More on Silcal Metallurgic Ltd quality control The screened raw materials were taken using a conveyer system to the third floor of the furnace and stored in separate over head bunkers. Each of the three raw materials were weighed according to a computerized batching system and transferred into charging buckets running on monorails in the second floor. Charging buckets then discharged the premixed raw materials into the furnace every 10–15 min through chutes. Shift-wise consumption of all raw materials was totalized to obtain daily (24 h) consumption data.
The molten alloy product was drained through one of the three tap holes at the bottom of the furnace every 2–2.5 h into tiltable “teeming ladles” mounted on rail tracks. The teeming ladles were then emptied into large stationary heat resistant cast iron trays to a thickness of approximately 50 mm. Next day, during the day shift the solidified Fe–Si slabs were manually broken into small pieces, weighed and packed into 40 kg bags for domestic consumers or in 1 ton jumbo bags for export. Each batch of* Fe–Si was individually analyzed adopting standard procedures prevalent in this* *industry.* *Ftpm:* *http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPjcondensedw.pdf <http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPjcondensedw.pdf>* On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 10:58 PM <mix...@bigpond.com> wrote: > In reply to Axil Axil's message of Wed, 8 May 2019 19:09:40 -0400: > Hi, > [snip] > >Those mass factors were covered in this analysts as follows: > > > >Quartz (33.4 ton), charcoal (with fixed carbon content of 13.2 > >ton) and scrap steel (5.1 ton) while the daily output production of Fe–Si > >alloy (73.5% Si) was 24.75 ton. From the total weights > >of Si and Fe in the input feed and assuming 100% recovery of the metals, > >the daily output alloy production could at best have > >been only 20.5 ton. > > That's assuming that the only thing in the output was Fe-Si. If CO was also > included then 24.75 is quite reasonable. > > (Note that when the output product was chemically analyzed, the CO from the > sample may well have simply disappeared into the air, as a consequence of > the > process used to analyze the sample.) > Note also that the total input mass = 51.7 tons. > > >However to our surprise throughout the 11-week period > >the total daily Fe–Si alloy (with 73.5% Si) output was > >consistently 24.75 ton, corresponding to a daily “anomalous” excess metal > >production of 4.25 ton of Fe–Si alloy. > > Consistency would imply a fixed ratio, which in turn seems to imply a > chemical > bond with fixed ratios. > > See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_pentacarbonyl > > by which I don't mean to imply that that was the precise chemical > involved, but > rather only to show that CO has an affinity for Fe. > > Furthermore as evidenced by https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16571066, > it > also has an affinity for Si. Therefore I think my suggestion may well be > reasonable, and furthermore seems to fit the facts a lot better than other > suggestions so far. > > BTW, CO is dangerous for humans to inhale precisely because the CO molecule > binds with the Fe in hemoglobin, preventing the hemoglobin from binding to > Oxygen, which in turn results in suffocation. > > Regards, > > > Robin van Spaandonk > > local asymmetry = temporary success > >
