Search Documents

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

.I. S. Huckaba (Western Machinery Co., Spokane, Wash.)—It has been my pleasure and privilege to be able to follow this work with the H.M.S. pilot plant very closely. This has been a very thorough and painstaking piece of work and will be of great value to the dense-media operators and manufacturers. Unfortunately time was not available to make an accurate comparison between this pilot plant and the commercial plant at Bellingham Coal Mines, both plants having Wemco drum separators. Briefly I would like to point out what I consider the most interesting finding of this work. Capacity: Very good results were obtained at a feed mte of 5.2 tons per hr in a 30-in diam by 24-in. long drum separator. The maximum capacity of this drum is not known but it is something over 5.2 tons per hr for the available area of 2.08 sq ft. Medium Preparation: The importance of proper medium preparation is well demonstrated. A "tailored" or

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

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 J. R. Dawson, J. A. Glunt

VESTA No. 4 and 5 mines supply most of the high volatile coal required for Jones & Laughlin's byproduct coke plants. Until 1944 all coal produced in these mines was loaded by hand. Pressure to mechanize at Vesta was brought on by the manpower shortage in World War 11, and in 1943 a decision was made to change to mechanical loading. It was the opinion of those concerned that by use of selective mining the coal would be clean enough to be processed by the existing preparation plants. At that time coal cleaning at Jones & Laughlin consisted of hand picking the larger sizes at the mine tipples and wet washing at plants located at the Pittsburgh and Aliquippa Works. A typical section of the Pittsburgh seam as it occurs at Vesta is shown in Fig. 1. The 14 to 16 in. of drawslate immediately over the coal is too soft to be used for roof and must be taken down, leaving the rooster coal just above for roof. In selective mining an attempt is made to mine the coal under the drawslate first and then load out the drawslate separately as refuse. In full seam mining slate and coal are shot down at the same time and loaded out. Mechanical loading at Vesta created new problems. It was found that selective mining, even when carefully applied, increased the refuse in the raw coal to such an extent that the washers at the mills were unable to handle it. Large tonnages of refuse were being transported, a reject disposal problem was created, and good metallurgical coal was being loaded out and lost. In addition, the selective method handicapped operation of the loading machines. Fig. 2 shows how the ash content of the raw coal increased as mechanization proceeded at No. 5 mine. New Preparation Plant: After an exhaustive study of this situation by J & L management, is was decided that a preparation plant should be constructed at the mines, capable of handling full seam mined coal and large enough to process full production of both No. 4 and No. 5 mines. It was decided that from the standpoint of inside operation and haulage the new plant should be located as near as possible to the old No. 5 tipple on the Monongahela River near Vestaburg. Full seam mining at Vesta could be expected to produce a tremendous volume of refuse along with the coal, since 14 to 16 in. of slate would be mined with an average 78 in. of coal. Disposal of this refuse required serious consideration in selecting a plant site. The only area near Vestaburg large enough for disposal of the plant refuse was across the Monongahela River at LaBelle. Ample space was available here, and construction at this location would not interfere with operation at the No. 5 tipple. It had been noted over the years that the sulfur content of the coal produced at Vesta was gradually increasing, and there was every indication that this increase could be expected to continue as the mines developed further from the river. It was decided to construct a three-part separation plant with complete blending facilities to produce both metallurgical and steam coal. In this system an attempt is made to reduce the sulfur in the metallurgical coal in a secondary cleaning process. Construction of the new preparation plant got under way early in 1947 and continued until the spring of 1950. The plant was designed to handle 2400 tph of raw coal containing 30 to 35 pct refuse. Cost of outside buildings and equipment was about $14 million. Total cost of the plant, together with improvements and changes made at this time, was approximately $21 million.

Jan 1, 1957

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 John Griffen

K. F. Tromp (Kerkrade, Holland)—Your assumption that the Dutch State Mines have lead in the development of heavy medium processes—the Barvoys, Loess, Driessen—is not correct. The credit should be given to a Dutch engineer Mr. deVooys, the inventor of the Barvoys process. deVooys started in 1932 in Hiickelhoven, a German but Dutch-owned mine, where he was a director. Several plants on the Continent as well as in Great Britain were erected. The State Mines started their first plant in 1937. They could not get that plant working satisfactorily and built another one. Their process made no headway, and up to 1946 there was only one plant installed, the one at their own pit. Since 1946 they started the cyclone process and only since that time have they been more active, though industrial cyclone washeries are still in their infancy. deVooys sold his patents to the Dutch State Mines in 1946 and this might have given you the impression that the pioneer work had been done by the Dutch State Mines. John Griffen (author's reply)—I wish to thank Mr. Tromp for giving the correct story on the development of heavy medium processes in Holland.

