Search Documents

By J. F. K. Brown, E. E. Roecker

For three years The Hudson Coal Co. has used egg anthracite instead of coke in its foundry cupola. It has long passed the stage of being told it cannot be done—the metal would be cold, of poor quality, or the speed of operation would be low. From observation, from use and from test. we know that our metal is about average; the cast iron invokes no adverse comment from the machine shop and the speed suits our foundry requirements. We have there-iore resolved into practice anthracite combustion processes in an industrial furnace formerly using coke, under conditions suitable to our needs. When it comes to translating what we know into use in another cupola, however, where operating conditions may be different, or to explaining why, with seemingly the same conditions in our own cupola, we have attained sometimes a temperature of 2800° in the metal and at another time 2600°, or a speed of 5 tons per hour against 2 35 tons per hour, we cannot do it. We cannot do this because there seems to be an unbridged gap between laboratory ideas on combustion and practical ideas on com-bustiqn, which we have been unable to cross in terms understandable to us as practical consumers. This gap or bridge centers around the problem of how combustion actually takes place; and we believe it is controlled by two factors: (I) the character of the surface of the fuel and (2) the space provided and needed within which the oxygen of the air is allowed to or can act on that surface. It has long been contended on behalf of coke that porosity is an important factor in combustion, although, admittedly, there are two schools of opposing thought on this question, as revealed in technical literature. It has been understood generally that a light, porous coke is the best metallurgical fuel because there are more square inches of carbon exposed to the blast of air, therefore more useful carbon-dioxide reactions can take place in the given space between the entrance of the air and the point where useful work is done. It is now our general idea that the heavier and the harder the coal, the better the metallurgical fuel, provided the surface of that fuel is suitable for fast reaction with the oxygen. Time and Space A cupola is loaded in layers of fuel and iron. The horizontal line where the first charge of iron rests on the coal is the top of the bed coal. With us that is 22 in., usually, above the tuyeres where the air enters. This means 600 lb. of coal. Every subsequent coal layer is 100 to 125 lb. of coal, and that 100 to 125 lb. of coal melts 1000 lb. of iron at around 2700° in the ladle. This quantity of coal represents a 3-in. layer spread across the cupola. The question arises: If this 3 in. of coal will melt 1000 lb. of metal, why was it necessary to use 600 lb., or 22 in., of coal beneath and between the first charge of iron and the air entrance?

Jan 1, 1944

By Walter Knox, Charles H. Sawyer

All of the coals commonly used in domestic bituminous stokers form coke, and satisfactory operation depends upon the fact that the coke formed is so weakly bound together that it breaks readily in the normal operation of the stoker and automatically maintains a good fuel bed. Some coals, because of their tendency to form solid, blocky coke, are practically excluded from use in small domestic stokers as now built. Other coals, some among the best stoker coals available, can form this troublesome coke under certain conditions. Many contradictory methods have been offered as cures for coke formation. Generally the procedure has been to try various adjustments until a combination was found that seemed to give better results. Such random methods of treatment have not provided any reliable information as to causes. The present paper covers a comprehensive test program undertaken by the Koppers Company's Stoker Coal Research Laboratory at Kearny, N. J. The program had two main objectives; first, to discover what factors affected coke formation, and second; to define corrective steps that could be applied in stoker service work. Conclusions and Results i. The design of the stoker outweighs in importance all other factors capable of improving coke formation. 2. Insufficient air supply aggravates the formation of large blocky coke, although raising the air above 30 to 40 per cent excess (as determined during steady running) does not further improve the character of the coke formed and only reduces its accumulation at the expense of efficiency, increased fly ash, poorer clinker-ing, and other disadvantages. 3. Increasing the coal feed results in a somewhat more friable coke structure and is recommended for persistently troublesome jobs. 4. Increasing over-fire draft improves the character of the coke formed and reduces troublesome accumulations by accelerating off-period burning, although at some expense in efficiency and some increase in fly-ash accumulation. 5. Coke structure was not substantially improved by blocking some of 'the retort tuyeres, although the blocking of tuyeres at the feed-screw end of a rectangular retort did lead to somewhat improved performance, possibly because of considerably better distribution of coke in the fuel bed. 6. With the equipment tested no difference was shown between installation of the same stoker in a steam boiler and a warm-air furnace, or between a sand-filled and a ventilated type of hearth. 7. The following design features had no noticeable effect on coke formation: a. Presence or absence of coal-tube air as provided by many manufacturers to eliminate smoke-back. B. Presence or absence of a flap damper ill the air duct to minimize off-period burning. c. Continuous or intermittent (ratchet and pawl driven) movement of fuel feed screw.

