Search Documents

[HORACE MOSES President Gamerco, New Mexico BENEDICT SHUBART Secretary-Treasurer 521 Boston Bldg., Denver, Colorado ROBT. L. HAIR Vice-President for Colorado VIRGIL M. McKNIGHT Vice-President for New Mexico A. E. GIBSON Vice-President for Utah THOS. FOSTER Vice-President for Wyoming EXECUTIVE BOARD COLORADO: J. B. DICK Walsenburg C. M. BILLINGTON Lafayette NEW MEXICO: W. C. HOLMAN Dawson ROBT. WYPER Gallup UTAH: R. R. KIRKPATRICK Sunnyside GEO. A. SCHULTZ Latuda Wyoming: EDWARD BOTTOMLEY Kleenburn QUINCE RICE Superior]

Jan 1, 1926

[JOHN B. MARKS President Boston Bldg., Denver, Colorado BENEDICT SHUBART Secretary-Treasurer 521 Boston Bldg., Denver, Colorado H. H. BUBB Vice-President for Colorado Cokedale, Colorado W. J. REID Vice-President for Utah Wattis, Utah WM. MOORHEAD Vice-President for New Mexico Dawson, N. M. GOMER REESE Vice-President for Wyoming Frontier, Wyoming EXECUTIVE BOARD COLORADO: E. H. McCLEARY Alamo SAMUEL TESCHER Denver UTAH: DAVE BROWN :Storrs JOHN JENNINGS Hiawatha NEW MEXICO: JAS. McDOUGALL Van Houten GEO. MIKSCH Gallup WYOMING: T. H. BUTLER Hanna L. A. NORMAN Sheridan]

Jan 1, 1925

of our good friends and fellow members: James Dalrymple, Sr. R. M. Perry A. E. Oliver R. M. Harding C. L. Oliver Arthur S. White Arthur N. Fancher A. E. Lindrooth D. A. Stout Clayton Morrison Frank O'Ryan Charles Billington who left the world better for their having lived in it.

Jan 1, 1935

[ ]

Jan 1, 1992

[Arsulich, Thomas Mechanical Engineer, S.A.E. House, Laramie, Wyoming Barrett, A. Lee joy Mfg., Co., Research Engineer, Franklin, Pa. Bartlett, Rulon Salesman, 265 S. Seventh East, Salt Lake City, Utah Beauchamp, Paul N Goodman Mfg. Co., Sales Engineer, 2509 S. Monroe, Denver, Colorado Boyle, J. J Mine Superintendent, Roundup, Montana ?Burnell, Patrick H Gebo, Wyoming]

Jan 1, 1950

The Fortieth Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute was called to order in the Hotel Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, Wednesday, June 10, 1942, at 11:30 a.m., by President, Wetzel, who presented Mr. William A. Fealey who, in turn, introduced Mr. Bracken Lee, Mayor of Price, Utah, who made the address of welcome. President Wetzel then made a few remarks. The Secretary announced with regret that, due to the critical illness of Mr. Sidney Hale, he would be unable to at- tend the meeting. On motion of Charles M. Schloss, duly seconded and carried, the reading of the minutes of the Thirty-ninth Regular Meeting was dispensed with. Mr. Schloss also moved that the Chair appoint the usual committees, which motion was seconded and carried. President Wetzel then announced that the committees would be appointed during the afternoon session. Following routine announcements, the meeting recessed at 12 o'clock noon to reconvene at 1:30 p.m.

Jan 1, 1942

The first session of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute was called to order by Past President, R. R. Williams, Jr., Manager of Mines, The Colorado Fuel and Iron Corporation, Pueblo, Colorado, who introduced the President, W. K. Dennison, Jr., Superintendent, Raton Operations, Kaiser Steel Corporation, Raton, New Mexico. His speech of welcome to the Institute follows: The President's Remarks Guests and Members of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute: It is my privilege and pleasure to welcome you to the 56th regular meeting of the Institute. A look at the program will show that the various chairmen and their committees, headed by General Chairman A. Z. Dimitroff, have been hard at work to prepare a program which I am sure you will find to be informative as well as entertaining. I think that a special vote of thanks and appreciation is due Glenn Sorensen, who stepped in to head the Program Committee when Clint Cornelius moved from this area.

