Search Documents

Jan 1, 1932

Jan 1, 1950

Jan 1, 1987

T. T. READ, BUREAU OF MINES: Mr. McAuliffe has asked a very practical question. Expressed in another way, the question is: If we have decided to use rock dust to prevent coal dust from exploding, have we got to take rock, that is, solid material,, break it up and finally grind it into dust (and fine grinding is very expensive), or can we take material that is already in a pretty fine state of subdivision and thereby save the expense of pulverizing it? Most of the preceding discussion has been from the view-point of practical experience, and I should like to suggest that we have not had enough practical experience in rock dusting to be able to answer this question, from the viewpoint of experience, with the degree of definiteness that Mr. McAuliffe desires. With your permission I will discuss the matter briefly from the theoretical standpoint, because after all the theoretical considerations, insofar as we understand them correctly, will apply to every' case, whereas in coming to a decision on this matter it will be necessary to take into consideration local conditions, which will necessarily vary in every case. Considering the matter in a rather elementary way, the first point is: What makes coal dust explode? The air of this room is full of dust at the present moment, even though we do not notice it. If you were to close up the room for a week, enough dust would settle on the floor so you could write your name on it. Of course, the dust which is in the air of this room is not coal dust but even if it were coal dust and you were to bring an open light in' here we all know that the dust would not explode. The reason for that is that the dust particles are not close enough together for the flame to propagate itself from one to the next. You will probably be able to see in the demonstration in the gallery on Saturday that the coal dust explosion is practically a very rapid burning of the dust. When you light one piece of dust it burns and gives out heat and if there is another piece of dust close enough to it so that the heat from the first piece is able to bring a second piece up to the burning temperature, then the flame will propagate itself through the mixture. But, if the particles are so far apart in the air that the' heat from one particle is dissipated before it reaches an adjoining one, and is therefore not able to bring the second particle up to the burning temperature, then the flame will not propagate. To get a coal dust explosion, it is not sufficient to have coal dust suspended in the air. The coal dust particles must be close enough together in the air so that the heat from one burning particle is able to heat the adjoining particles up to the point at which they will burn. There has been some discussion of the size of dust particles that will cause an explosion to propagate, and it has been pointed out that the minus 200-mesh dust is the most dangerous, and that particles coarser than 20-mesh will not propagate an explosion. There are two reasons for that. A large particle has very much smaller surface in proportion to its weight than a small particle has. You know the old story about the Indian who when asked how he could go around in cold weather without any clothes on said that an Indian was all face. A 200-mesh particle is almost all surface and there= fore is able to burn almost instantaneously, which means that it gives out its heat almost instantaneously, whereas a large particle with less surface in proportion to its weight burns more slowly, gives out its heat more slowly, and the heat has more time to be dissipated. The second reason why coarse dust does not easily propagate a flame is because it is so hard to make it

Jan 1, 1924

[ ]

Jan 1, 1991

By H. Petersen

If a coal mine producing two hundred thousand (200,000) tons of coal per year could effect a 2 per cent decrease in the percentage of slack there would be an additional 4,000 tons of prepared coal produced. Most operators will say that these prepared sizes of coal are worth about $3.00 more per ton to them than the slack or in other words an additional $12,000.00 pier year profit could be made by a decrease of 2 per cent in slack. A large tipple with all the finest modern equipment of shaker screens, conveyors, box car loaders, etc., can only produce a grade of coal dependent upon the coal delivered by the mine car at the top of the tipple. In the mine, coal-cutting machines have been doing their part for many years toward decreasing the percentage of slack. There is therefore, only one phase of production left where real effective work can be done, that is, intelligent and constant supervision of preparatory work and shooting. The quality of coal is really entirely dependent upon the kind of coal produced at the face in the mine. Our problem is therefore, at that place. The writer is thoroughly convinced that with the proper placing of holes the use of correct amount of a suitable explosive, thoroughly tamped, with the bug dust entirely removed from the mining, a decrease in slack can be effected. We will take up this problem under five headings. First-The proper placing of bore holes. Second-The proper amount of permissible powder. Third-The proper loading and stemming of the shot.-Cushing shooting. Fourth-The necessity of removing the bug dust from the mining. Fifth - The - standardization of rounds. First-The Proper Placing of Bore Holes. The most important thing and the real secret of successful blasting of coal is the proper placing of the bore hole. This results in the correct balancing of the shot and the securing of the maximum efficiency of the explo¬sive. If you are operating a mine with a 6-foot coal seam, you most likely are using a 6-foot cutter bar on the coal cutting machines. You should use three holes to properly bring down the coal. (1) A center shot in the middle of the room drilled flat, or rather parallel to the mining-the heights of this hole will depend upon the top parting. If the coal is frozen to the roof, it will be necessary to have the hole as close to the roof as possible. If there is a free parting, the hole may be placed lower but not over twelve inches from the roof. (2)

