Search Documents

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

Jan 1, 1926

"Let us not think of our departed dead As caught and cumbered in these graves of earth; But think of death as of another birth, As a new Freedom for the wings outspread, A new adventure waiting on ahead, As a new joy of more ethereal mirth, As a new world with friends of nobler worth, Where all may taste a more immortal bread." FLOYD W. PARSONS N. CHRISTENSEN JOSEPH F. PETERS GEORGE B. PARKER ROBERT WILLIAMS B. F. DEVINNY

Jan 1, 1942

of our good friends and fellow members: William D. Brennan Charles Beuchat who left the world better for their having lived in it.

Jan 1, 1931

By Jim Freeman

After testing 30 fourth year mechanical trade school students with our final mechanical apprentice test, only one passed. ?Most western technical trade school students tested ?Test result average was 52% ?NMC graduating apprentice average is 78% (75% passing requirement) ?Our mechanical test has 200 questions; Electrical test 110 questions

Jan 1, 2010

By Grainne A. Matthews

Jan 1, 2008

By J. J. Forbes

Gentlemen : It is a pleasure to come to Glen- wood Springs to participate in this meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute an organization created to handle chiefly the economic questions dealing with the coal industry of the Rocky Mountain District. I am not unmindful of the many and varied problems confronting the mining industry of this country which is so general at the present time throughout the United States. By reason of the difficulties experienced in marketing the product of your mines, there is all the more reason for greater economy and efficiency in production. No industry can be efficiently operated without giving due consideration to the safety of the employees. Safety and efficiency are inseparable for the success of any industrial enterprise. While the Bituminous coal companies of the United States are doing splendid work in the promotion of safety, yet our fatality rate is exceedingly higher compared with that of foreign countries, and with greater cooperative organized effort on the part of mine owners, mine officials, mine workers, and state and federal governmental agencies having jurisdiction, much more substantial progress can be made in the future and a greater economic saving .to the industry effected, not taking into consideration the greatest and most important phase of safety, which is the conservation of life and health of all those who are engaged in the occupation of mining. You are concerned with freight rates, marketing of coal and similar operating problems. Yet have you earnestly considered the vital question that plays so important a part toward the success of any mill-

Jan 1, 1926

It was said that the coal operators are losing a great advantage in permitting the oil producers to take the domestic market away from them. Coal is so much less expensive and more economical than oil that even the oil producers themselves are burning coal under their stills. No longer is the housewife afraid of machinery. Not only does she operate an automobile, but in her home she is used to vacuum sweepers, washing machines, refrigerators, and multitudinous devices. She is no longer machine-shy. An electrically operated stoker, if properly introduced and guaranteed with only a fraction of the enthusiasm that the oil furnace salesman shows, would get a ready reception. Several devices now on the market are much less complicated, much less apt to get out of order, than the oil burners. In place of an increased cost for the sake of convenience, the stoker will give all this convenience at a decreased cost. So said Mr. Herres. He said, however, that it must be enclosed so that the working parts are not too much in evidence. MR. McAULIFFE: While it appears possible to adapt a continuous feed to the needs of the furnace in an apartment or a house burning thirty tons or more annually, it is not yet possible to get a furnace that would satisfy the home which burns only seven or eight tons in a season. A delegate described the Garrison stoker which is designed to care for this problem. Mr. Herres said that the Pacific Coal Company had a small stoker furnace more simple than the Harrington. Pulverized coal equipment is being adapted to use in apartment houses. The stoker designed by Lloyd Garrison, State Engineer of Utah, was described, and also one which Mr. G. W. Megeath of Omaha, Nebraska, had manufactured, which Mr. McAuliffe says, is recommended only for Rock Springs coal. It was brought out that there are over forty installations of the "Iran Fireman" in Salt Lake City. For apartment buildings, there is no question as to their satisfaction. Many of the down town office buildings are so heated.

