Search Documents

By George S. Rice, O. P. Hood

The need of protecting mines from the danger of inflow of natural gas from neighboring wells has become more apparent each year since it was found that oil and gas underlie the productive coal measures of Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Kansas, Oklahoma, Colorado, and Wyoming, and, to some extent, the coal measures of other States. The proximity of the known gas and oil areas in the United States to the coal fields and the manner in which the fields overlap in certain States are shown in the map comprising the frontispiece (Pl. I). As the result of many requests received from various sources a conference to consider the protective measures necessary to insure the safety of mining operations in gas and oil fields was called by the Director of the Bureau of Mines to assemble in Pittsburgh, Pa., Feb- ruary 7 and 8, 1913. To this conference were invited a considerable number of gas-well, oil-well, and coal-mine operators within conven- ient distance from Pittsburgh, as well as State geologists and State mine inspectors from a distance. Gas and oil wells are also found near other kinds of mines, such as shale and limestone mines in western Pennsylvania, but these cases are so few that for this and other reasons it was deemed best to con- fine the present inquiry to the consideration of the questions involved in connection with coal mines. It was also not thought advisable to consider the protection of mines from other kinds of bore holes than those for gas and oil, such as coal-prospecting holes, drilled either with churn or diamond drills, or salt wells and artesian wells, because little trouble has been ex- perienced in mining operations from these classes of wells. There- fore the following papers and discussions concern almost entirely the following relations between coal mines and gas and oil wells: (1) Protection of coal mines froin gas and oil wells penetrating -through: (a) Open workings; (b) inaccessible spaces or goaves; (c) pillars, or coal which may be left as pillars. (2) The manner of drilling gas and oil wells passing through workable coal beds so as to provide protection for future mining. The preliminary inquiries of the engineers of the bureau had dis- closed that there was no uniformity in the methods of protecting mines against the leakage of gas from wells, that thousands of wells in coal fields are abandoned yearly without adequate plugging, and without surveys or records being kept to show the location of the holes, from which the casings are generally pulled. According to the State geologist of Pennsylvania, as many as 3,000 wells are being drilled annually in Pennsylvania, 2,000 of these holes being aban- doned within a single year. It is such unplugged, uncharted wells that are the greatest menace in mining. The quantity of gas that the wells produce, although not sufficient to be commercially avail-

Jan 1, 1913

By Thomas J. Fisher, Christopher C. Jobes, Edward F. Fries

This report (Software Safety 2.2) is the third in a nine-part series of recommendations addressing the functional safety of processor-controlled mining equipment. It is part of a risk-based system safety process encompassing hardware, software, humans, and the operating environment for the equipment’s life cycle. Figure 1 shows a safety framework containing these recommendations. The reports in this series address the various life cycle stages of inception, design, approval and certification, commissioning, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning. These recommendations were developed as a joint project between the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and the Mine Safety and Health Administration. They are intended or use by mining companies, original equipment manufacturers, and aftermarket suppliers to these mining companies. Users of these reports are expected to consider the set in total during the design cycle. • 1.0 Safety Introduction.—This is an introductory report for the general mining industry. It provides basic system/software safety concepts, discusses the need for mining to address the functional safety of programmable electronics (PE), and includes the benefits of implementing a system/software safety program. • 2.1 System Safety and 2.2 Software Safety.—These reports draw heavily from International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) standard IEC 61508 [IEC 1998a,b,c,d,e,f,g] and other standards. The scope is “surface and underground safety-related mining systems employing embedded, networked, and non networked programmable electronics.” System safety seeks to design safety into all phases of the entire system. Software is a subsystem; thus, software safety is a part of the system’s safety .• 3.0 Safety File.—This report contains the documentation that demonstrates the level of safety built into the system and identifies limitations for the system’s use and operation. In essence, it is a “proof of safety” that the system and its operation meets the appropriate level of safety for the intended application. It starts from the beginning of the design, is maintained during the full lifecycle of the system, and provides administrative support for the safety program of the full system. • 4.0 Safety Assessment.—The independent assessment of the Safety File is addressed. It establishes consistent methods to determine the completeness and suitability of safety evidence and justifications. This assessment could be conducted by an independent third party. • 5.0 Safety Framework Guidance.—It is intended to supplement the safety framework reports with guidance providing users with additional information. The purpose is to assist users in applying the concepts presented. In other words, the safety framework is what needs to be don and the guidance is the how it can be done. The guidance information reinforces the concepts, describes various methodologies that can be used, and gives examples and references. It also gives information on the benefits and drawbacks of various methodologies. The guidance reports are not intended to promote a single methodology or to be an exhaustive treaty of the subject material. They provide information and references so that the user can more intelligently choose and implement the appropriate methodologies given the user’s application and capabilities. [ ]

