Search Documents

By E. E. Donath

Application of the coal hydrogenation process for the production of chemicals is described. It has been estimated that a plant to produce 31,090 bbl per day of chemicals and fuels would cost $326,- 000,000. These products would consist of 6.1 pct by weight tar acids, 50.8 pct aroma tics, 16.4 pct LPG, and 26.7 pct gasoline. THE coal hydrogenation process is well known as a means for the production of liquid fuels from coal. In this paper the possibilities of the coal hydrogenation process as a source of chemical raw materials will be discussed. The recovery of chemicals from coal hydrogenation products necessitates some modifications and additions to the equipment used for the production of fuels. The conversion of coal into liquid fuels such as gasoline requires two steps: liquid phase and vapor phase hydrogenation. Intermediate oils obtained in the liquid phase contain oxygen and nitrogen compounds, especially aromatic compounds, since the coal itself is composed mainly of cyclic compounds. These oils are the raw material for the separation of high molecular weight aro-matics and of tar acids and tar bases. The relative amounts of heavy and middle oil—boiling above and below, e.g., 325°C—can be influenced by temperature, residence time, and catalyst of the liquid phase hydrogenation. In the vapor phase hydrogenation a solid bed catalyst is used to convert the intermediate oil from the liquid phase operation into hydrocarbons of the gasoline boiling range. Essentially pure hydrocarbons with a low content of sulphur, oxygen, nitrogen, and olefines are obtained. Depending mainly on the catalyst, the high ring compound content of the liquid phase oil can be preserved and gasoline rich in aromatics obtained. However, with other catalysts, these ring compounds can be split into gasoline with a high content of isoparaffins.' Again, depending on the operating conditions, products of varying boiling range can be obtained. Selection of catalyst and operating conditions therefore makes possible the production of different grades of motor fuel and also variations in the relative amounts of benzene, toluene, and xylene when aromatic hydrocarbons are produced. The schematic flowsheet, Fig. 1, shows the main steps of the coal hydrogenation process, and the product streams used for the recovery of chemicals are indicated. In the liquid phase hydrogenation stage, coal is made into a paste with recycle heavy oil. The coal paste is mixed with hydrogen and preheated at a pressure of 300 to 700 atm in heat exchangers and preheaters. The coal paste and hydrogen enter high pressure converters where the liquefaction of coal, conversion of the high boiling liquid materials initially obtained, into intermediate oils is performed at a temperature around 470°C. The reaction products enter the hot catchpot in which lower boiling oil vapors are separated from the residue containing unreacted coal, ash, and heavy oil. This residue, usually called H.O.L.D. (heavy oil let down), is processed to separate solid and liquid material. By thermal treatment of the residue, e.g., a coking process, distillate oil is obtained, which can be recycled as part of the pasting oil. This stream is rich in polynuclear aromatics and can be, and has been, used for the recovery of such material. The oil vapors and hydrogen from the hot catchpot are cooled in heat exchangers and a cooler, and the condensed oil is separated from the recycle hy-

Jan 1, 1953

By Phil Shelton

What exactly does clean coal mean? Mining coal creates dust and releases methane gas. And burning coal liberates CO2 and emits particulates, including SO2 and NOx. Coal creates wastes that are often stored in unsightly and potentially dangerous slag heaps and lagoons. When clean coal technology is discussed, it sometimes seems that creating modern or ?ultra super critical? coal-fired power stations is presented as the main or even the only answer. However, there may be a more holistic approach. Using the energy potential of coal is always going to have environmental impacts. Some of these will be negative. But the need to secure future energy resources demands that society tackle these negative issues and find ways to minimize and offset them.

Jan 1, 2010

By M. R. Geer Olds, H. F. Yancey

THE increase in the number of coal-cleaning plants employing dense-medium processes occurring since 1946 is especially interesting when viewed historically. Both sand and magnetite were introduced as material for heavy mediums at about the same time, sand in the Chance process in 1921 and magnetite in the Conklin process in 1922, but from that point on their records diverge. The Chance process enjoyed a steady growth from its inception, whereas no additional magnetite plants were built in the United States for over 20 years. Then, following the close of the World War 11, magnetite was again introduced, this time with marked success. During the following years some 47 plants employing magnetite medium were built. This rapid growth of dense-medium cleaning has been concurrent with widespread adoption of full-seam mining on one hand and a return to a more competitive market on the other. At a time when changing mining practice has provided cleaning plants with dirtier coal and changing market conditions have simultaneously demanded a cleaner product, the industry has through necessity turned to improved preparation. The inherently greater sharpness with which dense-medium processes can separate coal from impurity is thus helping to hold the line against ever-increasing mining costs and at the same time assisting materially in retaining badly needed markets. Although dense-medium cleaning unquestionably offers a distinct advantage when the washing problem is difficult, other methods can provide almost equally high efficiency when the coal is easy to wash. Moreover, fine coal cannot yet be treated by heavy medium in a proved process, although the Driessen cyclone is in the pilot-plant stage. Most of the present types of dense-medium equipment have been in use only a few years, and the dearth of information in the literature concerning their performance characteristics is entirely understandable, Nevertheless this information is necessary if the process is to be intelligently applied to individual cleaning problems. Without data on the efficiency of a process in a particular type of separation, it is difficult to assess the advantage to be expected from it. Similarly, the role of particle size in heavy-medium separation is important in some cases, yet there is little published information on this aspect. To mention only one more of the numerous points on which essential information is lacking, the bearing of medium characteristics on performance has been discussed only in qualitative terms. It was with the hope of providing information on some of these points that the Bureau of Mines built a dense-medium pilot plant for cleaning coal at its Northwest Experiment Station in Seattle in 1950. The plant has been operated continuously since that time, and over 50 runs have been made on 7 coals exhibiting a wide range of washability characteristics. An idea of the magnitude of this work will be gained from the fact that examination of the plant products has involved some 600 float-and-sink separations and about 2500 ash determinations. A laboratory pilot plant is especially well adapted to investigate many aspects of performance because close control over test conditions can be exercised and because a large number of tests can be made rapidly. On the other hand, factors such as consumption of medium and other cost items can be investigated satisfactorily only in a commercial plant. Actually, the two forms of investigation should be complementary, with the laboratory work pointing the way for confirming tests in commercial units. Pilot Plant The dense-medium pilot plant employed for this work comprises a 24x30-in. drum-type separating vessel, a 12-in. densifier, a 12-in. magnetic separator, a 26-in. x 9-ft vibrating screen, and the necessary pumps and conveyors for handling materials. Arrangement of these units corresponds with the flowsheet used in most commercial plants, except that a thickener is not provided for the feed to the magnetic separator. Coal and refuse discharge from the separating drum to the vibrator, which is divided longitudinally down the center. Medium draining through the first 3 ft of the screen is recirculated directly to the drum. Sprays on the middle 3 ft of the screen rinse medium from the products, and the last 3-ft section is for dewatering. Dilute medium from the rinsing and dewatering sections is pumped to the magnetic separator, where magnetic solids are recovered. These are pumped to the densifier, from which they return to the medium-drainage sump by gravity through a demagnetizing coil. The drum-type separating vessel is a scale model of a commercial unit. Feed enters axially at one end of the drum just below the surface of the bath, and float material overflows through a circular opening at the other end. Particles sinking to the bottom of the bath are picked up by lifting flights bolted to the inner wall of the drum, elevated out of the bath, and sluiced to the vibrating screen. Baffles suspended in the bath prevent float material from entering the sink-lifting flights. About 8 gpm of medium is used to sluice the feed into the drum. An additional 15 to 24 gpm, depending upon operating conditions, is added through two pipes dipping into the bath behind the baffle on the side where the sink-lifting flights enter the bath. The bath available for separation is 2 ft long and 13 in. wide, giving an area of 2.08 sq ft. Depth of bath from the surface to the top of the sink-lifting flights, measured vertically below the axis, is 6 in.

