Bulletin No. 261 ^ J A, Economic Geology, 54 

E, Chemistry and Physics, 45

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

CHARLES D. WALCOTT, DiRKCTOU

PRELIMINARY REPORT

ON THE OPERATIONS OF THE

COAL-TESTING PLANT

OF THE

UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

AT THE

LOUISIANA PURCHASE EXPOSITION, ST. LOUIS, MO., 1904

EDWARD W. PARKER, JOSEPH A. HOLMES, MARIUS R. CAMPBELL 

COMMITTEE IN CHARGE

WASHINGTON

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

1905
Q £ '(
CONTENTS.

Page.

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL .................................................. 9

INTRODUCTION ..................'.......................................... 11

Organi/ation.......................................................... 11.

Buildings ...............................'.'............................ 12

Equipment........................................................... 12

Personnel............................................................ 15

Field work........................................................... 16

Sampling ............................................................ 16

Keports.............................................................. 16

Results ...-.-.._............-.--.----.-----.---...--------------...-- 16

FIEI/D WORK, BY MARIUS K. CAMPBELL .................................... 18

Introduction ......................................................... 18

Car samples........................................................... 18

Mine samples........................................................ 19

Uninspected car samples.............................................. 20

Indian Territory No. 6............................................. 20

Kansas No. 4..................................................... 20

Montana No. 1................................................... 20

North Dakota No! 1 .............................................. 20

North Dakota No. 2 .............................................. 20

Pennsylvania Nos. 1 and 2 ....-......................._........... 21

Pennsylvania No. 3........---. .'. ................................. 21

Description of car samples ....................................... ........ 21

WORK OF THE CHEMICAL LABORATORY, BY N. W. LORD ..................... 30

Introduction ......................................................... 30

Sampling ............................................................ 30

Loss on air drying.................................................... 30

Methods of analysis ................ ...............:.......... *....... 31

Personnel:........................................................... 31

Analyses of mine and laboratory car samples ........................... 31

WASHING TESTS, BY JOHN D. WICK ........................................ 60

Introduction......................................................... 60

Special tests.......................................................... 61

Illinois No. 2..................................................... 61

Indiana No. \.................................................... 63

Missouri No. 3 ................................................... 64

General tests......................................................... 65

Alabama No. 1................................................... 66

Arkansas No. Q.i................................................. 66

Illinois No. 3..................................................... 66

Illinois No. 5..................................................... 67

Indian Territory No. 2............................................ 67

Indian Territory No. 3............................................ 68

Indian Territory No. 5............... ............................ 68

, 3

\ V 5
4 CONTENTS.

WASHING TESTS Continued. Page. 

General tests Continued.

Iowa No. 1.............................. 1........................ 68

Iowa No. 2....................................................... 69

Iowa No. 3....................................................... 69

Iowa No. 4....................................................... 69

Iowa No. 5....................................................... 70

Kentucky No. 3.....:..........................................:. 70

Kentucky No. 4.................................................. 70

Missouri No. 2 ................................................... 70

West Virginia No. 2 .............................................. 71

West Virginia No. 3 .............................................. 71

West Virginia No. 4 .............................................. 71

West Virginia No. 5 .............................................. 72

West Virginia No. 9 .............................................. 72

West Virginia No. 12 ............................................. 73

STEAM TESTS, BY L. P. BRECKENRIDGE ...................................... 74

Introduction......................................................... - 74

Methods of conducting tests........................................... 74

Description of the boilers............................................. 74

Description of the steam engine and generator.......................... 75

Coals tested ......................................................... 75

Results of coal tests under the boilers.................................. 78

Personnel............................................................. 84

PRODUCER-GAS TESTS, BY ROBERT H. FERNALD .............................. 85

Introduction......................................................... 85

Equipment ........................................................... 85

Personnel.. ............................................................ 86

Method of conducting tests............................................ 86

Results of the tests ................................................... 88

Alabama No. 2................................................... 88

Colorado No. 1.................................................... . 90

Illinois No. 3..................................................... 91

Illinois No. 4..................................................... 93

Indiana No. 1....;.........................................-...-. 94

Indiana No. 2.................................................... 96

Indian Territory No. 1............................................ 98

Kentucky No. 3.................................................. 99

Missouri No. 2 .................................................... 101

MontanaNo. I.................................................... 102

North Dakota No. 2 .............................................. 104

Texas No. 1...................................................... 106

Texas No. 2..................................................... 107

West Virginia No. 1 .............................................. 109

West Virginia No. 4..........................:................... Ill

West Virginia No. 9 .............................................. 112

West Virginia No. 12 ............................................. 114

Wyoming No. 2 ............. .................................... 115

Summary of results................................................... 117

COMPARISON OF RESULTS OBTAINED FROM STEAM AND PRODUCER-GAS TESTS, BY

ROBERT H. FERNALD AND L. P. BRECKENRIDGE............................ 118

Steam plant.......................................................... 118

Gas-producer plant................................................... 120
. . CONTENTS. 5

	Pago. 

COKING TESTS, BY FRED. W. STAMMLER....... .............................. ' 121

Introduction......................................................... 121-

Results of tests....................................................... 121

Alabama'No. 1................................................... 121

Alabama No. 2................................................... 122

Arkansas No. 1 .................................................. >122

Arkansas No. 2 .................................................. 122

Arkansas No. 3 .................................................. i 122

Arkansas No. 6 .................................................. 122

Illinois No. 1..................................................... 122

Illinois No. 2..................................................... 123.

Illinois No. 3...................................................... 123

Illinois No. 5...................................................... 123

Indiana No. 1.................................................... 123

Indian Territory No. 1.....................................i...... 123

Indian Territory No. 2............................................ 124

Indian Territory No. 3......................-.....:............... 124

Indian Territory No. 5............................................ 124

Iowa No. 1 ............. ; ........................................ 124

Iowa No. 2 ....................................................... 324

Iowa No. 3 ...................................................... 1.25

Iowa No. 4 ...................................................... 125

IowaNo.5 ...................................................... 125

Kansas No. 1..................................................... 125

Kansas No. 2..................................................... 125

Kansas No. 3..................................................... 125

Kansas No. 4..................................................... 125

Kentucky No. 1.................................................. 126

Kentucky No. 2.................................................. 126

Kentucky No. 3 .................................................. 126

Kentucky No. 4.................................................. 126

Missouri No! 2 ................................................... 126

Missouri No. 3 ................................................... 126

Missouri No. 4 ................................................... 126

West Virginia No. 1................................,............. 126

West Virginia No. 2.............................................. 127

West Virginia No. 3 ......................................... J.... 127

West Virginia No. 4 .............................................. 127

West Virginia No. 5 .............................................. 127

West Virginia No. 6 .............................................. 128

West Virginia No. 7 .............................................. . 128

West Virginia No. 8............................................... 128

West Virginia No. 9.............................................. ] 28

West Virginia No. 10............................................. 128

West Virginia No. 11............................................. 129

. West Virginia No. 12............................................. 129

Cupola tests of coke .................................................. 129

BRTQUETTING TESTS, BY JOSEPH HYDE PJJATT ................................ 134

Acknowledgments.................................................... 134

Briquetting plant..................................................... 134

. English machine ........ J........... J............................ 134

American machine ............................................... 136
6 CONTENTS.

BRIQUETTING TESTS Continued. Page.

Binders............................................................. 136

Pitch............................................................ 136

Eosin........'...................:._......._..._................._. 139

Asphalt. ......................................................... 140

Petroleum ...................................................... 140

Molasses......................................................... 141

Lime..................................'....__.................... 141

Clay............................................................. 141

Laboratory experiments ................ .._.......................... 141

Pitches ....................................... .=-.................. 141

Pitch A...................................................... 142

Pitch B.......................j..................>........... 142

Pitches C and D.............................................. 142

Pitch E...................................................... 142

Pitch G...................................................... 142

Pitch X...................................................... 142

Pitch "L...................................................... 142

Asphalt.......................................................... 142

California asphalt, Bl......................................... 143

Asphalt product (kopak), B2..............................;... 143

. Asphaltic pitch, B3........................................... 143

Indian Territory asphalt, B4 .................................. 143

Wyoming asphalt, B6 ........................................ 144

Rosin ........................................................... 144

Petroleum........................................................ 145

Molasses......................................................... 145

Wax tailings..................................................... 145

Acid sludge...................................................... 146

Lime ....................................... 1..................:. 146

Clay............................................................ 146

Briquettes manufactured........................'...................... 146

List of coals briquetted ........................................... 147

Alabama......................................................... 148

Alabama No. 1............................................... 148

Arkansas ......................................................... 148

 Arkansas No. 1............................................... 148

Arkansas No. 2............................................... 148

Arkansas No. 3............................................... 149

Arkansas No. 4............................................... 149

Arkansas No. 5............................................... 151

Arkansas No. 6............................................... 152

Colorado ........................................................ 152

Colorado No. 1............................................... 152

Illinois.......................................................... 153

Illinois No. 1................................................. 153

Illinois No. 4................................................. 153

Indiana.......................................................... 154

Indiana No. 1................................................ 154

Indiana No. 2.......... 1............................'......... 155

Indian Territory ................................................. 155

Indian Territory No. 2........................................ 155

Indian Territory No. 3........................................ 155

Indian Territory No. 6........................................ 155
CONTENTS. ' 7

BRIQUETTING TESTS Continued. Page. 

Briquettes manufactured Continued.

Iowa ............................................................ 158

Iowa No. 4................................................... 158

Kansas .......................................................... 159

Kansas No. 2................................................. 159

Kentucky........................................................ 159

Kentucky No. 1.................. 1........................... 159

Kentucky No. 2..............'...................... .......... 159

Missouri.......................................................... 160.

Missouri No. 1................................................ 160

Montana......................................................... 160'

Montana No. 1 ............................................... 160

New Mexico ..................................................... 161

New Mexico No. 1............................................ 161

New Mexico JNo. 2............................................ 162

Nortli Dakota.................................................... 162

North Dakota No. 1.......................................... 162

Pennsylvania .................................................... 163

Pennsylvania No. 3........................................... 163

West Virginia................................/.................... 165

West A7 irginia No. 3 ......................................... 165

West Virginia No. 6.....................'..................... 165

Wyoming........................................................ 165

Wyoming No. 1............................................... 165

Coke breeze..................... ^"................................ 167

Coking of briquettes and briquette mixtures............................ 168

INDEX .................................................................... 169

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL,

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 

UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, 

COAL-TESTING PLANT, WORLD'S FAIR GROUNDS,

St. Louis, Mo. , January 31, 1905.

SIR: The undersigned, appointed by you as a committee to conduct a 

series of tests at the United States Geological Survey coal-testing plant 

on the World's Fair Grounds, St. Louis, Mo., have the honor to submit 

the following preliminary report on the operations of the plant. The 

brief statements give the results obtained from September 1, 1904, 

when the plant was put in operation, until December 22, 1904.

The detailed report, which will be fully illustrated and contain much 

additional information and a discussion of the results, is in preparation and will be submitted to you at the earliest possible date.

Very respectfully, E. W. PARKER,

J. A. HOLMES, 

M. R. CAMPBELL,

Committee. 

Hon. CHARLES D. WALCOTT,

Director United States Geological Survey.

PRELIMINARY REPORT ON THE OPERATIONS OF THE COALTESTING PLANT OF. THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

AT THE LOUISIANA PURCHASE EXPOSITION, ST. LOUIS, MO., 

1904. _____

EDWARD W. PARKER, 

JOSEPH A. HOLMES, 

MAEIUS R. CAMPBELL,

Committee in Charge.

INTRODUCTION.

ORGANIZATION.

The authority for conducting at the Louisiana Purchase Exposition 

an investigation of the coals and lignites of the United States is contained in the act of Congress providing for the urgent deficiencies in 

the appropriations for the fiscal year 1905, and approved February 18, 

1904, as follows:

For analyzing and testing at the Louisiana Purchase Exposition the coals and 

lignites of the United States, in order to determine their fuel values and the most 

economic method for their utilization for different purposes, under the supervision 

of the Director of the United States Geological Survey, thirty thousand dollars, to 

be available until expended: Promded, That all testing machinery and all coals and 

lignites to be tested shall be contributed without charge to the Government.

In the general deficiency bill approved April 27,1904, an additional 

appropriation of $30,000 was provided, making the total sum appropriated for this work $60,000.

For carrying out the provisions of these acts the Director of the 

Geological Survey appointed a committee, consisting of Edward W. 

Parker, chairman, Joseph A. Holmes, and Marius R. Campbell, to 

direct the construction and operation of the plant.

It will be observed that under the law authorizing this work all of 

the testing machinery and all of the coals to be tested had to be furnished to the Government free of charge. Under these conditions it 

was not possible to equip an ideal testing plant, and the assembling 

and construction of such equipment as could be obtained under these 

provisions entailed some annoying delays in the completion of the

11
12 PRELIMINARY EEPORT ON COAL-TESTING PLANT. [BULL. 261.

plant. In addition to this, the delivery of a considerable quantity of 

operating and conveying apparatus purchased from the Link Belt 

Machinery Company, of Chicago, was delayed by a strike in the works 

of that company. As a result of these combined influences the plant 

was not put in operation until the first of September.

Notwithstanding these delays, the committee feels that through the 

hearty and patriotic cooperation of a large number of manufacturers 

of apparatus and machinery, it was able to collect and install, within 

a notably short time, a testing plant that was well suited' for such 

pioneer work.

BUILDINGS.

The buildings for the housing and protection of the machinery and 

of the operators in charge, with the exception of the chemical laboratory, were built by contract and paid for out of the appropriation. 

These buildings were:

(1) A boiler and engine house, in which were installed 2 Heine safety 

boilers, 1 Frost boiler, 1 Allis Corliss steam engine, 1 Westinghouse 

gas engine, 1 Bullock generator, 1 Westinghouse generator, an electric switchboard, a gas-analyzing laboratory, and all the incidental 

apparatus pertaining to the operations of these portions of the plant. 

The contract price for the construction of this building was $2,700. 

It was built by the Barwick Construction Company, of St. Louis.

(2) A storage and washery building, in which were installed 5 storage bins of 35 tons capacity each, 2 coal washers, 1 revolving screen, 

1 set of crushing rolls, 1 pulverizer, 1 Frost steam engine, 1 hopper 

scale, and the conveying machinery adapted for such a plant. This 

building, which had to be of extra strong material and construction, 

was completed at a contract cost of $4,550, the Settle-Price Construction 

Company, of St, Louis, being the contractor.

(3) Two buildings for briquetting machines and equipment, one built 

by the Baerveldt Construction Company, of St. Louis, for $1,050, and 

the other by the Barwick Construction Company, of St. Louis, for 

$693.

In the letting of all contracts, bids were obtained from at least five 

responsible bidders.

The chemical laboratory was installed in the Metal Pavilion, a short 

distance from the other buildings.

EQUIPMENT.

The plant, when put into operation in September, contained the following testing equipment, all of which had been contributed free of 

charge:

Two Heine water-tube boilers. 210 horsepower each, contributed by 

the Heine Safety Boiler Company, of New York and St. Louis.
^SpH^.f'l AND CAMPBKLL. INTRODUCTION. . 13

One Allis Corliss engine, contributed by the Allis-Chalniers Company, of New York and Chicago. The Corliss engine was belt-connected to a Bullock electric generator contributed by the Bullock 

Electric Manufacturing Company, of Cincinnati, Ohio.

One Frost fire-tube boiler of 100 horsepower and a 50-horsepower 

slide-valve engine, both contributed by the Frost Engine Company, of 

Galesburg, 111.

One Taylor gas producer, with complete outfit for scrubbing and 

purifying gas, contributed by R. D. Wood & Co., of Philadelphia.

One Westinghouse gas engine, of 235 brake horsepower, furnished 

by the Westinghouse Machine Company, of Pittsburg, and operated 

by the gas made in the Taylor producer.

One Westinghouse electric generator, belt-connected to the gas 

engine, contributed by the Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing 

Company, of Pittsburg.

Seven motors of different horsepower, required for the operation of 

the different portions of the plant, contributed by the Westinghouse 

Electric and Manufacturing Company.

One Bartlett direct-heat rotating drier for driving out the moisture 

from washed coals and lignites whose moisture contents were too high 

to permit successful briquetting, contributed by the C. 0. Bartlett & 

Snow Company, of Cleveland, Ohio.

Two briquetting plants one exhibited by William Johnson & Sons, 

of Leeds; England, and one by the American Compressed Fuel Company, of Chicago. In order that the briquetting machine of British 

manufacture should b.e installed in conformity with the law, the 

freight bill was paid by the Western Coal and Mining Company, of 

St. Louis.

A washing plant equipped with a New Century jig, contributed by 

the American Concentrator Company, of Joplin, Mo., and a modified 

Stewart jig, contributed by the Link Belt Machinery Company, of 

Chicago.

The fire brick and common brick used in the construction of the 

coke ovens were donated by the Laclede Fire Brick Manufacturing 

Company, of St. Louis.

The foregoing statement includes all that might properly be considered testing machinery, but the following additional incidental 

equipment was contributed by the firms mentioned:

One Williams crusher, by the Williams Patent Crusher and Pulverizer Company, of St. Louis.

A complete outfit of belt-conveying apparatus, contributed and 

installed by the Robins Conveying Belt Company, of New York.

Scales, by Fairbanks, Morse & Co., of New York and Chicago.

Smoke-preventing device, automatic steam jet, by H. H. Hughes, 

of St. Louis.
14 PEELIMINAEY EEPOET ON COAL-TESTING PLANT. [BULL. 261.

Thermometers and pressure gages, by the Hohmann & Maurer 

Manufacturing Company, of Rochester, N. Y.

Draft gages, by the Appliance Manufacturing Company, of Chicago.

Feed-water heater and pump, by the Stilwell-Bierce Smith-Vaile 

Company, of Cincinnati, Ohio.

Le Chatelier pyrometers, by Charles Engelhard, of New York.

Engine indicators and attachments, by the Ashcroft Manufacturing 

Company, of New York, and the Crosby Steam Gage and Valve Company, of Chicago.

Metallic piston packing, by the Steel Mill Packing Company, of 

Detroit, Mich.

Burroughs adding machine, by the American Arithmometer Company, of St. Louis.

Insulated electric wire, by the American Steel and Wire Company, 

of Chicago.

Machine and engine oil for lubricating the machinery, and heavy 

and medium oil for binding material in the manufacture of briquettes 

from bitiuminous coals and lignites, by the Waters-Pierce Oil Company, of St. Louis.

Oil filter, by the Famous Filter Company, of St. Louis.

Gas meters, by the Pittsburg Meter Company, of Pittsburg.

Dumping car and bucket conveyors, by the Austin Manufacturing 

Company, of Chicago.

Centrifugal pump, by Henion & Hubbell, of Chicago.

Coal-tar pitch, from the Barrett Manufacturing Company, of New 

York and elsewhere, and the Chatfield Manufacturing Company, of 

Cincinnati.

Power crusher and automatic sampler for preparing samples for the 

chemical laboratory, by the F. W. Braun Company, of Los Angeles, 

Cal.

Cooking range, by the Buck Stove and Range Company, and a 

heating stove, by the Bridge & Beach Manufacturing Company, both 

of St. Louis, for the purpose of testing briquettes for domestic use.

Calculating machine, by the Keuffel & Esser Company, of New 

York.

The plans for the buildings and their arrangement were prepared 

by the Roberts & Shaefer Company, engineers, of Chicago. The 

construction work was done under the supervision of Mr. Bert. 

Fankboner, one of the engineers for the Roberts & Shaefer Company. Mr. Fankboner was accidentally killed by an electric locomotive early in October, just as the plant had been placed in successful 

operation and when he could have enjoyed the results of his hard and 

conscientious labor.

The boiler room was thoroughly equipped with standardized apparatus for weighing coal and water, for determining the force of the
1'ARKEK, HOLMES, 

AND CAMPBELL. '] INTRODUCTION. 15

draft, for ascertaining the temperatures in the different parts of the 

furnace, and for analyzing the Hue gases. The gas producer and gas 

engine were also provided with apparatus for ascertaining temperatures, for collecting samples of the gas as produced, and for determining the horsepower developed in the gas engine. The electric 

horsepower developed by both the steam engine and the gas engine 

was ascertained by twenty-minute readings of voltmeters and ammeters, and the electrical horsepower developed per pound of fuel consumed by the two different methods was thus accurately determined 

and recorded.

The chemical laboratory was equipped with every necessary apparatus and chemical material for making proximate and ultimate 

analyses and for determining the calorific value of the coal. The last 

was determined by a Mahler bomb calorimeter, and the observations 

were made in a room especially set aside for this purpose.

The railroad companies entering St. Louis or having coal resources 

along their lines have cooperated most heartily with the committee in 

charge of the work.

PERSONNEL.

The various portions of the plant were put under the direction of 

men thoroughly equipped in their special lines. The steam test division was under the direction of Prof. L. P. Breckenridge, of the University of Illinois, with Prof. D. T. Randall, of the same university, 

as chief assistant. The gas-producer tests were under the direction of 

Prof. Robert H. Fernald, of Washington University, St. Louis, assisted 

by Capt. John A. Laird, also of St. Louis. The operation of the gas 

producer was directed by Messrs. Charles W. Lummis and C. 0. Nordenson, expert engineers, of R. D. Wood & Co., of Philadelphia. 

The gas-engine operations were looked after by Mr. J. G. Culbertson, an engineer of the Westinghouse Company. The washing operations were under 'the superintendence of Mr. John D. Wick, of 

Chicago, general foreman of the plant. The coking plant was in 

charge pf Mr. Fred. W. Stammler, of Johnstown, Pa., assisted by 

Mr. B. B. Boyd, of Uniontown, Pa. The briquetting tests were 

directed by Dr. Joseph Hyde Pratt, of the University of North Carolina and the North Carolina Geological Survey, assisted by Mr. A. A. 

Steel. The plans for the chemical laboratory, its equipment and operations, were under the direction of Prof. N. W. Lord, of the Ohio 

State University. His chief assistant at the coal-testing plant was 

Mr. E. E. Somermeier, who is also his chief assistant in his university 

work. The engine room was in charge of Mr. Otto Kinner, a mechanical engineer, of St. Louis, and the electrical apparatus was looked 

after by Mr. Jos. Underwood, also of St. Louis. Mr. Louis H. Legler, of Indiana, rendered valuable service as timekeeper and general 

assistant foreman of the plant.
16 PBELIMINAKY EEPOET ON COAL-TESTING PLANT. [BULL. 261.

FIELD WORK.

The field work was placed in charge of Mr. M. K. Campbell, one of 

the committee appointed by the Director of the Survey for the prosecution of these tests, who was assisted throughout the field season by 

J. Shober Burrows and John W. Groves, and for a short time by 

Frank W. De Wolf. All of the coal shipped to the plant for testing, 

with the exception of a few carloads, was collected under the supervision of one of these Survey officials. This was done to avoid any possibility of the criticism that selected coals had been subjected to these 

tests.

SAMPLING.

When the coal was shipped the Survey representative sampled it at 

two working faces of the mine, and the samples so obtained were 

shipped to the chemical laboratory for analysis. When the car was 

unloaded at the testing plant, what is known as a "laboratory car 

sample," consisting of about 200 pounds of coal, was taken from every 

car and sent to the laboratory, where the coal was pulverized, quartered down, and analyzed. Again, as the coal was distributed to 

different portions of the plant for testing, other samples were taken 

in a regular and uniform manner and sent to the laboratory for analysis. Such a series of coal analyses has never before been made in this 

country.

REPORTS.

The preliminary reports of the operations of the different 

portions of the plant have been prepared by -the experts in charge. 

A more detailed report, which will be fully illustrated by photographs, graphic charts, etc., and which will give the methods employed and results obtained in much greater detail, is in preparation, 

and will be published at the earliest possible date.

RESULTS.

It will be necessary to test a larger number and greater variety of 

coals and lignites, and to repeat with greater care some of the tests 

already made, before a full discussion of the results of these investigations can be properly entered upon or their value fully appreciated. 

But the results already obtained from the preliminary investigations 

made during the last six months are sufficient to indicate their farreaching importance in the solution of the fuel and power problems 

upon which the varied industries of the country depend.

Among the results already clearly indicated by these preliminary 

tests the following may be stated as worthy of special consideration:

(1) The tests in the steam-boiler plant of 65 carload samples of coal 

from 17 States indicate the high steam-producing capacity of American
PARKER, AND CAMPBEU,. HOLMES,"I J TTrrROTHTflTTOW UN iitUJJU O11U1N . 17J. I

coals, and that the quality of many of these coals may be improved by 

washing.

(2) Most of the American bituminous coals and lignites can be used 

as a source of power in a gas-producer plant.

(3) As indicated by comparative tests of 14 bituminous coals from 

9 States, the power efficiency of these coals when used in the gasproducer plant is two and one-half times greater than their efficiency 

when used in the steam-boiler plant; or, in other words, 1 ton of these 

coals used in the gas-producer plant has developed, on a commercial 

scale, as much power as 2i tons of the same coal when used in the 

ordinary steam-boiler plant.

(4) Some of the lignites from undeveloped but extensive deposits in 

North Dakota and Texas, when tested in the gas producer and gas 

engine, have shown unexpectedly high power-producing qualities, such 

as promise large future developments in those and other States.

(5) Some of' the American coals, and the "slack" produced in mining these coals, can be briquetted on a commercial basis.

The value of the results of these investigations is, of course, not 

limited to the coal-producing sections of the country, but extends 

through every State and Territory where coal or other mineral fuel 

is used as a source of power. Thus, in the New England States no 

coal is mined; but in the year 1900 the steam power produced through 

the consumption of coal and used for manufacturing purposes in these 

States cost approximately $50,000,000. The development of this 

power through the more efficient methods suggested by these investigations would mean a saving to the manufacturers in these States of 

$15,000,000 to $20,000,000 per annum.

As another illustration of the way.these investigations may influ-. 

ence the affairs of the nation as a whole, it may be stated that there 

were used in the naval vessels of the United States in 1903 approximately 500,000 tons of coal, costing $2,500,000. If the future gas 

producer and gas engine can be substituted on our battle ships and 

cruisers for the existing steam boilers and engines, the saving in the 

cost of coal would be not less than $1,000,000 per annum, or, what 

would be of far greater importance, the distances traversed by each 

ship without coaling would be more than doubled.

The fact that the coals and other mineral fuels used in the United 

States during 1904 cost the consumers approximately $1,500,000,000 

indicates the magnitude and importance of the problems under investigation by the Geological Survey in connection with its coal-testing 

plant.

Bull. 261 05 2
FIELD WORK.

By MARIUS li. CAMPBELL.

INTRODUCTION.

The writer was assisted in the collection of coal for testing purposes 

throughout the field season by Mr. J. Shober Burrows and Mr. John 

W. Groves, and for a short time by Mr. Frank W. De Wolf.

In a circular letter sent out early in the season the coal operators of 

the United States were invited to participate in these tests, upon the 

conditions stated in the act of Congress under which the work was 

carried on, namely, that all material to be tested should be delivered 

at the testing plant free of cost to the Government. It was decided 

by the committee in charge that for practical tests of the character 

contemplated not less than one carload of coal should be accepted. In 

response to this invitation offers of coal were made from almost every 

coal-producing State in the Union. From these offers it was decided 

to accept such samples as best represented the State from which they 

were obtained, and also the various fields or districts within the State. 

Owing, however, to the fact that the testing plant was put in operation late in the season, it was found to be impossible to test all of the 

coal samples offered, and so a number of important coal fields and 

even States of large production are not represented.

It is a generally recognized principle that the value of tests upon 

fuel and similar materials depends largely upon the way in which the 

sample was obtained and what it represents. In the present work the 

committee in charge decided to give this feature special attention and 

in every case possible to superintend the collection of the sample, so as 

to be in a position to guarantee that the coal tested fairly represented 

the coal produced from the mine as far as it is possible for one carload 

to represent the output of a mine.

CAR SAMPLES.

In actual operation the sampling was done as follows: 

After arrangements had been made for the coal, and its transportation was assured, the representative of the testing- plant visited the 

mine for the purpose of procuring a sample. He first entered the 

mine and carefully studied the character of the coal as shown ii\ the 

18
CAMPBELI..] FIELD WORK. 19

bed . before it was mined, and the method of mining and of cleaning 

the coal as it was loaded on cars in the mine. After becoming familiar with the underground conditions, he visited the tipple and observed 

the manner of handling the coal for market, getting information 

regarding the arrangement of the screens, the grades of coal produced, and the method of utilizing slack coal, washing, coking, etc. 

When this was accomplished the inspector supervised the loading of 

a car for testing purposes, selecting run-of-mine, lump, or nut coal, as 

seemed to him most nearly representative of the general output of the 

mine, or in particular cases selecting certain grades for special tests. 

The loading of the car was carefully watched so as to prevent undue 

picking or any irregularity that would tend to make the test sample 

better or worse than the average output.

In certain cases where a number of cars were in the yards, already

loaded with what was regarded as representative coal, one of these

cars was selected at random and shipped to the testing plant.

In case the car sample consisted of lignite or soft bituminous coal 

such as probably would be affected by weathering in transit, it was 

loaded in a box car, but the great majority of samples were shipped 

in ordinary open coal cars without any protection from the weather. 

Most of this coal was shipped during the months of August, September, 

October, and November, and these months were unusually dry in the 

vicinity of St. Louis. For this reason it seems probable that the coal 

in transit was subjected to little rain or snow, and that the principal 

change caused by weather was a change in amount of moisture due to 

atmospheric conditions which probably affected not only the coal in 

open cars but also that shipped in box cars.

MINE SAMPLES.

As an additional check on the quality of the coal, and especially for 

the determination of its moisture content in its native condition, two 

samples were taken in each mine for chemical analysis. These were 

Handled as follows: After a general inspection of the mine to determine the variations of the coal in thickness and quality, two points 

were.selected in opposite or widely separated parts of the mine, and 

after the face of the coal was cleaned of any weathered coal or powder 

smoke, a cut was made across the face of the coal from roof to floor, 

including all of the benches of coal mined and such impurities as were 

not removed in ordinary work. This cut was about 3 inches wide and 

1 inch deep. The coal obtained from it, amounting to 25 or 30 pounds, 

was caught upon an oilcloth blanket spread upon the floor of the mine 

so as to protect the sample from water and from including any shale 

or clay fragments.

The coal composing the sample was then pulverized and quartered 

down according to the generally accepted rules for preparing samples
20 PBELIMINAKY EEPOET ON COAL-TESTING PLANT. [BULL. 261.

until a quart sample "was obtained with the particles of coal reduced to 

a size not much greater than one-fourth inch in diameter. The 

sample was placed in an air-tight galvanized iron can having a screw 

top and the can was hermetically sealed by screwing the top down 

tight and covering the joint with tire tape. The can containing 

the sample was then mailed to the testing plant, and in almost all 

cases it reached its destination within two or three days of the date 

of sampling in the mine. When the can reached the chemical laboratoiy the sample was at once transferred to a Mason glass jar, in which 

it was sealed until the time for taking it up for chemical analysis.

UNINSPECTED CAR SAMPLES.

In a few cases carload samples were shipped to the testing plant 

without the personal supervision of a representative of the Government. In one case this was the result of a misunderstanding; in 

others the sample consisted of slack coal, and its selection did not 

need personal supervision. In the case of the North Dakota lignite, 

it was impossible to send a man there early enough in the season to 

insure the car reaching the plant before the close of the Exposition 

period. This necessitated the loading of a sample without supervision, but since it is probable that the lignite from these mines is of 

fairly uniform quality, the sample was accepted as representative.

The committee in charge do not care to hold themselves responsible 

for the representative character of coal thus sent in without their personal supervision, but the results of the tests are given for what they 

are worth.

The samples sent in irregularly are as follows:

Indian Territory No. 6'. -Slack coal from mine of the Southwestern 

Development Company, located at Coalgate, Ind. T. This sample represented the waste product of the mine, and consequently its selection 

did not need to be under the supervision of a representative of the 

testing plant.

Kansas No. 4' Lump coal from mine of the Atchison Coal MiningCompany, located near Atchison, Kans. Owing to misunderstanding 

of instructions this sample was sent without personal supervision, but 

its representative character is vouched for by Prof. Erasmus Ha worth, 

State geologist of Kansas.

Montana No. 1. Washed slack from Eed Lodge, Mont. This is a 

lignitic coal which was sent in by Mr. L. S. Storrs, geologist in charge 

of coal lands of the Northern Pacific Railway Company.

North Dakota No. 1. Brown lignite from Lehigh, N. Dak. Sent 

by L. S. Storrs.

North Dakota No. 2. Brown lignite from mine of the Cedar Coulee 

Coal Company, located 4 miles southeast of Williston, N. Dak. This
CAMPBELL.] FIELD WORK. 21

sample was sent to the testing plant by Mr. H. A. Storrs, engineer, 

Reclamation Service, Denver, Colo.

Pennsylvania Nos.'l and %. Lump coal from Eureka No. 31 mine, 

of the Berwind-White Coal Mining Company, located at Windber, 

Somerset County, Pa. This coal was used in preliminary tests to show 

that the machinery was in proper working order. The tests were satisfactory, but the assumption that the coal tested was representative in 

character rests upon the statement of the company furnishing it.

Pennsyl/vania No. 3. Anthracite culm from Pennsylvania Coal 

Company, Scranton, Pa. This sample of culm was sent for briquetting purposes and hence needed no inspection. .

DESCRIPTION OF CAR SAMPLES.

Sixty-five car samples of coal were received at the testing plant 

during the season, from seventeen States, These may be grouped by 

States as follows:

Alabama, 2; Arkansas, 6; Colorado, 1; Illinois, 6; Indiana, 2; Indian 

Territory, 6; Iowa, 5; Kansas, 5; Kentucky, 4; Missouri, 4; Montana, 

1; New Mexico, 2; North Dakota, 2; Pennsylvania, 3; Texas, 2; West 

Virginia, 12; Wyoming, 2.

The following is a complete list of the car samples received, giving 

details of ownership, location, character of sample, etc.:
22 PRELIMINARY REPORT ON COAL-TESTING PLANT. [BULL. 201.

Lint of car

Name of sample.

Arkansas 1......

IllinoisS.. ......

Illinois 6. '.......

Operator.

bon Hill, Ala.

Co., Kansas City, Mo.

Co., Kansas City, Mo.

ing Co., St. Louis, Mo.

ing Co., St. Louis, Mo.

ing Co., St. Louis, Mo.

ing Co., St. Louis, Mo.

Co., Denver, Colo.

Coal and Coke Co., 

St. Louis, Mo.

Coal and Coke Co., 

St. Louis, Mo.

Mining and Washing 

Co., Marion, 111.

Coke Co., St. Louis, 

Mo.

Coke Co., St. Louis, 

Mo.

Coffeen, 111.

Mine.

No.8..........

No. 5..........

No.3.... ......

No. 12.........

No. 18 ........

No. 18 ........

No.4 .........

No. 18 ........

No.l. .........

No.l..........

No.3..........

No.3..........

No.l..........

No. 1 shaft....

Location.

Creek, Walker 

County, Ala.

west of Carbon Hill, 

Walker County, Ala.

tian County, Ark.

County, Ark.

tian County, Ark.

County, Ark.

Franklin County, 

Ark.

tian County, Ark.

County, Colo.

County, 111.

O'Fallon, St. Glair

County, 111.

County, 111.

of Troy, Madison 

County, 111.

County, 111.

 CofYeen, 111 ...........

Railroad.

Railroad.

Railroad.

Railroad.

Railroad.

Southern Railroad, Burlington System.

KR.OfEastSt. 

Louis.

Belt Terminal

R. R. of East St. 

Louis.

ern Illinois 

R. R.

and Eastern 

R. R.

St. Louis, Troy

and Eastern 

R. R.

and Western 

 R. R.
CAMPBELL.] FIELD WORK.

received at testing plant.

23

Sampler.

M.R. Campbell.......

F.W.Pe Wolf ........

M.R. Campbell.......

1 ^y Qrovcs

Kind of coal.

screen.

inch and over J-inch 

screen, also washed slack.

screen.

screen.

screen.

lump, half slack.

screen.

screen.

Name of bed.

Huntington ......

Jenny Lind.......

Jenny Lind.......

No.8? ............

No.8? ............

No. 7. .............

No. 6..............

Tests.

Steam test, p. 80.

Washing test, p. 6G. 

Coking test, p. 121. 

Briquetting test, p. 148.

Steam test, p. 80.

Producer gas test, p. 88. 

Coking test, p. 122.

Steam test, p. 80.

Coking test, p. 122. 

Briquetting test, p. 148.

Steam test, p. 80.

Coking test, p. 122. 

Briquetting test, p. 148.

Steam test, p. 80.

Coking test, p. 122. 

Briquetting test, p. 149.

Briquetting test, p. 149.

Briquetting test, p. 151.

Washing test, p. CO.

Coking test, p. 122. 

Briquetting test, p. 152.

Steam test, p. 80.

Producer gas test, p. 90. 

Briquetting test, p. 152.

Steam test, p. 80.

Coking test, p. 122. 

Briquetting test, p. 153.

Washing test, p. 61. 

Coking test, p. 123.

Producer-gas test, p. 91. 

Washing test, p. 66. 

Coking test, p. 123.

Producer-gas test, p. 93. 

Briquetting test, p. 153.

Coking test, p. 123.
PBELIMINAKY REPOKT ON COAL-TESTING PLANT. [BUU,. 261.

List of car samples received

Name of sample.

tory 1.

tory 2.

tory 3.

tory 4.

tory 5.

tory 6.

Operator.

Evansville, Ind.

Boonville, Ind.

Mining Co., Henryetta, Ind. T.

Hartshorne, Ind T.

wards, Ind. T.

ing Co., St. Louis, Mo.

ing Co., St. Louis, Mo.

ment Co., Parsons, 

Kans.

Anchor Coal Co., Ottumwa, Iowa.

Mammoth Vein Coal

Co., Hamilton, Iowa.

Des Moines, Iowa.

Co., Centerville.Iowa.

Inland Fuel Co., Chariton, Iowa.

ing Co., St. Louis, Mo.

ing Co., St. Louis, Mo.

Mercantile Co., Scarnmon, Kans.

Mine.

Mildred ......

No.l. .........

No. 8. ........

No.l .........

N0.5 :........

No. 7.........

 No. 2 .........

NO. 5.........

No. 4. ........

No.3 .........

No.l .........

No. 10 ........

No. 11 ........

No. 9 .........

Location.

County, Ind.

County, Ind.

Lehigh, Ind. T.

LehigL, Ind. T.......

Colgate, Ind. T. .....

Laddsdale, Iowa .....

Marion County, 

Iowa.

County, Iowa.

noose County , Iowa.

Chariton, Lucas

County, Iowa.

County, Kans.

County, Kans.

County, Kans.

Railroad.

Terre Haute 

R. R.

tern.

tern.

and Texas Rwy.

and Texas Rwy.

and Texas Rwy.

tern.

Wabash Railroad.

tern.

C..B.&Q.R.R.;!.

C.R.R.;C.,R.I. 

&P.R.R.;C.,M. 

&St.P.R.R.j

tern, within C 

miles.

R. R.

R. R.
CAM.PBELT,.] FIELD WORK.

at testing plant Continued.

25

Sampler.

J \V Groves

1 W G roves

Shipped by operator..

j \y Groves

T \y Groves

T W Groves

J. S. Burrows.........

M. 11. Campbell ......

Kind of coal.

Bituminous.

Bituminous.

Bituminous, 

screen.

Bituminous.

Bituminous.

Bituminous, 

screen.

Euii of mine.

Run of mine.

OverlJ-inch

Run of mine.

Run of mine.

Over 1-inch

Bituminous. Mixed 

through A and -J- inch 

screen.

Bituminous.

Bituminous, 

screen.

Bituminous.

Bituminous, 

screen.

Bituminous, 

screen.

Bituminous.

Bituminous.

Bituminous, 

nut.

Bituminous.

Over ij-inch

Run of mine.

Over l§-inch

Over l§-inch

Run of mine.

Run of mine.

Lump and

Run of mine.

Name of bed.

No.6. ...... .......

No. 5..............

Hartshorne......-:

Weir-Pittsburg ...

Weir-Pittsburg . . .

Weir-Pittsburg ...

Tests.

Steam test, p. 80. 

Producer-gas test, p. 94. 

Washing test, p. 63. 

Coking test, p. 123. 

Briquetting test, p. 154.

Steam test, p. 81. 

Producer-gas test, p. 96. 

Briquetting test, p. 154.

Steam test, p. 81. 

Producer-gas test, p. 98. 

Coking test, p. 123.

Steam test, p. 81. 

Washing test, p. 67. 

Coking test, p. 124. 

Briquetting test, p. 155.

Steam test, p. 81. 

Washing test, p. 68. 

Coking test, p. 124. 

Briquetting test, p. 155.

Steam test, p. 81.

Washing test, p. 68. 

Coking test, p. 124.

Briquetting test, p. 155.

Steam test, p. 81. 

Washing test, p. 08. 

Coking test, p. 124.

Steam test, p. 81. 

Washing test, p. 69. 

Coking test, p. 124.

Steam test, p. 81. 

Washing test, p. 69. 

Coking test, p. 125.

Steam test, p. 81. 

Washing test, p. 69. 

Coking test, p. 125. 

Briquetting test, p. 158.

Steam test, p. 81. 

Washing test, p. 70. 

Coking test, p. 125.

Steam test, p. 81. 

Coking test, p. 125.-

Steam test, p. 81. 

Coking test, p. 125. 

Briquetting test, p. 159.

Steam test, p. 81. 

Coking test, p. 125.
26 PBELIMINABY BEPOBT ON COAL-TESTING PLANT. [BULL. 201.

List of car samples received

Name of sample.

Kentucky 1 ....

Kentucky 2 ....

Kentucky 3 ....

Kentucky 4.....

Missouri 3 ......

New Mexico 2 . .

North Dakota 1.

North Dakota 2.

Pennsylvania 1.

Pennsylvania 2.

Operator.

ing Co., Atchison, 

Kans.

rnent Co., Parsons, 

Kans.

National Coal and Iron 

Co., Louisville, Ky.

St. Bernard Mining Co.,

Earlington, Ky.

St. Bernard Mining Co., 

Earlington, Ky.

Wheatcroft Coal and 

Mining Co., Wheatcroft, Ky.

Sprague, Mo.

Mining Co., Kansas 

City, Mo.

Mendota Coal and Mining Co., Mendota, Mo.

Co., St. Louis, Mo.

Denver, Colo.

Caledonian Coal Co.,

Gallup, N. Mex.

Cedar Coulee Coal Co.,

Williston, N. Dak.

Berwind-White Coal 

Mining Co., Philadelphia, Pa.

Berwind-White Coal 

Mining Co., Philadelphia, Pa.

Mine.

No. 11 ........

Straight Creek 

No. 2.

No. 11 ........

Barnsley .....

Wheatcroft...

No.l. .........

No.8..........

Eureka 31.....

Eureka 31.....

Location.

son, Atchison 

County, Kans.

Straight Creek, Bell 

County, Ky.

County, Ky.

Barnsley, Hopkins 

County, Ky.

Wheatcroft, Webster 

County, Ky.

County, Mo.

Macon County, Mo.

County, Mo.

gan County, Mo.

County, Mont.

lup, McKinley 

County, N. Mex.

lup, McKinley 

County, N. Mex.

N. Dak.

Williston, Williams 

County, N. Dak.

Windber, Somerset 

County, Pa.

Windber, Somerset 

County, Pa.

Railroad.

R. R.

and Texas R. R.

Louisville and 

Nashville R. R.

Nashville R.R.

Louisville and 

Nashville R. R.

Illinois Central 

R.R.

tern.

tern.

tern.

R.R.

SantaFeR.R....

R.R.

R.R.

PennsylvaniaR. R

Pennsylvania R. R
HELD WORK.

at testing jjLa/nt Coutin ued.

Sampler.

M. K. Campbell .....

I W Groves

M.R. Campbell.......

Shipped by operator. .

Shipped by operator. .

Kind of coal.

Bituminous. Over f-inch 

screen.

screen.

and coal over f-inch 

screen.

Black lignite (?) No. 4,

washed nut.

Black lignite. Slack......

Bituminous ................

Bituminous ................

Name of bed.

Weir-Pittsburg . . .

No. 11 ............

No.9.............

No. 11. ............

No. 3 and No. 3£..

Otero, Thatcher,

Crownpoint.

B(?). .............

B (?)..............

Tests.

Steam test, p. 81.

Coking test, p. 125.

Steam test, p. 81.

Steam test, p. 81.

Coking test, p. 126. 

Briquetting test, p. 159.

Coking test, p. 120. 

Briquetting test, p. 159.

Steam test, p. 81.

Producer-gas test, p. 99. 

Washing test, p. 70. 

Coking test, p. 126.

Steam test, p. 81.

Washing test, p. 70. 

Coking test, p. 126.

Steam test, p. 81.

Briquetting test, p. 160.

Steam test, p. 81.

Producer gas test, p. 101. 

Washing test, p. 70. 

Coking test, p. 126.

Steam test, p. 82.

Washing test, p. 64. 

Coking test, p. 1.26.

Coking test, p. 126.

Producer gas test, p. 102.

Briquetting test, p. 160.

Steam test, p. 82.

Briquetting test, p. 161.

Steam test, p. '82.

Briquetting test, p. 162.

Steam test, p. 82.

Briquetting test, p. 162.

Steam test, p. 82.

Steam test, p. 82. '
28 PKELIMINARY KEPOKT ON COAL-TESTING PLANT. [BULL. 201.

List of car sample received

Name of sample.

Pennsylvania 3.

West Virginia 1.

West Virginia'2.

West Virginia 4.

West Virginia 6.

West Virginia 7.

West Virginia 8.

West Virginia 9.

West Virginia 10

West Virginia 11

West Virginia 

12.

Wyoming 1 .....

Wyoming 2 .....

Operator.

Pennsylvania Coal Co.,

Scranton, Pa.

and Manufacturing 

Co., Crocket t, Tex.

Dallas, Tex.

Virginia and Pittsburg 

Coal and Coke Co., 

New York, N. Y.

Pitcairn Coal Co.,

Clarksburg, W. Va.

Morgantown, W. Va.

West Virginia Coal Co.,

Morgantown, W, Va.

kins, W. Va.

The New River Smokeless Coal Co., Rush 

Run, W. Va.

The New. River Smokeless Coal Co., Hush 

Run, W.Va.

The Gauley Mountain 

Coal Co.. Ansted, W. 

Va.

Mount Carbon Coal Co.,

(Limited), Powellton, 

W.Va.

Stuart M. Buck, Bramwell, W. v'a.

W. H. Coffman, Bluefield, W.Va.

Big Sandy Coal and 

Coke Co., Marytown, 

W. Va.

Wyoming Coal Mining 

Co., Monarch, Wyo.

Cambria Fuel Co., Cambria, Wyo.

Mine.

\Vootters

Kingmont....

Bret/. ........

Rush Run ....

Sun No. 1.....

Gauley Mountain.

Vulcan .......

Experimental 

mine.

Zenith land 2.

Big Sandy....

Monarch .....

Antelope 1 

and 2 and 

Jumbo.

Location.

Crockett, Houston 

County, Tex.

Tex.

Kingmont, Marion 

County, -W.Vii.

County, W. Va.

Morgantown, Monongalia Countv, 

W.Va.

