Search Documents

By Parley Potter

GENTLEMEN OF THE COAL MINTING INSTITUTE: I was requested to write an article on mining a short time ago; however, the time has been so short that I have not had time to prepare an article as I would like to have presented it to this body. In writing this article it has not been my intention in making comparison of various mines, to favor one or discredit the other. I hope it will be considered in that light. The coal mining industry as I have seen it in the past, at present and in the future. In years gone by large tracts of coal land could be obtained at a very small cost, and as yet coal land may be purchased at a reasonable price in this country, but I believe the time is near at hand when the methods of mining will have to be changed greatly in this country. Many changes have taken place-in the last few years, some of them have been forced by law, others by the coal operators themselves, after being convinced that the changes made were for their own benefit. During my 20 years in the mines I have seen thousands and thousands of tons of coal lost that could have been saved if proper methods of mining had been used. The Room and Pillar system of mining coal is none. too good at its best ; a certain per cent of the coal is always lost, yet it is about the only system that can be used under certain conditions, but where the Longwall system can be used I believe it is the best system yet introduced. If the Longwall system is used' there is no coal lost. You get it all as you advance with the workings. Some coal operators object to the Longwall system for several reasons, and most of the reasons they advance are not founded on facts. For instance some of them claim it is too expensive. I will admit that the cost per ton is a little higher in Longwall than it is in Room and Pillar as a rule for the amount of coal' mined, but after the Room and Pillar mine is finished as a rule there are thousands of tons of good coal lost, for the simple reason that it cannot be mined at a profit. In many cases if the same mine had been operated on the Longwall system every ton of saleable coal could have been mined at a fair profit, and in the long run would have netted the owner much more money than it did under the Room and Pillar system. The Longwall system has been in operation many years in Europe and especially Great Britain, and is the most approved of systems in many countries at the present time. Millions of tons of coal have been saved by its use in those countries. It is claimed that the Armour Packing Company loses nothing but the squeal of the hog when it is killed, and doesn't allow it to squeal much. Why lose coal if the Longwall system of mining will save it? The Longwall mine is far more easy to ventilate than the Room and Pillar mine; the air has a much less distance to travel for the same amount of working face in Longwall than it has in the Room and Pillar.

Jan 1, 1921

By Mike Onsager

Jan 1, 2006

By Richard M. Whiting

Thank you very much for that introduction. I spent part of my early career in the coal industry here in Colorado, and I am always happy to return. In such a beautiful setting, it seems out of place to talk about "Improving the Climate". But in our work-a-day worlds, we know the climate for the coal industry is something less than picture perfect. But unlike Mother Nature's climate, there are some things we can do about the climate for coal. Today, I want to talk to you about sonic of the activities that we are engaged in... and that you can support... to improve that climate. A number of challenges and opportunities face our industry. I will try to set the stage for this conference by briefly describing the current climate for coal - which is indeed very challenging. I will then outline some of the steps we are taking to broaden our base to include our allies in the rail and electricity industries and the public at large.

