Search Documents

By Alexander E. Morrow

Oxygen breathing apparatus for use in mines was introduced to the United States in 1907. Despite their intended purpose of safeguarding lives, the apparatus led to the deaths of many men because of inherent or developed defects in the equipment, lack of training,, physical shortcomings of wearers, and improper procedures. The Bureau of Mines pioneered in research and training to curb logs of life among users of such apparatus and promoted development of safer equipment and procedures. As a consequence, deaths have been far less frequent. In 1944 the Bureau issued Information Circular 7279, Loss of Life Among Wearers of Oxygen Breathing Apparatus. That publication listed the case histories of 26 deaths that had occurred since the introduction of such equipment to American mining. The author, the late G. W. Grove,3/ asserted that further loss of life could be avoided if good equipment were used, teams were properly trained, and the basic principles of safe procedure were followed. This publication is a sequel to I.C. 7279 and contains information on eight deaths among wearers of oxygen breathing apparatus that were overlooked in the original compilation. It also describes the single death that occurred since I.C. 7279 was published.

Jan 1, 1959

Measure dangerously high concentrations (20 to 500 g/m3) of flammable, airborne dust. Approach Development of high concentration dust monitor (HCDM) which will measure mass concentrations of air borne dust by the principle of beta-ray attenuation. How It Works The HCDM is a battery powered, portable instrument that weighs 10.5 kg. It is capable of making continual (10 sec. time resolution) measurements of high concentrations of airborne dust and can record up to 8 hours of data in an internal memory. The data can be read out later on an analog or digital recorder. An internal pump pulls airborne dust into the sampling section, which contains a low-energy beta-ray source and a Geiger counter detector. No beta radiation escapes from the instrument, and no license is required for the operator. The mass concentration measurement is made while the dust is still airborne. Beta-ray attentuation is independent of particle size and composition of the dust, so the HCDM can he used with many types of dusts which may be airborne in flammable concentrations. A knowledge of the composition and minimum explosive concentration of the dust is necessary to understand the significance of the data from the HCDM. The HCDM was designed to measure air-

Jan 1, 1982

By L. B. Berger, W. P. Yant, R. R. Sayers

"At the request of the Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad Co. a number of tests were made to determine the temperature, humidity, and composition of the atmosphere in certain tunnels of that railroad between Clifton Forge, Va., and Hinton, W. Va. The purpose of these tests was to determine conditions in the cabs of freight locomotives while pulling trains through these tunnels. Tests were made of two types of locomotives, classified by the railroad company as the H-6 and H-7. Both are of the Mallet type, but the H-6 class has one pair of cylinders operating at boiler pressure and the other pair compound, whereas the H-7 operates all four cylinders at boiler pressure, thereby exhausting steam at a higher temperature than the H-6. It was desired to determine the relation between conditions on the H-6 and H-7 engines under comparable conditions of operation. This information supplements previous tests by the Bureau of Mines, discussed in its Reports of Investigations Serial No. 2624, entitled, ""Temperatures in Cabs of Freight Locomotives Passing Through Tunnels of Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad, 11 by s. H. Katz and E. G. Meiter, July, 1924. Three incidental tests of passenger engines were also made."

