Search Documents

By NA N/A

Jan 1, 1931

Jan 1, 1962

By Samuel Tescher

The operation of gaseous mines is a problem, due to the fact that we have not only the ordinary mine accidents to guard against, but have also the ever present menace of a mine disaster involving a large number of human lives, and the destruction of valuable property. In looking over the reports of mine disasters throughout the country in the past several years, we find that methane gas, coming in contact with an ignition agency of some kind, has been the source of at least 75 per cent of our mine explosions. Coal dust, of course, plays its part in propagating the explosive action throughout the mine workings and rendering it more violent and destructive; nevertheless, the initial ignition of a body of explosive gas-sometimes of very small volume-has been the primer for the large majority of our mine disasters. We find also, that the places of initial ignition are most frequently found at the working faces, or in close proximity thereto. This is mainly due to the following reasons: First-The working faces are, as a rule, the places where methane gas is most freely generated. Second: They are places that are most poorly ventilated. Third-They are the places where ignition agencies are most frequently found. The sources of ignition, as a rule, consist of naked lights, the shooting -of shots, defective flame safety lamps, and electrical arcs. The problem, then, in the operation of gaseous mines, is primarily to so ventilate the working faces that an explosive mixture is not likely to occur, and to endeavor to keep away from the working faces all sources of ignition. To do both of these things may seem impossible. Nevertheless, by working along both of these directions, a great many disasters can be avoided. The efficient ventilation of the working faces is paramount. By efficient ventilation, we mean the continuous passing of large volumes of air at the working faces. This can only be accomplished by adequate ventilating equipment, capable of being driven by at least two independent and distinct sources of power, together with large, clean, straight air courses which are free of short turns, constructed areas, and leaky doors and stoppings. In other words, furnish a suitable course for its travel through the mine. Many of us sharpen our pencils and rack our brains to properly estimate the proper size pump and pipe equipment that may be needed to handle a certain amount of water. We estimate the size of copper conductors to a nicety. We immediately rush to repair leaks in our water, compressed air or electric lines. But how many of us give serious thought to the travel of the air through our mines, the health and safety-giving fluid on which so much depends! In driving air courses, a certain economical cross-sectional area should be adopted and maintained as standard. When turns are necessary, they should be made with long radius curves, and the cross-sectional area should be increased on the curves. All entry stoppings should preferably be built of monolithic concrete, with suitable hitches into floor and ribs, and after the concrete has set, they should be examined and leaks due to shrinkage and settling should be eliminated. Overcasts and their approaches should have cross-sectional areas larger than the entries leading to them, to allow for the sudden change of direction, bearing in mind that air wants to travel in straight lines. In the early development of a property, ample provision should be made in the size of the main entry pillars to allow for the driving of additional

Jan 1, 1925

PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: Gentlemen, you have heard Mr. Dyer's paper. The meeting is now open for discussion. MR. NORMAN: I would like to ask the gentleman what is the distance between your crosscuts for the ventilation of rooms and entries in the state of Utah?

Jan 1, 1925

MR. STROUP: As soon as the mine workers realize that machine loading is going to be with us permanently, they will gradually accept the view that they, as well as the Mine Operators, will be in the end better off. Don't you find that to be true? MR. BUTLER: I do find that the antagonistic feeling that prevailed at the start is getting less and less and that the miners are co-operating with us. The machine is going to stay with us and I believe it is going to be better for them because instead of having the hard work of heaving coal, they will merely run the machinery that heaves the coal for them. I believe they all feel that way about the matter. MR. McAULIFFE: Mr. Farnham, out of his professional diplomacy, was very careful not to even mention his own machine by name. I would like to say a word about salesmen and about the men who develop the machines. They are perhaps doing more for the industry than we are doing ourselves. This applies also to the railroad business that I put a great part of my life in. If it were not for the energy, courage, and ingenuity of the men who manufacture machines, we would not occupy the advanced position we do today in the mining world.