Jan 9, 2001

By John J. Sammarco, Edward F. Fries

This report (Independent Functional Safety Assessment 4.0) is the fifth in a nine-part series of recommendations addressing the functional safety of processor-controlled mining equipment. It is part of a risk-based system safety process encompassing hardware, software, humans, and the operating environment for the equipment’s life cycle. Figure 1 shows a safety framework containing these recommendations. The reports in this series address the various life cycle stages of inception, design, approval and certification, commissioning, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning. These recommendations were developed as a joint project between the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and the Mine Safety and Health Administration. They are intended for use by mining companies, original equipment manufacturers, and aftermarket suppliers to these mining companies. Users of these reports are expected to consider the set in total during the design cycle. • 1.0 Safety Introduction.—This is an introductory report for the general mining industry. It provides basic system/software safety concepts, discusses the need for mining to address the functional safety of programmable electronics (PE), and includes the benefits of implementing system/software safety program. • 2.1 System Safety and 2.2 Software Safety.—These reports draw heavily from International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) standard IEC 61508 [IEC 1998a,b,c,d,e,f,g] and other standards. The scope is “surface and underground safety-related mining systems employing embedded, networked, and nonnetworked programmable electronics.” System safety seeks to design safety into all phases of the entire system. Software is a subsystem; thus, software safety is a part of the system’s safety. • 3.0 Safety File.—This report contains the documentation that demonstrates the level of safety built into the system and identifies limitations for the system’s use and operation. In essence, it is a “proof of safety” that the system and its operation meets the appropriate level of safety for the intended application. It starts from the beginning of the design, is maintained during the full lifecycle of the system, and provides administrative support for the safety program of the full system. • 4.0 Safety Assessment.—The independent assessment of the safety file is addressed. It establishes consistent methods to determine the completeness and suitability of safety evidence and justifications. This assessment could be conducted by an independent third party. • 5.0 Safety Framework Guidance.—It is intended to supplement the safety framework reports with guidance providing users with additional information. The purpose is to assist users in applying the concepts presented. In other words, the safety framework is what needs to be done and the guidance is the how it can be done. The guidance information reinforces the concepts, describes various methodologies that can be used, and gives examples and references. It also gives information on the benefits and drawbacks of various methodologies. The guidance reports are not intended to promote a single methodology or to be an exhaustive treatment of the subject material. They provide information and references so that the user can more intelligently choose and implement the appropriate methodologies given the user’s application and capabilities. [ ]