Jan 1, 1954

By T. S. Spicer

The relationship of coal characteristics to the principal types of firing equipment has been known to the coal combustion engineer, but is not as familiar a subject for purchasing agents, salesmen, consumers, and executives of coal-producing and consuming companies. This general survey of characteristics determined by standard laboratory tests, of major types of combustion techniques, and of the relationships between the two is directed toward the latter audience. It will also serve as a review for those actively engaged in the combustion of coal. Although the relationship of coal characteristics to the principal types of firing equipment is well known to the experienced coal combustion engineer, apparently there is need for a summary article on this subject. The author has received numerous requests for such a paper from purchasing agents, coal salesmen, coal customers and executives of coal-producing and consuming companies. Consequently, the scope of this paper will be directed to this audience, with the hope that it may serve also as a review to others actively engaged in the combustion of coal. The magnitude of this subject is so great that only a brief general treatise is possible. The author realizes that because there are so many special cases and exceptions to the generalities which follow, he is in jeopardy of contradicting himself. It is the hope, however, that the many references cited will prove valuable to those who wish to study the details excluded by necessity, due to space and time limitations. Hence, the characteristics of coals as determined by standard laboratory tests will be discussed; the major types of combustion techniques reviewed; and then the characteristics and firing will be related. CHARACTERISTICS OF UNITED STATES COALS The coals of the United States range from lignite to anthracite and each has its own general characteristics. The extensive coal fields of the U. S. are shown in Fig. 1 and the estimated reserve according to rank for each state is illustrated in Fig. 2. Coals may be classified according to rank as shown by Table I from the ASTM Standards on Coal and Coke, D-338-38.1 The basis of this classification is ac- cording to fixed carbon and heating value (Btu per pound) calculated to a mineral-matter-free basis. The high-rank coals are classified according to fixed carbon on the dry basis; and the low-rank coals according to Btu on the moist basis. Agglomerating and slacking (weathering) indices are used to differentiate between certain adjacent groups. While rank is not itself a characteristic it does signify certain characteristics that accompany a class of fuel. Anthracite, for example, immediately implies a hard, free-burning, smokeless coal of low volatile matter, usually having an ash of high fusibility. Coals may also be classified according to grade as described by ASTM Designation D-398-37.1 This quality classification is determined by size, calorific value, ash, ash-softening temperature, and sulfur. This type of classification is not used as extensively by the industry as the rank classification. Fig. 3 shows the heat value of different ranks compared to proximate analyses. Coals may also be classified by sizes, as shown in Tables IIA and IIB, and sizes can be on both top and bottom limits. If this is done, then the coal is called double screened; otherwise, either top or bottom sizes can be specified as a limit. Bituminous coal sizing varies from field to field and depends upon the market demand. The common sizes and their main uses are outlined in Table IIA. Anthracite is usually available in many sizes at the colliery, and Table IIB summarizes standard sizes and names. Although rank, grade, and size designations help identify and describe a coal in question, there still remain other characteristics such as indicated by moisture, free swelling index, grindability tests, etc. A bituminous coal information chart Table III) suggested for use in studying the available coals in a region, lists origin and chemical and physical characteristics. Even this more comprehensive list does not completely spell out all the characteristics of a heterogenous material like coal. For example,

