Search Documents

By R. F. Stilwell

There are three things that all coal consumers look for when they burn coal: (1) suitability for their particular requirements and burning equipment, (2) uniformity of shipments, and (3) quality as expressed by heating value and other chemical and physical tests. Suitability, or proper application, is determined generally from previous buying experience. It is a function of (1) the reliability and integrity of the shipper and distributor, (2) of a certain coal field or seam and of (3) uniformity and quality. Quality is limited by the location and geology of the seam and mine, the mining and preparation methods and equipment and the knowledge and ability of the personnel. Uniformity of shipments is in many ways the most important factor in coal selection. Lack of uniformity in chemical quality, size consist and treatment cause most of the customer complaints that arise from faults of the coal shipper. Lack of uniformity destroys suitability and quality standards, causing a large customer turnover, and greatly increases sales expense and reduces the net return to the operator. Oil and gas fuels are more uniform in quality than solid fuels, and there will be more gas and oil competition for coal markets after this war than before, because the size of their market is a direct function of the dimensions of their pipe lines, which have been greatly increased during the war. Present mechanical coal-cleaning equipment based upon gravity concentration has gone a long way toward giving us a coal of uniform ash content. The chart in Fig. I, by Hebley,1 shows the greater uniformity of the ash content of washed coal as compared with that of raw coal. Wide variation in the nature and amount of ash in the coal feed to the washer leads to a coal of non-uniform ash content. Mechanica1 cleaning equipment does not understand such terms as ash-softening temperature, coking properties, size consist and sulphur content. Unless the feed to the washer is uniform, the washed coal probably will not be uniform. Table I shows the ash, sulphur and ash-softening temperature of two mines in the Pittsburgh bed, both raw and washed, loaded over the same tipple; also No. 3 and No. 4 Pocahontas seams, both raw and washed, loaded from the same preparation plant. It is obvious that they must be blended or loaded separately if a uniform product is to be obtained. Why Is Blending Necessary? It was natural for the operators of captive mines producing by-product coals to recognize the necessity for blending raw coals of different quality and coking characteristics. They have had many years of experience with blending high, low and medium volatile coals at their oven plants. They have found that careful blending gives a coke of more uniform quality and better structure. Coals that could not be

Jan 1, 1947

By W. L. Dennen, V. H. Wilson

This paper is a description of the opera-tion and results of a Humphreys Spiral Silt Cleaning Plant at the Powderly Colliery 01 The Hudson Coal Co. during the first nine months of operation and follows a preliminary description given at the .Institute cite Institute in May, 1947, in a paper titled "Preparation of Anthracite Silt for Boiler Fuel in a Humphreys Spiral Test Plant" by H. H. Otto, V. H. Wilson and W. L. Dennen. This plant is considered a full size op-erating test plant and, like all new plants, numerous minor changes in the methods of operation have been made from time to time to secure the results desired. Views of the silt preparation plant and of the screening house are given in Fig I and 2. This plant consists of 48 spirals in 8 batteries of 6 spirals each, 36 of which were to be operated as primary spirals and the remaining 12 as secondary spirals. A brief description of the plant and its operation follows. The only material cleaned at the plant during 1947 was that carried in the underflow from the Thickener which han-dles the Breaker waste water. This under-flow, amounting to approximately 2000 gpm of water and containing 12.6 pct of solids, is pumped to vibrating screens where the plus 3/16-in. material is removed. (Fig 3). This oversize material drops into a pocket from which it is trucked to the run-of-mine tipple for re-preparation.

Jan 1, 1949

By Corliss R. Kinney

Since the first atomic bomb exploded over Japan, a great deal of speculation has been published about the use of atomic energy instead of coal for the production of power. Atomic energy, in time, may displace coal for this purpose, but atomic energy will not displace coal in supplying chemical raw materials to the rapidly expanding carbon-chemicals market. Modern civilization demands large quantities of carbon compounds and the logical source of many of these is coal. Consequently, many progressive operators are considering the possibilities of the utilization of coal as a chemical raw material as never before. Furthermore, the demand for clean, smokeless, and ashless fuels will continue to increase and the only way to handle coal under those conditions is to take it apart, just as crude petroleum is taken apart. One can readily imagine where the petroleum industry would be now if it had insisted on selling customers only crude oil, perhaps emulsified with a little salt water to correspond to the moisture and mineral matter in raw coal. The time seems to be coming at an accelerated Dace when mine operators will find that competing for a highly selective fuel market by producing a larger tonnage at smaller cost will be less profitable than to increase the value of a smaller tonnage many fold by producing something more valuable to industry and civilization than raw coal. For example, about 750,000 tons of carbon black selling for $50 to $60 per ton was produced in the United States in 1945. This tonnage is insignificant compared with the total production of coal in the United States, but a very tidy tonnage, together with the coal necessary to operate the process, for any mine operator fortunate enough to obtain a method of producing a better carbon black from coal. From the point of view of tonnage, the manufacture of coke of various kinds and its by-products is at present the most important source of carbon chemicals from coal. Nearly 20 per cent of the coal mined in this country is used for this purpose. A large proportion of the coke is used for the production of iron and steel, but even in this operation a considerable part of the coke is used for a chemical purpose; that is, the reduction of the ore to metallic iron. In addition, large quantities of coke are used in manufacturing many important products that find their way into the market. Possibilities of Acetylene One of the important chemicals manufactured from coke is calcium carbide, from which many products are made. One of these is acetylene. This hydrocarbon can also be manufactured from natural gas or from waste oil-refinery gas and these industries will probably offer competition for the manufacture of acetylene. Coke-oven gas can be used for making acetylene and should receive consideration

