Search Documents

By Graham Bright

Up until a few years ago most of the electrical equipment used in the mines of this country was developed for industrial purposes and was adapted for use in mines by slight modifications. It became apparent, however, that mining conditions differed widely from most industrial applications and it became necessary to design and develop apparatus, particularly suited for use under mining conditions. Most of the electrical apparatus used in mines today, however, does not owe its success entirely to mining development, but in many cases developments in other branches have been taken and improved upon and modified to meet mining conditions. Power Plant: In the earlier days the power plant for the production of electric power usually consisted of fairly small belt driven direct current generators operated from reciprocating non-condensing steam engines. Today where possible the mines purchase power from central stations and where not possible it is ususally produced from turbine driven plants using non-condensing turbines for the smaller plants and condensing turbines for the larger plants. The bad water conditions at many of the coal mines in this country is, responsible in a large measure for the high cost of upkeep and repairs in isolated power plants. This feature with the type of labor available makes it difficult to operate an isolated plant condensing except in the larger mines where water conditions are good and the apparatus can be taken care of. The geared turbine is a particularly simple and rugged piece of apparatus and requires very little attention over long periods of time. Hoists: The first electric hoists to be installed used various types of motors designed for railway or industrial purposes, and the control furnished was far from satisfactory. Today most of the mine hoist motors are of the alternating current type, especially designed for hoisting service. The control for motors of 200 H. P. or over is usually of the magnetic of liquid rheostat type, and as built today will operate over fairly long periods with a very moderate cost of up-keep. Hoists of 1000 H. P. or larger are usually of the direct current type using field control and receiving power from a flywheel or synchronous M. G. set. Hoists of this type have made remarkable records in regard to continuity of operation and low cost of up-keep. Where high speed operation is desired in either coal or metal mines, the D. C. equipment using field control and a separate M. G. set to supply power to the hoist motor is not only the safest and most economical but in many cases is the only type of equipment capable of satisfactorily obtaining the output required. A number of improvements have been brought out with the field control scheme in connection with the acceleration, retardation, overfeed and overwind of the hoist. With these new developments the hoist operator can no longer abuse the hoist by improper manipulation of the control handle. Until a few years ago the matter of safety devices was not given much consideration when installing hoisting equipment. At the present time the safety devices are considered one of the most important items in connection

Jan 1, 1922

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, 1975

Jan 1, 1927

Jan 1, 1958

Jan 1, 1923

Jan 1, 1947

Amax Coal Inc. Colowyo Coal Company Continental Conveyor & Equipment Company Crane & Hoist Sales Cummins Southwest, Inc. Energy West Mining Company Paul J. Epley The Falkirk Mining Company Fleischli Oil Company T. J. Gundlach Machine Company Halbach & Braun Hemscheidt Corporation GH Hensley Ingersoll Rand Jennmar Corporation Joy Technologies K & P Sales Engineers, Inc. Kennametal, Inc. Kerr-McGee Coal Corporation L & H Welding McLanahan Corporation National Coal Association The North American Coal Corporation Northwestern Resources Company Peabody Western Coal Company Phillips Machine Service, Inc. Pincock, Allen & Holt The Pittsburg & Midway Coal Mining Co. Ramsey Technology, Inc. Roberts & Schaefer Co. Rust Tractor Company Salt River Project Schroeder Industries Smith, Barney, Shearson Snowmass Resort Association Southern Pacific Lines Stamler Corporation TerraMatrix TIC (The Industrial Company Wyoming, Inc.) Trapper Mining Inc. Wagner Equipment Company Western Energy Company Wheeler Machinery Company

Jan 1, 1993

?Go for the Coal? Simulator Training Outline ?Training Adult Learners ?Benefits of Simulator Training ?Simulator Training at Kennecott Energy -Training Priorities -Data Utilization ?Questions