Jan 1, 2000

The fourth annual Mine Rescue Evaluation program was held in conjunction with the 1995 Institute convention at Crested Butte, Colorado. The Mine Rescue committee is chaired by Lynn Busskohl and is but one of 16 such committees of the institute. In 1995 seven teams participated in the program. They were BHP Minerals, The Coteau Properties Company, Decker Coal Co., The Falkirk Mining Company, Kerr-McGee Coal Corporation, Sabine Mining Co. and Western Energy Co. [ ] Professional evaluators who provided challenging scenarios for the near 60 persons were Jack Knight of Pensacola, Florida; Dave Medick of Northwestern Resources, Jewett, Texas; Joe Nugent of Idaho Springs, Colorado and Jack Peleaux of Innovative Access, Evergreen, Colorado. Each team was comprised of seven members and one trainer representing the states of Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Texas and Wyoming. This committee challenges the incoming Colorado vice president to locate a team for the 1996 program in Durango, Colorado. Five different scenarios were presented the first day of evaluation and three the second. Each team was given the pertinent information to solve the problem as they assembled at the site. The realistic industrial related scenarios closely simulated the stress of actual rescue incidents and were going on simultaneously. Each team was unaware of the circumstances until arriving on the scene. Lynn Busskohl presented an overview of the Mine Rescue committee work at the Monday Institute welcome session and invited all attendees outside to view the various pretend rescue operations. Valuable suggestions were made by the team of evaluators following each scenario. These teams are providers of immediate rescue and medical care for accident victims at their respective properties. The members are prepared to act with immediate and professional knowledge to save lives and prevent further injuries. [ ] Many donors financially assisted with the 1995 program. They are: Blattner Constructors; Butler Machinery Co.; CMC Rescue, Inc.; Galls, Inc.; General Equipment; PMI-Petzel Distribution, Inc.; SafetyMaster; Skedco and TIC of Wyoming. An adder to the 1995 convention was golfing on Saturday, June 24 for three foursomes. This may become an annual event if there is sufficient interest. Team meetings, tests and swap meetings were attended by all participants during the Friday thru Monday program. A fun competition took place after lunch Monday followed by a training session. All events were chaired by Lynn Busskohl. On Saturday evening, June 24 a reception for all mine rescue participants and spouses who had advance registered for the social event. The RMCMI Board of Directors was invited to attend and meet with the teams. As convention attendees, all mine rescue committee members attended the Monday night country western reception and Bar-B-Q with their families. This was followed by an adult western dance evening. The Mine Rescue committee looks forward to a 1996 return to Tamarron near Durango, Colorado which was the site of the first evaluation program. Plans call for all convention housing to be at Tamarron.

Jan 1, 1995

Jan 1, 1995

The final session on Wednesday morn¬ing was given over to a panel discussion of safety questions submitted by members of the institute. Mr. Murray presided, and Lyman Fearn, chief, Wyoming Dept. of Mines & Minerals, Rock Springs, Wyo., was moderator. Members of the panel were: John A. Garcia, chief mine inspector, New Mexico; Leonard Ford, mine foreman, Frederick- mine, CF&I, Valdez, Colo.; A. C. Moschetti, chief, coal mine inspection branch, USBM, Denver; Kirk V. Cammack, mining engineer, USGS, Denver; Joel N. Van Sant, chief engineer, St. Louis, Rocky Mountain & Pacific Coal Co., Raton, N. M.; Emery Olsen, safety engineer, coal mine and quarries, U. S. Steel Corp., Dragerton, Utah; F. J. Peternell, safety engineer, Union Pacific Coal Co., Rock Springs; and J. J. Reddy, mine inspector, Colorado Dept. of Mines, Grand Junction, Colo. On a question concerning the effect of roof-bolting on the maintenance of a breakline in pillar removal, Mr. Van Sant reported that some experience at his company's mines indicate that wood supports are not necessary to make the break although shooting is sometimes done to get it. Furthermore, bolting improves the roof in these pillar areas and extraction has increased about 20%. Mr. Fearn concurred in describing operations in parts of Wyoming.

