Search Documents

[W. R. Abbott, 11o8 First National Bank Bldg., Denver, Colo. L. E. Adams, 817 Newhouse Bldg., Salt Lake City, Utah. Herbert Addison, Big Horn Colliers Co., Denver, Colo. Richard V. Ageton, Brighton Mich. John Alexander, Dacona, Colo. C. A. Allen, 448 Capitol Bldg., Salt Lake City, Utah. David Allen, Lafayette, Colo. John Allen, Ludlow, Colo. Thomas Allen, Mt. Harris, Colo. Gerald Alley, C. F. & I. Co., Pueblo, Colo. Archie Allison, Box 562, Walsenburg, Colo. D. S. Allison, 56 W. 6th South Street, Salt Lake City, Utah. Park Allison, Box 94.0, Rock Springs, Wyo. Howard R. Allonier, care Lunkenheimer Co., Cincinnatti, Ohio. J. B. Ambler, care Ambler & Riter, Engineers, Salt Lake City, Utah. A. F. Anderson, 403 Ideal Bldg., Denver, Colo. W. K. Anderson, 4.23 East Yampa Street, Colorado Springs, Colo. Sam Andrews, 503 Pike Avenue, Canon City, Colo. Jos. Angster, Farr, Colo. William Angus, Somerset, Colo. Joseph Appleton, Ironton Engine Co., Ironton, Ohio. Victor Arnoldi, Ideal, Colo. John Arnott, Crested Butte, Colo. R. M. Atmore, Swastika, N. M. W. H. Backman, 1601 Alcott Street, Denver, Colo. Edward E. Barrett, Roberts & Schaefer Co., Chicago, Ill. G. F. Bartlett, 311 Ernest & Cranmer Bldg., Denver,, Colo. C. S. Beach, Kemmerer, Wyo. Thos. Bertram, Box 134?, Oak Creek, Colo. Charles Beuchat, Pryor, Colo. John Bevan, 1625 North Corona Street, Colorado Springs, Colo. James L. Bisch, Van Houton, N. M. Jos. Bodner, Oak Creek, Colo. A. H. C. Boissier, 302 E. & C. Bldg., Denver, Colo. John M. Bopp, 1615 Walker Bank Bldg., Salt Lake City, Utah. Edward Bottomley, Carneyville, Wyo. James V. Bowen, Union Coal and Coke Co., Denver, Colo. Alex R. Bowie, Bowie, Colo. John S. Bowie, Bowie, Colo. Wallace D. Bowie, Bowie, Colo. W. J. Bowns, Castle Gate, Utah. L. Brandenburger, 59 West Broadway, Salt Lake City, Utah. James Brennan, Primero, Colo. W. D. Brennan, Dawson, N. M. Burt B. Brewster, 704 Kearns Bldg., Salt Lake City, Utah. A. L. Brockman, Sugarite, N. M. Alex. J. Brooks, Supt. Hastings No. 5 Mine, Hastings, Colo. Edward Brooks, Sweetwater, Wyo. E. S. Brooks, Rock Springs, Wyo. D. W. Brown, Rocky Mountain Fuel Co., Denver, Colo. L. E. Brown, 1212 Walker Bldg., Salt Lake City, Utah. Mark Y. Brown, 629 East Main Street, Trinidad, Colo. H. H. Bubb, Carbon Coal and Coke Co., Cokedale, Colo. W. H. Bullock, 1052 Gas and Electric Bldg., Denver, Colo. Thomas B. Burnite, 523 Boston bldg., Denver, Colo.]