Jan 1, 2004

Jan 1, 1990

Marcie A. Greenberg RMCMI PRESIDENT 1995-1996 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 92nd Regular Meeting and Convention to be held June 30 thru July 2, 1996 Durango, Colorado

Jan 1, 1995

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

The 77th Regular Meeting of The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convened at the Marriott's Mark Conference Center, Lionshead Village, Vail, Colorado, and was in session at 10:00 a.m. Past President, Loren V. Linville, District Sales Manager. Industrial Products Division. Uniroyal. Inc., Denver. Colorado, called the meeting to order. He introduced President, Edward F. Ziolkowski, Senior Vice President and General Manager, Energy Development Company, Hanna. Wyoming. A biographical sketch follows: Ed Ziolkowski is a 1953 graduate from the Colorado School of Mines with a degree in Engineer of Mines. His mining career began with Pickands Mathers Company in Gogibic Iron Range in Northern Wisconsin and Michigan. In 1961 he joined Texas Gulf Sulphur Company as Shaft Mining Engineer for their Cane Creek Potash Project near Moab, Utah. After serving as General Mine Foreman. Mine Superintendent and General Superintendent at Cane Creek, he was transferred in 1969 to Green River. Wyoming as Project Manager of Texas Gulf Black's Fork Trona Development. In 1971 he joined Allied Chemical Green River Works, as Resident Manager. In 1972 he joined Energy Development Company, an Iowa Public Service Company Subsidiary, as General Manager of their Coal Development. He currently is Senior Vice President and General Manager of Energy Development Company, and serves on their Board of Directors as well as the Boards of several other subsidiaries. This past April he was elected to Iowa Public Service Company's Board of Directors. Ed, his lovely wife Pat and children live in Hanna, Wyoming. He has been a member of the RMCMI since 1973. Is a staunch supporter of his community and the mining industry.

Jan 1, 1981

The fourth annual Mine Rescue Evaluation program was held in conjunction with the 1995 Institute convention at Crested Butte, Colorado. The Mine Rescue committee is chaired by Lynn Busskohl and is but one of 16 such committees of the institute. In 1995 seven teams participated in the program. They were BHP Minerals, The Coteau Properties Company, Decker Coal Co., The Falkirk Mining Company, Kerr-McGee Coal Corporation, Sabine Mining Co. and Western Energy Co. [ ] Professional evaluators who provided challenging scenarios for the near 60 persons were Jack Knight of Pensacola, Florida; Dave Medick of Northwestern Resources, Jewett, Texas; Joe Nugent of Idaho Springs, Colorado and Jack Peleaux of Innovative Access, Evergreen, Colorado. Each team was comprised of seven members and one trainer representing the states of Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Texas and Wyoming. This committee challenges the incoming Colorado vice president to locate a team for the 1996 program in Durango, Colorado. Five different scenarios were presented the first day of evaluation and three the second. Each team was given the pertinent information to solve the problem as they assembled at the site. The realistic industrial related scenarios closely simulated the stress of actual rescue incidents and were going on simultaneously. Each team was unaware of the circumstances until arriving on the scene. Lynn Busskohl presented an overview of the Mine Rescue committee work at the Monday Institute welcome session and invited all attendees outside to view the various pretend rescue operations. Valuable suggestions were made by the team of evaluators following each scenario. These teams are providers of immediate rescue and medical care for accident victims at their respective properties. The members are prepared to act with immediate and professional knowledge to save lives and prevent further injuries. [ ] Many donors financially assisted with the 1995 program. They are: Blattner Constructors; Butler Machinery Co.; CMC Rescue, Inc.; Galls, Inc.; General Equipment; PMI-Petzel Distribution, Inc.; SafetyMaster; Skedco and TIC of Wyoming. An adder to the 1995 convention was golfing on Saturday, June 24 for three foursomes. This may become an annual event if there is sufficient interest. Team meetings, tests and swap meetings were attended by all participants during the Friday thru Monday program. A fun competition took place after lunch Monday followed by a training session. All events were chaired by Lynn Busskohl. On Saturday evening, June 24 a reception for all mine rescue participants and spouses who had advance registered for the social event. The RMCMI Board of Directors was invited to attend and meet with the teams. As convention attendees, all mine rescue committee members attended the Monday night country western reception and Bar-B-Q with their families. This was followed by an adult western dance evening. The Mine Rescue committee looks forward to a 1996 return to Tamarron near Durango, Colorado which was the site of the first evaluation program. Plans call for all convention housing to be at Tamarron.