Jan 5, 2003

By Thomas J. Fisher, John J. Sammarco, Gary L. Mowrey, Edward F. Fries

This report (Safety File 3.0) is the fourth in a nine-part series of recommendations addressing the functional safety of processor-controlled mining equipment. It is part of a risk-based system safety process encompassing hardware, software, humans, and the operating environment for the equipment’s life cycle. Figure 1 shows a safety framework containing these recommendations. The reports in this series address the various life cycle stages of inception, design, approval and certification, commissioning, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning. These recommendations were developed as a joint project between the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and the Mine Safety and Health Administration. They are intended for use by mining companies, original equipment manufacturers, and aftermarket suppliers to these mining companies. Users of these reports are expected to consider the set in total during the design cycle. • 1.0 Safety Introduction.—This is an introductory report for the general mining industry. It provides basic system/software safety concepts, discusses the need for mining to address the functional safety of programmable electronics (PE), and includes the benefits of implementing a system/software safety program. • 2.1 System Safety and 2.2 Software Safety.—These reports draw heavily from International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) standard IEC 61508 [IEC 1998a,b,c,d,e,f,g] and other standards. The scope is “surface and underground safety-related mining systems employing embedded, networked, and nonnetworked programmable electronics.” System safety seeks to design safety into all phases of the entire system. Software is a subsystem; thus, software safety is a part of the system’s safety. • 3.0 Safety File.—This report contains the documentation that demonstrates the level of safety built into the system and identifies limitations for the system’s use and operation. In essence, it is a “proof of safety” that the system and its operation meet the appropriate level of safety for the intended application. It starts from the beginning of the design, is maintained during the full lifecycle of the system, and provides administrative support for the safety program of the full system. • 4.0 Safety Assessment.—The independent assessment of the safety file is addressed. It establishes consistent methods to determine the completeness and suitability of safety evidence and justifications. This assessment could be conducted by an independent third party. • 5.0 Safety Framework Guidance.—It is intended to supplement the safety framework reports with guidance providing users with additional information. The purpose is to assist users in applying the concepts presented. In other words, the safety framework is what needs to be done and the guidance is the how it can be done. The guidance information reinforces the concepts, describes various methodologies that can be used, and gives examples and references. It also gives information on the benefits and drawbacks of various methodologies. The guidance reports are not intended to promote a single methodology or to be an exhaustive treatment of the subject material. They provide information and references so that the user can more intelligently choose and implement the appropriate methodologies given the user’s application and capabilities. [ ]

Jan 5, 2002

By Henry D. Hibbard

The object of this report is to give briefly information of present value relating to the manufacture and uses of the various commercial alloy steels, with the hope of stimulating the demand for such steels and extending their practical use. The report is issued by the Bureau of Mines as a contribution to the increase of efficiency in the preparation and utilization of the mineral resources of the United States. Alloy steels are included in the so-called special steels, but as the latter term is often used in the mills to designate broadly any steels intended for purposes other than those served by the regular product, it has seemed best to use the more specific term of alloy steels in this report. Alloy steels are bringing about a series of revolutions in various in- dustrial fields in which steel plays an important part. Most elements that could be procured in sufficient quantity have been alloyed with iron in various proportions, either alone or in combination with others, in the search for useful alloy steels. Those steels that have gained and maintained for themselves a place in current use are discussed in this report. Some of them have had an ephemeral life of usefulness which would no doubt have been prolonged had not some other more satisfactory steel been developed. Probably the first useful alloy steel was Mushet's self-hardening tungsten tool steel, patented in 1868. Fifteen years later chromium steel, really containing chromium, was struggling for recognition for some purposes, the chief of which was for the manufacture of solid shot for piercing armor. In both of these steels the effect of the alloying element as used was in a way proportional to the amount contained. In 1882 Hadfield made his epoch-making discovery of manganese steel and demonstrated that in iron metallurgy it is not safe to take for granted anything as to the properties of an alloy of iron with other elements, basing one's opinion on past experience and knowledge, and that the effect of an alloying element may not be proportional to its content. The development of useful nickel

