Search Documents

A great many questions were asked Mr. Bright, and Mr. Bright's opinion was given on a number of subjects. He spoke at length on spring suspension of locomotives, bringing out the necessity for better spring suspension due to heavier weights and higher speeds now developed. The subject of dynamic braking was brought up, and the opinion of the engineers present was that dynamic braking was not a desirable feature except where heavy, long, adverse grade is encountered. Mr. Goddard and Mr. Bright had a spirited discussion regarding ball bearings, bringing out the opinion of the meeting that ball bearings in motors are preferable to sleeve bearings, and the few failures so far encountered are due to improper application or insufficient size of bearing. Mr. Shubart brought up the question of locomotive speed, mentioning some high speed work on main haulage, also an interesting experiment in a large Eastern mine where very slow speed, 3 1/2 miles per hour, gathering locomotives were substituted for the high speed gathering locomotives with an increase in cars gathered and a material decrease in derailment and accident. Mr. Bright mentioned the improvement in gathering reels, and Mr. Shubart mentioned the safety in the use of the concentric cable in direct current, using the outer wire as the ground wire, so that in case of accident to the cable, the ground wire acted as a protector to the live wire, materially decreasing the danger of sparking. Mr. H. I. Smith of the Bureau of Mines brought up the question of explosion proof construction, and Mr.. Bright and. Mr. Shubart explained the construction adopted by two of the larger manufacturers. Experiment has shown that the force of explosion in motors due to gas does not exceed 150 pounds per square inch. All forms of screen or baffles have proven an actual source of danger, due to the collection of dust, usually soaked in oil, forming an active means of propagating flame, together with the fact that all these appendages are frequently left off when the motors are repaired. Modern construction eliminates all openings, screens, devices for stopping or extinguishing flame. The motor is made entirely enclosed, practically air tight, all joints are ground and all openings necessary for access and attention are closed by bolted plates. The case is made stout enough to withstand any interior explosions, and ample ribbing is provided for heat dissipation. Mr. Bright was asked regarding the use of contactor control. He replied that his company is now recommending contactor controls for series and parallel starting on all locomotives of 13 tons and over, and particularly on the tandem units that are now becoming popular in coal mining work. The question of dynamic braking and reversing was brought up and Mr. Bright explained that this made a very complicated contactor installation but they had

Jan 1, 1922

[ ]

Jan 1, 1992

The 66th Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convened in the Opticon Theatre, Snowmass-at-Aspen, Colorado, and was in session at 10:00 a.m. The meeting was called to order by Past President, Stanley C. Shubart, Secretary-Treasurer, Schloss & Shubart, Inc., Denver, Colorado. Mr. Shubart welcomed the guests and was pleased at the large attendance, in view of the fact, that the site for the convention had to be changed at the last minute from the Stanley Hotel in Estes Park to Snowmass-at-Aspen. He stated that Joe Ward, our General Chairman, could not be present due to the serious illness of his wife, Thelma. He called on Bob Wilson, Chairman of the Registration and Hotel Committee, to give his report on applicants for membership since the last meeting. Mr. Wilson stated that there were 89 applicants and 242 registrations, an all-time record. A list of new members follows.

Jan 1, 1970

Jan 1, 1961

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

Lloyd W. Ingles, Superintendent, Allen mine, Colorado Fuel and Iron Corporation. Stonewall, Colorado, called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. He introduced George C. Trevorrow, Safety Director, Bituminous Coal Operators' Association, Washington, D. C., who spoke on "Recent Developments for Improving Safety in Underground Coal Mines." (Refer to the index for the printed text of this paper.) Following Mr. Trevorrow's paper, James Westfield, U. S. Bureau of Mines, Washington, D. C., spoke briefly to the group or some of the new methods of controlling fire mentioned in Mr. Trevorrow's paper. Mr. Westfield stated that the Foam plug had been used in the Bureau's experimental mine, and was also used in New Mexico, but was not successful in putting out the lire. In a recent fire in Southwest Virginia where 18 men were lost, the foam plug was used after the fire had been burning for about 6 or 7 days. It did have a good effect, but the section had to be finally sealed off. In a fire in Pennsylvania about 2 weeks ago, the foam plug was put into action after about 9 hours. Although the section was finally sealed, managers of the mine credited the foam plug in saving the mine. Mr. Westfield stated that equipment must be at hand when fighting a fire; that time wasted in securing proper equipment may make the difference. Mr. Westfield also stated that as late as 2 months ago, it seemed that a methane monitoring device was as far as 4 or 5 years away. Now it is expected that it may be put in production within the year. Experimental models are in use in Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Mr. Westfield concluded by complimenting Mr. Trevorrow on his excellent paper.

