Something for the small operator

[tamrock]

I was at the Elko Nevada Mine Expo last week and talked a little to these guys at LNW Engineering. Not many manufacturers who come to the event cater to smaller operations, but once in a while you'll see one. I thought their concept looked like it would be something in the way of efficient recovery. It would have been better if they'd had it up and working to give any potential prospects how good thier equipment is, as that's what most miners I deal with lead me to believe, when they tell me prove it and I'll consider your claim. LNW Engineering ? Better Recovery Through Science

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[DizzyDigger]

I'd be interested to know how it works. Nothing on
their website..

 

[Gambrinus]

That is a Knudsen bowl concentrator and they have been around a long time. They probably didn't have it running because all you would see is concentrates.

 

[tamrock]

Yeah I was telling that guy it looked like a previous design, but couldn't think of what it was called. He knew what what it was, but his is scientifically engineered he said. I did once see this shaker table running cons at a show.

 

[tamrock]

I'd be interested to know how it works. Nothing on
their website..

Well it was plugged in and did spin.

 

[Mad Machinist]

An ICON 150 is $8900 shipped on Ebay all day long. So unless they have a better price point and it works as well as the iCON, I don't see it doing well.

 

[pczim]

I have 4 of these at my mine, they work well but need mercury in them to be really effective. I always run a test pan afterwards and see no color whereas when using a sluice I always see a bit of color. We call them separators or coil bowls. I buy mine for $1200 each USD

 

[Mad Machinist]

If they need mercury added to them, then they are really not that effective. I do know that the iCON 150 works great as long as the water pressure is kept consistent.

 

[pczim]

Sure, without mercury they operate at around 80 percent on old rubber liners and around 90 percent on new liners. Just researched the icon 150, says it does 2 tons per hour and the cost of the unit is $8000 on eBay. The separators I use also do around 2 tons per hour and cost $1200 each.

Just thought I would put that out there as not every small scale miner can afford $8000.

If you wanted to run without mercury, you can put a 2 meter expanding sluice after the separator and you could probably achieve 95%.

 

[tamrock]

Huh, I asked that guy at LNW how much, but he wouldn't tell me and just said, that depends. Anyway I thought it was neat someone would have something for the smaller operations. Maybe you can post a video of this coil bowl in action sometime pczim. It be interesting to see what it can do.

 

[Mad Machinist]

Sure, without mercury they operate at around 80 percent on old rubber liners and around 90 percent on new liners. Just researched the icon 150, says it does 2 tons per hour and the cost of the unit is $8000 on eBay. The separators I use also do around 2 tons per hour and cost $1200 each.

Just thought I would put that out there as not every small scale miner can afford $8000.

If you wanted to run without mercury, you can put a 2 meter expanding sluice after the separator and you could probably achieve 95%.

Mercury isn't for me. I'm crazy enough as it is. Lol.

To me mercury just presents too many problems just as cyanide does. Sure it can be used effectively and safely but all it takes is one slip up and it's all over. And with the lack of experienced miners here in the States everything has to be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator.

 

[tamrock]

I saw an old Mercury Retort in an indoor antique mall. The vendor thought was a cast iron Dutch oven. I didn't buy it, because it was hundred bucks. If it had been like twenty to thirty I might have.

 

[StreamlineGold]

I have 4 of these at my mine, they work well but need mercury in them to be really effective. I always run a test pan afterwards and see no color whereas when using a sluice I always see a bit of color. We call them separators or coil bowls. I buy mine for $1200 each USD

They work, but they can also have losses like you state. Knelson and Falcon (Icon) are hydrostatic.

Think of a sluice with passive matting. Once it plugs up it loses the gold. Active matting plugs up less easily because theres always a ‘sorting’ action.

Thats why Falcon and Knelson work better although a lot more expensive. Active ‘rings’ in the bowl never plug up.

 

[StreamlineGold]

Also Falcon/knelson are automated. Theres a programmed cycle. Its a good system, kind of works out the kinks of the original centrifuges. Its just enhancing the force of gravity to capture smaller particles.

 

[StreamlineGold]

Huh, I asked that guy at LNW how much, but he wouldn't tell me and just said, that depends. Anyway I thought it was neat someone would have something for the smaller operations. Maybe you can post a video of this coil bowl in action sometime pczim. It be interesting to see what it can do.