Jan 1, 1925

By Charlie Monroe

Savage Company History ?C.A. Savage & Son was founded in American Fork, Utah in 1946 by Kenneth Savage and his father. ?Kenneth?s brothers, Neal and Luke joined the company soon after, and remain involved today. ?Since 1988, the company has focused on its strength, expertise in providing high-quality Operating Services & Logistics Management. ?Today, Savage provides comprehensive services in the following Industries: ?Crude Oil Refining ?Sulphur & Fertilizers ?Coal Production and Mining ?Electric Power Production ?Industrial/Chemical Services ?Lumber and Forest Products ?Railroads

Jan 1, 2005

PRESIDENT MARKS: We have a letter from Mr. Frank N. Cameron, of the Utah Fuel Company, that perhaps I had better read to you. It is addressed to Mr. Shubart, Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute (hands letter to Secretary Shubart). UTAH FUEL COMPANY MINE SUPERINTENDENT Castle Gate, Utah, February 9, 1926 Mr. F. N. Cameron, Vice-President & General Manager, Salt Lake City, Utah. Dear Sir: It has now been about nine months since we started the system of having the fire bosses take charge of all shooting and gas inspections at the Castle Gate Mines. We had considerable trouble when we started. Like all other new systems which have been installed, this one was hard to get started and was criticised both by the miners and officials in our own organization, as well as by other organizations in the mines of this county. The older the official and miner was the stronger they seemed to be opposed to the new method. They have no arguments to offer against it, but they know it is not right "because their grandfather did not work it in that way." We know that when some of the other systems were started in the mines of this county, they were fought from all angles. The electrical shooting almost brought the miners at Sunnyside out on strike; their main argument was that they could not make a living if they had to obey the rules that the company was trying to enforce. They also claimed that they could not make enough coal for the day's work by only shooting once at the end of the shift. The same applies to the sprinkling the miners claimed that they would all die of some disease if they were forced to work in a sloppy, wet mine every day. The mining machine was another thing that was hard to install the miners claimed that the company was trying to rob the Door miner out of a chance to make living by installing mining machines to cut the coal. I do not think that the system we have at our mines is perfect-there is still room for improvement in the shooting and inspection of the mines, but I do really think that for safety and efficiency, the inspection department at our mines, working under the new system, is as good if not better than any other inspection department working under the old method in the other mines. I am giving some of the arguments in favor of the new system and would like to hear the arguments against it-if there are any. In cutting the men from monthly to day wages, I do not think it is only the company that benefits by the arrangement, but the fireboss is the one that gets the best of it by the change. How often have we heard the fireboss complain of the hours he had to put in just because he was a monthly man? Under the new wage scale he is paid for every hour he puts in the mines, and when the mines are working every day he makes considerable more than when he was being paid a monthly salary. When the mines are working slow, there is generally some work that has to be done on idle days, or in slow times the force could be cut to a point where some of the work could be done on idle days, and thus the fireboss could be given the preference in this extra work and in this way, his wage could be kept up to the standard monthly salary he was getting before. Under this arrange-

