Search Documents

By Joseph Harrington

It is sufficiently correct to say that domestic solid fuel is universally hand fired and it is almost as correct to state that a very large proportion of hand-fired domestic fires are extremely inefficient and smoky. This is particularly true with raw bituminous coal for the fuel. The smokeless and efficient firing of domestic coal affords one of the most difficult problems confronting the combustion engineer. This is due to the universally constricted combustion space in the domestic furnace, the complete ignorance regarding the laws of combustion on the part of the average person, and the fact that the laws of efficient combustion are almost completely nullified under these conditions. It is well to familiarize ones self with these laws. These are: 1. The gradual introduction of the fuel to the furnace. 2. The admission and mixing of the right quantity of air with the coal gases. 3. A temperature high enough to permit complete combustion, and 4. A furnace space of volume sufficient to permit of the combustion gases and the oxygen getting together within the confines of the furnace. Even a casual inspection of the domestic heater will show that none of these essential things are present in proper degree, and this is the reason why the problem of domestic firing presents such difficulties. I have analyzed these conditions in a paper published by the Black Diamond, and which has already had wide distribution, so that I will not repeat the rather lengthy discussion in this paper. A survey of the entire field indicates very clearly that a reversal of existing methods and equipment must be had before any real improvement can be expected. It is my firm belief that in this instance above all others it is necessary to build the efficiency and smokelessness into the equipment in such a manner that its performance will be entirely independent of both skill and interest on the part of the operative. To attempt to educate every man, woman and child who periodically throws coal into a domestic furnace would be literally impossible. Much can be done, however, if we could teach the householder the simple essentials of alternate firing, which I have explained at length in the above mentioned paper. This would go a long way toward making the domestic furnace problem more satisfactory, as well as efficient and smokeless. Many will argue, and with good reason, that the domestic fuel should be prepared coke and with this I agree up to the limit imposed by the practical considerations of quantity production, price and the possibility of marketing the by-products. It will be obvious that if enough raw coal should be processed to provide all of the required domestic fuel that the amount of by-products recovered during the coking process would be so great that there would be little or no market at any price which would justify the manufacture of coke. If the by-products were wasted they would not only be a tremendous economic loss, but the price charged for the coke would probably be so high that the market would be limited, and this would defeat the very idea of the whole thing. Much can be done, however, in advancing the use of coke, but I believe that much more extensive and careful experimentization should be had in order to determine the right size and quality of coke for the various domestic furnaces. If coke were to be developed for extensive domestic consumption it is more than probable that the coking process should and could be stopped at a point where the volatile content of the coke would be sufficiently high to permit of prompt ignition and combustion in low draft installations. If the volatile content were from five to ten per cent a very different kind of coke would be produced from that which is now produced with perhaps one per cent of volatile. A skillful manipulation of this feature would make coke adaptable and satis-

Jan 1, 1925

James Westfield, Assistant Director, United States Bureau of Mines, Washing- ton, D. C., called the second morning session of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute to order, and promptly introduced John Peperakis, Manager of the Sunnyside Operations, Kaiser Steel Corporation. Sunnyside, Utah, who spoke on "Ground Control Developments, Sunnyside Mines, Kaiser Steel Corporation." Mr. Peperakis illustrated his talk with a number of slides which were not reproduced with the printed text. (For the printed text of Mr. Peperakis' paper see index.) James J. Diamanti, President of the Car- bon Fuel Company, Helper, Utah, was introduced by Mr. Westfield, and he spoke on "Small Mine Operators Help Themselves." Questions from the floor followed Mr. Diamanti's talk.