Jan 1, 1915

By John J. Sammarco

This report (System Safety Guidance 5.1) is the sixth in a nine-part series of recommendations and guidance addressing the functional safety of processor-controlled mining equipment. It is part of a risk-based system safety process encompassing hardware, software, humans, and the operating environment for the equipment’s life cycle. Figure 1 shows a safety framework containing these recommendations. The reports in this series address the various lifecycle stages of inception, design, approval and certification, commissioning, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning. These recommendations were developed as a joint project between the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and the Mine Safety and Health Administration. They are intended for use by mining companies, original equipment manufacturers, and aftermarket suppliers to these mining companies. Users of these reports are expected to consider the set in total during the design cycle. • 1.0 Safety Introduction (Part 1).—This is an introductory report for the general mining industry. It provides basic system/software safety concepts, discusses the need for mining to address the functional safety of programmable electronics (PE), and includes the benefits of implementing system/software safety program. • 2.1 System Safety (Part 2) and 2.2 Software Safety (Part 3).—These reports draw heavily from International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) standard IEC 61508 [IEC 1998a,b,c,d,e,f,g]and other standards. The scope is “surface and underground safety-related mining systems employing embedded, networked, and nonnetworked programmable electronics.” System safety seeks to design safety into all phases of the entire system. Software is a subsystem; thus, software safety is a part of the system’s safety. • 3.0 Safety File (Part 4).—This report contains the documentation that demonstrates the level of safety built into the system and identifies limitations for the system’s use and operation. In essence, it is a “proof of safety” that the system and its operation meet the appropriate level of safety for the intended application. It starts from the beginning of the design, is maintained during the full life cycle of the system, and provides administrative support for the safety program of the full system. • 4.0 Safety Assessment (Part 5).—The independent assessment of the safety file is addressed. It establishes consistent methods to determine the completeness and suitability of safety evidence and justifications. This assessment could be conducted by an independent third party. • Safety Framework Guidance.—It is intended to supplement the safety framework reports with guidance providing users with additional information. The purpose is to assist users in applying the concepts presented. In other words, the safety framework is what needs to be done and the guidance is how it can be done. The guidance information reinforces the concepts, describes various methodologies that can be used, and gives examples and references. It also gives information on the benefits and drawbacks of various methodologies. The guidance reports are not intended to promote a single methodology or to be an exhaustive treatment of the subject material. They provide information and references so that the user can more intelligently choose and implement the appropriate methodologies given the user’s application and capabilities. The guidance reports comprise parts 6 through 9 of the series and are listed below: [< 5.1 System Safety Guidance (Part 6).—This guidance supplements 2.1 System Safety. < 5.2 Software Safety Guidance (Part 7).—This guidance supplements 2.2 Software Safety. < 6.0 Safety File Guidance (Part 8).—This guidance supplements 3.0 Safety File. < 7.0 Independent Functional Safety Assessment Guidance (Part 9).—This guidance supplements 4.0 Independent Functional Safety Assessment.] [ ]

Jan 8, 2005

By John J. Sammarco

This report (Safety File Guidance 6.0) is the eighth in a nine-part series of recommendations and guidance addressing the functional safety of processor-controlled mining equipment. It is part of a risk-based system safety process encompassing hardware, software, humans, and the operating environment for the equipment’s life cycle. Figure 1 shows a safety framework containing these recommendations. The reports in this series address the various life cycle stages of inception, design, approval and certification, commissioning, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning. These recommendations were developed as a joint project between the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and the Mine Safety and Health Administration. They are intended for use by mining companies, original equipment manufacturers, and aftermarket suppliers to these mining companies. Users of these reports are expected to consider the set in total during the design cycle. • 1.0 Safety Introduction (Part 1).—This is an introductory report for the general mining industry. It provides basic system/software safety concepts, discusses the need for mining to address the functional safety of programmable electronics (PE), and includes the benefits of implementing a system/software safety program. • 2.1 System Safety (Part 2) and 2.2 Software Safety (Part 3).—These reports draw heavily from International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) standard IEC 61508 [IEC 1998a,b,c,d,e,f,g]and other standards. The scope is “surface and underground safety-related mining systems employing embedded, networked, and nonnetworked programmable electronics.” System safety seeks to design safety into all phases of the entire system. Software is a subsystem; thus, software safety is a part of the system’s safety. • 3.0 Safety File (Part 4).—This report contains the documentation that demonstrates the level of safety built into the system and identifies limitations for the system’s use and operation. In essence, it is a “proof of safety” that the system and its operation meet the appropriate level of safety for the intended application. It starts from the beginning of the design, is maintained during the full life cycle of the system, and provides administrative support for the safety program of the full system. • 4.0 Safety Assessment (Part 5).—The independent assessment of the safety file is addressed. It establishes consistent methods to determine the completeness and suitability of safety evidence and justifications. This assessment could be conducted by an independent third party. • Safety Framework Guidance.—It is intended to supplement the safety framework reports with guidance providing users with additional information. The purpose is to assist users in applying the concepts presented. In other words, the safety framework is what needs to be done and the guidance is how it can be done. The guidance information reinforces the concepts, describes various methodologies that can be used, and gives examples and references. It also gives information on the benefits and drawbacks of various methodologies. The guidance reports are not intended to promote a single methodology or to be an exhaustive treatment of the subject material. They provide information and references so that the user can more intelligently choose and implement the appropriate methodologies given the user’s application and capabilities. The guidance reports comprise parts 6 through 9 of the series and are listed below: [5.1System Safety Guidance (Part 6).—This guidance supplements 2.1 System Safety. < 5.2 Software Safety Guidance (Part 7).—This guidance supplements 2.2 Software Safety. < 6.0 Safety File Guidance (Part 8).—This guidance supplements 3.0 Safety File. < 7.0 Independent Functional Safety Assessment Guidance (Part 9).—This guidance supplements 4.0 Independent Functional Safety Assessment.] [ ]