Jan 1, 1924

Jan 1, 1968

Jan 1, 1958

Jan 1, 1941

MR. HARRINGTON: I would like to ask Mr. Bottomley if they fire their shots while the men are in the mine? MR. BOTTOMLEY: No sir; the shot-firing law in our State requires the shots to be fired after the men are out of the mine. We fire more shots than we did under the hand method of loading. Where formerly four holes were drilled, now we drill eight, using the same amount of powder as we did formerly, perhaps a little more, but we use a slower grade of powder. CHAIRMAN LITTLEJOHN: Any further discussion, gentlemen? MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Bottomley, if, in his shot-firing system, as I understand it, he has a very high coal and is working something like eleven feet? MR. BOTTOMLEY: Something like that. MR. GIBSON: I read the article that you referred to. Did you use both the first and the second delay explo¬ders in shooting the coal? MR. BOTTOMLEY: We use the ordinary fuse. MR. GIBSON: That is what I wanted to find out; whether you use the delay exploders and the detonators. In Utah, we are getting away from the fuse altogether, because we do not think it is accomplishing anything to use the electric light on the cap, and' at the same time shooting with fuse. We are defeating the object we might gain in using the electric safety lamp. That is a point that might be discussed a little further. MR. E. H. JOHNSON, The Coloder Company: I would like-since it is a general opinion that mechanical loading breaks up the coal, to ask Mr. Bottomley, if he finds a larger percentage of small coal, or how much, through the use of the mechanical loaders? MR. BOTTOMLEY: We do not find any great difference. In fact, we have succeeded in improving our lump coal percentage, and that is important, because it is largely domestic. At first, when the machines were installed, the boys shot the coal too hard, and we fell down a little, about two or three per cent, the first month, in our lump percentage, and we tightened up a little and changed our methods in shooting and got on to the stunt of drilling more holes and getting a slower grade of powder. We could not load as much coal in one day as we could before, but we did succeed in in. creasing our lump coal percentage four and a half per cent over the hand method, and that is quite a factor-quite an important factor and since our domestic trade is over with, we loosened up on the shooting and we are running about the same as we did with the hand loading, maybe a half per cent more, or one per cent, but pretty much the same. MR. SHUBART: Your coal is very high? MR. BOTTOMLEY: Yes. MR. SHUBART: Have you tried sunbbing the coal before shooting? MR. BOTTOMLEY: No, we have not tried that. It is very hard coal to shoot; we have no defined cleavage in our coal. It is the worst coal I ever saw to shoot. We do not try to snub it. Formerly, as I said, the miners drilled four holes, pretty well up near the top, and then four holes down, within about three feet of the bottom. It is the same thing as a snub shot, and that we find is the best method for shooting the coal. We have not tried any mechanical device for snubbing as yet. SECRETARY SHUBART: At one mine I saw snubbing tried with a Jeffrey undercutter with a seven-foot Jeffrey bar. This mine, by the way, is very similar to Mr. Bottomley's condition. They have very high coal, so the snub cut is a small percentage. They cut a seven foot undercut and raise the machine on an eight inch tie and undercut five feet to give the effect of a snub cut, 14 inches at the front of the cut, and then six inches at the back of the cut. They made a very marked increase in lump. (The bug dust would be a small percentage of the total coal), and they increased the percentage of the slack at the same time. They found a decrease by reason of the easier shooting of about 15 per cent in their slack. In other words their nut and lump coal ran considerably higher and their slack decreased 5 per cent with the snubbing cut. Mr. Bottomley, I believe, understands those conditions.

Jan 1, 1926

Jan 1, 1948

Effect of Iron on ash fusion temperature and waterwall deposits FeS, H2S on tube material corrosion and erosion [ ]

Jan 1, 2005

Jan 1, 1952

MR. GIBSON (continuing): In connection with the coal from this mine, I will say that it is not a very dirty coal. The vein where most of the coal comes from is about eight feet thick, and two feet from the bottom there is a small boney band about two inches thick. The breaking shot has to be placed over the, band, therefore breaking the boney into fine particles which goes off with the slack. This coal is a very good domestic coal and the slack is in great demand for various power, plants, such as sugar plants, smelters and other industries, but where this, boney is broken up and goes into the slack, it is very injurious in effect and retards the sale of the slack. Therefore the Spring Canyon Coal Company went to the expense of' building this plant, costing over $250,000, just in order to get that, two inches of boney coal out of the rest of the vein. The market in, Utah is very critical, and in order to sell coal, the product must be thoroughly clean in every way and, as Mr. Murphy says, I believe they have succeeded in making a very good commercial product. In any event the Spring Canyon Coal Company put out more coal than any other one mine during the last year, 1924, they had the largest production. I thank, you. (Applause). PRESIDENT MARKS: With the assistance of Mr. Robinson and Mr. Miller, I am sorry you could not get the pictures a little better synchronized with the story. MR. F. C. MILLER (Chief Chemist The Colorado Fuel & Iron Company, Pueblo) : We had seven slides to show eighteen different views on the screen and we did remarkably well. (Laughter.) PRESIDENT MARKS: Is there : any further discussion on this paper? MR. G. B. JONES (Mining Inspector, Victor-American Fuel Co.) : I would like to ask a question on the