Jan 1, 1953

By O .. G. Sharrer

Loading mechanically has of late become the most widely discussed subject in connection with coal mining and has even equalled. the discussion of safety measures as a topic of interest. The subject has been discussed in the various mining journals and by well. informed persons at the Mining Institutes, so it would appear; that all has been said that can be said until further experiments bring out new lines of discussion. It is, therefore, not the intention to present this article as a technical discussion of the subject of mechanical loading as a whole, but rather as a plain talk on machines with which the writer has had personal contact. In 1919, during the first period of post-war depression, a Pennsylvania coal company employing union labor became interested in the possibilities of mechanical loading with the hope of reducing their mining costs, which were and are yet too high to meet competition from the non-union fields of Somerset and Westmoreland counties. Of several loaders presented for their consideration the model of the Joy loader shown by Mr. Joseph F. Joy, seemed to hold the greatest possibilities, and after extended study, the management decided to invest in a machine of this type. A machine was built, which as far as the writer knows was the only one of its type ever put on the market. This machine arrived at one of the mines early in 1920 and was put to work immediately. It was a forerunner of the present 4-BU and 5-BU types, but differed from them very radically as to design. In general the machine consisted of the familiar Joy gathering arms and a short conveyor which discharged into a steel tank which held about four and one-half tons of coal. This tank was emptied by a second conveyor which placed the coal in the mine car. The object of this conveyor tank was to provide storage room while changing cars and to allow the machine to load on the entry while the room was short. This plan was very efficient and from our experience was worth retaining, but has been abandoned by the Joy Company on account of its making the machine unwieldy. The whole machine was mounted on caterpillar tractors which were driven by two 10-H.P. Westinghouse series wound motors, each having its own controller, the controllers being arranged in tandem so as to be operated by the same handle. This very ingenious scheme which is shown in Figure 4, was supposed to make it possible to steer the loader by the controllers. By swinging the handle one way both motors moved forward, by swinging the handle the other way both motors moved backwards and by twisting the handle as shown by arrows, one motor moved ahead and the other back, thus causing the machine to turn. This scheme proved a failure as the loader was too temperamental and erratic in its operation. After Mr. Joy, himself, narrowly escaped serious injury, this device was taken off and the controllers manipulated separately. This system never proved satisfactory and was abandoned' for

Jan 1, 1925

PRESIDENT MOSES.: The meeting will please come to order. Will you kindly state your names prior to making any statements, in order that we may deep the record straight? The first paper this morning is a joint one on vocational training, by D. W. Rockey, H. A. Tiemann and Wm. Moorhead. Mr. Rocdey. (Applause.) D. W. ROCKEY (State Superintendent, Industrial Education, Santa Fe, New Mexico) (Mr. Rocdey's notes not received in time for publication.) MR. TESCHER: I would like to ask you, Mr. Rocdey, you say you gave the Phelps-Dodge Corporation financial assistance; to just what extent was the State obligated, and how much assistance was given, etc.?

