Sampson Resouces

Ebay Chinese Jaw Crusher

35 posts in this topic

Hello all! I am new to the forums.  I live in Washington State, and I'm working at getting a small pilot plant set up for testing a new project here in Washington. 

 

I am curious if anyone around has tried/bought one of the small 2''X4'' jaw crushers always listed on Ebay.  They are a good price for around a $1000 but of course cheap and Chinese should tell it all.  If anyone has had any experiences with the crushers I would love your feed back! Also, are the plates universal to the crusher size or specific to the manufacturer? Thanks Everyone!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have seen some Chinese crushers in use in West Africa. They were powered by Gasoline engines and ran OK.

 

The problem is that I cant guarantee all Chinese jaw crushers are created equal.

 

Its a risk - It might work fine and it might not.

 

So why are you going with a Jaw? you intend also to have a ball mill?

 

Most small operators these days are going with some small impact or hammermill type crusher as they will take rock in the 2 to 4 inch size directly to stuff that can be run in a gravimentric recovery device. A jaw will take you down to maybe pieces smaller than a quarter inch if you tighten it down real tight - you will still need another crusher to get it small enough for recovery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I plan to use the 2''x4'' jaw crusher as a small primary.  I will then use a small 11'' impact mill (2''x2'' feed) with hard faced hammers.  The idea behind the jaw crusher is to minimize wear and tear and prolong life of the impact mill and hammers.  I just picked up a 4'X8' shaker table I will be using to run the crushed and classified material (I know a little big for what I've got going; good deal.) The ore I will be milling is dark basalt, and vein material is chalcedonic quartz.  I tried to post the link to the jaw crusher but the website here locked up and I had refresh my browser DANG IT!! Lost my post.   Oh well If you have time to look at it, search Ebay for  "JAW CRUSHER" its always within the first ten listings.  Its title says "New 60 x 100 2.4'' x 4'' Universal Jaw Crusher with 2HP motor shipped free by sea." 

 

The mine is an old hard rock mine with prior production.  The vein is a quartz fissure vein. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use a good moly grease on mine.

To be honest, I'd focus on just using the impact and drop the idea of using a jaw as a primary.

Part of the way in which impact / hammer mill units work is the autogenous self breakage of the larger pieces against the smaller - if you have only small stuff, it can actually be a problem in the process - slowing the crushing down.

I have had a discussion with someone who sells chain type hammermills, and he actually told me just that - the putting in smalls only actually slows the crushing process down.

the other thing is, if you have a primary and secondary mill, you need a screen between them so you dont send the fines that are already small enough on to the secondary crusher - there is such a thing as over crushing.

If you are only running small lots of a few tons here and there, really you don't need the jaw and it may give you more problems than it solves.

Consider this - if you run with just the impact / hammer mill and decide you want to try a jaw - you can add it later.
If you find the jaw causes more problems than its worth, you can remove it, but you will already have bought the unit.

If it were me, I'd skip the jaw and see how it all works.

Clay likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is assuming he wants a production operation and this setup is not just for testing and doing small lots.

 

What the goal is you are trying to accomplish does make a huge difference in what the proper equipment would be.

 

Geo - I agree that if you are doing mine run with larger chunks - a jaw to break that down to a smaller sizes for a pulverizer makes sense, but if you have a 2.4 x 4 jaw, you are really not doing much to break down larger pieces if your pulverizer is already 2 x 2. So if you want to process many tons per day, then yes you need a primary crusher, and one bigger than 2 x 4 - one that is around 8 x 10 might be better. If you are just doing small test lots, the 2 x 2 pulverizer will allow you to process small lots and you don't really need the little jaw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will throw my limited experience into this thread just to provide a point of reference for a small working operation.

 

Back when I was a strong young man and hadn't yet discovered the wonders of high value ores like gold I worked a medium size (6 man crew) manganese dioxide processing operation. We used an electrofusion (submerged-arc furnace) process. The dross was burned off into bag filters. We would run about 2 ton pours every 40 minutes and the resultant rough ingots were stacked to cool for about 5 days before we sledged them into small enough chunks to feed a 42 x 48 Milwaukee jaw crusher. The crusher was a side feed (hand fed) that dropped the screened crushed material by gravity into a feed hopper for a roller mill.