Feb 1, 1928

By X. Shi, K. S. Kaspnak

"The generation of free radicals from reactions of nickel (Il)-thiol complexes with molecular oxygen and model lipid hydroperoxides was investigated by electron spin resonance (ESR) utilizing 5,5-dimethyl-1-pyrroline-N-oxide (DMPO) as a spin trap. Incubation of nickel (II) [Ni(II)) with cysteine in an aerobic environment generated hydroxyl (·OH) radical, which then reacted with cysteine to generate a carbon-centered alkyl ( · R) radical. Radical generation was inhibited under a nitrogen atmosphere. Model lipid hydroperoxides, cumene hydroperoxide, and I-butyl hydroperoxide enhanced the yield of these radicals and also generated an alkoxyl (·OR) radical. Radical yield decreased by approximately half under a nitrogen atmosphere. Although histidine did not cause radical formation in the reaction between Ni(II) and cumene hydroperoxide under aerobic conditions, the addition of histidine to a mixture containing Ni(ll), cysteine, and cumene hydroperoxide under the same experimental conditions increased the yield of · R radical but lowered the yield of ·OR and ·OH radical adducts. It thus appears that histidine caused the ·OH attack to be more site-specific. Similar results were obtained utilizing 1-butyl hydroperoxide. Penicillamine or N-acetylcysteine yielded similar results except that under aerobic conditions, reaction between Ni(ll) and N-acetylcysteine without hydroperoxide did not generate a significant concentration of free radicals. Under the same experimental conditions, cystine did not generate any detectable free radicals, suggesting an important role of the -SH group in Ni(II)-mediated free radical generation. The results indicate that free radical generation from the reaction of Ni(Il)-thiol complexes and molecular oxygen, and/or lipid hydroperoxides, may play an important role in the mechanism(s) of Ni(II) toxicity and carcinogenesis. INTRODUCTIONWhile nickel is a well-recognized carcinogen [l, 2]. the underlying biochemical mechanisms remain unclear (3, 4). Recent studies suggest that these mechanisms may involve oxidative DNA damage through free radicals, especially the hydroxyl (•OH) radical [5-13]. The mechanisms of nickel carcinogenicity and toxicity may also involve lipid peroxidation [14-21]. Unlike ferrous ion [Fe(II)], the Ni(II) cation itself does not directly react with 02, H2O2, or lipid hydroperoxides to generate free radicals [12, 21]. However, it has been reported that Ni(II) complexes with certain synthetic oligopeptides, e.g., tetraglycine or glycylglycylhistidine, make Ni(II) reactive with 02. This reaction results in transitory formation of Ni(III) and degradation of the organic ligand via free radical reactions [22]. Such Ni(II)-peptide complexes are also capable of reacting with H2O2 to produce oxygen free radicals [11, 12]. Although the cellular environ¬ment may not contain these particular peptide ligands that are known to render Ni(II) redox active in vitro, it does contain a variety of oligopeptides that are capable of forming Ni(II) complexes at physiological pH, and thus may facilitate Ni(II) redox activity in vivo. These oligopeptides include glutathione (y-L glutamylycysteinylglycine), carnosine (homocarnosine (y aminobutyryl-L-histidine), and anserine ( B-alany1-3-methyl-L-histidine)."

Nov 1, 1995

By J. D. Bardill

"The Stoddard mine, Cheshire County, N. H., was explored by the Bureau of Mines in 1944 as a source of the strategic fluorite. It was reported that the vein persisted in the bottom of old workings and the geology of the immediate area indicated the possibility of finding additional lenses.In its program of exploration of mineral deposits, the Bureau of Nines has as its primary objective the more effective utilization of our mineral resources to the end that they make the greatest possible contribution to national security and economy. It is the policy of the Bureau to publish the facts developed by each exploratory project as soon as practicable after its conclusion. The Mining Branch, Lowell B. Moon, chief, conducts pre¬liminary examinations, performs the actual exploratory work, and prepares the final report. The Metallurgical Branch, R. G. Knickerbocker, chief, analyzes samples and performs beneficiation tests. Both these branches are under the supervision of Dr. R. S. Dean, assistant director.Special acknowledgment is expressed for the cooperation and assistance given by Robert F. Sherwood of the United Feldspar & Minerals Corp.; by McHenry Mosier, chief, College Park Division, Mining Branch, who aided in re¬vising this report; and by J. B. Zadra, chief, College Park Division, Metallurgical Branch, and others of his staff, who assisted in performing the beneficiation tests and analyzing samples. The field work was under the direction of Harry P. Hermance.The property lies on the southern boundary of the town of Westmoreland, Cheshire County, N. H., at approximately 72° 39’ west longitude, 42° 27’ north latitude, in the Keene, N. H. (G.S.) quadrangle.Good gravel roads lead from paved State Highway 63 to the property. A dirt road in fair condition suitable for truck leads to the nine.Dwight H. Smith, Putney, Vt., is the owner and has leased the property to the United Feldspar & Minerals Corp., 10 East 40th Street, New York 16, N. Y.Property titles were not investigated.The fluorite deposits of Cheshire Count', H. H., have been known for many years, being reported by Jackson, (Geology and Mineralogy of New Hampshire, by Charles T, Jackson, 1844) and by Hitchcock, in1878 (Geology of Now Hampshire, vol. 3, 1878, by Charles H. Hitchcock). A large pit on the largest or east vein was mined by Lovat Frazer from about 1908 to 1917, This operation is reported to have produced approximately 3,500 tons of fluorspar. In 1917, the American Steel & Wire Co, took over the mine end is said to have produced 3,500 tons of fluorspar before relinquishing the lease in 1923.From 1935 to 1937 the New Hampshire Fluorspar Cc. operated the Stoddard mine, working chiefly on the most westerly of the three known veins on the property, as well as doing some preliminary work on the small central vein. In 1938, the United Feldspar 6 Minerals Corp. leased the mine, and less than 100 tons of fluorspar was produced from exploration and development work, No mining has been done since that time."