Kingwood, Preston 

County, W.Va.

County, W. Va.-

Rush- Run, Fayette 

County, W. Va.

Sun, Fayette County, 

W. Va.

Ansted, Favette 

County, W. Va.

ton , Fayette County, 

W. Va.

Mora, Mercer County, 

W.Va.

Zenith, McDowell 

County, W. Va.

Big Sandy, McDowell County, W.Va.

9 miles northwest of 

Sheridan, Sheridan 

County, Wyo.

Cambria, W e s t o n 

County, Wyo.

Railroad.

Great Northern 

R.R.

M.,K.&T.R.R.

Baltimore and 

Ohio R. R.

Ohio R.R. 

Kingwood R. R.

Kingwood R. R.

R. R.

Chesapeake and 

Ohio R. R.

Chesapeake and 

Ohio R. R.

Chesapeake and 

Ohio R. R.

Ohio R. R.

Norfolk and Western R. R.

Norfolk and Western R. R.

Norfolk and Western Railroad.

Burlington System.

Burlington System.
CAMPBELL.] FIELD WOJJK. 29

at testing plant Continued.

Sampler.

Shipped by operator..

M.R. Campbell.......

J.S. Burrows..........

,1.S. Burrows..........

F.W.DeWolf ........

F.W.De Wolf ........

Kind of coal.

Anthracite. Culm ........

Bituminous. Run of mine.

Bituminous. Run of mine.

Bituminous. Over 14 inch 

screen.

screen.

screen.

Name of bed.

Pittsburg..........

Upper Freeport...

Upper Freeport.,.

Upper Freeport...

No. 6 (?)..........

No. 8. .............

Tests.

Steam test, p. 82. 

Briq netting test, p. 163.

Steam test, p. 82.

Producer-gas test, p. 10<J. 

Coking test, p. 126.

Washing test, p. 71. 

Coking test, p. 127.

Steam test, p. 82.-

Washing test, p. 71. 

Coking test, p. 127. 

Briqnetting test, p. 165.

Steam test, p. 82. 

Producer-gas test, p. 111. 

Washing test, p. 71. 

Coking test, p. 127.

Steam test, p. 82. 

Washing test, p. 72. 

Coking test, p. 127.

Steam test, p. 82.

Coking test, p. 128. 

Briquetting test, p. 165.

Coking test, p. 12&

Coking test, p. 128.

Producer-gas test, p. 112. 

Washing test, p. 72. 

Coking test, p. 128.

Coking test, p. 128.

Coking test, p. 129.

Producer-gas test, p. 114. 

Washing test, p. 72. 

Coking test, p. 129.

Briquetting test, p. 165.

Producer-gas test, p. 115.
WORK OF THE CHEMICAL LABORATORY,

By N. W. LORD.

INTRODUCTION.

In this preliminary report onty the mine samples and the laboratory car samples of the coals are considered.

Numerous analyses made in connection with steam tests, producergas tests, coking tests, etc., representing the portions of coal used 

in these tests, are published in the several reports giving the results of 

the tests and are not repeated here.

SAMPLING.

The mine samples were taken by the agents of the Survey at the 

mines from which the coal was shipped and were sent to the laboratory 

in sealed cans. They were taken on opposite sides of the mine or in 

places widely separated, so that to a certain extent they 'show the 

variations in the qualit}^ of the coal within the limits of the mine. In 

the final report the points at which the samples were obtained will be 

accurate^ described, but in the present report the samples will be 

designated merely "mine sample A" and "mine sample B."

The laboratory car samples were taken from the carload of coal 

sent to the plant for testing at the time that it was unloaded. They 

usually represent either the whole car or that portion of it used in the 

tests. The laboratory car sample was obtained after the coal had been 

passed through rolls having an aperture of about li inches, b}^ taking 

portions at short intervals from the buckets of the conveyor. These 

portions, after thorough mixing, were used for the preparation of the 

laboratory sample.

LOSS ON AIR DRYING.

Most coals rapidly lose moisture on exposure to air. In grinding 

the large sample down to the fine state of pulverization necessary in 

the small laboratoiy sample there is liable to be a large and undetermined loss of moisture. To reduce the error due to this loss of 

30
LORD.] ' WORK OF CHEMICAL LABORATORY. 31

moisture, each sample of coal, after a rapid preliminary crushing to 

about one-fourth inch size and reduction in bulk by quartering where 

desirable, was weighed and then exposed to the air for about twentyfour hours, or until the loss of weight on further exposure became 

slight.

The loss of weight thus determined constitutes the "loss on air drying." The coal in this air-dried condition was then pulverized for the 

final sample to be used in the various operations of the laboratory.

The reduction of the actual results obtained upon the air-dried sample to the equivalent results on the original sample before air drying 

was accomplished as follows: Each of the results upon the air-dried 

sample was multiplied by the fraction the air-dried coal formed of the 

original coal and then (in the proximate analyses) the percentage loss 

on air drying was added to the figure for moisture so obtained.

In the case of an ultimate analysis the figures so obtained for the 

oxygen and the hydrogen were each increased by amounts equivalent 

to the oxygen and i^drogen represented by the loss on air drying 

when considered as water.

METHODS OF ANALYSIS.

The methods of analysis were essentially those recommended by the 

committee of the American Chemical Society. The moisture was 

determined by drying the weighed sample for one hour in an air 

bath at 105° C. The calorific value was determined in the Mahler 

bomb calorimeter. The actual value of the result in the calorimeter 

was corrected for the sulphuric acid formed in the bomb.

In calculating the calorific value from the ultimate analysis the 

calorific values of hydrogen, carbon, and sulphur were taken as, 

respectively, 34,460, 8,080, and 2,250 calories.

PERSONNEL.

Mr. E. E. Somermeier, of the department of metallurgy of the Ohio 

State University, was chief chemist and had immediate charge of the 

laboratory at the testing plant. The assistant chemists employed in 

the laboratory were Mr. F. M. Stanton, Mr. John H. Crawford, jr., 

and Mr. G. A. Burrell. Mr. F. A. Bryari was employed in collecting 

the car samples and washery samples at the plant.

ANALYSES OF MINE AND LABORATORY CAR SAMPLES.

The following table gives in a condensed form the analyses of 

"mine" and "laboratory car" samples arranged according to States:
32 PRELIMINARY REPORT ON OOAL-TESTING PLANT. [BULL. 261.

Analyses of mine and laboratory car samples of coal.'

La

Ultimate Proximate <? QO f

?=.- Si5° 0r=. os.

Analysis of air-dried sample.

rABh..... ...........................

P-T vfl rfitron

Owp'pn

oriflc value determined:

orific value calculated from ultimate 

nalysis: '

nalysis corrected to sample as received.

,A^........... .....................

' (.Sulphur, ...........................

C\ v V'tTf Tl

orific value determined: 

orific value calculated from ultimate 

nalysis:

Alabama No. 1.

Mine 

sample 

B.

1077

Mine 

sample 

A.

1078

-

'

1.22

54. 44 

12. 81 

0.71

1.35 

31. 07 

53. 35 

13. 63 

0.71

7,217 

12, 991

.

Laboratory car 

sample.

1201

0.80

1.55

32. 10

53. 71

12. 04

0.73

4.96

72. 16

1.66

7.85

7, 199

12, 958

7,218

12, 992

2.-S4 

31.84 

53.28 

12.54 

0.72 

5.01

71.58

1.65

7,142 

12, 856

7, 160 

12,888

Alabama No 2.

Mine 

sample 

A.

1075

 2. 25 

35.70 

53.01 

9.04 

1.09

7,296 

13,133

Mine 

sample 

B.

1076

2.42 

34.83 

51. 62 

11. 13 

1.10

«

7,053 

12, 695

Laboratory car 

sample.

1225

0.80

2.58 

33.15 

51.74 

12. 53 

1.02 

 1.79 

69.24 

1.55 

,10.87

C, 916 

12, 449

6,799 

12,238

3.36 

32. 86 

51.33 

12.43 

1.01 

4.84 

68. 69 

1. 54 

11.49

6,861 

12, 350

6, 745 

12, 141
LOJU..] ' WORK OF CHEMICAL LABORATORY.

Analyses of mine and laboratory car samples of coal Continued.

LaY

Ultimate. Proximate. C5 fttr*o. 

ftfc. ?°PDOK, p.

Analysis of air-dried sample.

. Oxygen .............................

orific value determined:

oriflc value calculated from ultimate 

aalysis:

tarsi's corrected to sample as received.

C\~vvfrf*n

orific value determined:

orific value calculated from ultimate 

nalysis:

Arkansas No 1.

Mine 

sample 

B.

1045

1.02 

17.88 

73.61 

7.49 

1.10

8, 019 

14,434

Mine 

sample 

A.

1046

0.75 

18.50 

73.77 

6.98 

1.15

Labora-' 

tory car 

sample.

1114

2.10

1.17

17.83

68.12

12.88

1.27

4.00

75.68

1.47

4.70

7,450 

13,410

7,319 

13, 174

3.24 

17.46 

66.69 

12.61 

1.24 

4.15

74.09

1.44

6. 47

7, 294 

13, 129

7, 105 

12, 897

Arkansas No. 2.

Mine 

sample 

B.

1049

0.95 

18.70 

73.38 

6.97 

2.12

7, 993 

14, 387

Mine 

sample 

A.

1053

0.78 

16. 60 

73.53 

9.09 

' 2.50

Laboratory car 

sample.

1160

1.50

0.74 

16. 26 

73.66 

9.34 

1.90 

4.13 

80.03 

1.40 

3.20

7,756 

13,961

7,794 

14,029

2. 23 

16. 02 

72.55 

9.20 

1.87 

4.24 

78.83 

1. 38

4.48

7, 639 

13, 750

7,677 

13, 819
34 PRELIMINARY REPORT ON COAL-TESTING PLA.NT. [BULL. 261.

Analyses of mine and laboratory car samples of coal Continued.

La

Ultimate Proximate Ultimate Proximate c? Oo tr1.k 

P. t»fc.O=o m.

Analysis of air-dried sample.

Fixed carbon ........................

oriflc value determined:

oriflc value calculated from ultimate 

nalysis:

nalysis corrected to sample as received.

Ow(wn

oriflc value determined:

oriflc value calculated from ultimate 

nalysis:

Arkansas No. 3.

Mine 

sample 

A.

1115

0.80

0.81 

17.54 

73.68 

7.97 

1.43

7,931 

14, 275

1.60 

17.40 

73.09 

7.91 

1.42

7,868

14,162

Mine 

sample 

B.

1118

. 0.80

0.84 

16.81 

69.59 

12. 76 

1.47

1.63 

16.68 

69.03 

12.66 

1.46

Laboratory, car 

sample.

1296

1.40

0.80 

19.75 

67.65 

11.80 

1.30 

4.07

7R 37

1.55

4.91

7,586 

13, 655

7,393

13,307

2.19

19.47 

66.71 

11.63 

1.28 

4.17

'75.31

1.53

6.08

7,480 

13,464

7,289 

13, 120

Arkansas No. 5.

Mine 

sample 

A.

1130

0.70

0.68 

14.87 

77.45 

7.00 

1.53

8, 017 

14, 431

1.38 

14.76 

76.91 

6.95 

1.52

7,961 

14,330

Mine 

sample 

B.

1131

1.30

0.51 

15. 19 

76.94 

7.36 

1.97

1.80 

15.00 

75.94 

7.26 

1.94

Laboratory car 

sample.

1331

1.10

1.28 

12.82 

73.69 

12.21 

2.01 

3.74 

77.29 

1.39 

3.36

7,448 

13,406

7,434 

13,381

2.36 

12. 68 

72.88 

12.08 

1.99 

3.82 

76.44 

1.37 

4.30

7,366 

13,259

7,353 

13, 235
U)KD.] WORK OF CHEMICAL LAJ30KATORY. 35

Analyses of mine and laboratory car samples of coal Continued.

Lal

g*Proximate Ultimate « op 

Analysis of air-dried sample.

.Oxygen ...........................................

oriflc value determined:

orific value calculated from ultimate analysis:

Analysis corrected to sample as received.

oriflc value determined:

orific value calculated from ultimate analysis:

Arkansas

No. 6,

Laboratory 

car 

.sample.

1542

3.00

0.82 

14.32 

70.62 

14. 24 

1.30

3.80 

13.89 

68.50 

13. 81 

 1.26

. Colorado No. 1.

Mine 

sample 

B.

1383

3.90

16.77 

35.18 

44.29 

3.76 

0.54

5,918 

10, 652

20.02 

33.81 

42.56 

3.61 

0.52

6,687 

 10,237

Mine 

sample " A.

 1397

4.00

18.58 

35.42 

42.38 

3.62 

0.48

21. 84 

34.00 

 40. 68 

3.48 

0.46

Laboratory 

car 

sample.

1523

6.00

13. 49 

37. 11 

43.03 

6.37 

0.68 

5.75 

61. 13 

1.22 

24. 95

5,995 

10, 791

5,859 

10, 546

18.68 

34.88 

40.45 

5.99 

0.55 

6.07 

57.46 

1. 15 

28.78

5, 635 

10, 143

5, 607 

9,913
PKELIMINARY REPORT ON COAL-TESTING PLANT. [BULL. 261.

Analyses of mine and laboratory car samples of coal Continued.

La

Ultimate Proximate og p1^

3S of moisture on air-drying. 

nalysis of air-dried sample.

TT vrt rnPppn

TOifrAOrPTI

O'VVPrPTI

oriflc value determined :

oriflcvaluecalculated from 

iltimate analysis:

nalysis corrected to sample as 

received.

Ovvrrpn

oriflc value determined:

British thermal units. .....

orificvalue calculated from 

Itimate analysis:

fdlATIPQ

Illinois No. 1.

Mine 

sample 

A.

1095

4.40

7.08 

41.12 

41.00 

10. 80 

4.41

6, 521

11, 738

11.17 

39.31 

39.20 

10.32 

4.22

6,235 

11,223

Mine 

sample 

B.

1096'

3.20

7.09 

41.66 

40.85 

10.40 

4.17

10.06 

40.33 

39.54 

10.07 

4.04

Laboratory car 

sample.

1261

3.70

6.28 

38. 92 

41, 08 

13.72 

4.25 

5.09 

62. 01 

1.07 

13. 86

6,360 

11, 448

6,263 

11,273

9.75 

37.48 

39.57 

13.20 

4.10 

5.31 

59. 72 

1.03 

16.64

6,125 

11,025

6,031 

10,856

Illinois 

No. 2.

Laboratory car 

sample.

1152

7.10

5.31 

34.29 

36. 24 

.24. 16 

4.30 

4.57 

54.06 

0.78 

12. 13

 5, 471 

9, 848

5,516 

9,929

12.03 

31.86 

33.67 

22.44 

4.00 

5.04 

50.22 

0.72 

17.58

5,083 

9,149

5,124 

9,223

Illinois No. 3.

Mine 

sample 

A.

1170

1.50

6.00 

32.16 

54.49 

7.26 

1.00

6,986 

12, 565

7.50 

31.68 

53.67 

7.15 

0.99

6,881 

12,386

Mine 

sample 

B.

1171

1.80

5.63 

34.93 

51.78 

7.67 

' 2.08

7.34 

34.29 

50.84 

7.53 

2.04

Laboratory car 

sample.

1318

2.70

5! 96 

30.29 

52. 16 

11. 59 

1.77 

4.92 

67.30 

1.43 

12.99

6, 724 

12, 103

6,615 

11,907

8.50 

29.47 

50.75 

11.28 

1.72 

5.09 

65. 48

1.39 

15.04

6,542 

11,776

6,436 

11,585
LORD.] WORK OF CHEMICAL LABORATORY. 37

Analyses of mine and laboratory car samples of coal Continued.

La

Ultimate Proximate f£> o s. 

-.». sr e-p.b,P . 

33 of moisture on air-drying. 

nalysis of air-dried sample.

Fixed carbon..............

rA.sh.... ..................

f ISulphur .................

Hydrogen .................

Carbon ....................

Nitrogen ..................

Oxygen....................

orific value determined: 

Calories ...................

British thermal units. .....

oriflc value calculated from 

Vtimate analysis:

lalysis corrected to sample as 

received.

Fixed carbon..............

( ISulphur .................

Hydrogen .................

Carbon ....................

loriflc value determined:

British thermal units......

orific value calculated from 

Itinmte analysis:

British thermal units.

Illinois No. 4.

Mine 

sample 

A.

1341

3.20

12. 28 

32.02 

38.03 

7.67 

0.86

6,400 

11,520

15.09 

31. 00 

46.49 

7.42 

0.83

6, 195 

] 1 , 151

Mine 

sample 

B.

1342

3.00

11.77 

33.18 

45.97 

9. OS 

1.57

14.42 

32.18 

44.59 

8.81 

1.52

Laboratory car 

sample.

1417

1.70

11.40 

32.45 

' 44. 30 

11.85 

1.34 

5.33 

61.79 

1.17

18.62

6,106 

10, 991

6,062 

10,912

12.91 

31. 90 

43. 55 

11.64 

1.32 

5.43 

60.74 

1.15

19.72

0,002 

10,804

6, 959 

10,726

Illinois 

No. 5.

Laboratory car 

sample.

1556

12.50

5.16 

 34.98 

40.67 

19.19 

3.76 

4.69 

58.02

5,917 

10,651

17.02 

30.60 

35.59 

16.79 

3.29 

5.50 

50.77

6,177 

9, 319

Illinois No. 6.

Mine 

sample 

A.

1449 

5.60

9.84 

36.86 

44.96 

8.34 

' 3.82

6,483 

11,669

14.89 

34.80 

42.44 

7.87 

3.6L

6,120 

11 , 016

Mine 

sample 

B.

1450

4.00

- 10. 35 

35.35 

42.94 

11.36 

3.95

13.94 

33.93 

41.22 

10.91 

3.79

Laboratory car 

sample.

1557

9.80

5.13 

32.68 

47, 46 

14. 73 

4.45 

4.88 

60.61 

1.23 

14.20

6,199 

11, 158

6,059 

10, 906

14.43 

29.48 

42.81 

13.28 

4.01 

6.49 

, 54.59 

1.11 

21, 52

5,591 

10,064

5, 465 

9,837
38 PRELIMINARY REPORT ON COAL-TESTING PLANT. [BULL 261.

Analyses of mine and laboratory car samples of coal Continued.

La

Ultimate Proximate O ot-1 . 

Analysis of air-dried sample.

orific value determined:

oriflc value calculated from ultimate 

nalysis:

nalysis corrected to sample as received.

orific value determined:

oriflc value calculated from ultimate 

nalysis: 

Calories ..............................

Indiana No. 1.

Mine 

sample 

B.

1410

8.70

4.98 

39.22 

45.76 

10.04 

2.05

6,912 

12,442

13.26 

35.81 

41.78 

9.16 

1.87

6,311

Mine 

sample 

A.

1412

6.60

6.25 

37.10 

46.46 

10.19 

1.02

11.50 

35.02 

43.86 

9.62 

0.96

Laboratory car 

sample.

1507

3.00

8.66 

34.86 

42.67 

13.81 

2.58 

5.20

62.20

1.22

14 99

6,336 

11, 405

6,231

11,216

11.40 

3?, 81 

41.39 

13. 40 

2.50 

5.37

60.34

1.18

17.21

6,145 

11,061

6,044

10,879

Indiana No. 2.

Mine 

sample 

B.

1425

2.80

6.67 

40.63 

43.19 

9.61 

4.57

6,744 

12,139

9.28 

39.40 

41.98 

9.34 

4.44

6,555 

11, 799

Mine 

sample 

A.

1426

3.10

7.45 

39.30 

44.43 

8.82 

3.62

10.32 

38.08 

43.05 

8.55 

3.51

Laboratory car 

sample.

1495

3.60

6.24 

37.49 

42.76 

13.51 

4.60 

5.11 

62.97 

1.25 

12.56

6,410 

11,638

6,411 

11,640

9.62 

36.14 

41.22 

13.02 

4.43 

6.33 

60.70 

1.20 

15.32

6,179 

11,122

6,180 

11,124
LORD.] WORK OF CHEMICAL LABORATORY. 39

Analyses of mine and laboratory cur samples of coal Continued.

La

Proximate Ultimate OQ o ir1 . 

P. C^ -&OP ' F°r* A * t ,

Analysis of air-dried sample.

L Oxygen........ ......................

orific value determined:

British thermal units ................

orific value calculated from ultimate 

nalysis:

nalysis corrected to sample as received.

Volatile matter ......................

Fixed carbon ........................

Nitrogen .............................

orific value determined:

British thermal units ................

orific value calculaled from ultimate 

nalysis:

Indian Territory No. 1.

Mine 

sample 

B.

1059

5.00

4.07 

36.65 

50.20 

9.08 

1.71

7, 073 

12,731

8.87 

34.82 

47.68 

8.63 

1.62

6,720 

12,096

"

Mine 

sample 

A.

1060

3.10

3.79 

37.41 

52.94 

5.86 

1.40

6.77 

36. 25 

51.30 

' 5.68 

1.36

Laboratory car 

sample.

1138

3.30

3.87 

35.73 

50.05 

10.35 

1.99 

5.14

69.85

1 29

11 00

7,011 

12,620

6,971 

12, 548

7.04 

34.55 

48.40 

10.01 

1.92 

5.34

67. 55

1.25

13.93

6,779 

12,202

6,740 

12, 132

Indian Territory No. 2.

Mine 

sample 

B.

1071

1.46 

39.04 

53.10 

6.40 

1.38

7,800- 

14,040

Mine 

sample 

A.

.1073

1.30 

38.90 

52.15 

7.65 

1.58

Laboratory car 

sample.

1184

2.80

1.70 

37.19 

49.79 

11.32 

1.56 

5.00 

71.49 

1.72 

' 8.91

7,205 

12,969

7,162 

12,874

4.45 

36.15 

48.40 

11.00 

1.52 

5.17 

-69.49 

1.67 

11.15

7,004 

12,607

6,952 

12,514
40 PRELIMINARY REPORT ON COAL-TESTING PLANT. [BULL. 261.

Analyses of mine and laboratory car samples of coal Continued.

La

Ultimate c Proximate Ultimate. o p "

fk. P. Or*.Pco « »..* , .

Analysis of air-dried sample.

orific value determined:

orific value calculated from ultimate 

nalysis:

nalysis corrected to sample as received.

Fixed carbon ........................

[ I Sulphur. ...........................

orific value determined:

fnlrtyiOG

orific value calculated from ultimate 

nalysis:

Indian Territory No. 3.

Mine 

sample 

B.

1079

2.97 

40.43 

48. 22 

8.38 

3.05

Mine 

sample 

A.

1080

2.93 

39.02 

47.75 

10.30 

3.73

6,995 

12, 591

Laboratory car 

sample.

1274

1.20

3.45 

37.45 

47.82 

]1.28 

3.67 

4.85

68.18

1.50

10.52

6,927 

12, 469

6,810

12,258

4.61 

37.00 

47.25 

11.14 

3.63 

4.92

67. 37

1.48

11.46

6,844 

12,319

6,728 

12, 110

Indian Territory No. 4.

Mine 

sample 

A.

1150

1.60

3.75 

38.15 

45.77 

12.33 

3.83

5.29 

37.54 

45.04 

12.13 

3.77

Mine 

sample 

B.

1151

1.90

4.69 

39.76 

46.06 

9.49 

3.74

6,706 

12, 071

6.50 

39.01 

45.18 

9.31 

3,67

6,579 

11,842

Laboratory car 

sample.

1470

1.40

4.91 

37.79 

43.90 

13.40 

4.02 

4.84 

63.21 

1.38 

13.15

6,327 

11,389

6,300 

11,340

6.24 

37.26 

43.29 

13. 21 

3.96 

4.93 

62.34 

1.36 

14. 20

6,238 

11,228

6,212 

11, 182
LORD.] WORK OF CHEMICAL LABORATORY.

Analyses of mine and laboratory car samples of coal Continued.

La

£ Ultimate Proximate ' o O-<5 t*i 

1 P.P.SB 0h^ => .^ . 

Analysis of air-dried sample.

orific value determined:

British thermal units. ................

orific value calculated from ultimate 

nalysis:

nalysis corrected to sample as received.

Fixed carbon .........................

Nitrogen .;...........................

Ox ygen ...............................

orific value determined :

British thermal units ................

orific value calculated from ultimate 

nalysis:

Incl. Ter. 

No. 5.

Laboratory 

car sample.

1481.

'2. 70

5.74 

31.46 

37.05 

25. 75 

4.06 

4.18 

52. 39 

1.22 

12. 40'

5,201

9, 362

5,231 

9,416

8.29 

30.61 

36. 05 

25.05 

3.95 

4.37 

50 98

1.19 

14.46

5,061

9,110

' 5,090 

9,162

Ind.Ter. 

No. 6.

Laboratory 

car sample.

1596

3.50

4.69 

32.41 

42. 91 

19.99 

3.32

%

8.03 

31.28 

41.40 

19.29 

3.20

Iowa No. 1.

Mine sample B.

1270

7.90

3.74 

41.96 

42. 89 

11.41 

5. 12

6,843 

12,317

11. 35 

38.65 

39.49 

10.51 

4.72

0, 303 

11,345

Mine sample A.

1271

8.00

4.43 

40. 52 

41.65 

13.40 

5.42

12.07 

 37. 28 

38.32 

12.33 

4.99

Laboratory 

car sample.

1347

3.20

5.21 

31.76 

46. 51 

16. 52 

5. 20 

4.61 

61.80 

0.97 

10.90

6, 329 

11,392

6, 230 

11,214

8.24 

30. 74 

45.02 

16.00 

5.03 

4.81 

59.82 

0.94 

13.40

6, 126 

11,027

6,031 

10,856
42 ' PRELIMINARY BEPORT ON COAL-TESTING PLANT. [BULL. 261. 

Analyses of mine and laboratory car samples of coal Continued.

Lal

Ultimate g> pProximate on g1

Analysis of air-dried sample.

Hydrogen ...........................

orific value determined:

orific value calculated from ultimate 

aalysis:

nalysis corrected to sample as received.

Fixed carbon ........................

Hydrogen ...........................

Carbon ..............................

OwfTPTI

Driflc value determined:

Ofll/VTlOQ

orific value calculated from ultimate 

aalysis:

Iowa No. 2.

Mine 

sample 

B.

1289

9.30

7.00 

40.65 

39.52 

12. 83 

5.49

6,302 

11, 344

15.65 

36.87 

35.84 

11.64 

5.10

5,716 

10,289

Mine 

sample 

A.

1291

9.50

6.63 

40.82 

42. 40 

10.15 

5.74

15.50 

36.94 

38.37 

9.19 

5.19

Laboratory car 

sample.

1570

10.40

4.25 

37.02 

41.74 

16.99 

5.20 

4.84

60.36

1.46

11.15

6,212 

11,182

6,183 

11,129

14.21 

33.17 

37.40 

15.22 

4.66 

5.50

54.08

1.31

19. 23

5,566 

10, 019

5,540 

9,972

Town No. 3.

Mine 

sample 

B.

1312

9.60

5.33 

41.82 

40.69 

12.16 

6.52

6,539 

11,770

14.42 

37.81 

36.78 

. 10.99 

5.89

5,911

io,r,40

Mine 

sample 

A.

1313

11.00

5.51 

42.04 

38. 55 

13. 90 

7.59

15. 90 

37.42 

34.41 

12.37 

6.76

Laboratory car 

sample.

1434

9.80

4.52 

40.96 

38.99 

15. 53 

6.83 

4.93 

60. 62 

0. 93

11.16

G, 309 

11,356

6,271 

11,288

13.88 

30. 94 

35. 17 

14.01 

0.15 

5. 52 

54.68 

0.84 

18. 80

5,G91 

10,244

5,656 

10,181
LOUD.] WORK OF CHEMICAL .LABORATORY.

Analyses of mine and laboratory car samples of coal Continued.

La

Ultimate Proximate O tr1

». Po^=«- _. .

Analysis of air-dried sample.

Nitrogen .............................

Oxygen.....!........................

orific value determined:

orific value calculated from ultimate 

nalysis:

Calories ...............................

nalysis corrected to sample as received.

fAsh. ...............................

Carbon ...............................

oriflc value determined:

orific value calculated from ultimate 

nalysis:

Iowa No. 4.

Mine 

sample 

B. 

1323

9.40

8.53 

39.12 

44.55 

7.80 

4.42

6,703 

12; 065

17.13 

35.44 

40.36 

7.07 

4.00

6,073 

10,931

Mine 

sample 

A.

1324

8.60

8.25 

38.23 

41.40 

12.12 

5.21

16.14 

34.94 

37.84 

11.08 

4..70

Laboratory car 

sample.

1437

4.50

10.03 

37.27 

41.22 

11.48 

4.46 

5.31

61.25

0.94

16.56

6,237 

11,227

6,165 

11,097

14.08 

35.59 

39.37 

10.96 

4.26 

6.57

58. 49

0.90

19.82

5,957 

10,723

5,888 

10,598

Iowa No. 5.

Mine 

sample 

B.

1332

9.40

10.25 

35.10 

46.12 

8.53 

2.64

6,442 

11,596

18.69 

31.80 

41.78 

7.73 

2.39

5,836 

10, 505

. Mine 

sample 

A.

1333

7.10

12.37 

36.98 

42.95 

7.70 

3.34

,

18. 59 

34.36 

39.90 

7.15 

3.10

Laboratory car 

sample.

1433

6.80

9.22 

32.71 

44.52 

13.55 

3.42 

5.35 

69.89 

1.22

16.57

6,105 

10.989

6,045 

10.881

15.39 

' 30.49 

41.49 

12.63 

3.19 

5.74 

55.81 

1.14 

21.49

5, 690 

10,242

5,634 

10, 141
44 PRELIMINARY REPORT ON COAL-TESTING PLANT. [BUU,. 261. 

Analyses of mine and laboratory car samples of coal Continued.

La

Ultimate Proximate g: 0 Ultimate o p Proximate £^ ^

Analysis of air-dried sample.

{ (Sulphur ............................

oriflc value determined:

orific value calculated from ultinate analysis:

nalysis corrected, to sample as received.

Volatile matter ......................

Fixed carbon ........................

f Ash ................................

I Sulphur ............................

Hydrogen ............................

Oyvfrpn

orific value determined:

oriflc value calculated from ultimate analysis:

Kansas No. 1.

Mine 

sample 

A.

1018 

2.91 

35.81 

51.73 

9.55 

3.79

7,193 

12,9-17

Mine 

sample 

B.

1020

3.50 

35.75 

52.83 

7.92 

3.28

Laboratory car 

sample.

1097

1.30

3.74

33.11

50.01

13.14

4.34

4.91

68.22

1.09

8.30

6,891

12,404

6,940 

12, 492

4.99 

32.68 

49.36 

12. 97 

4.28 

4.98

67.34

1.08

9.35

6,801 

12, 242

6,850 

12,330

Kansas No. 2.

Mine 

sample 

A.

1017

2.44 

35.16 

51.80 

10.60 

5.63

7,246 

J3.043

Mine 

sample 

B.

1019

2.36 

' 34. 62 

51.23 

n.1.79 

5.88

Laboratory car 

sample.

1122

2.00

2.23 

31.87 

47.63 

18. 27 

6.40 

4.56 

63.14 

0.94 

6.69

6,606 

11,880

6,528 

11, 750

4.18 

31.23 

46.68 

17.91 

6.27 

4.69 

61.88 

0.92 

8.33

6,468 

11,042

6,397 

. 11,515
WORK OF CHEMICAL LABORATORY. 45

Analyses of mine, and laboratory car samples of coal Continued.

La

Lo 

A

S

a 

gM 

(V

*"3

I' 

P

Ca

Ca 

u

A.

1

a.

H 

&

S 

aasB

Gal

Gal 

n

js of moisture on air-drying. 

nalysis of air-dried sample.

.Oxygen ...................

orific value determined:

British thermal units. .....

oriflc value calculated from 

Itimate analysis:

British thermal units. .....

lalysis corrected to sample as 

received.

oriflc value determined:

oriflc value calculated from 

Itimate analysis:

Kansas No. 3.

Mine 

sample 

B.

1036

2.01 

35. 99 

46.85 

15.15 

5.27

Mine 

'sample 

A.

1037

2.54 

35.31 

52.28 

9.87 

4.47

7,411 

13, 340

Laboratory car 

sample.

1086

2.50 

33.80 

51.25 

12.45 

5.68 

4.91 

69.07 

1.20 

6.69

7,166 

12,900

7, 111 

12,800

Kansas Kansas No. 5.

Laboratory car 

sample.

1473

3.50 

3.57

37.00 

46.80 

12.63 

8.33 

5.04

65.02

1.07

7 f)1

6,854 

12, 337

6,839 

12,310

6.95 

35.70 

45.16 

12. 19 

8.04 

5.25 

62.74 

1.04 

10.74

6,614 

11,905

6,600 

11,880

Mine 

sample 

A.

1411

3.20

1.97 

33.68 

55.15 

9.20 

4.48

7,418 

13, 352

5.11 

32. 60 

53.39 

8.90 

4.34

7,181 

12, 926

Mine 

sample 

B.

1413

4.30

1.56 

33.79 

51,64 

13. 11 

4.01

5.79 

32.34 

49.32 

12.55 

3.84

Laboratory car 

sample.

1567

2.30

1.84 

32.40 

54.97 

- 10. 79 

3.86 

4.96 

71.90 

1.09 

7.40

7,333 

13, 199

7,288 

13,118

4.10 

31.65 

53.71 

10.54 

3.77 

5.10 

70. 25 

1.06 

9.28

7,164 

12,895

7,121 

12,818
46 PRELIMINARY EEPOET ON COAL-TESTING PLANT. [BULL. 261.

Analyses of mine and laboratory car samples of coal Continued.

La

Ultimate o OProximate g> ptr1

Analysis of air-dried sample.

orifie value determined:

oriflc value calculated from ultimate 

nalysis:

nalysis corrected to sample as received.

Hydrosren

orifie value determined:

C*fi Iftripc

orifie value calculated from ultimate 

nalysis:

Kentucky No. 1.

Mine 

sample 

A.

1321

1.00

1.93 

36.37 

58.13 

3.57 

0.90

8,037 

14, 467

2.91 

36. 01 

57.55 

3.53 

0.89

7,957 

14,322

Mine 

sample 

B.

1322

0,90

1.93 

37.42 

57.83 

2.82 

0.85

2.81 

37.08 

57.31 

2.80 

0.84

Laboratory car 

sample.

1474

1.20

1.92 

36.56 

67.08 

4.44 

1.24 

5.36

78.31

1.85

8.80

7,955 

14, 319

7,823 

14,081

3.10 

36.12 

56.39 

4.39 

1.22 

5.43

77.37

1.83

9.76

7,860 

14,148

7,729

13.912

Kentucky No. 2.

Mine 

sample 

A.

1365

2.90

5.76 

39.19 

47.74 

7.31 

31.63

7,063 

12, 713

8.49 

38.05 

46.36 

7.10 

3.53

6,858 

12,344

'

Mine 

sample 

B.

1366

2.60

5.34 

38.61 

45.56 

10. 49 

4.31

7.80 

37.60 

44.38 

10.22 

4.20

Laboratory car 

sample.

1461

2.70

5.36 

38.99 

46.27 

9.38 

3.72 

5.33 

67.64 

1.25 

12.68

6,966 

12,639

6,840 

12,312

7.91 

37.94 

45.02 

9.13 

3.62 

5.48 

65.81 

1.22 

14. 74

6,778 

12, 200

6,655 

11, 979
LORD.] WORK OF CHEMICAL LABORATORY. 47

Analyses of mine and laboratory car samples of coal Continued.

Lal

Proximate £Ultimate g o1

Analysis of air-dried sample.

orific value determined:

lorific value calculated from ultimate 

nalysis:

British thermal units ................

nalysis corrected to sample as received.

Nitrogen .............................

lorific value determined: 

Calories ..............................

orific value calculated from ultimate 

nalysis:

Kentucky No. 3.

Mine 

sample 

A.

1361

3.30

G.OO 

37.45 

48.23 

8.32 

3.07

9.10 

36. 21 

46.64 

8.05 

2.97

Mine 

sample 

B.

1367 

2.20

5.91 

38.39 

46.19 

9.51 

4.12

6, 797 

12, 235

7.98 

37.55 

45.17 

9.30 

4.03-

6,647 

11,965

Laboratory car 

sample.

1506

2.20

5.85 

36. 90 

46.96 

10. 29 

3.60 

5.27

66.75

1.43

12. 66

6, 829 

12,292

6,746 

12,143

7.92 

36.09 

45.93 

10.06 

3.52

5

QQ

65.29

1.40

14 34

6,679 

12,022

6,598 

11,876

Kentucky No. 4.

Mine 

sample 

B.

1382

2.60

2.06 

39.19 

51. 15 

7.60 

3.42

7,336 

13,205

4.61 

38.17 

49.82 

7.40 

3.33

7,145 

12, 861

Mine 

sample 

A.

1384

2.00

2.82 

40.53 

49.50 

7.15 

3.28

4.76 

39.72 

48.51 

7.01 

3.21

Laboratory car 

sample.

1539

2.80

2.54 

36.08 

46.79 

14.59 

4.67 

4.53 

66 50

1.28 

8. '13

6,830 

12,294

6,677 

12, 019

5.27 

35.07- 

45.48 

14.18 

4.54 

4.71 

64.65 

1.24 

10.68

6,639 

11,950

6,490 

11 , 682
48 PRELIMINARY REPORT ON COAL-TESTING PLANT. [BULL. 261.

Analyses of mine and laboratori/ car samples of coal Continued.

La

Ultimate o Proximate g> tr1^ ^

ss of moisture on air-drying . 

nalysis of air-dried sample.

Fixed carbon .............

f ISulphur .................

Owcypn

orific value determined:

orific value calculated 

rom ultimate analysis:

lalysis corrected to sample as 

received.

O'VVP'PTl

orific value determined:

orific value calculated 

rom ultimate analysis:

Missouri No. 1.

Mine 

sample 

A.

1041

4.80 

38.10 

42.93 

14.17 

5.35

Mine 

sample 

B.

1043

4.92 

38.28 

42.28 

14.52 

5.34

6,662 

11,992

Laboratory car 

sample.

1126

5.00 

3 50

35.35" 

40.77 

20.38 

5.53 

4.64

60.00

0.99'

8.46

6,191 

11, 144

6,206 

11,171

8.33 

33.58 

38.73 

19.36 

6.25 

4.97

57.00

- 0.94

12.48

-5, 881 

10, 586

5,896 

10, 613

Missouri No. 2.

Mine 

sample 

A.

1226

6.20

9.10 

41.07 

41.53 

8.30 

4.04

6, 625 

11,925

14.74 

38.53 

38.95 

7.78 

3.79

6, 214 

11, 185

Mine 

sample 

B.

1227

5.00

8.31 

38.47 

42.00 

11.22 

4.03

12.90 

36. 54 

39. 90 

10. 66 

3.83

Laboratory car 

sample.

. 1348

2.60

9.14 

34.53 

39. 02 

17.31 

5.30 

4.96 

56.25 

0.99 

15.19

5,806 

10,451

5,719 

10,294

11.50 

33.63 

38.01 

16.86 

5.16 

5.12 

54. 79 

0.96 

17.11

5,655 

10, 179

5,570 

10,026

Missouri 

No. 3.

Laboratory car 

sample.

1549

10.80

5.51 

32.08 

39.11 

23.30 

4.13 

4.52 

54.79 

0.92 

' 12.34

5,506 

9,911

5,547 

9,985

15.71 

28.62 

34.89 

20.78 

3.69 

5.23 

48.87 

0.82 

20.61

4,911 

8,840

4,948 

8,906
WORK OF CHEMICAL LABORATORY. 49

Analyses of mine and laboratory car samples of coal Continued.

La

Ultimate Proximate o p QOt*. 

ss of moisture on air drying. 

nalysis of air-dried samples. 

{ Moisture ..................

(.Sulphur .................

Carbon ....................

Nitrogen ..................

Oxygen....................

orific value determined:

British thermal units. .....

orific value calculated from 

Itimate analysis:

British thermal units. .....

\nalysis corrected to sample 

as received.

Owfpti

orific value determined:

British thermal units. .....

orific value calculated from 

Itimate analysis:

Missouri No. 4.

Mine . 

sample 

A.

1446

7.40

6.42 

40.73 

45.39 

7.46 

5.46

6, 962 

12,532

13.34 

37.72 

42. 03 

6.91 

5.06

6,447 

11, 605

Mine 

sample 

B.

' 1447

6.00

4.86 

43.74 

44.86 

6.54 

5.32

10.57 

41. 11 

42.17 

6.15 

5.00

Laboratory car 

 sample.

1516

7.70

5.39 

44.91 

44.47 

5.23 

5.55 

5. 77 

72.45 

0.75 

10.25

7,516 

13, 529

7, 526 

13,547

12. 67 

41.45 

41. 05 

4.83 

5.12 

6.18 

66.87

0.69 

16.31

6, 937 

12,487

6, 946 

*12, 503

Montana 

No. 1.

Laboratory car 

sample.

1298

2.20

9.05 

36.70 

43.03 

11.22 

1.76 

5.25 

60.41 

1.36 

20.00

5,987 

10,777

5,868 

10, 562

11.05 

35.90 

42. 08 

10.97 

1.73 

5.37 

59. 08

1.33 

21.52

5,855 

10, 539

5,739- 

10,330

New Mexico No. 1.

Mine 

samples

A&B.a

f 1023 

1 1024

11.77 

41.. 85 

43. U 

3.26 

0.54

Mine 

samples 

C & D. a

1025 

1026

)

10.96 

42. 63 

42. 39 

4.01 

0.52

6,603 

11,885

Laboratory car 

sample.

| 1278

1.60

10.86 

35. 14 

46.90 

7.10 

0.64 

5.73 

64.34 

1.05 

21. 14

6,353 

11,435

6,277 

11, 299

12.29 

34.58 

46. 14 

6. 99 

0.63 

5. 82 

63. 31 

1.03 

22.22

6, 251 

11,252

0, .1.77 

11, 11!)

"Average of two samples.

Bull. 261 05 i
50 PBELIMINARY REPOKT ON COAL-TESTING PLANT. [BULL. 261.

Analyses of mine and laboratory car samples of coal Continued.

La

Ultimate 0 Proximate g oOt"

Analysis of air-dried sample. 

Moisture ............................

f (Sulphur ............................

orific value determined:

oriflc value calculated from ultimate 

nalysis:

naiysis corrected to sample as received.

OxvEreii

oriflc value determined:

orific value calculated from ultimate 

nalysis:

New Mexico No. 2.

Mine sample A.

1027

9.13 

. 40. 77 

40.23 

9.87 

1.27

'

Mine sample B.

1028

*

9.68 

41. 42 

40.82 

8.08 

1.55

6,457 

11,623

Mine sample C.

1029

9.40 

40.05 

37.87 

12.68 

0.84

Mine sample D.

1038

10.80 

40.35 

42.77 

6.08 

1.06

-

Laboratory 

car sample.

1307

2.90

8.13 

34.82 

37.83 

19.22 

. 1.30 

5.05 

56.71 

0.98 

16.74

5,668 

10,202

5,631 

10, 136

10.79 

33.82 

36.73 

18.66 

1.26 

5.22 

55.07 

0.95 

18.84

5,504 

9,907

5,468 

9,842
LOUD.] WORK OF CHEMICAL LABORATORY. 51

Analyses of mine and laboratory car samples of coal Con tinned.

Lal

Proximate Ultimate t19 o« 

S£, EL^&Pso ,.. 

s of moisture on air-drying ...........

Analysis of air-dried sample. 

r Moisture ............................

Volatile matter. .....................

Fixed carbon. . ......................

i Ash ................................

f (.Sulphur ...........................

Carbon ..............................

Nitrogen ............................

Oxygen ............. . ...............

orific value determined:

British thermal units. ................

orific value calculated' from ultimate 

lalysis:

Calories .............................

British thermal units. ................

nalysis corrected to sample as received.

Fixed carbon ........................

1 rAsh. ................................

Hydrogen ....".......................

Nitrogen ............................

orific value determined: 

Calories ..............................

orific value calculated from ultimate 

nalysis:

North 

Dakota 

No. 1.

Laboratory 

car sample.

1279

23. 60

15. 42 

38.73 

33.61 

12.24 

2.02 

5.22 

52.66 

0.71 

27.15

5,034 

9.061

4,931 

8,876

35.38 

29.69 

25.68 

9.35 

1.55 

6.61 

40.23 

0.54 

41.72

3,846 

6,923

3,769 

6,784

North 

Dakota 

No. 2.

Laboratory 

car sample.

1416

24. 10

16. 70 

37. 10 

39.49 

6.71 

0.63 

5.61 

55.16 

0.91 

HO. 98

5,273 

9,491

5,07.1 

9,128

36.78 

28.16 

29.97 

5.09 

0.48 

6.93 

41.87 

0.69 

44. 94

4,002 

7,204

3,849 

6, 928

Pennsylvania 

No.l.

Steam 

sample.

1.10 

15.80 

75.69 

7.41 

1.49

Pennsylvania 

No. 2.

Steam 

sample.

0.59 

16.61 

76. 76 

C.04 

0.91

Pennsylvania 

No. 3.

Laboratory 

car sample.

1245

3.40

2.08 

7.27 

74.32 

16.33 

0.77 

2.81 

75. 21 

0.80 

4.08

6, 929 

12,472

6, 880 

12, 395

5.41 

7.02 

71.79 

15. 78 

0.74 

,3.10 

72.65 

0.77 

6. 96

6,693 

12,047

6,652 

11, 974
52 PKELIMINAKY KEPOKT ON COAL-TESTING PLANT. [BULL. 261. 

Analyses of mine and laboratory car samples of coal Continued.

Lal

Ultimate o Proximate t-1

 . p. O3^SO g_i i^ 

Analysis of air-dried sample. 

f Moisture .....................'..'.....

f ISulphur ...........................

Carbon ..............................

Nitrogen ............................

orific value determined:

British thermal units ................

orific value calculated from ultimate 

aalysis:

British thermal units ................

lalysis corrected to sample as received. 

r Moisture ............................

orific value determined:

/"I nl AT*IOO

orific value calculated from ultimate 

aalysis:

Texas No. 1.

Mine 

sample 

B.

1195

14.40

21. 25 

43.25 

22.85 

12.65 

0.65

32. 58 

37.02 

19.56 

10. 84 

0.56

Mine 

sample 

A.

1196

16.30

20.55 

47.20 

19.41 

12.84 

0.67

4,741 

8,534

33.50 

39.50 

16.25 

10.75 

0.56

3,968 

7,142

Laboratory car 

sample.

1456

24.60

13. 40 

42.75 

29.00 

14.85 

1.04 

5.57

52.06

0.95

" W <M

5,199 

9,358

5,046 

9,083

34.70 

32.23 

21. 87 

11.20 

0.79 

6.93

on o&

0.72

41.11

3,920 

 7,056

3,805 

6, 849

Texas No. 2.

Mine 

sample 

A.

1241

5.80

24.48 

38.17 

28.94 

8.41 

0.53

Mine 

sample 

B.

1243

5.90

27.04 

43.76 

20. 17 

9.03 

0.61

i

1

4,716 

8,489

28.86 

35.96 

27.26 

7.92 

0.50

4,442 

7,996

31.34 

41.18 

18.98 

8.50 

0.57

Gas-producer 

sample.