Jan 1, 1944

By C. C. Wright, T. S. Spicer, R. G. Bowman

In recent years considerable publicity has been given to the problem of atmospheric pollution by fuel-burning equipment. Legislation has been stimulated and smoke ordinances have been enacted, the provisions of which show a definite trend toward stricter control of the emissions not only from the stacks of industrial fuel users but also from the chimneys of domestic consumers. As a result of war conditions, some slackening in the enforcement of these ordinances may be noted, but this is only a temporary expediency caused by the changes necessary in the distribution of the nation's fuel supplies and difficulties in securing the necessary equipment. Previous trends may be expected to continue in the postwar period. Largely because of the consumer demand for automatic heat, but partly because of the legislation against smoke emission, there has been a marked increase in the use of domestic underfeed stokers with the past decade. When correctly adjusted and operated, these units reduce the smoke emission materially, so that even the high-volatile bituminous coals may be burned with little or no emission of objectionable smoke. Unfortunately, however, the use of the domestic underfeed stoker introduces another problem; namely, fly-ash. Production of Fly-ash The term "fly-ash" is a misnomer, since the fly material is generally a mixture of small carbonaceous particles varying from green coal to coke, and inorganic particles ranging from fluffy ash to small particles of fused clinker. For want of a more comprehensive name, however, the term fly-ash is used throughout this paper to include all the fly material. Even with hand-fired furnaces a certain amount of fly-ash is produced, which necessitates periodic cleaning of the boiler flues or furnace radiator, the smoke pipe, and occasionally the chimney itself. With stoker operations the amount of fly-ash is increased many fold, because of the higher velocity of air travel through the fuel bed. Frequently the amount of this fly-ash attains such proportions as to constitute a definite nuisance to the householder and his neighbors and distracts very materially from the otherwise automatic or semi-automatic performance of the stoker. Virtually all the boilers and hot-air

Jan 1, 1944

By B. P. Mulcahy

When the phrase "selection of coal for carbonization" is used, there is always the implied continuance of thought "to make good coke.'' The reason for this, of course, lies in the fact that, in almost all instances, when coal is carbonized coke is the principal product. Under certain conditions the yield of gas may also be a factor, but even here it must be secondary to the coke yield, for in every instance coke represents the largest single product of the process. The importance of coke to the byproduct industry has been considerably enhanced during the past 20 years because of the continuously decreasing financial returns of all the by-products. This fact will account, in part, for the rebirth of interest and investigation in the carbonization process during the past 10 years. Many papers have been written on this subject, with naturally divergent thoughts because of the diversity of interests, but in each instance the common aim was the same—the making of better coke. Scope of Investigation In perusing this literature, the writer was struck with the constantly recurring imposed condition of asking for better coke, but with the distinct unwillingness to make any concession to temperature of carbonization. When there is a high demand for coke, the only means by which the industry can increase the quantity is to shorten the coking time by an increase in temperature, or to increase the quantity of low-volatile coal, or both; and since in many instances the percentage of low-volatile coal can be increased only in small quantities, because of factors to be discussed later, the big increase must come from shortening the coking time. When this is done most of the improvement accomplished by the selection of the coals in the mixture is lost. It is not felt necessary in this paper to discuss the advantages of minimum ash and sulphur and other materials in coal. The value of minimum contents of these materials in coke is well established. When the use of coals high in these contents is dictated, the selection of coals, as we will consider it here, cannot apply to full advantage. The scope of this paper, then, will be to discuss the factors of inherent coal characteristics and operating procedures that influence coke quality, for they are fundamentally related and both must be considered if we are to attain our objective of better coke. A study of either must embrace a study of both simultaneously. To properly evaluate the influence of the coal and to help in the selection, we must first be able to appraise the coke, and interpret fairly the influence of the process in all of its aspects. Appraisal of Coke To refer simply to the quality of coke gives no indication of what is meant, for the term is too general in its implication. An analysis of a coke is divided usually

