But you can't always use a tripper..

Sometimes ploughs have worked OK... ■

Gantlemen

I can recomend the use of a plough system

I have made it for filling of 12 coal siloes on a large power plant. at 1200 t/h. There are some very important details to take care of in the designing of the system- tehn it works very well.

The intersting thing is that you save the time for moving the tripper/ moving belts etc. because you can shift between the ploughs at fully loaded belt.

The reclaiming/cleaning of the belt is better then expected and the wear of the shers ( if properly designed) is very low..

I would be like to guide you in your designing of the system, to avoid mistakes.

Please visit EP-Design.dk ■

Depends on what material you are planning to use it on.

Fine or non-abrasive material like grain, coal, or sand it will work well. On coarse or abrasive material, the belt will take a beating.

Belt speed needs to be kept low with ploughs so you may require a wider belt.

If you are filling multiple bins at one point in each, ploughs are good. If you are filling a single bin and can use a filling slot, the tripper will give better material distribution in the bin. ■

Dear Mr. Andre,

Use of plough will depend upon the following :

1) The material being conveyed.

2) Operating hours per day and per year. For example, the material handling system at power station will demand round the clock operation and long service life (in hours). However, if the installation is required to work for a limited hours in a year then plough will be more economical, considering initial cost, operating cost, replacement, etc.

3) Whether you want to use travelling plough or fixed plough.

4) If there are many fixed ploughs on a conveyor, then the conveyor will have a flat belt and belt width will be more as compared to trough belt conveyor.

Travelling tripper or shuttle conveyor or series of reversible conveyors one above the other are technically superior arrangement but more in price. Plough feeder is a workable arrangement, economical in price, if it suits the nature of installation.

The information as above does not imply that I do not favour plough feeder. I am only informing about the nature of the equipment.

Regards,

Ishwar G Mulani.

Author of Book : Engineering Science and Application Design for Belt Conveyors.

Author of Book : Belt Feeder Design and Hopper Bin Silo

Advisor / Consultant for Bulk Material Handling System & Issues.

Email : parimul@pn2.vsnl.net.in

Tel.: 0091 (0)20 25882916 ■

Dear Sirs

I agree with mr Mulani. exept the matter 4. that the belt has to be flat when seveal ploughs are use on one belt.

My system was build in into a trough belt sytem ( Garland) but had a very special hydraulik system to flatten the belt under the plough during reclaiming. At normal run with no ploughs activated, the belt runned as a usual trough system. 1200 t/ hour , 10-14 hours pro day. coal -150.

Total it vas a great adventage compared to traveling belts used before. There were no loss of time by moving the belts.

The ploughs was activated at full capacity. To do this the secodary scapers had to be redisigned to make a sequense by lowering them, to awoid spill of material. ■

We have also done multi-plough installations flattening the troughed belt with a pneumatically operated raising platform but on a few hundred t/hr. I saw one recently and asked if there were any problems. The guy said "don't know mate, we don't touch it, it just works!" ■