Sep 1, 1946

By John J. Sammarco

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

Jan 4, 2006

By John J. Sammarco

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

Jan 8, 2005

The panic bars (and associated linkages and electrical circuitry) that are defined in this document are a machine operator-actuated control for the emergency deenergization of the tram motors on self-propelled, electric and diesel face equipment: including haulage equipment such as shuttle cars. There are nine basic types of panic bars (and several variations) that arc recommended in this document, but all of the panic bars are characteristically of the "fire door" type that is frequently encountered on outside exit doors of many public and some commercial buildings. It is also the intent of the following panic bar designs that, when emergency brakes are added to the face equipment machinery for which they arc required, that they be designed and hooked up so that actuation of the panic bar will result in automatic application of the emergency brakes (immediately following the deenergization of the tram motors). The following panic bar design requirements are a restatement of the proposed requirements defined in the Federal Register, requirements cited in "Guidelines for the Design and Installation of Devices for Deenergization of Self-Propelled Electric Face Equipment/Automatic Emergency Brakes" by C. E. Lester and J. D. Greenhalgh of MESA, and Bendix recommendations that were formulated as a result of discussions with personnel al the various machine manufacturers and underground coal mines that we surveyed, discussions with G. L. Judy (our consultant), etc:

Jan 1, 1974

By Almon F. Robertson

"INTRODUCTION At various times, North Carolina has supplied small quantities of brown-iron ore to the furnace o the South. Between 1917 and 1920, the quantity reported to the Federal Geological Survey was 126,000 tons. Most of this came from Cherokee County. 3/In furtherance of the program initiated by the Bureau of Mines to develop additional reserve of iron ore during the emergency, the Cherokee County deposits were examined by an engineer 4/ of the Bureau of Mines, and work was recommended on,12 properties.The project was begun in April 1944 and continued intermittently until April 1945, when work was stopped. During this period, eight properties were explored, and an additional property was mapped.ACKNOWLEDGMENTSIn its program of exploration of mineral deposits, the Bureau of Mines has as its primary objective the more effective utilization of our mineral resources to the end that they make the greatest possible contribution to national security and economy. It is the policy of the Bureau to publish the facts developed by each exploratory project as soon as practicable after its conclusion. The Mining Branch; Lowell B. Moon, chief, conducts preliminary examinations, performs the actual exploratory work, and prepares the final report. The Metallurgical Branch, R. G. Knickerbocker chief, analyzes samples and performs beneficiation tests. Both these branches are under the supervision of Dr. R. S. Dean, assistant director."

Nov 1, 1946

[~lis is the f&apos;fth in a ~erieG of reports on properties of commercial motor fuels, made in accordance 1,&apos;Vi t:h fl cooperative ae,ree-ment betwGon tho Cooperative Fuel ReRRarch (e.F.R.) Committee and the Bureau of I ines of the Dcpart~ent nf the Interior. The first report gave data on motor r-asolino~ sold during the wintor of 935-36.31 Thi~ report covers 84 brands of ga~oline represented by l,722 samples exclurling the Pacific Coast. T 3)Se J.rom th~. ?~&apos;tcific Coast IV .ro avnrL)f:od b~r tho Pacific Coa!3t tecilnical group "bofore o8ing submi ttcd ruld arc p~.lbl:&apos;shcd GX Gtl~r as they were submi tted. In some areas r~lJort~ . erc roceivod f~om ~ ix to eicht compD.l1ie~ on the same brands of gasoline. whoruar. in other areas only one company reported on a brond. Thut., it CU .. "! be senn that BO .. 0 uf the dnt ;.U&apos;e more rCY>l&apos;c entat vc thM others. The inclusion of r~0rts fro:n several ci tie. w&apos; thin somo of tho di stricts has ir.rpr,)vcd the report by reducinc; tr.e numb~r of brand rcportel by only ono company. ]