Jan 1, 1944

By M. A. Mayers, J. A. Thompson

In recent years, the problem of damage to coke-oven walls by expanding coal charges undergoing carbonization has engaged great attention on the part of research workers in this field, and has led to the development of many devices for estimating these pressures.l-14 Only in Russell's method" and in the Koppers ovens7 are conditions quite similar to those in commercial ovens. Tests even in these ovens are empirical because no information has been published to permit an evaluation of "scale effects." Owing to the relatively large wall area in these test ovens, the average wall pressure determined may be lower than that existing in localized areas. This factor may be compensated for in part by the testing of coal charged into the test oven at a bulk density that is as high as the highest that is believed to exist in commercial ovens. Both of these lacks might be filled by the development of an adequate gauge for the direct measurement of wall pressure exerted by the charge in commercial coke ovens in normal operation. Previous attempts to elaborate such instruments7,15 have resulted in units which, because they had to be water-cooled, probably produced changes in the conditions of carbonization, and which had to be removed from the oven before carbonization was complete, to avoid their destruction. Late in 1941 the Coal Research Laboratory undertook to develop such a gauge, in which gas pressure was balanced against the charge pressure and which thus would not require water cooling, on a suggestion made in 1937 by one of the present authors and William B. Warren, a former member of the Laboratory staff. The gauge heads themselves were to be simple and cheap enough so that they might be discarded after each run if seriously damaged. This would permit them to be left in place throughout the carbonizing period, when they could be pushed out with the coke. The basis of the design, of which the latest exemplification is shown in Fig. I, was that as the internal gas pressure within a flexible metal envelope was increased, the flexible wall would move away from a stop when the gas pressure just overbalanced the charge pressure. If the stop were an insulated electrical contact, the point of balance could be indicated by the breaking of an electric circuit. It was anticipated that, while the instrument must operate at high temperature, the presence of a strongly reducing atmosphere throughout the carbonizing period would so reduce the danger of scaling that mild steel could be used for the gauge. This expectation has been justified. Danger of attack on silica oven walls by the steel gauge body can be eliminated by cementing asbestos paper or an alundum or silica plate to the back of the gauge body. The gauge head itself has a relatively heavy mild-steel body, A, into which standard ¼-in. pipe B is screwed to conduct gas and electrical leads. The body is closed by a single bellows C, consisting of two annuli of 0.011-in. (o.a8-mm.) cold-rolled shim-steel spot-welded together at their outside edges. The lower one is