Jan 1, 1927

By Thomas Lien

Session 1 - 1 :45 p.m. June 27,1983 Session Chairman: Robert Diederich, RMCMl New Mexico Vice President MR. DIEDERICH: My name is Bob Diederich. I'm the Vice President of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Insitute from the state of New Mexico. I'm manager for the Navajo Mine down in Farmington, New Mexico and also project manager for a new mine that we're starling out called the LaPlata Mine in the same area. I'd like to introduce our first speaker, Tom Lien, who is the Director of Engineering, Western Division of AMAX Coal Company. He is responsible for mine engineering, environmental engineering, permitting, reclamation, planning, design and construction plant engineering, geology exploration, quality control and real estate for the western division. He joined AMAX Coal in 1980 as manager of preparation and quality control and was promoted to the present position in August of 1980. He has a BS in geological engineering from the University of Mines. He previously worked for Kennecott Copper Corporation in Hayden, Arizona from 1965 to 1970. He worked as a mine geologist, mill metallurgist, mine production and quality control engineer. Then he also worked for Kaiser Steel Corporation, Eagle Mountain Iron Ore Mine in California, 1970 to 1977. Worked as a process engineer and plant superintendent at that place. Then he was employed by Mountain States Research and Development, Tucson, Arizona, 1977 to 1980. Worked as a senior process engineer and operation superintendent. So without further ado, I'd like to introduce Tom Lien who will talk to us about in-pit coal crushing. MR. LIEN: Thank you. The official title of my paper is actually: "The Potential for In-pit Crushing and Conveying in the Powder River Basin." The Powder River Basin is one of the world's greatest coal fields and will be an important source of energy for centuries to come. About one-eighth of the total coal producing in the United States comes from the Powder River Basin, and 80% of that production came out of Campbell County, Wyoming last year. The growth potential for this region is projected to be enormous. New technology as well as existing technology will make this region competitive in the decades ahead. Understanding the current status of the Powder River Basin, both the mines and the possible methods for changing the means of material movements within the mines is the subject of this paper. Each mine is unique and must be addressed specifically with respect to the application of new and innovative technology. There have been many articles written in the recent mining journals on in-pit crushing and conveying applications, including costs which are very interesting, enlightening and I recommend it to any company considering such installations. To give a general setting, coal production in the United States for 1982 was about 800,000.000 tons. This production came principally from six regions, the Applachian fields of the eastern states where bituminous and anthracite coals have been mined for almost three centuries, the Midwest located in the upper Mississippi Valley are often typified by huge dragline operations of which AMAX Coal has three right now, the Gulf Coast lignites. feeding mine-mouth power plants, the vast bituminous and sub-bituminous departments of the four-comer states of Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Utah and finally the Northern Great Plains lignite fields currently being developed and the sub-bituminous fields of Wyoming and Montana including the Powder River Basin. The Powder River Basin is located in northeastern Wyoming and southeastern Montana. It is the darker brown right in the center of the photograph. It covers about 18,000 square miles. It's about 200 miles north to south and 90 miles east to west. The shallowest coal beds are on the east, north and northwest edges of the basin with deeper coal beds toward the center in the same kind of relationship. There are about one trillion tons of coal in the Powder River Basin, that's the one with 12 zeros after it. A little bit there. It's distributed in many, many seams at varying depths to the current topography. In 1982 about 100,000,000 tons of coal were mined from this basin and 81,000,000 tons came out of Campbell County, Wyoming. The mines that are shown in this picture are basically the mines around the basin edge. The principal area that I'll be talking about is the eastern edge down where it shows Gillette and Campbell County. Geologically the Powder River Basin is the Fort Union formation. The most productive seam is called the Wyodak or Smith-Roland or the Anderson-Canyon, depending upon where you're located. There is about 75 billion tons of coal in the Wyodak of which about 23 billion are considered surface minable today. the coal is Paleocene in age, about 40,000,000 years old. It was once an old Delta region very much like the Mississippi River delta is today. During the 100,000 years that this deposit was formed peat accumulated to a thickness of about 365 feet. It was later buried and turned into sub-bituminous coal. All of the coal mined in the basin is for the electric utility industry. This coal has a typical BTU content of about 8,300 plus or minus about 4,500 BTUs. Sulfur coal is generally less than'/ %, thereby making this coal compliance coal in terms of sulfur dioxide emissions, 1.2 pounds of sulfur dioxide per million

Jan 1, 1983

By O. C. Irwin

For several years the C. F. & I. Co. men have been working on a fan signal and many different schemes have been tried. I will describe a few of them. A make-and-break attachment was placed on the fan shaft which caused a light to flicker. A hinged door was placed on air course and counter balanced so that it would have a slight travel when the air pressure was reduced an appreciable amount. This motion was used to open the power circuit, blow a whistle, or ring a bell. Series transformers were placed in motor leads of fan drive motor and the variation in amount of power to motor was used to control the fan signal through a magnet or relay. A governor was placed on the fan shaft which opened a signal circuit when speed of fan was reduced. We tried to produce a machine actuated by the volume of air, (that is on the principle of the anemometer) but had to discard this due to its being too delicate. None of the above schemes seemed to fill the conditions which the State and our Mine Inspector wanted covered. They gave us the following demands for a signal: 1. Must open mine circuit and sound alarm when air pressure was reduced below a certain amount. 2. Must be fool proof. 3. Must work on any kind of fan drive (steam or motor). 4. Must be safe to ' install- in any mine or fan house. 5. Must not depend upon mechanical device which could become inactive due to friction or other causes. 6. Must be as simple and easy to adjust as possible.