Jan 1, 1960

Participating Scholarship Colleges and Universities 134 AmerCable, Inc 144 Andalex Resources, Inc 118 ARCO Coal Company 148 Behre Dolbear & Company, Inc 101 Coastal States Energy Company 100 Commercial Testing & Engineering Company 88 Crane & Hoist Sales Inc 121 Cyprus Amax Minerals Company 115 Dakota Coal Company DriltechInc 135 Empire Machinery Company 94 Energy West Mining Company 122 GH Hensley Industries 126. 127 Hitachi Construction Machinery (America) Corp. 12 Ingersoll-Rand Company 141 Jennmar Corporation 142 Joy Mining Machinery - A Harnischfeger Industries Company 104 K & P Sales Engineers, Inc 114 Kennametal Inc 95 Kennecott Energy Company 133 Kerr-McGee Coal Corporation 96 LeTourneau, Inc 145 Long-Airdox Company 112 Magnum Metals, Inc 138 McLanahan Corporation 129 Mine Technik America 124 Morrison Knudsen Corporation 97 National Mining Association 98 Nielsons,Inc 136 The North American Coal Corporation 130 Northwestern Resources Company 125 O&K Orenstein & Koppel, Inc 14 Peabody Western Coal Co 131 Phillips Machine Service, Inc. 13 Pincock Allen & Holt 120 Powder River Coal Company 107 Ramsey Technology, Inc 119 Rust Tractor Company 90 Salt River Project 91 Savage Industries Inc 89 Sheraton Steamboat Resort and Conference Center 111 Stamler Corporation (An Oldenburg Group Company) 117 Tamarron Hilton Resort 137 TerraMatrix Inc 139 TIC (The Industrial Company of Wyoming, Inc.) 99 Trapper Mining Inc 106 Wagner Equipment Company 116 Western Energy Company 105 Wheeler Machinery Company 128

Jan 1, 1996

President Robert Wilson opened the meeting at 9:00 a.m. He introduced William A. Bear, General Manager Bear Coal Company, Inc., Somerset, Colorado, who presided over the session. George Nugent, Peter Kiewit Sons' Company, Sheridan, Wyoming, presented a most interesting film "Montana Mine Reclamation." His biography follows: George Nugent first entered the coal business in 1943 when he developed Peter Kiewit Sons' Co.'s first coal mine-Big Horn Coal Company at Sheridan, Wyoming. Since that time he managed an expansion program for P.K.S. in mining that resulted in the development of two other producing mines - Rosebud Coal Sales Company at Hanna, Wyoming and Decker Coal Company at Decker, Montana, in which Pacific Power and Light is a partner. Applications are now pending for a third mine. Black Butte, a joint venture of P.K.S. and Rocky Mountain Energy Company, near Point of Rocks, Wyoming. Nugent is a Past President of the Wyoming Chapter, Association of General Con- tractors, Wyoming Mining Association and Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute. He was President of Big Horn Coal Company and Rosebud Coal Sales Company as well as Manager of the Mining Division of Peter Kiewit Sons' Co. and Decker Coal Company when he retired Jan. 1, 1975.