1597

25.80

10.66 

39.42 

40.11 

9.81 

0.71 

5.28

57.31 

1.06 

25. 83

6,502 

9,904

5,352 

9,634

33. 71 

29. 25 

29. 76 

7.28 

0.53 

6.79 

42. 52

0.79 

42.09

4,082 

7,348

3,975 

7,155
WOEK OF CHEMICAL LABOEATOEY. 53

Analyses of mine and laboratory ca,r samples of coal, Continued.

Ultimate Proximate t> Q 1EoOg ^. . !*°. PV 23ED A. *» 

Analysis of air-dried sample.

Oxygen..............................

oriflc value determined:

orific value calculated from ultimate 

nalysis:

nalysis corrected to sample as received.

Volatile matter .....................

O"YV*?PT1

orific value determined:

British thermal units ................

oriflc value calculated from ultimate 

nalysis:

West Virginia No. 1.

Mine 

sample 

B.

1088

0.40

1.00 

36.80 

55.50 

6.70 

1.60

7,845 

14, 121

1.40 

36.65 

55.28 

6.67 

1.59

7,813 

14,063

Mine 

sample 

A.

1089

0.40

0.95 

37.50 

55. 10 

6.45 

1.32

1.35 

37.35 

54.88 

6.42 

1.31

Laboratory car 

sample.

1213

0.40

1.35 

36.92 

55.36 

6.37 

0.90 

5.26

78.31

1.55 

7.61

7,869 

14,164

7,832 

14,098

1.75 

36.77 

55.14 

6.34 

0.90 

5.28

78.00

1.54

7.94

7,837 

14,107

7,800 

14,040

West Virginia No. 2.

Mine 

sample 

B.

1103

0.90

1.09 

40.91 

48.84 

9.16 

4.24

7,549 

13,588

1.98 

40. 54 

48.40 

9.08 

4.20

7,481 

13,460

Mine 

sample 

A.

1104

0.80

1.08 

40.62 

50.13

8.17 

3.78

1.87 

40.30 

49.73 

8.10 

3.75

Laboratory car 

sample.

1308

0.50

1.46 

40.14 

50.50 

7.90 

3.50 

5.09 

74.44 

1.37 

7.70

7,700 

13,860

7,517 

13, 531

1.95 

39.94 

50. 25 

7.86 

3.48 

5.13 

74.07 

1.36 

8.10

7, 661 

13,790

7,480 

13,464
54 PRELIMINARY REPORT ON CO ATTESTING PLANT. [BULL. 261.

Analyses of mine and laboratory car samples of coal Continued.

La

Ultimate o Proximate t-1

Analysis of air-dryed sample.

Fixed carbon ........................

orific value determined:

orific value calculated from ultimate 

nalysis:

nalysis corrected to sample as received.

Volatile matter ......................

f ISulphur ............................

Hydrogen ............................

Nitrogen ..............................

OwfTPTl

oric value determined:

orific value calculated from ultimate 

nalysis:

West Virginia No. 3.

Mine 

sample 

B.

1108

1.60

1.42 

29.08 

61.19 

8.31 

0.77

7,863 

14, 153

2.90 

28.64 

60.27 

8.19 

0.75

7,745 

13, 941

Mine 

sample 

A.

1109

0.80

1.42 

29.68 

60. 51 

8.39 

0.81

2.21 

29.44 

60.03 

8.32 

0.80

Laboratory car 

sample.

1252

1.30

1.00 

30.25 

58.38 

10.37 

1.07 

4.91

76.12

1.44

6.09

7,631 

13, 736

7,605 

13, 689

'2.29 

29.86 

57.62 

10.23 

1.06 

4.99

75.13

1.42

7.17

7,532 

13,558

7,506

13,511

West Virginia No. 4.

Mine 

sample 

B.

1116

1.10

1.17 

29.03 

61.97 

7.83 

0.86

7,863 

14,153

2.26 

28.71 

61.29 

7.74 

0.85

7,777 

13, 999

Mine 

sample 

A.

1117

1.20

1.07 

28.88 

61.37 

8.68 

1.28

' 2.26 

28.53 

60.63 

8.58 

1.26

Laboratory car 

sample.

1262

0.50

0.98 

28.72 

61.87 

8.43 

0.90 

4.85 

78.21 

1.50 

6.11

7,855 

14, 139

7,750 

13,950

1.48 

28.58 

61.65 

8.39 

0.90 

4.89 

77.82 

1.48 

6.52

7,816 

14,069

7,711 

13,880
LORD.] WORK OF CHEMICAL LABORATORY. 55

Analyses of mine and laboratory car samples of coal Continued.

La

Ultimate g pProximate g 1o tr1. 

P, fax.f° Ofa a .

Analysis of air-dried sample.

r Ash ................................

Hvdrosren

oriflc value determined:

oriflc value calculated from ultimate 

nalysis:

nalysis corrected to sample as received.

Volatile matter ......................

oriflc value determined:

oriflc value calculated from ultimate 

nalysis:

West Virginia No. 5.

Mine 

sample 

A.

1144

1.80

1.04 

30.16 

58.16 

10. 64 

1.02

7,623

13, 721

2.82 

29.62 

57.11 

10.45 

1.00

7,486 

13, 475

Mine 

sample 

B.

1147

2.30

0.80 

29. 45 

59.24 

10. 51 

1.15

3.08

28.77 

57.88 

10.27 

1.13

Laboratory car 

sample.

1297

0.80

0.65 

29.20 

59.97 

10.18 

0.99 

'4.78

76.36

1.48

6.21

7,682

13,828

7,572 

13,630

1.45 

28. 97 

59.48 

10.10 

0.98 

4.83

75.75

1.47

6.87

7,621 

13, 718

7,511 

13, 520

West Virginia No. 6.

Mine 

sample 

B.

1175

1.60

0.80 

23.00 

70.23 

5.97 

0.74

2.29 

22.65 

69.18 

5.88 

. 0.73.

Mine 

sample 

A.

1176

1.60

0.51 

23.04 

72.85 

3.60 

0.76

8; 413 

15,143

2.10 

22.67 

71.68 

3.55 

0.76

8,278 

14, 900

Laboratory car 

sample.

1390

0.90

0.64 

21.74 

72.53 

5.09 

0.66 

4.70 

83.62 

1.70 

4.23

8,301 

14,942

8,208 

14, 774

1.53 

21.54 

71.88 

5.05 

0.65 

4. 70 

82.87 

1.68 

4. 99

8,226 

14,807

8, 134 

14,641
56 PRELIMINARY REPORT ON GOAL-TESTING PLANT. [BULL. 261.

Analyses of mine and laboratory car samples of coal Continued.

La

Ultimate Proximate o g £

Analysis of air-dried sample.

Carbon. . .............................

orific value determined:

orific value calculated from ultimate 

nalysis:

nalysis corrected to sample as received.

OWffP Tl

orific value determined:

PfllnripQ

orific value calculated from ultimate 

nalysis:

West Virginia No. 7.

Mine 

sample 

B.

1197

1.70

0.80 

21.65 

73.33 

4.22 

1.10

2.48 

21.28 

72.09 

4.15 

1.08

Mine 

sample 

A.

1198

1.50

0.63 

22.07 

73.70 

3.60 

0.91

8,412 

15, 142

2.12 

21.74 

72.59 

3.55 

0.90

8,286 

14,915

Laboratory car 

sample.

1595

3.20

0.76 

20.54 

73.61 

5.09 

1.20 

4.38

82.41

1.05

5.87

8,254 

* 14,851

7,942 

14,296

3.94 

19.88 

71.25 

4.93 

1.16 

4.60

79.78

1.01

8.62

7,990

14, 382

7,688 

13,838

West Virginia No. 8.

Mine 

sample 

A.

1257

0.60

1.31 

33.54 

60.25 

4.90 

0.64

8,077 

14, 539

1.90 

33.34 

59.89 

4.87 

0.64

8,029

14, 452

Mine 

sample 

B.

1258

0.60

1.25 

33.20 

58.75 

6.80 

0.89

1.84 

33.00 

58.40 

6.76 

0.89

Laboratory car 

sample.

1515

2.60

1.60 

32.12 

68.92 

7.36 

0.92 

6.16 

78.75 

1.38 

6.43

. 7,863 

14,153

7,884 

14, 091

4.16 

31.28 

57.39 

7.17 

0.90 

5.32 

76.70 

1.34 

8.57

7,659

13, 78G

7, 679 

13,822
LORD.] WORK OF CHEMICAL LABORATORY. 57

Analyses of mine and laboratory car samples of coal Continued.

La

Ultimate Proximate O ciotr1Q ,. 

1 k.?:?».. P0~> a.^_ 

Analysis of air-dried sample.

Fixed carbon ........................

( Ash ................... ............

Oxygen..............................

orific value determined:

British thermal units ......'..........

orific value calculated from ultimate 

nalysis:

Calories. . ............................

nalysis corrected to sample as received.

orific value determined:

British thermal units ................

lorific value calculated from ultimate 

nalysis:

West Virginia No. 9.

Mine 

sample 

B.

1208

1.00

0.99 

34.70 

60.45 

3.80 

0.86

8, 271 

14, 888

1.98 

34.41 

59.85 

3.76 

0.85

8,188 

14, 738

Mine 

sample 

A.

1209

0.60

1.18 

32.72 

63. 14 

2.96 

0.75

1.77 

32. 53 

62.76 

2.94 

0.74

Laboratory car 

sample.

1561

3.10

1.01 

29.53 

62.67 

6.79 

0.80 

5.04

79.35

1.63

6.39

7,984 

14, 371

7,890 

14,202

4.08 

28.61 

60.73 

6.58 

0.77 

5.?3

76.89

1.58

 8. 95

7,736 

13,925

7,645 

13, 761

West Virginia No. 10.

Mine 

sample 

B.

1240

2.40

0.55 

18.55 

77.20 

3.71 

0.49

8, 495 

15,291

2.93 

18.10 

75.35 

' .3. 62 

0.48

 8, 291 

14,924

Mine 

sample 

A.

1244

2.30

0.34 

19.96 

76.50 

3.20 

0.58

2.63 

19.50 

74.74 

3.13 

0.57

Laboratory car 

sample.

1471

1. 10

0.65 

18.80 

75.92 

4.63 

0.57 

4. 58 

85. 91

1.07

3.24

8,439 

15,190

8,391 

15, 104

1.75 

18. 59 

75. 08 

4.58 

0.56 

4. 65 

84.97 

1.06 

4.18

8, 34(1 

15,023

8,298 

14, 936
58 PRELIMINARY REPORT ON COAL-TESTING PLANT. [BULL. 261.

Analyses^/mine and laboratory car samples of coal Continued.

La

Ultimate 9 Proximate Q o GF

Analysis of air-dried sample.

orific value determined:

British thermal units ................

orific value calculated from ultimate 

nalysis:

nalysis corrected to sample as received.

orific value determined :

orific value calculated from ultimate 

nalysis:

West Virginia No. 11.

Mine 

sample 

A.

1234

1.50

0.72 

18.56 

75.40 

5.32 

0.45

8,343 

]5,017

2.21 

18.28 

74.26 

5.25 

0.44

8,218

14,792

Mine 

sample 

B.

1235

2.60

0.46 

18.74 

76.11 

4.69 

0.51

3.05 

18.26 

74.12 

4.57 

0.50

Laboratory car 

sample.

1472

3.30

0.80 

16.90 

70.80 

11.50 

0.53 

4.03

79.12

1.04

. 3.78

7,761 

13,970

7,631

13,736

4.07 

16.34 

08.47 

11.12 

0.51 

4.27

76. 51

1.00

6.59

7,505 

- 13,509

7,379

13, 282

West Virginia No. 12.

Mine 

sample

A.

1238

1.60

0.32 

19.68 

75.54 

4.46 

0.53

8,427 

15, 169

1.92 

19.36 

74.33 

4.39 

0.52

8,292 

14, 926

Mine 

sample 

B.

1242

2.90

0.60 

19.45 

75.93 

4.02 

0.75

8,428 

15, 170

3.48 

18.89 

73.73 

3.90 

0.73

8,184 

14, 731

Laboratory car 

sample.

1364

1.10

0.62 

18.05 

74.38 

6.95 

0.69 

4.36 

83.63 

1.34 

3.03

8,186 

14,733

8,144 

14,659

1.72 

17.85 

73.56 

0.87 

0.68 

4.43 

82.71 

.1.33 

3.98

8,095 

34,671

8,054 

14,497
LORD.] WORK OF CHEMICAL LABORATORY. 59

Analyses of mine and laboratory car samples of coal Continued.

Lal

o Ultimate Proximate | g>£_ 

Analysis of air-dried sample.

Hydrogen ...........................

Nitrogen ............................

oriflc value determined:

oriflc value calculated from ultimate 

nalysis:

latysis corrected to sample as received. 

' Moisture. ............................

Volatile matter. .....................

Fixed carbon. .......................

Nitrogen ............................

Owp^n

Driflc value determined: 

Calories ..............................

oriflc value calculated from ultimate 

lalysis:

British thermal unite ................

Wyoming No. 1.

Mine 

sample 

B.

13C8

5.00

17.89 

37.81 

40.75 

3.65 

O.C3

5,728 

10, 340

22.00 

35.92 

38.71 

3.37 

0.60

6,442 

9, 790

Mine 

sample 

A.

1369

4.50

17.74 

38.91 

38.21 

6.14 

0.55

21.44 

37. 16 

36.49 

4.91 

0.53

Laboratory car 

sample.

1479

fi.OO

17.69 

37.96 

39.56 

4.79 

0.63 

5.06

58.41

1 no

28.99

5,753 

10,355

5,582 

10,048

22.63 

35.68 

37.19 

4.50 

0.59 

6.39

54.91

1.02

32.59

5,408 

9,734

5,247 

9,445

Wyoming No. 2.

Mine 

sample 

B.

.1376

4.70

4 ;. 09 

38.96 

33.97 

22.98 

5.18

5,660 

10,188

8.60 

37. IS 

32.37 

21.90 

4.94

5,394 

9,709

Mine 

sample 

A.

1377

3.80

5.64 

37. 51 

35.05 

21.80 

4.50

9.23 

36.08 

33.72 

20.97 

4.33

Gas-producer 

sample.

1571

C. 90

2.73 

37.61 

37.40 

22.26 

4.17 

4.54 

65.29 

0.80 

12.94

5,758 

10, 364

5,567 

10,021

9.44 

35.02 

34.82 

20.72 

3.91 

5.00 

51.46 

0.74 

18.17

5,361 

9,650

5, 183 

9,329
WASHING TESTS.

By JOHN D. WICK.

INTRODUCTION.

The washery plant was constructed after designs furnished by 

Roberts & Shaefer Company, of Chicago. It was under the immediate 

supervision of the writer, who was assisted by Mr. Edward Moore. 

The chemical analyses given in the report were made at the laboratory 

of the testing plant under the direction of Prof. N. W. Lord. The 

steam tests mentioned were made in the boiler room under the direction of Prof. L. C. Breckenridge.

Owing to the small appropriation and the great cost of all material 

and labor on the Exposition grounds, the washer}^ plant was made as 

small as possible, consisting of four 35-ton storage bins and two bins 

of half the size for holding material to be washed. On account of the 

small size of the bins holding material to be washed, it was impossible 

to wash an entire carload of coal in one operation. Washing tests, 

therefore, had to be made in lots of 10 tons or less, and for that reason 

the best results were not always obtained and not mam^ such tests 

were made. The lack of adequate storage facilities and the constant 

demand upon the conveying apparatus for supplying fuel to the boiler

room, the gas-producer plant, the coke ovens, and the briquetting 

machines made it frequently impossible to weigh carefully the washed 

product and the refuse material. Although complete washing tests 

were made in only a few instances, considerable coal was washed for 

coking, but in small amounts, only sufficient for charging a single oven. 

As noted in the general description of the plant (pages 10-13), the 

washing apparatus consisted of a New Century jig and a modified 

Stewart jig. The former is desiged for washing very fine material, 

whereas the latter will wash coal composed of pieces crushed to a 

diameter of li inches. The tests made were not sufficiently complete 

to determine the efficiency of these jigs, but considerable difficult}7" was 

experienced with the New Centuiy jig, the material being so fine that 

it packed in the bottom of the jig and thus prevented the discharge of 

the refuse material. The modified Stewart jig gave very good satisfaction, and seems very well adapted to most kinds of coal. 

60
WICK.J WASHING TESTS.

SPECIAL TESTS.

Complete washing tests were made upon the samples named below, 

and with the results stated.

ILLINOIS NO. 2.

This sample consisted of a carload of slack from the O'Fallon mine 

of the Western Anthracite Coal and Coke Company, near O'Fallon, 

111. The coal in this district produces considerable slack, which finds 

a fairly ready market in St. Louis, but the price received is hardly 

sufficient to pay for transportation. Washing has been introduced at 

a number of plants to improve the quality of the slack, with very 

promising results, and this test was made with the object of showing 

what improvement could be effected in this particular part of the district. The slack washed consisted of 27,280 pounds, which was carefully sampled before and after washing.

This coal was washed in the modified Stewart jig. The weight of 

the washed coal was not ascertained, but the refuse weighed 3,520 

pounds.

The first column of the appended table shows the composition of the 

raw coal as far as its content of moisture, ash, and sulphur is concerned. The second column gives the same data for the washed coal 

and the third column for the refuse.

Analyses of Illinois No. 2 coal and refuse, showing effect of washing.

Moisture ........................................

Ash... ........................................

Sulphur ........................................

Weight, in pounds. ..............................

Raw coal.

12. 03

22.44

4. 00

27, 280

Washed coal.

' 19. 07

9.42

3.35

Kef use.

15.99

53.08

9.06

3,520

A comparison of these figures shows that the percentage of ash was 

reduced from 22.44 to about 9.42 by washing, but the greater amount 

of moisture in the washed coal sample makes direct comparison impossible. If the analysis of the washed coal had been determined on the 

same basis as that of the raw coal, the percentage of ash in the latter 

would be about 10 per cent. This shows a reduction of fully 12 per 

cent in ash as a result of washing a small lot through the Stewart 

jig, but washing on a commercial scale might improve this result 

considerably.

The sulphur shows a slight reduction, about one-half of 1 per cent. 

It would seem from these figures either that the major portion of the 

sulphur is so intimately combined with the coal as to be inseparable 

from it, or that the sulphur is present in thin flakes which pass over 

with the coal.
62 PRELIMINARY REPORT ON COAL-TESTING PLANT. [BULL. 261.

The next important item in successful washing is the determination 

of the amount of coal retained in the refuse or, in other words, 

wasted. From the composition of the refuse and its weight the amount 

of coal in the refuse is about 1,000 pounds, or about 3£ per cent of the 

original charge, or about 5£ per cent of the coal in the original charge.

The effect of washing in improving the quality of this coal is shown 

by steam tests Nos. 18 and 19. Test No. 18 was made on lump coal 

from this mine, and test No. 19 was made on the washed slack from 

the same mine.

The following brief results of these tests are given:

Steam tests of lump and washed coal (Illinois No. 2}.

Coal tested

Washed slack. . .............

Total 

coal consumed.

Pounds. 

11, 124

10, 096

Horsepower developed 

by boiler.

Pounds. 

211.4

210.2

Dry coal 

burned 

per square 

foot of 

grate surface, per 

hour.

Pounds. 

24.90

22.36

Equivalent evaporation 

from and 

at 212° F. 

per pound 

of dry 

coal.

Pounds. 

7.21

8.00

Dry coal 

per indicated horsepower 

nour.

. Pounds. 

3.92

3.54

Dry coal 

per electrical horsepower 

nour.

Pounds. 

4.85

4.38

A small amount of this coal was also washed for coking purposes, 

and the improvement may be noted by comparing the results obtained 

from this charge with those obtained from a charge of Illinois No. 1, 

which consists of lump coal from the same mine. This test was made 

on a charge of 9,000 pounds of unwashed coal, which was burned for 

43 hours. It produced some small pieces of coke mixed with charred 

coal and ash. This coal contained 15.95 per cent of ash, and probably 

for this reason failed to coke.

The second test was made on Illinois No. 2 washed. The amount of 

coal charged was 9,000 pounds, which, after burning 64 hours, yielded 

3,389 pounds of mixed hard and soft coke and 352 pounds of breeze 

and ash.

From this report it is obvious that the raw lump coal did not coke, 

but the washed slack produced coke of fair quality, although the 

percentage of the yield is so small that it probably would not be commercially successful.

The improvement by washing is also shown by the chemical analyses 

of the coal before and after washing, as follows:
WICK.] . WASHING TESTS.

Analyses showing effect of luashin;/ Illmois No. 2 cool.

63

Ash......................................................

Sulphur ...................... i ............................

Raw coal .

22. 44

4.00

Washed coal 

for coking.

9.19

3.03

INDIANA NO. 1.

This was a sample of run-of-mine coal from mine of the J. Woolley 

Coal Company, located at Mildred, Sullivan County, Ind. No washing is now done in this district, but the coal contains considerable 

impurit}^, and the operators are very desirous of obtaining information 

concerning the effectiveness of washing operations.

The charge, consisting of 15,250 pounds of run-of-mine coal, was 

passed through rolls having an aperture of 1£ inches, and then washed

through the modified Stewart jig.

After the coal was crushed it was sampled and analyzed, giving the 

figures shown in the column marked " Raw coal" in the accompanying 

table. After washing it was again sampled and analyzed, and the 

results are given in the second column of the table. The refuse was 

also sampled and analyzed, with the results shown in the third column.

Analyses of Indiana No. 1 coal and refuse, showing effect of washing.

Ash............................................

Sulphur ........................................

Weight, in pounds ..............................

Coal, pounds. ...................................

Raw coal.

11.40

13. 40

.2.50

15,250

11,468

Washed coal.

16.72

7.16

2.23

12, 620

9, 600

Refuse.

14.85

31. 71

5.68

3,485

1,860

The results of this test are not so satisfactory as that of Illinois No. 

2, but it is probable that equally good results could be obtained by 

further trials.

The test of Indiana No. 1 is satisfactory as far as the reduction of 

the impurities is concerned, but it is not satisfactory when it is considered that about 1,860 pounds of coal (exclusive of moisture and ash) 

passed over with the refuse matter. This is probably too great a loss 

for commercial success, but, as noted above, there is every reason to 

believe that washing could be done that would result in a much cleaner 

coal and at the same time lose but little coal with the refuse material.

A steam test was made of this coal after washing, but no test was
PRELIMINARY REPORT ON COAL-TESTING PLANT. [BULL. 261.

made on the raw coal, so it is impossible to say how great the improvement was except from the chemical analyses. The steam test on the 

washed coal is given in test No. 68, page 81.

A washing test was also made on about 4£ tons of this coal for coking 

purposes. No test was made in the coke ovens of the raw coal, hence 

the coke produced can not be compared, but the chemical analyses 

show the improvement effected, as follows:

Analyses of Indiana No. 1 coal, shmving effect of washing.

Ash ...........................'...........................

Sulphur .................................. i ...............

Raw coal.

s.

13.40

2.50

Washed coal 

for coking.

7.04

2.03

MISSOURI NO. 3.

This sample consisted of a carload of slack from the Mendota Coal 

and Mining Company, operating at Mendota, Putnam County, Mo. 

Like most of the coals from northern Missouri and southern Iowa, this 

coal contains a heavy percentage of impurities, and the operators are 

very desirous of improving their product. It was for.this reason that 

the above test was undertaken, as the results of this test will doubtless 

apply to the entire field in Putnam County, Mo., and Appanoose 

County, Iowa.

The sample, consisting of 14,000 pounds of slack, was passed through 

rolls having an aperture of li inches and then washed through the 

modified Stewart jig. After the coal was crushed it was sampled and 

analyzed, giving the figures shown in the column marked "Raw coal" 

in the accompanying table. After washing it was again sampled and

analyzed, with the results given in the second column of the table.

The refuse was also sampled and analyzed, with the results shown in 

the third column.

Analyses of Missouri No. 3 coal and refuse, showing effect of washing.

Ash............................................

Sulphur ........................................

Weight, in pounds. ..............................

Calculated weight of coal, in pounds. .............

Raw coal.

14.37

28.39

4.30

14,000

8, 013

Washed coal.

23.90

7.59

2.89

6,045

Refuse.

23.38

36.70

3.94

4; 931

1,968

The refuse weighed 4,931 pounds. It appears from the chemical 

analysis that the raw coal contained 8,013 pounds of coal exclusive of
WICK.] WASHING TESTS. 65

moisture and ash, and the refuse 1,968 pounds. The washed coal, 

therefore, must have been the difference, or 6,045 pounds.

The results given above show great improvement. The slack was 

extremely dirty, as the analysis shows. Washing reduced the ash 

from 28.39 per cent in the raw coal to 7.59 per cent in the washed 

coal. The sulphur was likewise reduced from 4.30 to 2.89 per cent. 

OQ the whole the reduction in the impurities is highly satisfactory, 

but the amount of coal lost in the operation (1,968 pounds) is too great 

for economical work. It is possible that better results might have 

been obtained if the tests had been continued, but enough has been 

done to show that great improvement may be made in the quality of 

the slack coal in this field by washing.

The improvement in washing this slack was still further tested by 

steam tests made on the raw coal and also on the washed product.

Steam tests slowing e/ect of washing Missouri No. 8 coal

Coal tested.

Total 

coal consumed.

Pounds.

10, 828

11, 044

Horsepower developed 

by boiler.

149.5

189.7

Dry coal

burned 

per sq. ft. 

of grate 

surface, 

per hour.

Pounds.

21.85

21.72

Equivalent evaporation 

from and 

at212:T., 

per pound 

of dry

coal.

Pounds.

5.82

7.43

Dry coal,

per indicated horsepower 

nour.

Pounds.

4.86

3.81

Dry coal,

per electrical horsepower 

nour.

. Pounds.

6.00

4.70

A washing test was also made of about 6i tons of this coal for coking purposes. No trial was made of the raw coal in the oven, so it is 

impossible to make a direct comparison of the coke, but the chemical 

analyses give some idea of the improvement produced.

Analyses showing effect of washing Missouri No. 8 coal.

Ash.. ....................................................

Raw coal.

28.39

4.30

Washed coal 

for coking.

7.24

2.74

GENERAL TESTS.

In addition to the above-mentioned special tests, a great many 

charges of coal for the coke ovens were washed, and generally with 

fairly satisfactory results, considering the small amount of coal in 

each charge.

Bull. 261 05-
66 PRELIMINARY REPORT ON COAL-TESTING PLANT. [BULL. 261.

As previously stated, the congested condition of the conveying 

apparatus prevented the weighing of any of these small charges after 

washing, but some idea of the effects of washing may be gained by 

comparing the chemical analyses made before and after washing and 

by noting the character of coke produced when tests were made on 

washed and unwashed material.

Alabama No. 1. Lump coal from mine No. 8, Ivy Coal and iron 

Company, Horse Creek, Ala.

Coking tests were made of both washed and unwashed coal from 

this mine. The first charge of unwashed coal consisted of 8,000 

pounds. Although the coking process was continued for 88 hours, 

the coke was very light and spongy and high in ash. Washing 

reduced the percentage of impurities but slightly, though it is believed 

that with more thorough washing a coke of good quality might be 

obtained.

Analyses showing effect of washing Alabama No. 1 coal.

Ash.. ..................................................

Sulphur ..................................................

Raw coal.

13.88

.76

Washed coal 

for coking.

11.06

.89

Arkansas No. 6. Slack coal from mine No. 18, Western Coal and 

Mining Compan}^, Jenny Lind, Ark.

About 5 tons of this coal were washed for coking purposes. No 

coke was produced, but the chemical analyses show improvement.

Analyses showing effect 'of washing Askansas No. 6 coal.

Ash...;..................................................

Sulphur ..................................................

Eaw coal.

 13. 81

1.26

Washed coal 

for coking.

6.22

1.22

Illinois No. 3 Run-of-mine coal from mine No. 3, Southern Illinois 

Coal Mining and Washing Company, Marion, 111.

Two coking tests were made of this coal, one of raw coal and the 

other washed for the purpose. These tests permit direct comparison, 

and the effect of washing is plainly apparent. The unwashed charge 

of 9,000 pounds was tested for 43 hours. The coal lay dead in the 

oven, burning on top, but did not coke. In the second test the charge 

(washed) consisted of 13,000 pounds and was burned 90 hours, yielding 6,378 pounds of coke, which was very brittle and which broke 

up in handling into fine-fingered pieces.
WICK.] WASHING TESTS. . 67 

The chemical coin position of the two grades of coal is shown below:

Analyses showing effect of washing Illinois No. 3 coal.

Ash......................................................

Sulphur ..................................................

Raw coal for 

coking.

10. 59

1.45

Washed coal 

for coking.

5.86

1.41

llli/iiois No. 5. No. 5 washed slack from mine No. 1, Donk Brothers 

Coal and Coke Company, Collinsville, III.

The slack at this plant is washed and divided into five grades, and 

the sample consisted of No. 5, or the finest grade produced. The 

particles of coal were all less than one-fourth inch in diameter. The 

coal was washed at the mine, but owing to the overcrowded condition 

of the washery this grade of coal carried a considerable amount of 

impurities, mainly as a clay coating on the particles of coal. As the 

coal did not coke in the condition received, a charge consisting of about 

6 tons was re washed in the New Century jig. The coal was extremely 

wet when charged, chilling the oven, and no coke was produced. 

Although the coking test was not successful, the rewashing showed a 

distinct gain in the quality of the coal, but considerable coal was lost 

in the operation. Chemical analyses show the following results:

Analyses showing effect of washing Illinois No. 5 coal.

Ash............................................

Sulphur ........................................

First charge 

washed.

17.56

3.25

Second 

charge rewashed.

9.18

2. 71

Third charge 

washed.

18.16

3.44

Indian Territory No #. Run-of-mine coal from mine No. 8, Rock 

Island Coal Company, Hartshorne, Ind. T.

Tests were made on this coal in the raw state and also after washing. The unwashed charge (9,000 pounds) was burned for 66 hours, 

and yielded 5,725 pounds of coke and 580 pounds of breeze and ash. 

The coke was very soft, shattered, and brittle. The washed charge 

was burned for 65 hours, producing a coke which had a fairly good 

ring. It showed considerable improvement in appearance over the 

coke made from unwashed coal. The change in the impurities is 

shown by the following analyses.
68 PRELIMINARY REPORT ON COAL-TESTING PLANT. [BULL. 261. 

Analyses showing effect of 'washing Indian Territory No. 2 coal.

Ash .................................

'Coal.

Raw.

9.99

1.47

Washed.

6.33 

1.43

Coke. .

From raw 

coal.

14.43 

1.50

From 

washed coal.

11.12 

1.75

Indian Territory .No 3. Run-of-iuine coal from mine No. 1, D. 

Edwards & Sons, Edwards, Ind. T.

Coking tests were made on this coal in both the raw and the washed 

condition, but the washing does not appear to have been successful 

in reducing materially either the sulphur or the ash. No coke was 

made from either charge. The amount of impurities is shown in the 

following table:

Analyses showing effect of washing Indian Territory No. 8 coal.

Ash............ .................................;.......

Kaw coal 

for coking.

9.75

3.16

Washed coal 

for coking.

7.49

3.20

Indian Territory No 5. Slack and pea coal from mine No/7, 

Western Coal and Mining Company, Lehigh, Ind. T.

About 5 tons of this slack were washed for a coking test, but without satisfactory results so far as the production of coke is concerned. 

The improvement effected by washing is shown in the following 

analyses:

Analyses showing effect of washing Indian Territory No. 5 coal.

Ash......................................................

Car sample.

25.05

3.95

Washed coal 

for coking.

8.14

2.90

loioa No. 1. Lump and fine coal from mine No. 2, Anchor Coal 

Company, Laddsdale, Iowa.

About 5 tons of this coal were washed for a coking test, but the coal 

was not tried in a raw condition, and consequently the coking test 

affords no clue to the improvement made by washing. The change is 

shown by the chemical analyses.
WICK.] WASHING TESTS. 

Analyses showing effect of washing Iowa, No. 1 coal.

69

Car sample". Washed coal 

for coking.

Ash...................................................... 16.0 10.25

Sulphur.................................................. 5.03 4.61

Iowa No. %. Run-of-mine coal from mine No. 6, Mammoth Vein 

Coal Company, Hamilton, Iowa.

About 5i tons of coal were washed for a coking test. The reduction of impurities efl'ected by washing was not great, as shown by the 

following analyses:

Analyses showing effect of washing Iowa No. ® coal.

________ C- sample,

Ash...................................................... 15.22 10.28

Sulphur.................................................. 4.66 3.93

Iowa No. 3. Lump coal from mine No. 4, Gibson Coal Mining 

Company, Altoona, iowa.

About 4£ tons of this coal were washed for a coking test. The 

improvement in the quality of the coal efl'ected by washing is shown 

in the following analyses:

Analyses showing effect of washing Iowa No. 8 coal.

Far sntrmlp Washed COal Car sample. for coking<

Ash...................................................... 14.01 8.03

Sulphur .................................................. 6.15 4.55

Imva No. 4- Lump coal from mine No. 3, Centerville Block Coal 

Company, Centerville, Iowa.

A charge consisting of about 4£ tons of this coal was washed for 

coking purposes. The results were not so satisfactory as those 

obtained on' other samples from this State. The analyses are given 

below:

Analyses showing effect of washing Iowa No. 4 coal.

rnrsnmnif. Washed coal Car sample. forcoking>

Ash ...................................................... 10.96 7. 14

Sulphur .................................................. 4.26 3.59
IT*"' r " r~"

70 PRELIMINARY REPORT ON COAL-TESTING PLANT. [BULL. 261.

J.owa No. 5. Run-of-mine coal from mine No. 1, Inland Fuel Company, Chariton, Iowa.

A charge consisting of nearly 5 tons of this coal was washed for a 

coking test, but the coal did not coke, although the washing was fairly 

successful in reducing the impurities, as shown by the following 

analyses:

Analyses showing effect of washing Iowa No. 5 coal.

Ash......................................................

Sulphur ..................................................

Car sample.

12. 63

3.19

Washed coal 

for coking.

7.93

2.28

Kentucky No. 3. Run-of-mine coal from Barnsley mine, St. Bernard Mining Company, Earlington, Ky.

A charge of about 5^ tons of this coal was washed for coking purposes. It produced a coke of fair quality, although little reduction 

was made in the impurities by washing. The analyses are as follows:

Analyses showing effect of washing Kentucky No. 8 coal.

Ash......................................................

Sulphur ..................................................

«

Car sample.

10.06

3.52

Washed coal 

for coking1 .

7.40

2.51

Kentucky No. 4- Run-of-mine coal from Wheatcroft Coal and Mining Company, Wheatcroft, Ky.

A charge of about 5£ tons of this coal was washed for a coking test. 

Washing was very much more successful in this case than in that of the 

other coal from Kentucky. The change is shown in the following table:

Analyses showing effect of washing Kentucky No. 4 coal.

Ash......................................................

Sulphur ..................................................

Car sample 1

14.18

4.54

Washed coal 

for coking.

' 6.05

2.74

Missouri No. 2. Run-of-mine coal from mine No. 8, Northwestern 

Coal and Mining Company, Bevier, Mo.

A charge of about 6£ tons of this coal was washed for a coking test, 

with the following result:
WASHING TESTS.

Analyses showing effect of washing Missouri No. 2 coal.

71

Ash......................................................

Car sample.

16.86

5.16

Washed coal 

for coking.

7.76

3.24

West Virginia No. 2. Run-of-mine coal from Pitcairn mine, Pitcairn Coal Company, Clarksburg, W. Va.

Two coking tests were made on this sample, one of raw coal and one .of 

washed coal. This affords an additional means of judging of the effectiveness of washing, for the coke shows improvement in the second 

(washed coal) test, which can be accounted for only by better quality 

of coal. The following table shows the results:

Analyses showing the effect of washing West Virginia No. % coal.

Ash .................................

Coke .................................

Coal.

Raw.

8.22 

3.38

Washed.

7.05

2.84

Coke.

From raw 

coal.

14.95 

3.40

From 

washed coal.

11.40 

2.24

West Virginia No. 3. Run-of-mine coal from West Virginia Coal 

Company, Richard, W. Va.

This coal was tested in the coke ovens in both the raw and the 

washed condition, and a comparison of results shows that washing as 

done in this test had little effect. The charge that was washed weighed 

about 7i tons.

Analyses showing effect of washing West Virginia No. 3 coal.

Ash ................................:

Sulphur. .............................

Coal.

Raw.

9.75 

.99

Washed.

9.01 

1.18

Coke.

From raw 

coal.

18.18 

.93

From 

washed coal.

14.27 

1.19

West Virginia No. 4> Run-of-mine coal from West Virginia Coal 

Company, Bretz, W. Va.

Two coking tests were made of this coal, one in the raw and one in 

a washed condition. The charge that was washed weighed about 5 

tons. The results of these tests, as shown by the analyses of the coal
72 PRELIMINARY REPORT ON COAL-TESTING PLANT. [BULL. 261.

and the coke, are not in harmony, so it is difficult to determine the 

effect of washing. 

The analyses are as follows:

Analyses showing effect of washing West Virginia No. 4 coal. 

~

Ash ..................................

Sulphur. ..............................

Coal.

Raw.

8.39

.86

Washed.

7.53 

.74

Coke.

From raw 

coal.

11.85

.82

From 

washed coal.

13.23 

. .69

The change in the amount of impurities is so slight that the irregularities of sampling are probably responsible for the difference in the 

figures.

West Virginia No. 5. Lump and nut coal from mine of Davis Colliery Company, Coalton, W. Va.

Three coking tests were made of this coal to determine the possibility of reducing the ash to within the limit of coke for blast furnace 

use. The first charge consisted of about 6i tons of raw coal; the 

second charge contained about 7 tons of coal crushed in rolls to li 

inches in size and then washed; the third charge contained about 5£ 

tons of coal, which was pulverized in the Williams mill and washed in 

the New Century jig. The results of washing are shown by the following analyses: "~

Analyses showing effect of washing West Virginia No. 5 coal.

Ash...............

Raw.

10.73

.90

Coal.

Washed.

10.28

.91

Pulverized 

and washed.

8.19

.79

From raw 

coal.

19.14

.77

Coke.

From 

washed coal.

14.81

.83

From pulverized and 

washed coal.

15.98

00

West Virginia No. 9. Run-of-mine coal from Vulcan mine, Mount 

Carbon Coal Company (Limited), Powellton, W. Va.

This coal was tested in the coke ovens in both the raw and the 

washed condition. The charge of raw coal contained about 4£ tons 

and of washed coal about 6 tons. The coke from the washed coal 

showed much improvement over that from the unwashed coal. The 

change in composition is shown by the following analyses:
WASH1FC4 TESTS.

Analyses showing effect of washing West Virginia No. 9 coal. '

73

Ash ..................................

Sulphur. .............................

Coal.,

Raw.

8.07 

.83

Washed.

4.51 

.90

Coke.

From raw 

coal.

9.15 

.82

From 

washed coal.

.7.38

.77

West Virginia No. 12. Run-of-mine coal from mine of the Big 

Sandy Coal and Coke Company, Big Sandy, W. Va. . Two coking tests were made of this coal, one of raw coal and one of 

washed coal. The first charge consisted of about 5£ tons of coal and 

the second charge of about 4^ tons. No particular change was noted 

in the coke made from the two grades of coal, but the analyses show

a reduction of ash as follows:

Analyses showing effect of washing West Virginia JVo. 12 coal.

Ash .................................

Co

Raw.

6.16

.97

al.

Washed.

4.90

1.11

Co

From raw 

coal.

9.43

.83

ke.

From 

washed coal.

7.55

1.01
STEAM TESTS.

By L. P. BRECKENKIDGE.

INTRODUCTION.

The following is a preliminary report of the steam tests of the coals 

burned under the boilers of the United States Geological Survey 

coal-testing plant at the Louisiana Purchase Exposition, at St. Louis.

This report consists of (a) a short description of the methods used 

in testing and a table giving the important dimensions of the boilers 

used; (5) a list of the various coals tested, and (c) some of the important results of the tests.

METHODS OF CONDUCTING TESTS.

The method of testing fuels under boilers has been a subject of discussion for many years by the members of the American Society of 

Mechanical Engineers, and as the result of this discussion a standard 

method of conducting tests and of reporting the results has received 

the approval of this society. The steam tests of coal at the Geological 

Survey testing plant have been conducted and the results reported in

accordance with these methods and forms.

The number of tests made was 78. The duration of each was planned 

for ten hours, and was as near this time as the conditions at the close 

of a test would permit. An experienced and careful fireman hand-fired 

all of the coals tested.

DESCRIPTION OF THE BOILERS.

There were two 210-horsepower Heine safety boilers provided for 

these tests. They were exactly similar in construction and setting. 

Each was provided with its. own stack, 115 feet high and 37 inches in 

diameter. Each boiler was fed by its own independent injector, and 

no other means of supplying water to the boilers was provided. The 

ends of the blow-off pipes-were visible during all tests.

In the next table the leading proportions of one of the boilers are 

given. 

74
BKECKENKIDGE. STEAM TESTS. 75

The boilers were cleaned externally after each test. The interior 

condition of each boiler was practically clean during all of the tests.

Leading proportions of Heine water-lube boilers used in coal-testing plant.

item

No. Item. Dimensions.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Rated capacity of boiler........................ horsepower.

Water-heating surface...........................square feet.

Superheating surface.......................................

Grate area ..................................... square feet.

Kind of draft..............................................

Height of steel stack.................................. .feet.

Area of steel stack..... ........................square feet.

Number of tubes...........................................

Outside diameter of tubes...........................inches.

Steam pressure ....................................pounds.

.Observations taken every 20 minutes.

Approximate duration of each trial................... hours.

210

2,031

None.

40.6

Natural.

115

7.67

116

3.5

85

10

DESCRIPTION OF THE STEAM ENGINE AND GENERATOR.

The steam generated by the boilers was largely used by an AllisCorliss engine of 250-horsepower capacity, and the power of the engine 

was absorbed by a 200-kilowatt direct current, 240-volt Bullock generator, to which the engine was belted.

The engine was the simple noncondensing type. The cylinder was 

22 inches in diameter and the stroke was 42 inches. The engine ran 

about SO revolutions per minute.

Numerous tests made to determine the steam consumption of the 

engine, as well as the mechanical efficiency of the engine and generator 

together, gave the following average results:

Average results of engine and generator tests.

Number of pounds of steam used per hour per indicated horsepower developed 

by the engine .......................................................... 23. 60

Mechanical efficiency of the engine and generator combined (per cent) ...... 81

From these figures has been calculated the electrical horsepower 

delivered to the switchboard for such tests of the boilers as were not 

accompanied by a test of the engine and generator.

COALS TESTED.

On pages 76 to 78 the coals tested are arranged alphabetically 

according to the States from which they were obtained. Some of 

these coals were washed and some were briquetted. In all tests of 

coals other than slack, the coal was first passed through rolls having
76 PRELIMINAEY EEPOET ON COAL-TESTING PLANT. [BULL. 261.

an opening of li inches, which crushed it to uniform size. On pages 

80 to 83 is a table which gives some of the results of the tests, and in 

which the character of the coal used in each boiler trial is clearly

indicated.

.LIST OF COALS TESTED.

Alabama No. 1. First test: Lump and nut coal from mine No. 8 of the Ivy Coal and

Iron Company, Horse Creek, Ala.

Second test: Large briquettes containing 7 per cent of pitch binder. See p. 148. 

Alabama No. 2. Lump, nut, and pea coal from mine No. 5 of the Galloway Coal

Company, Carbon Hill, Ala. 

Arkansas No. 1. First test: Lump and nut coal from mine No. 3 of the Central Coal

and Coke Company, Huntington, Ark.

Second test: Large briquettes containing 9£ per cent of pitch binder. See p. 148. 

Arkansas No. 2. First test: Lump coal from mine No. 12 of the Central Coal and

Coke Company, Bonanza, Ark.

Second test: Large briquettes containing 11 per cent of pitch binder. See p. 149. 

Arkansas No. 3. First test: Lump and slack coal from mine No. 18 of the Western

Coal and Mining Company, Jenny Lind, Ark.

Second test: Large briquettes containing 8.7 per cent of pitch binder. See p. 149. 

Arkansas No. 4. First test: Large briquettes made from slack coal from several

Arkansas mines, furnished by the Western Coal and Mining Company, St.

Louis, Mo. Briquettes contained 6 per cent of pitch binder. See p. 151. 

Second test: Small briquettes made with patent binder. See p. 151. 

Arkansas No. 5. Lump and slack coal from mine No. 4 of the Western Coal and

Mining Company, Coal Hill, Ark. 

Colorado No. 1. Run-of-mine black lignite, from Simpson mine, of the Northern Coal

and Coke Company, Layfayette, Colo. 

Illinois No. 1. Lump and nut coal from mine No. 1 of the Western Anthracite Coal

and Coke Company, near O'Fallon, 111.

Illinois No. 2. Washed slack coal, from same as Illinois No. 1. 

Illinois No. 3. Run-of-mine coal from mine No. 3 of the Southern Illinois Coal

Mining and Washing Company, near Marion, 111. 

Illinois No. 4. First test: Lump coal from mine No. 3 of the Donk Brothers Coal and

Coke Company, Troy, 111.

Second test: Same as above. 

Illinois No. 6. Eun-of-mine coal from shaft No. 1 of Clover Leaf Coal Company,

Coffeen, 111. 

Indiana No. 1. Washed run-of-mine coal from Mildred mine of the J. Woolley Coal

Company, Mildred, Ind. 

Second test: Large briquettes made from washed coal, containing 7 per cent of

pitch ^binder. See p. 154.

Indiana No. 2. Run-of-mine coal from Electric mine of the T. D. Scales Coal Company, Boonville, Ind. 

Indian Territory No. 1. Lump and slack coal from mine No. 1 of the Whitehead Coal

and Mining Company, Henryetta, Ind. T. 

Indian Territory No. 2. Run-of-mine coal from mine No. 8 of the Rock Island Coal

Company, Hartshorne, Ind. T. 

Indian Territory No. 3. Run-of-mine coal from mine No. 1 of D. Edwards & Son,

Edwards, Ind. T. 

Indian Territory No. 4. Lump coal from mine No. 5 of the Western Coal & Mining

Company, Lehigh, Ind. T. 

Iowa No. 1. Lump and fine coal from mine No. 2 of the Anchor Coal Company,

Laddsdale, Iowa.
BRECKENKIDGE.l STEAM TESTS. 77-

Iowa No. 2. Kun-of-rnine coal from mine No. 6 of the Mammoth Vein Coal Company,

near Hamilton, Iowa. 

Iowa No. 3. Lump coal from mine No. 4 of the Gibson Coal Mining Company,

Altoona, Iowa. 

Iowa No. 4. First test: Lump coal from mine No. 3 of the Centerville Block Coal

Company, Centerville, Iowa.

Second test: Large briquettes containing 8 per cent of pitch. See p. 158. 

Iowa No. 5. Run-of-mine coal from Inland mine No. 1 of the Inland Fuel Company,

Chariton, Iowa. 

Kansas No. 1. Run-of-mine coal from mine No. 10 of the Western Coal and Mining

Company, Fleming, Kans. 

Kansas No. 2. First test: Lump and nut coal from mine No. 11 of the Western Coal

and Mining Company, Yale, Kans. 

Second test: Same as above except washed. 