Jan 1, 1921

By Eli Follett

It is indeed gratifying to note the marked improvement in the methods used in the coal- mines today compared to the methods in earlier days. Away back in the decade of 1900 to 1910 many of the mines were conspicuous for their absence of sprinkling and humidifying systems, as a result much of the natural moisture was absorbed by the dry air current and carried out of the mine and the mine was left dry, dusty and dangerous. This dangerous condition was intensified by large accumulations of fine coal dust on the haulageways where fire flashed from poorly lubricated rollers and bullwheels-trip riders used a torch with a flame reaching to the back of their necks, and large supplies of blasting powder were kept in the mines. Accidents and disasters were very frequent as we, in our ignorance flirted with danger. Staggered by the numerous accidents, and the nature of them; men began thinking along lines of safety, they worked out schemes and after many disappointments succeeded in having, some very whole some legislation enacted covering coal mining operations only to find that much lawlessness was still being practiced by the miners whom they sought to protect; step by step these safety men forged ahead, enlisting the co-operation of a few men about the mine whom they called a safety committee, until, today, we have an ironclad mining law which all have to respect. We have sprinkling and humidifying systems, the miners electric lamp, permissible explosives and many other devices making for greater safety in the operation of our coal mines. Our mines are no longer veritable gasometers and powder storehouses, as I. knew them to be in South Wales, Britain, where I started to work in the mines. Instead, the mines of this day are healthy, well lighted and ventilated workshops and too much cannot be said in the praise of safety engineers who, fought altruistically in their efforts to bring about the wonderfully improved conditions in the coal mines of this day. While the possibility of a mine fire starting, in these days of scientific mining, is remote every one admits there still exists a possibility and to deal with a fire, should one start, most coal miners are equipped with fire extinguishers. Extinguishers of all designs conceivable are on the market, the different extinguishers are charged with different chemical substances, Some are charged with patented chemicals and others with baking soda and sulphuric acid and so on, however, many of them are equipped with about eighteen inches of rubber hose and bear the conventional "FOR FIRE-TURN UPSIDE DOWN" but nothing is said to indicate how close it may be necessary to take the extinguisher to the fire before doing the "TURN UPSIDE DOWN" act, neither is anything said as to what effect the contents may have upon the' hands, face or body of operator should he come in contact with the liquid, nor is any warning given as to the dangers in the fumes which may come from the contents of the extinguisher in contact with the fire.

Jan 1, 1922

By R. A. McAllister

The haulage system employed to convey coal from the face to the outside, dates back to 300 B. C., when slaves carried the mineral from the face to the consumer. The British discovered coal on their island about 800 A. D. and they were the first people to make practical use of coal and make coal mining a successful operation. The Britons carried cargoes of coal in their trading expeditions long before Columbus discovered America. The early history of mine haulage in the British mines relates to women with baskets, a practice still in use in Korean mines. Coal was discovered in America in 1679. The first mine worked in the United States was opened at Richmond, Va., in 1770. The haulage inside consisted of a crude sled loaded with, sacked coal ready for the market and drawn by a mule. The tipple consisted of the very simple operation of loading the sacked coal to the back of a lame mule, which represented the transportation system between mine and boat. The capacity of the boat was one ton and this large production of coal was intrusted to a small boy, who delivered to any place in town his bushel basket filled' with winter fuel. One daring coal operator shipped fifteen tons of coal by boat to Philadelphia and the man in charge had to seek employment to pay his board while finding customers for his fuel. A production of five tons per day would hardly attract attention to any system of haulage, add three ciphers and the importance of mine haulage is made very plain to the management. I will consider a production between 3000 and 5000 tons in eight hours and endeavor to bring out the essential features necessary to make the haulage system a regulated precise factor. There are two phases to mine haulage, the mule trip from the room to the motor or gathering party and the main haul to the outside. The motive power, whether done by mule, wire-rope or electric motor cannot be effective if left to the power alone. Conditions must offer no obstacle and it is the removal of obstacles that make the haulage system. This paper will consider a flat seam with the usual jump ups and downs or natural obstacles to be met and mastered by the successful tail-rope or electric system. The pit car is no longer a screening system scattering the fine coal from the room to the outside, adding to the costs by giving employment to road cleaners and polluting the ventilating system with a fog of coal dust. It is not a contrivance with four flat wheels and a labor killer in the room or on the tipple The large producing mine has a pit car with a tight body, roller-bearing wheels, with a self-oiling system that offers the least possible draw-bar pull to overcome the friction resistance, a hand brake conveniently placed and positive in action, a wheel base short enough to make room necks and long enough to