Jan 1, 1960

Jan 1, 1942

MR. DICKINSON: There is an increase of dust in machine loading, especially with the McKinlay loading and cutting machine which was extremely dusty. MR. FORRESTER: Declared more dust must be expected because when loading by machinery, the coal is shot harder in order to make it easier for the machine to pick it up. He believes however, that there was less hazard because of the closer supervision possible by reason of the concentration of operation. MR. McAULIFFE: Machine loading more dusty than hand loading. D. HARRINGTON: The hazard is greatly increased by modern methods of loading. Not only do the methods increase the quantity of dust, but they also increase the rapidity of mining and the increased quantity of coal broken down causes large quantities of gas to be released. The number of motors on loading machines and conveyors add to the hazard. No more dangerous places can be found for such motors than at the working face where there is excessive quantities of pure coal dust and where there is more gas than along any other point. Regarding Mr. Herres remarks that the machine loading was safer on account of the concentration and possibility of close supervision, Mr. Harrington said he believed concentration likely to prove a source of danger rather than its preventive. At Dolomite, Alabama, a number of men had assembled, and as a result what was a relatively small explosion killed a large number of men. Concentration is not without its dangers to mine operations. MR. McAULIFFE: These arguments do not appeal to me. Few places are better sprinkled than the working places in a machine loading mine. There is. more effective supervision, and there can be more ventilation. I believe machine loading will increase safety by that very concentration that Mr. Harrington deplores.

Jan 1, 1925

The meeting was called to order by the President, Mr. B. J. Matteson, in Dining Room No. I of the Albany Hotel, at 10 a. in., with thirty members present. After an address of welcome by the President, the Convention proceeded to business. First on the program was the reading of the minutes of the' previous meeting, by" the Secretary.' There being no alterations or amendments they were approved as read. A motion was regularly moved and carried that the Secretary provide membership cards to be mailed, or presented, to the members upon payment of dues in lieu of the receipt which has heretofore been used since the organization of the Institute. Mr. R. A. McAllister then presented his paper, the subject, being: "Mine Haulage." Mr. Robert A. Marshall had prepared a paper upon the subject of "Efficiency in Shot Firing," but as he was unavoidably absent, it was read by Mr. Sam Andrews. At the conclusion of the reading of Mr. Marshall's paper, Mr. Andrews presented his own *paper: "Some Facts About Coal Mining." As Mr. George A. Brown was unable to be present, the President requested Mr. R. S. Morton to read his paper, subject: "Flexoid Tubing and Its Application to Coal Mines as a Means of Temporary Ventilation." There being no further business 'the meeting adjourned.

Jan 1, 1921

The 63rd Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convened at the Stanley Hotel, Estes Park, Colorado, and was in session at 10:00 a.m. The first session was called to order by Past President George A. Nugent, Vice President and General Manager, Big Horn Coal Company, Sheridan, Wyoming. He thanked and offered his congratulations to the Program Committee for a very wonderful job, namely, John Reeves, Chairman, E. G. Fox, Lee Jensen, O. F. Lewis, J. Peperakis, R. M. von Storch, J. E. Ward and R. R. Williams, Jr. He thanked the suppliers for a fine cocktail party the evening before. Mr. Nugent's Opening Address and introduction of President James Westfield, Assistant Director, U.S. Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C., follows: It is a real privilege to call this 63rd Regular Meeting of The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute to order and to say welcome.