Jan 1, 1976

GREETING Hail! Hail! the Coal Miner, Damn the operator, damn the operator, Hail! Hail to mining coal We'll tell 'em how to run the mines. Oh, we'll send out a questionnaire And we'll quiz 'em, we will razz 'em for fair, We'll ask about the profits and order them to stop it Tell the world we're going to stop right there. Hail! Hail! etc. NASH AND PRYDE Tune, "Gallagher and Shean" There are two mining men, the best I've ever spied, One is Mister Harry Nash, the other Mister Pryde. When these two fellows meet it surely is a treat, The things they do, and the things they say, And the funny way they greet. Say, Mister Harry Nash, Oh, Mister Harry Nash, Tell me what's on your mind this evening, Mr. Pryde; I have heard an awful lot of that steep coal mine you got, And I wondered if some one had up and lied. Oh, Mr. Pryde, Oh, Mister Pryde, It's so steep it seems to lie upon its side. If it were steeper than it is, it would put us out of biz, Absolutely, Mister Harry Nash, positively, Mr. Pryde. Oh, Mister Harry Nash, Oh, Mister Harry Nash, Somebody said that at this new mine you've begun 'Fore you mined a lump of coal, had to burrow like a mole, And of rock you dug out many a million ton. Oh, Mister Pryde, Oh, Mister Pryde, I hate to think of all the dough I supplied. I believe the Moffat Tunnel bore won't cost a single dollar more I don't think so Mister Harry Nash, I agree with Mister Pryde. PARTING Tune, "Leave Me With a Smile" Though a sea of strikes and low price squabbles, Follow us the while; Once a year we gather just to show them whether We still wear-a smile; Rocky music coal still packs a barrel full Of timely fun sans guile, Rocky Mountain Institute can follow such And smile its yearly smile.

Jan 1, 1924

By A. C. Watts

The question of disposition of the slack and dust so troublesome to coal mine operators of the West has been divided by your committee chairman into three heads, viz: The preparation and transportation of fine and powdered coal. The developments along the line of low heat carbonization. The uses to which fine and pulverized coal have been put. The development of low heat carbonization has been assigned to me. This is really not a part of the subject but as it has a most important bearing on the future use of coal, I presume the chairman thought best to include it. An English committee on smoke abatement makes the statement that the burning of raw coal is "dirty, wasteful and unscientific". I will go a step further and characterize it as an "economic crime." It has been predicted by eminent scientific men that eventually no raw coal will be burned for heat or power purposes. All this will take time, experimentation and large expenditure, but it will surely come. The question of disposition of slack and dust so troublesome to coal and utilization of its by-products has been retarded by the abundance and cheapness of the raw coal, and by the abundance of suitable coking coals for metallurgical purposes. But necessity is surely, if slowly, demanding that the enormous waste ensuing from the burning of raw coal for heat and power must cease. For instance, smoke abatement investigations in Manchester, England, showed that the increased cost of household washing was about $1,250,000 per year due to smoke and soot. It is estimated that in London 200 tons of soot and smoke particles are suspended in the atmosphere over that city during dense fogs and that much more than this is emitted from the chimneys each winter day during the forenoon. As an example of what benefits a smokeless fuel gives, it is cited that in the mill town of Shaw, England, the burning of smokeless fuels in the factories has reduced the so-called fogs by about 80%. Necessity, caused by the war led Germany into the field of low tem¬perature carbonization because of the shortage of motor fuel and lubricating

