Why doesn’t MBA recommend using abrasive sized larger than 180 mesh in their cyclone reclaim separators when the other manufacturers encourage it?
It is important to realize that most of the other manufacturers do not use a true cyclone reclaim separator. They usually use a barrel separator (but commonly misrepresented as a cyclone) that is less expensive to build and is not nearly as efficient (some of the efficiencies are as low as 70%). Some manufacturers only install barrel reclaim systems on their production blast cabinets. This results in the unnecessary replacement of many high wear items when abrasive 150 mesh or larger is used in the cabinet. These same manufacturers offer a wear plate for the barrel separator as an option. An uninformed customer will oftentimes not purchase this option and needlessly replace the separator in a short period of time. MBA makes a variety of abrasive reclaim separators. Abrasive larger than 150 mesh does not require cyclone reclaim separators for retention or proper abrasive flow inside the cabinet. MBA builds an abrasive reclaim separator that is 99% efficient on particles 150 mesh or coar
Related Questions
- Why doesn’t MBA recommend using abrasive sized larger than 180 mesh in their cyclone reclaim separators when the other manufacturers encourage it?
- Why doesn’t the entire city of Cape Town celebrate the Carnival? Why don’t whites and Africans take part in larger numbers?
- How can "Zelda" handle larger sized trash, string and other debris in the pumping medium?