Jan 1, 1947

By Corliss R. Kinney

Since the first atomic bomb exploded over Japan, a great deal of speculation has been published about the use of atomic energy instead of coal for the production of power. Atomic energy, in time, may displace coal for this purpose, but atomic energy will not displace coal in supplying chemical raw materials to the rapidly expanding carbon-chemicals market. Modern civilization demands large quantities of carbon compounds and the logical source of many of these is coal. Consequently, many progressive operators are considering the possibilities of the utilization of coal as a chemical raw material as never before. Furthermore, the demand for clean, smokeless, and ashless fuels will continue to increase and the only way to handle coal under those conditions is to take it apart, just as crude petroleum is taken apart. One can readily imagine where the petroleum industry would be now if it had insisted on selling customers only crude oil, perhaps emulsified with a little salt water to correspond to the moisture and mineral matter in raw coal. The time seems to be coming at an accelerated Dace when mine operators will find that competing for a highly selective fuel market by producing a larger tonnage at smaller cost will be less profitable than to increase the value of a smaller tonnage many fold by producing something more valuable to industry and civilization than raw coal. For example, about 750,000 tons of carbon black selling for $50 to $60 per ton was produced in the United States in 1945. This tonnage is insignificant compared with the total production of coal in the United States, but a very tidy tonnage, together with the coal necessary to operate the process, for any mine operator fortunate enough to obtain a method of producing a better carbon black from coal. From the point of view of tonnage, the manufacture of coke of various kinds and its by-products is at present the most important source of carbon chemicals from coal. Nearly 20 per cent of the coal mined in this country is used for this purpose. A large proportion of the coke is used for the production of iron and steel, but even in this operation a considerable part of the coke is used for a chemical purpose; that is, the reduction of the ore to metallic iron. In addition, large quantities of coke are used in manufacturing many important products that find their way into the market. Possibilities of Acetylene One of the important chemicals manufactured from coke is calcium carbide, from which many products are made. One of these is acetylene. This hydrocarbon can also be manufactured from natural gas or from waste oil-refinery gas and these industries will probably offer competition for the manufacture of acetylene. Coke-oven gas can be used for making acetylene and should receive consideration

Jan 1, 1947

By John I. Yellott

Since the days of Newcomen and Watt, when men first sought to turn the energy of fuels to useful purposes, coal-generated steam has supplied most of the power needed for both stationary and mobile applications. The low efficiency and large water requirements of the nineteenth century steam-power plant caused many engineers to turn their thoughts toward more direct means of converting heat into power. As far back as 1791, John Barber secured an English patent on a combination' which he might well have called a "gas turbine." He proposed to generate producer gas from coal or charcoal, to burn it under pressure in air obtained from a reciprocating compressor, and to drive a turbine wheel with the resultant hot combustion products. With the optimism characteristic of the inventor, he hoped that the turbine would not only operate his compressor but also perform useful work. There is no record that Barber ever built his machine, but if he had done so he would have learned that useful power can result from such a combination only when both turbine and compressor are highly efficient and when the temperature of the gas entering the turbine is not far below 1000°F. Hot-air prime movers continued to attract attention, and both Stirling in England and Ericsson in America2 built reciprocating engines that operated with some success upon coal-heated air. The internal-combustion engine, burning liquid fuels, supplanted the hot-air type, and, for the first time, challenged the supremacy of both the steam cycle and its familiar fuel, coal. Liquid Fuels Compete with Coal As the increasing use of the automobile multiplied the demand for gasoline, the supply of residual fuel increased rapidly, and heavy oil declined in price to the point where it became competitive with coal. First in the marine field and later in stationary plants in areas adjacent to refineries, oil began to be widely used. Oil's greater convenience and higher heating value per pound of weight or per cubic foot of bunker space have caused it to take over much of the marine field. The introduction of the highly efficient diesel engine, capable of burning a fuel that is cheaper than gasoline, again threatened the position of coal, for the operating costs of the diesel became directly competitive with those of coal-burning equipment. In isolated power plants and smaller marine installations, the diesel provided the medium by which oil again successfully invaded fields formerly dominated by coal. The diesel engine, provided with an electrical transmission, found an excellent application in railroad service. The high availability of diesel-electric locomotives, resulting in part from freedom from water