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 Graham Bright

Up until a few years ago most of the electrical equipment used in the mines of this country was developed for industrial purposes and was adapted for use in mines by slight modifications. It became apparent, however, that mining conditions differed widely from most industrial applications and it became necessary to design and develop apparatus, particularly suited for use under mining conditions. Most of the electrical apparatus used in mines today, however, does not owe its success entirely to mining development, but in many cases developments in other branches have been taken and improved upon and modified to meet mining conditions. Power Plant: In the earlier days the power plant for the production of electric power usually consisted of fairly small belt driven direct current generators operated from reciprocating non-condensing steam engines. Today where possible the mines purchase power from central stations and where not possible it is ususally produced from turbine driven plants using non-condensing turbines for the smaller plants and condensing turbines for the larger plants. The bad water conditions at many of the coal mines in this country is, responsible in a large measure for the high cost of upkeep and repairs in isolated power plants. This feature with the type of labor available makes it difficult to operate an isolated plant condensing except in the larger mines where water conditions are good and the apparatus can be taken care of. The geared turbine is a particularly simple and rugged piece of apparatus and requires very little attention over long periods of time. Hoists: The first electric hoists to be installed used various types of motors designed for railway or industrial purposes, and the control furnished was far from satisfactory. Today most of the mine hoist motors are of the alternating current type, especially designed for hoisting service. The control for motors of 200 H. P. or over is usually of the magnetic of liquid rheostat type, and as built today will operate over fairly long periods with a very moderate cost of up-keep. Hoists of 1000 H. P. or larger are usually of the direct current type using field control and receiving power from a flywheel or synchronous M. G. set. Hoists of this type have made remarkable records in regard to continuity of operation and low cost of up-keep. Where high speed operation is desired in either coal or metal mines, the D. C. equipment using field control and a separate M. G. set to supply power to the hoist motor is not only the safest and most economical but in many cases is the only type of equipment capable of satisfactorily obtaining the output required. A number of improvements have been brought out with the field control scheme in connection with the acceleration, retardation, overfeed and overwind of the hoist. With these new developments the hoist operator can no longer abuse the hoist by improper manipulation of the control handle. Until a few years ago the matter of safety devices was not given much consideration when installing hoisting equipment. At the present time the safety devices are considered one of the most important items in connection

Jan 1, 1922

By Eugene McAuliffe

The subject of my few remarks addressed to the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute, "Guessing or Knowing! Which," may perhaps suggest but little to you here today. However, I am sure you will all agree with me when I say that in the conduct of a coal mining operation there should be no choice between guessing and knowing. The value of, and the results to be obtained from this Institute, its meetings and printed transactions, as well as those of other similar educational organizations, depend very largely on the mental attitude of those who constitute, through their pronouncements, the more active portion of the membership. Perhaps the most apt criticism that is now being made of the coal industry is that, to an extent possibly exceeding any other industry of similar magnitude and importance, it depends for its conduct altogether too much on "rule of thumb" and "tradition," rather than on proven practice and actual fact. The records of our coal mining association meetings bear expression of many conflicting opinions, the majority of which are sincerely put forth by those expressing same as representing the facts; the extremes expressed, however, frequently fix the question raised as one yet located in "no man's land." There are yet too many chances taken we are still "weighing pounds on railroad track scales" and measuring yards with the proverbial "bit of string." The actual expense of conducting any one of the several operations incident to the production of coal is rarely determined, and in many instances the general cost figures, prepared some weeks after the work is complete, are of that sweeping character that very little can be abstracted therefrom. Many coal companies are now making a daily cost sheet, showing the cost of labor and material in detail, as used in the several related operations,, and such is decidedly helpful, particularly to the mine superintendent and his foreman, who, without such, sail an uncharted sea; the auditor's belated monthly summary rarely ever seen by these men who are held responsible for the labor and material used. I have made reference to this situation as an accentuation of the fact that the coal industry contains more "serious minded, conscientious guessers" than does any other similar industry, although the annual cost of our product runs up well beyond the billion dollar mark, and what is more important, our industry is one that still continues to exact a heavy toll of human life. Now this brings me to the question of safety, the one question that should be, and which is, I know, uppermost in your minds. The coal mining world, engineering and operating, is now well sold on at least two things the theory of using permissible explosives and the elimination of the open light. Furthermore, the industry, particularly that portion which is located in Great Britain and the United States and Canada, are now planning vast extensions of the use of "rock" or "shale dust," both in the form of "dust barriers" and in "direct application" to entries and cross-cuts. This is well; however,, my study of past mine explosions has convinced me that the great majority of such had their very beginning in gas accumulations; frequently originating in restricted areas at the working face, in abandoned worked-out areas, or in some other certain place where ventilation is not, maintained as it should be; and that again leads me to the point where it can again be well said, that there is too much "rule of thumb," too much guessing now being done in regard to the volume of air required, and continuously furnished, in a given entry,, panel, room or area. Just to emphasize this situation, is it not a fact that the majority of mine inspectors express the ventilation conditions as measured by them, in terms of cubic feet per man employed, in each certain split, and does not the mining laws of many states yet demand a minimum of "100 or 150 cubic feet

