Revising Copper Converter History: A Metallurgical "Whodunit"

Pneumatic converting (Bessemerizing) of iron revolutionized the steel industry. Bessemerizing of copper (conversion of copper sulfide matte to copper metal) was proposed at almost the same time, but it was slow in being accepted. The differences between iron and copper converting were great and technical problems were substantial. It took 25 years for the process to become viable and another 25 years before a truly economical solution was found. A major economical and productivity problem was the short life for converter refractory linings. The first converters had acid (silica) linings, which were quickly consumed since silica was a flux for the process. Converters had to be relined at least once per day, a laboriously expensive manual process with only the most rudimentary mechanical aids available to assist. The industry was revolutionized almost overnight when finally a viable basic (magnesite) lining was developed. This lasted 100's of days versus less than one, leading to converters that were easier to operate and which handled larger charges. This change occurred after W.H. Peirce and E.A.C. Smith, with support from the Guggenheim interests, successfully operated a basic lined converter in a copper refinery in Baltimore. While Peirce and Smith are generally given credit for the development and explosive acceptance of this idea, a Pittsburgh industrialist, Ralph M. Baggaley, working in an independent smelter in Butte, Montana, successfully built and operated a basic lined converter four years before they did. In fact, the early support for Peirce and Smith likely occurred because Guggenheim's staff were encouraged after thoroughly examining Baggaley on his earlier successes. The questions of technology primacy between Baggaley and Peirce/Smith are ironically similar to those between Wm. Kelly and Bessemer in converting iron to steel. This paper will review what Baggaley (and other early researchers) accomplished, examine why he (or they) did not receive credit equal to Peirce and Smith and explore what his (their) place should be in the development of successful basic linings. More suspects than a Victorian Whodunit.