 

The Milwaukee was electric powered and ran about 250 hp (Manganese Dioxide is tough stuff). The real key to the crusher was the massive flywheel. Without that flywheel I doubt any of the ore could have been processed. It was a relatively simple machine that relied on brute force rather than fancy leverage mechanisms. A simple cam and axle assembly drove the jaws.

 

The crusher axle bearing surfaces were a problem in the original design. A simple piston pressurized pot fed moly grease to the two bearing surfaces and the excess was routed into catch cans. The moly and the ore dust formed a wonderful grinding paste that was really good at eating the bearing surfaces. No matter what we tried the abrasive mixture would feed back to the bearing surface and eat the bearings and eventually the journals. I only had to pull the flywheel/axle bearing assembly once but it was a three day job involving two very large and expensive cranes. Not fun. After that we went to an experimental sealed bearing that actually worked. Back in those days American companies backed up their work and Milwaukee went the distance to make sure their rep was solid.

 

Even the simplest machines have their weak points. There were very few moving parts on that crusher but an ore crushing environment is brutal to even the best made equipment. Chinese design tends to be pretty good but their cast parts often vary greatly in quality from batch to batch. A porous pour or bad metallurgy in one part is all it takes to make an operation unsafe or non functional. With the slim margins in most ore processing operations a bad cast could easily amount to financial failure. There is no support system with the Chinese crushers as there was with the Milwaukee.

 

Check out the equipment auctions and I'll bet you could find an old well made crusher that, with shipping, probably wouldn't be any more than the Chinese option. At least you would be working with a known quantity.

 

One of the things that was obvious in the manganese dioxide operation and the parallel fusion high grade (medical) silicon dioxide operation was that crushing and "grinding" were treated as two different distinct processes. In those industries, to this day that is true. I've followed the development of autogenous processing and they can be much more productive with the right raw materials. Autogenous processes should always be a consideration in any specific operation but self initiating processes aren't always the most efficient.

 

I can't share any direct experience with the Chinese jaw crushers. Two inches seems really small for anything but a laboratory environment. Maybe if the original poster defined the intended use the needed equipment could be discussed with the process variables in mind?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! All of you guys are AWESOME!  Geo, Chris, and Clay what good advice all of you, THANK YOU.  All of you make very good points.  I think the bigger jaw crusher and heavy duty flywheel make a lot more sense.  So initially I'll be running very small runs from many portions of the vein.  Its gold we're after in a quartz fissure vein.  I can really understand why taking the ore down below a certain size would slow the hammer mill.  Also a good point, rocks of 3'' size plus would have to be broken down manually anyways.  We always sieve material in between crushing steps to avoid "over crushing" material. 

 

This project is in it's infancy,  and I think we will rely on the small hammer mill until the larger jaw is truly needed.  You guys have made me realize that the small crusher is too much in the middle of the road between primary and final milling to really be of importance or value to the operation.  The material we are searching has past assays from (not from the 1800's) specific  ore shoots running at .6- 2.2 opt. While most other sections showed .02- .2opt. There has been very little sulphides (some very spares pyrite) and no visible copper staining (a very problematic issue in this mining district).  Recovery looks promising for gravity concentration via shaker table. 

 

Once again thank you everyone I really really appreciate all the advice and experience!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(link removed - edited by Scott Harn)

 

So I found a South Korean company that makes really nice looking mining equipment; mostly for hard rock.  They also have videos of the equipment in use.  I would say it looks like nice stuff.  I have contacted them and received some pricing; the small impact mill is only $800 with a motor.  When I tried further communications with the company about shipping to the west coast I lost contact.  I think their English is very limited, and maybe they have not yet done business outside their own market.  Maybe if they got more queries from USA they would want our business.  Like I said though I would like to get my hands on several items they make, and I would suggest taking a lot at their web site.  If anyone else is as interested as I have been maybe they can get through to them.  Either way check it out very cool stuff at good prices if we could get them to ship it.  AND NO I DON'T REPRESENT THEM OR HAVE ANY RELATION LOL.

 

Let me know if anyone else was excited by their small scale equipment.

