to their plant to look at the ICON concentrators several months ago. They were originally developed in Hornbrook Ca. 20 years ago. The original inventor is still alive but is no longer involved with them as he sold the works to Teichert. I only watched a small controlled test that they were running on a brand new table prior to sale. I was impressed! It is a very clean well designed piece of equipment and would certainly compliment the ICON if you have enough material to make it worth while. The folks at Teichert are top shelf. If you get the chance to visit with them they will make it worth the trip.

baub 16:56:34 Mon Nov 2 2009 Offline 915 posts Reply

Re: Teichert tables Interact Reply Quote Report To Mod Last Posts Ignore User Global Ignore Whisper Thanks Rusty ! These are the folks that I talked to. Very informative. They don't seem to have enough data on very fine gold recovery. -200 or so. I think I will try again as I may not have asked the right questions. The glimpse that one video they recommended had a table with a lot of water valves, suggesting both lots of control and the need for it. While I'm sitting here waiting for my place to sell I put together different mining production models. I'm trying to get enough data from Falcon to compare their 5- 20 tph centrifugal concentrators with Knelsons comparible units. Hard to get data from either actually. I suppose the fact that both companies sell a lot of units might be enough evidence of quality . However it makes me feel better to have some evidence to work with. Let me run these scenarios past you and anyone else who wants to critique them. Hard rock 5 to 25 tph : General consensus so far is to bust it out, separate it to plus and minus 2 inch, setting the plus 2 aside for a jaw to come later, and running the minus thru a mill and getting - 100. Run this thru a Knelson or Falcon. Table the output and buy the Ferrari . Placer, same amount : Screen to optimum size, my area is 1/4 inch or so : Run thru this double decker roughing unit that the old u-tech company made . New owners have upgraded it somewhat. Main advantages are cost, $20k for well over 100 tph thruput. Next into a bowl as above, then the gangue and oversize goes into a small pulverizer for rerun back thru the bowl separatly . After both these processes are done, on to sizing and tabling. Buy the Ferrari Thanks again Rusty, b

Manicminer 17:30:01 Mon Nov 2 2009 Offline 164 posts Reply

Re: Teichert tables Interact Reply Quote Report To Mod Last Posts Ignore User Global Ignore Whisper Hardrock ore should be fed through at half the rate of alluvial/placer. As with everything else, screen/classify for best results.

baub 22:01:51 Mon Nov 2 2009 Offline 915 posts Reply

Re: Teichert tables Interact Reply Quote Report To Mod Last Posts Ignore User Global Ignore Whisper Thanks MM, Been wondering about that. If all goes well, I'll be classifying to -100 for uniformity of size and feeding about half of the speed of placer as you suggest. b

Pages: [ 1 ]

[ Notify of replies made to this post ]

[ Print ]

[ Send To Friend ]

[ Watch ]

[ < ] [ Add Reply ] [ > ]

Total Members: 11956 Can start a new thread. (Everyone) Can't start a new poll. (Mods & Admins) Can add a reply. (Everyone) Can't edit your posts.(Everyone Registered)

Register :: Log In :: Administrators The time is now 12:21:13 Fri Jun 2 2023