5
be considered in order to compare the metallurgical perfor-
mance of the two rotos.
Even though the feed copper grade varied between the
surveys, Minitab was used to evaluate if there is significant
difference in terms of copper and molybdenum grades,
enrichment ratios and recoveries between the two rotors.
2.Sample t-test showed that there wasn’t a significant differ-
ence at 95% confidence level.
Power Draw
Power draw was studied during the CCRD surveys. In
Figures 6 and 7 the results of power draw measured per
cubic meter is shown. Figure 6 shows the power draw with
constant air flow rate in three different tips speeds and in
the Figure 7, the tip speed is constant, and the air flow rate
varies. Both graphs show that there is not noticeable differ-
ence in between the two rotors tested. When increasing the
tip speed, the power draw increases with both rotors like
expected. Figure 7 shows that increasing the air flow rate
the power draw remains steady indicating that FloatForce+
is capable to maintain good mixing in the flotation cell
within the tested air flow rates similar to FloatForce.
Mixing Profile Results
Mixing profile results are shown in the Figures 8 and 9.
Both mixing mechanisms are seen to be able to maintain
good solids suspension in the flotation cell.
Table 2. Relative standard deviations (RSD) of sampling
error samples for each survey
FF+S1 Cu RSD Fe RSD Mo RSD Ni RSD
Head 3 2 7 3
Cone 14 5 9 11
Tails 4 3 10 s
FF1 S1 Cu RSD Fe RSD Mo RSD Ni RSD
Head 3 2 5 4
Cone 6 2 4 5
Tails 3 2 6 4
FF+S2 Cu RSD Fe RSD Mo RSD Ni RSD
Head 2 1 5 4
Cone 26 6 21 5
Tails 4 1 10 2
FF S2 Cu RSD Fe RSD Mo RSD Ni RSD
Head 2 6 6 4
Cone 13 16 S 7
Tails 2 5 11 3
Figure 6. Power draw kW per cubic meter measured during
the second set of surveys with Jg of 0.74 cm/s in tank
Figure 7. Power draw kW/m3 measured during second set of
surveys with medium tip speed
Figure 8. Mixing profiles of the first set of surveys
be considered in order to compare the metallurgical perfor-
mance of the two rotos.
Even though the feed copper grade varied between the
surveys, Minitab was used to evaluate if there is significant
difference in terms of copper and molybdenum grades,
enrichment ratios and recoveries between the two rotors.
2.Sample t-test showed that there wasn’t a significant differ-
ence at 95% confidence level.
Power Draw
Power draw was studied during the CCRD surveys. In
Figures 6 and 7 the results of power draw measured per
cubic meter is shown. Figure 6 shows the power draw with
constant air flow rate in three different tips speeds and in
the Figure 7, the tip speed is constant, and the air flow rate
varies. Both graphs show that there is not noticeable differ-
ence in between the two rotors tested. When increasing the
tip speed, the power draw increases with both rotors like
expected. Figure 7 shows that increasing the air flow rate
the power draw remains steady indicating that FloatForce+
is capable to maintain good mixing in the flotation cell
within the tested air flow rates similar to FloatForce.
Mixing Profile Results
Mixing profile results are shown in the Figures 8 and 9.
Both mixing mechanisms are seen to be able to maintain
good solids suspension in the flotation cell.
Table 2. Relative standard deviations (RSD) of sampling
error samples for each survey
FF+S1 Cu RSD Fe RSD Mo RSD Ni RSD
Head 3 2 7 3
Cone 14 5 9 11
Tails 4 3 10 s
FF1 S1 Cu RSD Fe RSD Mo RSD Ni RSD
Head 3 2 5 4
Cone 6 2 4 5
Tails 3 2 6 4
FF+S2 Cu RSD Fe RSD Mo RSD Ni RSD
Head 2 1 5 4
Cone 26 6 21 5
Tails 4 1 10 2
FF S2 Cu RSD Fe RSD Mo RSD Ni RSD
Head 2 6 6 4
Cone 13 16 S 7
Tails 2 5 11 3
Figure 6. Power draw kW per cubic meter measured during
the second set of surveys with Jg of 0.74 cm/s in tank
Figure 7. Power draw kW/m3 measured during second set of
surveys with medium tip speed
Figure 8. Mixing profiles of the first set of surveys