Jan 4, 2006

By E. J. Gleim

"When permissible equipment is first placed in a gassy mine, those in charge may not realize the amount of attention and care they must give it if they intend to secure its full value as safety equipment. If permissible machines are installed as a safety measure, then they must receive regular, intelligent inspection and upkeep to forestall the development of unsafe features.Certain fundamentals have been followed in the design of this type of equipment in order to minimize the possibility of its igniting gas and dust. Hence, some knowledge of these fundamentals is essential to the inspector or official charged with the duty of ascertaining the condition of permissible machines with respect to safety. Familiarity with the constructional details of a machine is of first importance in making a thorough inspection of it. A knowledge of Schedule 2C3 which gives the requirements for practically all types of motor operated equipment receiving the United States Bureau of Mines' approval is also a requisite.There are certain special features in the construction followed by different manufacturers that can not be made clear for the purposes of inspection except by a lengthy description which would be inappropriate in this paper. There are, however, some general points that are applicable to the inspection of any machine employing trailing cable for connection to the power supply, also some that apply to any permissible storage-battery locomotive.The following list, based on the writer's experience in making field inspections, gives these general points in the form of questions which may he used as a guide by the inspector. A brief explanation is given after each question so that the reason for checking up on each point will be understood.1. Is a U. S. Bureau of Mines' approval plate attached to the machine? (Such a plate is necessary in order to establish identification as a permissible machine.)2. Is approval plate clean?(The plate should be clean so that the precautions enumerated on it are readable.)3. Is trailing cable protected by a fuse or other automatic circuit-interrupting device?(Trailing cable must have a fused trolley tap or other suitable means for short-circuit protection in case the cable is run over or splices fail. Proper fusing will minimize the possibility of fire in the cable reel.)4. If a trolley tap is used, does it contain a fuse of the proper capacity? (A piece of trolley wire or, too large a fuse may entirely defeat the purpose of fusing.)5. If a fused trolley tap is not used, how is connection made to the power supply? (The end of the trailing cable must be fitted with an insulated arrangement to minimize shock hazard when connecting the cable to the power supply.)6. Are the main fuses (or overload relays) of the correct size (or setting) for protection of the machine against overload?(Too large a fuse or too high a setting of the overload relay will permit damage to the machine by abuse through sustained overloads.)7. If the machine has a headlight, does the headlight circuit have overload and short-circuit protection?(The wiring of the headlight circuit on a machine is usually of a smaller size than that for the main circuits and therefore requires fuse protection proportionate to the size of wire.) Note: This same question may be asked relative to coal drills sometimes mounted on a machine."