Jan 1, 1961

By Henry R. Linden

The demand for natural gas continues to increase at higher than anticipated rates, partly because of its widening price advantage over most other fossil fuels when the cost of air-pollution control is included. However, there are clear indications that the natural gas supply from the conliguous 48 states and continental shelves will not keep up with this rapid growth in demand indefinitely. Projections are presented which define the extent of potential deficiencies from the 1970's to the year 2000. Among the sources of supplemental gas - imported pipeline natural gas from Canada and Mexico, tanker import of liquefied natural gas, and synthetic pipeline gas from coal and oil shale -by far the most abundant at potentially competitive costs is pipeline gas from coal. The state of development and relative economics of the various coal gasification processes are reviewed. It is shown that synthetic pipeline gas could become a very substantial market for bituminous coal and lignite at current mine-mouth prices - 60-70 million tons of coal for each trillion cubic feet of synthetic pipeline gas produced. This corresponds to only slightly more than the current annual increase in gas demand. Although annual discoveries (gross additions to proved reserves) of natural gas in the United States are still on a general upward trend from the current level of 22 trillion cu ft annually, most forecasters do not expect this to increase substantially in the foreseeable future. For example, the updated (to include 1966 and 1967 data) mathematical model of natural gas discovery and production in the U.S. developed by the Institute of Gas Technology (IGT)' projects that discoveries will level out at about 25 trillion cu ft annually in the late 1970's and during the 1980's and then decline to about 21 trillion cu ft by the year 2000 (Fig. 1). This adds up to a new supply for the period 1968-2000 of about 790 trillion cu ft. Experts who usually reflect the producers' viewpoint, such as Radford L. Schantz of Foster Associates,* are relatively more pessimistic. In contrast, a forecast just made by the U.S. Dept. of the Interior is much more optimistic.3 It assumes an increase in gas discoveries of 2.2% per year over the period 1965-80, reaching about 30 trillion cu ft in 1980. If this rate of increase were extended to the year 2000, annual discoveries would reach 46 trillion cu ft at that time, for a total over the period 1968-2000 of about 1100 trillion cu ft. To these forecasts of new gas discoveries must be added proved reserves of roughly 290 trillion cu ft,4 bringing total U.S. supplies for the rest of the century to nearly 1100 trillion cu ft (IGT) and possibly as high as 1400 trillion cu ft (U.S. Dept. of the Interior). This is approximately the same range as that of two estimates of total remaining recoverable natural gas supply: Potential Gas Committee, 980 trillion cu ft5 and IGT, 1450 trillion cu ft.6 Only the 1965 estimate by the U.S. Geological Survey7 suggests that economically recoverable natural gas supplies will not be exhausted around the end of the century. These forecasts are, naturally, based on the assumption that changes in technological, economic, and regulatory environment as they affect the gas industry will be of an evolutionary, not revolutionary, nature. The various forecasts of potential natural gas supply must now be compared to forecasts of natural gas demand (Table I). The general consensus is that the recent Future Requirements Committee projection to 1990' (extended to the year 2000 by the most recent U.S. Bureau of Mines (USBM) projection9) represents the minimum gas requirements (Table 11). They add up to a total of 1030 trillion cu ft for the period 1968-2000. Even this minimum anticipated gas demand exceeds the total remaining supply estimate by the Potential Gas Committee and would nearly exhaust the proved reserves plus new discoveries projected by IGT. The supply situation would appear much tighter if the demand projections of the Texas Eastern Transmission Gorp.10 and the American Gas Assn.(A.GA.)'' were used (Table I). Yet, these higher forecasts probably do not include the effects of such new markets as gas fuel cells, use of liquefied natural gas as a transport fuel, etc. They also may not fully reflect the impact of air quality control on the fuel market. Obviously, the probable discrepancy between projected supply and demand can only be accommodated in four ways. 1) Rapid increase in exploration and drilling activity to provide new supplies in the amount projected by the optimistic U.S. Dept. of the Interior forecast, coupled with an increase in net pipeline imports from Canada and Mexico from the present 0.5 trillion cu ft per year

Jan 1, 1970

By M. A. Elliott

The technology of gasifying coal to produce synthesis and pipeline gas has advanced significantly in the Past 20 to 30 years. This period has seen the extensive use of oxygen in coal gasification, the development of suspension gasification processes and fluidized-bed gasifiers, the operation of various gasification processes at elevated pressures, and operation of gasifiers under slagging conditions. These developments are discussed, and their application to commercial and pilot plant gasifiers is reviewed. Typical processes for synthesis gas production are described, and operating results are compared. Pipeline or high-Btu gas may be produced from coal either by catalytic conversion of synthesis gas to methane, or by the direct reaction of coal with hydrogen (hydrogasification) to produce a methane-rich gas. Neither of these methods has been applied commercially, but developments pertaining to each of them are reviewed, and general processing schemes are discussed. The use of coal as a raw material for manufacturing gas has a long and distinguished history. In fact, the gas industry began in the early 1800's when William Murdock demonstrated that it was feasible to produce and distribute gas made by retorting coal. Coal was used exclusively for gas manufacture until the middle of the 19th centruy, when Lowe invented the carbureted water gas process. In that process, coke was one of the raw materials used, so coal was still an important factor in gas manufacture. However the availability and relatively low cost of natural gas in the United States, and its widespread distribution by long-distance pipelines in recent years, has virtually eliminated the use of coal as a raw material for gas manufacture in this country. It should not be inferred from the foregoing that the technology of coal gasification has remained static in the United States and abroad. In fact, in the past two decades many new concepts have been developed in both the science and the technology of gasification. This progress has been a result of the considerable expansion in research on the fundamental chemistry and physics of gasification reactions, and in development work on gasification processes. This expansion in effort stems in part from increased interest in the use of gas as a raw material for the synthesis of chemicals and liquid fuels, and in part from the need to develop methods for gasifying coal and other solid fossil fuels to ensure a long-range supply of energy in the form of gaseous fuel. In these uses of gas, synthesis gas, a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide in various proportions, is the starting material. It may be converted catalytically to gaseous and liquid hydrocarbons and other chemicals, or to hydrogen for use in hydrogenation or reduction reactions. Since coal is our most abundant fossil fuel, it is inevitable that one day it will regain its prominence as a raw material for gas manufacture. It is of interest, therefore, to consider the present status of gasification technology, directing attention particularly to advances made in recent years. Inasmuch as many comprehensive treatises l-3 and review4-7 of gasification technology are available, no attempt will be made in the present review to cover all processes in detail. Instead, the discussion will be concerned chiefly with typical processes embodying the advances that are most likely to be generally applied. ADVANCES IN GASIFICATION TECHNOLOGY For purposes of this discussion the starting point will be the conventional processes that were used for many years for the complete gasification of coal. These were: 1) carbonization in coke ovens followed by gasification of coke with air and steam in cyclic water-gas generators, and 2) fixed-bed air-blown producers. Both of these methods have obvious deficiencies when we consider that the ideal complete gasification process would be a single-stage, continuous

Jan 1, 1961

This issue presents the first of several articles making up the Bump Symposium, which was held at the 1958 Annual Meeting of AIME. Other Symposium papers will appear in the September issue of Mining Engineering. THE term mountain bump describes the sudden rupture of one or more coal pillars under excessive stress. These bursts occur with varying degrees of violence and sometimes include adjacent strata, especially the bottom rock. Many failures do not develop enough violence to be dangerous and are regarded as an aid to coal production, but severe occurrences are accompanied by tons of flying coal, dense clouds of dust, and excessive gas emission. Such bursts sometimes throw heavy machinery several feet. Major factors to be considered in the problem are the nature of the strata above and below the seam and the depth of cover. Bumps are classified as to their nature, extent of damage, and point of occurrence, e. g., face bump, coal bump, high side bump, low side pavement bump, and district bump. The problem is extremely complex, and it cannot be over-emphasized that preventive measures, if they are to be successful, must be based on a thorough study of conditions in the individual mine. In western Canada, for example, the McGillivray mine, operating in a 9-ft seam at 2000 ft, has experienced severe bumps, but there have been no occurrences in the International mine, which operates in the same coal seam at 2400 ft, where the coal averages 17 ft thick. Differences in conditions governing the operation of these two mines are described in one of the following articles (see page 883). Again, most bumps in coal mines take place along pillar extraction lines, but at the Sunnyside mine in Utah they also occur a long way from active workings and sometimes in virgin territory. It is usual, too, for such failures to occur under fairly deep cover. But at Sunnyside, to cite only one instance, there have been disturbances along the main fault zone under less than 500 ft of cover. All too often conditions favorable to bumps are revealed only by actual mining—at Springhill No. 2 mine, drilling in roof and pavement strata disclosed a 60-ft sandstone bed after operations had started— and where extraction has advanced too far for preventive measures to be incorporated in the mining plan, districts have had to be abandoned. But in an era when premium ores are being rapidly depleted in the face of rising demands, abandonment is not easily justified. There must be systematic planning to eliminate coal mine bumps, insofar as this is possible. As in the Gary district of West Virginia (see page 888) much has been accomplished by planned operations based on known factors in bump control. But even this is not enough. Precise instrumentation is needed to indicate where bumps are likely to occur, and in both the U. S. and Canada stress analysis studies are being carried out with this object in view. These pages reveal the progress being made.

