Your conveyor feed rate is 700kg per minute & the clamshell gadget at the bottom of the headchute stays open for 10 seconds at 50 second gaps. Next! ■

Why don't you feed to bucket with the hopper and feed the hopper with the conveyor?

Load cell meter the hopper to acheive the bucket volume metering and start/stop the conveyor to set the hopper capacity.

Clam shell gate the bottom of the hopper to charge the bucket when bucket arrives and the meter says: "hopper holds a bucket 'full' ".

700kg x (3600 sec/hour /50 sec) x (1 ton/1000kg) = 50.4 t/h

Why not make the conveyor the buckets? Ropecon? Too long a distance? Big rocks? You already accept the conveyor to fill the bucket. ■

Pls have a look at this photo

Attachments

dscn1228 (JPG)

■

Better keep it to 10 seconds between clamshells being fully shut.

Since it has been mentioned; can we have some discussion for the Ropecon?

A recent thread showed an installation in the Windies. From the photgraphs is appeared that a low profile cleated sidewall belt is fitted with sheaves & hauled along a ropeway. There may be hold down rollers in the suspended frames but they didn't show up.

If the well known Cable Belt derails as frequently as claimed; what stops the Ropecon belt lifting & derailing the rolls when another flat(ish) belt is whistling through the treetops all the day long?

After any derailment it will be necessary to hack a path through the bush to make way for a mobile crane. Or is there a special purpose ariel maintenance pod?

Generally; did the benefits claimed outweigh the, presumably staggering, cost of several kilometers of fancy belting running over tall towers, hopefully well founded for hurricane forces? ■

Hi John

Unless abs. necc. by the terrian...I think that a Rope Con is not a good concept for bulk materials handling.

Safety issues at both ends

Ski field type technology ie buckets are separated both ends for the load and discharge cycle

Potential for spillage at both ends

Potential for buoldup issues > bucket opening/closing

A lot of moving parts > many buckets > means a lot of separater buckets and assy to look after

Shock loading from the design

The idea itself is simple..but with all the necc. details and associated parts make it a big thing to look after.

I beleive that there are other posts on this type of machine eg one in Asia that was dismantled.

Cheers

James ■

Ropecon:

Pro:

1. Good capacity

2. Rugged terrain lowers the cost of civil work wrt to alternatives making very cost competitive

3. Rotating parts come to a common station verses having to go to all idlers

4. Compact design

5. Is a virtual bridge spanning 100's of meters between supports

6. Jamaica's hurricane Dean shows it can withstand the strongest winds

7. Technology is based on ski-lift cable system - Dopplemeyer

8. Turnover is excellent and very well supported with a short span

9. Does not have the negative issues plaguing Cable Belt (Metso) - dislodging of cables, cable wear, sheave wear, spillage, et al.

10. Vertical curve radii can be significantly smaller

Con:

1. Cost are higher than conventional unless the terrain civil cost are higher

2. Cleaning of sidle walls

3. Quite difficult to horizontally curve - I am told they are working on this

4. Single source - at the moment

5. Not enough time to know the long term effect of its reliabilities

6. Wheel axle alignment is critical to long wheel and rope life

7. Moving nip points increases safety concerns for many mines and countries codes

8. Ropecon have a clever derailer prevention steel bracket that is placed slightly clear of the top of cable - cannot dislodge

We see them as a very competitive alternative in difficult installations.

Some years back we began to study the art of cable suspension bridge span supports of standard idler trough belt conveyors. This will come into its own.

I am sure a Ropecon rep can add weight to the pro side. ■

Sorry to inform Con point 8 should have been a Pro point 11. ■

Is there a picture of the clever derailer prevention steel bracket? It's a bit fundamental to the credibility of the entire system.

I imagine that transitions over rope lengths will be quite tidy since splicing can be eliminated by anchoring at the towers. Is this the case & what length of gap has to be negotiated? ■

Hi Larry

I am sure that thgere are always aplications for all sorts of technology

I have seen only one and it is not Doppelmeyer make

The issues with the materials - sticking etc cause closure issues which cause ropecon stoppages > so the effective rates goes way way down.

Safety is a big concern as well

I would be sure to be aware of all the pros/cons before taking the plunge...as I am sure that some people in CQ coal mines wish wrt your recent posts on another alternative technology.

Cheers

James

Attachments

dscn1224 (JPG)

■