Kansas No. 3. First test: Run-of-mine coal from mine No. 9 of the Southern Coal and

Mercantile Company, Scammon, Kans. 

Second test: Same as above. 

Kansas No. 4. Lump coal from mine of the Atchison Coal Mining Company, near

Atchison, Kans.

Kansas No. 5. Lump and nut coal from mine No. 11 of the Southwestern Development Company,- West Mineral, Kans. 

Kentucky No. 1. Run-of-mine coal from Straight Creek mine No. 2 of the National

Coal and Iron Company, Straight Creek, Ky. 

Kentucky No. 2. First test: Lump, nut, pea, and slack coal from mine No. 11 of the

St. Bernard Mining Company, Earlington, Ky.

Second test: Large briquettes containing 8 per cent of pitch. See p. 160. 

Kentucky No. 3. Run-of-mine coal from Barnsley mine of the St. Bernard Mining

Company, near Earlington, Ky. 

Kentucky No. 4. Run-of-mine coal from mine or the Wheatcroft Coal and Mining

Company, Wheatcroft, Ky. 

Missouri No. 1. First test: Run-of-mine coal from New Home mine No. 1 of the

New Home Coal Company, located at Sprague, Mo. 

Second test: Large briquettes containing 11£ per cent of pitch. See p. 160. 

Third test: Same as test No. 1. 

Missouri No. 2. First test: Run-of-mine coal from mine No. 8 of the Northwestern

Coal and Mining Company, Bevier, Mo. 

Second test: Same as above. 

Missouri No. 3. First test: Slack coal from mine of the Mendota Coal and Mining

Company, Mendota, Mo. 

Second test: Same as above except washed. 

Missouri No. 4. Run-of-mine coal from mine of Morgan County Coal Company, near

Barnett, Mo. 

New Mexico No. 1. Lump and slack coal from Weaver mine of the American Fuel

Company, 3 miles north of Gallup, N. Mex. 

New Mexico No. 2. First test: Slack coal from Otero mine of the Caledonian Coal

Company, 2 miles east of Gallup, N. Mex.

Second test: Small briquettes containing patent binder. See p. 162. 

North Dakota No. 1. Run-of-mine brown lignite from Lehigh, N. Dak. 

Pennsylvania No. 1. Coal from Eureka mine No. 31 of Berwind-White Coal Mining

Company, Windber, Pa. 

Pennsylvania No. 2. Coal from Eureka mine No. 31 of Berwind-White Coal Mining

Company, Windber, Pa. 

Pennsylvania No. 3. Small briquettes made with patent binder from anthracite culm

furnished by Pennsylvania Coal Company, Scranton, Pa., p. 164.
78 PRELIMINAKY REPOET ON COAL-TESTING PLANT. [BULL. 261.

West Virginia No. 1. Run-of-rnine coal from mine of the Virginia and Pittsburg Coal 

Company, Kingrnont, VV. Va.

West Virginia No. 2. Run-of-mine coal from Pitcairn mine of the Pitcairn Coal Company, Clarksburg, W. Va.

West Virginia No. 3. Run-of-mine coal from mine of West Virginia Coal Company, 

Richard, W. Va.

West Virginia No. 4. Run-of-mine coal from mine of the West Virginia Coal Company, Bretz, W. Va.

West Virginia No. 5. Lump and nut coal from mine of the Davis Colliery Company, 

Coalton, W. Va.

West Virginia No. 6. First test. Run-of-mine coal from mine of the New River

Smokeless Coal Company, Rushrun, W. Va. 

Second test. Same as above.

West Virginia No. 7. Run-of-mine coal from mine of the New River Smokeless Coal 

Company, Sun, W. Va.

West Virginia No. 8. Run-of-mine coal from mine of the Gauley Mountain Coal 

Company, Ansted, W. Va.

West Virginia No. 9. Run-of-mine coal from Vulcan mine of the Mount Carbon 

Coal Company, Limited, Powellton, W. Va.

West Virginia No. 10. Lump and run-of-mine coal from Stuart M. Buck, Mora, 

W. Va.

West Virginia No. 11. Run-of-mine coal from mines Nos. 1 and 2 from W. H. Coffman, Zenith, Va.

West Virginia No. 12. First test. Run-of-mine coal from mine of the Big Sandy

Coal and Coke Company, Big Sandy, W. Va. 

Second test. Small briquettes made with patent binder.

Wyoming No. 1. Black lignite from mine of the Wyoming Coal and Mining Company, Monarch, Wyo.

Wyoming No. 2, Run-of-mine coal from Antelope Nos. 1 and 2 and Jumbo mines of 

the Cambria Fuel Company, Cambria, Wyo.

RESULTS OF THE COAL TESTS UNDER THE BOILERS.

The accompanying table shows some of the most important practical

results of the tests of coals burned under the boilers. In each test an

effort was made to operate the boiler at a point very near its rated 

capacity. In some cases the coals tested presented difficulties which 

made it impossible to accomplish this result. The various coals were 

tested in the order of the "test numbers" given in column 1, and tests 

of coals from widely separated localities were frequently made on 

successive days.

Attention is called to " rate of combustion" at which the coals were 

burned. To those familiar with tests of this character it will be evident that the coals were for the most part burned at a rate calculated 

to give approximately the most favorable results.

All of the chemical results reported in this table were furnished by 

the chemical laboratory in charge of Prof. N. W. Lord, which is 

sufficient guarantee of the accuracy.

The "horsepower developed by the boiler," recorded in column 11, 

refers to the standard boiler horsepower and is the evaporation of 34.5
BRECK.ENBIDGE.] STEAM TESTS. ' 79

pounds of water per hour from a feed-water temperature of 212° F. 

and at atmospheric pressure.

In column 13 will be found recorded the number of pounds of water 

evaporated by one pound of dry coal at and from a temperature of 

212° F. This column gives the best comparative results of the relative values of the coals tested, as far as these results relate to their 

commercial values.

The final report on these tests will give the values of all the items 

of the standard code report of the American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers and the complete logs of all tests, as well as a graphic chart 

of each trial.
Os tO *. CO to in tO toooen MCOCCOOO 

!* »"* (** >> > t> > o ti H B H > B 

o, |&l&| § f Of lo^f 

- -- M o, 5 5 a > " P 

f°

co 1 

o 

"-

K> 2$ ., 

25 

>_j 

'^z; w^ 

3 22 3 J2J ^ £, £ O O O O O ^ 

~ ~ " M tO 

tO 	M 

fe! F g 1 tr t-< F 1 Ir g t-i t2lff £23 

PC 5 PC e P tr. P B c PC 

rt ^|S<g- P-^§<g| g-^P-^M ~ £ " ft °? & a "? ® 1 ? <tl ^ ni .o - -ftOcr'- ft 5* O. _ 

3. o- 3 _. o- _. cr 3 o- o* 3. &C ^aE I? 

TO 3. a ff 3. ? 3. p 3. 3. o5 C c ' 5 9" S3 3. 

^1 rfs-rfSjK-^/jS'-rfi a cr c ' & P 

§|g§ gst g rtg 

^f OTQ ^ ^t 0^ JJ 

o 1 p ; re ; <c p- (t> 

p,

r^ O^ Oi hC*- Ci O^ M Cs -^-1 Cl 3 Ci -~5 CO CO kt*. hU. 4^ >t»- CO h£x 

^JOiOOOJO-^ H^tOtOOW H*OOCDCOO5 WOCOMOO 

OsCOCiCDOi^ COO~4COOS <ltOOO5O *-l Oi O5 Ci IO 

f* IO OS «» OS Oi OD^rf^OCn tOMOOOCO WIOCOCDO' 

hOMCOCOCoJP MMMtOM COCOCOh-'M WCOCOCOCO 

i| M CC JO GO M OS IO OS <I hfr- OO IO C71 C5 <l 1 h- W tO IO OO 

lOCiOOOO OCOOrfi-CO MtOOOCJiCTs M »& 4^. 00 M 

f*" O O OO I ' 1 * OiOit&tO.CS MMOiW^-O ^Oh-*rf^OOCO 

f? 1 h- M M I > h-> 1^ 

"^ JO JO jpk. M < J-» rf^ M tO CO CO td CO O O 00 CO JO CO M 

COcOOOOsCnS. COC5COQOO t^CiMtOM 31 )^ Ui h-i M 

^COCOCOCir*" C^OMOO-^I Ui(DCOtOGO 1 ^^DOO-^Jh-

^ CO CO CO CO O OO tO CO 00 p i-'f>5 l ?? l P? M M h' ^ OS 

tOOCn^cOS. I 'ObOCO^ OMCOC7<M rOQOO.iJ^CJi 

o^i^t-'tor*' Mj-^oiccbo osco<iasco CTI cs . 1 o oo rf^ 

	^

8

 -^7tOMtO<JS Osrf^-tOCOtO CO^.rf^CO^.1 ^COtOCn 

COM-^Jrfs-Oor* ife.MtOtoen OiOtOtOO' OOOSOOO 

pppcopS toppto-p tototop<i Oitoppp 

co<itoenco?s enooSoo-q <ico-]coeo ototo-jco 

MM MM 

^ _pO J3s jo _-a _<I O> _<1 _CO CK j» _en <D _00 _M p _tO _tO C3 O ^Os 

-.TOMcnosS" MOsMcoen OMtooto enco<icoen 

51 o-^itotoen? >»i.ocn*.iM toto<ioco M^enosco 

OMGOMOS tOOCOO<I Olrf^tOOCO ,tOCOO^J<l 

tOMlOMlO tOtOtOMM tOtOMtOM tOMMMtO 

oooMtoo co to t * o t ' MMCnoos tototo-^io 

OSpOiOsen axptopp OMh^tOOs tOrf^^ltOO 

rf^-cn^osoo enCoMCOos torf*.o^..co OiCocoooi 

5 p co M en po en <i to p to _-j M <i rf>- to M to so to M 

5 ^atoento*.!? a^t^-osco<i cotooot*i.^.7 McoMcoto 

rf^O>&.<ItO MtOOOMO osOOtOOO O-f^COrfxCO 

ppoooopoy pcotcpp <i co <i <i co po<i<i<ipo 

3 coocnco^? ^coenco^i ototooto oj^tocoo 

MCnenMrfa- Orf^OMCO OMM^OO COO<IMrfx 

COCOCOCOCO^l 1C CO (C CO CO COCOCOCOCO COCOCOCOCO 

3 OMCoioco? ocotooto cntotoenen toooooooen 

tOtOMMCn MtOOOOM i&.tOtO(Oife. rf^tOtOCOtO 

coco^co^& co*.co'coco ^^rfx^^V^*.*.^ 

8 

^joootOM' <iMO8-JCn cooooococo eo <i 00 -a 

*- o Co o> co ooenoii^oo-totoooMto COKS. to 

No. Test 

carbon. Fixed 

matter. Volatile 

Moisture.

Ash.

(sepa- Sulphur 

deter- rately 

mined).

trial. of Duration 

consumed. coal Total 

devel- Horsepower 

boiler. by oped 

burned coal Dry 

of foot square per 

per surface grate 

hour.

evapora- Equivalent 

at and from tion 

pound per F. 212° 

coal. dry of 

indi- per coal Dry 

horsepower cated 

hour.

elec- per coal Dry 

horsepower trical 

hour.

08 &o iDKixsax-ivoo 
tt

.....do............................

Indian Territory No. 2 ...........

.....do............................

.....do............................

.....do............................

.....do............................

.....do............................

.....do............................

.....do............................

Nut, dull, washed ................

Nut, dull..........................

Nut, bright. .... ...................

.....do............................

Nut, dull.........................

Nut, dull .........................

.....do............................

Mine run, dull ...................

.....do............................

. ....do. ......................... ..

.....do ............................

Nut, dull.........................

.....do............................

40.41

40.40.

46.30

50.31 

47.58

45.33

39.89

33.73

35.77

37.28

37.85.

38.83

49.46

48.57

46.68

51.22

50.99

51.05

43.59

51.36

44.32

44.84

45.74

41.85

44.21

37.33

39. 76

35.17

38.04

33.96

36.21

37.30

35.44

33.08

35.35

36.14

34.09

36.50

31.76

33.78

32.68

31.23

34.32

33.52

34.30

36.32

32.42

35. 61.

37.91

37. 07

37.32

35. 65

34.88

37.60

36.81

32. 88

31.77

16.59

9.11

7.65

3.71

4.79

6.24

8.69

14.88

12.44

13.48

13.24

16.01

5.90

4.80

4.18

5.82

2.03

2.25

5.51

4.31

2. 89

7.76

7.11

7.92

5.89

7.28

6.38

7.93

13.09

11.57

7.83

12. 45

12.09

9.77

10.33

12.99

18.34

16.04

15.65

15.15

12. 41

13.40

-10. 86

13.95

17.91

8.64

13.46

12.40

14.58

11.91

5.91

S.58

11.50

9.92

12.72

17.20

14.17

11. \)5

16. 70

16.90

 
Results of coal tests under boilers Continue

Test No.

1

78 

77 

70 

27 

26

30 

33 

1 

2 

36

24 

25 

28 

31 

34

39 

43 

51 

53 

69

Name of sample.

 . 2

.....do............................

.....do............................

West Virginia No. 6. ....."........

.....do............................

West Virginia No. 7. .............

West Virginia No. 8. .............

West Virginia No. 9. .............

Coal, size, and condition.

3

Nut, dull.........................

Nut, dull.........................

Pea, dull .........................

.....do............................

Nut, bright........ ...............

Nut, bright .......................

.....do............................

.....do............................

.....do............................

.....do............................

.....do............................

.....do............................

.....do............................

Chemical composition.

Fixed carbon.

4

Per ct. 

29.98 

39.61 

42.11 

41. 57 

36.11

39.07 

25.40 

75.69 

76.76 

55.00

56.25 

48.80 

56.11 

59.84 

58.66

70.03 

71.42 

68.27 

56.68 

59.47

Volatile matter.

o

Per ct. 

26.18 

31.18 

40.10 

37.85 

37.30

37.56 

28.13 

15.80 

16.61 

27.62

34.64 

39.23 

30.31 

27.64 

28.95

22.38 

21.44 

20.23 

31.19 

31.11

Moisture.

6

Per ct. 

18.63 

20.78 

12.24 

11.90

9.92 

\

6.75 

35.84 

1.10 

.59 

3.00

1.90 

2.01 

2.54 

2.53 

2.11

2.14 

2.11 

2.68 

5.26 

3.42

>d7

Per ct. 

25.21 

8.43 

5.55 

8.68 

16.67

16.62 

10.63 

7.41 

6.04 

14.38

7.21. 

9.96 

11.04 

9.99 

10.28

5.45 

5.03 

8.82 

6.87 

6.00

f

O

P

' 
54

56

46

59

63

61

.....do............................

.....do ............................

.....do............................

.....do............................

73. S4

68.36

75.33

67.46

31.61

34.58

18.23

16.31

18.26

24.02

40.56

1.74

4.85

1.58

2.32

6.19

10.48

4.83

6.20

6.02

18. 77

. 
84 PRELIMINARY REPORT ON COAL-TESTING PLANT. [BULL. 261.

PERSONNEL.

The coal tests under steam boilers were all made under the direct 

supervision of Prof. D. T. Randall, of the Department of Mechanical 

Engineering at the University of Illinois. He was assisted by Messrs. 

J. J. Harman, H. B. Dirks, R. H. Kuss, H. Kreisinger, C. H. McClure, 

R. W. Rutt, C. H. Green, R. H. Post, and H. W. Weeks, the first three 

being replaced by the last three on September 1. Mr. Henry Arens 

was fireman for all the trials, and his work was intelligent and satisfactoiy. Mr. William Cameron fired the auxiliaiy boiler. The engine 

was under the charge of Mr. Otto Kinner, who was assisted by Mr* 

PI. M. Horstmeier, oiler. The electrical apparatus was in charge of 

Mr. Jos. Underwood, who was assisted by Mr. A. P. Bridgeman, in 

charge of the switchboard.

The work of all the corps of observers was performed with an intelligent realization of the importance of the work and with painstaking 

accuracy.
PRODUCER-GAS TESTS.

By ROBERT H. FERNALD.

INTRODUCTION.

In presenting this brief preliminary report of the producer-gas tests 

no attempt is made to give detailed information, as the complete 

report, to be published later, will deal at length with the methods 

employed in conducting the tests, details of apparatus used, and methods of working up the results from the data obtained.

EQUIPMENT.

The plant installed is a Taylor pressure gas producer, furnished by 

R. D. Wood & Co., of Philadelphia. The producer of 250-horsepower 

capacity is known as a No. 7 gas. producer. It is 8^- feet external 

diameter and 15 feet high and is connected through an economizer 3 

feet in external diameter and 16 feet high to a scrubber, whose external dimensions are 8 feet in diameter by 20 feet in height. The 

scrubber is filled with gas-house coke, which is constantly flushed with 

water during the operation of the plant. From the scrubber the gas 

passes to the tar extractor, a piece of apparatus whose detailed construction is carefully guarded by the manufacturers of the producer, 

but which resembles in outward appearance a centrifugal pump. The 

speed of rotation of this device is of vital importance in tar extraction. 

After passing through the tar extractor the gas goes directly to the 

purifier, an iron box 8 feet square and 3 feet 3 inches in height. This 

box is filled with oxidized iron filings and shavings that remove the 

sulphur from the gas, which next passes to the holder, a receiver a 

little over 20 feet in diameter and 13 feet high, of 4,000 cubic feet 

capacity. From the holder the gas is conducted through a meter of 

1,000,000,000 cubic feet capacity to a 3-cylinder vertical Westinghouse gas engine with c}T linders of 19-inch diameter and 22-inch stroke, 

rated at 235 brake horsepower. The engine is in turn belted to a sixpole 175-kilowatt Westing-house direct-current generator. The load 

on the generator is controlled, by and the energy developed dissipated 

through water rheostats especially constructed for the purpose.

85
86 PRELIMINARY REPORT ON COAL-TESTING PLANT. [BULL. 2Gi.

The instruments and apparatus used in connection with the tests 

were loaned by the manufacturers or dealers. These instruments 

are all standard, and were frequently calibrated at the National 

Bureau of Standards in the Electricity Building, World's FailGrounds.

During the charging of the producer the coal was carefully sampled, 

the sample analyzed, and the calorific value of the coal determined at 

the chemical laboratory operated in connection with the plant. The 

coal analyses in the appended table were supplied by Prof. N. W. 

Lord, in charge of the chemical laboratory.

The calorimetric determinations from the gas and the gas analyses 

were made in an independent laboratory provided in the engine room 

near the producer plant.

Observations and readings were taken every twenty minutes during 

these tests, as were also the calorimetric determinations from the gas, 

but in the majority of tests the gas analyses were made once eveiy 

two hours only. . 

PERSONNEL.

During the first few weeks the gas producer was operated under the 

direct supervision of Mr. C. W. Lummis, a representative of R. D. 

Wood & Co. Mr. Lummis was followed l>y Mr. C. O. Nordenson, 

also from R. D. Wood & Co., who continued in charge of the operations of the producer to the close of the season. The gas engine has 

been run by Mr. J. G. Culbertson, a representative of the Westinghouse Machine Company.

The observations and computations have been made by a crew of 

college men, who have been trained in various technical institutions 

and who have supplemented this training with practical experience. 

The men employed in these two important departments are Messrs.

R. W. Cummings, H. G. Ecker, H. A. Grine, M. H. Mount, R. E. 

Peshak, Kurt Toensfeldt, and W. C. Weidmann.

A double check system has been maintained throughout all computations, thus assuring a high degree of accuracy. The operating 

supervision of the tests has been under the direct control of Capt. 

John A. Laird, a consulting engineer of St. Louis.

METHODS OF CONDUCTING TESTS.

The tests were begun on the basis of a total of fifty hours for each 

test. The plant was operated ten hours a day and then fires were 

banked for the night, the records being continued the next morning. 

This permitted one test a week only. With the small crew at command it seemed to be the best possible arrangement and was continued 

for the first two tests. It was then thought desirable to secure 

double the number of tests, and the schedule was arranged to conduct
KKBNALD.] PEODUCEE'GAS TESTS. 87

two tests per week, each of thirty consecutive hours, allowing- sufficient time between tests to make the necessary change of fuel and to 

enable the fuel bed in the producer to be brought to a proper 

working condition.

As it was desired to test as many coals as possible in the few weeks 

remaining before the close of the Exposition, the highest possible 

economy was made a secondary consideration, and for a part of the 

time the plant was run with a leaky hopper and other unfortunate 

conditions, which naturally impaired its efficiency.

In comparing the results it should be borne in mind that in these 

preliminary tests the object has been to demonstrate the possibility of 

using these coals in a producer, and not to show how efficiently they 

could be burned. Although the results in many cases have been highly 

satisfactory, there is no question that in a second series of tests upon 

the same coals, made with the idea of showing the greatest economy, 

the amount of coal per horsepower per hour will, in the majority of 

cases, be much less.

During tests Nos. 5 to 14 inclusive the hopper of the gas producer 

leaked, and considerable gas was wasted, thus vitiating to a small but 

undetermined extent the efficiency results that might otherwise be 

shown for the coals tested during that period.' But at the time of 

making these tests it was not practicable to stop the operations of the 

plant for repairs; and the main purpose of the preliminary tests being 

to determine whether the coals were suitable for producer-gas purposes, 

it was decided to proceed, in spite of the leak in the hopper, and to 

repeat later, under more favorable conditions, the tests for relative 

efficiency.

These points should be kept carefully in mind in examining the 

appended report, and criticism of the relatively poor showing of one 

coal as compared with another should be reserved until after the publication of the detailed report, which will give a full statement of the 

conditions under which each coal was tested and the influences that 

tended to make that particular test more or less favorable when compared with others.

The results show with what ease gas may be produced from bituminous coal and lignites, and, taken as a whole, indicate the satisfactory 

economic results that may be expected under ordinary workingconditions.

Immediately after the close of the Exposition, it having been decided 

to continue the tests for some weeks longer, the plant was shut down 

in order to repair the leaking hopper and to prepare for cold weather. 

Operations were resumed on December 12 and continued until December 22, which is the close of the period covered by this report.

A glance at the logs of the tests shows very clearly the advisability 

of allowing a few hours for the manipulation of the plant after start-
88 PRELIMINARY REPORT-ON COAL-TESTING PLANT. [RUU.. 201.

ing before beginning the official records of the tests. This is due to 

the fact that each test is made on a new coal, Avhose working qualities 

in the'producer are entirety unknown. -The operation of the gas 

engine upon gases from different coals requires careful study in order 

to secure the best mixture, proper point of ignition, etc. It has therefore been decided, should the operation of the plant be continued, 

that seventy-two consecutive hours shall be allowed for each test. 

During the first eight to twelve hours the operators of the producer 

and engine will devote their entire attention to securing the best possible manipulation of the plant, thus insuring sixty hours for obtaining 

results of high economy as well as testing the.endurance of the plant.

RESULTS OF THE TESTS.

The first official producer-gas test began October 3,1904, and between 

that date and December 22 eighteen coals were tested. The results 

are given briefly in the following pages.

The brief notes appended to the reports of each test give an idea of 

the operating qualities of the coals from the standpoint of the expert 

in charge of the producer.

COAL, ALABAMA NO. 2; PRODUCER-GAS TEST NO. 2.

[Coal from mine No. 5 of the Galloway Coal Company, Carbon Hill, Ala.; tested October 10,11,12, 13,

14, 1904.]

Duration of test............................................. .hours.. 43

Total coal consumed in producer............................. pounds.. 13, 350

Moisture in coal...........................................per cent.. 3.76

Dry coal consumed in producer............................. .pounds.. 12, 848

Refuse from dry coal...................................... .per cent.. 9. 85

Total refuse from coal...................................... .pounds.. 1,315

Total combustible a consumed in producer......................do.... 12,035

Coal consumed, pounds per hour. -. Coal consumed in producer .......................................... 310. 5

Dry coal consumed in producer ....................................... 299

Combustible consumed in producer.................................... 280

Equivalent coal& used by producer plant.............................. 341.4

Equivalent dry coal used by producer plant........................... . 328. 7

Equivalent combustible used by producer plant....................... 306.8

British thermal units. c

Per pound of coal................................................... 12,865

Per pound of dry coal .... '......r .................................... 13,365

Per jDOund of combustible............................................ 14, 820

Per cubic foot of standard gas ........................................ 149.18

From standard gas <-1 per pound dry coal burned in producer............. 9, 000

From standard gas per hour per brake horsepower .................... 11,420

« " Combustible " is dry coal minus refuse.

b" Equivalent coal" is coal actually consumed in producer plus the coal equivalent of the steam 

used in operating the producer.

c A " Bri tish thermal unit'' is the heat required to raise 1 pound of water from G2° F. to 63° F. 

a'' Standard gas "is gas at 62° F. and 14.7 pounds pressure.
PRODUCEE-GAS TESTS. 89

Gas produced, cubic fed (reduced to nl.andard). 

Total ..................................^............................ 775, 500

Per hour............................................................. 18,050

Per pound coal consumed in producer .....................

Per pound dry coal consumed in producer .................

Per pound combustible consumed in producer..............

Per pound equivalent coal used by producer plant...........

Per pound equivalent dry coal used by producer plant......

Per pound equivalent combustible nsed by producer plant..

Horsepower developed.

Average electrical horsepower available for outside purposes 

Average electrical horsepower developed at switch board ... 

Average brake horsepower t available for outside purposes.. 

Average brake horsepower | developed at engine ...........

58.1

00. 4

64.5

52,9

55

58.9

192. 6

200.0

226. 6

235.5

Coal consumed in producer, pounds per horsepower per hour.

Per electrical horsepower available for outside purposes.. 

Per electrical horsepower developed at switch board .....

Per brake horsepower | available for outside purposes. . . .

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per electrical 

horsepower available for outside purposes. ............

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per electrical 

horsepower developed at switch board ................

Equivalent pounds used by .producer plant per brake 

horsepower! available for outside purposes. ..........

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per brake

Coal as 

. fired.

1.61 

1.55

1.37 

1.32

1.77

1.71

1.51

1.45

Dry coal.

1.55

1.49

.1. 32 

1.27

1.71

1.64

1.45

1.40

Combustible.

1. 45 

1.40

1 . 23 

1.19

1. 59

1. 53

1.35

1.30

Average composition of coal and gas.

COAL.* Per cent.

Moisture. ....................... 3. 76

Volatile matter.................. 33. 45

Fixed carbon ................... 53.29

Ash ............................ 9. 50

Sulphur ........................ .86

CAS BY VOLUME. . Per cent.

Carbon dioxide.................. 8.16

Oxygen......................... .10

Carbon monoxide ............... 16.65

Hydrogen ...................... 7.20

Methane........................ 5. 64

Nitrogen,.... ................... 62:24

99.99

The Alabama No. 2 is a c/ean, hard coal, which was fed in 1 to 1£ 

inch lumps, and worked well in the producer. It did not cake excest Based on an assumed efficiency of 85 per cent for generator and belt.

* All coal analyses given in this report were made under the direction of Prof. N. \V. Lord, and they 

will appear in his final report.
90 PRELIMINARY REPORT ON COAL-TESTING PLANT. [BULL.261.

siv^ely and was easily handled. The greatest trouble in its use arose 

from its tendency to shrink away from the walls of the producer. It 

was necessary, therefore, to break it against the walls about twice 

every hour. The lumps did not swell and fuse together, but seemed 

to keep apart in the lire.

COAL, COLORADO NO. 1; PKODTTCER-GAS TEST NO. 15.

[Coal from Simpson mine of the Northern Coal and Coke Company, Lafayette. Coin.: tested December

33, M, 1904.]

Duration of test.............................................. hours.. 30

Total coal consumed in producer ........................... .pounds.. 10, 933

- Moisture in coal. .......................................... per cent.. 20. 24

Dry coal consumed in producer..............................pounds.. 8, 720

Refuse from dry coal.......................................per cent.. 7. 34

Total refuse from coal.......................................pounds.. 640

Total combustible consumed in producer.....................pounds.. 8,080

Coal consumed, pounds per hour.

Coal consumed in producer ........................................... . 364. 4

Dry coal consumed in producer ...................................... 290. 7

Combustible consumed in producer ............-..............._...... 269. 3

Equivalent coal used by producer plant............................... 428. 4

Equivalent dry coal used by producer plant..;........................ 341. 7

Equivalent combustible used by producer plant....................... 316. 6

British thermal units.

Per pound of coal as fired............................................ 9,767

Per pound of dry coal ............................................... 12, 245

Per pound of combustible............................................ 13, 210

Per cubic foot of standard gas ........................................ 149

From standard gas, per pound dry coal burned in producer ............ 7, 860

From standard gas, per hour per brake horsepower.................... 9, 700

Gas produced, cubic feet (reduced to standard).

Total.-...-.....:-----..---.....--...-...-......-.---.-----...-..... 460,300

Per hour............................................................ 15,343

Per pound coal consumed in producer ................................ 42.1

Per pound dry coal consumed in producer ............................ 52. 8

Per pound combustible consumed in producer......................... 57

Per pound equivalent coal used by producer plant..................... 35. 8

Per pound, equivalent dry coal used by producer plant................. 44. 9

Per pound equivalent combustible used by producer plant .............. 48.5

Horsepower developed.

Average electrical horsepower available for outside purposes ........... . 186.4

Average electrical horsepower developed at switch board .............. 200.2

Average brake horsepower f available for outside purposes............. 219/3

Average brake horsepowerf developed at engine ...................... 235.4

t Based on an assumed efficiency of 85 per cent for generator and belt.
KBBNALD.] PRODUCER-GAS TESTS. 91 

Coal consumed in producer, pounds per horsepower per hour.

Pur electrical horsepower available for outside purposes.. 

Per electrical horsepower developed at switch board. ....

Per brake horsepower t available for outside purposes ... 

Per brake horsepower t developed at engine. ............

Equivalent pounds used .by producer plant per electrical 

horsepower available for outside purposes. ............

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per electrical 

horsepower developed at switch board ................

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per brake 

horsepower f available for outside purposes ...........

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per brake 

horsepower t developed at engine. . ...................

Coal as 

fired.

1.95 

1.82

1.66 

1.55

2.30

2.14

1.95

1.82

Dry coal.

1.56 

1.45

1.32 

1.23

1.83

1.71

1.56

1.45

Combustible.

 1.45 

1.35

1.23 

1.14

1.70

1.58

1.44

1.34

-(-Based on an assumed efficiency of 85 per cent for generator and belt.

Average composition of coat and gas.

COAL. Per cent. 

Moisture........................ 20.24

Volatile matter.................. 32. 26

Fixed.carbon.................... 41.65

Ash............................ 5.85

Sulphur ......................... .60

GAS BY VOLUME. Per cent.

Carbon dioxide.................. 10.11

Oxygen.......................... . 55

Carbon monoxide ............... 17.38

Hydrogen ...................... 11.05

Methane........................ 5.00

Nitrogen........................ 55.90

99.99

The Colorado No. 1 is a black lignite which clinkered badly in the 

producer, in spite of frequent poking, but the clinkers were not large 

and could be broken from the top of the producer. The gas was of 

a good, uniform qualit}7 , and there is no doubt that the fuel can be 

used to advantage in producers. It yielded a large amount of yellow 

"lignite tar."

COAL, ILLINOIS NO. 3; PRODUCER-GAS TEST NO. 6.*

[Coal from mine Mo. 3 of the Southern Illinois Coal Mining and Washing Company, near Marion, 111.; 

tested October 31 and November 1,1904.]

Duration of test............................................. .hours.. 30

Total coal consumed in producer.............. ^ .............. pounds.. 10,500

Moisture in coal ...........................................per cent.. 7. 62

Dry coal consumed in producer............................. .pounds.. 9, 700

Eefuse from dry coal.......................................per cent.. 10.53

Total refuse from coal...................................... .pounds.. 1,021

Total combustible consumed in producer ....................... do.... 8,679

* Gas-producer hopper leaked.
92 PKELIMTNAKY REPOET ON COAL-TESTING PLANT. {BULL. 261.

Coal consumed, pounds per hour.

Coal consumed in producer........................................... 350

Dry coal consumed in producer....................................... 323. 3

Combustible consumed in producer................................... 289. 3

Equivalent coal used by producer plant............................... 386

Equivalent dry coal used by producer plant........................... 356. 7

Equivalent combustible used by producer plant........................ 319. 2

British thermal unit*.

Per pound of coal as fired............................................ 12, 046

Per pound of dry coal................................................ 13, 041

Per pound of combustible. ........................................... 14, 560

Per cubic foot of standard gas ........................................ 154. 8

From standard gas per pound dry coal burned in producer ............. 8, 330

From standard gas per hour per brake horsepower..................... 1.1, 460

Gas produced, cubic feet (reduced to standard). 

Total............................................................... 522,350

Per hour....................................... ..'................... 17,412

Per pound coal consumed in producer ................................ 49. 8.

Per pound dry coal consumed in producer............................. 53. 9

Per pound combustible consumed in producer......................... 60. 2

Per pound equivalent coal used by producer plant..................... 45.1

Per pound equivalent dry coal used by producer plant................. 48. 8

Per pound equivalent combustible used by producer plant.............. 54. 5

Horsepoiver developed.

Average electrical horsepower available for outside purposes............ 192. 5

Average electrical horsepower developed at switch board........:...... 199. 6

Average brake horsepower | available for outside purposes............. 226..5

Average brake horsepower t developed at engine....................... 235

Coal consumed in producer, pounds per horsepower per hour.

Per electrical horsepower available for outside purposes.. 

Per electrical horsepower developed at switch board..... 

Per brake horsepowerf available .for outside purposes.... 

Per brake horsepowerf developed at engine.............

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per electrical 

horsepower available for outside purposes.............

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per electrical 

horsepower developed at switch board................

'Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per brake 

horsepowerf available for outside purposes ...........

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per brake 

horsepowerf developed at engine.............:.......

Coal as

fired.

1.82

1.75

1.54

1. 49

2.01

1.93

1.70

1.64

Dry coal.

1.68

1.62

1.43

1.38

1.85 

1. 79 

1.'58 

1.52

Combustible.

1.50 

1.45 

].28 

1.23

1.66 

1.60 

 1.41 

1.36

f Based cm an assumed etlicieucy of 85 per cent for generator and belt.
KKHNAUX] PKODUCEK-GAS TESTS. 93

Acerwje composition of coal and f/as.

<;OAI,. Percent. 

Moisture........................ 7.62

Volatile matter.................. 30. 87

Fixed carbon.................... 51. 78

Ash ............................ 9.73

Sulphur......................... 1..69

GAS BY VOLUME. Percent. 

Carbon dioxide.................. 10.53

Oxygen......................... .15

Carbon monoxide ............... 15. 31

Hydrogen ...................... 8.35

Methane........................ 4. 46

Nitrogen........................ 61.19

99. 99

The test on Illinois No. 3 coal was very satisfactory. The gas was 

good and the coal easily handled. There were no signs of clinkers in 

the fire, and it is certain that this coal could be used continuously without trouble from that source. It may be considered a good gas-producer coal.

COAL, ILLINOIS NO. 4; PRODUCER-GAS TEST NO. 9.*

[Coal from mine No. 8 of the Donk Brothers Coal and Coke Company, Troy, III.; tested November 10

and 11,1904.]

. Duration of test.............................................. hours.. 30

Total coal consumed in producer............................ .pounds.. 10, 500

Moisture in coal........................................... per cent.. 12.43

Dry coal consumed in producer..............................pounds.. 9,190

Refuse from dry coal....................................... per cent.. 10. 53

Total refuse from coal.......................................pounds.. 968

Total combustible consumed in producer .......................do.... 8,222

Coal consumed, pounds per 'hour.

Coal consumed in producer .......................................... 350

Dry coal consumed in producer....................................... 306. 3

Combustible consumed in producer................................. i. 274.1

Equivalent coal used by producer plant. i............................. 398. 2

Equivalent dry coal used by producer plant........................... 348. 5

Equivalent combustible used by producer plant........................ 311. 9

British thermal units.

Per pound of coal as fired............................................ 11, 237

Per pound of dry coal................................................ 12, 834

Per pound of combustible.........................................'... 14,344

Per cubic foot of standard gas .......... 1............................. 151. 5

From standard gas per pound dry coal burned in producer............. 8, 840

From standard gas per hour per brake horsepower..................... 11,620

Gas produced, cubic feet (reduced to'standard).

Total............................................................... 536,435

Per hour............................................................ 17,881

Per pound coal consumed in producer................................. 51.1

Per pound dry coal consumed in producer............................. 58. 4

Per pound combustible consumed i n producer......................... 65. 3

Per pound equivalent coal used by producer plant..................... 44. 9

Per pound equivalent dry coal used by producer plant........... ..... 51. 4

Per pound equivalent combustible used by producer plant.............. 57. 4

* Gas-producer hopper leaked.
PBELIMINAKY BEPOBT ON COAL-TESTING PLANT. [BULL. 201. 

Horsepower developed.

Average electrical horsepower available for outside purposes. 

Average electrical horsepower developed at switch board.... 

Average brake horsepower* available for outside purposes... 

Average brake horsepower * developed at engine ...........

189.1

398.4

223

233

Coal consumed in producer, pounds per horsepower per hour.

Per electrical horsepower available for outside purposes. . 

Per electrical horsepower developed at switch board. . . . .

Per brake horsepower* available for outside purposes . . .

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per electrical

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per electrical 

horsepower developed at switch board ................

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per brake

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per brake 

horsepower* developed at engine ....................

Coal as 

fired.

1.85 

1. 76

1.57 

1.50

2.11

2.01

1.79

1.71

Dry coal.

1.62 

1.55

1. 37 

1.31

1.84

1.76

1.56

1.50

Combus- 

. tible.

1.45 

1. 38

1.23 

1.17

1.65

1.57

1.40

1.34

Average composition of coal and gas.

COAL. Per cent. 

Moisture........................ 12.43

Volatile matter.................. 32.65

Fixed carbon ................... 45.70

Ash............................ 9.22

Sulphur ........................ 1.41

GAS BY VOLUME. Per cent.

Carbon dioxide ................ 9. 72

Oxygen........................ .12

Carbon monoxide .............. 15.12

Hydrogen ..................... 9. 98

Methane....................... 6.00

Nitrogen....................... 59.06

100.00

There was no trouble during the whole of the test of Illinois No. 4 

coal in keeping the producer bed in good condition. The coal yielded 

a large amount of tar, and gave a rich, uniform gas, which left no 

trace of tar or sulphur in the engine valves. It may be placed among 

the better grade of gas-producer coals.

COAL, INDIANA NO. 1; PRODTTCER-GAS TEST NO. 14.f

[Coal from Mildred mine of the J. Woolley Coal Company, Mildred, Ind.; tested December 2 and 3,

1904.]

Duration of test............................................... hours.. 29.67

Total coal consumed in producer............................. pounds.. 11, 700

Moisture in coal ...........................................per cent.. 11. 51

Dry coal consumed in producer.............................. pounds.. 10,360

Refuse from dry coal....................................... per cent.. li. 33

Total refuse from coal.........................................pounds.. 1,180

Total combustible consumed in producer..................... pounds.. 9,180

* Based on an assumed efficiency of 85 per cent for generator and belt, 

t Gas-producer hopper leaked.
.PRODUCER-GAS TESTS.

Coal consumed, pounds per hour. ~

Coal consumed in producer .......................................... 394.5

Dry coal consumed in producer....................................... 349. 3

Combustible consumed in producer.............'....................... 309.5

Equivalent coal used by producer plant .............................. 434.6

Equivalent dry coal used by producer plant .......................... 384.8

Equivalent combustible used by producer plant....................... 341.0

British thermal units.

Per pound of coal as fired............................................. 1.1,534

Per pound of dry coal ................................................ 13, 037

Per pound of combustible............................................ 14, 720

Per cubic foot of standard gas ........................................ 153. 7

From standard gas per pound dry coal burned in producer ............. 7, 730

From standard gas per hour per brake horsepower..................... 11, 480

Gas produced, cubic feet (reduced to standard).

Total.........................'...................................... 521,100

Per hour............................................................ 17, 560

Per pound coal consumed in producer ................................ 44.5

Per pound dry coal consumed in producer............................. 50.3

Per pound combustible consumed in producer......................... 56. 7

Per pound equivalent coal used by producer plant..................... % 40.4

Per pound equivalent dry coal used by producer plant................. 45. 6

Per pound .equivalent combustible used by producer plant ............. 51.5

Horsepower developed.

Average electrical horsepower available for outside purposes ........... 188.3

Average electrical horsepower developed at switch board .............. 199.9

Average brake horsepower* available for outside purposes ............. 221.5

Average brake horsepower* developed "at engine *..................... 235

Coal consumed in producer, pounds per horsepower per hour.

Coal as 

fired. Dry coal. Combustible.

Per electrical horsepower available for outside purposes.. 

Per electrical horsepower developed at switch board..... 

Per brake horsepower* available for outside purposes.... 

Per brake horsepower* developed at engine.............

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per electrical 

horsepower available for outside purposes.............

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per electrical 

horsepower developed at switch board................

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per brake 

horsepower* available for outside purposes ...........

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per brake 

horsepower* developed at engine.....................

2.10

1.97

1.78

1.68

2.31

2.17

1.96

1.85

1.86

1.75

1.58

1. 49

2.04

1.93

1.74

1.64

1.64

1.55

1. 40

1.32

1.81- 

1. 71 

1.54 

1.45

* Based on an assumed efficiency of 85 per cent'for generator and belt.
96 . PRELIMINARY REPORT ON COAL-TESTING PLANT. [BULL. 261. 

Average composition of coal and (/as.

COAL. Percent. 

Moisture....................... 11.51

Volatile matter................. 36. 04

Fixed carbon .................. 42. 37

Ash ............................ 10.08

Sulphur........................ 2.61

GAS BY VOLUME. Per cent.

Carbon dioxide................. 9.89

Oxygen......................... .25

Carbon monoxide .............. 14.10

Hydrogen ..................... 9. 56

Methane....................... 6.08

Nitrogen....................... 60.13

100.01

The gas from Indiana No. 1 coal was of uniformly good quality. No 

trouble was experienced in working the bed, and the coal may be considered an excellent producer fuel. It yielded a fair amount of good 

black tar.

COAL, INDIANA NO. 2; PRODUCER-GAS TEST NO. 13.*

[Coal from Electric mine of the T. D. Scales Coal Company, Boonville, Ind.; tested November 28 and

29, 1904.]

Duration of test............................................... hours.. 7

Total coal consumed in producer............................'.pounds.. 2, ] 00

Moisture in coal ........................................... per cent.. 8. 72

Dry coal consumed in producer..............................pounds.. 1, 917

Refuse from dry coal........'...............................per cent.. 10. 66

Total refuse from coal.........................................pounds.. 204. 3

Total combustible consumed in producer ....................... .do.... 1, 712. 7

Coal conmmed, pounds per hour.

Coal consumed in producer .......................................... 300

Dry coal consumed in producer ...................................... 274

Combustible consumed in producer................................... 244. 8

Equivalent coal used by producer plant............................... 338

Equivalent dry coal used by producer.plant........................... 312

Equivalent conbustible used by producer plant........................ 278.8

British thermal units.

Per pound of coal as fired .............................................. 11, 822

Per pound of dry coal ............................................... 12,953

Per pound of combustible............................. J.............. 14, 500

Per cubic foot of standard gas ......................................... 159. 3

From standard gas per pound dry coal burned in producer ............. 10,140

From standard gas per hour per brake horsepower..................... 11, 750

Gas produced, cubic feet (reduced to standard). 

Total............................................................... 122,160

Per hour............................................................ 17, 450

Per pound coal consumed "in producer ................................ 58. 2

Per pound dry coal consumed in producer .................... '. ....... 63. 6

Per pound combustible consumed in producer......................... 71. 3

Per pound equivalent coal used by producer plant..................... 51. 6

Per pound equivalent dry coal used by producer plant................. 55. 9

Per pound equivalent combustible used by producer plant ............. 62. 6

* Gas-producer hopper leaked,
FERNAUX] PRODUCER-GAS TESTS.

Horsepower developed.

Average electrical horsepower available for outside purposes 

Average electrical horsepower developed at switch board.... 

Average brake horsepower f available for outside purposes .. 

Average brake horsepower f developed at engine ...........

97

191.4

201

225

236.5

Coal consumed in producer, pounds per horsepower per hour.

Per electrical horsepower available for outside purposes. . 

Per electrical horsepower developed at switch board.....

Per brake horsepower f available for outside purposes. . . 

Per brake horsepower t developed at engine ............

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per electrical 

horsepower available for outside purposes ............

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per electrical

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per brake 

horsepower | available for outside purposes. ..........

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per brake 

horsepower f developed at engine. ...................

Coal as 

fired.

1.57 

1.49

1. 33 

1.27

1.77

1.68

1.52

1.43

Dry coal.

1.43 

1.36

1.22 

1.16

1.63

1.55

1.39

1.32

Combustible.

1.28 

1.22

1.09 

1.03

1.46

1.39

1.24

1.18

Average composition of coal and gas.

COAT,. Per cent. 

Moisture........................ 8.72

Volatile matter.................. 39.60

Fixed carbon ................... 41.95

Ash ............................ 9,73

Sulphur ........................ 4.23

GAS BY VOLUME. Per cent.

Carbon dioxide ................ 11.80

Oxygen........................ .07

Carbon monoxide .............. 11.46

Hydrogen ..................... 10.60

Methane....................... 6.10

Nitrogen....................... 59. 97

100.00

The Indiana No. 2 coal did not yield particularly good results during 

the test. The gas produced from it was difficult to clean and contained a high percentage of sulphur. During the first part of the test 

the gas was low in heat value, but improved in qualit}7 after the fuel 

bed had been increased in depth. This shows that good results may 

be obtained from this coal if it is properly fired in the producer, and 

if adequate facilities are provided for scrubbing and purifying the gas.

t Based on an assufued efficiency of 85 per cent.for generator and belt. 

Bull. 261 05 7
98 PRELIMINARY REPORT ON COAL-TESTING PLANT. [BULL. 261.

COAL, INDIAN TERRITORY NO. 1, PRODUCER-GAS TEST NO. 1.

[Coal from mine No. 1 of the Whitehead Coal and Mining Company, Henryetta, Ind. T.; tested

October 3, 4, 5, and 6,1904.]

Duration of test..............................................hours.. 31

Total coal produced in producer ......................... .... pounds.. 11,200

Moisture in coal........................................... per cent.. 5

Dry coal consumed in producer..............................pounds.. 10,640

Refuse from dry coal......................................per cent.. 8. 96

Total refuse from coal..................................... ~. .pounds.. 955

Total combustible consumed in producer........................do.... ,9,685

Coal consumed, pounds per hour.

Coal consumed in producer ...................... 4 ................... 361

Dry coal consumed in producer ...................................... 344

Combustible consumed in producer................................... 312

Equivalent coal used by producer plant............................... 392. 7

Equivalent dry coal used by producer plant........................... 374

Equivalent combustible used by producer plant....................... 339.3

British thermal units.

Per pound of coal ................................................... 12,787

Per pound of dry coal ................................................ 13,455

Per pound of combustible............................................ 14,800

Per cubic feet of standard gas ......................................... 159.15

From standard gas per pound dry coal burned in producer ............. 8,620

From standard gas per hour per brake horsepower..................... 12,350

Gas produced, cubic feet (reduced to standard).