Jan 1, 1967

By T. C. Harvey

Ladies and Gentlemen: At the request of Mr. J. M. Jennings, chairman of the General Committee on arrangements during the convention of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute here, I have endeavored to prepare a brief description of the Columbia Steel Corporation's tipple at Columbia, Utah, and its operations, but [ ] from the fact that you have already listened to, and have been interested I'm sure, in the description given by Mr. Jennings and Mr. Murphy, on tipple construction and operations, I am taking the liberty, with your permission, to embody in my paper a description of our haulage and ventilation systems at Columbia, which I hope will be, in a measure, also interesting to you. As many of you know, we are mining on a Multiple Panel System, which while comparatively new in Carbon County, is being used successfully in various mining districts of the United States. Mine The Columbia mine is situated about four miles south of Sunnyside, Utah, at an elevation of 6,760 feet at the portal or main entrance of mine. [ ] From this portal, the main air intake or solid rock tunnel, about 1,600 feet long, runs into the mountain in an easterly direction to an intersection of the coal vein on a grade of 0.5 of one per cent in favor of the loads. There this main entry divides and forms two main entries. These are run in parallel with 100-foot chain pillars between them and protected with 150-foot barrier pillars on each side, and run into the coal in a southerly direction on a 0.5 of one per cent grade in favor of the loads for a dis-

Jan 1, 1925

By G. A. Murphy

This tipple differs from the ordinary tipple only in that it embodies numerous refinements for grading and otherwise preparing the coal. Coal from the mines is delivered to the tipple over a surface tram. There are two tracks for loads, which will hold about forty cars, and one track for empties which will hold about the same number. The loads are fed to the dump by gravity from both tracks and are controlled by two squeeze blocks. These blocks are of the type originally designed by Mr. W. J. Elwood, but unlike the original blocks which were of wood and operated by hand levers, are built of steel and operated by com¬pressed air at 100 pounds pressure. They are capable of holding securely twenty-four three-ton cars on a grade of 2.5%. The dump is of the complete revolving type and has a capacity of five cars per minute. After being dumped the empty cars go to the usual kick-back and onto the empty track by gravity. The hopper under the dump has a capacity of approximately fifteen tons, and the coal from this hopper is fed to the shakers by a reciprocating feeder. The screens are of the usual shaker type. They are eight feet wide, seventy-two feet long in two sections, balanced, pitch 12° 30", travel six inches and the eccentric shaft makes 100 revolutions per minute. The upper section of the screen is shorter but heavier than the lower section, and contains the slack and nut screens, consisting of plates with 1 5/8" and 3" round perforations respectively. The lower section contains plates with 4 ½ ", 6" and 8" round perforations respectively, from top to bottom in the order named. The shaker is so arranged that nearly all changes for making the different sizes of coal are made by merely shifting levers. The most complicated change has been made in two and a half minutes; most of the other changes can be made in less than one minute and some of then without stopping the shaker. One of the refinements is what we call the degradation screens. Just before the coal leaves the shaker it goes over a screen with 1 3/8" round perforations, which takes out the fine coal made while the coal is going over the other perforations. This fine coal goes into hoppers and onto the degradation conveyor and to the slack chute. The different sizes of coal, excepting the slack, are delivered by the shaker onto three picking tables. These tables are horizontal for twenty-four feet and then hinged to form the loading booms, so that each picking table forms a unit of continuous conveyor. Centrally located under the picking tables and under the floor, is the refuse conveyor which runs at right angles to the tables. The impurities picked from the coal are dropped into openings in the floor and onto this conveyor, from which they are discharged into a bin of 100 tons capacity. From this bin the refuse is loaded into railroad cars through a gate. The slack may be loaded directly into railroad cars through a chute from the hopper under the shaker, or it may be conveyed to the rescreener. Gates are provided by which all or any part of the slack may be loaded either directly into railroad cars or conveyed to the rescreener. The rescreener is a shaker four feet wide with sixteen feet of plate perforated with 3/4" round holes. The framework is wood, the pitch is 5° and it is driven by eccentrics having a 5 3/4" throw running 143 R.P.M. It is hung on 1"x10" ash boards, rigidly fixed at the support and on the shaker, so that the spring of the boards allows for its movement. The eccentric rods are also of ash, rigidly fixed and spring to allow the movement of the eccentrics. The dust going through this shaker drops into a bin of 80 tons capacity and is loaded into railroad cars

