The Manufacture Of Coke.

Discussion of the paper of F. E. Lucas, presented at the Cleveland meeting, October, 1912, and printed in Bulletin No. 71, November, 1912, pp. 1315 to 1326. F. Louis GRAMMER, Leesburg, Va. (communication to the Secretary *):--Mr. Lucas's paper reminds us of our extravagance in coking, and our tardiness in the adoption of by-product ovens, as compared to Germany. We are, however, so rich in coal-having mined, so far, less than 1 per cent. of our known national resources-that the argument of conservation is not very pressing. It is true that our so-called coking-coal beds are not inexhaustible; but by-product ovens coke coal that bee-hive ovens cannot handle, and so really enlarge our reserves of coking coal. " Conservation of Resources " is a phrase in great vogue. It is overworked and abused at times; being used by those who desire to be the exclusive custodians of resources or the sole purveyors of commodities. It does not carry great weight as regards coal. There are, however, aside from the attractive considerations of profit set forth by Mr. Lucas, several other important reasons why by-product ovens should be introduced more widely. One is that coal-tar pitch is the keynote to the extension of the coal-briquette industry. The more coal-tar pitch is available, the more briquetting will be carried on; and this will utilize much coal which is either waste or a drug in the market. Heretofore, in several instances coking and steel-making plants have been built, primarily, to market bituminous slack.