Jan 1, 1938

[~lis is the f&apos;fth in a ~erieG of reports on properties of commercial motor fuels, made in accordance 1,&apos;Vi t:h fl cooperative ae,ree-ment betwGon tho Cooperative Fuel ReRRarch (e.F.R.) Committee and the Bureau of I ines of the Dcpart~ent nf the Interior. The first report gave data on motor r-asolino~ sold during the wintor of 935-36.31 Thi~ report covers 84 brands of ga~oline represented by l,722 samples exclurling the Pacific Coast. T 3)Se J.rom th~. ?~&apos;tcific Coast IV .ro avnrL)f:od b~r tho Pacific Coa!3t tecilnical group "bofore o8ing submi ttcd ruld arc p~.lbl:&apos;shcd GX Gtl~r as they were submi tted. In some areas r~lJort~ . erc roceivod f~om ~ ix to eicht compD.l1ie~ on the same brands of gasoline. whoruar. in other areas only one company reported on a brond. Thut., it CU .. "! be senn that BO .. 0 uf the dnt ;.U&apos;e more rCY>l&apos;c entat vc thM others. The inclusion of r~0rts fro:n several ci tie. w&apos; thin somo of tho di stricts has ir.rpr,)vcd the report by reducinc; tr.e numb~r of brand rcportel by only ono company.]

Jan 1, 1938

The panic bars (and associated linkages and electrical circuitry) that are defined in this document are a machine operator-actuated control for the emergency deenergization of the tram motors on self-propelled, electric and diesel face equipment; including haulage equipment such as shuttle cars. There are nine basic types of panic bars (and several variations) that are recommended in this document, but all of the panic bars arc characteristically of the &apos;fire door" type that is frequently encountered on outside exit doors of many public, and some commercial buildings. It is also the intent of the following panic bar designs that, when emergency brakes arc added to the face equipment machinery for which they arty required, that they be designed and hooked up so that actuation of the panic bar will result in automatic application of the emergency brakes (immediately following the deenergization of the tram motors). The following panic bar design requirements are a restatement of the proposed requirements defined in the Federal Register, requirements cited in "Guidelines for the Design and Installation of Devices for Deenergization of Self-Propelled Electric Face Equipment/Automatic Emergency Brakes" by C. E. Lester and J. D. Greenhalgh of MESA, and Bendix recommendations that were formulated as a result of discussions with personnel at the various machine manufacturers and underground coal mines that we surveyed, discussions with G. I. Judy (our consultant), etc:

Jan 1, 1974

Toward the goal of maximizing minerals and metals recovery from domestic resources, the Bureau of Mines, U.S. Department of the Interior, has conducted in situ corrosion studies at the Salton Sea Known Geothermal Resources Area (KGRA) in the Imperial Valley, Calif., to evaluate and characterize materials of construction for geothermal resources recovery plants. General-, pitting, and crevice-corrosion characteristics of 13 commercially available alloys were investigated for periods of 15 and 30 days in seven process environments expected to be found in typical geothermal resources plants. Stainless steel alloy 29.4, Inconel 625, and the Hastelloys G, S, and C-276 were the most resistant to general corrosion, did not pit, and exhibited little susceptibility to crevice corrosion. Stainless steel alloys 430, E-Brite 26-1, and 6X had low general corrosion rates, but pitted and were susceptible to crevice corrosion. Stainless steel alloy 316 L had a low corrosion rate, but corroded intergranularly, pitted, and was susceptible to crevice corrosion and to stress-corrosion cracking. Titanium-1.5 nickel and TiCode-12 had low corrosion rates, did not pit, and were not susceptible to crevice corrosion. Carbon and 4130 steels had high corrosion rates, pitted, and had high susceptibilities to crevice corrosion. The major scale-forming mineral on the corrosion samples in most of the process environments studied was galena mixed with lesser amounts of other minerals.