Jan 1, 1922

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

At 10 a. m. registration was commenced and completed. At 11:30 a. m. the meeting was called to order by the President, William Littlejohn. There was no unfinished business, new business nor reports of committees. The minutes of the previous meeting, as published in the proceedings, were approved. The report of the Treasurer was referred to the Auditing Committee who were auditing the report of the previous year. At 2 p. m., President William Little- john called the meeting to order for study session. Mr. J. Samuel Pyeatt, the new president of The Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad, ad- dressed the Institute at length, expressing his pleasure at the opportunity of meeting the coal operators, pledging his cooperation toward the solution of the mutual problems that are arising. He reviewed the change in the Western Industrial situation; explained how the revenue of The Denver & Rio Grande Western Rail- road was being received from freight rates, only twenty-four per cent above the rates of 1914, yet laborers receive 97 per cent more, supplies cost 58 per cent more, showing that no reduction in rates can be expected unless other conditions are adjusted. He gave figures to show the immense sums, aggregating ten million dollars, that have been spent on improvements in the last ten years. The railroad is improving and will continue to improve. Mr. Pyeatt feels that the serious troubles of the railroad are over and that with the cooperation of the shippers, better service and more profits are ahead. He showed the increase in rates on farm products to be only 48 per cent, as against an average in- crease in price of farm products, them- selves, of DG per cent. The position of the farmer is not as serious, nor un- fair, as has been claimed. More equitable legislation is promised, and this is needed to offset the efforts of demagogues to deceive the people as to the actual facts. Much equipment has been put into the railroad, much new and powerful equipment, and ten of the largest narrow gauge locomotives ever built have just been ordered, engines that will do the work of three of the present locomotives. This ratio of improvement will be maintained throughout the narrow guage system, and the Rio Grande will not lag behind the shippers and the operators in co- operation. The President answered Mr. Pyeatt's remarks, and then called the meeting to order for discussion. The study sessions were held; papers were read by .J. H. Emrick, "Cutter Bits"; D. A. Stout, "Experiments in Mining Methods," and Harry Petersen, "Permissible Powder and Cushion Shooting." Tuesday, February 17, 1925 The meeting was called to order Tuesday morning at 10 a.m., and papers read by: F. C. Miller, "Safety Methods With The Colorado Fuel & Iron Company"; this was supplemented by a talk by 0. C. Irwin on "Automatic Mine Fan Control," illustrated by models of the apparatus used; Samuel Tescher, "The Operation of a Gaseous Mine."

Jan 1, 1925

By George B. Pryde

Dear Sir: Yours of July 23rd, relative to my appointment on the Safety Committee in connection with the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute. As you say in your letter, "The duty of this committee is to draft suggestions as to safer mining practices with the idea of preventing disasters in coal mines." Much has been written and many suggestions made on this same subject, and it is very hard to put up further recommendations than have already been made. The disasters you mention in your letter unquestionably have direct reference to coal mine explosions, which from time to time still occur in this and other countries. As far as our Western mines are concerned, you know that sprinkling and shot firing by electricity have been very extensively carried out. Notwithstanding these precautions; we have had a few rather serious disasters in the past in these mines. I do not care to place any blame or responsibility on the companies having these disasters, but it is a fact that in each and all of them, after careful investigation has been made, that the human element has had more or less bearing on the accidents happening. From most reports that we gain, either directly or indirectly, it is very evident that investigation shows after an explosion that the rules governing one or both of the above safety measures have been somewhat carelessly or negligently carried out. Much has been written and read about rock dust sprinkling, but it is questionable if this method is doing a great deal toward the eliminating of disasters. While it is true it may have the effect of preventing propagation, still I do not believe anyone claims for it a sure preventative against initial explosions. I had occasion not long ago to visit a mine, after an explosion, in which dust barriers were supposed to be hung, and from indications it was quite evident that the dust barriers had been in operation, but they did not prevent the explosion from reaching all open parts of the mine. It is also true that profuse scattering of rock dust throughout a mine would have a beneficial effect, but there is a question arises here as to whether the sprinkling by rock dust or the spraying by water, if available, is the most effective. I am satisfied that if all coal mines are kept well sprinkled and all open workings maintained in a thorough moist condition, that the biggest factor in a coal mine explosion is in this way eliminated. There is no doubt but what the use of permissible powder, particularly if shot by electricity, has had a very marked effect on the number of disasters in mines, and if this method of shooting was energetically carried out there would be a difference in the number of explosions, both minor and Major, all over the country. Some of the recent explosions have taken place where no shooting was being done, but there is no denying the fact that the other ingredient, namely, coal dust, entered in the elements very extensively. We have read and heard of hydraulic cartridges and other patents (substitutes for powder) that were being worked out for the purpose of