Jan 1, 1959

By H. E. Mauck

The many factors that control bumping must be carefully studied for each coal seam where bumps occur, and specifications known to exclude bumping should be incorporated in the mining plans. This calls for complete knowledge of the seam's characteristics and its adjacent strata, and in many instances these characteristics are not revealed until the seam is actually mined. Pressure and shock bumps, the two general types, occur jointly and separately. In this discussion no differentiation will be made. Whether pressure or shock, they are treated as bumps, and both must be eliminated. Bumps in mines have occurred in several places throughout the coal fields of the world. A study of many of these occurrences indicates that geologic characteristics, development planning, and mining procedure have contributed. But more specifically, there are conditions usually associated with bumps: thickness of cover, strong strata directly on or above the seam, a tough floor or bottom not subject to heaving, mountainous terrain, stressed and steeply pitching beds, and the proximity of faults and other geologic structures. Mine planning should incorporate these known factors (not necessarily in order of importance): 1) Main panel entries should be limited to those absolutely necessary to ventilate and serve the mine. This reduces the span over which stresses may be set up that will later throw excessive pressures on barrier and chain pillars when they are being removed. 2) Barrier pillars should be as wide as practicable so that they will be strong enough to carry the loads thrown on them when final mining is being carried out. 3) Pillars should never be fully recovered on both sides of a main entry development if the barrier and chain pillars are to be removed later. The excessive pressures placed on the main chain and pillar barriers by arching of the gob areas can result in bumping when these barriers are being removed. 4) Full seam extraction is better accomplished by driving to the mine boundary and then retreat-drawing all pillars. If there are natural boundaries in the mine—such as faults, want areas, and valleys —retreat should be started there. 5) Pillars should be uniform in size and shape. The entire development of the mine should call for uniform blocks with entries driven parallel and perpendicular. Only angle break-throughs should be driven when necessary for haulage, etc. 6) For better distribution of rock stresses and reduction of carrying loads per unit area, both chain and barrier pillars should be developed with the maximum dimensions. 7) Pillars should be open-ended when recovered. If they are oblong, the short side should be mined first. Both sides of a block should not be mined simultaneously, but under no circumstance should the lifts be cut together. 8) Pillar sprags should not be left in mining. If they are not recoverable, they should be rendered incapable of carrying loads. 9) Pillar lines should be as short as practicable. (Three or four blocks are adequate). Experience has shown that rooms should be driven up and retreated immediately. The longer a room stands, the more unfavorable the mining conditions. This contributes to bumping. 10) Pillars should not be split in abutment zones (high stress areas lying close to mined out areas) and if slabbing is necessary, it should be open-ended. 11) Pillars should be recovered in a straight line. Irregular pillar lines will allow excessive pressures thrown on the jutting points. Experience has shown that the lead end of the pillar line can be slightly in advance. 12) Pillar lines should be extracted as rapidly as possible. This appears to lessen pressures on the line and render abutment zones less hazardous. 13) Extraction planning should call for large, continuous robbed out areas. Robbing out an area too narrow to get a major fall of the strata above the seam tends to throw excessive pressures on a pillar line. 14) Timbering in pillar areas should be adequate but not excessive. Too heavy timbering or cribbing is likely to retard roof falls and throw excessive weight on the pillar line. 15) Experience has shown that when pillar lines have retreated 800 to 1000 ft from the solid, bumps can occur. Because this distance may vary in different seams, impact stresses should be studied for each individual condition. In any event, extra precautions should be taken against bumps in this area. This list of controlling factors may or may not be complete. It probably is not, but it covers most of the problem's significant aspects. The question is whether or not bumping can be eliminated. The answer is that bumping can be minimized and possibly eliminated if these and other established factors are thoughtfully considered and incorporated in the mining and extraction plans. If a mine has already been developed or the pattern set so that little change can be made, then it will be necessary to adjust to the most nearly practicable system that can incorporate the known factors.

Jan 1, 1959

By Albert L. Toenges

Alaska requires an adequate fuel supply for its development, and has large potential coal reserves ranging from lignite to subbituminous and anthracite. Coal production in the Territory now is less than the requirements. In L947, production was 361,000 tons, divided about equally between bituminous coal from the Matanuska field and subbituminous coal from the Nenana field. There is need for development of modern mechanized mines, which should produce the required output with a minimum of workers. These mines should not be thought of in the light of large potential capacity, as in the States. However, these new mines should be developed by modern methods, which should result in lower costs than at Present. Because of the diverse physical conditions in the coal fields, intensive investigation by diamond drilling is necessary to properly plan the development and equipment of mine sites at minimum cost. The Bureau of Mines is doing this now in the Wishbone Hill area of the Matanuska field. All coal land in Alaska is government-owned and subject to the Coal Leasing Act. Coal mining in Alaska has been handicapped by an inadequate supply of dependable workers. Wage scales have been very high in recent years, and "floaters" have been attracted to the coal mines. This type of labor is not conducive to efficient operation. Modernization of mines will require skilled and dependable workers and to induce such men to become interested in coal mining in Alaska, modern facilities, such as modern houses, schools, churches, and recreation halls, must be provided near the mines. Alaska is still a frontier and improvements in living standards must accompany development of mines in order that a stable community may be established. Coal is known to have been mined in Alaska at Port Graham, on Cook Inlet, by the Russians in 1854. During the Klondike gold rush in 1898, coal was mined in scattered areas for use on steamers plying the Yukon River and its navigable tributaries. After the Alaska Railroad was built, two important fields were developed—the Nenana and the Matanuska (Fig 1). The Bering River field was explored by the Guggenheim interests at one time, and a railroad to the area was constructed. However, the field was abandoned because of litigation and reported unsatisfactory physical condition of the beds. There are areas that today are unimportant but which may be developed in the future. Possibly the most important of these is the deposits of subbituminous coal adjacent to Cook Inlet, near Homer, on the Kenai Peninsula (see Fig 1). It is expected that the demand for coal in the Kenai Peninsula will increase because the population in that area has increased as a result of agricultural development. Numerous outcrops of coal are exposed on the peninsula and development of a mine there would obviate dependence on supplies of coal from the Matanuska field. Coal from this field must be shipped approximately 160 miles by rail to Seward and transported thence by boat about 180 miles to Homer. There has been no regular boat service from Anchorage to Homer. There are deposits of coal in the Arctic region but a description of them will not be given in this paper, which will describe the more important deposits in the Alaska Railroad belt. The results of a reconnaissance in the Arctic have been described.' Description of Fields MATANUSKA FIELD The Matanuska field lies in the valleys of the Matanuska River and its tributaries and their separating ridges. This field has been interpreted by geologists as a sunken fault block that separated the Talkeetna Range of mountains from the Chugach Range. The Matanuska River flows west along the south side of the field and the Glenn highway, which extends from Anchorage via Palmer to the Richardson highway near Glen Allan, follows the Matanuska Valley. This road to the coal field can be traveled the year around. Although the snow-