Jan 1, 1924

PRESIDENT PRYDE: I am sure we have all listened with interest to the presentation of this subject. Anything that promises economy in coal mining today is welcomed by all of us. We will now have a discussion on this paper. If any of you gentlemen want to ask any questions, you may do so. I think we will develop something of interest and along the lines of economy. That is the first consideration of a coal mining man. MR. H. D. RANDALL: It is an interesting fact that in manufacturing we find the greatest economy results from giving a man the simplest possible act to perform, while there is nothing too complicated for a machine. If we want to put up a set screw we find it cheaper to let one man set it up and the other screw it in. The maximum economy is what we are after. Similarly, one of the points of greatest interest which Mr. Ickis has emphasized, is that this automatic equipment not merely dispenses with a manual operator, but also performs certain functions which the operator cannot do. It provides an inherent protection to the apparatus and service not possible under manual operation. We very rarely have cases of failure with these automatic equipments, .and consequently have the advantage not only of having eliminated the operator's salary, but also his mistakes. We have had a large number of these equipments in use for several years, so that their practicality is now thoroughly proven, and the trend of practice now indicates that the automatic idea will be further extended and will become universal for such classes of service. MR. D. C. McKEEHAN (Union Pacific Coal Company) : My notion of an automatic sub-station is one that does not necessarily require new equipment beyond the control equipment; so that any of you that are interested in it can take up with the manufacturers and find out how much it would cost to change any equipment. The greatest point I think is the fact it eliminates the several nationalities from operating the set, either on day shift or night shift. They can so lock the control as to make it impossible for anyone to start or stop it, except the one who has the authority. Another point I do not believe was brought out very clearly: It would be particularly advantageous to people who buy power, and if you could have several sets in parallel, it would allow you to start the shift with one set and cut in the additional sets as the shift progresses. There are various operations that stop at the end of each shift, and-one or two or three sets can be cut out, leaving the load on one set, providing the size of the copper is sufficient to supply all the points of the mine. Another point I want to bring out: In case you have quite a number of sets distributed along transmission line, the switch trips, the operation restores the service, and you may have several hundred-or in case with us, we would have several thousand-K. V. A. of Motor Generator Sets and Rotaries, that would be starting at once, and the switch would automatically trip out again. MR. RANDALL: Another form of control was described as the so-called supervisory control. This control could be started up so the starting would not be synchronous, but could be spread out over a sequence. MR. McKEEHAN: I think that is rather a theoretical consideration for coal miners. They are standing at the controller ready to shut it off unless there is some selective method of starting various sets- MR. RANDALL: I had in mind this supervisory control, one man, a central operator who would determine which station should start and he would take time enough to have his load come on gradually. He would not permit all the installations to come on simultaneously, but come on in succession: MR. McKEEHAN: You misunderstand me. Suppose we had the main switch at Rock Springs, which supplies several camps, and there are several

Jan 1, 1924