Jan 1, 1925

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

Jan 1, 1955

By T. H. Brien, O&apos

At nearly all of the copper smelters in the Southwest, at some time, calculations have been made having in view the economy of replacing fuel oil with pulverized coal as a heat-producing medium for smelting operations This matter has been, and is more so now than at any time heretofore, of very great importance. Due to the intensive development of oil-producing areas of the world and the tremendous use of fuel oil for many purposes, it seems that before many years the supply of oil will become so small as to prohibit its use for such operations as smelting. This may be caused by prohibitive prices, or even by government decree as a conservation measure. In the event that the use of fuel oil becomes out of the question, the copper companies have just two alternatives: the use of pulverized coal or electricity. The copper companies of the Southwest produced an average of 808,400,000 pounds of copper per year for the war years of 1916, 1917 and 1918. This figure is, of course, a higher one than has prevailed since the war, but at the present time nearly all of the mines and smelters are getting back to capacity. There is no doubt whatever that the consumption of copper is going to increase, perhaps for the next ten years. This means that more copper mines will be discovered and developed, and that the mines which are now producing will be called upon for a greater production. This all tends to show that the mine manager who is looking ahead must develop some substitute for fuel oil in the event of its use becoming prohibitive, and all indications seem to point in that direction. The only coal which is commercially available to the smelters in the district under discussion must come from Colorado and New Mexico. These coals are high in ash and volatile matter and comparatively low in calorific value. The proximity of the smelter to the coal mines is a large factor in determining which fuel is more economical. Most of the smelters within two or three hundred miles of the coal mines find it more profitable to burn coal, while those at greater distance find that the higher freight charges on the coal make the use of oil more economical.

Jan 1, 1923

Jan 1, 1925

By Benedict Shubart

The subject of this paper may seem threadbare to, many of you, but even if I repeat what you already know, just smile to yourself and think how much wiser you are than your neighbor, for it is startling what a number of tipples are erected that violate the elementary fundamentals not only of good design but of practical operation. Possibly a coal screening plant is a simple plant. If so, we treat it like we do a great many other simple things. We treat it entirely too lightly and fail to take into consideration, not only the changes that may occur later, the conditions we may be compelled to meet as competition changes, but even the elementary physical conditions that exist right at the tipple site. If I get too positive over some particular point, don't blame me, but remember some of the heart-breaking experiences we have had correcting these omissions, trying to make a tipple do merely what it was designed to do, when the builder tied everything up in such a constricted space, that no room was left to get the results he must have. Perhaps some of the things will look too expensive. Don't say that you can't afford them. Many of them you can't afford to do without, and when you figure that a tipple is put up for possibly twenty years of operation, you can't afford to omit any reasonable precaution not only in taking care of the present, but in foreseeing the future. We will consider a tripple screening plant, suitable for Western conditions, capable of handling approximately 2,500 tons per eight hours. The largest screen sizes must be loaded into either open cars or box cars, and arrangement provided for screening and loading not less than five sizes of coal: lump, egg, nut, slack, dust, or any reasonable combination of these. As we are considering only the preparation of the coal, we will omit all consideration of the method of haulage, pit cars, methods of dumping, and will take the coal after it is in the dump hopper. The track arrangement will frequently be determined by the ground layout. Our sizes and tonnage can be loaded on three tracks, but four tracks are better. The two outer tracks should be left for loading lump coal, No. 3 track should be left for egg coal, and No. 4 track for loading nut, slack and dust. Where a fifth track can be provided, No. 5 track should be held open only for run-of-mine coal, to act as a storage where emergency coal can, be run, should there be any delay in the screening equipment or in changing cars. Track No. I should be used for loading lump coal into box cars only. Track No. 2 should be used for loading lump coal into open cars only, and may or may not be provided with picking table, loading boom, or both. Where picking is necessary, a picking table can frequently be put between the two "lump tracks, heading down track, pivoted at one end, so it may be raised or lowered to feed either open or box cars; with