Jan 1, 1923

By R. A. Marshall

Much has been written by men connected with the coal mining industry, and mining laws have been enacted for the safety of the men employed in the mines, and for the protection of property connected therewith. It seems almost impossible for anyone to select a subject that has not already been read, discussed and put into effect, especially in the coal mines of Western America. There is, however, a subject of much interest to the mining public, and to which I have given a great deal of study and consideration, and which I believe will be received by this convention, and will be given due consideration in the future in applying it to the safety of the mine,- "Efficiency in Shot Firing." Beginning with 1865, and for a period of 28 years in the state of Colorado, the annual reports of the chief inspectors show that 1159 coal miners were killed in the following manner: Five hundred eighty-two by falls of rock and coal ; 517 by gas and dust explosions; 6o by careless handling of explosives and the shooting of coal by the, individual, miner. It is my firm belief that 75 per cent of these fatal accidents might have been avoided, if a safe and proper shot firing system had been installed, at each and every mine. This may sound unreasonable, but I believe that the blasting of coal by the individual miner, and the use of black powder, squibs and fuse has, in reality, caused the death of many miners, from shock after blasting, the shooting out 'of timbers, and working in powder smoke, which fatal accidents were attributed to falls of rock or coal. These conditions led the people of Colorado, through their representatives of the General Assembly of Colorado, to enact a new coal mining law, and in 1913 this law became effective, containing twelve sections devoted to the subject of Efficiency in the System of Shot Firing. During the period 1913 to 1920, the employment of a shot firer, the use of permissible. powder, and the electric hand battery has resulted in safer mines, safer miners and safer shot firers, and I believe every coal mine in the state should employ first-class, certified shot firers, use permissible powder and fire the shots with an electric hand battery. I believe where gas generates in dangerous quantities, which is generally determined by inspection of the mine, and the daily report, the shooting in. such a mine should be done by electric battery located outside of the mine. Where permissible powder is used, I have seen the shot firer start down the mine with a belt around his waist containing one hundred caps, a safety lamp to test for gas, and an open light to ignite the fuse. Would it not be much safer for the shot firer if he used the electric hand battery? In non-gaseous mines where black powder is used, I have. seen the miners carry fuse into the mine, and shot firers have been known to partly tamp the holes, which was

Jan 1, 1921

By Sam Andrews

Mr. President, Officers and Members of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute: This is my first attempt to prepare and read a paper before your association. The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute, I understand, was formed for the purpose of increasing knowledge relating to coal mining in all its various branches by study, research and discussion. In writing my paper, I have tried to be as practical as I can, at the same time, present my arguments so that they can be easily understood. When I use the word science, I mean organized common sense. I humbly ask my hearers to be a little patient, while I read my paper, and be "to its faults a little blind, and to its virtues a trifle kind". Western Europe is said to be the cradle of the coal mining industry. We are told that the Ancient Britons were acquainted with the use of coal long before the Romans invaded and conquered their country. The Romans were never too proud to learn from the outer barbarians, and possibly acquired the precious secret from them: We are told that it was not until the 13th century, that the coal mining industry, assumed any noticeable importance in Britain, and on the Continent. In the year 1259 Henry the 3rd granted a charter to the freemen of New Castle on Tyne, allowing them to mine coal. For a long time it was used in the arts and manufactures only, wood continuing to be the common domestic fuel. As has been the case with almost every great benefit, the introduction of coal as a fuel was stoutly resisted at first, and we find its use prohibited in the city of London in the reign of Edward II, by Royal proclamation ; which was soon discovered to be injurious and foolish, and consequently withdrawn. It is interesting perhaps, to know how this Royal proclamation was brought about. A lady of the Royal household was riding in her coach one day through a village in which coal was burned as a fuel, and she suffered such a cough by inhaling the coal smoke that she decided to call a council of suffragetts, who ultimately decided that the burning of coal was injurious to their health and complexion. They drafted out a petition and presented it to the king, who speedily issued the order that no coal was to be burned in the city of London. The penalty for disobeying this order was death by hanging. We are informed of one poor man who continued to burn a lump of' coal on his fire in winter time; he was arrested, sent to prison and condemned to death; the judge in passing the sentence solemnly stating that if he was not allowed to get a fire that was hot enough in this world, he felt that he surely would be allowed one in the next.