Jan 1, 1925

Jan 1, 1924

By Jeff Mattern

Topics of Discussion ?Navajo Mine General Information ?Mapping, Photogrammetryand Image Fans ?Planning: Equipment, Control Points, Targets ?Digital Photography ?Software Manipulations: Image Matching, Creating a 3d Image and Triangulation, ?Mapping? Geologic Structure, Data Analysis ?Conclusions ?Other Applications

Jan 1, 2005

By J. H. Emrick

When I was asked to read a paper to you, I wondered what idea I could bring before you which would be interesting and which would be helpful in your work in operating coal mines. The Institute has been studying ways and means of increasing the safety and efficiency of mine operations. Almost every subject along this line has been discussed from time to time. In thinking the matter over it occurred to me that there was one thing used by practically all coal mining companies in considerably large quantities and which in many cases does not receive the attention it should. It is the cutter bit placed in the cutter chains on coal mining machines. Coal mining machines have been repeatedly improved during the last twenty-five years until their efficiency and convenience have reached a high level. The generating units making electrical power to operate them also have been developed to a similar degree. This machinery has been in- stalled at a great expense to coal mining companies and the installation made for the sole purpose of pulling coal cutter bits through coal. Why not then give these cutter bits some attention so as to see that they do their work as efficiently as their driving and propelling units? The consideration of this question easily divides itself into three principal parts-First, the kina of steel out of which to make the bit; Second, the proper form or shape to give it; and Third, the tempering of the bit. Let us discuss them in that order. There have been tried at different times' various grades of steel for cutter bit uses. The cheaper steels, having a very low carbon content (.10 to .30 per cent carbon) have proved un- satisfactory because such steel cannot be tempered so as to produce a satisfactory cutting tool. Because of the low carbon content, it cannot be hardened to retain its cutting edge. It dulls quickly, bends easily on striking any hard obstruction in the coal, and so requires constant resetting to its original form. The high priced alloy steels when properly shaped and tempered will give a bit that would make a clean, even cut in the coal if no impurities were encountered. Such a condition is rarely found. Alloy steel is quite brittle and on striking impurities, such as sulphur balls or a sand spar, is readily broken and so the loss of material through these broken bits and the high price paid for it more than offset all the other advantages which this steel has shown in cutting. Experience has shown that steel having approximately .70 per cent carbon and from .25 to .35 per cent manganese will give the most economical results. Some mines have obtained better results by using a steel of slightly higher carbon content and in some cases a grade of tool steel has been used. The disadvantage of using a steel having too much carbon is that it can easily be spoiled in the black- smith shop by overheating. Steels having a carbon content of about .70 per cent have a sufficiently wide range of temperatures at which they can be forged and hardened so that with ordinary care and attention they are not likely to be burned. Steel of this quality, therefore, has been found to be the most practicable because of its reasonable cost, ease in working and tempering and general durability. In the early days of mining machines, comparatively few bits were used because each machine required but a few bits because there were but

Jan 1, 1925

Jan 1, 1960

By Stuart A. Sanderson

Founded in 1876 - oldest continuously operating mining association in the United States 700 Members representing mineral resource industry in Colorado and the west Spokesman for the industry before the legislature, agencies, Congress, and the courts

Jan 1, 2010

The 72nd Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convened at The Mark Conference Center, Lionshead Village, Vail, Colorado, and was in session at 10:00 a.m. Past President Roy Coulson, President Kemmerer Coal Company, Frontier, Wyoming, called the meeting to order. He introduced Robert W. Wilson, President of the Institute 1975-1976. Bob's biography follows: Born August 20, 1923 in Washington, D.C.; P-47 Fighter Pilot for three years with the U.S. Air Corps, flying 101 missions, Discharged October 1945; Married Barbara J. Polley August 1945 in Golden, Colorado; Moved to Colorado in 1948; Parents of two sons, Alan born in 1948 and Russell (deceased); Now residents of Conifer, Colorado and planning retirement on ranch property in Santa Rita, New Mexico; His education consists of Elementary and High School in Arlington, Va.; Two years at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Va.; B.S. in Mechanical Engineering, Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana 1948; Business-Salesman for K&P, Inc. since 1949, President and Owner since 1968; Representatives for T. J. Gundlach Co., Johnson-March Corp., Ramsey Engineering Co., Omni-Lift, Smoot Company, Sweco, Inc. and FMC-Syntron; Member, RMCMI since 1957, Served as Registration Chairman, Reservation Chairman, Member of the Executive Board and Vice President for Colorado; Member, Society Mining Engineers (AIME), Colorado Mining Association, New Mexico Mining Association, Industries for Jefferson County, and Denver Coal Club.