Total... ........................................................... 577,000

Per hour............................................................ 18,613

Per pound coal consumed in producer ................................ 51.6

Per pound dry coal consumed in producer ............................ 54.1

Per pound combustible consumed in producer......................... 59.4

Per pound equivalent coal used by producer plant..................... 47. 4

Per pound equivalent dry coal used by producer plant................. 49. 9

Per pound equivalent combustible used by producer plant............. 54.6

Horsepower developed.

Average electrical horsepower available for outside purposes............ 196

Average electrical horsepower developed at switch board............... 204

Average brake horsepower | available for outside purposes ............. 230

Average brake horsepower f developed at engine....................... 240

 ( Based on an assumed efficiency of 85 per cent for generator and belt.
FERNALD.] PRODUCER-GAS TESTS.

Coal consumed in producer, pounds per horsepower per hour.

99

Per electrical horsepower available for outside purposes.. 

Per electrical horsepower developed at switch board. . . . .

Per brake horsepowerf available for outside purposes ...

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per electrical 

horsepower available for outside purposes. ............

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per electrical 

horsepower developed at switch board ................

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per brake

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per brake 

horsepower! developed at engine. ....................

Coal 

as fired.

1.84 

1.77

1.57 

1.50

2.00

1.92

1.71

1.64

Dry coal.

1.76 

1.69

1.50 

1.43

1.91

1.83

1.62

1.56

Combustible.

1.59 

. 1. 53

, 1.36 

1.30

1.73

1.66

1.47

1 41

f Based on an assumed efficiency of 85 per cent for generator and belt. 

Average composition of coal and gas.

COAL. Per cent. 

Moisture........................ 5.00

Volatile matter.................. 36.51

Fixed carbon.................... 49. 98

Ash ............................ 8.51

Sulphur ........................ 1.43

 GAS BY VOLUME. Per cent.

Carbon dioxide................. 8.25

Oxygen......................:. .11

Carbon monoxide .............. 19. 39

Hydrogen ..................... 7.69

Methane....................... 4.92

Nitrogen....................... 59. 65

100.01

Indian Territoiy coal No. 1 is a moderately free-burning coal. It 

caked fairly well in the producer and made a good top crust, which 

was easily worked. It was charged into the producer after being 

crushed and screened over a half-inch screen. This was done while it 

was wet, and considerable slack was carried over with the lumps.

This coal may be considered a good producer coal.

COAL, KENTUCKY NO. 3; PBODTJCEE-GAS TEST NO. 12.*

[Coal from Barnsley mine of the St. Bernard Mining Company,Earlington.Ky.; tested November 25

and 26, 1904.]

Duration of test..............................................hours.. 30

Total coal consumed in producer.............................pounds.. 11,100

Moisture in coal.-....................'...................... per cent.. 7.28

Dry coal consumed in producer..............................pounds.. 10, 300

Refuse from dry coal.......................................per cent.. 9.69

Total refuse from coal ............^......................... .pounds.. 1,000

Total combustible consumed in producer .......................do.... 9,300

* Gas-producer hopper leaked.
100 PRELIMINARY REPORT ON COAL-TESTING PLANT. [BULL. 261.

Coal consumed, pounds per hour.

Coal consumed in producer ..................................._.. ;.... 370

Dry coal consumed in producer ...................................... 343. 3

Combustible consumed in producer................................... 310

Equivalent coal used by producer plant................................ 410.8

Equivalent dry coal used by producer plant........................... 381.2

Equivalent combustible used by producer plant....................... 344.2

British thermal units.

Per pound of coal as fired............................................ 12,283

Per pound of dry coal................................................ 13,226

Per pound of combustible............................................ 14,650

Per cubic foot of standard gas ........................................ 155.9

From standard gas per pound dry coal burned in producer............. 8,610

From standard gas per hour per brake horsepower ...........'......... 12,540

Gas produced, cubic feet (reduced to standard).

Total............................................................... 568,295

Per hour .....................:..................................... 18,943

Per pound coal consumed in producer ................................ 51. 2

Per pound dry coal consumed in producer ............................ 55.1

Per pound combustible consumed in producer......................... 61.1

Per pound equivalent coal used by producer plant..................... 46.2

Per pound equivalent dry coal used by producer plant................. 49.7

Per pound equivalent combustible used by producer plant ............. 55

Horsepower developed.

Average electrical horsepower available for outside purposes ........... 189.8

Average electrical horsepower developed at switch board .............. 200.5

Average brake horsepower f available for outside purposes............. 223.5

Average brake horsepower t developed at engine...................... 235.5

Coal consumed in producer, pounds per horsepower per hour.

Coal as

fired. Dry coal. Combustible.

Per electrical horsepower available for outside purposes ..............................................

Per electrical horsepower developed at switch board..... 

Per brake horsepower t available for outside purposes... 

Per brake horsepowerf developed at engine.............

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per electrical 

horsepower available for outside purposes.............

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per electrical 

horsepower developed at switch board................

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per brake 

horsepowerf available for outside purposes............

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per brake 

horsepower! developed at engine.....................

1.95

1.85

1.66

1.57

2.16

2.05

1.84

1.75

1.81

1.71

1.54

1.46

2.01

1.91

1.71

1.62

1.63

1.55

1.39

1.32

1.81

1.72

1.54

1.46

t Based on an assumed efficiency of 85 per cent for generator and belt.
PEENALD.] PEODUCEE-GAS TESTS. 101 

Average composition of coal and gas.

COAL. Per cent. 

Moisture....................... 7.28

Volatile matter ................ 38.57

Fixed carbon .................. 45.16

Ash ........................... 8.99

Sulphur ....................... -3.86

GAS BY VOLUME. Per centCarbon dioxide .................. 10.87

Oxygen........................ .29

Carbon monoxide .............. 12.45

Hydrogen ..................... 10.92

Methane....................... 6.52

Nitrogen....................... 58.95

. 100.00

The Kentucky No. 3 is a hard bituminous coal and burned in the

producer with a hard top crust. It }delded good gas of uniform

quality and clean black tar. It is well adapted for producer gas.

COAL, MISSOURI NO. 2; PRODUCER-GAS TEST NO. 7.*

[Coal from mine No. 8 of the Northwestern Coal and Mining Company, Bevier,Mo.; tested November

3,1904.]

Duration of test............................................... hours.. 4; 33

Total coal consumed in producer............................. .pounds.. 1,500

Moisture in coal........................................... .per cent.. 11.6

Dry coal consumed in producer.._.:_ ........................pounds.. 1,326

Eefuse from dry coal........................................ per cent.. 16.79

Total refuse from coal....................................... .pounds.. 223

Total combustible consumed in producer ........................do.... 1,103

Coal consumed, pounds per hour.

Coal consumed in producer ........................................... 346.5

Dry coal consumed in producer........................................ 306

Combustible consumed in producer.................................... 255

Equivalent coal used by producer plant................................ 384.5

Equivalent dry coal used by producer plant............................ 339.6

Equivalent combustible used by producer plant........................ 283

British thermal units. 

Per pound of coal as fired............................................. 10,505

Per pound of dry coal ................................................. 11,882

Per pound of combustible............................................. 14,280

Per cubic foot of standard gas .......................................... 140

From standard gas per pound dry coal burned in producer.............. 8,820

From standard gas per hour per brake horsepower...................... 11,560

 Gas produced, cubic feet (reduced to standard).

Total................................................................. 83,545

Per hour.............................................................. 19,300

Per pound coal consumed in producer ................................. 55.7

Per pound dry coal consumed in producer ............................. 63

Per pound combustible consumed in producer.......................... 75.7

Per pound equivalent coal used by producer plant...................... 50.2

Per pound equivalent dry coal used by producer plant.................. 56.8

Per pound equivalent combustible used by producer plant.............. 68.2

* Gas-producer hopper leaked.
102 PEELIMINAEY KEPORT ON COAL-TESTING PLANT. [BULL. 261.

Horsepower developed.

Average electrical horsepower available for outside purpos

Average brake horsepower f available for outside purpose.

368 ............

3.... ..........

Coal consumed in producer, pounds per horsepower per Jiour.-

Per electrical horsepower available for outside purposes. . 

Per electrical horsepower developed at switch board. . . . .

Per brake horsepower t available for outside purposes. . . . 

Per brake horsepower t developed at engine ............

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per electrical

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per electrical

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per brake 

horsepower | available for outside purposes ...........

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per brake

Coal as 

fired.

1.87 

1.74 

1.59 

1.48

2.07 

1.94 

1.76 

1.65

Dry coal.

1.65 

1.54 

1.40 

LSI

1.83 

1.71 

1.55 

1.45

185.7 

198. 6 

218.5 

233.5

Combustible.

1.37 

1.28 

1.17 

1.09

1.52 

1.43 

1.30 

1.21

Average composition of coal and gas.

COAL. Per cent. 

Moisture........................ 11.60

Volatile matter.................. 35. 28

Fixed carbon ..............-..... 38.28

Ash ............................ 14. 84

Sulphur ........................ 4.56

GAS BY VOLUME. Per cent. 

Carbon dioxide ................. 12.07

Oxygen......................... .20

Carbon monoxide ............... 10.53

Hydrogen ...................... 7.63

Methane........................ 6.33

Nitrogen........................ 63. 23

99.99

In using Missouri No. 2 coal some difficulty was experienced in 

keeping the bed in good condition, owing to its tendency to break 

open in spots. The high percentage of sulphur in the coal did not 

add to its value as a producer fuel, but the writer's opinion is that it 

can be used to advantage in producers by increasing the facilities for 

purifying.

COAL, MONTANA NO. 1; PRODTTCER-GAS TEST NO. 5.*

[Coal from mine near Ked Lodge, Mont.; tested October 24-25,1904.]

Duration of test..............................................hours.. 22. 33

Total coal consumed in producer............................ .pounds.. 10,200

Moisture in coal...........................................per cent.. 11.4

Dry coal consumed in producer..............................pounds.. 9,037

Refuse from dry coal.......................................per cent.. 12.12

Total refuse from coal......:.........................--..-. .pounds.. .1,095

Total combustible consumed-in producer....................... .do.... 7,942

* Gas-producer hopper leaked.

f Based on an assumed efficiency of 85 per cent for generator and belt.
FJjRNAU).] PRODUCER-GAS TESTS. 103

Coal consumed, pounds per hour.

Coal consumed in producer .......................................... 456. 5

Dry coal consumed in producer. ...................................... 404. 5

Combustible consumed in producer. .................................. 355. 8

Equivalent coal used by producer plant. .............................. 506. 8

Equivalent dry coal used by producer plant. .......................... 449. 1

Equivalent combustible used by producer plant. ....................... 395

British thermal units.

Per pound of coal as fired ............................................ 10, 575

Per pound of dry coal. .......................:....................... 11, 934

Per pound of combustible. . ........................................... 13, 580

Per cubic foot of standard gas ........................................ . 160. 8

From standard gas per pound of dry coal burned in producer ........... 6, 580

From standard gas per hour per brake horsepower. .................... 11, 340

Gas produced, cubic feet (reduced to standard) . 

Total..... .......................................................... 369,500

Per hour. ........................................................... 16, 540

Per pound coal consumed in producer ................................ 36. 23

Per pound dry coal consumed in producer ............................ 40. 89

Per pound combustible consumed in producer ......................... 46. 50

Per pound equivalent coal used by producer plant ..................... 32. 64

Per pound equivalent dry coal used by producer plant. ................ 36. 80

Per pound equivalent combustible used by producer plant ............. 41. 90

Horsepower developed.

Average electrical horsepower available for outside purposes ............ 191

Average electrical horsepower developed at switchboard ............... 199. 5

Average brake horsepower f available for outside purposes ............. 224. 8

Average brake horsepower t developed at engine. ..................... 234. 7

Coal consumed in producer, pounds per horsepower per hour.

Coal as 

fired. D Ur> coal 0 , - Combustible.

Per electrical horsepower available for outside purposes ... 

Per electrical horsepower developed at switch board ..... 

Per brake horsepower f available for outside purposes ... 

Per brake horsepower t developed at engine ............

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per electrical 

horsepower available for outside purposes ..............

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per electrical 

horsepower developed at switch board ................

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per brake 

horsepower! available for outside purposes.... ........

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per brake 

horsepower! developed at engine..;..........-.......

2.39

2. 29

2. 03

1. 95

2. 65

2. 54

2.26

2.16

2.12

2. 03

1. 80

1. 72

2. 35

2. 25

2.00

1.91

1.86

1. 78

1. 58

1. 52

2. 07

1. 98

1.76

1.68

t Based on an assumed efficiency of 85 per cent for generator and belt.
104 PKELIMINAB¥ REPOKT ON COAL-TESTING PLANT. [BULL. 261. 

Average composition of coal and gas.

COAL. Per cent. 

Moisture........................ 11.40

Volatile matter.................. 34. 55

Fixed carbon.................... 43. 31

Ash............................ 10.74

Sulphur ......................... 1.72

GAS BY VOLUME. Per cent.

Carbon dioxide................. 9.04

Oxygen........................ .36

Carbon monoxide .............. 18. 67

Hydrogen ..................... 8.00

Methane....................... 4.84

Nitrogen........................ 59.10

100.01

The Montana No. 1 coal was a washed slack. It made good gas, 

but was too fine to be burned at the rated output of the producer. It 

clinkered badly, causing the blast to break through the bed in two or 

three places and make bad holes. The test is valuable principally as 

a demonstration that good gas can be made from coal of this class.

It is recommended that a water seal type of producer be used for 

fuel of this class, and also that the coal be fed in sizes not smaller than 

chestnut. In using lump coal the producer should.be 20 per cent 

larger for the same horsepower than one running on ordinary coal; 

and for slack from 25 to 30 per cent larger.

After this test the bed of ashes was drawn from the producer, as 

the large clinkers would have been detrimental to the next following 

test.

COAL, NORTH DAKOTA NO. 2; PRODUCER-GAS TEST NO. 10.*

[Coal from the mine of the Cedar Coulee Coal Company, near Williston, N. Dak.; tested November

14, 15, 1904.]

Duration of test..............................................hours.. 30

Total coal consumed in producer.............................pounds.. 13,800

Moisture in coal........................................... per cent.. 39. 56

Dry coal consumed in producer.............................. pounds.. 8, 340

Refuse from dry coal...................................... .per cent.. 10.53

Total refuse from coal...... 1............................... .pounds.. 878

Total combustible consumed in producer....................... .do.... 7,462

Coal consumed, pounds per hour.

Coal consumed in producer .......................................... 460

Dry coal consumed in producer...................... I................ 278

Combustible consumed in producer................................... 249

Equivalent coal used by producer plant............................... 510

Equivalent dry coal used by producer plant........................... 308

Equivalent combustible used by producer plant....................... 275. 8

British thermal units.

Per pound of coal as fired............................................ 6,802

Per pound of dry coal. .................r.............................. 11, 255

Per pound of combustible............................................ 12,600

Per cubic foot of standard gas .................... ^................... 188.5

From standard gas per pound dry coal burned in producer ............. 7, 830

From standard gas per hour per brake horsepower..................... 13,770

* Gas-producer hopper leaked.
PEUNALD.] PRODUCER-GAS TESTS. 105

Gas produced, cubic feel (reduced to standard).

...............^............................................ 346,400

Per hour........................................................... 11,550

Per pound coal consumed in producer......................

Per pound dry coal consumed in producer .................

Per pound combustible consumed in producer............ . .

Per pound equivalent coal used by producer plant..........

Per pound equivalent dry coal used by producer plant......

Per pound equivalent combustible used by producer plant ..

Horsepower developed.

Average electrical horsepower-available for outside purposes 

Average electrical horsepower developed at switch board ... 

Average brake horsepower f available for outside purposes . 

Average brake horsepower! developed at engine ...........

25.15

41.53

46.42

22.68

37.5

41.88

125.1

134.2

147. 3

158

Coal consumed in producer, pounds per horsepower per hour.

Per electrical horsepower available for outside purposes -. 

Per electrical horsepower developed at switch board .... 

Per brake horsepower t available for outside purposes . . . 

Per brake horsepower! developed at engine ............

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per electrical

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per electrical 

horsepower developed at switch board ................

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per brake

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per brake

Coal as ' 

fired.

3.67 

3.42 

3.13 

2.91

4.07

3.80

3.47

3.23

Dry coal.

2.22 

2.07 

1.89 

1.76

2.46

2.29

2.09

1.95

Combustible.

1.99 

1.86 

1.69

1.58

2.20

2.05

1.88

1.74

Average composition of coal and gas.

COAL. Per cent. 

Moisture........................ 39.56

Volatile matter.................. 27. 78

Fixed carbon ................... 26.30

Ash............................ 6.36

Sulphur ........................ .93

GAS BY VOLUME. Per cent.

Carbon dioxide ................ 8. 69

Oxygen.......................... .23

Carbon monoxide .............. 20.90

Hydrogen ..................... 14.33

Methane....................... 4.85

Nitrogen-.'...:................. 51.02

100.02

This brown lignite would be an ideal gas-producer fuel but for its 

tendency to clinker. It yielded a rich gas and not so very much tar. 

This tar was yellow and sticky and not at all like that from bituminous coal. The bed had to be carried deeper than for soft coal and had 

to be poked frequently to prevent the formation of clinkers. After

t Based on an assumed efficiency of 85 per cent for generator and belt.
106 P&ELIMINABY REPORT ON COAL-TESTING PLANT. [BOLL. MI.

thirty hours' continuous run the bed was in good condition, and the 

test could have been continued or a new run begun without renewing 

the producer bed.

During the test the engine carried only two-thirds of its normal 

load, but there seems to be no doubt that it could have carried full 

load throughout the entire run.

COAL, TEXAS NO. 1; PRODTTCEK-GAS TEST NO. 11.*

[Coal from the mine of the Houston County Coal and Manufacturing Company, nearCrockett, Tex.;

tested November 21, 22,1904.]

Duration of test.............................................. .hours.. 21. 67

Total coal consumed in producer............................ .pounds.. 12,800

Moisture in coal........................................... per cent.. 33.50

Dry coal consumed in producer.......................... ... .pounds.. 8, 510

Refuse from dry coal...................................... .per cent.. 15. 85

Total refuse from coal....................................... pounds.. 1,327

Total combustible consumed in producer.......................do.... 7,183

Coal consumed, pounds per hour.

Coal consumed in producer ..............;........................... . 590

Dry coal consumed in producer....................................... 393

Combustible consumed in producer................................... 332

Equivalent coal used by producer plant................................ 660

Equivalent dry coal used by producer plant........................... - 439.5

Equivalent combustible used by producer plant....................... 371. 3

British thermal units.

Per pound of coal as fired........................................ L... 7,267

Per pound of dry coal................................................. 10,928

Per pound of combustible............................................ 12, 945

Per cubic foot of standard gas ........................................ 169. 7

From standard gas per pound dry coal burned in producer............. 7, 260

From standard gas per hour per brake horsepower..................... 12,230

Gas produced, cubic feet (reduced to standard). 

Total............................................................... 363,654

Per hour............................................................. 16,800

Per pound coal consumed in producer ................................ 28.4

Per pound dry coal consumed in producer ............................ 42. 7

Per pound combustible consumed in producer......................... 50. 6

Per pound equivalent coal used by producer plant..................... 25.5

Per pound equivalent dry coal used by producer plant................. 38.2

Per pound equivalent combustible used by producer plant............. 45.3

Horsepower developed.

Average electrical horsepower available for outside purposes............ 187

Average electrical horsepower developed at switch board .............. 198

Average brake horsepowerf available for outside purposes............. 220

Average brake horsepower f developed at engine...................... 233

* Gas-producer hopper leaked.

t Based on an assumed efficiency of 85 per cent for generator and belt.
FRBNAI.D.] PRODUCER-GAS TESTS.

Coal consumed in producer, pounds per horsepower per hour.

107

t '

Per electrical horsepower available for outside purposes.. 

Per electrical horsepower developed at switch board.....

Per brake horsepower t available for outside purposes . . . 

Per brake horsepower | developed at engine . ... _ ..

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per electrical

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per electrical

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per brake 

horsepower | available for outside purposes ...........

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per brake 

horsepower t developed at engine ....................

Coal as 

fired.

3.16

2.98

2.68 

2.54

3. 53

3.34

3.00

2.83

Dry coal.

2.10 

1.99

1.79 

1.69

2.35

2.22

2.20

1.99

Combustible.

1.78 

1.68

1.51 

1.43

1.99

1.88

1.69

1.60

t Based on an assumed efficiency of 85 per cent for generator and belt.

Average composition of coal and gas.

COAL. Percent.

Moisture........................ 33.50

Volatile matter.................. 32. 34

Fixed carbon ...................... 23.80

Ash............................ 10.36

Sulphur ........................ .63

GAS BY VOLUME. ' Per cent.

Carbon dioxide.................. 11.10

Oxygen....... 1................. .22

Carbon monoxide ............... 14.43

Hydrogen....................... 10.54

Methane........................ 7.48

Nitrogen........................ 56.22

99.99

The Texas No. 1 is a brown lignite strongly resembling that previously tested from North Dakota. The gas from it was not so rich 

as that from the North Dakota lignite, but it was higher in heat units 

than is the gas obtained from ordinary soft coal. The lignite was 

more difficult to handle in the producer than bituminous coal, but 

by frequent poking and by supplying the right amount of air to the 

producer the bed was kept in good condition, and at the end of the 

thirty-hour test it was possible to break up the clinkers in the bed, 

requiring the removal of only a few ashes before beginning a new 

test. This lignite yielded a large amount of tar of the same kind as 

the lignite previously tested. As. a producer fuel it is better than 

many grades of bituminous coal.

COAL, TEXAS NO. 2; PRODUCER-GAS TEST NO. 18. 

[Coal from Consumers Lignite Company, Hoyt, Tex.; tested December 21, 22,1904.] 

Duration of test..............................................hours.. 19.33

Total coal consumed in producer ........................... .pounds.- 9,050

Moisture in coal........................................... per cent.. 33. 71

Dry coal consumed in producer..............................pounds.. 5,999

Refuse from dry coal.......................................per cent.. 10.98

Total refuse from coal.......................................pounds.. 658.7

Total combustible consumed in producer .......................do.... 5,340.3
108 PKELIMINAKY EEPORT ON COAL-TESTING PLANT. [BULL. 261.

Coal consumed, pounds per hour.

Coal consumed in producer .......................................... 468

Dry coal consumed in producer ...................................... 310. 3

Combustible consumed in producer. .................................. 276. 2

Equivalent coal used by' producer plant. ............................ . t. 519. 5

Equivalent dry coal used by producer plant. ........................... 344. 4

Equivalent combustible used by producer plant ....................... 306. 6

British thermal units.

Per pound of coal as fired ............................................ 7, 348

Per pound of dry coal ................................................ 11, 086

Per pound of combustible. .................................'.......... 12, 450

Per cubic foot of standard gas .....:.......................... ........ 156. 2

From standard gas per pound dry coal burned in producer ............. 8, 060

From standard gas per hour per brake horsepower. .................... 10, 570

Gas produced, cubic feet (reduced to standard).

Total ......................: ........................................ 309, 140

Per hour. ........................... . . ............................... 16, 009

Per pound coal consumed in producer ................................ 34. 2

Per pound dry coal consumed in producer ............................ 51. 6

Per pound combustible consumed in producer. ........................ 57. 9

Per pound equivalent coal used by producer plant ...................... 30. 8

Per pound equivalent dry coal used by producer plant ................. 46. 4

Per pound equivalent combustible used by producer plant ............. 52. 2

Horsepower developed.

Average electrical horsepower available for outside purposes ........... 189. 6

Average electrical horsepower developed at switch board .............. 201. 2

Average brake horsepower f available for outside purposes .............. 223

Average brake horsepower f developed at engine ...................... 236. 5

Coal consumed, pounds per horsepower per hour.

Coal as 

fired.

Combustible.

Per electrical horsepower available for outside purposes.. 

Per electrical horsepower developed at switch board. . ... 

Per brake horsepower f available for outside purposes. ... 

Per brake horsepower f developed at engine. ............

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per electrical 

horsepower available for outside purposes.............

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per electrical 

horsepower developed at switch board .................

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per brake 

horsepower f available for outside purposes. . ..........

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per brake 

horsepower | developed atengine.. ---..-.......--.-..

2.47

2. 33

2. 10

1. 98

2.74

2. 58

2. 33

2.20

1.64

1. 54

1. 39

1. 31

1.82

1.71

1. 55

1.46

1.46

1. 37

1. 24

1. 17

1.62

1. 52

1. 38

1.30

f Based on an assumed efficiency of 85 per cent for generator and belt.
FERNAUX] PKODUCER-GAS TESTS. 109 

Average composition of coal and gas.

COAL. Per cent. 

Moisture........................ 33.71

Volatile matter.................. 29.25

Fixed carbon.................... 29.76

Ash ............................ 7.28

Sulphur......................... .53

GAS BY VOLUME. Percent. 

Carbon dioxide.................. 9.60

Oxygen......................... .20

Carbon monoxide ............... 18.22

Hydrogen....................... 9.63

Methane........................ 4.81

Nitrogen........................ 57. 53

99.99

Texas No. 2 is a brown lignite that gave highly satisfactory results 

in the producer, yielding-a rich, uniform gas and a large amount of 

yellow tar. It is an excellent fuel for producers.

COAL, WEST VIRGINIA NO. 1; PRODUCER-GAS TEST NO. 3.

[Coal from the mine of the Virginia and Pittsburg Coal Company, Kingmont, W. Va.; tested October

17,18,1904.] 

Duration of test..............................................hours.. 24

Total coal consumed in producer ............................pounds.. 6,900

Moisture in coal............................................ per cent.. 1.61

Dry coal consumed in producer..............................pounds.. 6, 790

Kef use from dry coal.,........:............................pev cent.. 6.24

Total refuse from coal.......................................pounds.. 423.5

Total combustible consumed in producer........................ do.... 6,366.5

Coal consumed, pounds per hour.

Coal consumed in producer .......................................... 287.5

Dry coal consumed in producer....................................... 283

Combustible consumed in producer................................... 265.5

Equivalent coal used by producer plant............................... 320.6

Equivalent dry coal used by producer plant............................ 315.6

Equivalent combustible used by producer plant ....................... 296.1

British thermal units.

Per pound of coal................................................... 14,166

Per pound of dry coal............ ,. .................................. 14,396

Per pound of combustible........................................ '.... 15,350

Per cubic foot of standard gas....................................... 144.4

From standard gas per pound dry coal burned in producer ............. 9,260

From standard gas per hour per brake horsepower..................... 11,130

Gas produced, cubic feet (reduced to standard).

Total............................................................... 435,500 .

Per hour............................................................ 18,150

Per pound coal consumed in producer ................................ 63.2

Per pound dry coal consumed in producer ............................ 64.1

Per pound combustible consumed in producer......................... 68.4

Per pound equivalent coal used by producer plant..................... 56.6

Per pound equivalent dry coal used by producer plant................. 57.5

Per pound equivalent combustible used by producer plant.............. 61.3
110 PRELIMINAKY REPOBT ON COAL-TESTING PLANT. [BULL. 261.

Horsepower developed.

Average electrical horsepower available for outside purposes. 

Average electrical horsepower developed at switchboard .... 

Average brake horsepower t available for outside purposes .. 

Average brake horsepower f developed at engine ...........

190.1

200.4

223.8

235.5

Coal consumed in producer, pounds per horsepower per hour.

Per electrical horsepower available for outside purposes.. 

Per electrical horsepower developed at switch board.. . . .

Per brake horsepowerf available for outside purposes. . . .

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per electrical

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per electrical

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per brake 

horsepower f available for outside purposes

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per brake

Coal as 

fired.

1.51 

1.43

1.29 

1.22

1.69

1.60

1.43

1.36

Dry coal.

1.49 

1.41

1.27 

1.20

1.66

1.57

1.41

1.34

Combustible.

1.40 

1.33

1.19 

1.13

1.56

1.48

1.33

1.26

Average composition of coal and gas.

COAL. Per cent. 

Moisture....................... 1.61

Volatile matter................. 36. 85

Fixed carbon .................. 55.40

Ash........................... 6.14

Sulphur .87

GAS BY VOLUME. Pet Cent.

Carbon dioxide ................ 10.50

Oxygen........................ .10

Carbon monoxide .............. 14.34

Hydrogen ..................... 2.81

Methane....................... 5.56

Nitrogen....................... 66.69

100.00

Previous to starting the test on this coal the tar extractor was removed 

and a new one substituted. As it was necessary to take the producer 

operator from his work to assist in placing the new extractor, the producer did not receive an}^ attention for a few days and was in bad condition when the test was started. It was thought best to see if the 

producer could be made to carr}^ full load and build up its bed into 

good running condition at the same time. The load was carried and 

the producer was in good shape for the official test six hours after 

being put into operation.

As the coal contained about 50 per cent slack, the producer was run 

with a hot bed, in order to coke the coal quickly after it fell on the 

fire. It made a good top coke, which was readily handled. The fire 

was easily managed and the coal may be considered an excellent fuel 

for producers.

+ Based on an assumed efficiency of 85 per cent for generator and belt.
KEBNALD.] PEODUCEB'GAS TESTS. Ill

COAL, WEST VIRGINIA NO. 4; PRODUCER-GAS TEST NO. 4.

[Coal from the mine of the West Virginia Coal Company, Bretz, W. Va.; tested October 20,1904.]

Duration of test............................................. .hours.. 9

Total coal consumed in producer.............................pounds.. 2,100

Moisture in coal........... , ............................... .per cent.. 1.99

Dry coal consumed in producer.............................. pounds.. 2,058. 2

Refuse from dry coal...................................... .per cent.. 9

Total refuse from coal.......................................pounds.. 184.9

Total combustible consumed in producer .....................pounds.. 1,873.3

Coal consumed, pounds per hour.

Coal consumed in producer .......................................... 233

Dry coal consumed in producer....................................... 229

Combustible consumed in producer................................... 208

Equivalent coal used by producer plant............................... 262.8

Equi\7alent dry coal used by producer plant ........................... 258.2

Equivalent combustible used by producer plant........................ 234.5

British thermal units.

Per pound of coal.................................................... 13,918

Per pound of dry coal................................................ 14,202

Per pound of combustible ............................................ 15,600

Per cubic foot of standard gas ......................................... 143.2

From standard gas per pound dry coal burned in producer ............. 11,610

From standard gas per hour per brake horsepower..................... 11,320

Gas produced, cubic feet (reduced to standard).

Totel............................................................... 167,000

Per hour............................................................ 18,560

Per pound coal consumed in producer................................. 79.6

Per pound dry coal consumed in producer.... . ........................ 81.2

Per pound combustible consumed in producer ......................... 89.2

Per pound equivalent coal used by producer plant..................... 70.6

Per pound equivalent dry coal used by producer plant.................. 71.9

Per pound equivalent combustible used by producer plant.............. 79.2

Horsepower developed.

Average electrical horsepower available for outside purposes............ 189.2

Average electrical horsepower developed at switch board............... 199. 7

Average brake horsepowerf available for outside purposes ............. 222.5

Average brake horsepowerf developed at engine ...................... 235

f Based on an assumed efficiency of 85 per cent for generator and belt.
112 PRELIMINARY REPORT ON COAL-TESTING PLANT. [BULL. 261. 

Coal consumed in producer, pounds per horsepower per hour.

Coal as 

fired. Dry coal. Combustible;

Per electrical horsepower available for outside purposes.. 

Per electrical horsepower developed at switch board..... 

Per brake horsepower f available for outside purposes ... 

Per brake horsepower! developed at engine.............

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per electrical 

horsepower available for outside purposes.............

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per electrical 

horsepower developed at switch board................

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per brake 

horsepowert available for outside purposes............

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per brake 

horsepower f developed at engine.....................

1.23

1.17

1.05

.992

1.39

1.32

1.18

1.12

1.21

1.15

1.03

.975

1.36

1.29

1.16

1.10

1.10

1.04

.935

.885

1.24

1.17

1.05

.998

t Based on an assumed efficiency of 85 per cent for generator and belt.

Average composition of coal and gas.

GAS BY VOLUME. Per cent. 

Carbon dioxide.................. 10.16

Oxygen......................... .24

Carbon monoxide ............... 15.82

Hydrogen ...................... 11.16

Methane........................ 3.74

Nitrogen........................ 58. 88

COAL. Percent. 

Moisture........................ 1.99

Volatile matter.................. 28. 89

Fixed carbon.................... 60. 30

Ash ............................. 8.82

Sulphur ........................ .79

100.00

The West Virginia No. 4 coal is soft and friable, reaching the producer rnainty as slack. It coked well on top of the bed and was 

readily worked. It promised to give the largest yield of gas of all the 

coals used thus far. Owing to the small supply of coal available the 

test was necessarily of short duration, but enough was done to show 

that it is an excellent gas-producer coal.

COAL, WEST VIRGINIA NO. 9, PRODUCER-GAS TEST NO. 17.

[Coal from Vulcan mine of the Mount Carbon Coal Company (Limited), Powellton, W. Va.; tested

December, 19,1904.] 

Duration of test............................................... .hours.. 6.33

Total coal consumed in producer............................. .pounds.. 1,900

Moisture in coal............................................per cent.. 2.66

Dry coal consumed in producer............................... pounds.. 1, 848

Refuse from dry coal........................................per cent.. 5. 89

Total refuse from coal .............................:.........pounds.. 108.9

Total combustible consumed in producer......................pounds.. 1,739.1

Coal consumed, pounds per hour. 

Coal consumed in producer .............................;............

Dry coal consumed in producer.......................................

Combustible consumed in producer...................................

Equivalent coal used by producer plant...............................

Equivalent dry coal used by producer plant...........................

Equivalent combustible used by producer plant .......................

300

292

274.9

328.9

320.1

301.4
FERNALD.] PKODUOER-GAS TESTS. 113

British thermal units. 

Per pound of coal as fired............................................. 14,195

Per pound of dry coal'................................................ 14,580

Per pound of combustible............................................. 15,500

Per cubic foot of standard gas ......................................... 151

From standard gas per pound, dry coal burned in producer ............. 8,150

From standard gas per hour per brake horsepower ..................... 10,060

Gas produced, cubic feet (reduced to standard). 

Total................................................................ 99,781

Per hour............................................................. 15,770

Per pound coal consumed in producer .....^........................... 52.6

Per pound dry coal consumed in producer ...-I......................... 54

Per pound combustible consumed in producer.......................... 57.4

Per pound equivalent coal used by producer plant...................... 48

Per pound equivalent dry coal used by producer plant.................. 49. 3

Per pound equivalent combustible used by producer plant.............. 52.3

Horsepower developed.

Average electrical horsepower available for outside purposes ............ 186.9

Average electrical horsepower developed at switch board ............... 201

Average brake horsepower f available for outside purposes.............. 220

Average brake horsepower! developed at engine ....................... 236.5

Coal consumed in producer, pounds per horsepower per hour.

Coal as i-wvpr,.,! Coinbusflred. Pry^1 - tible.

Per electrical horsepower available for outside purposes.. 1.60 1.56 1.47

Per electrical horsepower developed at switch board..... 1.49 1.46 1.37

Per brake horsepower f available for outside purposes ... 1.36 1.33 1.25

Per brake horsepowerf developed at engine ............ 1.27 1.24 1.16

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per electrical 

horsepower available for outside purposes ............ 1. 76 1.71 1.61

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per electrical 

horsepower developed at switch board................ 1.64 1.59 1.50

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per brake 

horsepower f available for outside purposes ........... 1.49 1.46 1.37

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per brake 

horsepower t developed at engine..................... 1.39 1.35 1.27

Average composition of coal and gas.

COAL. Per cent. GAS BY VOLUME. Per cent. 

Moisture........................ 2.66 Carbon dioxide................. 10.40

Volatile matter.................. 32.00 Oxygen........................ .20

Fixed carbon ................... 59. 61 Cajbon monoxide .............. 13.70

Ash ............................ 5.73 Hydrogen ..................... 9.55

Methane....................... 6.60

Sulphur ........................ 1.00 Nitrogen....................... 59.55

100.00

 f Based on an assumed efficiency of 85 per cent for generator and belt. 

Bull. 261 05 8
114 PRELIMINARY REPORT ON COAL-TESTING PLANT. [BULL. 261.

The West Virginia No. 9 is a rich bituminous coal. It burned well 

and was easily handled in the producer, yielding a gas of uniformly 

good quality. It makes a good producer fuel. On account of an 

accident to the gas engine the test on this coal had to be stopped before 

it was completed. A second test is being made as this report goes to 

press. The results of the second test will be given in the final report.

COAL, WEST VIRGINIA NO. 12, PBODtTCEE-OAS TEST NO. 8.*

[Coal from mine of the Big Sandy Coal and Coke Company, Big Sandy, W. Va.; tested November

7, 8,1904.]

Duration of test..................... if. ...................... .hours.. 30

Total coal consumed in producer.............................pounds.. 8,100

Moisture in coal........................................... per cent.. 1.43

Dry coal consumed in producer..............................pounds.. 7,984

Refuse from dry coal.......................................per cent.. 6.54

Total refuse from coal.......................................pounds.. 522

Total combustible consumed in producer .................;.... .do.... 7,462

Coal consumed, pounds per hour.

Coal consumed in producer .......................................... 270

Dry coal consumed in producer....................................... 266.1

Combustible consumed in producer................................... 248. 7

Equivalent coal used by producer plant............................... 304. 9

Equivalent dry coal used by producer plant..... 1..................... 300.5

Equivalent combustible used by producer plant........................ 280.9

British thermal units.

Per pound of-coal as fired............................................ 14,614

Per pound of dry coal........................... ^...................... 14,825 

Per pound of combustible............................................ 15,860

Per cubic foot of standard gas ........................................ 142.5

From standard gas per pound dry coal burned in producer............. 10,150

From standard gas per hour per brake horsepower..................... 11,500

Gas produced, cubic feet (reduced to standard).

Total............................................................... 568,700

Per hour............................................................ 18,957

Per pound coal consumed in producer ................................ 70.2

per pound dry coal consumed in producer............................. 71. 2

Per pound combustible consumed in producer.......................... 76.2

Per pound equivalent coal used by producer plant..................... 62.1

Per pound equivalent dry coal used by producer plant................. 63.2

Per pound equivalent combustible used by producer plant............. 67.5

Horsepower developed. *

Average electrical horsepower available for outside purposes ........... 191. 3

Average electrical horsepower developed at switch board............... 199.8

Average brake horsepower t available for outside purposes............. 225

Average brake horsepower t developed at engine...................... 235

* Gas-producer hopper leaked.

 ( Based on an assumed efficiency of 85 per cent for generator and belt.
FERNALD.] PBODUCER'GAS TESTS. 115 

Coal consumed in producer, pounds per horsepower per hour.

Coal as 

fired. Dry coal. Combustible.

Per electrical horsepower available for outside purposes.. 

Per electrical horsepower developed at switch board..... 

Per brake horsepowerf available for outside purposes .... 

Per brake horsepowerf developed at engine .............

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per electrical 

horsepower available for outside purposes.............

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per electrical 

horsepower developed at switch board................

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per brake 

horsepower t available for outside purposes ...........

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per brake 

horsepower! developed at engine ....................

1.41

1.35

1.20

1.15

1.59

1.53

1.35

1.30

1.39

1.33

1.18

1.13

1.57

1.50

1.34

1.28

1.30

1.24

1.11

1.06

1.47

1.40

1.25

1.20

t Based 011 an assumed efficiency of 85 per cent for generator and belt.

. Average composition of coal and gas.

COAL. Per cent. 

Moisture........................ 1.43

Volatile matter.................. 18.93

Fixed carbon .................... 73.19

Ash............................ 6.45

Sulphur.......................... .95

GAS BY VOLUME. Per cent.

Carbon dioxide ................ .10.34

Oxygen........................ .12

Carbon monoxide .............. 14.21

Hydrogen ..................... 12.98

Methane ...................... 4.61

Nitrogen....................... 57.75

100.01

The West Virginia No. 12 coal is of good quality and the bed was 

easily handled. It is soft and friable, and in going through the rolls 

much of it was reduced to a fine powder which gave trouble in the 

scrubber and wash box. It yielded considerable tar and may be considered & good gas-producer coal.

COAL, WYOMING NO. 2, PKODTJCEE-GAS TEST NO. 16.

[Coal froVn mine of the Cambria Fuel Company, Cambria, Wyo.; tested December 16,17,1904.]

Duration of test..............................................hours.. 30

Total coal consumed in producer.............................pounds.. 12,100

Moisture in coal ...........................................per cent.. 9.44

Dry coal consumed in producer.............................. pounds.. 10,958

Kefuse from dry coal.......................................per cent.. 22.9

Total refuse from coal...................................... .pounds.. 2,509

Total combustible consumed in producer .......................do:... 8,449

Coal consumed, pounds per hour. 

Coal consumed in producer ..........................................

Dry coal consumed in producer ......................................

Combustible consumed in producer......................J............

Equivalent coal used by producer plant...............................

Equivalent dry coal used by producer plant...........................

Equivalent combustible used by producer plant .......................

403.3 

365^3 

281.6 

459.8 

416.5 

321.1
116 PKELIMINAKY REPORT ON COAL-TESTING PLANT. [BULL. 261.

British thermal units.

Per pound of coal as fired ............................................ 9,650

Per pound of dry coal ............................................... 10,656

Per pound of combustible............................................ 13.820

Per cubic foot of standard gas ........................................ 151

From standard gas per pound dry coal burned in producer ............ 6,168

From standard gas per hour per brake ................... horsepower.. 9,516

Gas produced (cubic feet reduced to standard).

Total.............................:................................. 447,700

Per hour............................................................ 14,923

Per pound coal consumed in producer ................................ 37

Per pound dry coal consumed in producer............................. 40.9

Per pound combustible consumed in producer......................... 53

Per pound equivalent coal used by producer plant............. ^....... 32.5

Per pound equivalent dry coal used by producer plant................. 35.8

Per pound equivalent combustible used by producer plant ............. 46.5

Horsepower developed.

Average electrical horsepower available for outside purpo'ses....:....... 184.8

Average electrical horsepower developed at switch board............... 201.2

Average brake horsepowerf available for outside purposes.............. 217.4

Average brake horsepowerf developed at engine....................... 236.8

Coal consumed in producer, pounds per horsepower per hour.

Coal n , Combusas fired. »ry coal. tible

Per electrical horsepower available for outside purposes.. 2.18 1.98 . 1.52 

Per electrical horsepower developed at switch board..... 2.00 1.82 1.40

Per brake horsepowerf available for outside purposes ... 1.86 1.68 1.30 

Per brake horsepower t developed at engine............. 1.70 1.54 1.19

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per electrical 

horsepower available for outside purposes............ 2.49 2.25 1.74

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per electrical 

horsepower developed at switch board................ 2.28 2.07 1.60

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per brake 

horsepower t available for outside purposes ........... 2.11 1.92' 1.48

Equivalent pounds used by producer plant per brake 

horsepower! developed at engine..................... 1.94 1.76 1.36

Average composition of coal and gas.

COAL. Per cent. GAS BY VOLUME. Per cent

Moisture.......'.,............... 9.44 Carbon dioxide ................ 10.21

Volatile matter.................. 35.02 Oxygen........................ .59

F^xed carbon ................... 34.82 Carbon monoxide .............. 15.46

Ash ............................ 20.72 Hydrogen ..................... 10.79

	Methane....................... 5.52

Sulphur ........................ 3.91 Nitrogen....................... 57.43

100.00 

t Based on an assumed efficiency of 85 per cent for generator and belt. .
Britf summary of producer-gas tests of eighteen bituminous coals and lignites.

TESTS.

No. of 

test.

1

2 

15 

«6

«9 

« 14 

«13

1 

«12

a 7

«5 

«10 

an

18 

3 

4

17 

ag 

16

Date of test.

2

Ocfr. 10-14 . . . 

Dec. 13-14... 

Oct..31-Nov. 1

Nov. 10-11... 

Dec. 2-3 . . . . .

Nov. 28-29... 

Oct. 3-6 ......

Nov. 25-26... 

Nov. 3 .......

Oct. 24-25.... 

Nov. 14-15... 

Nov. 21-22...

Dec. 21-22 . . . 

Oct. 17-18.... 

Oct. 20 ......

Dec. 19 ......

Nov. 7-8......

Dec. 16-17 ...

Duration 

in hours

3

43.00 

30.00 

30.00

30. 00 

29. 67 

7.00

31.00 

30.00 

4.33

22.33 

30.00 

21. 67

19.33 

24.00 

9.00

6.33 

30.00 

30.00

Name of sample.

4

Illinois No. 3....... ..-....--.

North Dakota No. 2 ..........

Texas No. 2...... ............

West Virginia No. 12 .........

Wyoming No. 2..............

COAL PER HOUK, POUNDS.

Consumed in producer.

Coal as 

fired.

5

310.5 

364.4 

350. 0

350.0 

394. 5 

300.0

-361. 0 

370.0 

346. 5

456.5 

460.0 

590.0

468.0 

287.5 

233. 0

300.0 

270.0 

403.3

Dry coal.

6

299.0 

290.7 

323. 3

306.3 

' 349.3 

274.0

344. 0 

343.3 

306.0

404.5 

278.0 

393.0

310.3 

283.0 

229.0

292.0 

266.1 

365.3

Combustible.

7

280.0 

269.3 

289. 3

274. 1 

309.5 

244.8

312.0 

310.0 

255.0

355. 8 

249.0 

332.0

276.2 

265.5 

208.0

274.9 

248. 7 

281.6

Equivalent used by producer 

plant.

Coal as 

fired.

8

341. 4 

428.4 

386.0

398. 2 

434. 6 

338. 0

392.7 

410.8 

384.5

506.8 

510.0 

660.0

519.5 

320.6 

262.8

328.9 

304.9 

459.8

Dry coal.

9

328. 7 

341. 7 

356.7

348. 5 

384.8 

312.0

374.0 

381.2 

339.6

449. 1 

308.0 

439.5

344.4 

315.6 

258.2

320.1 

300.5 

416.5

Combustible.

10

306.8 

316.6 

319. 2

311.9 

341. 0

278.8

339.3 

344.2 

283.0

395.0 

275. 8 

371.3

306.6 

296.1 

234.5

301.4 

280. 9 . 

321.1

BRITISH THERMAL UNITS.

Per pound.

Coal as 

fired.

11

12, 865 

9, 767 

12,046

11,237 

11,534 

11,822

12, 787 

12,283 

10, 505

10, 575 

6,802 

7,267

7, 348 

14,166 

13, 918

14, 195 

14, 614 

9,650

Dry coal.

12

13, 365 

12, 245 

13, 041

12,834 

13, 037 

12, 953

13, 455 

13, 226

11, 882

11,934 

11, 255 

10, 928

11, 086 

14, 396 

14, 202

14, 580 

14, 825 

10, 656

Combustible.

13

14, 820 

13, 210 

14, 560

14, 344 

14, 720 

14, 500

14,800 

.14,650 

14,280

13, 580 

12, 600 

12, 945

12, 450 

15, 350 

15, 600

15, 500 

15, 860 

13, 820

Per cubic 

foot of 

standard 

gas.

14

149.2 

149.0 

154.8

151. 5 

153. 7 

159.3

159.2 

155.9 

140.0

160.8 

188.5 

169.7

156.2 

144.4 

143.2

151.0 

142.5 

151.0

From standard gas per 

pound of dry coal con- " 

sumed in 

producer.