Jan 1, 1947

By John I. Yellott

Since the days of Newcomen and Watt, when men first sought to turn the energy of fuels to useful purposes, coal-generated steam has supplied most of the power needed for both stationary and mobile applications. The low efficiency and large water requirements of the nineteenth century steam-power plant caused many engineers to turn their thoughts toward more direct means of converting heat into power. As far back as 1791, John Barber secured an English patent on a combination' which he might well have called a "gas turbine." He proposed to generate producer gas from coal or charcoal, to burn it under pressure in air obtained from a reciprocating compressor, and to drive a turbine wheel with the resultant hot combustion products. With the optimism characteristic of the inventor, he hoped that the turbine would not only operate his compressor but also perform useful work. There is no record that Barber ever built his machine, but if he had done so he would have learned that useful power can result from such a combination only when both turbine and compressor are highly efficient and when the temperature of the gas entering the turbine is not far below 1000°F. Hot-air prime movers continued to attract attention, and both Stirling in England and Ericsson in America2 built reciprocating engines that operated with some success upon coal-heated air. The internal-combustion engine, burning liquid fuels, supplanted the hot-air type, and, for the first time, challenged the supremacy of both the steam cycle and its familiar fuel, coal. Liquid Fuels Compete with Coal As the increasing use of the automobile multiplied the demand for gasoline, the supply of residual fuel increased rapidly, and heavy oil declined in price to the point where it became competitive with coal. First in the marine field and later in stationary plants in areas adjacent to refineries, oil began to be widely used. Oil's greater convenience and higher heating value per pound of weight or per cubic foot of bunker space have caused it to take over much of the marine field. The introduction of the highly efficient diesel engine, capable of burning a fuel that is cheaper than gasoline, again threatened the position of coal, for the operating costs of the diesel became directly competitive with those of coal-burning equipment. In isolated power plants and smaller marine installations, the diesel provided the medium by which oil again successfully invaded fields formerly dominated by coal. The diesel engine, provided with an electrical transmission, found an excellent application in railroad service. The high availability of diesel-electric locomotives, resulting in part from freedom from water

Jan 1, 1947

By L. A. Shipman

The combustion of coal in fuel beds has been practiced as an art for many years; during the last 2 7 years a scientific approach to this subject has contributed a small amount of fundamental data. The subject is a very controversial one. Opinions regarding the performance of the same coal used in the same equipment in different plants may vary from "the best coal ever used in the plant" to "the worst coal ever tired." These opinions can all be true, owing to the various conditions under which the coal was used. Because of these differences, an attempt will be made in this paper to discuss coal facts and coal characteristics as related to the use phenomena observed during the art of firing coal in fuel beds for many years. The work of Kreisinger1 and his associates in the 1,'. S. Bureau of Mines, reported in 1916, was the first scientific attempt I know of to obtain factual data explaining the mechanism of combustion of fuel beds. They gave a chart showing an ignited fuel bed. The air passing up through the fuel bed first combined with the fuel by a reaction resulting in the complete combustion of carbon to CO2, which combined with the carbon in higher levels of the fuel bed to form CO with the absorption of heat. The fundamental facts produced in those experiments proved of much value and checked with practical experiences with hand-fired fuel beds. Hand firing was the prevailing method of stoking coal at that time. The order in which these reactions occur, as shown by Kreisinger and his associates, has been amply confirmed by repetition of this work with different fuels both her? and abroad. These experiments also showed that under their conditions the rate of burning was proportional to the air flow. These data were of practical value to a fireman and were accepted as generally true in all fuel beds. In later years many observations by myself in fuel beds of underfeed stokers and other thick fuel beds such as gas producers, where channeling. increase of particle size, or both, occur. indicated that, instead of the horizontal layers we had thought were present, perhaps the layers were vertical or irregular. Later investigations in fuel beds made by Mayers2 and Barnes3 indicated that the burning takes place in some instances along the surfaces of vertical or irregular channels or cracks in the fuel bed and that under these conditions a reaction occurs that differs from that in the old horizontal-layered handfired fuel beds. Examining the data in Kreisinger'sl experiments, and the information in different charts with different fuels, different retort positions and air admissions of Barnes3 and the gas analysis arid isotherms of Mayers,2 one can check experience observation and come to a conclusion that as particle size of the fuel increases with other conditions the same, the maximum CO2 and temperature

Jan 1, 1947

By L. A. Shipman

The combustion of coal in fuel beds has been practiced as an art for many years; during the last 2 7 years a scientific approach to this subject has contributed a small amount of fundamental data. The subject is a very controversial one. Opinions regarding the performance of the same coal used in the same equipment in different plants may vary from "the best coal ever used in the plant" to "the worst coal ever tired." These opinions can all be true, owing to the various conditions under which the coal was used. Because of these differences, an attempt will be made in this paper to discuss coal facts and coal characteristics as related to the use phenomena observed during the art of firing coal in fuel beds for many years. The work of Kreisinger1 and his associates in the 1,'. S. Bureau of Mines, reported in 1916, was the first scientific attempt I know of to obtain factual data explaining the mechanism of combustion of fuel beds. They gave a chart showing an ignited fuel bed. The air passing up through the fuel bed first combined with the fuel by a reaction resulting in the complete combustion of carbon to CO2, which combined with the carbon in higher levels of the fuel bed to form CO with the absorption of heat. The fundamental facts produced in those experiments proved of much value and checked with practical experiences with hand-fired fuel beds. Hand firing was the prevailing method of stoking coal at that time. The order in which these reactions occur, as shown by Kreisinger and his associates, has been amply confirmed by repetition of this work with different fuels both her? and abroad. These experiments also showed that under their conditions the rate of burning was proportional to the air flow. These data were of practical value to a fireman and were accepted as generally true in all fuel beds. In later years many observations by myself in fuel beds of underfeed stokers and other thick fuel beds such as gas producers, where channeling. increase of particle size, or both, occur. indicated that, instead of the horizontal layers we had thought were present, perhaps the layers were vertical or irregular. Later investigations in fuel beds made by Mayers2 and Barnes3 indicated that the burning takes place in some instances along the surfaces of vertical or irregular channels or cracks in the fuel bed and that under these conditions a reaction occurs that differs from that in the old horizontal-layered handfired fuel beds. Examining the data in Kreisinger'sl experiments, and the information in different charts with different fuels, different retort positions and air admissions of Barnes3 and the gas analysis arid isotherms of Mayers,2 one can check experience observation and come to a conclusion that as particle size of the fuel increases with other conditions the same, the maximum CO2 and temperature