Jan 1, 1944

By Charles C. Russell, Glenn C. South

A primary factor in the selection of coals for making coke at high temperatures is the amount of pressure the coal will exert upon the oven walls when carbonized in modem by-product ovens.l-3 This factor has become increasingly important in recent years because of demands for increased throughput and higher coke yields. As a result of the increasing necessity for assessing coals in regard to their carbonization pressures, more and more research work is being directed toward developing labora-tory-scale tests for predicting carbonization pressures and for showing how blends of coking coals may be modified to eliminate pressures liable to damage coke-oven walls. The specific reasons have never been defined as to why some blends of coking coals develop dangerous carbonization pressures and others do not, therefore specific procedures to eliminate dangerous pressures could not be prescribed. It is true that the major processes occurring during carbonization have been described by many writers,4 and there is a general agreement on the ideas of the changes that occur as coal is transformed into coke. However, there is little evidence relating the processes occurring during carbonization to the pressure developed and the available evidence is very incomplete and often contradictory. This deficiency arises in part from the fact that the fundamental causes of pressure development have not been defined, at least from experimental data, and in turn this is the result of the lack of satisfactory testing equipment for studying the problem. Operating experience has shown several ways of reducing or eliminating dangerous pressures,5 but probably none of these ways is applicable to all blends of coking coals, and such empirical methods often lead to production of inferior coke. They are trial-and-error methods, not designed to remedy specific causes of pressure development. The number of laboratory-scale testing devices designed to estimate the carbonization pressures that result when coals are carbonized in commercial ovens is probably well over a hundred.6 Few of these instruments have remained in use for any length of time, either because the predictions were not sufficiently accurate or, more often, because too many exceptions were found. Often testing devices are operated without any attempt at duplication of conditions in commercial ovens and erroneous and contradictory results are frequently obtained. Therefore, it has seemed desirable to study the properties of coal itself and to determine any relationships between the properties of the coal and the carbonization pressures developed. Relationship between Properties of Coal and Carbonization Pressure Attempts to determine relationships between various properties of coal and carbonization pressures, for the most parti have been indirect because no satisfactory and reliable laboratory testing device has

Jan 1, 1944

By I. M. Roberts

The war emergency has affected every phase of industry. The gas and coke-oven companies have sought faithfully to discharge their responsibility in this critical period and have willingly modified their operations where possible to meet the ever increasing demands made upon them. Our company made commitments for blast-%urnace coke for war purposes which necessitated a reduction in coking time in order to produce the amount required to meet the new demands. At the same time there were certain customers of long standing, who had been supplied with foundry and egg-sized coke produced on fairly long coking periods, who also were engaged in war work and whose patronage we desired to retain. Coke produced on short coking rates from the coal mixture we were then using would not have been satisfactory for these customers. The average width of our ovens is 19¾ in., which is a little wider than the more modern ovens of the present day. They were originally designed to give somewhat cool tops in order to produce a rich gas. This necessitates carrying the heats a little on the warm side so that the tops will be fully carbonized. A reduction in coking time, as is generally known, is accompanied by a reduction in the average size of the coke produced. This is due to the greater shrinkage that takes place at the higher temperatures required to carbonize the charges in a shorter time. The net result is that the coke is more cross fractured and longitudinally fractured and breaks up into small sizes on handling. The cokes produced from the better coking coals seem to be more susceptible to fracture at high temperatures than those from poorer coking coals. A coal mixture that produces a beautiful foundry-sized coke at 30 to 36 hr. may yield a product at 18 hr. that would be so badly fractured as to be unsatisfactory for foundry practice. Coking Characteristics OF Coals Our problem was to find some economical innovation and develop a method that would enable us to reduce the coking time and still produce a coke satisfactory to our foundry trade. However, before discussing the results of our present operations, it might be well to present a few observations on the coking characteristics of coals in general. Most coke-oven operators carbonize a blended mixture of coals. It may consist of a single high-volatile coal with a single low-volatile coal, or of a combination of several high-volatile and low-volatile coals. Medium-volatile coals of the Eagle seam are used for the production of high-grade foundry coke. Medium and high-volatile coals are often blended with one or more low-volatile coals. The possibilities are almost infinite, but the combinations are limited by such factors as cost and facilities for handling multicoal mixtures, and by other practical considerations. Every coal has characteristics that make it blend better with a particular coal or coals in preference to others. This property has