Jan 1, 1921

PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: I have every reason to know Mr. Pryde was carrying out some experiment a while ago in some of his mines. He and I had a little correspondence on the question, and I think he may have a word or two to say about it. He has not been on his feet today at all. I will ask Mr. Pryde to tell us what he has to say. MR. PRYDE: I have not very much to say about shooting coal with permissible powder as far as slack is concerned because we are not in the commercial business. All of our coal goes to the railroad and a very large part of it is crushed for use in the stokers of the locomotives. We are on a 100 per cent permissible powder basis and as far as I am able to see, I do not believe that the percentage of slack is increasing with its use. We find it hard to convince our commercial neighbors of this fact because they are naturally very much against increasing their percentage of slack on ac- count of the low price received for this grade of coal. I, personally, believe that where a change is made from black powder to permissible powder the percentage of slack will be increased for a time because the miners have been accustomed to using black powder and they are rather suspicious about going to the permissible powder and I do not believe that we can blame them very much. So the tendency with them is to use too much powder. We have gradually overcome this, although, as I said before, we have not kept close track of the production of slack. However, we try to get as large an amount of lump coal as possible. Broadly speaking, I can say from observation that in my opinion there is very little difference in the percentage of slack with the use of the permissible powder that we have today than there was with the use of black powder. I also get this information from our mine superintendents. Mr. Peterson and the other explosive men have been very helpful to us in the use of permissible powder and I confess I have to take everything back that I said several years ago. At that time I was against permissible powder, particularly on account of the cost, but, with the newer permissible powder, we have gotten the cost down very well. I know today that the cost of permissible powder in the coal mines of the Union Pacific Coal Company is less than when we were using black powder. I know this because of the fact that we kept a record of the number of tons we got with black powder, and the number of tons we get with permissible powder compares very favorably in cost. I know this, too, because of the fact that our employes, except in the first few weeks of using permissible powder, have made no demand upon us for any in- crease ill pay to offset any added cost that might accrue in the use of permissible powder and the fact that they have asked for no increase is very conclusive proof to me that it is not

Jan 1, 1925

By Franklin P. Wood

Unnumbered ages have passed since the time when nature's laboratories were working without the aid of capital or labor unions assisted only by earth's cooling crust and old Sol's rays, to lay the prodigious coal beds of the earth and distil the oils which now furnish the basis for the world's great industries. Strangely enough rays from the same old sun probably somewhat diminished in intensity are still drawing from earth to clouds the water that will run down hill and through man-made devices produce energy to compete with that made with the products created in ages past. So now we find that within the past century vast human industries have grown up around the products of these agencies and here we are today discussing the many problems connected therewith and among the others the subject of this paper, which is essentially the relation of COAL to OIL in industry. The problems involved are those of human relationship and are not fundamentally unsolvable when engineering skill and knowledge is properly applied. The last few years has developed a brand of pessimism that is especially prevalent in the coal industry, at any rate in the west where we come in contact with it. In any general discussion with coal men, a very short time only is required to bring out the feeling or expression that the coal business is on the rocks and the reasons run the gamut of human deviltry. We have heard that in the not far distant past corn was so cheap that the farmers were compelled to burn it and thus deprive the coal mines of their well earned right to sell coal for this purpose. We have heard that the flood of oil is so vast that it was being burned in preference to coal, and to heap insult on injury that the rail- road locomotives were burning oil in order to pull coal away from the mines. We have heard that the union was responsible for all the woes to which the industry is subjected. We have heard that the family tin lizzie is so depleting the family exchequer that coal could not be purchased and if purchased could not be collected for. We have heard that producing mines are so numerous that the profits are a negligible quantity. These are but a few of the reasons assigned for making the coal producers a class of pessimists which is not good for the industry. All these reasons given and all the others must be taken collectively and these are not the cause but the effect of a rapidly changing civilization. An analogy may be found in the experience of many of us in the electric industry a few years ago. You may remember that less than 20 years ago the high efficiency Tungsten electric globe was introduced. It was so much more efficient than the old carbon lamp that only one-third of the current previously required was needed to produce the same illumination. Consternation seized the ranks of electrical men who had little or no vision, for the out- look was that so little current would be sold that everyone would be bankrupt. This limited vision, however, did not prevail, for all engaged in the industry spurred on by necessity, accomplished many of the things that we are now enjoying the fruits of be- cause the electric industry has grown and is growing by leaps and bounds and every highly efficient improvement is greeted with rejoicing. It is well known that when the old type of carbon arc lamp began to be replaced by modern units the manufacturer of carbon rods thought his doom was sealed and yet these same manufacturers have so adjusted them- selves to conditions that the dry battery business of today is of vastly greater volume and profit than was the carbon rod business of the past. Of course, there are industries that should not have survived anyway that have gone down and out to makeway for vastly improved conditions and can