Jan 1, 1921

By Joseph Harrington

It is sufficiently correct to say that domestic solid fuel is universally hand fired and it is almost as correct to state that a very large proportion of hand-fired domestic fires are extremely inefficient and smoky. This is particularly true with raw bituminous coal for the fuel. The smokeless and efficient firing of domestic coal affords one of the most difficult problems confronting the combustion engineer. This is due to the universally constricted combustion space in the domestic furnace, the complete ignorance regarding the laws of combustion on the part of the average person, and the fact that the laws of efficient combustion are almost completely nullified under these conditions. It is well to familiarize ones self with these laws. These are: 1. The gradual introduction of the fuel to the furnace. 2. The admission and mixing of the right quantity of air with the coal gases. 3. A temperature high enough to permit complete combustion, and 4. A furnace space of volume sufficient to permit of the combustion gases and the oxygen getting together within the confines of the furnace. Even a casual inspection of the domestic heater will show that none of these essential things are present in proper degree, and this is the reason why the problem of domestic firing presents such difficulties. I have analyzed these conditions in a paper published by the Black Diamond, and which has already had wide distribution, so that I will not repeat the rather lengthy discussion in this paper. A survey of the entire field indicates very clearly that a reversal of existing methods and equipment must be had before any real improvement can be expected. It is my firm belief that in this instance above all others it is necessary to build the efficiency and smokelessness into the equipment in such a manner that its performance will be entirely independent of both skill and interest on the part of the operative. To attempt to educate every man, woman and child who periodically throws coal into a domestic furnace would be literally impossible. Much can be done, however, if we could teach the householder the simple essentials of alternate firing, which I have explained at length in the above mentioned paper. This would go a long way toward making the domestic furnace problem more satisfactory, as well as efficient and smokeless. Many will argue, and with good reason, that the domestic fuel should be prepared coke and with this I agree up to the limit imposed by the practical considerations of quantity production, price and the possibility of marketing the by-products. It will be obvious that if enough raw coal should be processed to provide all of the required domestic fuel that the amount of by-products recovered during the coking process would be so great that there would be little or no market at any price which would justify the manufacture of coke. If the by-products were wasted they would not only be a tremendous economic loss, but the price charged for the coke would probably be so high that the market would be limited, and this would defeat the very idea of the whole thing. Much can be done, however, in advancing the use of coke, but I believe that much more extensive and careful experimentization should be had in order to determine the right size and quality of coke for the various domestic furnaces. If coke were to be developed for extensive domestic consumption it is more than probable that the coking process should and could be stopped at a point where the volatile content of the coke would be sufficiently high to permit of prompt ignition and combustion in low draft installations. If the volatile content were from five to ten per cent a very different kind of coke would be produced from that which is now produced with perhaps one per cent of volatile. A skillful manipulation of this feature would make coke adaptable and satis-

Jan 1, 1925

D. HARRINGTON: Owing to lack of funds, the United States Bureau of Mines have made no experiments in the Bruceton mines in the use of mudite. MR. McAULIFFE: I doubt that mudite cam be delivered at fifty cents a ton and that a mile of heading can be treated with mudite for ten dollars. You could not dig a ton of sand out of a sand hank for that money. L. C. CLARE: The tram road leading to Wattis mine crosses a shale bed and it is easy to screen the shale through a %-inch sieve and load it into a mine car. W. J. REID: A slow trip passing through a mudited entry will dislodge practically no dust, a rapid trip will make air disturbance enough to coat the cars with fine dust. MR. PRYDE: We have used mudite on stoppings around a fire in Reliance and for two months thought they were getting good results, but the fire was found to be drawing air and to be spreading. This mudite was smeared over the stoppings with a trowel. After this apparently failed we used dry adobe.

Jan 1, 1925

Note this date. This will be the biggest meeting we have ever held. It is arranged so as to permit you to go immediately afterwards to Salt Lake. City to attend the meeting of the American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers there on August 31, September 1, 2 and 3. Notify the Secretary of any change in your address.

Jan 1, 1925