Jan 1, 1944

By G. V. Woody, J. D. Price

Many producers of by-product coke have spent considerable time and given considerable thought to the use of a substitute for low-volatile coal as an admixture with high-volatile coking coal for charging high-temperature by-product coke ovens. Generally speaking, there are two principal reasons for this, one being occasioned by the lack, in certain localities, of low-volatile coal delivered at a cost sufficiently low to permit its use, and another being the desirability of finding a substitute product with a delivered cost lower than the cost of the low-volatile coal. It was for the first of these reasons that the Colorado Fuel and Iron Corporation was particularly interested in this subject. This paper deals with the experimental work and the results obtained by that company in producing and using low-temperature char. Overcoming Defects in Coke from Colorado Coals Colorado coking coals are all of the high-volatile type and were all laid down during the Cretaceous period, which makes them something like 80 million or so years younger, geologically, than eastern coals. They behave, when coked alone, something like the Pittsburgh-seam coals. They make a very brittle, highly cross-fractured, fingery coke of fair shatter value but quite low in resistance to abrasion. Mixed with a low-volatile coking coal such as Poca- hontas or certain Oklahoma coals, they make a coke that is equal to virtually any of the eastern cokes. The inferior quality of Colorado coke has long been recognized, and a considerable amount of time, effort and money has been spent upon investigations of means for improving its physical properties. While it has been found that some improvement in quality of coke can be secured by the adjustment and control of such variables as pulverization, moisture content, oven temperature and bulk density of charge, and through the addition of certain inert materials such as pulverized coke breeze, pitch, high-volatile noncoking or semicoking coal, the benefits so gained have been comparatively small. There are no low or medium-volatile coking coals available within a reasonable freight-cost distance. Therefore a substitute for low-vol-atile coal was developed through low-tem-perature carbonization—or, more correctly speaking, through the partial devolatiliza-tion—of high-volatile coals. The blending of this lower volatile char with the high-volatile coking coal distinctly improves the quality of coke made from Colorado coal. There is nothing especially new about this idea. In 1908 a Japanese patent was taken out by Kotaro Shimomura, whose claim was: The method of making a nonfingery coke out of bituminous coals, without using natural coals of low-volatile matter; according to which a certain coal is heated at a temperature between about 300°C. and about 600°C. so as to leave about 15 to 25 per cent volatile matter in the coal; this coal is mixed with the

Jan 1, 1944

By A. C. Fieldner, Lester L. Hirst, Henry H. Storch

Experimental work on liquefaction of coal was taken up by the Bureau of Mines in 1936 when it became evident that a prudent policy from the national point of view should include preparation for the time when gradual exhaustion of petroleum resources would require supplementing the growing demand for motor fuel with gasoline and diesel oil from coal. At that time (1936) certain foreign nations that had no home sources of petroleum, especially Germany, England, and Japan, were conducting active research and at least two of them were producing liquid fuel from coal on a commercial scale. Germany was reported to have an annual producing capacity of 800,000 metric tons of gasoline per year, and England had just put into operation the Billingham plant of Imperial Chemical Industries for the hydrogehation of bituminous coal and tar by the Bergius-I.G. process. The annual capacity of this plant was about 150,000 long tons of gasoline per annum (3500 bbl. per day). With these developments taking place in foreign countries, it seemed important to undertake a long-range program of fundamental research in this country to establish a sound groundwork for the evaluation of foreign work on synthetic liquid fuels and at the same time to obtain data on the oil yields and operating difficulties using various kinds of American coals and lignite to the hydrogenation process. The results of such research would be useful in determining the yields and quality of liquid products obtainable from various coals so that American industry would be in position to select the most suitable coals and make rapid progress in establishing this new industry when the commercial need should arise. It was hoped, also, that progress in a better understanding of the chemistry of coal hydrogenation would reduce the cost of the process materially. To carry out this program, a small continuous unit capable of hydrogenating 100 Ib. of coal in 24 hr. was installed at the Central Experiment Station of the Bureau of Mines at Pittsburgh, Pa. Small steel autoclaves or bombs of 0.3 gal. (1.2 liters) capacity also were used for batch-hydro-genation experiments in the study of the chemical fundamentals of the process. Much valuable assistance was obtained in planning the experimental program and designing the equipment from the Fuel Research Station of Great Britain and the Fuel Laboratories of the Mines Department of Canada, where such investigations had been in progress for several years. Equipment and General Procedure of Research The industrial liquefaction of coal by the Bergius-I.G. hydrogenation process as practiced at Billingham, England, from