Jan 1, 1925

Jan 1, 1928

Jan 1, 1957

Jan 1, 1941

Jan 1, 1971

Jan 1, 1969

Jan 1, 1947

By Kelly A. Cosgrove

Jan 1, 2003

Jan 1, 1952

Jan 1, 1929

Jan 1, 1988

PRESIDENT WHITESIDE: I am sure we are very grateful indeed for this very interesting talk that Mr. McClure has given us. If anyone has any questions to ask Mr. McClure I am sure he will be glad to answer them at this time. MR. WEITZEL: I want to ask Mr. McClure whether in the instance he described by-passing the drier, whether there was any rest period between the crusher and the furnace, whether the powdered coal that was not dry was allowed to rest in the pipe or was blown directly into combustion chambers. MR. McCLURE: Yes, it moved directly; there might have been some difference had we given it an opportunity to rest. We just had to get in and get out so as not to interfere with operations. MR. WEITZEL: Your idea is, even though you did use a high moisture lignite, you could store it under water if you eliminated surface moisture later. That is a new idea to me; I always had thought that you had to reduce the moisture down under 2 per cent, and to try to store it with anything more than that, any higher moisture, you would have to break the stuff loose again, as it gets so hard it won't move. MR. McCLURE: It might develop I am absolutely wrong; I am just saying what I observed, and I may have had some unusual condition, which I did not detect; something may actually develop which will make my statement of drying lignite entirely wrong. It was quite a surprise to me, surprise to every-

Jan 1, 1923

David Wolach RMCI PRESIDENT 2001-2002 on behalf of the RMCMI Board of Directors and Officers of The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute cordially invites you and your family to attend the 98th Regular Meeting and Convention to be held June 30 thru July 2, 2002 Breckenridge, Colorado

Jan 1, 2001

By Geo. B. Pryde

Dear Sir: Yours of July 23rd, relative to my appointment on the Safety Committee in connection with the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute. As you say in your letter, "The duty of this committee is to draft suggestions as to safer mining practices with the idea of preventing disasters in coal mines." Much has been written and many suggestions made on this same subject, and it is very hard to put up further recommendations than have already been made. The disasters you mention in your letter unquestionably have direct reference to coal mine explosions, which from time to time still occur in this and other countries. As far as our Western mines are concerned, you know that sprinkling and shot firing by electricity have been very extensively carried out. Notwithstanding these precautions; we have had a few rather serious disasters in the past in these mines. I do not care to place any blame or responsibility on the companies having these disasters, but it is a fact that in each and all of them, after careful investigation has been made, that the human element has had more or less bearing on the accidents happening. From most reports that we gain, either directly or indirectly, it is very evident that investigation shows after an explosion that the rules governing one or both of the above safety measures have been somewhat carelessly or negligently carried out. Much has been written and read about rock dust sprinkling, but it is questionable if this method is doing a great deal toward the eliminating of disasters. While it is true it may have the effect of preventing propagation, still I do not believe anyone claims for it a sure preventative against initial explosions. I had occasion not long ago to visit a mine, after an explosion, in which dust barriers were supposed to be hung, and from indications it was quite evident that the dust barriers had been in operation, but they did not prevent the explosion from reaching. all open parts of the mine. It is also true that profuse scattering of rock dust throughout a mine would have a beneficial effect, but there is a question arises here as to whether the sprinkling by rock dust or the spraying by water, if available, is the most effective. I am satisfied that if all coal mines are kept well sprinkled and all open workings maintained in a thorough moist condition, that the biggest factor in a coal mine explosion is in this way eliminated. There is no doubt but what the use of permissible powder, particularly if shot by electricity, has had a very marked effect on the number of dis¬asters in mines, and if this method of shooting was energetically carried out there would be a difference in the number of explosions, both minor and Major, all over the country. Some of the recent explosions have taken place where no shooting was being done, but there is no denying the fact that the other ingredient, namely, coal dust, entered in the elements very extensively. We have read and heard of hydraulic cartridges and other patents (substitutes for powder) that were being worked out for the purpose of

Jan 1, 1923

[ ] Digital images of the highwall are taken from the spoils bench. Two images of the same highwall segment are are taken from two different locations. The resulting overlapping images are used to create a three-dimensional image of that section of highwall.

Jan 1, 2005