Jan 1, 1947

By Thomas Fraser, H. F. Yancey

Prior to the war just ended, Germany was the greatest coal producer in continental Europe. In 1943 the production of coal, bituminous and higher in rank, together with brown coal calculated to the equivalent amount of bituminous coal, is estimated to have been about 240 million metric tons, according to the War Department. Before the war production in Germany exceeded consumption. No other country in continental Europe except Poland had a large surplus. However, England's surplus was the largest in Europe as a whole. Before World War II the Ruhr Basin normally supplied about 70 pet of the total production of high-rank coal, the Saar and Aachen about 6 pet each, Upper Silesia about 14 pet, and Silesia and Saxony the remainder. Nearly one third of the brown coal was produced in the Rhineland, a little less than one half in central Germany nest of the Elbe River, and about one fourth east of the Elbe. Bituminous coal and brown coal together constituted by far the most important energy resources of the old German Reich. Bituminous coal furnished nearly 70 pet of the total energy requirement, brown coal supplied about 25 pet, and water power, wood, petroleum and alcohol together aggregated only 7 pet. Because it was the most important single mineral resource of Germany, an excess of coal enabled the Reich to import nearly all the other mineral products that she lacked, such as iron ore from Lorraine. The area adjacent to the coal fields was supplied with gas from an interconnected grid. Similar electric grids are based on brown coal with the power stations at the mines. Coal tar provided the foundation for the development of the extensive German chemical industries as exemplified by the I. G. Farbenindustrie. For almost a century, German scientists have been adequately supported both by the State and by industry in studying improved methods of utilizing coal. In Germany the mineral rights were reserved by the State and ordered eatraction of coal was enforced. Each lease comprised a relatively extensive area. which accounts for the generally large size of the mines and mining companies In 1938 there were 160 mines in the Ruhr, with a total output of 125 million tons but 90 pet of the production was controlled by 20 companies. By far the largest single coal-mining company in Germany was the Gelsen-kirchener Bergwerke A. G., which produced nearly 27 million tons in the Ruhr in 1937. Second was Saargruben A. G. a State-owned company operating in the Saar, which produced 'lore than '3 million tons. Third was Bergwerksgesellschaft Hibernia A. G., with 10 million tons, also in the Ruhr. Briquettes are made from both bitumillous coal and brown coal, but in 1938 some 44 million toils of brown-coal bri-

Jan 1, 1947

By Thomas Fraser, H. F. Yancey

Prior to the war just ended, Germany was the greatest coal producer in continental Europe. In 1943 the production of coal, bituminous and higher in rank, together with brown coal calculated to the equivalent amount of bituminous coal, is estimated to have been about 240 million metric tons, according to the War Department. Before the war production in Germany exceeded consumption. No other country in continental Europe except Poland had a large surplus. However, England's surplus was the largest in Europe as a whole. Before World War II the Ruhr Basin normally supplied about 70 pet of the total production of high-rank coal, the Saar and Aachen about 6 pet each, Upper Silesia about 14 pet, and Silesia and Saxony the remainder. Nearly one third of the brown coal was produced in the Rhineland, a little less than one half in central Germany nest of the Elbe River, and about one fourth east of the Elbe. Bituminous coal and brown coal together constituted by far the most important energy resources of the old German Reich. Bituminous coal furnished nearly 70 pet of the total energy requirement, brown coal supplied about 25 pet, and water power, wood, petroleum and alcohol together aggregated only 7 pet. Because it was the most important single mineral resource of Germany, an excess of coal enabled the Reich to import nearly all the other mineral products that she lacked, such as iron ore from Lorraine. The area adjacent to the coal fields was supplied with gas from an interconnected grid. Similar electric grids are based on brown coal with the power stations at the mines. Coal tar provided the foundation for the development of the extensive German chemical industries as exemplified by the I. G. Farbenindustrie. For almost a century, German scientists have been adequately supported both by the State and by industry in studying improved methods of utilizing coal. In Germany the mineral rights were reserved by the State and ordered eatraction of coal was enforced. Each lease comprised a relatively extensive area. which accounts for the generally large size of the mines and mining companies In 1938 there were 160 mines in the Ruhr, with a total output of 125 million tons but 90 pet of the production was controlled by 20 companies. By far the largest single coal-mining company in Germany was the Gelsen-kirchener Bergwerke A. G., which produced nearly 27 million tons in the Ruhr in 1937. Second was Saargruben A. G. a State-owned company operating in the Saar, which produced 'lore than '3 million tons. Third was Bergwerksgesellschaft Hibernia A. G., with 10 million tons, also in the Ruhr. Briquettes are made from both bitumillous coal and brown coal, but in 1938 some 44 million toils of brown-coal bri-