Jan 1, 1944

By C. E. Lesher

Coal has been fighting a rear-guard action since the last World War. The battle against competitive fuels has been largely guerilla warfare with more sniping within the ranks than of organized opposition. Oil and natural gas are the fuels that over these twenty odd years have driven coal backward and out of many profitable markets. Now, somewhat timidly, the coal industry is trying a new weapon; namely, Research, or let us more properly say, Organized Research. Engineers have been designing this weapon for many years, supported by those interested in coal, including some coal producers. A part of this pioneer work has been Fundamental Research, the Ph.D. kind that is over the heads of most of us. Another part has been aimed at immediate objectives and realizable profits, the practical, man-in-the-street sort. That is Industrial Research. Enough has been accomplished to make a fair exhibit, but whether this new weapon will have sufficient fire power to rout the opposition, whether the industry will really go into production and use it, the next few years will tell. Need foR Coal Research To utter "Research" is to use the modern magic word; to conjure up the miraculous—rubber from weeds; radar; magnesium from sea water; yes, even gasoline from coal. Research is a very general term. It means something different to every man. What is the coal industry seeking with its research; or what should it seek? And, specifically, how is it going about the job; and is it taking the best way? There are many who say that Coal has been asleep at the switch, while Oil and Gas have been taking the energy business. In an organized way this is true. Large-scale, privatelyfinanced research is just started in the Pennsylvania anthracite industry, and it is still a dream for bituminous coal. What has been done so far collectively is purely defensive; as, for instance, to improve mechanical devices for burning coal so as to be able to recover markets for house-heating fuel long since abandoned to oil and gas. To appreciate just how seriously bituminous coal has slipped back in the national economy in the past 2 5 years, one has only to recall that, in the last war the Navy required for its operations all the high-grade, low-volatile coal that could be produced, and that anthracite was withdrawn from the middle and northwest markets to keep the eastern seaboard warm. All coal was "rationed" by zones, if not to individuals. Now the Navy, the Armed forces and the Merchant Marine are propelled by oil and gasoline. Gasoline and heating oil are rationed to individuals. Production of all coal in this country in 1918 reached the historic figure of 678,200,-000 tons, and in 1943, after 25 years, it is expected to reach a special wartime total of 660,000,000 tons. Meanwhile, production of crude oil this year may exceed 1 ,500,000,000 bbl., and like that of natural gas, reach four times the amount produced in 1918.