Jan 1, 1950

By W. L. Crentz, E. E. Donath, D. Doherty

IN 1948, the United States used nearly six million barrels of petroleum products every day. Although substitution of synthetic fuels for the natural petroleum product is not here yet, large quantities of special-purpose coal will be required in ever-increasing volume as the domestic production of oil from other sources fails to meet demand and the production of synthetic fuels begins. Petroleum economists do not agree as to when the shortages of domestic oil will appear; but the increasing per capita consumption of oil, coupled with a constantly growing population drawing on a potential domestic oil supply estimated to be 85 billion barrels, sooner or later will result in demand exceeding domestic supply. When this situation comes about, the excess demand will be either eliminated by curtailment of consumption or the demand met by increasing importation of foreign oil or by the production of synthetic fuels. The first recourse would definitely retard the heretofore unbroken rise in American living standards, while dependence upon a foreign oil supply during a war or other emergency would be dangerous. On the other hand, the enormous coal reserves in the United States, plus sizable deposits of oil shale, indicate adequate means of augmenting a diminishing domestic oil supply. Some idea of the impact of an expanding synthetic liquid fuels program on the coal-mining industry may be gathered when it is considered that to supply just half of our present-day petroleum needs synthetically from coal would increase the coal output by about 500 million tons annually, using an 11,900 Btu bituminous coal as the plant feed. If either a subbituminous coal or lignite were used, the quantity required would be materially increased. Synthetic Fuel Processes: The principal synthetic fuel processes using coal as a raw material are the Bergius, or coal-hydrogenation process, and the Fischer-Tropsch, or gas-synthesis process. These two processes not only produce different end products, but the preparation of the coal used in each presents its own individual problem to the coal-preparation engineer. The hydrogenation process brings together a mixture of dry, finely powdered coal, catalyst, and heavy oil to form a paste. Addition of hydrogen under rather high pressure and temperature conditions brings about transformation of the coal to a liquid product, from which a high-grade gasoline and other motor fuels may be obtained. The Fischer-Tropsch process requires the production of synthesis gas, a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen. At the Bureau of Mines Louisiana, Mo., demonstration plant, this gas is being made by reacting dried pulverized coal with carefully controlled volumes of oxygen and superheated steam. After purification and in the presence of the proper catalyst and suitable conditions of pressure and temperature, the hydrogen and carbon monoxide components of the synthesis gas react to form motor fuel. The two processes are not competitive but rather com-

Jan 1, 1951

By E. E. Donath, W. L. Crentz, D. Doherty

IN 1948, the United States used nearly six million barrels of petroleum products every day. Although substitution of synthetic fuels for the natural petroleum product is not here yet, large quantities of special-purpose coal will be required in ever-increasing volume as the domestic production of oil from other sources fails to meet demand and the production of synthetic fuels begins. Petroleum economists do not agree as to when the shortages of domestic oil will appear; but the increasing per capita consumption of oil, coupled with a constantly growing population drawing on a potential domestic oil supply estimated to be 85 billion barrels, sooner or later will result in demand exceeding domestic supply. When this situation comes about, the excess demand will be either eliminated by curtailment of consumption or the demand met by increasing importation of foreign oil or by the production of synthetic fuels. The first recourse would definitely retard the heretofore unbroken rise in American living standards, while dependence upon a foreign oil supply during a war or other emergency would be dangerous. On the other hand, the enormous coal reserves in the United States, plus sizable deposits of oil shale, indicate adequate means of augmenting a diminishing domestic oil supply. Some idea of the impact of an expanding synthetic liquid fuels program on the coal-mining industry may be gathered when it is considered that to supply just half of our present-day petroleum needs synthetically from coal would increase the coal output by about 500 million tons annually, using an 11,900 Btu bituminous coal as the plant feed. If either a subbituminous coal or lignite were used, the quantity required would be materially increased. Synthetic Fuel Processes: The principal synthetic fuel processes using coal as a raw material are the Bergius, or coal-hydrogenation process, and the Fischer-Tropsch, or gas-synthesis process. These two processes not only produce different end products, but the preparation of the coal used in each presents its own individual problem to the coal-preparation engineer. The hydrogenation process brings together a mixture of dry, finely powdered coal, catalyst, and heavy oil to form a paste. Addition of hydrogen under rather high pressure and temperature conditions brings about transformation of the coal to a liquid product, from which a high-grade gasoline and other motor fuels may be obtained. The Fischer-Tropsch process requires the production of synthesis gas, a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen. At the Bureau of Mines Louisiana, Mo., demonstration plant, this gas is being made by reacting dried pulverized coal with carefully controlled volumes of oxygen and superheated steam. After purification and in the presence of the proper catalyst and suitable conditions of pressure and temperature, the hydrogen and carbon monoxide components of the synthesis gas react to form motor fuel. The two processes are not competitive but rather com-

Jan 1, 1951

By W. L. Crentz, E. E. Donath, D. Doherty

Maurice Rey—The influence of cyclone diameter upon the fineness of separation is an important point which, however, cannot be discussed adequately if the injection pressure or the rate of flow are not specified. Perhaps some light can be thrown on the matter by using the formulas derived by Dahlstrom. Let us consider several geometrically similar cyclones where the apertures e and b are equal and proportional to the diameter D and which are operated with the same pressure drop. Eq 8 of Dahlstrom's paper can be written: Q Q = K D'. " or. if F is constant: Q = K D18 K is a constant of proportionality. Introducing this value of Q in eq 13 gives elimination efficiency = K D0' " Elimination efficiency, in the terminology of Dahlstrom, means the diameter of particles, in microns, which divide equally between the underflow and the overflow. This denomination is regrettable and it would be preferable to call it diameter of separation or characteristic size or any other name connoting a size rather than an efficiency. Whatever the name used, the above equation shows a slow increase in the fineness of separation when the diameter of the cyclone decreases. For example, if a 14-in. cyclone gives a 400-mesh separation (37 microns), geometrically similar cyclones, having the same pressure drop will give separations at the sizes shown below.