15

9,000 

7,860 

8, 330

8,840 

7, 730 

10, 140

8,620 

8,610 

8,820

6,580 

7, 830 

7,260

8,060 

9,260 

11,610

8,150 

10, 150 

6, 168

From standard gas per 

hour per 

brake horse 

power.

16

11,420 

9,700 

11, 460

11, 620 

11,480 

11, 750

12, 350 

12. 540 

11, 560

11, 340 

13, 770 

12, 230

10, 570 

11, 130 

11, 320

10, 060 

- 11, 500 

. 9, 516

CUBIC FEET STANDARD GAS PRODUCED.

(62° F., 14.7 pounds pressure.)

Per hour.

17

18, 050 

15, 343 

17,412

17, 881 

17, 560 

17,450

18, 613 

18, 943 

19, 300

16, 540 

11, 550 

16, 800

16, 009 

18,150 

18, 560

15, 770 

18, 957 

14, 923

Per pound consumed in 

producer.

Coal as 

fired.

18

58.1 

42.1 

49.8

51.1 

44.5 

58.2

51.6 

51.2 

55.7

36.2 

25.2 

28.4

34.2 

63.2 

79.6

52.6 

70.2 

37.0

Dry 

coal.

19

60.4 

52.8 

53.9

58.4 

50.3 

63.6

54. 1 

55.1 

63.0

40,9 

41.5 

42.7

51.6 

64.1 

81.2

54.0 

71.2 

40.9

Combustible.

20

64.5 

57.0 

60.2

65.3 

56.7 

71.3

59.4 

61.1

 75. 7

46.5 

46.4 

50.6

57.9 

68.4 

89.2

57.4 

76.2 

53.0

Per pound equivalent used 

by producer plant.

Coal as 

fired.

21

52.9 

35.8 

45.1

44.9 

. 40.4 

51.6

47.4 

46.2 

50.2

32.6 

22.7 

25.5

30.8 

56.6

70; 6

48.0 

62.1 

32.5

Dry

coal.

22

55.0' 

44.9 

48.8

51.4 

45.6 

55.9

49.9 

49.7 

56.8

36.8 

37.5 

38.2

46.4 

57.5 

71.9

49.3 

63.2 

35.8

Combustible.

23

58.9 

48.5 

54.5

57.4 

51.5 

62.6

54.6 

55.0 

68.2

41.9 

41.9 

45.3

52.2 

61.3 

79.2

52.3 

67.5 

46.5

ECONOMIC RESULTS.

( Pounds of coal consumed in producerper horsepower per hour.')

Per electrical horsepower 

available for outside 

purposes.

Coal as 

fired.

24

1.61 

1.95 

1.82

1.85 

2.10 

1.57

1.84 

, 1. 95 

1.87

2.39 

3.67 

3.16

2.47 

1.51 

1.23

1.60 

1.41 

2.18

Dry coal.

25

1.55 

1.56 

1.68

1.62 

1.86 

1.43

1.76 

1.81 

1.65

2.12 

2.22 

2.10

1.64 

1.49 

1.21

1.56 

1.39 

1.98

Combustible.

26

1.45 

1.45 

1.50

1.45 

1.64 

1.28

1.59 

1.63 

1.37

1.86 

1.99 

1.78

1.46 

1.40 

1.10

1.47 

1.30. 

1.52

Per electrical horsepower 

developed at switch 

board.

Coal as 

fired.

27

1.55 

1.82 

1.75

1.76 

1.97 

1.49

1.77 

1.85 

1:74

2.29 

3.42 

2.98

2.33 

1.43 

1.17

1.49 

1.35 

. 2.00

Dry coal.

28

1.49 

1.45 

1.62

1.55 

1.75 

1.36

1.69 

1.71 

1.54

2. 03 

2.07 

1.99

1.54 

1.41 

1.15

1.46 

1.33 

1.82

Combustible.

29

1.40 

1.35 

1.45

1.38 

1.55 

1.22

1.53 

1.55 

1.28

1.78 

1.86 

1.68

1.37 

1.33 

1.04

1.37 

1.24 

1.40

Per brake horsepower 

available for outside 

purposes.

Coal as 

fired.

30

1.37 

1.66 

1.54

1.57

1.78 

1.33

1.57 

1.66 

1.59

2.03 

3.13 

2.68

2.10 

1.29 

1.05

1.36 

1.20 

1.86

Dry coal.

31

1.32 

1.32 

1.43

1.37 

1.58 

1.22

1.50 

1.54 

1.40

1.80 

1.89 

1.79

1.39 

1.27 

1.03

1.33 

1.18 

1.68

Combustible.

32

1.23 

1.23 

1.28

1.23 

1.40 

1.09

1.36 

1.39 

1.17

1.58 

1.69 

1.51

1.24 

1.19 

.94

1.25 

1:11 

1.30

Per brake horsepower developed at engine.

Coal as 

fired.

33

1.32 

1.55 

1.49

1.50 

1.68 

1.27

1.50 

1.57 

1.48

1.95 

2.91 

2.54

1.98 

1.22 

.99

1.27 

1.15 

1.70

Dry coal.

34

1.27 

1.23 

1.38

1.31 

1.49 

1.16

1.43 

1.46 

1.31

1.72 

1. 76 

1.69

1.31 

1. 20. 

.98

1.24 

1.13 

1.54

Combustible.

35

1.19 

1.14 

1.23

1.17 

1.32 

1.03

1.30 

1.32 

1.09

.1.52 

1.58 

1.43

1.17 

1.13 

.89

1.16 

1.06 

1.19

ECONOMIC RESULTS.

(Equivalent pounds of coal used by producer plant per horsepower per hour.)

Per electrical horsepower 

available for outside 

purposes. 

Coal as 

fired.

36

1.77 

2.30 

2.01

2.11 

2.31 

1.77

2.00 

2.16 

2.07

2^65 

4.07 

3.53

2.74 

1.69 

1.39

1.76 

1.59 

2.49

Dry coal.

37

1.71 

1.83 

I. 85

1.84 

2.04 

1. 63

1.91 

2,01 

1,83

2.35 

2.46 

2.35

1.82 

1. 66 

1.36

1.71 

1.57 

2.25

Combustible.

38

1.59 

1.70 

1.66

1.65 

1.81 

1.46

1.73 

1.81 

1.52

2.07 

2.20 

.1.99

1.62 

1.56 

1.24

1.61 

1.47 

1.74

Per electrical horsepower 

developed at switch 

board.

Coal as 

fired.

39

1.71 

2.14 

1. 93

2.01 

2. 17 

1.68

1.92 

2.05 

1.94

2.54 

3.80 

 3.34

2.58 

1.60 

1.32

1.64 

1.53 

2.28

Dry coal.

40

1.64 

1.71 

1.79

1.76 

1 . 93 

1. 55

1.83 

1.91 

- 1.71

2.25 

2.29 

2.22

1.71 

1.57 

1.29

1.59 

1.50 

2.07

Combustible.'

41

1.53 

1.58 

1.60

1.57 

1.71 

1.39

1.66 

1:72 

1.43

1.98 

2.05 

1..88

1.52 

1.48 

1.17

1.50 

1.40 

1,60

Per brake horsepower 

available for outside 

purposes.

Coal as 

fired.

42

1.51 

.1.95 

1.70

1.79 

1.96

1.52

1.71 

. 1. 84 

1.76

2.26 

3.47 

3.00

2.33 

1.43 

1.18

1.49 

1.35 

2.11

Dry coal.

43

1.45 

1.56 

1.58

1.56 

1.74 

1.39

1.62 

1.71 

1.55

2.00 

2.09 

2.20

1.55 

1.41 

1.16

1.46 

1.34 

1.92

Combustible.

44

1.35 

1.44 

1.41

1.40 

1.54 

1.24

1. 47 

1.54 

1.30

1.76 

1.88 

1.69

1.38 

1.33 

1.05

1.37 

1.25 

1.48

Per brake horsepower developed at engine.

Coal as 

fired.

45

1.45 

1.82 

1.64

1.71 

1.85 

1.43

1.64 

1.75 

1.65

2.16 

3*. 23 

2.83

2.20 

1.36 

1.12

1.39 

1.30 

1.94

Dry coal.

46

1.40 

1.45 

1.52

1.50 

1.64 

1.32

1.56 

1.62 

1.45

1.91 

1.95 

1.99

1.46 

1.34 

1.10

1.35 

1.28 

1.76

Combustible.

47

1.30 

1.34 

1.36

1. 34 

1.45 

1.18

1.41 

1.46 

1.21

1.68 

1.74 

1.60

1.30 

1.26 

1.00

1.27 

1.20 

1.36

AVERAGE COMPOSITION OF GAS BY VOLUME, PER CENT.

Carbonic 

acid, COo.

48

8.16 

10. 11 

10.53

9.72 

9.89 

11.80

8.25 

10.87 

12.07

9.04 

8.69 

11.10

9.60 

10.50 

10.16

10.40 

10. 34 

10.21

Oxygen,

Oo.

49

.10 

.55 

.15

.12 

.25 

.07

.11 

,29 

.20

.36 

.23 

.22

.20 

.10

.24

.20 

. 12 

.59

Carbonic 

oxide, CO.

5.0

16.65 

1.7. 38 

15.31

15.12 

14.10 

11.46

19.39 

12.45 

10.53

18.67 

20.90 

14.43

18.22 

14.34 

15.82

13. 70 

14.21 

15.46

Hydrogen, Ho.

51

7.20 

11.05 

8.35

9.98 

9.56 

10.60

7.69 

10.92 

7.63

8.00 

14. 33 

10.54

9.63 

2.81 

11.16

9.55 

12.98 

10.79

Marsh 

gas, CH4 .

52

5.64 

5.00 

4.46

6.00 

6.08 

6.10

4.92 

6.52 

6.33

4. 84 

4.85

7.48

4.81 

5.56 

3.74

6.60 

4.61 

5.52

Nitrogen,

53

62.24 

55.90 

-61. 19

59.06 

60.13 

59.97

59.65 

58.95 

63.23

59.10 

51.02 

56.22

57.53 

66.69

58.88

59.55 

57.75. 

57.43

Name of sample.

4

Illinois No. 3 ................

North Dakota No. 2 ..........

Texas No. 1 ..................

Texas No. 2. .................

"We^t Virginia No 4

West Virginia No. 1 2 .........

No. of

test.

1

2 

15

«6

«9. 

«14 

«13

1 

«12

a 7

«5 

a 10 

«11

18 

3 

4

17 

«8 

16

Bull. 261 05. (Face page 117.)

a Gas producer hopper leaked during these tests.
FERNAMXJ PRODUCER-GAS TESTS. > 117

The Wyoming No. 2 is a bituminous coal. It burned without any 

clinkering, leaving a large amount of white ash similar to that obtained 

from wood. The gas was not uniform in quality, on account of the difficulty experienced in keeping the bed in good condition. An unusually 

large amount of yellow tar was taken from the gas.

SUMMARY OF RESULTS.

 The table given herewith shows in a condensed form the results 

obtained in the producer-gas tests.
COMPARISON OF RESULTS OBTAINED FROM 

STEAM AND PRODUCER-GAS TESTS.

By ROBERT H. FERNALD and L. P. BRECKENRIDGE.

STEAM PLANT.

The accompanying table, showing the comparative results of burning the various coals under the boiler and in the gas producer, is of 

much interest and value.

It is to be recollected that the steam generated by the boiler was 

used in a simple noncondensing engine of the Corliss type, whose 

"water rate" was 26.3 pounds of steam per hour per horsepower 

developed; that this engine was belted to the electric generator, and 

that the mechanical efficiency of this combination of engine and 

generator was 81 per cent. ^-

With these figures available it will be an easy matter to calculate 

the number of pounds of coal which would have been required to produce an electrical horsepower provided a more economical type of 

steam engine had been used, or if the electrical generator had been 

directly connected to the engine, with the resulting advantage of a 

higher mechanical efficiency.

If, for example, the steam generated had been used t>y a steam 

engine capable of generating 1 horsepower with 18 pounds of steam 

per hour, and if the engine and generator had been direct connected, 

giving as high a mechanical efficiency as 90 per cent, then the "Total 

dry coal per electrical horsepower per hour " would have been reduced 

from 4.3 pounds, as given in column 13, to very nearly 3 pounds.

While these figures are frequently and easily attained by steam 

engines operating in large units, it will be conceded that in plants of 

from 200 to 250 horsepower they are but seldom reached.

It should be mentioned that the labor required would be the same 

for the operation of either the boiler plant or the gas-producer plant 

of the capacity under tests. In either plant two men would be 

sufficient. 

118
Comparative summary of the leading results of the coal tests made under the boile

Name of sample.

Illinois No. 3........ ....................

West Virginia No. 9.....................

West Virginia No. 12. ...................

Duration of trial.

Steam 

plant.

Hours: 

10.02 

9.97 

10.13 

10.02 

9.93 

10.13 

9.75 

10.07 

9.98 

9.98 

10.00 

10.00 

10.13 

9.95

Gasproducer 

plant.

Hours. 

43.00 

30.00 

30.00 

30.00 

29.67 

7.00 

31.00 

30.00 

4.33 

24.00 

9.00 

6.33 

30.00 

30.00

,

Total dry coal consumed per bour.a

Steam 

plant.

Pounds. 

874 

. 722 

861 

938 

908 

832 

778 

882 

1,014 

768 

7.70 

721 

719 

1,075

Gasproducer 

plant.

Pounds. 

328.7 

341, 7 

356.7 

348.5 

384.3 

. 312. 0 

374. 0 

381.2 

339.6 

315.6 

258.2 

320.1 

300.5 

416.5

Dry coal burned 

per square foot of 

grate surface 

per hour.

Steam 

plant.

Pounds. 

21.54 

17.80 

21.23 

23. 13 

22.39 

20.51 

.19. 17 

21. 75 

25.00 

18.94 

18.98 

17.78 

17.68 

26.51

Gasproducer 

plant.b

Pounds. 

7.78 

7.56 

8.41 

7.96 

9.08 

7.13 

8.95 

8.92 

7.96 

7.36 

5.96 

7.60 

6.92 

9.50

Water 

evaporated 

from and 

at 212° F. 

per pound 

of dry coal.

Steam 

plant.

Pounds. 

8.55 

7.21 

8.04 

7.27 

8.45 

8.02 

8.64 

8.27 

7.08 

8.95 

9.65 

10.09 

9.90 

5.92

B. T

of d

Ste

pl

12

12

12

12

13

12

12

13

11

14

14

14

15

10

a In gas-producer plant this includes the coal consumed in the producer and the coal equivalent of t

bCoal actually consumed in producer only.

c Gas-producer hopper leaked during these tests.
120 PRELIMINARY REPORT ON COAL-TESTING PLANT. [BOLL. 261. 

GAS-PRODUCER PLANT.

In considering .the possible increase in efficiency of the boiler tests 

with a compound engine substituted for the simple engine used, the 

fact should not be overlooked that a corresponding increase in the 

efficiency of the gas-producer tests may be brought about under the 

most favorable conditions. The gas engine is passing through a transitional period. In the larger sizes the vertical single-acting engine is 

being replaced by the horizontal double-acting. Other changes and 

improvements are constantly being made which tend to do for the gas 

engine what compounding and tripling the expansions have already 

done for the steam engine.

The gas engine used in the trials recorded is a vertical three-cylinder, single-acting engine with no means of changing the ignition while 

the engine is running. A brief consideration of these points will lead 

at once to the conclusion that the gas engine and steam engine used in 

these tests compare very favorably, and that any increase in efficiency 

in the boiler tests that might result from using a compound engine 

can be offset h*> tUa introduction of the more modern type of gas 

engine.
COKING TESTS.

By FRED. W. STAMMLEK.

INTRODUCTION.

The tests of the coking qualities of the coals received at the testing

plant were made°in a battery of three bee-hive ovens. The ovens are 

of standard size and shape, 12 feet in diameter and 7 feet high,' and 

they were built from plans furnished by Mr. John Fulton, the wellknown expert on coke making,, of Johnstown, Pa. The writer was 

assisted in making the coking tests by Mr. B. B. Boyd, of Uniontown, 

Pa. The analyses given in the table at the end of this report, of coals 

that were charged in the coke ovens, and of the resulting cokes, were 

all made at the chemical laboratory of the testing plant under the 

direction of Prof. N. W. Lord, of Columbus, Ohio.

The ovens were fired on September 10, and were kept in blast until 

December 16. During this time 61 tests were made, embracing 44 

different coals, coming from 11 States. Thirty-two tests were made 

on 29 different samples of raw coal, and 27 tests were made on 24 

samples of washed coal. Two tests were made on briquettes of noncoking coal, having an additional amount of volatile matter used as a 

binding material. All of the coal charged into the ovens was first 

passed through rolls reducing it to 1£ inches or smaller.

RESULTS OF TESTS.

The results of the coking tests have been arranged alphabetically by 

States, the general number adopted for all tests being given for ready 

identification, and are briefly summarized as follows:

Alabama No. 1. Lump and nut coal from mine No. 8, Ivy Coal 

and Iron Company, Horse Creek, Ala.

Two charges were made of this coal, the first being unwashed and the 

second washed. The first charge of unwashed coal consisted of 8,000 

pounds. Although the coking process was continued for 88 hours, the 

coke was very light, of a spongy structure, and high in ash. Washing 

reduced the percentage of impurities but slightly, though it is believed

121
PRELIMINARY REPORT OK COAL-TESTING PLANT. [BULL. 261.

that with more thorough washing a coke of good quality might be 

obtained. The charge of washed coal weighed 9,800 pounds, was 

burned for 65 hours, and produced 5,731 pounds of coke, a a percentage 

yield of 58.5. This coke was also soft and high in ash.

Alabama No.. %. Lump, nut, and pea coal from mine No. 5, Gallowa}7 Coal Company, Carbon Hill, Ala.

The coal used in this test was unwashed, the charge weighing 8,000 

pounds. It coked imperfectly in small pieces, which were very soft, 

and which were mixed with charred coal and ash. The coal is high 

in ash (13.04 per cent), but if properly washed may yield a coke of 

fair grade. i 

Arkansas No. 1. Lump and nut coal from mine No. 3, Central 

Coal and Coke Company, Huntington, Ark.

The charge consisted of 8,075 pounds of unwashed coal, which showed 

no tendency to coke and burned to ash. The volatile constituents 

are too low to make coke in the beehive oven. If properly washed 

this coal may make coke in a retort oven. It is high in ash (13.01 per 

cent) and also somewhat high in sulphur.

Arkansas No. 2. Lump coal from mine No. 12, Central Coal and 

Coke Company, Bonanza, Ark. Same result as obtained from 

Arkansas No. 1.

Arkansas No. 3. Lump and slack coal from mine No. 18, Western. 

Coal and Mining Company, Jenny Lind, Ark. This was an experimental charge of a small amount of briquettes made from unwashed 

coal and placed in an oven with a coking coal. The briquettes contained 6 per cent of hard pitch and they produced a dense coke high 

in ash.

Arkansas No. 6. Slack coal from mine No. 18, Western Coal and 

Mining Company, Jenny Lind, Ark.

The behavior of these two coals in the ovens was practically the 

same as that of Arkansas No. 1, except that No. 6 was washed and the 

percentage of ash shows a noticeable reduction.

The charge for a second test consisted of equal parts of unwashed 

coal crushed and mixed with 8 per cent of hard pitch, and the same 

material made into briquettes on the English machine. The addition 

of the pitch, by increasing the volatile matter, caused the coal to 

fuse and produced coke. The coke, however, was very dark and had 

large cells. The test is interesting, since it shows that a naturally 

noncoking coal may be made to coke by an addition of pitch. This 

charged weighed 8,000 pounds, was burned 42 hours, and yielded 

4,056 pounds of coke and 539 pounds of breeze and ash.

Illinois No. 1. Lump and nut coal from mine No. 1, Western 

Anthracite Coal and Coke Company, O'Fallon, 111.

a Exclusive of 352 pounds of breeze and ash.
STAMMLER.] COKING TESTS. 123

This test was made on a charge of 9,000 pounds of tin washed coal, 

which was burned for 43 hours. It produced some small pieces of 

coke, mixed with charred coal and ash. The coal is too high in ash 

(15.95 per cent) and sulphur (4.14 per cent) to produce a coke fit for 

blast-furnace use.

Illinois No. 2. Slack coal from the same mine as No. 1.

This coal was washed (p. 62) before charging into the ovens, reducing the ash to 9.19 per cent. The amount of coal charged was 9,000 

pounds, which after burning 64 hours yielded 3,389 pounds of mixed 

hard and soft coke and 352 pounds of breeze and ash. The coke contained 20.18 per cent of ash and 2.75 per cent of sulphur.

Illinois No. 3. Run-of-mine coal from mine No. 3, Southern Illinois 

Coal Mining and Washing Company, near Marion, 111.

Two charges were made of this coal, one unwashed, the other washed.

The unwashed charge of 9,000 pounds was tested for 43 hours. The

coal lay dead in the oven, burning .on top, but did not coke. The 

unwashed coal contained 10.59 per cent ash. The washed charge carried 5.86 per cent ash, being a reduction of nearly 50 per cent (p. 66). 

This charge of washed coal consisted of 13,000 pounds and was burned 

90'hours, yielding 6,378 pounds of coke, which was very brittle and 

which broke up in handling into fine-fingered pieces. The breeze and 

ash in this oven weighed 834 pounds.

Illinois No. 5. Grade No. 5, washed slack from mine No. 1, Donk 

Bros. Coal and Coke Company, Collinsville, 111.

Three tests were made of this coal, as it was reported that it had 

been coked successfully in pits. All of the coal was washed before 

charging and each charge was burned for 42 hours. In the first test 

the coal was charged as it was received, but no coke was produced. 

In the second test the coal was revvashed through the New Centuiy 

jig (p. 67), but it was charged wet and the oven was chilled and the 

coal would not burn. In the last test the oven was heated by an extra 

charge of coal and the charge was made in a red-hot oven, but even 

with this precaution the coal would not coke. In each instance the 

coal burned out on top, but otherwise lay dead in the oven and would 

not coke under existing conditions. All of the Illinois coals are too 

high in sulphur to make good blast-furnace coke.

Indiana No. 1. Run-of-uiine coal from Mildred mine, J. Woolley 

Coal Company, Mildred, Ind.

This coal was crushed and washed (p. 64). The charge consisted 

of 8,000 pounds and was butned for 40 hours. It produced 3,473 

pounds of fair coke of medium weight, bright gray, but brittle and 

rather high in sulphur. The breeze and ash amounted to 368 pounds.

Indian Territory No. 1. Lump and slack coal from mine No. 1, 

Whitehead Coal and Mining Company, Henryetta, Ind. T.
124 PE^LIMiNAEY EEPOET Ofi COAL-TESTIim PLANT. [BULL.261.

This test was made on 8,095 pounds of unwashed coal. It lasted 40 

.hours, and nothing but ash was left in the oven. The coal showed no 

tendency to coke.

Indian Territory No. 2. Run-of-mine coal from mine No. 8, of 

Rock Island Coal Company, Hartshorne, Ind. T.

Two tests were made on this coal, washed and unwashed. Both 

charges weighed 9,000 pounds. The unwashed charge was burned for 

66 hours, and yielded 5,725 pounds of coke and 580 pounds of breeze 

and ash. The coke was very soft, shattered and brittle, and somewhat 

high in sulphur. The washed charge contained one-third less ash than 

the unwashed (p. 67). It was burned for 65 hours, producing a coke 

which was hard and which had a fairly good ring. It showed considerable improvement in appearance over the coke made from unwashed 

coal, but the sulphur content was not materially reduced.

Indian Territory No. 3. Run-of-mine coal from mine No. .1, D. 

Edwards & Sons, Edwards, Ind.,T.

Two tests were made on this coal, the first being on 12,000 pounds 

of unwashed coal, burned 65 hours, and the second on 14,000 pounds 

washed coal, burned 66 hours. The washed coal, instead of showing 

a reduced percentage of sulphur, showed a gain (p. 68). Neither 

charge yielded coke. The ovens when drawn contained small pieces of 

charred coal and ash.

Indian Territory No. 5. Slack and pea coal from mine No. 7, Western Coal and Mining Company, Lehigh, Ind. T.

This test was made on 10,000 pounds of washed coal and was continued for 65 hours (p. 68). It produced some small pieces of coke, 

fritted together, light and soft. The general conclusion regarding the 

Territory coals tested is that when properly washed they will produce 

coke, but not of a character suited for iron smelting, as the sulphur

is too intimately combined or mixed with the coal to be removed by 

washing.

'Imoa No. 1. Lump and fine coal from mine No. 2, Anchor Coal 

Company, Laddsdale, Iowa.

In this test, as in all those on Iowa coals, the charge was of washed 

coal (p. 68). The charge weighed 9,500 pounds, and after burning 46 

hours yielded 4,828 pounds of coke and 572 pounds of breeze and ash. 

The coke was brittle, with cracks lengthwise and crosswise through it. 

It was also high in sulphur and ash.

Iowa No. 2. Run-of-mine coal from mine No. 5, Mammoth Vein 

Coal Company, Hamilton, Iowa. *

The charge in this test consisted of 10,000 pounds of washed coal, 

which was burned for 64 hours (p. 69). The coke (3,866 pounds with 

1,153 pounds of breeze and ash) was all in small pieces sintered together 

and with no bond.
STAMMLEK.] . COKING TESTS. ' 125

Iowa No. 3. Lump coal from mine No. 4, Gibson Coal Mining 

Company, Altoona, Iowa.

The charge in this test consisted of 8,000 pounds of washed (p. 69) 

coal, which was burned for 43 hours. It yielded 3,336 pounds of fine-' 

fingered brittle coke that was high in sulphur and ash, and 585 pounds 

of breeze and ash.

Iowa No. 4- Lump coal, from mine No. 3, Centerville, Block Coal 

Company, Centerville, Iowa.

The coke produced in this test was of the same general character as 

that obtained from Iowa No. 3, except that it was not quite so high in 

either sulphur or ash. The charge consisted of 8,000 pounds of 

washed (p. 69) coal, which was burned for 40 hours, producing 3,722 

pounds of coke and 426 pounds of breeze and ash.

Iowa No. 5. Run-of-mine coal from Inland mine No. 1, Inland 

Fuel Company, Chariton, Iowa.

The result of this test, made on 9,000 .pounds of washed (p. 70) coal, 

and burned 66 hours, was a mixture of unburned coal, charred coke, 

and ash.

All of the Iowa coals tested are too high in sulphur to produce 

blast-furnace coke, and as the sulphur occurs largely as gypsum it 

can not be removed by washing. The ash is also high in relation to 

the fixed carbon.

Kansas No. 1. Run-of-mine coal from mine No. 10, Western Coal 

and Mining Companj7 , Fleming, Kans.

In making this test a charge of 11,300 pounds was made, and this 

was burned for 120 hours. , At the end of" the period the charge was 

found to be sintered on top, while under this sintering was a thin layer 

of light coke, with the remainder of the coal in the oven uncoked or 

burned.

Kansas No'. 2. Lump, nut, and slack coal from mine No. 11, Western Coal and Mining Company, Yale, Kans.

The behavior of this coal in the oven was similar to that of Kansas 

No. 1, showing no tendency to coke, although the charge of 9,125 

pounds was burned for 159 hours.

Kansas No. 3. Run-of-mine coal from mine No. 9, Southern Coal 

and Mercantile Company, Scammon, Kans.

This charge consisted of 7,100 pounds of unwashed coal, which was 

burned for 96 hours. It coked for about 12 inches from the top, 

while the remainder was simply charred coal and ash.

Kansas No. 4- Lump coal from Atchison Coal Mining Company, 

Atchison, Kans.

This coal showed more of a tendency to coke than any of the other 

coals from Kansas. The charge, consisting of 10,000 pounds, was 

burned for 67 hours. It yielded 5,213 pounds of hard but brittle coke 

and 432 pounds of breeze and ash. The coke is, however, too high in
126 PRELIMINARY REPORT ON COAL-TESTING PLANT. [BULL. 261.

sulphur (6.15 per cent) for use in an iron furnace, but it may be used 

in lead and zinc smelters, for which purpose a high percentage of 

sulphur is not detrimental.

Kentucky No. 1. Run-of-mine coal from Straight Creek mine No. 

2 of the National Coal and Iron Company, Straight Creek, Kentucky.

..This test was made on 10,000 pounds of unwashed coal burned for 

66 hours. It produced 5,441 pounds of hard coke, which was fineh'ngered and easily broken into small pieces. The breeze and ash 

weighed 355 pounds.

Kentucky No. 3. Run-of-mine coal from Barnslej^ mine of St. Bernard Mining Company, Earlington, Ky.

In this test the charge consisted of 10,000 pounds of washed coal 

(p. 70), burned for 66 hours. It produced a coke of fair quality, of 

good color and ring, but somewhat high in sulphur. It produced 

5,433 pounds of coke and 426 pounds of breeze and ash.

Kentucky No. 4-~~Run-of-mine coal from Wheatcroft Coal and 

Mining Company, Wheatcroft, Ky.

This test was also made on 10,000 pounds washed coal (p. 70), 

which was burned for 66 hours, and yielded 5,558 pounds of coke and 

313 pounds of breeze and ash. The coke was of good color and ring, 

but like Kentucky No. 4, was too high in sulphur for blast-furnace 

use.

Missouri No. 2. Run-of-mine coal from mine No. 8 of the Northwestern Coal and Mining Company, Bevier, Mo.

This charge consisted of 12,000 pounds washed coal (p. 70), which 

was coked for 87 hours. It yielded 5,040 pounds of long-fingered 

brittle coke, having large pieces of slate mixed through it. The breeze 

and ash amounted to 580 pounds. The coke-is high in both sulphur 

and ash.

Missouri No. 3. Slack coal from Mendota Coal and Mining Company, Mendota, Mo.

This coal showed no tendency whatsoever to coke, although it was 

washed (p. 65) and burned for 42 hours.

Missouri No. 4' Run-of-mine coal from Morgan County Coal Company, near Barnett, Mo.

This coal produced a coke of fair grade, of a gray color, and of a 

good metallic ring. The charge was 11,000 pounds of unwashed coal, 

and yielded 4,905 pounds of coke and 128 pounds of breeze and ash. 

The coke, however, is too high in sulphur for blast-furnace use, but it 

is believed that the quality of this coke could be improved by washing 

the coal before charging into the ovens.

West Virginia No. 1. Run-of-mine coal, Virginia and Pittsburg 

Coal Company, Kingmount, W. Va.

This test was made on 9,000 pounds of unwashed coal. The charge 

was burned for 64 hours and yielded 5,572 pounds of coke and 268
STAMMLER.] COKING TESTS. ' 127

pounds of breeze and ash. The coke was of good quality, but somewhat brittle. . -

West Virginia No. 2. Run-of-mine coal from Pitcairn mine of the 

Pitcairn Coal Company, Clarksburg, W. Va.

Two tests were made of this coal, unwashed and washed. The first 

charge was 9,000 pounds of unwashed coal, producing 5,235 pounds of 

gray coke, somewhat brittle and high in sulphur and ash. The washed 

coal (p. 71), of which 13,000 pounds was charged, showed an improvement in the coke, though the sulphur was still too high for blastfurnace use. The yield from the second charge was 7,808 pounds, or 

60 per cent, as compared with 58.2 per cent from the unwashed coal.

West Virginia No. 3. Run-of-mine coal from West Virginia Coal 

Company, Richard, W. Va.

Two tests, one of unwashed and one of washed coal, were made on 

this sample. The charge of unwashed coal weighed 9,000 pounds and

was coked 41 hours. It yielded 5,929 pounds of coke of gray color, 

brittle and somewhat high in ash, and 364 pounds of breeze and ash. 

The washed charge (p. 71) weighed 14,000 pounds, was coked for 66 

hours, and yielded 9,070 pounds of coke of the same character as noted 

above and 535 pounds of ash and breeze. The qualitjr of the coke was 

not improved by washing, except by a small reduction in the amount 

of ash.

The first test of 41 hours' duration gave a yield of 65.9 per cent, the 

second test of 66 hours gave a yield of 64.8 per cent.

West Virginia No. 4- Run-of-mine coal from West Virginia Coal 

Company, Bretz, W. Va.

This coal was tested washed and unwashed. The unwashed charge 

contained 12,000 pounds. It was burned for 65 hours and yielded 

8,907 pounds, or 74.2 per cent, of coke, and 428 pounds of breeze and 

ash. The charge of washed coal (p. 71) weighed 9,000 pounds. It was 

coked for 42 hours and yielded 6,367 pounds, or 70.7 per cent, of coke, 

and 374 pounds of breeze and ash. The coke obtained was of good 

color, but was somewhat impaired by cross fractures. No improvement was noticed as a result of washing.

West Virginia No. 5. Lump and nut coal from Davis Colliery 

Company, Coalton, W. Va.>

 Three coking tests were made on this shipment, one of unwashed 

and one of washed run-of-mine, crushed before coking to li inches 

in diameter, and one of pulverized coal which was washed in the New 

Century jig (p. 72). The first charge of unwashed coal, weighing 

13,000 pounds, was burned for 64 hours and yielded 8,298 pounds, or 

63.8 per cent, of coke, and 497 pounds of ash and breeze. The washed 

charge, weighing 13,000 pounds, was burned 66 hours. It yielded 

7,163 pounds, or 55.1 per cent, of coke, and 461 pounds of ash and 

breeze. The pulverized coal, weighing 10,000 pounds, was burned 69
128 PEELIMINAEY REPORT ON COAL-TESTING PLANT. [BULL.261.

hours and yielded 4,256 pounds, or 42.56 per cent, of coke, and 229 

pounds of ash and breeze. The results showed that the coal would 

make a good coke if the ash could be materially reduced. Washing 

in this case lowered the percentage of ash from 19.14 per cent in the 

first test to 14.81 per cent in the second and 15.98 per cent in the 

third. The results of these tests show that the washing of this coal 

for coking purposes is advisable.

West Virginia No, 6. Run-of-mine coal from the New River 

Smokeless Coal Company, Rush Run, W. Va.

Three tests were made on this coal, which was unwashed. The first 

charge, consisting of 13,000 pounds, was burned for 90 hours, and 

yielded 8,303 pounds, or 63.9 per cent, of light-gray, soft coke. The 

second charge, which consisted of 9,000 pounds, was burned for 66 hours, 

and yielded 6,399 pounds, or 71.1 per cent, of coke, of somewhat better 

quality than the first, although still gray and light. The charge consisted of 8,000 pounds of pulverized coal. It was burned for 44 hours, 

and yielded 5,849 pounds, or 73.1 per cent, of coke, which was dense 

and tough, but light in weight and color, and of poor ring.

West Virginia No. 7. Run-of-mine coal from the New River 

Smokeless Coal Company, Sun, W. Va.

This test was made on unwashed coal, the charge weighing 8,000 

pounds. It produced 5,119 pounds, or 64 per cent, of coke of good 

size and quality, but rather dark in color.

West Virginia No. 8. Run-of-mine coal from Gauley Mountain 

Coal Company, Ansted, W. Va.

This test was made on 11,000 pounds of unwashed coal, which was 

burned for 66 hours and yielded 7,124 pounds, or 64.7 per cent, of 

coke, and 589 pounds of ash and breeze. The coke was hard, of good 

color, although of somewhat irregular cell structure.

West Virginia No. 9. Run-of-mine coal from Vulcan mine of the

Mount Carbon Coal Company (Limited), Powellton, W. Va.

Two tests were made on this coal, the first being unwashed, the 

second washed. The unwashed charge weighed 10,000 pounds, and was 

burned 40 hours. It yielded 6,084 pounds, or 60.8 per cent, of coke, 

and 314 pounds of breeze and ash. The coke was heavy and grayish 

in color. It was of good quality, though slightly brittle. The coke 

from the washed coal (p. 72) showed much improvement over that 

from the unwashed coal, and could be considered a high-grade coke. 

The charge of washed coal weighed 11,000 pounds, burned for 66 

hours, and yielded 6,803 pounds, or 61.8 per cent, of coke, and only 78 

pounds of ash and breeze.

West Virginia No. 10. Lump and run-of-mine coal from Stuart lVI. 

Buck, Mora, W. Va.

This test was made on 11,000 pounds of unwashed coal. It was 

burned for 68 hours and yielded 7,858 pounds, or 71.4 per cent, of
8TAMMLER.J COKING TESTS. 129

good, hard, heavy coke, slightly off color, and 429 pounds of ash and 

breeze.

West Virginia No. 11. Run-of-mine coal from mines Nos. 1 and 2 

of W. H. Coffman, Zenith, W. Va.

This was the only coal from West Virginia which did not coke in 

the ovens. The charge consisted of 11,000 pounds. It was burned 

for 67 hours, and when drawn consisted of ash mixed with raw, 

unburned coal.

West Virginia No. 1%. Run-of-mine coal from Big Sand}' Coal and 

Coke Company, Big Sandy, W. Va.

Two tests of this coal were made, the first being unwashed and the 

second washed. The unwashed charge was 11,000 pounds. It was 

burned for 68 hours, and produced 7,082 pounds of coke, or 64.4 per 

cent, and 549 pounds of ash and breeze. The coke was of fair quality 

and had a metallic ring. It was of good colov, but showed cross fractures. The washed charge (p. 73) of the same coal weighed 8,000 

pounds, and was burned for 44 hours, producing 5,050 pounds, or 63.1 

per cent, of coke and 583 pounds of ash and breeze. The coke was of 

large size and grayish color, but not particularly strong.

CUPOLA TESTS OF COKE.

In connection with the coking tests of the coals the cokes made in 

the beehive ovens were not only analyzed and tested by various laboratory methods, but those which gave promise of value in foundry 

products were also tested in the cupolas of the model foundry connected 

with the Louisiana Purchase Exposition.

The testing of these cokes for foundry purposes was done under the 

supervision of a committee appointed for this purpose by the American 

Foundrymen's Association, the committee consisting of Dr. Richard 

Moldenke, secretary of the association; Mr. Herbert E. Field, of 

Mclntosh, Hernphill & Co., Pittsburg, Pa., and Mr. W. J. Fogarty, 

of the Magnetite Foundry Company, St. Louis, Mo. Two thousand 

pounds of each such coke one dozen samples in all were reserved 

for these tests, and the cupola tests were made under the immediate 

supervision of Doctor Moldenke, during the month of November, using 

for this purpose two 36-inch small foundry cupolas, one of which was 

furnished by the Whiting Foundry Equipment Company, of Chicago, 

and the other by the J. S. McCormick Company, of Pittsburg.

The analyses of the cokes and the iron used in the tests have not yet 

been completed, however, and it is, therefore, thought best to delay 

the publication of the results of these tests until the issuance of a later 

report, in which will be included the tests of other cokes to be made 

during the next few months. 

Bull. 261 05 9
130 PRELIMINARY REPORT ON" COAL-TESTING PLANT. [BULL. 261.

Coking tests.

Name of sample.

Do....................

Illinois No. 2..............

Illinois No. 3 ..............

Do.....................

Illinois No. 5..............

Indiana No. 1 .............

Indian Territory No. 1 ....

Do.....................

Indian Territory No. 3 .....

DO.:....................

Iowa No. 1. .................

Iowa No. 2..................

Iowa No. 4..................

Kansas No. 1 ...............

Kansas No. 3 ................

Kansas No. 4 ...............

Kentucky No. 1 ............

Kentucky No. 3 ............ 

Kentucky No. 4 ............

Missouri No. 2 ..............

Missouri No. 3 ........... .

Missouri No. 4 ..............

West Virginia No. 1 ........

West Virginia No. 2 ........

Do......................

West Virginia No. 3 ........

Do......................

West Virginia No. 4 ........

Do......................

West Virginia No. 5 ........

 Do.......;..............

Do......................

Coal.

Condition.

Washed .....

.....do.......

.....do.......

Washed .....

.....do.......

Washed .....

Washed ..... 

.....do.......

.....do.......

.....do.......

.....do.......

\Vashed

.....do........

....do........

....do........

....do........

....do........

....do........

....do........

....do........

....do........

....do........

Washed ...... 

....do........

....do........

....do........

....do........

Washed ......

Washed ......

Washed ......

Washed ...... 

Washed, fine-.

Chemical composition.

Moisture.

Per ct. 

2.65 

4.64 

3.77 

2.31 

2.31 

18. 29

4.59

10. 46 

17.20 

8.25 

9.52 

17.86 

25.15 

14.60 

16. 53 

10. 29 

3.82 

4.45 

4.16 

5.93 

16. 95 . 

12.84 

12.85 

16.83 

17.80 

19. 25 

8.10 

3:96 

1.75 

6.63 

2.71 

10. 51 

6.18 

14.14 

24.15 

12.04 

1.93 

1.73 

3.98 

2.25 

4.11 

2.72 

3.47 

2.43 

4.84 

19.50

Volatile 

matter

Per ct, 

30.79 

31.28 

32.60 

18.10 

17.41 

12.95

17. 25

36.11 

35.77 

30.22 

32.05 

31.65 

28.68 

30.76 

36.38 

31.46 

37.45 

38.18 

36.66 

38.05 

33.30 

35.91 

35.44 

39.27 

.37.59 

31.07 

31.26 

30.46 

32.95 

36. 99 

37.22 

37.33 

39.07 

35.53 

33.10 

41.35 

36.50 

39.20 

39. 76 

30.60 

29.54 

27.62 

27.95 

28. 30 

28.12 

23. 76

Fixed 

carbon

Per ct 

52.68 

53.02 

50. 59 

66. 58 

69. 73 

62. 54

64.12

37. 48 

37. 84 

50. 94 

52.57 

32.93 

36.99 

36.48 

40.05 

44.39 

48.74 

51. 04 

49.43 

48.53 

41. 61 

41.00 

35.43 

35.87 

37.39 

41.75 

45.82 

45.54 

48.39 

43.45 

56. 17 

44.76 

18.70 

42.57 

35.51 

41.34 

54.97 

50.85 

49.21 

57. 40 

57.34 

59. 16 

61.05 

58.55 

56.76 

46.55

' Ash.

Per ct 

13.88 

11.06 

13.04 

13. 01 

10.55 

6.22

14.04

15.95 

9.19 

10. 59 

5.86 

17.56 

9.18 

18.16 

7.04 

13.86 

9.99 

6.33 

9.75 

7.49 

8.14 

10.25 

10.28 

8.03 

7.14 

7.93 

14.84 

20.04 

16. 91 

12.93 

3.90 

7.40 

6.05 

7.76 

7.24 

5.27 

6.60 

8.22 

7.05 

9.75 

9.01 

10.50 

7.53 

10.73 

10.28 

8.19

Sulphur.

Per ct 

0.76 

0.89 

1.43 

1.13 

1.58 

1.22

1.68

4. 14 

3.03 

1.45 

1.41 

3.25 

'2.71 

3.44 

2.03 

1.34 

1.47 

1.43 

3.16 

3.20 

2.90 

4. 61 

3.93 

4.55 

3.59 

2.28 

4.48 

5.59 

5.60 

7.19 

1.23 

2.61 

2.74 

3.24 

2.74 

5.14 

.88 

3.38 

2.84 

.99 

1.18 

.86 

.74 

.90 

.91 

.79

Amount ' charged in 

oven.

Pound* 

8,"000 

9,800 

8,000 

8,075 

8,150 

'9,000

/ Small 

\ box.

8,000

9,000 

9,000 

9,000 

13,000 

8,000 

5,000 

9,000 

8,000 

8, 095 

9,000 

9,000 

12,000 

14,000 

10, 000 

9,500 

10,000 

8,000 

8,000 

9,000 

11,300 

9,125 

7, 100 

10, 000 

10, 000 

10, 000 

10, 000 

12, 000 

9,000 

11,000 

9,000 

9,000 

13, 000 

9,000 

14,000 

12, 000. 

9,000 

13, 000 

13, 000 

10, 000

Coking time.

Hoii/rs. 

88 

65 

64 

114 

118 

95

| 65 

42

43 

64 

43 

90 

42 

42 

42 

40 

40 

66 

65 

65 

66 

65 

46 

64 

43 

40 

66 

120 

159 

96 

67 

66 

66 

66 

87 

42 

65 

64 

50 

64 

41 

66 

65 

42 

64 

66 

69
STAMMI.ER.] COKING TESTS. 131

Coking tests.

Coke.

s

fl Is

 < .

Lbs.

5,731

 1,056

3, 389

6,378

3, 473

5, 725 

4,680

4,828 

3,866 

3,336 

3,722

5, 213 

5, 441 

5, 433 

5,528 

5,040

4, 905 

5, 572 

5,235 

7,808 

5, 929 

9,070 

8,907 

6,367 

8,298 

7, 163 

4,256

 a 

8| <D *

2 m

i&s.

352

539

352

834

368

580

255

572 

1,153 

585 

426

432 

355 

426 

313 

580

128 

268 

286 

302 

304 

535 

428 

374 

497 

461 

229

Chemical composition.

Moisture.

Per ct.

0.33

1.05 

4.06

1.57

6.11

5.71

8.15 

.96

10.53

5.73 

13.05

.52 

1.48 

.14 

.52 

3.45

2.51 

.40 

.42 

.59 

.22 

.38 

.62 

.20 

2.60 

.42 

.27

Volatile 

matter.

Perct.

0.72

2.80 

2.77

2.83.

.42

1.18

1.74 

2.59

1.65

1.87 

2.32

1.68 

.83 

.56 

.63 

1.80

1.11 

1.95 

.68 

1.31 

.83 

.87 

1.43 

1.15 

1.12 

.43 

.78

Fixed 

carbon.

Per ct.

82. 63

72.73 

76.63

75.42

82.55

80.52

75.68 

85.33

70.39

75. 49 

73.10

79.82 

92.34 

86.31 

8G.50 

80.27

85.57 

87. 47 

83.95 

86.70 

80.77 

84.48 

86. 10 

85.42 

77. 14 

84.34 

82.97

Ash.

Per ct.

.16. 32

23. 42 

16.54

20.18

10.92

12. 59

14.43 

11.12

17. 45

16.91 

11.53

17.98 

5.35 

12.99 

12.35 

14.48

10.81 

10.18 

14.95 

11.40 

18.18 

14. 27 

11.85 

13.23 

19.14 

14.81 

15. 98

Sulphur.

Per ct.

0.69

1. 52 

1.43

Phosphorus.

Per ct.

0.047

.050

2. 75 . 030

1.13 .019

1.69 ' .016

1.50 

1.75

3.89

4.57 

2.97-

6.15 

.84 

2.16 

2.37

2.79

4.60 

.71 

3.40 

2.24 

.93 

1.19 

.82 

.69 

.77 

.83 

.82

.050 

.043

.Ool

.0183 

.0123

.0148 

.034 

.009 . 

.015 

.02

.018 

.029 

.023 

.017 

.065 

.079 

.031 

.019 

.067 

.086 

.087

Specific gravity.

1.94

1.88

1.87

1.84

1.86

1.88 

1.84

1.87

' 1.88 

1.82

1.92 

1.83 

1.81 

1.84 

1.86

1.83 

1.84 

1.94 

1.89 

1.95 

1.94 

1.84 

1.94 

1.90 

1.89 

1.89

Per centproduced.

58.5

50.7

37.6

49.1

43.4

63.6 

52.0

50.7 

38.7 

41.7 

46.5

52.1 

54.4 

54.3 

55.3 

42.0

44.6 

61.9 

58.2 

60.1 

65,9 

64.8 

74.2 

70.7 

63.8 

55.1 

42.5

Remarks. .