 

 

(link removed - edited by Scott Harn)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want American equipment more than anything.  My 4'x8' shaker table is made in Idaho.  Honestly though I cannot afford to be anything but completely budget oriented in trying to set up this mill.  I would love to support MBMLLC in my local state. They make some of the nicest equipment I have seen available!  They're prices are 3x higher than foreign equipment I have found.  Don't get me wrong, I know that the quality of the equipment is a major part of the price and I will pay more to maintain cheaper equipment.  I can barely afford the cheap stuff let alone top notch American Equipment.  Some day I hope to get to that point and my dream mill would be the Mt. Baker Mining and Metal mini hard rock mill.  It starts around $100k WAY OUT OF MY LEAGUE!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why was my link removed?  Is it not ok to reference other companies?  Is it not ok to share information with other miners to discuss equipment vital to our operations?  Is that what kind of website this is?  My content is censored as if I was in a communist country?  If that's how this "Miners Forum" is then good day to you all.  I know you have a wealth of information to share but if I'm not allowed to share a simple link without censorship then I can find another miners forum to join and be a patron of.  There are several other good forums to be a part of!!  Thank you Scott Harn for your censorship and welcoming me to the forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ICMJ is a magazine and paid advertising pays a large part of our bills. We are sensitive about free advertising. If you check out the rules of this forum you will see no advertising as the number one rule. We have folks who pay to advertise on our website and in the magazine and they do not want their competitors to be able to advertise for free if they have to pay. So it is a matter of fairness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris, that's understood and thanks for the explanation.  I hope that Sampson Resources comes back.  Decades ago I lived in what was then a small town with no radio station (Mammoth Lakes, CA).  One of the local residents went to great expense and effort to get the proper equipment and licenses to start a station. After literally years went by he was finally all set up and ready to Rock 'n Roll.  However, it turned out that advertisers wanted to decree what type of music the station played.  So, he was faced with the choice of going out of business after all his effort, or playing what the advertisers wanted, which was very close to elevator music.  Unfortunately it's the old case of who has the gold makes the rules and the advertisers have the gold.

 

About the no advertising rule, it's a little bit vague.  Advertising to me means a link to a product or service that I'm profiting from.  In the recent case, I think he was  just pointing out a product that he had no connection with, although there may be advertisers who sell similar products and this was a conflict.  Maybe the rule could be re-worded to make it more specific and clear. 

 

Bob

Sampson Resouces likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Sampson.  Unfortunately the desire for advertising fees by this Journal trump open discussion about specific equipment (brand names and models disclosed) that we have or may consider buying.  What is needed is a Consumer Reports for Mining Equipment where equipment costs, benefits, advantages, dis-advantages, recommendations, testimonies can be openly discussed and information exchanged between miners. 

Sampson Resouces likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Sampson.  Unfortunately the desire for advertising fees by this Journal trump open discussion about specific equipment (brand names and models disclosed) that we have or may consider buying.  What is needed is a Consumer Reports for Mining Equipment where equipment costs, benefits, advantages, dis-advantages, recommendations, testimonies can be openly discussed and information exchanged between miners. 

 

All you need is someone that is willing to spend their own money for the forum and the time required to monitor it. After you have that a few years later, you might have enough members to make it worth while. This forum is relatively new and wouldn't have the followers it has this soon if it wasn't for the magazine. That brought a large number of big name members immediately. New forums are hard to start. Even when they are as good as this one is.

 

Thanks for the forum, Scott. I visit every day.

 

Leonard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one ever said names of companies cannot be mentioned, nor does it say that in the terms and agreements.People have mentioned businesses many times. Feel free. However if your post sounds like a product or business testimony with a link to a seller, and it looks just like an advertisement to us, it will get deleted.

 

It does however go beyond personal benefits - Folks have friends post for them, even pay strangers to post online ad links for them. I cant check to see what relationships people have to a seller.

 

We have people who pay to advertise with us, They keep us in business and without them this forum and the magazine could never exist. We try our best to be fair and reasonable with them. If both they and their competitors pay to advertise also, that's fair. But if one competitor pays and another gets theirs for free, its a problem. Believe me the guy who pays will be upset. Guaranteed. so we try to be as fair as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now