Apr 1, 1932

By John J. Sammarco, Janet S. Flynt

This report (Independent Functional Safety Assessment Guidance 7.0) is the last in a nine-part series of recommendations and guidance addressing the functional safety of processor-controlled mining equipment. It is part of a risk-based system safety process encompassing hardware, software, humans, and the operating environment for the equipment’s life cycle. Figure1 shows a safety framework containing these recommendations. The reports in this series address the various life cycle stages of inception, design, approval and certification, commissioning, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning. These recommendations were developed as a joint project between the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and the Mine Safety and Health Administration. They are intended for use by mining companies, original equipment manufacturers, and after-market suppliers to these mining companies. Users of these reports are expected to consider the set in total during the design cycle. • 1.0 Safety Introduction (Part 1).—This is an introductory report for the general mining industry. It provides basic system/software safety concepts, discusses the need for mining to address the functional safety of programmable electronics (PE), and includes the benefits of implementing a system/software safety program. • 2.1 System Safety (Part 2) and 2.2 Software Safety (Part 3).—These reports draw heavily from International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) standard IEC 61508 [IEC 1998a,b,c,d,e,f,g]and other standards. The scope is “surface and underground safety-related mining systems employing embedded, networked, and nonnetworked programmable electronics.” System safety seeks to design safety into all phases of the entire system. Software is a subsystem; thus, software safety is a part of the system’s safety. • 3.0 Safety File (Part 4).—This report contains the documentation that demonstrates the level of safety built into the system and identifies limitations for the system’s use and operation. In essence, it is a “proof of safety” that the system and its operation meet the appropriate level of safety for the intended application. It starts from the beginning of the design, is maintained during the full life cycle of the system, and provides administrative support for the safety program of the full system. • 4.0 Safety Assessment (Part 5).—The independent assessment of the safety file is addressed. It establishes consistent methods to determine the completeness and suitability of safety evidence and justifications. This assessment could be conducted by an independent third party. • Safety Framework Guidance.—It is intended to supplement the safety framework reports with guidance providing users with additional information. The purpose is to assist users in applying the concepts presented. In other words, the safety framework is what needs to be done and the guidance is how it can be done. The guidance information reinforces the concepts, describes various methodologies that can be used, and gives examples and references. It also gives information on the benefits and drawbacks of various methodologies. The guidance reports are not intended to promote a single methodology or to be an exhaustive treatment of the subject material. They provide information and references so that the user can more intelligently choose and implement the appropriate methodologies given the user’s application and capabilities. The guidance reports comprise parts 6 through 9 of the series and are listed below: [< 5.1 System Safety Guidance (Part 6).—This guidance supplements 2.1 System Safety. < 5.2 Software Safety Guidance (Part 7).—This guidance supplements 2.2 Software Safety. < 6.0 Safety File Guidance (Part 8).—This guidance supplements 3.0 Safety File. < 7.0 Independent Functional Safety Assessment Guidance (Part 9).—This guidance supplements 4.0 Independent Functional Safety Assessment.] [ ]

Jan 4, 2006

By J. W. JOYCE

The Geophysical section of the United States Bureau of Mines has received many inquiries regarding the application of geophysical methods to the location of small, buried metallic objects. The object of this paper is fourfold: (1) To sketch as briefly and non- technically as possible the principles underlying the operation of several elec- trical geophysical methods of prospecting applicable to the finding of small, buried metallic objects; (2) to point out the possibilities and limitations of these methods; (3) to present, whenever possible, data showing actual results obtained from their use; and (4) to enumerate and describe methods that lack scientific background or foundation.

Oct 1, 1935

By J. R. Thoenen

This circular is part IV of the third paper (entitled "Sand and Gravel Excavation") of a series summarizing the technical problems involved in the production and preparation of sand and gravel. Part I discussed the use of power shovels, draglines, and excavator cranes; part II discussed the use of power scrapers, slackline cableway excavators and hydraulic monitors; and part III discussed the use of hydraulic, clamshell, ladder, and dipper dredges. This circular discusses haulage equipment in general, particularly the use of industrial cars with locomotives or hoists as the motive power. Part V, to follow, will discuss the use of other types of haulage equipment.

Oct 1, 1935

By J. Bender

The objective of this research was to (1) Further develop cyanobacteria mats&apos; for metal-tolerance and cold-tolerance, (2) test them for durability in the field environment and (3) assess them for metal sequestering potential with actual and simulated field samples. Results show that mats performed well In the field and effectively sequestered metals from actual and simulated field samples. Metal uptake from Iron Mountain Hine samples was for Ins 87%, Cu and Cd 99%, Initial concentrations (mg/L) were Zn = 3,250, Cu , 279, Cd = 28. In solutions simulating the Gulf Tunnel drainage, Zn and Mn were effectively removed by mats immobilized on glass wool. Effluent water, after treatment, generally had a Ph of 7 .5-8.5. Al though the final metal concentrations in the mats &apos;harvested from the decontaminated water were only 1% or less, the actual mechanism of metal deposit was probably a mat-mediated alteration of the environmental conditions causing the metals to deposit outside the mat as oxides or carbonates. Bioflocculents, released by the mats, were likely involved in the metal-removal process.