Light, spongy. 

Improved by washing. 

Charred coal and ash. 

No coke produced. 

Do. 

Do.

Placed in oven with 

charge of coal.

50 per cent briquettes and 

50percentcoal charged.

Small coke and ash. 

Hard and soft mixed. 

No coke, burned on top. 

Fingered, brittle. 

No coke produced. 

Do. 

Do. 

Fair coke, brittle. 

Burned to ash. 

Coke soft. 

Coke hard. 

Small coke and ash. 

Notimproved. 

Small coke fritted. 

Very brittle. 

Sintered. 

Fine fingered. 

Do. 

Charred coke and ash. 

No coke produced. 

Do. 

Coked 12 inches from top. 

Hard and brittle. 

Hard, fine fingered. 

Fair coke. - 

Good color. 

Long lingered. 

No coke produced. 

Fair coke. 

Good coke. 

Gray, brittle. 

Improved by washing. . 

Gray coke. 

Notimproved by washing. 

Good coke. 

Not improved by washing. 

Good coke, too much ash'. 

Improved by washing.

Improved by washing fine 

coal.
132 PRELIMINARY REPORT ON COAL-TESTING PLANT. [BULL. 261.

Coking tests Continued.

Name of sample.

West Virginia No. 6 A. ......

West Virginia No 6C

Do......................

West Virginia No. 12 .......

Do......................

Coal.

Condition.

Haw .......... 

.....do........

Kaw, fine.....

.....do........

.....do........

.....do........

.....do........

Chemical composition.-

Moisture.

Per et. 

1.76 

2.27 

1.73 

3.85 

3.82 

3.81 

5.74 

1.61 

3.35 

1.53 

8.36

Volatile 

matter.

Per ct. 

21.48 

22.03 

21.12 

20.55 

31.77 

31.08 

32. 14 

18.39 

15.94 

18.23 

 18.20

Fixed 

carbon.

Per ct. 

71.92 

70.30 

71.57 

70.58 

57.21 

57.04 

57.61 

74. 65 

68.76 

74.08 

68.54

Ash.

Per ct. 

4.84 

5.40 

5.58 

5.02 

7.20 

8.07 

4.51 

5.37 

9.95 

6.16 

4.90

Sulphur.

Per ct. 

.55 

.88 

.64 

1.36 

.89 

.83 

.90 

.61 

.47 

.97 

1.11

Amount charged in 

oven.

Pounds. 

13,000 

9,000 

8,000 

8,000 

11, 000 

10, 000 

11, 000 

11,000 

11,000 

11,000 

8,000

Coking time.

Hours. 

90 

66 

44 

' 44 

66 

40 

66 

68 

67 

68 

44
STAMMLER.] COKING TESTS. 133

Coking tests Continued.

Coke.

i 

Amount produced.

Lbs.

8, 303

(i, 399

.5, 849

5, 119

7,124

6, 084

6,803

7,858

7,082

5,050

-d 

a 

a

si 0) * 

0)

M 

Lbs.

381

382

273

287

589

314

78'

429

549

583

Chemical compositions.

Moisture.

Pcrct.

2.83

.36

1.89

.67

2.79

.29

.27.

3.68

.35

5.16

Volatile 

matter.

Per ct.

2.17

1.34

1.83

1.23

.53

2.41

.62

.53

.85

.72

Fixed 

carbon.

Per ct.

89.84

93.04

88.80

90. 40

82.37

88.15

91.73

87.54

89.37

86.57

Ash.

Per ct.

5.16

5.24

7.48

7.70

14.31

9.15

7.38

8.25

9.43

7.55

Sulphur.

Per ct.

.69

.76

.69

1.03

.77

.82

.77

.56

.83

1.01

Phosphorus.

Perct.

.008

.007

.006

. 0061

. 0116

.0094

.012

.007

.0077

.01

' $ 

&o £

(B^ '3

0

Q, 

CO

1.77

1.87

1.79

1.80

1. 92

1.84

1.87

1.89

1.95

1.88

Per centproduced.

63.9

71.1

73.1

64.7

64.7

60.8

C1.8

71.4

64.4

63. 1

Remarks.

Gray, soft and light.

Better than A.

Dense, tough.

Good coke.

Hard, good color.

Fair coke, heavy.

Very good coke..

Good coke. 

Burned to ash. 

Fair coke.

Large pieces.
BRIQUETTING TESTS.

By JOSEPH HYDE PRATT.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.

The writer was very ably assisted by Mr. A. A. Steel, who superintended most of the experiments made on the regular briquetting 

machines and conducted almost all of the laboratory work. Material 

assistance was also rendered by Mr. Charles H. Smith in suggesting 

ways and means and in actual experimental work about the plant. 

The success of the work is largely due to the Barrett Manufacturing 

Company, of St. Louis, and the Chatfield Manufacturing Company, of 

Carthage, Ohio, for supplies of pitch of various grades for binders; 

to Mr. C. C. Hawkins, chemist of the Chatfield Manufacturing Company, for suggestions and information regarding pitch, its analysis, 

etc.; and to Dr. Herman von Schrenk, of the Bureau of Forestry, for 

assistance in the rational analyses of pitch.

BRIQUETTING PLANT.

The briquetting plant consisted of two machines of distinctly different types. One of the machines was furnished by William Johnson & 

Sons, of Leeds, England, and is designated in this report the English 

machine. This machine is one of the standard types for briquetting 

with stiff pitch, and consists of a double compression, vertical table 

press with closed molds and its accessories. It was operated by a 50- 

horsepower inclosed motor, which was furnished by the Westinghouse 

Electrical Manufacturing Company, of Pittsburg, Pa.

The second briquetting machine was furnished by the National Compressed Fuel Company, of Chicago, 111., and consisted of a Chisholm, 

Boyd & White press, constructed on Belgian patterns and its accessories. This is ordinarily known as the eggette machine or press, but is 

designated throughout this report the American machine. It also was 

operated by a 50-horsepower motor, furnished by the Westinghouse 

Company.

ENGLISH MACHINE.

In operating the English machine the coal is delivered from the 

washer or drier by an inclined conveyor, furnished by the Robins 

Conveying Belt Company, and received upon a slightly raised plat134
I'UATT.] BR1Q.OET1TNG- TESTS. 135

form, holding1 about 10 tons, from which it can be conveniently shoveled 

through a hole in the same floor onto a coal-feeding worm. At the 

same time the pitch Avhich is used as a binder, having been first reduced 

to a suitable size, is fed into the pitch cracker, which reduces it to a 

half-inch size and drops it to a smaller worm, and this in turn delivers 

it onto the coal in the larger worm. The smaller worm is driven by 

sprockets from the larger one, and the percentage of pitch that is 

added to the coal can be varied by changing the wheels. 

 While this arrangement gives good results when the same coal and 

binder are used, it is not sufficiently flexible to be adapted to the differences in behavior of the various coals and binders that were used in 

the experimental work; and therefore, for most of the experiments, 

the crushed coal and cracked binder were weighed out on Fairbanks 

scales and mixed b}^ hand. The mixed coal and binder were then fed 

through the hole in the floor onto the larger worm.

After a slight mixing in the larger worm, the material enters an 

impact disintegrator, in which it is reduced to the desired degree of 

fineness. The speed of the disintegrator is varied according to the 

character of the coal. This is accomplished b}r running either one or 

both sides of the disintegrator and by tighten ing or slacking the belts. 

From the disintegrator the well-mixed, finely divided mass is elevated 

to a pug mill, about 5 feet in vertical height, in which the pitch or 

other stiff binder is softened by contact with live steam. As there is 

no attachment on this machine for introducing or utilizing superheated 

steam, the range of temperatures in which the binder could be softened 

was very limited. Then again, live steam is apt to be wet, and in such 

instances it would often be a detriment to the production of successful 

briquettes. .

From the pug mill the plastic mixture falls by gravity to the feed 

box of the press, from which it is forced by a plunger into brass-lined 

molds in a vertical revolving table.. After a half revolution of the 

table the mass in the mold is heavily pressed by a system of combined 

levers, the pressure being limited to 2 tons per square inch by the 

yielding of a stiff spring. This pressure, however, can be varied from 

a few pounds up to 2,000 pounds as a maximum.

After another quarter revolution the briquettes are forced, by 

means of a plunger, out of the molds on a slide or table set at a convenient height for stacking on trucks. In the experimental work at 

the plant the briquettes were taken from the slide or table by hand as 

soon as they were discharged from the press and stacked on a platform 

just outside the building. The briquettes, as they come from the 

machine, are rectangular, except for rounded corners, and weigh on 

the average 6.8 pounds each, the weight varying w7 ith the coal and 

binder used. The maximum capacity of this press is 6 tons of 

briquettes per hour.
136 PRELIMINARY EEPORT ON COAL-TESTING PLANT. [BULL. 261.

This machine is adapted only to those binders which do not become 

plastic before reaching the pug mill, and in the experimental work 

the smallest quantity that could be made and at the same time give a 

satisfactory test to the coal and binder was 1 ton.

AMERICAN MACHINE.

In operating the American plant the coal is received from the Robins conveyor at the level of the second floor in a bin of 3 tons capacitj^. 

From this it is spouted to a. 500-pound bin on a Fairbanks platform 

scale, from which it passes into the boot of an elevator that hoists it 

up and drops it into a 15£ cubic foot measuring box. The coal is then 

dumped into a Buffalo mixer fitted with steam jackets for warming the 

coal and the binder. The binder is melted in a small steam jacketed 

tank entirely distinct from the main part of the machine, from which 

it is dipped by hand in the desired proportion and poured into the 

mixer. After a thorough mixing the mass is dropped into the feed slides 

of the press. This tangential press consists of two pairs of narrowfaced rolls, in the tores of which are ovoid cups for receiving the mixture to be pressed. As the rolls revolve the excess material is squeezed 

out, the resulting pressure being dependent upon the viscosity of the 

mixture that is being compressed. The eggettes are delivered from 

the press on a short rubber belt, and th&y weigh on an average about 

0.3 of a pound each.

The capacity of the press is fully 5 tons of eggettes per hour, but 

the output of the mixing device was much too small for operating the 

press at its full capacity. As arranged, this machine was adapted for 

the use of soft binders only, and it was necessary to grind the coal at 

the washery. For experimental work, however, it had one advantage 

over the larger English press, inasmuch as it permitted the testing of 

mixtures in lots as small as 15 pounds. In making these small tests a 

35-gallon camp kettle was employed for heating the mixture. It was 

also possible to test on the American machine the mixture used in the 

English machine by crushing up some of the hot briquettes as soon as 

they were received from the molds and transferring the material at 

once to the feed box of the American machine.

BINDERS.

The materials that have been tried as binders in the laboratory 

experiments and on the two briquetting machines include the following: Pitch of various grades; creosote; asphalt, hard and soft, crude 

and refined; asphaltic pitch; petroleum, both of paraffin and asphalt 

bases; molasses; lime, and clay.

PITCH.

Pitch is the residue left from the distillation of tar, which is produced (1) from by-product coke ovens; (2) from illuminating-gas plants; 

(3) from producer-gas plants; (4) from pintsch gas tar; (5) from water
PR ATT.] BEIQUETTING TESTS. 137

gas plants, and (6) from petroleum gas tar. Pitches made from the 

first three varieties of tar were tested, and each gave practically as 

good satisfaction as the other when approximately of the same composition. Petroleum gas tar gave the best results.

There was considerable variation noticed in the pitches that were 

submitted to the plant for the experimental work, and at the beginning it was difficult to obtain the grade that was desired. The first 

pitch received was from the St. Louis works of the Barrett Manufacturing Company. The pitch was too hard and would not soften at a 

sufficiently low temperature to be used satisfactorily in either the 

English or the American machine. It was subsequently proved that 

the pitch did not contain a sufficient quantity of the creosote oils to 

give it the required binding qualities. This pitch is designated pitch A 

throughout this report. The second lot of pitch was received from 

the Chatfield Manufacturing Company, of Carthage, Ohio. It was 

harder than pitch A, indicating that a still greater per cent of the 

creosote or adhesive oils had been driven off. Although these pitches 

would make briquettes, it was necessary to use from 13 to 18 per cent 

of them,, while of a good, satisfactory pitch it required only from 6 to 

9 per cent with the same coal. This pitch is designated throughout 

the report pitch X.

In order to determine the quality of pitch that would be satisfactory, 

some of the best tar from the producer-gas plant was heated until all 

of the water was expelled. The boiling was continued until, when the 

residue was dropped into water having a temperature of 55° F., it 

became brittle. After bucking down, this pitch stuck together on 

standing one week in the laboratory. It is known throughout this 

report as pitch Z. A long series of tests was then made with this 

pitch upon various coals, and it was found that 6 per cent of it made 

better briquettes than 13 per cent of pitch X. In.order to further 

demonstrate the necessity for pitches of the right quality to contain a 

higher percentage of the creosote or adhesive oils than pitches A or X, 

experiments were made with hard pitch A and water-free producer-gas 

tar. These were melted together in various proportions until a product was obtained which, when dropped into water at 55° F., would 

become brittle. A sufficient quantity of this product was made to 

briquette 2 tons of coal, and it was found to give the results desired, 

showing that it is necessary for a pitch to contain a certain percentage 

of these creosotes or adhesive oils. This pitch will soften when held 

in the mouth; when it is first bitten it cracks and crumbles like spruce 

gum, but almost immediately becomes plastic and can be chewed 

like ordinary gum. This pitch is designated throughout this report 

pitch Y.

Samples of this pitch were sent to the Barrett Manufacturing Company and the Chatfield Manufacturing Company, and pitch of the right
138 PRELiMiNARY REPORT ON COAL-TESTING PLANT- tnuu:.26l.

quality was obtained in quantit}7 . The pitches that were received 

from the Barrett Manufacturing Company are designated in this report 

pitches I>, C, and D. Those received from the Chatfield Manufacturing Compan}7 are known as pitches E, F, and G,

Another pitch that was furnished by the Barrett Manufacturing 

Company was obtained as a by-product from the manufacture of gas 

from heavj7 petroleum. When hot, this pitch has a marked odor of 

.kerosene, but it would not mix with Kansas crude oil It is lustrous 

and works well on a cool da.j, but is a little too soft in ordinary weather 

for experimenting on the English machine. This pitch is designated 

pitch ^throughout this report.

Analyses have been made of the pitches A, B, C, D, E. F, G, H, 

and X by Mr. E. E. Somermeier, in charge of the chemical laboratory 

of the testing plant,"with the following results:

Proximate analyses of pitches.

Pitch.

A .................

B...... ............

C ..................

D...... ............

E. ................

F ..................

G...... ...........

H ..................

X. .................

Laboratory No.

1161

1311

1391

1465

1464

1457

1453

1555

1125

Moisture.

0. 47

1. 14

.88

1. 45

1.02

.57

.60

1.04

.33

Volatile 

matter.

47. 93

49.66

62.75

54.05

54. 11

52.98

52.53

61.44

59.07

Fixed 

carbon.

50.79

47.88

35.84

43. 91

44.04

45. 31

45.62

36. 72

39. 44

Ash.

0.81

1.32

.53

.59

.83

1.14

1.25

.80

L16

Sulphur.

a 0. 80

.70

.88

Total.

100.8

100.7

100.0

100. 0<

100.0

100.0

100.0

100. 0(

101. 35

a Approximately determined. 

Ultimate analyses of pilches.

Pitch.

A..................

B ..................

C. .................

D. .................

E........ ..........

F ..................

G.... ..............

X.. ................

Laboratory No.

1161

1311

1391

1465

1464

' 1457

1453

1125

Hydrogen.

3.97

' 4.72

4.28

4.22

4.16

4.06

4.56

Carbon.

90.89

91.16

91.57

91.30

91.50

90.82

90.34

Nitrogen.

1. 05

1.16

1.10

' 1. 00

1. 00

1.01

.99

Oxygen.

2.07

1.85

2.07

Sulphur.

0.80

.58

.88

Calorific 

value.

8,782

8,937

8,847

Although no definite conclusions can be drawn from the results of 

the analyses given above, it is apparent that for pitches distilled from 

the same tar, under the same given conditions, those with the highest
PRATT.] BlilQUETTtiSTG TESTS.

percentage of volatile matter give the best results in briquetting. 

There may be, however, a wide variation in the percentage of the 

volatile matter in two pitches made from different tars and distilled 

under different conditions and jQt the pitches may have approximately the same quality for binding- purposes.

In order to obtain something more tangible regarding the composition of the pitches in respect to their binding qualities and value in 

briquetting, a series of tests was made by distilling off thin volatile 

products. For this purpose a small copper still was constructed and 

the distillations were made in the laboratory of Dr. Herman von 

Schrenk. In carrying out these experiments, 200 grams of the pitch 

were placed in the still, and-this was heated gradually until there was 

nothing left but a coke residue. In every instance at a temperature 

of 400° all of the volatile matter had been driven off and the .residue 

was hard coke. The results of these distillations are given in the 

table below:

Distillation of pilches.

Pitch.

A ............

B....... ......

D ............

E.... .........

G ............

X ............

Laboratory No.

1161

1311

1465

1464

1453

1125

Quantity 

of pitch 

used.

Grams.

200

200

200

200

200

200

Temperature at 

which 

first drop 

came

over.

0

380

351

332

350

324

391

Temperature at

which the 

last of the 

oil was 

observed

to come

off. .

0

385

375

370

382

Percentageof oil.

1.36

7.38

13.01

1.91

.96

.71

Final

temperature to 

which 

still was

raised.

o

400

400

400

400

400

400

Residue.

Hard coke.

Do.

Do.

Do.

Do.

Do.

The above experiments show that from 7£ to 14 per cent of these 

oils is necessary in the pitches in order to give them the binding 

qualities that are desired in briquetting. With a higher percentage 

of oils the pitches become too soft and can not be used to so good 

advantage/ Then again, the oils that are driven off from 315° and 

under are the creosote oils. Creosote was used to mix with some of 

the hard pitches for binding purposes and gave satisfactory results.

HOSIN.

The cheaper grades of rosin can be used for binding purposes to as 

good advantage as the refined material, and, as far as could be judged 

from the work done in the laboratory, the crude, black rosin will give 

as good satisfaction as the partially refined. Rosin in some cases can
140 PRELIMINARY REPORT ON COAL-TESTING PLANT. [BULL. 261.

be used to advantage for hardening purposes as well as for its binding 

qualities. It has been used with lime and pitch, and good briquettes 

were made from this combination. In using rosin and pitch as a 

binder it was found that a smaller percentage of these two together 

was required. to give either as good or a better briquette than when 

pitch was used alone. In burning there is little or no odor from the 

rosin, although there is some tendency to smoke.

ASPHALT.

The asphalt used in the experimental work consisted of a California 

refined asphaltum of grade B, which is designated throughout this 

report asphalt Bl. Another asphalt product used is known as 

"kopak" No. 30, manufactured by the Raven Mining Company, of 

Texas, and is of a rubbery consistency. This is known as asphalt B®. 

An asphaltic pitch manufactured by the Standard Oil Company at one 

of its Texas plants also was used, and it is known as asphalt B3. 

Crude asphalt from Indian Territory is known as asphalt Bl^. This 

asphalt is altogether too hard, approaching close to a coke, and containing but a very small percentage of volatile matter.

A soft asphalt was received from the Gulf Refining Company of 

Port Arthur, Tex., and is designated throughout this report asphalt 

B5. An analysis of this asphalt by Mr. E. E. Somernieier was as 

follows:

Analysis of soft asphalt from the Gulf Refining Company.

Per cent.

Moisture................................................................ 0.00

Volatile matter.......................................................... 80. 75

Fixed carbon ........................................................... 19.25

Ash.................................................................... 0.00

Total...................'.......................................... 100.00

Another soft asphalt'was furnished by Mr. John McNeil from Casper, Wyo., and is known throughout this report as asphalt JB6. It is 

a soft, tough asphalt, which on cooling to about 40° became brittle. 

An analysis by Mr. E. E. Somermeier gave the following results:

Analysis of asphalt from Casper, Wyo.

Per cent.

Moisture................................................................ 0.48

Volatile matter........................................................... 78. 77

Fixed carbon ........................................................... 20.75

Ash..................................................................... 0.00

Total............................................................. 100.00

PETROLEUM.

Petroleum, of both paraffin and asphaltum bases, can sometimes be 

used to advantage in briquetting. On account of lack of time but 

little experimenting was done with the petroleums. Those that have
i-KATT.) BKIQUETTINQ TESTS. 141

been used were crude oil from Spindletop, Tex., which was produced 

by the Gulf Refining Company, and a petroleum from the Beaumont 

district, having a specific gravity of 15, flash test 505, and fire test 570, 

which was produced by the Great Southern Refining Company. These 

are designated Pi and jP#, respectively, throughout this report.

The only other oil that was tested in briquetting'was a Kansas crude 

oil, which is designated throughout this report PS.

MOLASSES.

A few experiments were made with molasses in order to determine 

the possibility of utilizing waste products from sugar and beet refineries in briquetting lignite and lignitic coals that occur in the vicinity 

of sugar refineries. Although no positive results have been obtained 

with the use of this binder, the work has shown the probability that 

such waste products can be utilized in connection with certain other 

materials to give a satisfactory binder.

LIME.

Lirne has been used in combination both with rosin and with molasses, 

and some encouraging results were obtained. One of the main objections to using more than a very small amount of lime is the fact that 

it increases the percentage of ash in the fuel without raising its heating efficiency. On the other hand, however, it is one of the cheapest 

of binders, and in most cases is convenient to the coal districts.

CLAY.

A few experiments were made with clay in combination with other 

compounds in an attempt to obtain a suitable binder for lignitic coals, 

but without success.

LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS.

In testing the value of the various binders for briquetting coal, a 

series of experiments was made with each in the laboratory by briquetting the mixture in a hand press. The mixture of coal and binder was 

heated in a clay assay crucible over a Bunsen burner. In most cases 

they were heated only to about 212° F., but where the binder was 

softened with difficulty the temperature was increased.

PITCHES.

Special experiments were made with the different pitches, A, B, C, 

etc., and where there was considerable variation in their composition 

a more nearly complete series of experiments was made. When, however, the pitches were similar, as B, C, and D, the series of expert-
142 PRELIMINARY EEPORT ON COAL-TESTING PLANT. [BULL.261.

merits made with one was significant of what could be done with the 

others.

Pitch A. A series of experiments was tried in the laboratory with 

pitch A in order to determine its binding qualities. It was found that 

the best practical results were obtained with 9 per cent of this hard 

pitch on an easy brtquetting coal, but with the other coals the percentage would be very much higher.

Pitch B. This pitch was tested with West Virginia coking coal. 

With 3 per cent of pitch B a fair briquette was obtained. With 4 per 

cent the resulting briquette was a little better. With 5 per cent, however, a good briquette was obtained, which had the desired lustrous 

fracture. With Arkansas coal it required 6 per cent of this pitch to 

give the desired results; and as this coal represented more nearly the 

character of the coals to be briquetted, this was accepted as the percentage required of this and the similar pitches, C and D, to make a 

good briquette.

Pitches O and _ZX These, which are very similar to E, were used 

from the formulas derived for B, and in nearly all cases the runs 

made on the English and American machines were satisfactorj^.

Pitch E, This pitch, which melts at 180° F., is a trifle too hard for 

satisfactory briquetting on the English machine, and is not equal to 

pitch B, C, or D.

Pitch.G. This pitch, which melts at 196° F., is too hard (similar 

to A and X) to be used alone in briquetting.

Pitch X. This pitch, which contained only 0.71 per cent of volatile 

matter, was tested with a number of coals and it required from 13 to 

20 per cent to make a briquette that was at all coherent.

Pitch Z. The producer-gas pitch Z was tested with Arkansas coal, 

6.7 per cent of the pitch being used, While hot both of these briquettes were soft, but on standing one hour they became very hard and 

had a glossy or lustrous fracture. When tested in the muffle they 

burned without disintegration.

A series of experiments was made which indicated that there is no 

advantage in using lime with pitch in an attempt to reduce the percentage of pitch that it is necessary to use. With, however, the 

introduction of some third reagent.which would react with the lime 

it is possible that a binder could be produced which would be cheaper 

than pitch alone and be as satisfactory.

ASPHALT.

In experimenting with the asphalts, they were used alone as a binder 

and also in combination with other compounds. There were a number of satisfactory results obtained in the laboratory work, but only a 

very few of these could be tried on the English or American machines 

on account of their construction.
PKATT.] BRIQUETTING TESTS. 143

California asphalt, Bl. This asphalt is brittle at ordinary temperatures and can be readily disintegrated. At 212° F. it softens slightly, 

and it is soft and very sticky after melting. This asphalt mixes 

readily with the Spindletop (Tex.) petroleum, PI, and the residual 

product of Beaumont petroleum, P2, in all proportions, and can therefore be thinned to any consistency. A series of experiments was made 

with this asphalt, which indicates that to obtain the best results it 

would be necessary to heat the mixture with superheated steam or to 

add crude oil.

Asplwlt product (kopciK), B%. This Texas asphaltic compound is of 

a rubbery consistency at ordinary temperatures, and at 212° F. only 

softened slightly without becoming sticky. Jt melted at a rather high 

temperature, was still rubbery, but very adhesive. Alone it can not 

be disintegrated readily, but in a cold temperature it can with some

care be crushed. It is not affected by the crude Spindletop (Tex.) oil,

PI, or the residual petroleum from the Beaumont district, P2. With 

the warm asphaltic pitch it mixes readily, and but little of this pitch is 

needed to make a soft and sticky mass. With ordinary coal-tar 

pitches this asphaltic compound will not mix at all. With rosin the 

rubbeiy asphalt mixes readily, and the resulting product can be 

cracked easily, and it is very strongly tenacious and somewhat elastic. 

This asphalt has the qualities that should make it a desirable binder, 

and it may be found useful in briquetting lignites.

Asphaltic pitch, B3. This asphaltic pitch, made by the Standard 

Oil Company at one of its Texas plants, was found to have excellent 

binding qualities and to be of the right consistency to work easily. 

It makes a tough and elastic briquette, but apparently it does not give 

the degree of hardness that can be obtained from the pitches made 

from coal tar.

A series of experiments was made with this pitch in combination 

with rosin. The briquettes made from 4 per cent asphaltic pitch and 

2 per cent rosin and from 3 per cent pitch and 3 per cent rosin were 

of equal value; but as the 3 to 3 briquette would probably be the 

cheaper, it has been adopted as the standard ratio for this asphaltic 

pitch and rosin.

Indian Territory asphalt, B^. This asphalt does not soften at all 

in boiling water, even when tested as powder. It melts to a stiff, 

sticky liquid rather suddenly just below its ignition point, which is at 

a very high temperature. It is only slightly soluble in gasoline. At 

the boiling point there is apparently no reaction between this hard 

asphalt and crude Kansas petroleum, P3, or the Spindletop oil, PI, or 

the Beaumont residual petroleum, P2. Neither is there any apparent 

action between this asphalt and melted rosin. With creosote it 

softened materially, and when used in the ratio of 5 per cent of each 

with Arkansas coal a fair briquette was obtained. With Pintsch gas
144 PRELIMINARY REPORT ON COAL-TESTING PLANT. [BULL. 261.

tar an apparent reaction took place, which caused the separation of 

some of the intrained water. This asphalt was tried alone with 

Arkansas coal, 4 per cent of asphalt being used, and even when heated 

dry at a high temperature the resulting briquette was poorly coherent. 

With 6 per cent of asphalt the briquette was little or no better, indicating that the asphalt alone has no binding properties, as was supposed from the very small amount of volatile matter that it contained.

' Wyoming asphalt, B6. This asphalt united readity with rosin, and 

in preparing, a mixture for briquetting 2 parts of asphalt and 1 part 

of rosin were melted in a kettle arid cooled over night. On a cool, 

frosty day this mass was very brittle, but became sticky with a rise in 

temperature. In using the mixture 1 to 2 parts of lime were added 

to prevent its becoming too soft while hot. The briquettes made from 

this mixture were all right in appearance, but in burning they crumbled easily, not standing up well in the fire.

In testing this asphalt alone it was necessary to heat the coal in an 

assay crucible, adding the fragments of asphalt and kneading them 

together with repeated heatings. Six per cent of this asphalt alone 

would make a strong, tough briquette with Wyoming lignite, which 

was slightly earthy in appearance. When tested in the fire, however, 

the briquette fell to pieces at once and completely.

KOSIN.

In using rosin alone it was found to make hard, brittle briquettes, 

but they were not satisfactory, principally on account of their brittleness, which would, prevent their standing rough treatment in transportation. The results of the tests made with rosin and pitch have 

been recorded under "Pitch." Rosin mixes with almost all the crude 

oils and their residual products which have been tested in the laboratory. With the rubbery asphalt, B2, it mixes readily, forming a still 

more rubbery mass. With the. Indian Territory, B4, it does not unite 

at all. All of the oils and petroleums increased the toughness of the 

rosin, and the resulting masses varied from the consistency of wagon 

grease to sticky rosin. Five parts of rosin melted with 1 part of 

Kansas crude petroleum gave a tough mass that could just be cracked 

when cold, and this seemed to be the best ratio for these two compounds. With lime alone it was found that 15 per cent of lime and 85 

per cent of rosin were required for a complete reaction. Eosin with 

unslacked lime sets after melting. If the slacked lime is used the 

action occurs at 212° F. and the mass is light gray. This cement 

softens and becomes sticky only at the melting point of lead. On cooling it is brittle, but stronger than rosin. With slacked lime rosin 

reacts and gives a satisfactory mixture up to 3 parts of rosin and 1 

part of slacked lime. A combination of rosin and the residual Beaumont petroleum, P2, was made considerably tougher by the addition
BBIQUETTING TESTS. 145

of lime, and for this relatively more lime is needed than when used 

with rosin alone.. The best combination obtained was 6 parts of rosin to 

3 parts of slacked lime to 2 parts of the petroleum, P2. With Kansas 

crude oil no positive results could be obtained. Six parts of rosin, 3 

of lime, and 4 of the Kansas oil, P3, gave a greasy granular mass 

without any apparent binding properties. With 3 parts of oil instead 

of 4 a sticky mass was obtained, which, however, had no strength.

PETROLEUM.

All the crude oils and petroleums can be stiffened to some extent by 

mixing with rosin or hard pitch. None of the petroleums and oils that 

have been tested, however, could be used alone in briquetting any of 

the coals. Most of them were too fluid and had little or no bindingqualities.

MOLASSES.

The molasses experimented with in the laboratory was that which 

can be bought in any market. In using the thick molasses it was 

found advantageous to dilute it with twice its weight of water, and 

the lime was slacked to a paste with twice its weight of water. When 

these two reagents were mixed together they had no apparent reaction 

until dried out. Using 1 part of water to 1 of molasses and 2 of lime, 

there was no apparent excess of either, and the mixture set at once to 

a ratherhard cement, similar to plaster of Paris. A series of experiments was made with Arkansas coal, which showed that 5 parts of 

molasses to 1 of lime would give the best results.

WAX TAILINGS.

A sample of wax tailings was received from the Standard Oil Cornpan}7 , which was tested with Arkansas coal. With 2 per cent of wax 

there was no coherence between this and the coal under moderate pressure. With 4 per cent, either hot or cold, an elastic briquette was 

obtained which was fairly clean, but yielded under pressure applied 

slowly. These briquettes were burned in a scorifier placed in a muffle, 

and they seemed to burn perfectly. With pressure a briquette with 4 

per cent was obtained which had no greater strength than the other, 

but was very smooth and clean. With 5 per cent of the wax and with 

light pressure a briquette was obtained that was rather sticky, and there 

was undoubtedly an excess of wax, as was indicated by its sticking to 

the plunger. '

The wax was also tried with some of the harder pitches. With 1 per 

cent of wax and 3 per cent of pitch X a briquette was obtained that 

had no coherence whatever. With 1 per cent of wax and 5 per cent

Bull. 261 05 10
146 PRELIMINARY REPORT ON GOAL-TESTING PLANT. [BULL. 261.

of pitch the resultant briquette had no coherence, regardless of what 

pressure was used. With 2 per cent of wax and 4 per cent of pitch X 

a briquette was obtained which was similar to the one in which 13 per 

cent of pitch X alone was used. It was, however, jiot a satisfactory 

product.

ACID SLUDGE.

Some acid sludge was received from the Gulf Refining Companj^, of 

Port Arthur, Tex. It was mixed with water, and the resultant solution was a weak acid which did not seriously attack iron. Part of this 

sludge was a thin, greasy mass and the remainder was of a rubbeiy, 

granular consistency. When these were heated together to the melting point they did not mix, and on cooling they separated into the 

same two parts. The stiffer portion of the mixture will mix with 

melted rosin, and the resultant mass resembles the rubbery petroleum, 

B2. On account of lack of time no further work was attempted with 

this acid sludge.

LIME.

No experiments were made with lime alone, as the percentage 

required for making a briquette that would hold together was so high 

that it precluded entirely its use as a binder. The principal use of 

the lime was with rosin and molasses, and these experiments have 

been described under those heads.

CLAY.

Clay alone was tried up to 8 per cent, but in no case was a briquette 

obtained that would hold together on drying, although the clay used 

was a superier potter's clay. In making the laboratory briquettes the 

clay was used only in connection with lignite, in order to determine 

its effect on the strengthening of the briquettes so that they would 

hold together in burning. With 2 per cent of clay there was little or 

no effect noticed in the resultant briquette when rosin and the petroleum, P2, were used. With 4 per cent of clay the quantity of the 

other two required was reduced from 6 per cent each to 5i per cent 

each, and the briquettes that were made from this mixture held 

together somewhat better in the fire. On account, however, of the 

large increase in the percentage of ash caused by the clay no further 

tests were made with a higher percentage of clay.

BRIQUETTES MANUFACTURED.

According to the results obtained in the laboratoiy, briquettes in 

quantity were made on either the English or the American machine 

from the following coals:
BRIQUETTING TESTS. 147

LIST OF COALS BRIQUETTED.

(1) Alabama No.. ]. Bituminous lump and nut coal from mine No. 8 of the Ivy Coal 

and Iron Company, Horse Creek, Ala.

(2) Arkansas No. 1. Bituminous lump and nut coal from mine No. 3 of the Central 

Coal and Coke Company, Huntington, Ark.

(3) Arkansas No. 2. Bituminous lump coal from mine No. 12 of the Central Coal 

and Coke Company, Bonanza, Ark.

(4)- Arkansas No. 3. Bituminous lump and slack coal from mine No. 18 of the Western Coal and Mining Company, Jenny Lind, Ark.

(5).Arkansas No. 4. Semibituminous slack coal from several Arkansas mines, furnished by the Western Coal and Mining Company, St. Louis, Mo. The coal 

came principally from mines 1, 2, 3, and 4, near Denning, Ark.

(6) Arkansas No. 5. Semibituminous lump and slack coal from mine No. 4 of the 

Western Coal and Mining Company, Coal Hill, Ark.

(7) Arkansas No. 6. Bituminous slack coal from mine No. 18 of the Western Coal 

and Mining Company, Jenny Lind, Ark. This is from the same mine as

Arkansas No. 3.

(8) Colorado No. 1. Run-of-mine black lignite from the Simpson mine of the Northern Coal and Coke Company, Lafayette, Colo.

(9) Illinois No. 1. Bituminous lump and nut coal from mine No. 1 of the Western 

Anthracite Coal and Coke Company near O'Fallon, 111.

(10) Illinois No. 4. Bituminous lump coal from mine No. 3 of the Donk Brothers 

Coal and Coke Company, Troy, 111.

(11) Indiana No. 1. Bituminous run-of-mine coal from the Mildred mine of the 

J. Woolley Coal Company, Mildred, Ind.

(12) Indiana No. 2. Bituminous run-of-mine coal from the Electric mine of the 

T. D. Scales Coal Company, Boonville, Ind.

(13) Indian Territory No. 2. Bituminous run-of-mine coal from mine No. 8 of the 

Rock Island Coal Company, Hartshorne, Ind. T.

(14) Indian Territory No. 3. Bituminous run-of-rnine coal from mine No. 1 of D. 

Edwards & Son, Edwards, Ind. T.

(15) Indian Territory No. 6. Bituminous slack coal from mine of the Southwestern 

Development Company, Coalgate, Ind. T.

(16) Iowa No. 4. Bituminous lump coal from mine No. 3 of the Centerville Block 

Coal Company, Centerville, Iowa.

(17) Kansas No. 2. Bituminous lump, nut, and slack coal from mine No. 11 of the 

Western Coal and Mining Company, Yale, Kans.

(18) Kentucky No. 1. Bituminous run-of-mine coal from Straight Creek mine No. 

2 of the National Coal and Iron Company, Straight Creek, Ky.

(19) Kentucky No. 2. Bituminous lump, nut, and pea coal from mine No. 11 of the 

St. Bernard Mining Company, Earlington, Ky.

(20) Missouri No. 1. Bituminous run-of-mine coal from New Home mine No. 1 of 

the New Home Coal Company, Sprague, Mo.

(21) Montana No. 1. Washed bituminous coal from mine near Red Lodge, Mont.

(22) New Mexico No. 1. Black lignite from Weaver mine of the American Fue". 

Company, 3 miles north of Gallup, N. Mex.

(23) New Mexico No. 2. Black lignite slack from the Otero mine of the Caledonian 

Coal Company, 2 miles east of Gallup, N. Mex. f

(24) North Dakota No. 1. Ruii-of mine brown lignite from Lehigh, N. Dak.

(25) Pennsylvania No. 3. Anthracite culm from Pennsylvania Coal Company, 

Scranton, Pa.
148 PRELIMINARY REPORT ON COAL-TESTING PLANT. [BULL. 261.

(26) West Virginia No. 6. Bituminous run-of-mine coal from mine of the New 

River Smokeless Coal Company, Rushrun, W. Va.

(27) Wyoming No. 1. Black lignite from mine of the Wyoming Coal and Mining 

Company, located at Monarch, Wyo.

The above coals have been tested with various binders on both the 

English and American machines, and from a ton up to 15 tons of briquettes have been made from each coal. In the following pages is 

given a description of the binders used, of the character of the briquettes as they were received from the machine and after they were 

exposed to the atmosphere, and of their behavior when burned. These 

descriptions are taken up alphabetically by States.

ALABAMA.

Alabama No. 1. This is a coking coal which can be very readily 

manufactured into a briquette with hard pitch, and which under 

extreme pressure can be briquetted without the addition of any binder. 

There were 4.5 tons of this coal briquetted on the English machine 

with 1 per cent of the hard pitch A. The briquettes were strong and 

quite satisfactory, except for porosity due to a lack of sufficient pressure. These briquettes stood up well in the fire,fl but on long exposure to the weather became somewhat disintegrated. The weight of 

the briquettes averaged 5£ pounds each.

ARKANSAS.

All of the Arkansas coals tested are similar in their properties. 

They are higher in fixed carbon than the ordinary bituminous coal and 

are often called semianthracite coals. The coals from Jenny Lind and 

Denning show more of this character than the coals from the other

sections of Arkansas.

Arkansas No. 1. This coal was tested only with hard pitch A, as 

this was the only pitch available at the time, the coal was briquetted. 

Six tons of coal were mixed with 9.25 per cent of this pitch and made 

into briquettes on the English machine." The briquettes were compact and well pressed, but were too friable for handling, showing that 

there was not sufficient pitch. They were brownish in color and veiy 

dirty. Judging from the results obtained in working with other 

Arkansas coals, this coal will require more than the usual amount of 

pitch.

Arkansas No. 2. This coal was tested with the very hard pitch X, 

which at the time was the only pitch available. These briquettes were 

made in the English machine, which was set to give approximately 11 

per cent pitch. There were 6 tons of crushed lump coal run through 

the machine, but the resultant briquettes were very pitchy and wrin-

« For steam test see p. 80.
FRATT.] BEIQUETTING TESTS. . 149

kled and probably contained nearer 15 per cent than 11 per cent pitch/' 

On account of the difficulty of setting the machine to feed accurate 

percentages of pitch to the coal, the experiments were conducted for 

the most part after this by weighing out the determined quantities 

of coal and pitch by hand. Pitch X, on account of its hardness, set 

too quickly in the molds, so that the briquettes were insufficiently 

pressed and apt to be porous.

Arkansas No. 3. This coal was briquetted without running it 

through the drier with 9.5 per cent of the hard pitch X, which was 

found to be plenty for this coal. The coal was slightly moist, which 

made it in just the right condition to pass readily through the machine 

without clogging the elevator. The coal was very friable and was 

reduced to almost a flour in the disintegrator. The briquettes had 

very smooth, polished surfaces, having received the greatest pressure 

that could be obtained from the machine. Some of the briquettes, as

they were received from the machine, were cracked perpendicularly 

to the pressure, which may have been due to an excess of pressure. 

These briquettes weighed on an average 6.8 pounds each.

This coal was also tested with the somewhat softer pitch A. One 

ton of the coal was mixed with 8.7 per cent of pitch. A large excess 

of steam was introduced into the pug mill so as to soften the pitch as 

much as possible. The briquettes were smooth and easily handled, 

but somewhat pitchy, showing that there was an excess of pitch. 

Under the same conditions of heat and pressure, 7.5 per cent of pitch 

A would have been sufficient, and if a good pitch were used a still 

smaller amount would make a good commercial briquette. These 

briquettes ignited readily and did not disintegrate in the fire until 

they were consumed. a

Arkansas No. 4- This consisted of slack coal, which was soaking 

wet when received, and it had to be passed through the drier before it 

could be used. When dried, it was so brittle that the disintegrators 

of the English machine reduced it to flour, so that it choked up the 

elevator and other parts of the machine. The first run made of this 

dried coal contained 12 per cent of hard pitch X, and although the 

briquettes when first received from the machine were very compact 

and smooth, they were incoherent and unsatisfactory and on exposure 

to the weather very soon began to disintegrate more or less and became 

friable. The next test on this very finely divided coal was with pitch 

A. One ton was mixed with 10 per cent of pitch. The press was run 

faster, not only to make the pressure greater, but also to give the 

hard pitch less time to set in the machine. At the same time the disintegrator was run slower in order not to reduce the coal to so 

fine a condition. The briquettes were very pitchy, but owing to the 

excess of water from the condensation, many cracked when the

(i For steam test sec p. 80.
150 PRELIMINARY REPORT ON COAL-TESTING PLANT. [BULL.Ml.

pressure was relieved. Another ton of coal with 8 per .cent of pitch 

A contained too much binder, and another ton was made with 6 per 

cent. These latter briquettes were compact and well pressed, but did 

not contain enough binder. Seven per cent of pitch A gave a better 

result than either 6 or 8.

Another run of this coal was. made with 3 per cent rosin and 2 per 

cent of pitch A as a binder. The briquettes were very clean and sharp 

in outline, but were somewhat brittle and had a tendency to break into 

large fragments. They were, however, physically better than those 

with 6 or 8 per cent of pitch alone. In burning, they held together 

very well, but smoked more than those with pitch alone, but no odor 

of rosin was given off. This same mixture was tested on the American 

machine, which gave clean, polished briquettes, which were stronger 

than those made on the English machine, indicating that rosin works 

to better advantage in the smaller and more rounded briquettes.

A ton of this coal was briquetted by using 3 per cent of rosin and 3 

per cent of pitch A. This mixture made excellent briquettes, which 

were usually clean and with sharp edges. It was also tried on the 

American machine and gave exceedingly smooth and lustrous eggettes, 

which were stronger than the large briquettes made on the English 

machine. The eggettes were tested in a cook stove, where they burned 

very satisfactorily without any odor, but gave off considerably more 

smoke than either coal or briquettes made from pitch alone as a binder.

This coal was further tested with the softer pitch B, which was one 

of the better pitches for briquetting. One ton was first made with 6 

per cent of pitch, and the briquettes were clean, sharp, and apparently 

considerably stronger than the original lump coal. These were the 

first commercial briquettes made at the plant. They were capable of 

standing very rough handling. In weight they averaged 7 pounds 

each, and their specific gravity was 1.17. On the American machine 

this same mixture gave polished eggettes, but they were not so strong 

as those made oh the English machine. Pitch B was then tried with 

rosin, the proportions being 95 per cent of coal, 3 per cent rosin, and 

2 per cent pitch. On account of the condensation of steam in the pug 

mill, there was considerable excess of water in the briquettes, which, 

however, were smooth and sharp when received from the press. The 

excess of moisture caused them to crack badly, and they were difficult 

to handle while fresh. After cooling, they were still soft, and they 

were noticeably inferior to the briquettes made with 3 per cent ov 

rosin and 2 per cent of pitch A. They weighed 7.2 pounds each. This 

mixture also was tested on the American machine, which made harder 

eggettes than the corresponding briquettes-of the English machine. 

This is a further confirmation of the supposition that the smaller and 

rounder form is better adapted for the rosin binder and will result in 

a harder and tougher briquette.
PRATT.] BRIQUETTING TESTS. 151 

\

The manufacture of briquettes from Arkansas No. 4 coal and 6 per 

cent of pitch B as a binder is commercially feasible. Six tons of this 

coal were briquetted with 6 per cent of pitch B, with which to make a 

boiler test." A portion of these briquettes were made by running but 

one side of the disintegrator of the English machine, and as they were 

received from the machine they were smooth and uniform but very 

soft, and on breaking them open there were spots that contained an 

excess of pitch, indicating that the materials had not been thoroughly 

mixed or that in passing from the pug mill to the press there had been 

an opportunity for the pitch to flow together. On cooling, however, 

these briquettes became very hard and tough. Another ton was made, 

running both sides of the disintegrator, which made smooth, uniform 

briquettes, but it was almost impossible to handle them as they came 

from the machine. Therefore, only one side of the disintegrator was 

used, but the materials were run through the pug mill more rapidly

and better results were obtained. On becoming thoroughly cold, all 

of these briquettes were excellent in every respect. When these mixtures were tried on the American machine, the fine mass obtained by 

running both sides of the disintegrator made better eggettes than the 

corresponding briquettes of the English machine, while the coarser 

material did not make as good eggettes as briquettes. The weight of 

the briquettes obtained in running both sides of the disintegrator was 

6.92 pounds each, while the coarser briquettes weighed 6.56 pounds 

each. The specific gravity of these briquettes was 1.17 and their 

crushing strength was 17,500 pounds per square inch.

Arkansas No. 5. On account of the success obtained with these 

Arkansas coals and the softer pitches, it was decided to make a sufficient quantity of briquettes for a locomotive test on the Missouri 

Pacific Railroad. For this purpose 17 tons of Arkansas No. 5 coal were 

briquetted with 6 per cent of pitch C, which was a trifle harder than 

pitch B. Excellent briquettes were obtained, which were readily 

handled while warm, and on cooling stood a'good deal of very rough 

handling. They did not break so readily as the original lumps of coal. 

The briquettes were tested on a locomotive of the Missouri Pacific 

Railroad, and for comparison similar runs were made on an Illinois 

run-of-mine coal such as is commonly used on these locomotives. 

Three trips were made from St. Louis to Washington, Mo., and return, 

making a total run of 324 miles for each fuel. The results of these 

three runs are given in the tables following.

a For result of test see p. 80.
152 PRELIMINARY REPORT ON COAL-TESTING PLANT. [BULL. 261. 

Locomotive test of briquettes of Arkansas No. 5 coal.

Date.

November 28........

November 29. .......

 November 30. .......

Briquettes 

consumed.