They are around $6k ea if I remember right. Not long ago I was looking for something similar. If its a real coil shape its a Neffco bowl, or same basic concept.

If its rings and not a spiral then its a Knudson. Knudsons need a lot of babysitting, Neffco’s can work well when tuned right but also need babysitting.

 

[pczim]

Just took these quickly for this post. At the time we had no power will try to remember to take a video next time...

 

[gold tramp]

Thanks for sharin the pics. Its nice to see the workins.
Gt....

 

[Socorro]

I just saw this thread this morning for the first time, so that's why I hadn't responded previously. I'm the "Williams" in the LNW Engineering & Mining. The picture by tamrock is a picture of our LC-TB32 Centrifugal Bowl at the Elko Expo, of course. In remaining in compliance with board rules, I don't wish to provide further "Sales" data on our equipment directly, but if you have specific questions, I'm happy to answer any of those for you.

As a course of the initial discussion, Concentrator Bowls can be very efficient in concentration of volume ore slurry. There are many factors in the overall performance of the different iterations of manufactures of bowls. We own I believe just about every brand of concentration bowl that has been produced for the past 50 years, up to and including Falcon SB250 models. Each one has a specific function that the designer was trying to accomplish and at times may have been effective at addressing and others, not so much.

At the end of the day and all the dust settles, regardless of the equipment and processes you employ in your mining circuit, things have to be able to run smoothly and effectively without complications. As I have learned the hard way, life is complicated enough out on the mine; you certainly don't need to incorporate complexity into your grinding and recovery circuit if you don't have to.

Dwight Williams (Socorro)
LNW Engineering & Mining

 

[Mad Machinist]

I just saw this thread this morning for the first time, so that's why I hadn't responded previously. I'm the "Williams" in the LNW Engineering & Mining. The picture by tamrock is a picture of our LC-TB32 Centrifugal Bowl at the Elko Expo, of course. In remaining in compliance with board rules, I don't wish to provide further "Sales" data on our equipment directly, but if you have specific questions, I'm happy to answer any of those for you.

As a course of the initial discussion, Concentrator Bowls can be very efficient in concentration of volume ore slurry. There are many factors in the overall performance of the different iterations of manufactures of bowls. We own I believe just about every brand of concentration bowl that has been produced for the past 50 years, up to and including Falcon SB250 models. Each one has a specific function that the designer was trying to accomplish and at times may have been effective at addressing and others, not so much.

At the end of the day and all the dust settles, regardless of the equipment and processes you employ in your mining circuit, things have to be able to run smoothly and effectively without complications. As I have learned the hard way, life is complicated enough out on the mine; you certainly don't need to incorporate complexity into your grinding and recovery circuit if you don't have to.

Dwight Williams (Socorro)
LNW Engineering & Mining

Dwight,

I been a professional mi e for nearly 25 years now. In that time I have seen alot of things come and alot of things go. And I can honestly say much of it was "miners" mining miners with the latest and greatest gold getting piece of equipment.

Now if what pczim says with having to add mercury to the system is true, then you should probably look into that as it is not operating efficiently.

I know a crew here in Arizona that were running the iCON 150 and losing gold that was recovered in a shaker table that was the last piece of equipment in the system. A few changes where made and they were pretty much catching everything in the iCON. I believe they have stepped up to the Falcon now.

 

[Socorro]

Dwight,

I been a professional mi e for nearly 25 years now. In that time I have seen alot of things come and alot of things go. And I can honestly say much of it was "miners" mining miners with the latest and greatest gold getting piece of equipment.

Now if what pczim says with having to add mercury to the system is true, then you should probably look into that as it is not operating efficiently.

I know a crew here in Arizona that were running the iCON 150 and losing gold that was recovered in a shaker table that was the last piece of equipment in the system. A few changes where made and they were pretty much catching everything in the iCON. I believe they have stepped up to the Falcon now.

I'm not understanding your posting entirely with regards to the "Miners" mining miners in this context as well as the reference to "pczim" commenting in a previous posting regarding someone using mercury in their mining operation to regards to my previous answering someone's question.

Can you elaborate as to what you are referencing for better clarity?