Jan 1, 1995

Jan 1, 1987

Jan 1, 1977

Jan 1, 1981

Jan 1, 1988

By T. H. Brien, O&apos

At nearly all of the copper smelters in the Southwest, at some time, calculations have been made having in view the economy of replacing fuel oil with pulverized coal as a heat-producing medium for smelting operations This matter has been, and is more so now than at any time heretofore, of very great importance. Due to the intensive development of oil-producing areas of the world and the tremendous use of fuel oil for many purposes, it seems that before many years the supply of oil will become so small as to prohibit its use for such operations as smelting. This may be caused by prohibitive prices, or even by government decree as a conservation measure. In the event that the use of fuel oil becomes out of the question, the copper companies have just two alternatives: the use of pulverized coal or electricity. The copper companies of the Southwest produced an average of 808,400,000 pounds of copper per year for the war years of 1916, 1917 and 1918. This figure is, of course, a higher one than has prevailed since the war, but at the present time nearly all of the mines and smelters are getting back to capacity. There is no doubt whatever that the consumption of copper is going to increase, perhaps for the next ten years. This means that more copper mines will be discovered and developed, and that the mines which are now producing will be called upon for a greater production. This all tends to show that the mine manager who is looking ahead must develop some substitute for fuel oil in the event of its use becoming prohibitive, and all indications seem to point in that direction. The only coal which is commercially available to the smelters in the district under discussion must come from Colorado and New Mexico. These coals are high in ash and volatile matter and comparatively low in calorific value. The proximity of the smelter to the coal mines is a large factor in determining which fuel is more economical. Most of the smelters within two or three hundred miles of the coal mines find it more profitable to burn coal, while those at greater distance find that the higher freight charges on the coal make the use of oil more economical.

Jan 1, 1923

By Donald P. Brown

[Mr. Brown did not make his speech available for reprint.] Productivity is the Answer - Always Was; Always Will Be When Bill Balaz invited me to speak here this morning, he asked me to examine the three most important issues Consol will face over the coming decade. There are more than three. But the more I thought about that question, the more I realized all our issues come down to only one. As I reviewed the U.S. coal industry over the past ten years, and as I thought ahead into the year2000, one thing stood out. Not markets. Not government regulations. Not record tonnages. But productivity. The recent history of American coal is a tale of productivity improvement. It is a story that needs telling. And understanding. Not just for the good of the coal industry, but for the benefit of the American economy. Americans today do not appreciate the value of productivity growth. I don't say that lightly. As I review recent debate over American industrial competitiveness, as I look at certain legislative proposals, I see disturbing trends. It's not that anyone is against productivity per se. But many people seem to fear the very processes that enhance productivity. Twentieth century America enjoyed unprecedented growth in productivity. And in personal standards- of-living. Those two go together. This century has been one of change. Demographics. Education. And technology. Many new industries-cable television, computer services, telecommunications, for example-have grown from mere dreams to billion- dollar enterprises employing tens-of-thousands. And some older industries have declined. The nature of work has changed-from manual work to know- ledge work. From agriculture, to manufacturing, to services. In the mid-1960s. AT&T employed more than one million people. These were not high-paying jobs: telephone operators, linemen and equipment assemblers. Today, the successor Bell companies and their new competitors employ no more than a few hundred thousand. Because of automation. Because of enormous gains in employee productivity.

Jan 1, 1988