Jan 1, 1979

The panic bars (and associated linkages and electrical circuitry) that are defined in this document are a machine operator-actuated control for the emergency deenergization of the tram motors on self-propelled, electric and diesel face equipment; including haulage equipment such as shuttle cars. There are nine basic types of panic bars (and several variations) that are recommended in this document, but all of the panic bars are characteristically of the "fire door" type that is frequently encountered on outside exit doors of many public and some commercial buildings. It is also the intent of the following panic bar designs that, when emergency brakes are added to the face equipment machinery for which they are required, that they be designed and hooked up so that actuation of the panic bar will result in automatic application of the emergency brakes (immediately following the deenergization of the tram motors). The following panic bar design requirements are a restatement of the proposed requirements defined in the Federal Register, requirements cited in &apos;Guidelines for the Design and Installation of Devices for Deenergization of Self-Propelled Electric Face Equipment/ Automatic Emergency Brakes" by C. E. Lester and J. D. Greenhalgh of MESA, and Bendix recommendations that were formulated as a result of discussions with personnel at the various machine manufacturers and underground coal mines that we surveyed, discussions with G. L. Judy (our consultant), etc:

Jan 1, 1974

By Eugene Frey

"INTRODUCTION The Iron Mountain deposits were examined in the summer of 1943 by engineers of the Bureau of Lanes, and a diamond-drilling project was set up under the Strategic Minerals Program. Actual drilling operations, under the supervision of a Bureau engineer, commenced November 9, 1943, and were completed on November 1, 1944. When the Bureau began detailed exploration of the Iron Mountain deposits, the Federal Geological Survey participated. Dr. I. W. Newhouse, of the Survey, and Dr. A. F. Hagner, of the Wyoming Geological Survey, were assigned to the investigation.ACKNOWLEDGMENTSIn its program of exploration of mineral deposits, the Bureau of Mines has as its primary objective the more effective utilization of our mineral resources to the end that they make the greatest possible contribution to national security and economy. It is the policy of the Bureau to publish the facts developed by each exploratory project as soon as practicable after its conclusion. The Mining Branch, Lowell B. Moon chief, conducts preliminary examinations, performs the actual exploratory work, and prepares the final report. The Metallurgical Branch, R. G. Knickerbocker, chief, analyzes samples and performs beneficiation tests. Both these branches are under the supervision of Dr. R. S. Dean, assistant director.With respect to this report, acknowledgment is made to S. R. Zirrmerley and F. T. Allsman, Bureau of Mines, Salt Lake City, Utah, who supervised the work of this project."

Nov 1, 1946

The panic bars (and associated linkage&apos;s and electrical circuitry) that are defined in this document are a machine operator-actuated control for the emergency deenergization of the tram motors on Self-propelled, electric and diesel face equipment; including haulage equipment such as shuttle cars. There are nine basic types of panic bars (and several variations) that are recommended in this document, but all of the panic bars are characteristically of the "fire door" type that is frequently encountered on outside exit doors of many public and soma commercial buildings. It is also the intent of the following panic bar designs that, when emergency brakes are added to the face equipment machinery for which they are required, that they be designed and hooked up so that actuation of the panic bar will result in automatic application of the emergency brakes (immediately following the deenergization of the tram motors). The following panic bar design requirements are a restatement of the proposed requirements defined in the Federal Register, requirements cited in &apos;Guidelines for the Design and Installation of Devices for Deenergization of Self-Propelled Electric Face Equipment/Automatic Emergency Brakes" by C. E. Lester and J. D. Greenhalgh of MESA, and Bendix recommendations that were formulated as a result of discussions with personnel at the various machine manufacturers and underground coal mines that we surveyed, discussions with G. L. Judy (our consultant), etc:

Jan 1, 1974

By J. H. Tylczak

The Bureau of Mines studied the effect of alloy additions on abrasive wear of low-alloy steels. A dry-sand, rubber-wheel abrasion test appa-ratus using ASTM G65-Sl procedure B was used for the abrasive wear tests. Eighty-six material heat-treatment combinations were abrasion tested. Results of these tests were analyzed statistically using regression analysis to see if additions of Cr, Mn, Mo, Ni, Si, AI, Cu, and S were significant in affecting the abrasive wear rate of low-alloy steels. Regression analysis was also used to confirm hardness and C affect on the abrasive wear rate of these steels. It was found that for all the steels taken as a group, increased amounts of Mn significantly reduced the wear rate, while increased amounts of Mo and S1 increased the wear rate. Analysis also confirmed previous research done by others, that increasing hardness and amounts of C reduced the wear rate. For the hardened steels taken as a class, only increasing amounts of C and Mn reduced the wear rate, while increases in Si increased the wear rate. In the class of unhardened steels, increases in C, Mn, and S re-duced the wear rate, whereas increases in Mo increased the wear rate. The steels with the best resistance to wear were two hardened experimen-tal steels similar to AISI 1055 and AISI 107S.