Jan 1, 1944

Jan 1, 1944

Jan 1, 1944

Jan 1, 1944

Jan 1, 1944

Jan 1, 1944

Jan 1, 1944

Jan 1, 1944

Jan 1, 1944

By J. T. Mackenzie

Henry Marion Howe, in whose memory we are gathered together, was one of the great thinkers who develop from time to time to whom is given the rare gift of synthesis. Analysis is given to few, but synthesis, the ability to show the relation of all parts to each other and thus to give a clear picture of the whole, is reserved for the very few. Analysis can be achieved by honesty, intelligence, and industry, but synthesis is only given to genius. Professor Howe's crowning achievement is the picture of the whole iron-carbon series shown in Fig. I, which places steel, malleable, gray iron, mottled and chilled irons in their proper relation to each other and shows the essential unity of the series. Perhaps his best statement of the case is found on page go of the Metallography of Steel and Cast Iron in these words: " Each member of the gray cast-iron series consists of the metallic matrix approximately equivalent to that member of the steel-white-cast-iron series to which it corresponds in percentage of combined carbon with its continuity broken up—by masses of graphite ..." Apparently he had taken considerable interest in this idea around the turn of the century, for he refers to a discussion at the Franklin Institute in I900 in which he said: "Though many others had probably conceived this relation between the steels and cast irons, it was here enunciated for the first time, so far as I know. It was received with great incredulity." The concept was explained in some detail in a paper on "The Constitution of Cast Iron" presented before the A.S.T.M. in 1902 when Professor Howe was retiring president of that young society. In the discussion Dr. Sauveur stated that he was "very well acquainted with Professor Howe's theory of the constitution of cast iron," and went on to say that while he "shared it to the fullest extent, some foundrymen . . . claim cast iron is a metal entirely different from steel . . . that steel and cast iron have very little in common, and that therefore the knowledge gained in the study of steel is of little or no value in the study of cast iron." Dr. Moldenke, in discussing the same paper, said he had been working on the same theory for 12 years but he laid no claim to publication. Discussing the difference in the micro-structure of the metallic matrix, Professor Howe pointed out that "such minor structural differences are indeed to be expected, because of the difference in the conditions under which these constituents are generated. "One difference in these conditions is that the steel of most micrographs has been either forged or at least treated thermally in such a way as to give a new structure radically different from that which formed during the initial solidification, whereas the cast irons have not. Hence what we see in the steels is a transformation structure, but in the cast irons a solidification structure. By giving the cast

Jan 1, 1944

By T. B. Counselman

PRobably the earliest concentration of iron ore in this country was carried on in the northeastern magnetite areas. Magnetic concentration was relatively simple and gave a concentrate that, after agglomeration, and in spite of beillg high in phosphorus hecause of the dry concentrating methods then in use, was satisfactory blast-furnace feed. Production from the northeastern magnetitc area languished after the discovery and development of the Lake Superior ores, where there was seemingly an unlimited tonnage of high-grade ore, first the Michigan ores, and subsequently the still larger deposits of Minnesota. For years only the higher grade, direct shipping ores of the Lake superior district were mined. Those of Michigan, and of the Vermilion Range in Minnesota, were hard ores and came principally from underground mines. The softer ores of the Mesabi came partly from underground mincs, but mostly from the enormous deposits that could be worked by open-pit methods. The costs of ore from these open-pit deposits, even with the high initial cost of stripping, were so low that the underground mines of the Mesabi could hardly compete. The so-called Old Range ores, of Michigan and of the Vermilion Range of Minnesota, were hard and lumpy, and opened UP the burden in the blast furnace, therefore making possible harder driving with greater output. Also, some of these Ores were of such grade and physical characteristics that they were suitable for charge ore in the open hearth. These ores, therefore, commanded a price premium. and could compete with the softer, finer, but cheaper, Mesabi ores. The big tonnage reserves, however, are on the Mesabi. and it is these big open-pit deposits that contitue- our stock pile of iron ore, from which we are drawing so heavily during this war period. On the western end of the Mesabi the ore was found to be high in silica, and not suitable as furnace feed. As early as 1902, attempts were made to concentrate this so-called wash ore and by 1910 the first washing plant was put into operation. The Process was very simple, consisting essentially of a sizing and washing operation, with scalping screens, logwashers and tables, which later were replaced by classificrs. Ore particles finer than I00 mesh were deliberately wasted, because these fines were undesirable in the furnace. Fortunately, these tailings were impounded, and already are being reworked. Before long some of the low-grade ores began to require more elaborate treatment than the simple washing operation and, tables having been discarded because of their low capacity, in favor of classifiers, jigs were next introduced. These were able to discard coarser pieces of tailing than classifiers. Jigs are in active use today, various improvements having been made in their design and application. Various other machines and methods of concentration have been tried from time to time, and have in turn been discarded for more improved processes., The latest and most important process that has been 38

Jan 1, 1944