Jan 1, 1926

it may be clearly seen that one of the most rapidly increasing items in mining operations is the cost of the timber alone, to say nothing of the cost of installation. Consequently, any practical means that may be used to lengthen the life of mine timber will greatly tend to decrease mining costs and result in important economies in operation. The four principal agents by which mine timbers are destroyed are, decay, insect attack, fire and mechanical abrasion. Decay and insect attack are credited with more than 50 per cent of the total amount of timber destroyed in the mines. Numerous methods may be used to conserve mine timbers, such as better selection, preparation, storage and segregation. It frequently happens that good timber goes into places where poor timber would do as well, and timber of inferior quality is sent into places where only the best grade should be used. However, the most effective method of conservation is by treatment with some standard preservative to prevent decay. Some of. the benefits to be noted from the use of preserved timbers are; the reduction in operating costs by decrease in timber purchases; cuts down interference with mining operations due to timber failures on main haulageways; prevents excessive falling of roof in entries by maintaining timber in sound condition; conserves timber supplies and makes possible the utilization of inferior woods; reduces the danger of mine accidents; improves mine ventilation; lessens fire hazard. Our experience thus far with preservatives, while not of a sufficient period of time to establish just what length of life we may obtain from timber so treated, results obtained during the past four years indicate that the intelligent use of preservatives will effect sufficient economies in mine timber costs to justify the expenditures made for this purpose. MR. BAKER (Concluding): Now, if there are any questions you gentlemen would like to ask about our particular operations, I will attempt to answer them. J. H. EMRICK (Sullivan Machinery Company, Denver, Colo.) ; I was wondering how much penetration you get. MR. BAKER: We get between one-sixteenth and one-eighth of an inch; it is a dipping process. With pressure treatment you get-a greater absorption; that is, better than one-sixteenth of an inch. As long as there is no mechanical abrasion, it seems to serve the purpose. MR. EMRICK: Does that apply to the condition of the timber before it is treated? If it is perfectly dry, will it absorb more treatment than if it is partly green? MR. BAKER: Certainly; one of the things we do is to have it thoroughly seasoned before it is put into the preservative. We put some green timber into the mine once, and the fungus went after it right away. MR. EMRICK: What was the difference in the depth reached by the preservative? MR. BAKER: It hardly penetrated at all when it was green. It has to be sound and well seasoned. MR. EMRICK: How long was the timber dipped or treated? MR. BAKER: According to the seasoning. If it was well seasoned, it was left in the hot bath for an hour; if not so well seasoned, it was left for about a couple of hours. C. M. BILLINGTON (General Superintendent, Rocky Mountain Fuel Company, Lafayette, Colo.): Have you found it necessary to treat timber that has been charred? MR. BAKER: No. However, I suppose it has the sane effect; in lots of places they char timber for the purpose of treatment. MR. BILLINGTON: Have you ever tried lime and salt? MR. BAKER: No, this is the only thing we have tried, the creosote and the Aczol; the Aczol is a foreign product. WM. LITTLEJOHN: Which I is preferable, the Aczol or the creosote? MR. BAKER: I couldn't say as to that. MR. LITTLEJOHN: Have you had any tests as to the value of either? MR. BAKER: We have had some of the Aczol timbers in service for a little over four years; we have had some creosote timbers in service

Jan 1, 1926

Profiled below are the eight RMCMI 1999 Scholarship Award winners. Seven of the eight attended the 95th Regular Meeting and convention at Crested Butte, Colorado in late June. Each spoke during the Scholarship Awards Monday luncheon and shared their goals with attendees. In addition to receiving a $1,500 tuition credit, thanks to the Patrons of the Institute annual funding of scholarships, each received recognition at the luncheon with a brass plaque signifying this honor. The winners are guests of the Institute Sunday through Tuesday and have an incredible opportunity to meet many in the coal industry who could be potential employers. The state vice presidents host the winners and pay for their travel and hotel expenses. This is a continuing scholarship and may be renewed for tuition credit again in the senior year if they remain a full time student and if recommended by the dean of their college or university. A resident from each of the eight member RMCMI states is selected by the Scholarship committee from Board approved institutions. Criteria for these annual awards is that the recipient (1) is a full time sophomore student who will use the tuition credit the junior year. (2) Be both a U. S. citizen and a legal resident of the member stare. (3) Maintain good academic standing, be pursuing a degree in a mining related field and have an expressed interest in western coal as a possible career path. Contributions to this worthwhile project are tax deductible to each individual RMCMI member or his company. Through donations of $100 or more to the Patrons of the Institute, each Patron receives a plaque and a year bar for each additional year contributions are made. These may be directed to RMCMI Patrons, 3000 Youngfield Street, #324, Lakewood, CO 80215-6553. [ ] ARIZONA WINNER Jennifer Jannusch University of Arizona Jennifer is the daughter of Peggy and Larry Jannusch of Phoenix. She graduated from Shadow Mountain High School in the top 15% of her class. She has been on the Dean's List and won the National Collegiate Engineering Award. Jennifer belongs to the Association of Engineering Geologists, SME, Best Buddies, and enjoys running, painting and languages. [ ] COLORADO WINNER Alan S. Maste¬rs Colorado School of ties Alan is the son of Lee and Ellen Masters of Lakewood, Colorado. He graduated from Lakewood High School and has been on the Dean's List at CSM. He resides with his wife, Karen, and children Morgan, Nicole and Scott. Spending twelve years as a mechanic and semi-truck driver, Alan decided to return to school to pursue an engineering degree. Having maintained a 4.0 G.P.A. at Arapahoe Community College, he was accepted at CSM where he continues to excel. He firmly believes that the future of our country will be enhanced by our ability to utilize our natural resources. Alan enjoys time with his family, fishing, water skiing, bowling and reading Tom Clancy or John Grisham novels.