Jan 1, 1976

By Dan Jackson

9:00 a.m., June 28, 1983 MR. MORTENSEN: Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Again, it gives me great pleasure to welcome you to another session of the 79th meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute. The thing again that has always been impressive are the activities that we've had so far. The success in the meetings has been delightfully encouraging to all of our committee people. Please welcome the chairman of the session, Charlie Margolf. MR. MARGOLF: Thank you, Vernal. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. It would be my privilege to serve as the session chairman this morning. To allow the maximum time for our speakers, I'll turn the microphone over to Bernie Bernstrom who will introduce our first speaker. MR. BERNSTROM: Thank you. As Vernal mentioned, Dan Jackson will be our first speaker. He is the Western Editor of Coal Age Magazine. Dan really doesn't need an introduction to this group. He's belonged to the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute about 25 years. Dan is a native of West Virginia and he's an ex-coal miner. He graduated form West Virginia University as an electrical engineer and worked for Amherst and West Bending Coal prior to employment by Coal Age Magazine. Back in 1972 Coal Age moved him to Denver from New York City. MR. JACKSON: When Vernal Mortensen asked me speak to the members of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute earlier this year I found it impossible to say no to the guy because of what he has contributed to western coal. Little did 1 know that the subject he had in mind would be entitled, "An Outsider's View of Western Coal." At first I asked myself-I've been associated with the coal industry for some 38 years, 12 years in national operations and 26 years reporting on it. You might say that I've been married to two industries, coal and the business press for 26 years, but today I'll put on my business press hat and try to make an impression of what an outsider might think of western coal. But at the outset, let's get one thing straight: When you say press, whether it's business press, the media or whatever, and you heard some comments yesterday as far as what the media has done .to this industry and there's been some definitions bandied around as to just what an editor is. One of the most recent ones has defined an editor as a person who can talk on any subject with an open mouth. Now that's not my case. Secondly, I don't give long talks. Several years ago I was giving a rather lengthy talk to a group similar to this and it was halfway through the talk when I noticed one guy on my right looking at his watch quite frequently. I didn't mind that too much because all of us do that once in a while, but when he looked at his watch, took it off and shook it, I thought, "My God, better cut short." But for more than a decade western coal has enjoyed substantial annual increases in production from some 30,000,000 tons in 1970 to some 264,000,000 tons in 1981, but 1982 was a different story. We lost about 6,000,000 tons of production in that year. In 1983 it's expected to be a little worse than '82. Coal historically doesn't rebound from a recession as quickly as other industries. It takes about eight to 10 months longer for us to really get moving again and I'm afraid that you'll still have to don your fighting helmets and flack jackets when you go out into the market to sell your product. Western coal, as you know, has problems and al l of them are not going away when the recession ends and they won't go away overnight. I'm sure most of you are aware of what those problems are. Carl Bagge and Jim Harris, along with other speakers, at this meeting have educated us well on those problems and I'm sure you'll hear more from Jim Watt at today's luncheon. If everyone in this room were asked to list three orfourof the most serious problems facing western coal, I'd make book that the total of the answers wouldn't vary by more than 3 to 5%, if that much. But coal is not the only mining segment in the U.S. with problems. Metal and non-metal mining has its share, too. I'd like to step back into the past for a few minutes, if I may, to a time when our problems were just beginning. Since 1979 a third of the nation's mines, including coal, metal and nonmetal have been shut down. The total volume of all mining in the U.S. in that year totaled some $24 billion. Today that figure has dropped some 21 %. The after tax rate on return for mining companies has fallen from 6'/% in 1980 to minus 3% in 1983. But that's really not where our problems began. They began 20 years ago when a profound change began taking place in the U.S. economy. Our economy had been growing at about 2'/-3% annually without exception except for the great depression. Our inflation rate was about I'/%, interest rates were running about 6%, and the federal budget was $77 billion, really great figures compared to today. From 1960 to 1980 the federal budget increased almost 1.000% and taxed paid by individual families increased by 700% during that same period. Despite the huge increases in taxes, the federal deficit kept getting larger and larger year after year and within this 20 year period the national debt climbed to a trillion dollars. Economic progress of this type can't continue indefinitely without some serious consequences. The result of that economy, well, you know what happened and there is a direct relationship of that