Jan 1, 1947

By M. K. Geer, H. F. Yancey

Investigations of the fundamental factors involved in the performance of various coal-cleaning processes have constituted a substantial portion of the research 011 coal cleaning conducted by the Bureau of Mines. These detailed studies of the mechanism of separating coal from impurity in various cleaning devices were undertaken to provide the coal industry with information that is helpful in selecting the type of cleaner most suitable for treating a particular coal. Previous reports describing these investigations have dealt with the wet table,1 the pneumatic table,' and the plunger,3 pulsator.4 and Baum types5 of jigs. The present report compares the performance of three commonly used units treating the same coal—a pneumatic jig, also known as the air-flow. cleaner, a pneumatic table, and a Baum-type jig. Object and Plan The fact that pneumatic coal-cleaning processes are less efficient than wet-washing methods because they are unable to make as sharp a separation between coal and impurity is well recogilized. The literature, however, contains little quantitative in- formation on the relative performances of the two types of cleaners. The object of the present report is to present a detailed comparison of the performances of two pneumatic units and one wet-washing process treating coal from the same bed. Although the information in this report demonstrates that the performance of the pneumatic cleaners is not as good as that of those employing water, it must not be construed as reflecting on the usefullless of such equipment. Performance is often secondary to other factors in the selection of coal-cleaning equipment, and the advantages inherent in pneumatic processes frequently outweigh the limitations imposed by their performance. Specific gravity and particle size are the principal factors that influence the separation of coal from impurity in either pneumatic or wet processes; consequently, the tools available for this investigation were the float-and-sink bath and the screen. Accordingly, the raw coal, clean coal, and refuse samples representing the operation of each type of cleaning unit were first separated into a series of density fractions by means of the float-and-sink bath, and then each density fraction was screened into a series of size fractions. By this procedure the raw coal, clean coal, and refuse were subdivided into components of restricted ranges in density and size. From these data it was possible to determine how the cleaning unit disposed of each component of the raw coal; that is. what proportion of each component is sent to clean coal or rejected as refuse.

Jan 1, 1947

By H. F. Yancey, M. K. Geer

Investigations of the fundamental factors involved in the performance of various coal-cleaning processes have constituted a substantial portion of the research 011 coal cleaning conducted by the Bureau of Mines. These detailed studies of the mechanism of separating coal from impurity in various cleaning devices were undertaken to provide the coal industry with information that is helpful in selecting the type of cleaner most suitable for treating a particular coal. Previous reports describing these investigations have dealt with the wet table,1 the pneumatic table,' and the plunger,3 pulsator.4 and Baum types5 of jigs. The present report compares the performance of three commonly used units treating the same coal—a pneumatic jig, also known as the air-flow. cleaner, a pneumatic table, and a Baum-type jig. Object and Plan The fact that pneumatic coal-cleaning processes are less efficient than wet-washing methods because they are unable to make as sharp a separation between coal and impurity is well recogilized. The literature, however, contains little quantitative in- formation on the relative performances of the two types of cleaners. The object of the present report is to present a detailed comparison of the performances of two pneumatic units and one wet-washing process treating coal from the same bed. Although the information in this report demonstrates that the performance of the pneumatic cleaners is not as good as that of those employing water, it must not be construed as reflecting on the usefullless of such equipment. Performance is often secondary to other factors in the selection of coal-cleaning equipment, and the advantages inherent in pneumatic processes frequently outweigh the limitations imposed by their performance. Specific gravity and particle size are the principal factors that influence the separation of coal from impurity in either pneumatic or wet processes; consequently, the tools available for this investigation were the float-and-sink bath and the screen. Accordingly, the raw coal, clean coal, and refuse samples representing the operation of each type of cleaning unit were first separated into a series of density fractions by means of the float-and-sink bath, and then each density fraction was screened into a series of size fractions. By this procedure the raw coal, clean coal, and refuse were subdivided into components of restricted ranges in density and size. From these data it was possible to determine how the cleaning unit disposed of each component of the raw coal; that is. what proportion of each component is sent to clean coal or rejected as refuse.

Jan 1, 1947

By L. D. Lamont, W. C. Muehlhof

Throughout the anthracite industry's history, the problem of handling and disposing of refuse material has been one of major importance. In the early days of the industry's activities, only the large sizes of anthracite were satisfactory for market requirements and the smaller sizes were deposited as refuse. As time went by, more efficient coal-burning equipment was developed and a market demand was created for the finer sizes of coal. This demand made it possible to recover marketable coal from banks deposited as refuse in the earlier days of mining. The same condition holds good today and we can see a definite trend toward the objective of utilizing the No. 4 and No. 5 buckwheat sizes. Under present conditions, we know that a limited market exists for No. 4 and 5 buckwheat; we know that the finer sizes of anthracite can be burned as pulverized fuel; we know that these fine sizes can be processed and sold as briquettes, and we also know that the heat content of these fine sizes of coal is comparable with that of the sizes now merchandized. Therefore, it should be the objective of the industry to conserve these fine sizes of coal in such manner that if and when processing facilities are developed, and market demands exist, the material can be salvaged and made available to meet these demands. From the standpoint of economical future reclamation, the ideal method of disposing of refuse containing the finer sizes of coal is to deposit it in banks separate and apart from other breaker refuse. By this procedure, the minimum amount of material will be processed in future salvage operations to recover the No. 4 and No. 5 buckwheat sizes. Many collieries in the anthracite region are operated under leases that have a specific term. These lease agreements provide that, upon expiration of the lease by term, exhaustion or otherwise, the ownership of the refuse material reverts to the lessor. Therefore, a question was raised in the minds of these operators: Why should I assume the expense of such procedure when I have no assurance that I will benefit by the future processing and sale of these fine sizes? Under present conditions, the answer to this question is not one of choice but of necessity, as restrictions imposed by legislation make it mandatory on operators of preparation plants to take necessary steps to properly treat silt-laden waters before permitting them to enter the streams. By reason of these restrictions, the disposal of fine sizes becomes a secondary rather than a primary operating consideration, and the procedure for disposing of this refuse becomes a matter of choice governed principally by topographical and geographical conditions. Methods of Handling Refuse There are three principal methods of handling and disposing of fine-size refuse; namely:

Jan 1, 1947

By W. C. Muehlhof, L. D. Lamont

Throughout the anthracite industry's history, the problem of handling and disposing of refuse material has been one of major importance. In the early days of the industry's activities, only the large sizes of anthracite were satisfactory for market requirements and the smaller sizes were deposited as refuse. As time went by, more efficient coal-burning equipment was developed and a market demand was created for the finer sizes of coal. This demand made it possible to recover marketable coal from banks deposited as refuse in the earlier days of mining. The same condition holds good today and we can see a definite trend toward the objective of utilizing the No. 4 and No. 5 buckwheat sizes. Under present conditions, we know that a limited market exists for No. 4 and 5 buckwheat; we know that the finer sizes of anthracite can be burned as pulverized fuel; we know that these fine sizes can be processed and sold as briquettes, and we also know that the heat content of these fine sizes of coal is comparable with that of the sizes now merchandized. Therefore, it should be the objective of the industry to conserve these fine sizes of coal in such manner that if and when processing facilities are developed, and market demands exist, the material can be salvaged and made available to meet these demands. From the standpoint of economical future reclamation, the ideal method of disposing of refuse containing the finer sizes of coal is to deposit it in banks separate and apart from other breaker refuse. By this procedure, the minimum amount of material will be processed in future salvage operations to recover the No. 4 and No. 5 buckwheat sizes. Many collieries in the anthracite region are operated under leases that have a specific term. These lease agreements provide that, upon expiration of the lease by term, exhaustion or otherwise, the ownership of the refuse material reverts to the lessor. Therefore, a question was raised in the minds of these operators: Why should I assume the expense of such procedure when I have no assurance that I will benefit by the future processing and sale of these fine sizes? Under present conditions, the answer to this question is not one of choice but of necessity, as restrictions imposed by legislation make it mandatory on operators of preparation plants to take necessary steps to properly treat silt-laden waters before permitting them to enter the streams. By reason of these restrictions, the disposal of fine sizes becomes a secondary rather than a primary operating consideration, and the procedure for disposing of this refuse becomes a matter of choice governed principally by topographical and geographical conditions. Methods of Handling Refuse There are three principal methods of handling and disposing of fine-size refuse; namely:

Jan 1, 1947

By T. W. Guy

The increased moisture due to water-spraying for coal dust control is of interest even for mines from which the coal is to be wet-washed before screening, because in many cases wet coal dust materially de- 20-mesh X 0 sizes as pct ROM average ............................... 6.3 pct Range 2.3 to 9.5 pct 20-mesh X 0 sizes as pct 3/8 X 0 sizes average........'...................... 18.9 pct Range 12.7. to 23.9 pct creases the loading efficiency of men and equipment at the faces. It also causes a serious increase in the normal wear and deterioration of all equipment with which it comes in contact. It is important to the consumer if it increases his as-received moisture. No attempt will be made in this paper to cover the entire subject of water-spraying of coal for dust control. It will be confined to discussion and data on (I) percentages of dust in bituminous coals, (2) moisture increases due to spraying for dust control in mines or plants by methods which have proved satisfactory for periods of one to five or more years, and (3) a few suggestions for research. Size and Percentage or Coal Dust The U. S. Bureau of Mines1 classifies as coal dust all bituminous coal passing a 20-mesh sieve (0.0328 in. square opening). The percentage of such dust to be found in ROM coal, of course, varies widely with the characteristics of the seam, and with the methods used in the mining and in the preparation of the coal. ROM screen analyses of 12 U. S. coals selected at random from personal files given in Table I show: A few other screen analyses examined indicating 40 pct or more of 20-mesh X 0 dust in 3/8 in. X 0 sizes were not included because of uncertainty that they were representative. The number of results in Table I is not sufficient to give a reliable estimate of the average, or of the range to be expected, but it indicates that in every case the coal dust is a relatively large percentage of the total ROM coal, and, of course, a progressively larger percentage of resultants as the larger sizes are separated for marketing.