Jan 1, 1951

By E. E. Donath, W. L. Crentz, D. Doherty

Maurice Rey—The influence of cyclone diameter upon the fineness of separation is an important point which, however, cannot be discussed adequately if the injection pressure or the rate of flow are not specified. Perhaps some light can be thrown on the matter by using the formulas derived by Dahlstrom. Let us consider several geometrically similar cyclones where the apertures e and b are equal and proportional to the diameter D and which are operated with the same pressure drop. Eq 8 of Dahlstrom's paper can be written: Q Q = K D'. " or. if F is constant: Q = K D18 K is a constant of proportionality. Introducing this value of Q in eq 13 gives elimination efficiency = K D0' " Elimination efficiency, in the terminology of Dahlstrom, means the diameter of particles, in microns, which divide equally between the underflow and the overflow. This denomination is regrettable and it would be preferable to call it diameter of separation or characteristic size or any other name connoting a size rather than an efficiency. Whatever the name used, the above equation shows a slow increase in the fineness of separation when the diameter of the cyclone decreases. For example, if a 14-in. cyclone gives a 400-mesh separation (37 microns), geometrically similar cyclones, having the same pressure drop will give separations at the sizes shown below.

Jan 1, 1951

By G. A. Vissac

The only fine coal washer with proved automatic controls, the feldspar jig is capable of good efficiencies even at low separating gravities, handles a variety of products, and treats 150 tph and over. IN continental Europe the feldspar jig is used almost exclusively for cleaning the fine sizes of coal; it operates with an artificial bed, made up generally of pieces of feldspar or of any other hard and heavy rock with good cleavages. A primitive form of this machine requiring close supervision was used in this country years ago, but output was small. The modern machines are generally air-pulsated Baum-type jigs, with capacities up to 150 tph, and treat sizes from % in. to 0, usually previously dedusted or deslimed. These jigs are equipped with very accurate and sensitive automatic controls insuring satisfactory operation even at low separating gravity and with feeds irregular in quality and quantity. This paper will deal more particularly with coal cleaning separation, but the technical studies apply equally to all minerals. Theory of the Feldspar Jig To understand fully the operation of the feldspar jig and to appreciate its potential value, it is necessary to measure and analyze the motion of small particles of various specific gravities, falling in various media, under various conditions. As no practical formulas were available for that purpose, the writer has developed new theories and established new sets of formulas, which cannot be demonstrated here. They are applicable to all minerals and to many problems of coal or mineral concentration. These formulas do not pretend to absolute accuracy, but results, tested by comparison with experimentally recorded data, are sufficient for practical purposes, as they give definite indications of trends, relative values, and order of magnitude of the many factors involved. For pulsating motions no earlier formulas are available. In the case of continuous currents or motions, such formulas as Rittinger's, Allen's, or Stokes', over a hundred years old, apply only to special shapes and sizes of particles, involve factors and coefficients difficult to measure or appreciate, and deal only with free motions. They are of little use in solving practical problems. Units used with the formulas presented here are in the CGS system. Lateral friction and suction have been taken into account according- to methods currently used in aerodynamics, and only hindered motion is dealt with. As the feldspar jig is primarily intended to create a fluid bed condition, the mixture of fluids and solids obtained is homogeneous, and the apparent specific gravity of the separating medium is calculated accordingly. For instance, if 20 pct of the volume is coal and shale, with an average of 1.60 sp gr, in a liquid of 1.10 sp gr, the actual specific gravity of the separating fluid is 0.80 x 1.1 + 0.20 X 1.6 = 1.20. The fundamental equations are as follows: The general motion of a particle falling in a medium of specific gravity equal to u, hindered motion. is dv/dt = g/Ls [ L (s-u) - u/g v2 [1] g = 981 cm per sec, acceleration of gravity, and L = thickness of the particle of specific gravity (s) and velocity (v). The initial acceleration dv/dt = g (1-u/s ) [2] is a function of the specific gravity of the particle, only for a given medium, and independent of its dimensions—an ideal separating condition. The terminal velocity Vt = gxL- (s-u)/u, [3] for a given value of u, is a function of s and L. Two particles, L, s, and L2 s2, are said to be equivalent if they have the same terminal velocity, and accordingly L1/L2=s2-u/s1-u. [4] Two such particles cannot be separated by continuous currents, in any concentrating device. Because the initial accelerated motion, which provides for efficient separation, is followed by a constant velocity, which has a limiting effect, it is essen-