Jan 1, 1961

By Eli Follett

It is indeed gratifying to note the marked improvement in the methods used in the coal- mines today compared to the methods in earlier days. Away back in the decade of 1900 to 1910 many of the mines were conspicuous for their absence of sprinkling and humidifying systems, as a result much of the natural moisture was absorbed by the dry air current and carried out of the mine and the mine was left dry, dusty and dangerous. This dangerous condition was intensified by large accumulations of fine coal dust on the haulageways where fire flashed from poorly lubricated rollers and bullwheels-trip riders used a torch with a flame reaching to the back of their necks, and large supplies of blasting powder were kept in the mines. Accidents and disasters were very frequent as we, in our ignorance flirted with danger. Staggered by the numerous accidents, and the nature of them; men began thinking along lines of safety, they worked out schemes and after many disappointments succeeded in having, some very whole some legislation enacted covering coal mining operations only to find that much lawlessness was still being practiced by the miners whom they sought to protect; step by step these safety men forged ahead, enlisting the co-operation of a few men about the mine whom they called a safety committee, until, today, we have an ironclad mining law which all have to respect. We have sprinkling and humidifying systems, the miners electric lamp, permissible explosives and many other devices making for greater safety in the operation of our coal mines. Our mines are no longer veritable gasometers and powder storehouses, as I. knew them to be in South Wales, Britain, where I started to work in the mines. Instead, the mines of this day are healthy, well lighted and ventilated workshops and too much cannot be said in the praise of safety engineers who, fought altruistically in their efforts to bring about the wonderfully improved conditions in the coal mines of this day. While the possibility of a mine fire starting, in these days of scientific mining, is remote every one admits there still exists a possibility and to deal with a fire, should one start, most coal miners are equipped with fire extinguishers. Extinguishers of all designs conceivable are on the market, the different extinguishers are charged with different chemical substances, Some are charged with patented chemicals and others with baking soda and sulphuric acid and so on, however, many of them are equipped with about eighteen inches of rubber hose and bear the conventional "FOR FIRE-TURN UPSIDE DOWN" but nothing is said to indicate how close it may be necessary to take the extinguisher to the fire before doing the "TURN UPSIDE DOWN" act, neither is anything said as to what effect the contents may have upon the' hands, face or body of operator should he come in contact with the liquid, nor is any warning given as to the dangers in the fumes which may come from the contents of the extinguisher in contact with the fire.

Jan 1, 1922

President Schloss called the third session of the fifty-eighth annual meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute to order at 9:30 a.m. and introduced James Westfield, Assistant Director, Health and Safety, U. S. Bureau of Mines, Washington, D. C., who presided over the session. First speaker of the session was S. L. Jewell, Vice President, Peabody Coal Company, St. Louis, Missouri, who spoke on "Our Three Main Routes From Here." (Biographical sketch of Mr. Jewell, see index.) (For the printed text of Mr. Jewell's paper see index.) Mr. Westfield introduced Marling J. Ankeny, Director, U. S. Bureau of Mines, Washington, D. C., who served as moderator on the panel, "How Do We Go From Here in Safety?"

Jan 1, 1962

[Scott Aberle Western Energy Co POB 99 Colstrip, MT 59323-0099 Randy Acre Joy Mining Machinery 2569 Silver Oak Ct. Grand Junction, CO 81505 Brian L. Acton Oxbow Carbon & Minerals Inc 1601 Forum P1-#P2 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Laine W. Adair Genwal Resources Inc POB 1420 Huntington, UT 84528-1420 Kent Adamson Solvay Minerals POB 1167 Green River, WY 82935]

Jan 1, 1999

Jan 1, 1968

Jan 1, 1976

[ ]

Jan 1, 2000

[ATZ, Inc. American Mining Congress Anaconda Minerals Company Andalex Resources, Inc Arapahoe Energy Consultants Atlas Powder Co Becor Western Inc. Mr & Mrs. Bernard Bernstrom Black Beauty Resouces British Mining Consultants (USA) Limited]

Jan 1, 1988

Jan 1, 1965

By Kelly A. Cosgrove

Jan 1, 2003

Jan 1, 1969

Jan 1, 1979

Jan 1, 1967

Jan 1, 1958

The Morning Session of the Forty-Eighth Meeting of the Rocky. Mountain Coal Mining Institute convened in the Little Theater of the Broadmoor Hotel, Colorado Springs, Colorado, at 9:30 a.m., June 3, 1952, Howard B. Crandell, President, presiding. PRESIDENT CRANDELL: Gentlemen, the meeting will come to order, and I would like to introduce to you your Chairman of this meeting, Mr. John B. Hughes, General Manager of the Union" Pacific Coal Company, Rock Springs... (Applause) CHAIRMAN HUGHES: From the activities around last night, I supposed there would be quite a few that would be unable to attend this morning. I am sorry there are not more here because I am sure we have some interesting papers. First on the program this morning is, The Effect of Continuous Mining on Today's. Coal Industry by Mr. William Wearly, Vice President of the Joy Manufacturing Company. Mr. Wearly: (Applause)

Jan 1, 1952

Jan 1, 1942

Jan 1, 1938

Jan 1, 1973

Jan 1, 1971