Jan 1, 1983

[Adams, Leonard E.819 Newhouse Bldg., Salt Lake City, Utah Adams, V. H422 East San Miguel. Colorado Springs, Colo. Allen, Earl W.2636 So. Gilpin St., Denver 10, Colo. Allen, Thomas State Coal Mine Inspector, State Office Bldg., Denver, Colo. Ambler, J. B P. O. Box 591, Denver, Colo. Apperson, A. B 394 Elm St., Denver 7, Colo. Arnold, G. O Phelps-Dodge Co., Dawson, New Mexico Audin, Abel Somerset, Colorado Audis, Clement, Jr. Paonia, Colorado]

Jan 1, 1948

Jan 1, 1961

By K. L. Marshall

A facetious title was purposely given this talk, so that a formal paper would not be expected. TWO or three days ago, while discussing with Mr. Dickinson some of the details of the dust explosion demonstrations we are planning for this coming Saturday, I remarked that we would like to have as many people as possible see some samples of 20 and 200 mesh dust, so they would more fully understand just what was causing the explosions. Mr. Dickinson requested that I bring samples and screens and in this informal manner, give you all a ".close-up" of coal dust which is considered in Explosion Hazard reports. While sampling mines, for road, rib, and roof dust, in connection with safety service and hazard reports which the Bureau of Mines Engineers make at the request of coal operators, I have often been assisted by under- ground mine officials or other men of many years experience and on almost every occasion, while we were carefully brushing the very fine dust from timbers or coal surfaces, they would make some remark such as: "never had noticed this kind of dust, didn't know it was here", or "well, that's the first time I really understood what all 'this dust talk was about." Such experience makes me believe that the much published terms, 20 mesh and 200 mesh are just numbers to the great majority of both miners and operators. We are now going to have lesson one in the primer of coal dust explosions and I want to say, in all sincerity that a complete course in the hazards of mining is deserving of a place in the curriculum of the best mining schools of this country. Sample No. 1 is fine coal and dust and is a fair sample of what can be found every where in rooms and entries of a mine, as it is too small to be gathered up with a shovel and is left in the ordinary mining at the faces and is spilled along the entries in haulage. In this you will see some quarter inch coal, much eighth and sixteenth inch coal, in fact those are the sizes I find many people have in mind when they are asked about the dust made in mining. Although the sizes mentioned are the ones which seem to almost entirely make up this sample, such is not the case, for from 10 to 20% of such a sample will usually pass this 20 mesh screen and in Sample No. 2 we have 20 mesh dust. Result of many tests, supports .the statement of the coal mining division of the Bureau, that it is quite probable that coal over 20 mesh does not take part in any but the most violent of explosions and that all dust under 20 mesh may take part in any explosion. The largest particles in this sample will not be over .03 inches in their largest dimension and a pound of dust to a foot of average heading is very easily found in most every mine I have visited and usually a great deal more can be readily gathered up. It was .found early that the finer the dust the more dangerous it was for a given coal. So for the early explosion tests conducted by the Bureau a commercial pulverizer was used and it turned out a 20 mesh dust of which about 75% would pass 200 mesh. Some men question whether the ordinary mining methods made such a dust and so doubted the explosibility of the dust in their own mines. The question was well taken, and hundreds of dust samples were taken by the field men of the Bureau to determine the kind of dust being made in all methods of mining and all classes of coal. The result of such sampling showed some coals. resisted breakage more than others and that actual mine road dust, through 20 mesh, would show from 10 to 20% through 200 mesh, and for actual rib and roof dust through 20 mesh, they would get from 20 to 40% of 200 mesh dust. In testing the

Jan 1, 1924