Jan 1, 1996

By F. L. Wideman

Output of ore and waste from metal and nonmetal mines in the United States continued an upward trend and established a new high. The tonnage of ore handled increased 6 percent over that moved in 1964 and the tonnage of waste rose almost 10 percent. Earth moving by these two activities exceeded 3.2 billion tons, an increase of 7 percent over the 1964 total. Crude material from which metal or nonmetal products were derived continued to be about 75 percent of the total material handled. In 1965, surface mining methods were used to produce about 93 percent of the ore, 99 percent of the waste, and 95 percent of the total material handled. These percentages have remained almost constant since the beginning of this decade.

Jan 1, 1966

By Gloria L. Walker

The Bureau of Mines Information and Analysis Directorate collects worldwide data on virtually every commercially important nonfuel mineral commodity. These data form the base for tracking and assessing the health of the minerals sector of the U.S. economy. This data collection activity was instituted by the 47th Congress in an appropriations act of August 7, 1882 (22 Stat. 329), to place the collection of mineral statistics on an annual basis. The most recent authority for the Bureau of Mines Information and Analysis activity is the National Materials and Minerals Policy, Research and Development Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-479, 96th Congress), which strengthens protection for proprietary data provided to the U.S. Department of the Interior by persons or firms engaged in any phase of mineral or mineral-material production or consumption.

Jan 1, 1990

By R. F. Tenney

No detailed information has been published heretofore on the performance of small industrial-type anthracite stokers in building-heating service, apparently because of the difficulty of comparing the performance of one unit with that of another over an entire season&apos;s operation. Studies of competitive heating fuels have been similarly handicapped, and attempts to compare fuels are seldom technically sound in this investigation, the performance of a 60-in. Losch4 stoker burning rice-size anthracite in a standard commercial boiler was observed during a 4-month winter-spring season. It was used to heat two buildings at the Bureau of Mines&apos; Anthracite Research Center at Schuylkill Haven, Pa., with the customary type of automatic pressure-range control. Attendance was limited to inspecting, fuel weighing, data recording, and ash removal. Results were computed daily and grouped by weekly periods to minimize daily irregularities. The same stoker-boiler unit had already been tested in a series of American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) test code runs, with the stoker running continuously and with other conditions well stabilized A comparison of results from the code test and the building-heating tests provided information not available in the past for a single stoker unit, assisted in analyzing heat losses not computable in a cyclic operation, and established a basis for evaluating stoker performance in heating service.

Jan 1, 1963

By Lester G. Morrell

THE WORLDWIDE economic expansion that has characterized the first 3 years of the 1960&apos;s continued through 1964 and was reflected in North America by strength in the industrial economy of the United States, which again was dominant. Advances in production were recorded in virtually all industries, including the mineral industry; 1964 mineral production established a new high, 5.4 percent above the previous peak recorded in 1963. However, the percentage increase in value of North American mineral production was slightly below overall economic growth. For industry in general, consumer demand held firm throughout the year and overall commodity prices averaged 2 percent higher than in 1963. Wages and salary payments also were up. With the single exception of the dock strike in the United States, the year was free of serious labor troubles and unemployment in both Canada and the States was at a low level. Despite the Viet-Nam situation, relatively tranquil international relations contributed to the forward movement of North American business. Total gross national product (GNP) for Canada and United States, in current dollars, was estimated at US$672.2 billion; 6.8 percent above the previous year&apos;s figure. Combined national income in 1964 amounted to US$546.9 billion, which was nearly 7.0 percent more than in 1963. In 1964, gains were recorded in each of more than 50 metals, nonmetals, and fuels commodities that comprise the North American output. The greatest category increase was 13 percent in metals, which was in part attributable to the 14 percent rise to a new record in value of iron and steel in United States, a 29 percent higher value of Canadian iron ore and a 57 percent rise in Canadian zinc. Despite a moderate decline in prices of iron ore and iron and steel products, generally favorable markets and rising prices for metallic ores and metals were a stimulant to the metals industry. Nonmetallic materials, with a total value in excess of US$5.25 billion were 7.3 percent higher than in 1963. High levels of highway and building construction and expanding demand for fertilizers and chemicals continued throughout the year. Noteworthy output increases were recorded for lime,

