Lake Superior Paper - Removing Scaffolds in Blast Furnaces.

Mr. BIRKINBINE's description of the bad working and sudden chilling of the Warwick Furnace last summer, seems to me quite phenomenal in blast-furnace practice. During my connection with the management of blast furnaces for many years, in the anthracite, cake, and raw-bituminous coal districts, such a me has never come under my notice. It seems to me that the scaffold in the zone of fusion could not have established itself (so that the whole power of the engines, with a blast pressure ranging from 12 to 18 pounds per square inch, could not penetrate), unless the furnace was previously badly scaffolded and bridged in some of its upper sections, from 15 to 30 feet above the hearth level, either in the zone of chemical action or the beginning of the zone of fusion. Such a 'barrier to the upward gaseous currents would cause a suspension of combustion which may have superinduced the scaffold that is assumed to have existed in the zone of fusion. It is difficult to conceive that an agglomerated mass almost across the section of the lower bosh should have formed all at once, if the furnace was free and porous for the reaction of the gaseous currents, above. Therefore, I think, the Warwick furnace was by no means in as free, open, and fine internal condition at the time the trouble commenced as the description of its regular working would lead us to suppose. I do not question the accuracy of the statements relative to the output of iron, etc I merely claim that the phenomenta, as described, could not have been almost instantaneously developed, unless there had been an incipient scaffold and lodgment above the zone of fusion. I would state my hypothesis to be that the stock lodged or collected in some of its upper sections during fie process of blowing-in, on which, as a basis, more or less accumulations may .have lodged, and thus, indirectly, caused the formation of the suc-