Jan 1, 1949

By R. E. Zimmerman

The separation of fine sizes of coal from its impurities by means of various flotation methods has become of increasing importance in the coal industry. This, no doubt, will be even more so in the future as the quantity of high grade coal is depleted, particularly that used for metallurgical purposes. The purpose of this paper is to describe and report the results of research work done under the auspices of the Pittsburgh Coal Co. to determine the amenability of their bituminous fine sizes of coal to flotation, to investigate the value of various reagents and factors affecting their use, and compare the results between froth flotation and bulk oil flotation. Compared with the preferential flotation of complex minerals, or ores, the flotation of coal is comparatively easy. However, this statement should not lull one into the feeling that there are no special problems involved. For instance, the separation of coal from pyrite in high sulphur coals is still far from being 100 pet successful. Size consist has considerable effect on reagent consumption and recovery. Other factors will be described and finally it must be remembered that in the flotation of coal a low priced material is being treated and thus economic considerations govern more closely its application than is generally the case in treating other minerals. As a result of the research work done by the Pittsburgh Coal Co. on the flotation of coal, it was concluded that it was practical to clean the —48-mesh coal commercially by froth flotation and after several different types of flotation units and circuits were investigated by means of pilot plants, large scale units were installed at their Champion Nos. 1, 4 and 5 Preparation Plants for the cleaning of —48-mesh slurries. These large scale operations have been recently described by D. H. Davis.' C. P. Proctor and C. B. Carlson2 in their chapter on Froth Flotation of Coal in the AIME Seeley W. Mudd series book on Coal Preparation describe some of the practical applications of our Pittsburgh Coal Co. laboratory work in actual plant practice as well as summarizing part of the investiga-tional work. The author presents this paper, however, as a supplement to their reports, and records the basic research accomplished in the laboratory investiga-tional work as well as the results of experiments using bulk oil flotation. In presenting this work the author wishes to state much more work must be done in applying the principles of flotation to cleaning coal, especially in view of recent studies and practices in other mineral beneficiation fields. Methods of Conducting Laboratory Tests The bulk of the research work was conducted in the laboratory of the Champion No. I Preparation Plant. This plant has elaborate facilities for sampling and analyzing coal and proved to be an admirable location for the investigational work. Four types of laboratory flotation ma-

Jan 1, 1949

By H. L. Riley, B. W. Gandrud

A froth flotation unit was added to the DeBardeleben Coal Corporation's Empire washer at Empire, Alabama, in the fall Of I94O following an investigation of possible ways and means of recovering coal values from settling-tank overflow or slurry. Officials of the DeBardeleben corporation hoped that some practical and reasonably economical way could be found for recovering fine coal from overflow water, although there had as yet been very little progress along this line in the Alabama coal fields. The Bureau of Mines was asked to cooperate in the project through its Southern Experiment Station, at University, Alabama. This paper presents a brief description of the process and the installation that resulted from the investigation of the overflow water or slurry problem at the Empire mine. The experimental data include' as a Part of this Paper were obtained during the course of the investigation in 1940 Since that time, however, the flotation unit has been running more or less continuously without significant operational changes and is still Performing pretty much in accordance with the data obtained in 1940. Flowsheet at Empire and Type of Coal Treated The Empire mine is developed on the Black Creek bed near the the border of the Warrior field. The coal in this bed is extremely low-ash and although there is an almost complete absence of bone coal and partings, the bed is so thin that, with mechanized mining, a high percentage of rock from roof and floor inevitably gets into the run-of-mine coal. The thickness of the Black Creek bed throughout the part of the Warrior field in which it is mined extensively is rarely over 30 in. and probably would average about 25 in, the coal is of the high-volatile A rank and of excellent quality, but as a result of admixture of roof and floor material, the run-of-mine product usually contains I ; to 20 pct rock by weight. he following is a proximate analysis on an "as-received " basis of a typical seam sample from the Empire mine:' moisture, 3.0 pet; volatile, 34.6 fixed carbon 58.3; ash, 4.1 This sample shelved 15,070 Btu per pound and 0.9 pct sulphur on a moisture-and-ash-free basis. In the Empire preparation plant the lump sizes above 3 in. are removed and hand-picked on a Marcus conveying Screen, the 3 to ? -in. size is removed by vibrating screens and washed in two Montgomery single-cell jigs, and the ?-in. to o slack is cleaned on four diagonal

Jan 1, 1949

By D. H. Davis

There are two general types of oil flotation processes, froth and bulk-oil. In froth flotation, the coal concentrates are removed in the form of a froth or foam composed of air, liquid, and solids. Mechanical or pneumatic agitation of a coal slurry with suitable frothing agent causes a selective action of the bubbles to the coal particles which are carried to the upper portion of the pulp in the flotation cell; the refuse is wetted by the water and does not rise with the froth, but goes out as tailings. The other type of flotation process, bulk-oil, consists of thoroughly mixing the slurry or pulp with 30 to 50 pct of its weight of oil. The coal agglomerates with the oil and drops to the bottom of the cell while the refuse is wetted by the water and is carried away in suspension. The concentrate granules may be screened and drained to 12 to 15 pct moisture. The minus 200 or 300-mesh is very effectively treated by this process. The Trent process is a bulk-oil type which has been used for coal cleaning on a commercial basis, but its use has been discontinued in this country. Froth flotation of bituminous coal should be subdivided into two distinct fields: (I) separation of a dry coal product such as recovered from an aspiration system; (2) separation of a minus 48-mesh slurry such as produced from a thickener in a wet cleaning plant. The capacities, performance, and general operating characteristics are very different in these two fields. The recirculated slurry in a washery becomes oxidized and is much harder to treat than a dry dust. It is difficult to clean a slurry containing an appreciable percentage of plus 48-mesh without also floating some high-ash clays minus 200-niesh in size. On the other hand, while working with an aspirated dust, good results have been obtained in floating coal as coarse as 3/16-in. Because of the relatively low capacity of flotation machines as compared with conventional fine-coal cleaners .and because of the greater quantity of reagents required to float coarse coal, there is usually no point in considering flotation on bituminous coal for anything coarser than approximately 48-mesh. In some coal-cleaning plants, good separations are being made down to 80 or even 100-mesh by a less expensive system of coal cleaning than flotation. The Pittsburgh Coal Co. carried out extensive tests on laboratory batch machines and on small units of both pneumatic and mechanical agitation types from 1930 to 1935 and have operated six, eight, and then twelve mill-size mechanical subaeration cells from 1932 to 1944 This paper will deal with some of the operating phases and results of coal-flotation practices as derived from this experience, and more specifically with the flotation practice at the Champion No. I preparation plant. The experience gained from the research and initial experimental work contributed greatly to the successful operation of the mill-sized flotation units at Champion.