Jan 1, 1952

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 J. D. Price, W. M. Bertholf

A. C. RICHARDSON*—First of all, [ think that the paper represents a lot more work, study, and correlation than has been indicated by the brief talk by Mr. Price. I like the way he started out and described the areas from which the samples were obtained, the locations of the washing plants, the available tonnages, and other background information with which to evaluate the data he submitted later on. Then I like the way in which he described the various types of washing plants, the tonnages handled and the difficulties of the washing problems; showing the amount of material that lies close to the specific gravity at which the washing separation is made. Later he gave figures from washing plant operations showing recoveries and cleaning efficiencies. He then discussed his own plant at Pueblo. It is the same old plant, I think, that I worked around a good many years ago. It is unusual to find a plant treating nearly 5000 tons of coal a day on tables. But this table plant is, I believe, more efficient than is indicated by the figures that Mr. Price gave. To determine the efficiency of a cleaning operation or to compare it with another it is necessary to consider the quantity and character of the material close to the specific gravity at which the separation is made. It is not fair, I believe, to penalize the table operation by something like 4 pct of out-of-place-material as he has done here. The variety and difficulty of the coals that he has to wash, the continuous shift and change in their composition make a very difficult cleaning problem and the table performance is excellent. I believe that the information in this paper will be of interest and value to anyone operating or planning to build a coal cleaning plant in this or other areas; particularly where the cleaning of fine coal is a problem. The data may be used for comparative purposes in determining the relative efficiencies of other cleaning plant separations. E. D. HAIGLER*—What is a Baum jig? J. D. PRICE (authors' reply)—A Baum-type jig is one in which the pulsations of the water is secured by means of a pulsating air current applied on top of the water. I imagine you are all familiar with the old plunger-type jig which is in effect a U tube in which a plunger on one side of the U, moving up and down, causes a corresponding pulsation on the far side of the jig. In the Baum jig, the pulsating air current is applied on the surface of the water on one side of the U tube of the jig and gives a corresponding pulsation on the other. It is also commonly known as a pneumatic jig. The control of the rise and fall of the water in the jig body proper is under much better control than it is in any of the other type jigs. Mr. Richardson could enlarge on that feature, for I know that he has had considerable experience with these jigs. A. C. RICHARDSON—You have asked how to control a Baum-type jig. The pulsations in a Baum jig can be modified and regulated to a marked degree by the amount of water admitted to the jig and by the adjustments of the valve which regulates the manner in which air is admitted. The number of pulsations per minute is controlled by the number of cycles of the air valve. Thirty to forty cycles per minute is a good speed for large jigs treating coarse sizes of cod. With an air valve it is possible to modify the time-velocity curve of the pulsating water to some extent which in turn determines the action in a jig bed. Within limits the following parts of the air valve cycle may be regulated: (1) the rate and period of air admission, (2) the period of air expansion, (3) the rate and period of air exhaust, and (4) the period of air compression. The rate and period of air admission determines the acceleration of the water at the beginning of the pulsion stroke and the amplitude of the stroke. The period of air expansion, after inlet port is closed, is one in which the water has reached the desired velocity, positive acceleration reduced, and the bed held in a mobile condition. The rate and period of the air exhaust can be adjusted to modify the degree of suction and so modify the manner in which the particles in the bed stratify. The compression period, alter the exhaust port closes and before the intake port opens may be used to advantage in retarding the downward velocity of water during the suction stroke. An ideal jig stroke is one in which during the up stroke the bed is lifted slowly in a mass and opens up like an accordian with the bottom layers dropping away first. With the bed open and mobile the particles adjust themselves according to their hindered settling rates. During the down stroke, while the bed is still open the particles of high specific gravity are accelerated toward the bottom layers. It is possible to approach this stroke with all types of jigs but it is less difficult to approximate it with a Baum jig.

Jan 1, 1950

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

Coal washing assumed an important role in the mining industry of the Pacific Northwest long before washing practice became firmly established in the Appalachian field. A Scaife washer was operated in the state of Washington in 1887; and by 1927, the fist year for which complete statistics were compiled, nearly a third of the state's coal production was washed, in comparison with only about 5 pct for the country as a whole. Mechanical preparation was adopted in Alaska in 1922 in a plant constructed by the United States Navy at Chickaloon to provide bunker coal for naval forces operating in northern waters. Many of the coal beds mined in Washington and Alaska contained more impurities than those mined elsewhere, and this circumstance contributed to the early interest in mechanical cleaning. A much more important factor, however, was the inclination of the coal beds. With steeply pitching beds, hand sorting by the miner at the face is impossible; consequently, all material must be loaded and dealt with on the surface, just as is now proving the case with mechanical mining of flat beds. Thus "full-seam" mining afforded the same stimulus to the early development of coal washing in the Northwest that it is providing under mechanization in the rest of the country today. Objeet and Scope ' This report is intended to provide a general summary of the status of coal-washing practice in Washington, Oregon, and Alaska—an area in which some of the coals mined are more difficult to wash than those mined elsewhere in the country. Detailed flowsheets of plants, statistical data on production, and cost figures have been omitted, largely for the sake of brevity but also because such information is principally of only local interest. On the other hand, considerable washability data have been included because they are Washington At present Washington leads all other states in the percentage of its total production that is cleaned mechanically, 82.1 pct in comparison with the national average of 25.6 pct in 1945.' The washing problems encountered in this state are highly variable because the mountain-building forces that created the Cascade Range caused such intense folding and faulting of the beds in some fields that the rank of the coal was increased to anthracitic, while in other fields more distant from the mountains the beds were relatively undisturbed, and the rank of the coal ranges down through subbituminous to lignitic. The complicated and burdensome schedule of sizes prepared in most coal fields has never been required by the Washington market. With but few exceptions, lump is prepared on a round-hole screen of about 3 in. size, egg is about 3 to 1 5/8 or 1½ in., and nut is 1 5/8 or 1½ in. to either 1 or ¾ in. Some mines screen no finer than ¾ in. and market a slack coal of that top size, but generally the coal is screened at about ¼ in. to give a stoker coal of ¾ or 1 to ¼ in., and a ¼ in. to 0 "buckwheat." During recent years the market for lump coal has largely disappeared, and lump is crushed to supplement the pro-

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