Jan 1, 1926

Jan 1, 1950

T. T. READ, BUREAU OF MINES: Mr. McAuliffe has asked a very practical question. Expressed in another way, the question is: If we have decided to use rock dust to prevent coal dust from exploding, have we got to take rock, that is, solid material,, break it up and finally grind it into dust (and fine grinding is very expensive), or can we take material that is already in a pretty fine state of subdivision and thereby save the expense of pulverizing it? Most of the preceding discussion has been from the view-point of practical experience, and I should like to suggest that we have not had enough practical experience in rock dusting to be able to answer this question, from the viewpoint of experience, with the degree of definiteness that Mr. McAuliffe desires. With your permission I will discuss the matter briefly from the theoretical standpoint, because after all the theoretical considerations, insofar as we understand them correctly, will apply to every' case, whereas in coming to a decision on this matter it will be necessary to take into consideration local conditions, which will necessarily vary in every case. Considering the matter in a rather elementary way, the first point is: What makes coal dust explode? The air of this room is full of dust at the present moment, even though we do not notice it. If you were to close up the room for a week, enough dust would settle on the floor so you could write your name on it. Of course, the dust which is in the air of this room is not coal dust but even if it were coal dust and you were to bring an open light in' here we all know that the dust would not explode. The reason for that is that the dust particles are not close enough together for the flame to propagate itself from one to the next. You will probably be able to see in the demonstration in the gallery on Saturday that the coal dust explosion is practically a very rapid burning of the dust. When you light one piece of dust it burns and gives out heat and if there is another piece of dust close enough to it so that the heat from the first piece is able to bring a second piece up to the burning temperature, then the flame will propagate itself through the mixture. But, if the particles are so far apart in the air that the' heat from one particle is dissipated before it reaches an adjoining one, and is therefore not able to bring the second particle up to the burning temperature, then the flame will not propagate. To get a coal dust explosion, it is not sufficient to have coal dust suspended in the air. The coal dust particles must be close enough together in the air so that the heat from one burning particle is able to heat the adjoining particles up to the point at which they will burn. There has been some discussion of the size of dust particles that will cause an explosion to propagate, and it has been pointed out that the minus 200-mesh dust is the most dangerous, and that particles coarser than 20-mesh will not propagate an explosion. There are two reasons for that. A large particle has very much smaller surface in proportion to its weight than a small particle has. You know the old story about the Indian who when asked how he could go around in cold weather without any clothes on said that an Indian was all face. A 200-mesh particle is almost all surface and there= fore is able to burn almost instantaneously, which means that it gives out its heat almost instantaneously, whereas a large particle with less surface in proportion to its weight burns more slowly, gives out its heat more slowly, and the heat has more time to be dissipated. The second reason why coarse dust does not easily propagate a flame is because it is so hard to make it

Jan 1, 1924

The following pages contain valuable information about the products and services offered by our advertisers

Jan 1, 1984

Jan 1, 1961

Jan 1, 1951

Mr. Shepard's paper was unfortunately delivered extemperaneously so no record is at hand. He spoke most interestingly and at length on the oil shales of Colorado, giving his opinion as to the ultimate outcome of the oil shale industry. He explained his idea that it would be built up of comparatively small plants, each of which would make the crudes, or more exactly would roughly divide the crude into its fractions, piping or shipping the fractions to a Central Refinery, using the residue for fertilizer, as it runs very high in fertilizer salts. He recommended that this plan be taken up by Coal Producers, that they consider the possibility of breaking up coal and selling its more refined products in place of selling raw coal. He spoke at length of the various outlets for products of distillation. Mr. McDermott gave a very interesting talk later on work that is being done in the Northern Colorado field along these lines. Mr. McDermott mentioned the strange fact that coaly materials such as mother of coal appeared to give just as good or better results under distillation than did lignite coal. Messrs. Randall, Howe, Goddard, Danford, and Nash added interesting data covering the use of pulverized fuel, and this data will be collected and offered to the Institute later in the form of a paper. Mr. Young spoke of the use of powdered coal in small units for small plants, mentioning the system now being offered by an Eastern Iron Works for small heating plants.

Jan 1, 1922

PRESIDENT PRYDE: Any discussion on Mr. Poster's paper? MR. J. BEVAN: I would like to ask the gentleman how fine the dust has to be to cause an explosion? MR. T. FOSTER: According to the Bureau of Mines, it is claimed coal passing through a 100 mesh screen would be considered fine enough. That is all I can learn from the different bulletins. MR. BEVAN: Will the coal dust be that fine; going back in the empty cars on the tipple in the mine? MR. FOSTER: Possibly a great deal of it would be. MR. BEVAN: Will the coal dust be that fine, going back, in the empty the coal dust going back in the cars on the tipple, and into the mine? MR. FOSTER: In some places, they are wetting the cars at the tipple, -in the Rock Springs District, we have as the trip goes out, they have a big pipe, and they souse the car, and wet the load, and in some places, near the timbers; that helps to a certain extent. That does not absolutely eliminate it all, but it helps considerable. MR. WM. LITTLEJOHN (Utah Fuel Company) : I think we have all listened very attentively to the paper that Mr. Foster has just read. He has brought up a subject rather close to my heart, for a long time. He mentions particularly, the Scofield disaster, which happened the first of May, 1900; two hundred men lost their lives in the explosion; and I think it is generally conceded that is about the first time it had ever been brought to the attention of coal miners or operators that such a thing was possible, namely, a purely coal dust explosion. The term "Scofield disaster" is rather a mistake, in a way; while the mine that exploded at the time is in the Scofield District all right, it is now known, and probably was known at that time, as the Winter Quarters Mine, one of the mines which belongs to the Utah Fuel Company at the present time, and did at that time. This mine

Jan 1, 1924