Jan 1, 1949

By Alfred R. Powell

Late in 1944 a group of petroleum and coal technologists was organized in Washington under the sponsorship of the Petroleum Administration for War and the U. S. Bureau of Mines. This group, known as the Technical Oil Mission, was placed under the authority of the Technical Industrial Intelligence Committee of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which was then promoting the organization of other missions to be sent to Germany to obtain technical information regarding various industries in that country. The objective of the Tehnical oil Mission was to obtain technical data on German production of synthetic oil from coal and all other commercial practices and research projects connected with the oil industry. The primary purpose was to obtain such data as were immediately essential to assist the war against Germany and Japan, with secondary emphasis on technical information that would assist American industry after the end of the war. since oil-production facilities in Germany and the occupied countries controlled by Germany were the top targets for strategic bombing, the Technical Oil Mission was the first group under the Technical Induslrial Intelligence Com,mittee to enter Germany. A few members of the group flew to London in February 1945 and the majority of the remainder followed in March. In London they were joined by an equal number of British investigators and the combined mission was then sent into Germany under the authority of the Combined Intelligence Objectives Subcommittee (CIOS). A summary of the more important information gained by this combined British and American mission is presented below. German Oil Production The oil available to Germany, both natural and synthetic, and including production from occupied countries, reached a peak in late 1943 and early 1944 Production at this time was at the rate of 1,200,000 metric tons Per month, equivalent to 100,000,000 bbl. per year, or about 7 per cent of the wartime production in the United States. Of this production, jo per cent was crude oil from Romania and Hungary, 12 Per cent was crude oil from Germany itself, including Austria, 9 per cent cumprised coal-carbonization products, that is, tar and light oil, and only the remaining 29 per cent was synthetic liquid fuel made from coal or tar. Synthetic liquid fuel made in Germany was equivalent therefore to less than 2 per cent of wartime production of crude oil in the United States. The success of the strategic bombing campaign against German oil-production facilities is demonstrated by the fact that by September 1944 the Ploesti fields of Romania and much of the syrlthetic oil production had been eliminated, so that the amount of oil available to the German war machine was only 25 per Cent of the peak qualltity mentioned above. By early 1945, when the combined British and American oil mission was entering

Jan 1, 1947

By Alfred R. Powell

Late in 1944 a group of petroleum and coal technologists was organized in Washington under the sponsorship of the Petroleum Administration for War and the U. S. Bureau of Mines. This group, known as the Technical Oil Mission, was placed under the authority of the Technical Industrial Intelligence Committee of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which was then promoting the organization of other missions to be sent to Germany to obtain technical information regarding various industries in that country. The objective of the Tehnical oil Mission was to obtain technical data on German production of synthetic oil from coal and all other commercial practices and research projects connected with the oil industry. The primary purpose was to obtain such data as were immediately essential to assist the war against Germany and Japan, with secondary emphasis on technical information that would assist American industry after the end of the war. since oil-production facilities in Germany and the occupied countries controlled by Germany were the top targets for strategic bombing, the Technical Oil Mission was the first group under the Technical Induslrial Intelligence Com,mittee to enter Germany. A few members of the group flew to London in February 1945 and the majority of the remainder followed in March. In London they were joined by an equal number of British investigators and the combined mission was then sent into Germany under the authority of the Combined Intelligence Objectives Subcommittee (CIOS). A summary of the more important information gained by this combined British and American mission is presented below. German Oil Production The oil available to Germany, both natural and synthetic, and including production from occupied countries, reached a peak in late 1943 and early 1944 Production at this time was at the rate of 1,200,000 metric tons Per month, equivalent to 100,000,000 bbl. per year, or about 7 per cent of the wartime production in the United States. Of this production, jo per cent was crude oil from Romania and Hungary, 12 Per cent was crude oil from Germany itself, including Austria, 9 per cent cumprised coal-carbonization products, that is, tar and light oil, and only the remaining 29 per cent was synthetic liquid fuel made from coal or tar. Synthetic liquid fuel made in Germany was equivalent therefore to less than 2 per cent of wartime production of crude oil in the United States. The success of the strategic bombing campaign against German oil-production facilities is demonstrated by the fact that by September 1944 the Ploesti fields of Romania and much of the syrlthetic oil production had been eliminated, so that the amount of oil available to the German war machine was only 25 per Cent of the peak qualltity mentioned above. By early 1945, when the combined British and American oil mission was entering

Jan 1, 1947