## 3 Results  
The test results are presented in Tables 8 and 9. In the control period, as usual at \"Tau-Ken Temir\" LLP, loading mode is characterized by great instability. The gas cavities around the working side of the electrodes are small. The furnace is not working well, even forcibly gaining a power of 19.5 MW due to the regular collapse of thermally unprepared charges at the bottom of the furnace. After the transition period was completed, furnace performance improved significantly. The top of the furnace became rigid and, visually, its gas permeability decreased. However, despite this, the charge came off only on its own, without forced processing. In fact, we have reduced the hourly charge load, ensuring the stability of the charge supply to the furnace while maintaining active power (furnace load) at the level of 19.5 MW. Thanks to this alone, a reduction in the specific consumption of electrical energy and the electrode per ton of silicon metal began, and silicon recovery steadily grew. After receiving the results, we plotted the dependence of silicon recovery on the hourly consumption of quartz at a furnace load of about 19.5 MW (Figure 7) and the specific power consumption of silicon recovery (Figure 8). As can be seen from Figure 7, reducing the quartz supply significantly increased the recovery of silicon in the final product, but this effect was weakened when the quartz consumption decreased to less than 4.275 t/h. Further reduction in consumption no longer significantly increased the efficiency of smelting silicon metal. This may be due to the fact that the size of furnace load had not reached its optimal value and needed to be increased to increase the smelting efficiency. This should be the subject of further research in the future. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Test Week**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Average Active Power on the** \\ **Furnace (Furnace Load), MW** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} **Accepted Values for Calculation** \\ **Specific Power** \\ **Consumption, MWh/t** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} **Estimated Need for Quartz,** \\ **Ul/Hour** \\ \end{tabular} } \\ \cline{3-4}  & & & & & \\ \hline control & 19.3 & 12.5 & 75 & 4.457 \\ \hline
1 & 19.6 & 12.0 & 80 & 4.353 \\ \hline
2 & 19.4 & 11.5 & 85 & 4.275 \\ \hline
3 & 19.4 & 11.0 & 90 & 4.221 \\ \hline
4 & 19.5 & 10.5 & 95 & 4.189 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Initial parameters of balanced smelting. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Test Week**} & \multirow{2}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} **Spent During Testing** \\ **Quartz, Tons** \\ \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{2}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} **Electric** \\ **Energy, MW** \\ \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{2}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} **Silicon Metal** \\ **Energy, MW** \\ \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{2}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} **Silicon** \\ **Produced, Tons** \\ \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{2}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} **Silicon** \\ **Produced, Tons** \\ \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{2}{*}{\ \begin{tabular}{c} **Specific Power** \\ **Consumption,** \\ **MWh/mt** \\ \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{2}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} **Specific Consumption** \\ **of Electrode, tilt of** \\ **Silicon Metal** \\ \end{tabular}  } \\ \hline control & 748.8 & 3275 & 25 & 222 & 63.53 & 14,752 & 0.113 \\ \hline
1 & 731.3 & 3271 & 26 & 269 & 78.82 & 12,160 & 0.097 \\ \hline
2 & 718.2 & 3277 & 27 & 282 & 84.14 & 11,621 & 0.096 \\ \hline
3 & 709.1 & 3271 & 28 & 289 & 87 The dependence in Figure 8 is compared with a similar dependence that [PERSON] theoretically established in his article [19] (Figure 9). As can be seen from a comparison of Figures 8 and 9, our data are in good agreement with [PERSON]'s data at the maximum furnace value efficiency factor (\(\eta\))--0.86. There were some minor problems during the transition period.