Jan 1, 1956

By Hubert E. Risser

Although, for about a half-century the percentage of coal production provided through strip mining has steadily increased, recent trends indicate that a peak in percentage (not tonnage) is being approached, principally because of the decline in economic adrantage enjoyed by strip mining compared to underground mining. Factors contributing to the decline are the decrease in the margin of advantage in manpower requirements held by strip mining; an increase in depth and volume of overhurden, requiring larger equipment and capital investment; increasing lack of reserve land blocks large enough to support extensive strip mining operations; more stringent legislation for reclamation of stripped land, with increasingly higher costs of such reclamation; and the increasing costs of land surface rights for strip mining. Already there has been a peak and suhsequent decline in relative importance of strip mining insome major Eastern coal-producing states; trends indicate that a peaking for the whole Eastern region is on the way. Although, in the West the pressures are less severe, they will, nevertheless, reduce to an increasing degree the advantage that strip mining has possessed. For about half a century, strip mining has been providing an ever-increasing share of total coal output in the United States, and in the past 30 years this share has grown from less than 8% to 33.7%, as shown in Fig. 1. Fig. 1 also shows that strip mining is gaining faster in the West than in the East. From 1961 to 1967, output from strip mines grew 63.6 million toqs, or 52.2%. Certainly there is nothing in such performance to indicate any peaking in the level of strip coal-mine production. But the fact is that, if not in actual tonnage, strip mining appears to be reaching its peak in relative importance, at least east of the Mississippi River. And the area east of the Mississippi provides 90.0% of the strip and 94.9% of the total coal production of the nation. The relative economic advantage which spurred strip mining's growth for a third of a century has been diminishing markedly in recent years. Fig. 2 shows evidence of this decline. From 1947 until 1961, strip tonnage output remained fairly stable, at the end of the period showing only a 12.5% decline. Meanwhile, underground coal production fell 44.5%. As the result of the greater decline in underground coal, strip coal in 1961 furnished 30.3% of the total coal produced, compared to only 22.1% in 1947. In the succeeding six years, however, underground coal output increased by 76.5 million tons, while strip output increased only 63.6 million. Further evidence of the strengthening of underground coal's relative position — or if you will, the weakening of strip coal's position — can be found in the major coal stripping states: Illinois, West Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and West Virginia, which in 1966 provided 80% of the nation's strip coal. Fig. 3 shows what has been happening in three states lying in the Appalachian field and in the total output of these three states. In the figure, the column height represents the output of coal mined by all methods. The number at the base of each column is the percentage mined by stripping. In Pennsylvania and Ohio, the percentage of strip mining increased between 1956 and 1961, but by 1966 had declined from the 1961 level. In West Virginia, a decline occurred during the first five years but was followed by a rise. In January 1968, Coal Age published an article listing the locations and capacities of new large mines in the planning and construction stages that would be operating by 1968-1971. The plans for West Virginia and Pennsylvania indicated all the new mines would be underground. Except to the extent they might replace existing under-

Jan 1, 1970

By Martial P. Corriveau

Almost everyone agrees that coal and oil shale are the only fossil fuel resources in which the United States is self-sufficient. Of the two, only coal has a technology sufficiently developed to be of intermediate term benefit. Since it takes at least 20 years to bring advanced technology into practice, it seems logical that the major focus on energy developments should be aimed at coal. Meanwhile, we need to trade-off between actions to meet our immediate needs and the various political regulations and social demands that are disrupting the coal industry and the industries dependent upon it. The largest single user of coal is the electric power generation industry. Over 300 million tons of coal are presently being consumed each year. In view of the 5-to 7-years lead time to bring in a base-load fossil-fuel fired generating station, our requirements for double this tonnage in 1980 are already well forecast; that is, if the coal companies are allowed to mine and the utilities are allowed to burn the coal.

Jan 2, 1974

By J. D. Price, W. M. Bertholf

In preparing a paper on coal washing in Colorado and New Mexico, it is difficult to refrain from entering into a discussion of the historical aspects of this subject, for the story of coal washing in these states goes hack well into the last century. This phase of the subject could well make a complete paper in itself, and of necessity this present discussion must be limited to current operations. Therefore, we are taking into consideration only those washing plants which have operated for some period during the years of 1947 and 1948. Summary Of the eight million tons of coal mined in the two states in 1947. ap- proximately two million tons were washed in wet washing plants, using concentrating tables or jigs. The one table plant accounted for 70 pct of the output of washed coal, and two large Baum jig plants accounted for an additional 26 pct, leaving only a small residual tonnage to be accounted for by other types of jigs The necessity for washing coal is occasioned by the desire or necessity of reducing the ash content of the coals— sulphur is not a problem in this area. All washeries, except the table plant, are at or near the tipple, hence wash only one kind of coal. At the table plant a large number of different coals are washed. Only at the table plant is there any occasion for drying any considerable quantity of fine coal— other plants size and/or dewater on shaking screens. The results of washing at the smaller plants are judged by the number (or lack) of complaints about the quality of the washed coal. This is probably as good a system as can he devised for small, intermittent operations. The efficiency of the Baum jig ap-pears to be quite high. This is to be expected as long as the automatic control of the refuse gate operates properly. The efficiency of the concentrating table is not as high as that of the Baum jig, especially when the "difficulty" of washing is taken into consideration. When dealing with coals in which the "bone" is larger than the "coal," the table appears to be at a definite disadvantage, because of its sizing action.

Jan 1, 1950

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

0. R. LYONS*—I know that we are all interested in hearing about problems that other people have. To most of the people from the eastern part of the United States, this kind of coal preparation is completely different. It represents washing difficulties that most operators have never experienced, or, if they have, they have refused to consider them because there are coals that are much easier to wash and, therefore. they leave the more difficult ones alone for the time being. E. R. McMILLAN†—I think the au-thors have summarized the material very well. Dr. Yancey has spent a great many years in the study of washing coals, as has Mr. Geer. I might comment briefly on some of the plants that were mentioned, plants with which I have had some con-nection, particularly those of our own company, the Northwestern Improve-ment Co. I would like to point out this: that ill each case, a great deal of work was done in the way of preliminary studies of washability of the coal before plants were built. The first plant of any size built in Roslyn field was mentioned in the paper. This central cleaning plant was designed and built to handle coal from three different mines. I might say that prior to 1935, the year in which the plant was built, the coal was used largely as railway fuel, close to a million tons annually. But as mining increased in depth, it became increasingly difficult to separate and gob much of the impurities underground, with the result that the run-of-mine coal became so high in ash that the railroad eventually was forced to consider installing some kind of preparation plant at the mine. We spent about a year in preliminary studies in cooperation with the Bureau of Mines to find out the best type of plant that would clean the coal. The result, as Mr. Geer has explained to you, is a rather complicated plant, but it is doing a very satisfactory job. We have, however, made a number of changes and improve-n~euts since it was first built. The last addition was the, installation of a cen- trifugal drier to dewater the minus ¼ in. size. We are now contemplating installing heat driers for further drying of minus ¼ in. We use Vissac heat driers for drying the stoker coal, the ¾ to in. The demand for drier coal, for both railway and industrial use, is forcing us to further drying of the coal. The plant that was mentioned as having been built in Pierce County, during the war, was a government sponsored plant. I happen to have had some connection with its design, construction and initial operation. We did what we thought then, and still think, was a very thorough job of preliminary studies in cooperation with the Burea of Mines of the coal from that field. The plant was as good a plant as could be built with the equipment available at that time, 1943. The plant that was mentioned as having been built at Ravensdale for treating the McKay coal was rebuilt about two years ago, and in addition to the modified Elmore jig washer that was mentioned. we added a coucentrating table for re-cleaning the minus 3/32 in. Our object there was to produce a commercial