Jan 1, 1999

By P. F. Patterson

It is a well established fact that 60 per cent of all accidents in coal mines occur from falls of roof and coal at or in the proximity of the working face. Notwithstanding that this is well known, and has been frequently discussed by mining men, this seems to be the irreducible minimum. It is even said by those in a position to know that the percentage stated is increasing. With this, information before us it would seem that not enough attention is being given to close supervision at the working face, and until this is done we may expect to continue experiencing an increase in the accidents in this area. No workman generally feels that it is more important to finish loading a car of coal than to set a timber for protection, and many accidents happen from this source, not from a lack of knowledge of the dangerous conditions existing, but negligence in taking remedies necessary to remove the danger. It is true that nearly all state laws require the mine foreman or his assistant to visit each working face every day, but with the constantly changing conditions on account of the advance of the working faces, these daily visits may be entirely inadequate to discover possible dangers and prevent accidents. The obvious remedy then is closer and more systematic inspection and supervision of the working faces. Many accidents are caused in mines on account of not enough clearance between the rib and track or between timber and track. On all main haulage ways. there should be a space of at least 30 inches between the rib and track, or timber and track, and on all rooms not less than two feet should be left between the track and upright timbers.. A great deal has been said and written with regard to systematic timbering. We doubt very much the feasibility of adopting any standard of timbering that would be suitable for all roof conditions, and any such system in our opinion would not tend to cause a decrease in the number of accidents. The proper place to put up a prop, regardless of whether it conforms to any established system, is under a piece of loose roof. No habit is becoming more prevalent among miners and other mine workers than wearing gloves, principally flimsy canvas gloves, which afford no protection to the wearers and are the direct cause of many hand injuries. If gloves must be worn, and no doubt they will be as the habit has become well established, then they should be made from some heavy material and should fit the hands fairly snug.

Jan 1, 1923

By C. E. Drennan

Your Chairman and the Program Committee have limited the time allotted to me, and so, with your permission, I will omit the preliminaries, and wade right into my subject. I believe I am safe in taking for granted that you are all agreed that electricity is the most feasible means of transmitting the power used in coal mining. If you are not, then the papers read before the Association in previous years have failed of their object. If you are so convinced, the only question is as to the choice between alternating and direct current, and the voltage. Fundamentally, this is primarily a matter of dollars and cents. With the sole exception of your trolley locomotives, there is no part of your equipment that cannot be operated as well on alternating as on direct current. With your pay rolls at their present high level and the efficiency of the labor you employ at the stage it now occupies, I believe you will agree, first, that everything possible must be done to increase the tons of coal produced per man employed; and, second, that ample power at all times must be available at every machine so that every one of your men can really get out a day's work without any avoidable delay. Speaking Electrically, all this means is a machine instead of a man wherever it is possible for a machine to do a man's work, and full voltage at the machine always, so that there can be no excuse for the work not being done promptly and efficiently-and dependably. The real reason for the selection of one kind of current or the other can best be understood by considering the formula which determines the size of wire required for transmitting electrical energy. The size of the copper required, and, consequently; its weight and cost, depends upon four factors: 1. The amount of energy or power to be transmitted. 2. The distance to be covered. 3. The percentage of loss allowed. 4. The voltage at the receiving end of the line. These factors enter into the problem to different extents, and, briefly, the size of wire depends directly upon the amount of power and the distance transmitted, and inversely upon the percentage of loss allowed and the square of the voltage. From this it will be seen that, with the amount of power and the distance fixed, if the loss is to be cut in two, the wire must be doubled with a given voltage, while if the loss remains constant and the voltage is doubled, the wire may be cut in four; that is, reduced 75 per cent in weight and cost. Now, standard motors are designed and recommended by their builders to run within a range of 10 per cent under voltage to 10 per cent above voltage - 440-volt motor, then, should preferably not be operated on less than 400 volts