Jan 1, 1966

By Jeffrey B. Osmint

The Bureau of Mines Information and Analysis Directorate collects worldwide data on virtually every commercially important nonfuel mineral commodity. These data form the base for tracking and assessing the health of the minerals sector of the U.S. economy. The Bureau&apos;s data collection activity was instituted by the 47th Congress in an appropriations act of August 7, 1882 (22 Stat. 329), which placed the collection of mineral statistics on an annual basis. The most recent authority for the Bureau of Mines survey activity is the National Materials and Minerals Policy, Research and Development Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-479, 96th Congress), which strengthens protection for proprietary data provided to the U.S. Department of the Interior by persons or firms engaged in any phase of mineral or mineral-material production or consumption.

Jan 1, 1991

By Ruth F. Brinkley

This report is the 17th of a series originally issued annually, and more recently bienially, to acquaint the reader with the work of the Division of Explosives Technology, Federal Bureau of Mines. It differs from preceding reports in that its material is presented in two parts: Part I reviews briefly the overall activities of the Division during fiscal years 1955 and 1956;4/ part II presents in abstract form, the publications of the Division during that period. As it is not unusual for research completed in the course of one report period to be published only in the following period, the Bureau believes that the present approach will give a more accurate presentation of its work for the period considered. The Bureau hopes too, that the somewhat more concise presentation will prove convenient to the reader.5/ PART I -RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGIC ACTIVITIES The activities of the Division during fiscal years 1955 and 1956 reflected the steadily growing preoccupation with factors affecting the safety of permissible explosives and those affecting the tests used for approval of these explosives. Findings by a team of French investigators prompted a study of the influence of atmospheric moisture on the ignition of firedamp by

Jan 1, 1961

By V. R. Spironello

Operating variables affecting the efficiency of the basic oxygen furnace (BOF) and the level of contaminating elements in the steel product were investigated by the Bureau of Mines. Steel was made in a 400-lb-capacity BOF designed to rotate on its vertical axis to increase the area of hot metal surface subject to oxygen attack. Hot metal for the BOF was made by melting pig iron and scrap in an 18-inch (ID) cupola. The variables were BOF speed of rotation, rate of oxygen flow, number of jets and angle at which they were machined into the oxygen-lance tip, temperature of hot metal, reactivity of lime, and temperature of scrap for the BOF charge. Experiments were arranged according to a two-level fractional-factorial design. The effects of the seven variables were evaluated for 13 responses. The greatest ingot yield occurred while using the larger angle lance tip and jets. The most carbon burned per unit volume of oxygen resulted from rotating the BOF and using the smaller angle lance tip. The largest sulfur transfer to the slag occurred at the higher hot metal temperature levels and higher rate of oxygen flow.

Jan 1, 1970

By David A. Monaghan, Kenneth R. Maser, Adi R. Gurdar, D. Randolph Berry

8. Field Demonstration of the Remote Mine Sealing System in a Coal Mine 8. 1 Selection of Field Test Site Eastern Associated Coal Corporation (EACC) offered its Federal No. 1 coal mine in Grant Town, West Virginia as the site for field testing of the remote sealing system. The choice of Federal No. 1 mine was particularly appropriate as the first attempt at fire control by remote sealing was done in this mine in 1963. EACC provided the men and equipment required for much of the initial preparation. Considerable assistance, advice, and background on coal mining technology was given by Mr. William Laird, Vice President for Research and Development, EACC, and by Mr. Lawrence Jackson, Resident Engineer at the Federal No. 1 mine. District 3 USBM office, the West Virginia Bureau of Mines, the Technical Support Group of the USBM, and Local 4047 of the United Mine Workers of America also cooperated. 8.2 Preparation of Field Test Site 8.2. 1 Underground Site Preparation The underground site chosen for the field testing was in a non-working portion of the mine within a few hundred feet of the main haulage road, as shown in Figure 80. Known as "Seven Switch, " this area was a 20 minute walk or 5 minute "jeep" trip from the man-trip shaft. Ten years having passed since this area was actively worked, considerable effort was required for gob clearing, roof bolting, rock dusting, and rejuvenating the track from the haulage road to the test area. Three primary borehole locations were chosen for the test program. Borehole No. 1 was in a straight passageway

Jan 1, 1973