Jan 1, 1986

By R. Hogg

"The basic population balance models for agglomeration processes are reviewed and procedures are described for extending their applicability to systems with size-dependent rate constants and to the formation and growth of porous agglomerates from rigid, solid-particles. Simplified procedures for the further extension of the models to include simultaneous agglomerate growth and breakage are also described.INTRODUCTION The association of small particles into clusters or agglomerates is a significant factor in many facets of particle processing. Agglomeration processes are widely used to facilitate handling, storage and utilization of fine powders. Processes such as coagulation or flocculation are used to aid solid-fluid separation in dispersed particulate systems. Agglomeration also occurs as an accompaniment, often unwanted, to other particulate processing operations such as fine grinding, mixing and blending, transport and flow.Reliable agglomeration models are needed for improved understanding of the processes in general and of the complex role of numerous, interacting variables as well as for direct application to the design and control of industrial processes such as flocculation, granulation and pelletization. Ideally, the models should account for the primary forces responsible for agglomerate formation and growth, the effects of external forces on process dynamics, the development of agglomerate structure and its role in the process itself, and the effects of concurrent processes such as structure modification (e.g. compaction) and agglomerate breakage or degradation."

Jan 1, 1989

By Richard A. Thomas, Michael J. Sapko, Gary L. Mowrey, William D. Monaghan, Michael A. Trevits

Over the years, more than 20,000 mine seals have been erected in underground coal mines in the United States. Seals are used extensively in underground mines to isolate worked-out areas, active mine fire zones, and to control water inundations. Seals are most often built directly in the mine and can be fabricated from blocks made of wood or cementitious material. Recently, several explosions occurred within sealed areas of underground U.S. coal mines. These explosions, believed to be initiated by lightning strikes on the surface, destroyed numerous seals and caused considerable damage external to the sealed area. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health is conducting research to develop design guidelines, to investigate noninvasive techniques to characterize seal strength properties, and to evaluate seal test methods. As part of this work, a 30-ft wide, 16.1-ft tall and 4-ft thick seal was built in an underground experimental mine using cement and foamed water. Two types of noninvasive techniques are currently being investigated, namely the Schmidt Hammer for measuring compressive strength and ground penetrating radar (GPR) for detecting the presence of anomalies (e.g., voids, discontinuities) within the seal. Once these noninvasive tests were completed, the seal was subjected to destructive explosion testing. This study presents the results of the Schmidt Hammer tests, GPR scans, and the characteristics of seal failure during explosion testing.

By Wilder H. Brinton

"INTRODUCTION The Queen Mary copper property is in sec. 18, T. 12 N., R. 16 W., in the Clinton mining district of Missoula County, Mont. It was examined by an engineer 3/ of the Bureau of Mines, November 21, 1943. Upon the basis of his recommendations, a small trenching and diamond-drilling program was begun November 11, 1944. One diamond-drill hole was completed December 16, -944, but because of frozen ground trenching was postponed until June 1945 and then completed. This report describes the results of exploration.ACKNOWLEDGMENTSIn its program of exploration of mineral deposits, the Bureau of Mines has as its primary objective the more effective utilization of our mineral resources to the end that they make the greatest possible contribution to national security and economy. It is the policy of the Bureau to publish the facts developed by each exploratory project as soon as practicable after its conclusion. The Mining Branch, Lowell B. Moon, chief, conducts preliminary examinations, performs the actual exploratory work, and prepares the final report. The Metallurgical Branch, R. G. Knickerbocker, chief, analyses samples and performs beneficiation tests. Both of these branthes are under the supervision of Dr. R. S. Dean, assistant director.The chemical analyses included in this report were made at Reno, Nev., under the direction of A.C. Rice, acting engineer in charge. Rare and Precious Metals Experiment Station, Bureau of Mines."

Nov 1, 1946