Jan 1, 1923

By Parley Potter

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

Jan 1, 1921

By K. L. Marshall

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

Jan 1, 1924

MR. HARRINGTON: I would like to ask Mr. Bottomley if they fire their shots while the men are in the mine? MR. BOTTOMLEY: No sir; the shot-firing law in our State requires the shots to be fired after the men are out of the mine. We fire more shots than we did under the hand method of loading. Where formerly four holes were drilled, now we drill eight, using the same amount of powder as we did formerly, perhaps a little more, but we use a slower grade of powder. CHAIRMAN LITTLEJOHN: Any further discussion, gentlemen? MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Bottomley, if, in his shot-firing system, as I understand it, he has a very high coal and is working something like eleven feet? MR. BOTTOMLEY: Something like that. MR. GIBSON: I read the article that you referred to. Did you use both the first and the second delay explo¬ders in shooting the coal? MR. BOTTOMLEY: We use the ordinary fuse. MR. GIBSON: That is what I wanted to find out; whether you use the delay exploders and the detonators. In Utah, we are getting away from the fuse altogether, because we do not think it is accomplishing anything to use the electric light on the cap, and' at the same time shooting with fuse. We are defeating the object we might gain in using the electric safety lamp. That is a point that might be discussed a little further. MR. E. H. JOHNSON, The Coloder Company: I would like-since it is a general opinion that mechanical loading breaks up the coal, to ask Mr. Bottomley, if he finds a larger percentage of small coal, or how much, through the use of the mechanical loaders? MR. BOTTOMLEY: We do not find any great difference. In fact, we have succeeded in improving our lump coal percentage, and that is important, because it is largely domestic. At first, when the machines were installed, the boys shot the coal too hard, and we fell down a little, about two or three per cent, the first month, in our lump percentage, and we tightened up a little and changed our methods in shooting and got on to the stunt of drilling more holes and getting a slower grade of powder. We could not load as much coal in one day as we could before, but we did succeed in in. creasing our lump coal percentage four and a half per cent over the hand method, and that is quite a factor-quite an important factor and since our domestic trade is over with, we loosened up on the shooting and we are running about the same as we did with the hand loading, maybe a half per cent more, or one per cent, but pretty much the same. MR. SHUBART: Your coal is very high? MR. BOTTOMLEY: Yes. MR. SHUBART: Have you tried sunbbing the coal before shooting? MR. BOTTOMLEY: No, we have not tried that. It is very hard coal to shoot; we have no defined cleavage in our coal. It is the worst coal I ever saw to shoot. We do not try to snub it. Formerly, as I said, the miners drilled four holes, pretty well up near the top, and then four holes down, within about three feet of the bottom. It is the same thing as a snub shot, and that we find is the best method for shooting the coal. We have not tried any mechanical device for snubbing as yet. SECRETARY SHUBART: At one mine I saw snubbing tried with a Jeffrey undercutter with a seven-foot Jeffrey bar. This mine, by the way, is very similar to Mr. Bottomley's condition. They have very high coal, so the snub cut is a small percentage. They cut a seven foot undercut and raise the machine on an eight inch tie and undercut five feet to give the effect of a snub cut, 14 inches at the front of the cut, and then six inches at the back of the cut. They made a very marked increase in lump. (The bug dust would be a small percentage of the total coal), and they increased the percentage of the slack at the same time. They found a decrease by reason of the easier shooting of about 15 per cent in their slack. In other words their nut and lump coal ran considerably higher and their slack decreased 5 per cent with the snubbing cut. Mr. Bottomley, I believe, understands those conditions.