Jan 1, 1950

By D. E. Wolfson, D. A. Reynolds, F. W. Smith

IN 1948 the U. S. Bureau of Mines began a three-phase program to evaluate the extent and quality of U. S. coking coal: 1) a factual appraisal of known recoverable reserves in beds of mineable thickness, 2) a study of preparation characteristics, and 3) a study of carbonization properties. A previous paper presented the methods used in assessing reserves.' Although this investigation is only partly completed, data on coking properties of the Pittsburgh district coals are now available. The results are presented in this article. When coals are selected for manufacture of metallurgical coke more factors must be considered than for any other major use, as no basic industry requires coal of such high quality and uniformity. This is particularly true in the Pittsburgh district, where blast furnace practice is based on use of cokes from high quality coals. Although it is true that inferior coals are carbonized in other industrial areas, both here and abroad, the Pittsburgh coals are the best economically obtainable in the required tonnages, even though they are not the most desirable for metallurgical use. In the general evaluation of suitability of coals for coke making, particular attention is given to: 1) reserve, 2) ash and sulfur content, 3) inherent properties of forming strong, well fused coke, 4) expanding characteristics, and 5) blending properties. Items 1 and 2 are covered in detail in the first two phases of the survey, and coking behavior is considered in items 3 through 5. Problems is Coal Evaluation: Although not all coal beds of immediate or potential use to the coking industry in the Pittsburgh area have been tested for their coking properties, enough tests have been made to permit certain generalized statements. Virtually all the coals that will be used in this district are from the Appalachian region, and except for high oxygen coals from outcrops or stripping operations, they are coking coals. Hence the evaluation problem is not so much that of distinguishing between coking and noncoking coals as attempting to measure quantitatively differences in the coking and expanding properties of the better coking coals. Quantitative differentiation between good coking coals, is complex, since differences in their coking abilities are frequently of about the same magnitude as the precision of the test. Small-scale tests are generally unsuitable for measuring these slight differences, and there has been gradual acceptance of pilot-scale tests. Test Methods Employed: All the data reported here were obtained in two units known as the Bureau of Mines-American Gas Association (BM-AGA) carbonization apparatus and the sole-heated expansion oven. The BM-AGA unit, which consists essentially of a cylindrical steel retort about 18 in. diam and 26 in. high, carbonizes enough coal (180 lb) to allow evaluation of the coke by standard methods of the American Society for Testing Materials. The BM-AGA carbonization procedure and methods of testing the gas, liquid, and solid products have been described.' Expanding characteristics of the coals were determined in the sole-heated expansion oven," wherein the coal charge, heated from the bottom only, is carbonized under a constant applied force and the linear expansion or contraction is measured. Although results in this oven have never been quantitatively correlated with the expansion behavior of coals in conventional slot ovens, they are useful in assessing expansion behavior. In this report discussion will be confined to results obtained from these pilot-scale units, although the following data are available for most coals: proximate and ultimate analyses, free swelling index, agglutinating value, and plasticity. Sources of Coals Tested: In selection of coals for coke manufacture, economic considerations are as important as quality, and each coke plant balances these two factors to meet requirements of the most satisfactory coke at lowest price. Although these economic factors may in some instances outbalance small differences in coke quality, they are usually specific to each coke plant and cannot be given in any general statement. Recognizing that coal and plant operating costs are beyond the scope of the survey, the USBM evaluates the coking quality of various coals without regard to their competitive economic status. For the purpose of this article, coals of interest to the Pittsburgh district are arbitrarily defined as

Jan 1, 1958

By Orville R. Lyons

This paper presents a method whereby the amount of misplaced material and the difficulty of the separation can be used to compare coal cleaning equipment of all types, from effectiveness and capacity standpoints. The correlations presented do not include all types of equipment currently available, but the method can be used to evaluate any make or type of coal cleaning equipment, both old and new. THE relative performance of coal washing equipment, or the effectiveness with which any type or make of equipment removes impurities from coal, has been most difficult to evaluate in the past. The most widely used yardstick is the Frazer and Yancey efficiency formula developed in 1922,' but Yancey in a later article states that "washers treating coals of different density composition or operating at different densities of separation cannot be compared directly on the basis of this criterion."' Prior to and since 1922, a variety of other methods has been used for comparison purposes, including the distribution curve, the error area, and the "ecart probable" or probable error. Yancey and Geer in discussing these methods conclude, "Performance can be evaluated in a number of different ways, with the choice of the proper method to use being dictated by the objectives of the investigation and the data available."' It is true that performance can be evaluated in a variety of ways, but if the equipment is to be evaluated on an effectiveness basis, there should be only one universal comparison method. Varying methods have been used because one universal comparison method has not been found or developed. In the article previously quoted, Yancey and Geer state in clear terms the primary concept for a universal comparison method: "One of the simplest, and certainly one of the most obvious evaluations of washery performance is the quantity of sink material in the washed coal and the float material in the refuse. If the washery products are tested at the density at which the washing unit is operated, the sink in the washed coal and the float in the refuse represent material that has been misplaced." The quantity of misplaced material was used as a criterion of washery performance by Lincoln in 1913," by the United States Bureau of Mines in 1938,' by Hancock in 1947," and by the national French research agency Cerchar in recent years.' In 1950 Andersone proposed the use of this criterion as an efficiency value to replace the Frazer and Yancey formula. However, none of the above-mentioned investigators used the misplaced material concept in a manner that would provide universal coal-cleaning equipment comparisons. The Correlation Theory The ideal coal cleaning process would treat all sizes and would make a perfect separation at any given specific gravity. All material lower in density than the desired value would report in the coal product and all material higher in density would report in the refuse product. Unfortunately, no known cleaning process achieves this goal and there seems little likelihood that any process yet to be invented will do more than approach it. When coal is treated in volume under operating conditions, it is impossible to avoid mechanical entrapment, fluctuations in throughput and effective gravity of separation, and the creation of turbulent currents, even when a true heavy-liquid bath is used and the feed is closely sized and contains little intermediate gravity material. This being so, it is possible to appreciate the difficulties inherent in trying to obtain a perfect separation when treating a wide range of sizes and a feed containing high percentages of intermediate material, using turbulent currents to help create the effective separation gravity, under operating conditions which normally tend to be on the overload side. When coal is separated from refuse in any coal cleaning equipment, some refuse always reports to the coal and some coal to the refuse; the writer therefore assumed that there should be a relationship between the total amount of misplaced material produced by any given piece of equipment and the difficulty of separation as represented by the percentage of near gravity material in the feed. With small amounts of near gravity or k0.1 material in the feed there should be less misplacement of material than would occur with large amounts of near

Jan 1, 1953