Jan 1, 1925

By F. C. Miller

The briquetting of fuel is an industry centuries old and has followed the hammer and tongs method of making use of any by-product fuel by the simple process of sticking the mass together with anything that will stick. If fuel briquetting, as an industry, once in the lead over coal mining, had kept pace by introducing science, there would not at this time be the mad scramble to look up the fuel briquette family tree and accept every new method as fruit without the cultivation that makes fruit worth while. Cultivation of industry is a mass of evidence showing a tremendous expenditure of money for mistakes paving the way to success. Cultivation of the mining industry is practiced by nations and low temperature distillation and fuel briquetting will in the near future receive the same consideration. Fuel briquettes were used as a winter fuel in Ireland and Scotland before the discovery of America' or the introduction of coal as a fuel to replace briquettes in Ireland. This industry was practiced by the peasants who collected peat from the bogs and cut it into brick-shaped blocks, which were set up to dry in the sun and stored under cover for use or for sale. Demand for peat briquettes led to competition that resulted in a highly refined fuel. In some localities the peat was ground and purified from the earth by washing before placing in presses to squeeze out the excess moisture and form a block of peat about four inches thick. These blocks, after standing in the sun for a few weeks, were cut into briquettes about four inches square by twelve inches long and moved under cover where they remained until thoroughly dry. In this form peat makes an excellent fuel with considerable heat, small amount of smoke while burning, and tough enough to stand hauling in carts and boats without breakage. Slack from domestic coal, non-coking and anthracite, has until recently commanded a very low price and the attention of briquette men has centered on ways and means of preparing this class of fuel for the market in the form of briquettes. Industrial plants with automatic stokers have taken kindly to cheap slack or slack that was cheap because the price has been boosted to a figure where the cost of slack plus the cost of binder and operation makes fuel briquettes somewhat expensive. However, fuel briquettes are being turned out in commercial quantities to compete with prepared lump coal and the demand is in favor of the briquette man. Science has been called to aid the briquette and it is possible to purchase a complete coal briquetting plant that will turn out between four tons per hour and thirty tons per hour of briquettes at a calculated cost per ton to cover material and every item down to insurance on the plant. A few briquettes are being ' made with a mixture of- Portland cement and pulverized coal, where this class of briquette is cheap in the making, there is the increased amount of ash due to the cement to contend with and the briquette is not one that can compete with lump coal. Most binders have a fuel value, such as coal tar, pitch, asphalt residium, flour, glue and secret binders. Most briquettes are of an egg shape, weighing between one and one-half ounces and five ounces, pressed to form with a pressure varying between 1,000 pounds and 2,500 pounds per square inch. This' pressure, together with the binder, make a lump of fuel harder than most grades of soft coal. Most of the briquettes are free from pitch odor, and any tendency to leave a trace of the binder on the fingers, easy to handle, quick to, ignite, high in heat value and capable of indefinite storage without any change. Evaporative efficiency of briquetted fuel in stationary, marine and locomotive boilers has proved that a great many low-grade coals can be fired successfully in the briquetted form, where the same fuel without briquetting failed to give boiler rating.

Jan 1, 1923

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

Jan 1, 1924