Jan 1, 1926

By C. A. Allen

In presenting a summary of the uses of fine and pulverized coal the writer has borne in mind that we are not trying to determine what a combustion engineer should know but we are only trying to find out in what ways the consumption of slack can be stimulated. First discussing the use of powdered coal it can be stated that it has passed the first experimental stage but is still capable of much development and improvement. It has already found successful application in stationary and locomotive boilers, cement kilns, calcining furnaces, reverberatory smelting furnaces and many other types of furnaces, such as open hearth furnaces and annealing furnaces. For stationary boilers it seems to have been thoroughly demonstrated that powdered coal is more efficient than stoker installations. Over-all efficiences of boiler and furnace in stoker installations of the best type run from 70 to 76 per cent; whereas the efficiency of powdered coal installations averages slightly over 80 per cent. However, due to the increased cost of pulverized coal, the increased efficiency of these installations over stokers, from a money stand-point, will not be more than 1 or 2 per cent. The fusing of the ash in pulverized coal installations has given some trouble but apparently is easily overcome, on the other hand the fine ash, which is carried along with the draft, causes trouble both in the boiler and by settling on surrounding buildings or ground. Offsetting the disadvantages the great advantages of pulverized coal for stationary boilers seem to be: First-the ease with which a change in the load on the boiler can be taken care of. Second-when a boiler is cut out for a short period the "stand-by" losses are much less and, Third-a much poorer grade of fuel can be used. In many cases where pulverized coal has been used it has replaced slack coal which is of little advantage to the coal operator. However,, in other places it has replaced gas or oil and this is where the coal man is interested. Pulverized coal has the same advantages as the liquid or gas fuel but the question as to which is preferable depends on their relative cost at the point of use. In small stationary boilers where stokers are not used, very frequently the larger sizes of coal are, and it would be an advantage to the coal industry for them to be converted so as to burn pulverized coal, but so far there are only records of a few of such small installations having been a success and there is apparently room for a large amount of experimentation. In furnaces, such as smelting and assaying furnaces, annealing furnaces, etc., slack coal is not used and where pulverized coal has been installed it nearly always replaces fuel oil or gas. Just how much increased consumtion of coal can be made by pulverizing it for use in furnaces of this type can not be determined but it seems worthy of investigation. For locomotive boilers pulverized coal has found some application up to date but where it was being used in the United States it was stopped when we entered the war. In Brazil, however, the Central Railway has been using pulverized coal for locomotives with excellent results. If it could be possible to apply it to locomotive use where fuel oil is now used, or the larger sizes of coal, it would certainly make a big difference in the slack situation. Now as to the uses of slack coal without pulverizing. The writer's investigations lead him to believe that the greatest opportunities in this direction are in the line of increasing its use by apartment houses and small home owners. In fact in looking into the subject I found that a number of men in Salt Lake City are using run of mine coal in the usual type of house furnaces, some of them by separating the fines and wetting them down before feeding to the furnace claim they get no loss whatever through the grate. However, for best results with fine coal different types of furnaces must be installed and for apartment houses it would seem necessary to have either a small automatic stoker or else spray the fine coal in with an air blast from

Jan 1, 1922

By Vincent R. Bovino

The future of coal mining is bright - only if we realize and then manage as though we are competing in the world marketplace. Accept it or not, our market is global. We tend to think our problems are caused by the uncontrolled foreign production of coal, and the uncontrolled drop in coal prices. I submit that our problem is not the world pricing structure - part of our problem is our on-site cost structure - our productivity. We are the world's best at getting out the tons - that is, production. Most mine managers thrive on that. What is in serious doubt is our productivity - our ability to produce tons of coal in a cost effective manner. Please think about the difference: ? Production is tons of coal. ? Producitivity is decreasing the cost per ton of coal. Our future is bright, only if we can increase our productivity by trying different and new ways to manage our businesses and our people. Unlike the easy successes during the 60's and 70's, success in the decades ahead will depend on our ability to achieve greater levels of productivity. If mining and other old line smoke stack industries are experiencing difficult times in 1986, three years into an economic recovery, what will happen when the economy cycles downward? Any operation can achieve unlimited productivity by developing the resources within their employees. As an industry, we have harvested the

Jan 1, 1986

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