Pounds. 

9,720 

10, 049 

. 9,825

Ash 

removed.

Pounds. 

1,250 

1,535 

1,226

Front-end 

cinders 

removed.

Pounds. 

194 

182 

228

Total coal 

consumed.

Pounds. 

29, 594

Total ash 

removed.

Pounds. 

4, 615

Per cent 

of ash. -

15

Miles to 

ton.

21. 89

Locomotive lest of run-of-mine Illinois coal.

December 1 .........

December 2 .........

11,265

11, 050

11, 700

1,980

1, 558

1,800

130

112

115

34, 015 5,695 16.4 19. 01;

A further test of Arkansas No. 5 coal was made by mixing pitches 

C and A up to one-fourth of the soft pitch C and three-fourths of the 

hard pitch. A, and a briquette of good qualit}7 was obtained, but it was 

not equal to the briquette made with 6 per cent of pitch C. With 

more than three-fourths of hard pitch, it was necessary to increase the 

percentage slightly, to use more steam for heating and a greaterpressure, and the resultant briquettes were considerably inferior and 

more crumbly.

Arkansas No. 6. This coal was briquetted with 8 per cent of pitch 

A and made a briquette of fair quality. These briquettes were made 

in order to test the coking value of the mixture, and this work is 

described on pages 122 and 168.

COLORADO.

Colorado No. 1. The only coal that was tested from Colorado is a 

black lignite, which was first used undried with 10 per cent of pitch D. 

As these briquettes were received from the machine, they were hard to 

handle, especially when there was an excess of steam. The pitch did 

not seem to adhere to the grains of lignite. On cooling, however, 

they became hard, black, and lustrous, but were too brittle. The 

adhesion of the pitch to the grains of lignite was not very great. The 

briquettes seemed to be too pitchy, and if the adhesion between the 

pitch and lignite were greater 8 per cent would undoubtedly be sufficient to give the desired results. Although there was no steam test 

made with these briquettes, they were burned under one of the boilers 

and proved quite satisfactory. They weighed 5.98 pounds each. Some 

of the same mixture was tested on the American machine, but the 

eggettes were much inferior to the briquettes.
PRATT.] -, BJRIQUETT1N& TESTS. , 153

ILLINOIS.

Illinois No. 1. Briquettes from this coal were first made with the 

hard pitch X as a binder. One and a quarter tons of this coal were 

briquetted with 16 per cent of pitch X, but on account of the softness 

and roughness of the coal the briquettes were brown and very soft, 

resembling pressed damp loam. The}' were, however, compact and 

well pressed. 

Illinois No. 4- Two tons of this coal were briquetted with 6 per 

cent of pitch D. The coal was not ground veiy fine, there being but 

one side of the disintegrator used. There was a great deal of water 

in the steam, with the result that the briquettes were full of the usual 

perpendicular cracks. Ver}^ great pressure was used, and some of the 

briquettes were larger than the normal size, which was due to the 

compression of the spring of the machine, The average weight of

these briquettes was 6.95 pounds. The briquettes varied considerably 

in texture, some being hard and firm while others were crumbly. On 

cooling, the briquettes were hard and firm, but would not stand very 

much rough handling. The specific gravity of these briquettes was 

1.16, and their crushing strength was only 5,100 pounds to the square 

inch. Some of these mixtures were also tried on the American machine, 

and the eggettes were better than the briquettes made on the English 

machine. They were lustrous arid had a deep black color.

One ton of this coal was briquetted with 8 percent of pitch D, using 

but one side of the disintegrator and with the maximum pressure. 

Splendid briquettes were obtained with this combination, but they 

were gray in color. They weighed 6.43 pounds each and had a specific gravity of 1.11. The specific gravity of the coal is 1.34. The 

crushing strength of these briquettes was 9,327 pounds, as compared 

with 5,100 when 6 per cent pitch D was used as a binder. The 

eggettes made of this mixture on the American machine were not so 

strong as the briquettes.

The next test made with Illinois No. 4 consisted of 2 tons of the coal 

briquetted with 8 per cent of pitch E. The average weight of the briquettes was onl}r 6.15 pounds. Only one side of the disintegrator was 

used, and as the coal was hard the briquettes were coarse and contained 

many noticeably large pieces of coal. The eggettes made from this 

mixture, on the other hand, were much better in quality and quite lustrous, but of a decidedly brownish color. The specific gravit}r of these 

briquettes was 1.13 and their crushing strength 7,265 pounds to the 

square inch. To test the effect of finer grinding, another ton of this coal 

was briquetted with 8 per cent of pitch E, using both sides of the disintegrator. In these briquettes there were a few grains of coal as big as 

a kernel of corn; but for the most part the material was too fine for 

the percentage of pitch, and the resultant briquettes were crumbly,
154 PRELIMINARY REPORT ON COAL-TESTING PLANT. [BULL. 261.

although well pressed, black, and lustrous. They weighed on an average 6.5 pounds each and had a specific gravity of 1.03. Their crushing strength was only 6,000 pounds to the square inch. There was 

little difference in the properties of the eggettes made of this mixture 

and the briquettes. Another ton of this coal was briquetted with 9 

per cent of pitch E, using both sides of the disintegrator with a maximum pressure, with the result that a briquette of much better quality 

was obtained. They could, however, have been still further improved 

by the addition of another one-half per cent of pitch. The weight of 

these briquettes was 6.43 pounds each and their specific gravity 1.08. 

Their crushing strength was 9,125 pounds to the square inch. The 

eggettes made from this mixture were equal in strength and quality 

to the briquettes and were much more lustrous and bluish black in color.

Another test was made with Illinois No. 4 coal and pitch H, which 

is a by-product from the manufacture of gas from heavy petroleum. 

While this pitch would be rather soft to work on the English machine 

on a hot day, it is readily cracked and mixed on a cold day. One ton 

of the coal was briquetted with 8 per cent of pitch H, and the resultant 

briquettes were very strong, clean, and satisfactory, being very much 

better than any of the other briquettes made with this coal. They 

were readily handled when taken from the machine, and when cold 

were very hard and tough, and were capable of standing a great deal 

of rough handling. Their average weight was 6.81 pounds each and 

their specific gravity was 1.11. Their crushing strength was 12,810 

pounds to the square inch, this being the greatest of all the briquettes 

made from Illinois coal.

The last test made with this coal was with a soft asphalt received 

from the Gulf Refining Company. In freezing weather this asphalt 

became hard enough to crack and thus could be used on the English 

machine. On account of the cold weather, there was considerable

water in the steam, which produced cracks. Because of this fact 

and the low melting point and thinness of the asphalt while hot, the 

briquettes were difficult to handle as they came from the machine. 

They were, however, well pressed and on cooling became tough and 

would stand much handling. A better result can probably be obtained 

by using a small percentage of rosin with the asphalt.

INDIANA.

Two coals from this State were tested more for comparative purposes than with regard to their commercial possibilities.

Indiana No. 1. Four tons.of this coal were briquetted with 7 per 

cent of pitch D. a The coal was first washed and then dried. The briquettes were brown in color, readily handled as they came from the 

machine, and when cold stood rough handling. The average weight

a For results of steam test see p. 80.
- BKIQUETTINO TESTS. 155

of the briquettes way 6.8 pounds each. The eggettes of this mixture, 

made on the American machine, were better and stronger than the 

briquettes.

Indiana No. %. One ton of this coal was briquetted with 7 per cent 

of pitch H, and the resultant briquettes were satisfactory in every 

way. They were brown in color and resembled those made of Indiana 

No. 1 coal, but were much stronger, due to the better quality of pitch. 

They weighed on the average 6.4:2 pounds each.

INDIAN TERRITORY.

Indian Territory .No. 2. This coal was tested with the hard pitch 

X, using first 8.5 per cent of pitch; but the briquette was not strong 

and. crumbled very readily. With 12 per cent of pitch the briquettes 

were not much better, and with 13.4: the briquettes looked well as

they came from the press, but were not strong and began to lose their

corners soon after being exposed to the weather. Judging from the 

runs made, this coal will require more than the usual pressure. The 

briquettes containing 8i per cent of pitch weighed only 5.08 pounds 

each. Those with 13.4- per cent of pitch weighed 6.15 pounds each.

Indian Territory No. 3. This coal, which is hard and glossy, was 

tested on the English machine with 8 per cent of pitch A. This made 

fairly good briquettes, which were clean and hard, although somewhat porous, but they were not so strong as was desired. This 

defect was due in part to lack of sufficient heat in the pug mill to 

thoroughly soften the pitch. The briquettes as received from the 

machine weighed 6.56 pounds each. With 7.2 per cent of pitch A, 

this coal made smooth and fairly hard briquettes, which weighed 6.71 

pounds each. With 6 per cent of pitch A, briquettes were made of 

this coal that were smooth and well pressed, but soft. These averaged 

in weight 6.8 pounds each. If this pitch could have been heated in 

the English machine to a sufficiently high temperature to cause it to 

soften and mix with the coal, it would undoubtedly have made a very 

good briquette; this is indicated by the fact that with a soft pitch, as 

pitch D or pitch H, this coal could be briquetted with 6 per cent of 

binder.

Indian Territory No. 6. This sample consisted of a carload of very 

dirty slack, which contained considerable fire clay and some shale. 

Laboratory experiments had shown that 7 per cent of a binder of the 

quality of pitch D was the minimum that could be expected to give 

satisfactory results. Accordingly, one ton of this coal was mixed by 

hand with 7 per cent of pitch D, but the resultant briquettes were very 

crumbly and not at all satisfactory, although dense and well pressed. 

They weighed 7.35 pounds each. They were full of gray streaks on 

the surface, due to the fire clay, and on standing became coated with a 

heavy gray efflorescence, which was tested and proved to be calcium
156 PRELIMINARY REPORT ON COAL-TESTING PLANT. [Buu,.2Cl.

sulphate. Eggettes of this same mixture made on the American 

machine were practically the same in character and unusually dull 

grayish in appearance. The specific gravity of these briquettes was 

1.205. When tested upon the compression machine these briquettes, 

which were very crumbly and weak and broke rather readily in the 

fingers, compressed much more than usual before breaking. Their 

crushing strength was 5,600 pounds per square inch. Another ton 

was tried with 9 per cent of pitch D, but the resulting briquettes were 

practically the same as with 7 per cent, although a little darker in 

color. They also showed similar streaks of fire cla}^ on the surface 

and their fracture was decidedly earthy. They weighed on the average 

7.5 pounds each. There seems to be but little adhesiveness between 

this pitch and the dirty coal, and to make a good briquette with this 

pitch it would be necessary to use probably as much as 15 per cent or 

more.

Satisfactory results with soft pitch not having been obtained, one 

A on of this slack coal was tried with 8 per cent of the harder pitch A. 

The brinuettes were well pressed and blacker than those with 7 per 

cent of pitch D, but were not so strong. There was not the slightest 

tendency for the mixture to become stiff in the machine, which is a 

further indication of the. destructive character of this coal on the 

properties of the pitch.

This coal was next tried by mixing together 93 per cent of coal, 6 

per cent of rosin, and 1 per cent of quicklime. The lime was mixed 

in lumps from dust to three-fourths of an inch in diameter, which it 

was expected would be reduced by the disintegrator and slacked by 

the steam of the pug mill, so that the cement would not set too quickly. 

The disintegrator, however, had very little effect on the hard lime, 

and consequently there Avere many large unslaked pieces in the 

resulting briquettes, which caused them to fall to pieces. Some of 

this material that remained in the pug mill for some time gave a briquette that was hard while hot, but after cooling the briquette became 

earthy. These briquettes weighed on an average 7 pounds each. The 

.eggettes made of this material were dense, but very crumbly.

In order to overcome the chances of unslaked lime going into the 

briquettes, the lime was slaked before using with one-half its weight 

of water, making a fine, dry powder. This was mixed with the coal 

to give the same proportions with the rosin as in the above test, and 

although the briquettes were smooth and well formed, having been 

thoroughly pressed, they were crumbl}7 and not at all strong. They 

were grayish in color and similar in quality to those made with 7 per 

cent pitch D. They weighed on an average 7.5 pounds each. The 

eggettes of this same material were very crumbly and dull in luster.

Some of these lime-rosin briquettes were burned, and they were
PitATT.] BRIQUETTITSTG TESTS. 157

found to give less smoke than those with the rosin and no lime, and 

some less even than those with pitch alone.

Another test of this coal was made with rosin and Kansas crude oil. 

The experiments in the laboratory had shown that the best results 

could be obtained by using 6 per cent rosin and 1 per cent of the oil. 

In preparing this combination for the English machine, the oil was 

first mixed with five times its weight of fine coal, so as to make a nonsticky mass that would readily mix with the cracked rosin and coal in 

the usual manner. On account of the rosin becoming very fluid at 

212° F., the hot briquettes as they were received from the machine 

had no strength, and cracked slightly under their own weight when 

piled only two high. They also cracked rather badly owing to the 

water from the wet steam. On cooling they became strong and were 

of good quality. Some of the mixture that was allowed to stand in the 

mold before pressing until cool enough to be plastic was very good as 

received from the machine, but it had not been sufficiently pressed. 

On standing, these briquettes became coated with a heavy brownishgray efflorescence. The weight of these briquettes averaged 7.29 

pounds each and their specific gravity was 1.25. The crushing strength 

of the briquettes was on the average 6,400 pounds per square inch. 

On account, however, of the lack of uniformity of the briquettes, the 

results of 8 tests varied from 4,300 to 9,240 pounds. The eggettes 

made from this same mixture were hard and compact, although of a 

dull color, and they had a good degree of strength as received from 

the machine. With an arrangement for cooling the mass after it has 

passed through the pug mill and before being fed to the press, this 

mixture would make briquettes which would be very good physically, 

but which would smoke rather badly.

Since the above tests showed that the best way to counteract the 

effect of the large amount of fire clay in this coal was to add some 

liquid binder which would soak into it and. yet at the same time unite 

with the solid binder, another test was made with creosote as a liquid 

binder and pitch as the hard bi nder. For this purpose Indian Territory 

No. 6 coal was mixed with 8 per cent pitch G and 1£ percent of creosote, 

such as is used in preserving timber. The creosote and five times 

its weight of fine coal were first mixed together and then thoroughly 

mixed with the cracked pitch and coal. In operating the machine 

with this mixture, the amount of steam used for heating the mixture was gradually increased until there was an excess. This, however, had no effect upon the cooled briquettes, but it made the hotter 

ones more tender and a little harder to handle. The first briquettes 

of this mixture cracked a little, due to excess of water, but the remainder came from the machine strong enough to bear handling at once. 

The effect of the excess of steam was to insure more complete softening of the pitch and more uniform mixing of the clay. These bri-
158 PRELIMINAEY EEPOET GIST COAL-TESTING* PLANT. [BULL.26J.

quettes were black and clean and only slightly streaked with the clay. 

When piled up they stuck together slightly, and were mottled a little 

from the creosote. They have, however, much less of the gray efflorescence than any of the Indian Territory .No. 6 briquettes that have 

thus far been made, and are also the best that have been made, although 

still earthy. They are smooth and black, and although crumbling 

but little or not at all in handling, on breaking for firing the}r will 

crumble a great deal. The eggettes, on the other hand, made of this 

same mixture on the American machine are just as strong and would 

need no breaking in firing. The weight of these briquettes was 7.25 

pounds each on an average. The specific gravity was 1.215, and their 

crushing strength was 6,500 pounds to the square inch.

Another test with the Indian Territory No. 6 coal was with the 

asphalt B5, which during the cool weather had become hard enough 

to crack, and thus could be readily used on the English machine. One 

ton of this coal and 8 per cent asphalt were used, which made briquettes that were soft and hard to handle while warm, especially when 

they contained moisture due to the wet steam. The better ones were 

compact, heavy, and tough, and although they had an earthy, oily 

appearance, did not crack when struck a severe blow. They would 

stand rough handling, but would be improved with a small percentage 

of rosin. These briquettes weighed 7.12 pounds each, and had a specific gravity of 1.22. Their crushing strength was very low, averaging 

3,200 pounds per square inch. In making the compression tests the 

briquettes yielded a great deal before breaking and would be stronger 

under a quick load. The results varied from 1,800 to 5,100 pounds.

On obtaining a sample of pitch H it was decided to try the effect of 

.this pitch on the Indian Territory No. 6 coal. The best results were 

obtained with this as a binder. One ton of coal was mixed with 8 per

cent of pitch H, and with nearly dry steam and good pressure they 

made hard, compact briquettes. Although somewhat earthy, they 

would stand rough handling. Their average weight was 7.27 pounds 

each.

IOWA.

Iowa No. 4- One ton of this coal was briquetted with 7 per cent of 

pitch E. The briquettes were well pressed, of a grayish color, but on 

cooling crumbled decidedly. They weighed 6.73 pounds each. As 

they did not contain an excess of pitch, 7 tons more of this coal were 

briquetted with 8 per cent of pitch E, in order to have a sufficient 

quantity for a steam test/' The resultant briquettes were bluish black 

in color, but they were not quite hard enough, although fairly strong, 

and would stand considerable hard treatment in transportation. In 

burning they held together until consumed. They weighed, on an

a For result of this test see p. 81,
PRATT.1 BBIQUETTING TESTS. 159

average, 6.77 pounds each. The eggettes made from this same mixture 

were stronger than the briquettes, had a polished surface, but were 

very brown in color. In the cook stove they burned very satisfactorily, without crumbling hardly at all.

KANSAS.

Kansas No. *2. Two tons of this coal were briquetted with 11 per 

cent of pitch X. The pitch of the mixture, in passing through the 

machine from the pug mill to the press, set so quickly that the 

briquettes did not receive the necessary pressure. The surface was 

rough, and a great many cracks were developed. No more of this 

coal was available for briquetting after receiving pitch of the better 

qualities. It is, however, a coal that will briquette very readily with 

pitch of the better grades, such as pitch D or pitch H. It requires 

about 7 per cent of either for commercial briquettes.

KENTUCKY.

Kentucky No. 1. This coal is a good coking coal, but is unusually 

light in weight and is very lustrous. In passing through the disintegrator it was ground a little too fine, even when using only one side 

of the machine. Then, again, on account of its light weight it was 

difficult to give it the right pressure on the English machine. The 

coal was .tested with 6 per cent of pitch D, and the resultant briquettes 

were clean and black, but not sufficiently pressed to close all the pores. 

They were, however, very good briquettes, and would stand rough 

treatment in transportation. They stood weathering with but little 

change. They weighed on an average 6.15 pounds each. The eggettes 

made from this same mixture were very smooth and lustrous and as 

strong as any eggettes that have been made on the American machine. 

In the cook stove they burned very satisfactorily without disintegrating or giving off' an excess of smoke. This coal can be briquetted very 

readily.

Kentucky No. %. As there were none of the good pitches available 

at the time this coal was tested, it was briquetted with 9 per cent 

pitch E, which was the percentage determined by laboratory work. 

Three tons of this coal were tested with 9 per cent pitch E. The 

resultant briquettes were extremely pitchy, and on account of the 

excessive water due to wet steam, these briquettes were difficult to 

handle, and when piled three or four deep they crushed under their own 

weight. With dried steam the briquettes were more easily handled. 

Although still somewhat plastic, thejr did not crush when piled up. 

On cooling, the briquettes were very hard, having a lustrous fracture, 

and were capable of standing a great deal of rough handling. These 

briquettes weighed on an average 6.83 pounds each. The eggettes
160 PRELIMINARY REPORT ON COAL-TESTINGS PLANT. [BULL.261.

made of this same mixture were very hard and sonorous, but rather 

too brittle. In the cook stove the eggettes burned very satisfactorily. 

This coal was tested with 8 per cent pitch E, using 3i tons of coal 

and giving the briquettes the greatest pressure possible on the English 

machine/* As the coal is very hard, only one side of the disintegrator 

was used, arid in the resultant briquettes there were many large pieces 

of coal, but there were also sufficient small pieces to fill in all the openings between the larger fragments. This is a nearly ideal condition 

for briquetting on the English machine. The briquettes were bluish 

black and excellent in every way. They did not have the glossy or 

lustrous fracture of the briquettes containing 9 per cent of pitch, but 

they were a better commercial briquette and were more easily handled 

when taken from the machine. With pitch of the quality of pitch D or 

pitch H, from 5 to 6 per cent would make a good briquette. These briquettes would stand a great deal of rough treatment in transportation, 

and in burning they did not disintegrate, nor was there much slack 

formed in breaking them for burning. They weighed on an average 

6.83 pounds each and had a specific gravity of 1.13, as compared with 

1.37, the specific gravity of the slack or fine coal. The slack which 

was used in making the briquettes contained 18 per cent of ash, but 

the lump coal contained only 11 per cent of ash. The crushing strength 

of the briquettes was 11,300 pounds to the square inch. The eggettes 

made from this same mixture were stronger and better than those 

made with 9 per cent, although not so sonorous and hard. They were 

also browner in color. The eggettes were not so strong as the 

briquettes.

MISSOURI.

Missouri No. 1. At the time this coal was tested only the-hard pitch 

was available. Two and a half tons of this coal that had been previously washed were briquetted with 11.5 per cent of pitch A. The 

resultant briquettes were black in color and sufficiently hard to stand 

rough handling, but on account of the pitch setting too quickly they 

were insufficiently pressed and were granular and porous. b This coal 

will, however, briquette very readily, and with the softer pitches, as 

pitch D and pitch H, will make a good briquette with about 6 to 7 per 

cent of binder.

MONTANA.

Montana No. 1. This coal 'was dried slightly before briquetting. 

It was tested with 16 per cent of pitch A. The full limit of pressure 

that could be obtained on the English machine was used, and although 

the briquettes were well pressed, they were somewhat porous and 

rough on the surface. They were black, but not very gloss}^. The}'"

a For results of steam test see p. 81. & For steam test see p. 81.
mATT.] BBIQUETT1MG TESTS. 161

stood rough handling, and they weighed on the average 6.30 pounds 

each.

This coal was briquetted with 7 per cent pitch B, using the highest pressure obtainable. As received from the press, these briquettes 

were somewhat plastic, but on cooling they proved to be brittle. They 

weighed on an average 7 pounds each.

NEW MEXICO.

New Mexico No. 1. This black lignite was first briquetted with 12 

per cent pitch A, but the resultant briquettes were unsatisfactory in 

every way. Five and a half tons of this coal were briquetted with 

15.8 per cent pitch X, and the resultant briquettes were apparently 

good in every way and could be handled very easily without any 

crumbling. On cooling, however, they began to crumble, .:nd they did 

not stand the weather very well. In burning they showed a great 

tendency to disintegrate. '

This coal was tested on the English machine with 8 per cent pitch D. 

The resultant briquettes were rather crumbly and earthy, and on cooling were covered with white efflorescence. They did not contain a 

sufficient quantity of pitch. They weighed on an average 6.83 pounds 

each and had a specific gravity of 1.13. Their crushing strength was 

7,120 pounds to the square inch.

As 8 per cent of pitch D did not give any excess of binder, and as 

the resultant briquettes were not satisfactory, another ton of this coal 

was tested with 10 per cent of pitch D. While the briquettes fresh 

from the machine were somewhat stronger than those with 8 per cent 

of pitch D, it was found that upon standing and becoming thoroughly 

cool they became so like those made with 8 per cent pitch that they 

could not be distinguished from each other. This indicated that a 

.satisfactory briquette could not be made with this pitch, even by 

greatly increasing the percentage. In making these briquettes, the 

English machine was run under ideal conditions, having a constant 

pressure; the coal was sufficiently dry and not too tine, and could be 

briquetted at a moderate temperature. There was a little more white 

efflorescence on the briquettes with the 10 per cent than with the 8 

per cent pitch D, although the briquettes were quite glossy. The 

average weight of these briquettes was 6.42 pounds each and their 

specific gravity was 1.02. The crushing strength of these was 5,900 

pounds per square inch, as compared with 7,120 pounds per square 

inch for those made with 8 per cent pitch D. The eggettes were quite 

glossy on the surface, but had a dull fracture and were not very 

tenacious. There was a tendency to disintegration in burning.

The most satisfactory test was with pitch H, arid one ton of this coal 

was briquetted with 8 per cent of this pitch. The resultant briquettes

.Bull. 26:1. 05 11
162 PRELIMINARY REPORT ON COAL-TESTING PLANT. [BULL. 261.

were hard, strong, and clean, being much better in every way than 

any briquettes of this coal made with pitch D. They weighed on the 

average 6.25 pounds each and their specific gravity was 1.06. Their 

crushing strength was 13,050 pounds per square inch, nearly twice the 

strength of those made with 8 per cent pitch D.

New Mexico No. 2. This black lignite is almost identical with New 

Mexico No. 1. It was tested with 9.3, 10.5, and 12 per cent of pitch 

X, but in every case the resultant briquettes were very crumbly and 

no positive results could be obtained.

This coal was next tested with pitch D as a binder, one ton of the 

coal being briquetted with 7 per cent of pitch D. The resultant 

briquettes were very crumbly, gray in color, and had an earthy fracture. 

They were neither hard nor strong and were porous, although the 

pressure was increased to the limit. There did not seem to be any 

difference in the resultant briquette, whether made with a low or high 

pressure. There was a large amount of grayish efflorescence that 

came out on the briquettes almost immediately. They weighed on an 

average 7 pounds each. The eggettes made from this mixture, although 

not so porous, had the same earthy appearance and fracture and gray 

color.

Another ton of this coal was briquetted with 9 per cent of pitch D, 

and there was an excess of pitch, as was indicated by the bluish color 

on the external surfaces, due to partial volatilization of the pitch. On 

account of an excess of steam, the briquettes were rather soft as 

received from the machine, and owing to the excess of pitch many of 

them stuck together. Although they were better than those made 

with 7 per cent pitch D, they were not commercial briquettes. 

They weighed on an average 7.12 pounds each. This coal was very 

dirty and contained considerable clay, and the same difficulties were 

experienced in briquetting it with pitch as with the Indian Territor}^ 

No. 6 coal. From the work that was done on this sample, it has been 

definitely proved that such dirty lignites can riot be well briquetted 

with any commercial percentage of pitch as a binder, unless perhaps 

it is a pitch made from petroleum, as pitch H.

Five tons of this coal were briquetted on the American machine, 

using 10.25 per cent of the Hoffman patent binder, consisting of 

petroleum, rosin, and quicklime. These briquettes were not very 

tough, but held together pretty satisfactorily when burned under the 

boiler. a

NORTH DAKOTA.

North Dakota No. 1. This is a tough, woody, brown lignite, which 

does not disintegrate very readily. In the first test the lignite was 

not previously dried and was mixed with 10 per cent of pitch A.

a For steam test see p. 82.
PKATT.J BR1QUETTING TESTS. 163

Although the highest pressure possible was used, the resultant briquettes were very porous and had the appearance of an incoherent 

mass of chips. With 12 per cent of pitch A the briquettes were still 

porou;3 and noncoherent, and on standing- for some time exposed to the 

weather the grains and fragments of lignite began to slack off. Between 

the fragments of lignite there was an excess of pitch observed, but it 

did not seem to have any adhesion for the fragments. As the briquettes were cooling it was noticed that the contained steam acted 

upon the lignites, giving them the appearance of lumps of soft, brown 

loam surrounded by pitch.

The next test was made with dry material, the lignite having been 

previously ground to about 4-mesh. One ton of this dry, fine material 

was mixed with 12 per cent of pitch A and run through the English 

machine, only one side of the disintegrator being used. There was no 

excess of steam and the full pressure was used, but the resultant 

briquettes were open. With both sides of the disintegrator in use 

there was a slight improvement in the briquettes, but they were all a 

porous, incoherent mass, and on exposure to the weather began to disintegrate. There was apparently an excess of pitch between the flakes, 

similar to that observed in the first ton tested. The same mixtures 

were tested on the American machine,- and the eggettes, when first 

received, had a polished, lustrous appearance, but became rough immediatel}7 . arid they had almost no coherence. This lignite was tested 

further by increasing the percentages of pitch, allowing the mixtures 

to rema.in longer in the pug mill, and increasing the pressure to the 

limit that could be attained on the English machine, but no briquettes 

were obtained that had any coherence, and all the results were negative.

PENNSYLVANIA. i

Pennsylvania, No. 3. 'This sample consisted of a car load of anthracite culr/1. The first test was with 90 parts of the culm and 10 parts of 

a West Virginia coking coal, and 12£ per cent of hard pitch A. The 

mixture was run through the English machine, both sides of the 

disintegrator being used, and the briquettes being pressed to the limit 

of the machine. On account of the hardness of the anthracite coal, 

it did not disintegrate to anjr great extent and the resultant briquettes resembled concrete. These briquettes were hard and tough, 

and ever, with this inferior pitch were of good quality. They weighed 

on an average 7.25 pounds each. During combustion they burned 

like lumps of anthracite coal, making but little flame. On standing 

exposed to the weather the briquettes did not suffer to any extent 

except during hard rains, when their surfaces became pitted. Apparently this! pitting was due to the wearing away of the softer pitch from 

the harder fragments of anthracite.
164 PKELIMINAKY KEPORT ON COAL-TESTING PLANT. [BULL. 261.

This culm was next tested with the softer pitch B, using 84 per cent 

of anthracite, 9 per cent of West Virginia coking coal, and 7 per cent 

of pitch B. For this test the coarsest and driest portion of the anthracite culm was used. This combination made fair briquettes, but they 

would have been improved if dry steam could have been used. The 

briquettes weighed on an average 7.64 pounds each and had ft specific 

gravity of 1.174, while the specific gravity of the raw culm was 1.52. 

The crushing strength of the briquettes was only 4,500 pounds to the 

square inch. The eggettes of this'mixture made on the American 

machine were harder and firmer than the corresponding briquettes. 

They all burned like anthracite coal, except that in starting the fire 

they were more easily ignited and burned at first with a short flame.

Another ton of the anthracite culm, which had been kiln-dried, was 

briquetted with 7 per cent of pitch B without the addition of any bituminous coal. If the steam introduced into the pug mill was wet, the 

fresh briquettes were almost too soft to handle. If, however, the 

steam was dry, they were firm and polished. Although the briquettes 

were not so lustrous as those made with soft coal, they were clean, 

smooth, hard, and strong, and when dropped they rang like stone. The 

eggettes of this mixture made on the American machine were also very 

good, but no better than the briquettes. Both the eggettes and the briquettes burned like lump anthracite, with very little flame or crumbling. 

In breaking the large briquettes there was but little Avaste. These 

weighed on an average 7.4 pounds each and had a specific gravity of 

1.28, the specific gravity of the coal being 1.52. The crushing strength 

of the briquettes was 17,100 pounds per square inch, and the test was 

made on briquettes that had been exposed to the weather for over a 

month.

One ton of the anthracite culm was also tested with 7 per cent of 

pitch D as a binder; but, on account of lack of pressure, the resultant 

briquettes were porous and not so good as those which contained 

7 per cent of pitch B. They stuck together while hot, indicating that 

7 per cent of pitch D was sufficient and that an increase of pitch would 

not improve them. They weighed but 7.06 pounds each on an average.

A 5-ton lot of the anthracite culm was briquetted with 10 per cent 

of West Virginia coking coal and Hi per cent of the Hoffman patent 

binder on the American machine. The resultant eggettes were hard, 

smooth, and clean, with a somewhat polished surface, and stood considerable rough handling. These eggettes were tested by burning under 

a boiler, the fire box of which was fitted for a bituminous coal. a Although made of 79f per cent of anthracite, they did not burn like anthracite, and their oil and rosin constituents gave a long flame to the 

fuel and the boiler ran at 86 per cent of its rated capacity.

"For result of steam test see p. 82.
BRIQUETTING TESTS. 165

From the results of these tests it is apparent that anthracite culm 

can be satisfactorily briq netted either in combination with a coking 

coal or by rising simply pitch as a binder, and that the resultant 

briquettes have most of the properties of lump anthracite.

WEST VIRGINIA.

All of the West Virginia coals tested at the plant were good coking 

coals, so that there was little need of briquetting experiments.

West Virginia No. 3. A test was made with this coal in the laboratory to determine if it is possible, under a certain pressure and temperature, to make a briquette without any binder. A briquette was 

obtained which, although not perfectly satisfactory, indicates that 

under certain conditions, with the right pressure and temperature, 

briquettes could be made with this coal without any binder whatever.

West Virginia No. 6. The first test made on this coal was with 5 

per cent of the very glossy homemade pitch Y. The pressure used 

was the, limit that could be obtained on the English machine, and the 

resultant briquettes were hard, clean, and strong, and had a sharp 

glossy fracture. They were in every way equal to the best briquettes 

that had been made on this machine. They weighed on an average 

6.12 pounds each. On account of the excellent quality of the briquettes 

with 5 per cent of pitch, another ton was briquetted with only 3 

per cent of pitch Y. Extreme pressure was applied, and the resultant briquettes were unusually smooth and glossy, but not quite 

strong enough. They crumbled instead of cracking clean under the 

blows ol a hammer. The briquettes containing 5 per cent of pitch, 

when broken, made little or no waste and had a clean fracture.

On the American machine the mixture containing 5 per cent of pitch 

Y made very glossy and solid eggettes, which were very strong and 

would stand a great deal of very rough handling. One surprising 

quality of these briquettes was that when tested in the cook stove 

they burned with little or no caking, although the coal itself is a very 

good coking coal. The briquettes, when exposed to the weather, were 

affected bat little and did not disintegrate appreciably. In burning 

they held together until.entirely consumed.'

This coal was also tested with the Hoffman patent binder, and the 

resultant eggettes were also of very good quality, being hard, glossy, 

and clean; but in burning they caked more than those with 5 per cent 

of pitch.

WYOMING.

Wyoming No. 1. This coal was a very black, pitchy-looking lignite, 

which contained 23 per cent of water. It was first tried without drying, 

9 per cent of pitch H being used. Judging from the resulting briquette, 

there was a slight excess of pitch, but on account of the large amount 

of water in the lignite the pitch apparently failed to adhere to 'the
166 PRELIMINARY REPORT ON COAL-TESTING PLANT. [BULL.'201.

grains of lignite. The fresh briquettes were difficult to handle, and 

when broken open the grains of lignite seemed to be wet, as if coated 

with moisture, which prevented the pitch from adhering to them. 

Many of the briquettes were porous, not being sufficiently pressed, 

and they were also brittle. Some of them, however, were quite good. 

When broken up and burned in the stove they stood up in the fire 

very well and burned better than any lignite briquette that had thus 

far been made. They weighed on an average 6.31 pounds each.

Another ton of this lignite was ground in the Williams mill and 

run through the drier, but this operation removed only a portion of 

the water, so that the briquette still contained considerable water. 

This material was briquetted on the English machine with 8 per 

cent of pitch H. A minimum amount of steam was used, which 

did not contain any excess of water, and a maximum pressure was 

applied. As received from the machine, many of the briquettes showed 

perpendicular cracks due to the excessive pressure. The hot briquettes 

were difficult to handle, the individual grains of the lignite seeming to 

be wet and not cohering at all. Even under their own weight many 

of them would crack badly. On breaking open the hot briquettes the 

grains of lignite seemed to move about as if they were alive. This lack 

of cohesion continued until the pitch became quite hard and could no 

longer be pressed in the machine. Thus the variation in the steam 

used as the mixture passed through the pug mill had no effect on the 

cohesion of the resultant briquettes. On cooling, however, these 

briquettes became very- hard and strong and broke with a sharp fracture and with but a small amount of waste. In burning1 , these bri- o 7

quettes did not fall to pieces, as had been the case with the other lignite 

briquettes, but burned very satisfactorily. They were very light, 

weighing only 5.85 pounds each, and had a specific gravity of 0.98. 

The specific gravity of the coal was only 1.16. The crushing strength 

of these briquettes was 9,600 pounds to the square inch.

Another ton of this coal was tested with a soft, tough asphalt, B6,. 

that was received from Casper, Wyo. As had been shown by laboratory tests, this asphalt could not be used on the English machine alone, 

and as a result the lignite was briquetted with 5 per cent of asphalt 

B6, 2£ per cent of rosin, and 1 per cent of lime which had previously 

been hydrated. This mixture worked perfectly in the machine, and 

the hot briquettes were firm and good and easily handled, but the 

proportion of binder was not sufficient and the briquettes were dry 

and not strong. Another reason for this result was that during the 

two crushings and diyings of the lignite the grains had become of a 

nearly uniform size (about 10-mesh), so that the resultant briquettes 

were very porous in spite of the maximum pressure used. In burning, the briquettes fell to pieces. They weighed on an average 5.40 

pounds each. A combination of this coal and asphalt can undoubtedly 

be obtained which will briquette satisfactorily.
BRIQUETTING TESTS. 167

COKE BREEZE.

In ord'jr to determine whether it was possible to use waste coke 

breeze, a series of experiments was made in the laboratory which 

showed that coke breeze could be briquetted so that it could be used 

as a substitute for lump coke. In order to make a practical test, a ton 

of this mixture was made containing 73 per cent of crushed coke, 20 

per cent of West Virginia No. 6 coal, and 7 per cent of homemade 

pitch Y. These materials were mixed thoroughly by hand and run 

through the English machine, both sides of the disintegrator being used. 

They were well pressed, and as delivered by the machine they were 

unusually dry and had a brassy to bronze sheen on the surface, which 

looked ais though it might be due to an abrasion of the brass of the 

molds. Upon testing this material, however,, it was found to contain 

only the faintest possible trace of copper. The briquettes were hard 

and strong and easily handled while hot, but were somewhat dirt}7 . 

On cooling they became unusually tough and strong, and during combustion were very solid and burned more like anthracite than bituminous 

coal. Such a combination would make a good substitute for anthracite 

coal. These briquettes weighed on an average 5.73 pounds each.

The same mixture was run through the American machine, and the 

resultant eggettes were dense, smooth, and polished, but not so tough 

as the corresponding briquettes. While warm the}7 would stand a 

great dea.l of rough handling, but on cooling they became more brittle. 

This ma}' be due to the crushing of the coke grains by the excessive 

pressure obtained in the American machine.

The next test of coke breeze was made without the introduction of 

any bituminous coal, and the mixture consisted of 92 per cent of coke 

.breeze a ad 8 per cent of pitch D. In passing this mixture through 

the English machine both sides of the disintegrator were run, a minimum amount of steam was used, and a moderate pressure exerted. 

The resultant briquettes were clean, well formed, and when struck had 

a metallic ring. They were very tough and strong, and would bear 

much mc»re handling than any of the briquettes made out of the coal. 

They burned like ordinary coke, without any disintegration and with 

only a little flame. These briquettes weighed on an average 5.92 

pounds each. The well-pressed briquettes had a specific gravity of 

1.025 and the porous briquettes had a specific gravity of 1.002. The 

crushing strength of the better briquettes was 30,100 pounds to the 

square inch, while the porous briquettes had a crushing strength of 

22,100 pounds. In comparing the results of the crushing strength of 

these coke briquettes with those made from coal, it will be seen that 

even the porous briquettes had a much greater crushing strength than 

the best of the coal briquettes.
168 PRELIMINARY REPORT ON COAL-TESTING PLANT. [BULi,.261.

The eggettes of this same mixture thati were made on the American 

machine were very hard'and had the same metallic ring as the briquettes. On account of the fragments of coke being crushed in the 

press, these were denser than the briquettes, but not so tough. They 

were, however, very satisfactory. The manufacture of these eggettes 

or briquettes should be a means of utilizing a considerable amount 

of waste coke.

COKING OF BRIQUETTES AND BRIQUETTE MIXTURES.

In connection with the briquetting of the various coals, a line of 

experimental work suggested itself, viz, the possibility of making a 

coke out of a semi to non coking coal by the introduction of sufficient 

volatile matter in the form of a binder to cause the coal to coke. The 

first experiment along this line was tried with some of the briquettes 

made from Arkansas No. 4 coal and 6 per cent of pitch B, by filling 

a box with about 12 crushed briquettes and then placing this in one 

of the coke ovens, where it remained during a run of a coking coal. 

The result of this experiment was the obtaining of a mass of coke 

which was 12 to 15 inches long, somewhat metallic in appearance, 

and had a good ring to it." The next experiment was the filling of a 

box with a mixture of Arkansas No. 4 coal with 6 per cent of pitch B, 

but without passing it through the press. This was treated in the coke 

oven similarly to the other, but the results were not so satisfactory as 

in the first case. A coke was obtained, but it was not so good as the 

other. The next experiment was with the same mixture after briquetting but without breaking up the briquettes. These were piled on top 

of one another in a box and tested in the coke oven in the same manner 

as the others. The result of this test was the obtaining of masses of 

coke that retained the form of the original briquette. All of the coke

obtained by these experiments, while not of the quality desired for 

iron smelting, could be used 'for lead and copper smelting.

Another experiment on a larger scale was with 2 tons of Arkansas 

No. 6 slack coal. This coal was mixed with 8 per cent of pitch A and 

then ground in the Williams mill and charged into a coke oven together 

with an equal weight of the same mixture that had been previously 

briquetted. Both mixtures made coke, but not of the best quality. 

On account of the briquettes not being packed close together, a portion 

of them were somewhat burned and were not so good as the remainder.

The experiments seem to show that while a coke can be made by 

mixing coal and pitch, coke of a better quality is obtained by previously briquetting the mixture; but sufficient experiments along this 

line have not yet been made to justify any definite conclusions, and it 

is expected that the experimentation will be continued.

" For coking test see pp. 130-131.
Summary of briquetting tests.

Name of sample.

Arkansas No. 3 .............. 

Do.......................

Do.......................

Do.......................

Do.......................

Do.......................

Do.......................

Do ^u.......... .............................

COAL.

Character and condition.

Slightly moist .... 

.....do............

Slack.............

.....do............

.....do............

.....do............

.....do............

.....do............

Soft...............

Do....................... '.................. ..

Do.......................

Do.......................

Indiana No. 2 ...............

Indian Territorv No. 2 ......

Do.......................

Do.......................

Do.......................

Do.......................

Do.......................

Do.......................

Do.... ...... .............

Do .......................

Do.......................

Do.......................

Do.......................

Do.......................

Do.......................

Do.......................

New Mexico No 2 <*

Washed ..........

Hard .............

.....do............

.....do............

.....do............

.....do............

.....do............

.....do............

.....do............

Slack.............

.....do............

.....do..... ......

Chemical composition.

Volatile 

matter.

31. 84 

17.46 

16.02 

19.47

Fixed 

carbon.

53. 28 

66.69 

72.55 

66.71

12.82

12. 68 

13.89 

34.88

37.48 

31.90

73.69

72.88 

68.50 

40.45

39.57

43,55

Moisture.

2.34 

3.24 

2.23 

2.19

Ash.

12. 54 

12.61 

9.20 

11.63

!

1.28

2.36 

3.80 

18.68

9.75 

12.91

35. 17 40. 41 

36.14 41.22 

36. 15 48. 40 

37. 00 47. 25 

31.28 41.40

35.59

31. 23

36. 12 

37.94

33.58 

35.90

12. 21

12.08 

13.81 

5.99

13.20 

11,64

16.59 

9.62

4.45 

4.61 

8.03

7.83 

13.02 

11.00 

11.14 

19. 29

39.37 14.08 10.96

46.68 ! 4.18 

56. 39 3. 10 

45. 02 7. 91

38.73 

42.08

17.91 

4.39 

9.13

8.33 ; 19.36 

11. 05 10. 97

34.58 46.14 12.29

Specific 

gravity.

..........

1.35 

1.35

1.35

1.35 

1.35

1.35

1.34 

1.34 

1.34

1.34 

1.34 

1.34 

1.34

1.37 

1.37

6.99 ..........

Do....................... Dry...............

Do ....................... Culm, 84 per cent. 

Do Culm dripd

Do .......................

Do .......................

Do.......................

Dried

33.82 36.73 ! 10.79 ! 18.66

29.59 25.68 35.38 ; 9.35

i

7.02 71.79 5.41

21,54 71.88

35. 68 37. 19

1.53

22. 63

15.78

5.05

4.50

.....do............ ........................................

1.52

1.52 

1.52

1.16 

1.16

1.16

BINDER.

Per 

cent.

7 

9.25

11 

9.5

8.7

12 

10

{I 

11

0

i:

6 

S 

10

16 

6

8 

8

8 

 9

o

7 

7 

13.4

8

9 

8 

f 6 

j 1

{ i

{ 1.25 

8 

8

7 

8

11 

6 

9 

8 

11.5

16 

^ ' 

12

15.8 

8 

10

8

9. 

10 

12

12.5

\l

7

3 

9

8

U[ 5 5

Kind.

Pitch A........... 

.....do............

Pitch X ..........

.....do............

Pitch A...........

Pitch X ..........

Pitch A...........

Rosin.............

Pitch A........... 

Rosin.............

Pitch A. ..........

PitchB.. .........

Pitch B........... 

Pitch C ...........

Pitch D........... 

Pitch X...........

.....do............

Pitch E.. .........

.....do............

.....do............

Pitch H...........

Asphalt B4 .......

Pitch D . . . . .

Composition.

Volatile 

matter.

47.93

59. 07

Fixed 

carbon.

50.79

39. 44

1

|

49. 66 47. 88

62.75 35.84

54. 05 43. 91

54*. 11 44.04

61.44

Pitch H.. . 1

Pitch X...........

Pitch A...........

Pitch D...........

.....do............

Pitch A...........

Petroleum P3..... 

Pitch.............

Pitch H........... ..........

::::::::::

..........

rI ........

80.75

.....do............ ..........

Pitch X

86.72

BRIQUETTES.

Specific 

gravity.

1.13

1.17

Weight 

in 

pounds.

5.12

6.8

6.47

6.87

6.87 

6.92 

7.20

.......... | 5. 98

1.16 

1.11 

1.13

1.03 

1.08 

1.11

19. 25

Pitch E.. ......... ....................

.....do............

.... .do ............

Pitch A........... 

Pitch X ..............................

1. 205

6.95 

6.43 

6.15

6.50 

6.43 

6.81 

6.77

6.80 

6.42 

0.15 

6.56

7.35 

7 50

General character. Behavior on weathering.

Slightly disintegrates.

TMsfvn tppTij.tPs

Very good, smooth and hard

Clean, compact, but brittle.

Excellent in every respect . 

Tender, friable .............

.....do................

.....do............. ..

No deterioration .....

Hard and lustrous, but brittle.

Not well pressed; somewhat 

porous.

. do

.......... .....do .

. ... 7.00

1.25

1.215 

1.22

1.13

PitchD.. .........i..........;..........

Pitch D ;

7.29

7.25

7.12 

7.27 

6.73 

6.77

6.15 

6.83 

6.83

6.30 

7.00

1. 13 6. 83 

1.02 6.4'}

1.06

.....do............ .......... .......... ..........

Pitch A i

6.25 

7.00

7.12

.....do............

Pitch A, 11 parts 

WestVirginiaooal

Pitch B ...........

West Virginia coal 

Pitch B

> 1 171

Pitch Y

1.28

.....do............ ..........!..........;..........

Pitch H . . .

.. .do . ;

j. 78 77 90 75

.98

.....do......................

.....do................

.....do................

Cm vn hies

Behavior on burning. Crushingstrength.

Held together until consumed.

Some smoke, verv good .... ..........

/Burn readily, no disintegra- 

\ tion. | 8, 780

17, 500

gration.

.....do......................

Good .......................

Poor..... . ..

Disintegrates j Fair .... . . ... .... .

.....do................

.....do................

.....do................

.....do................

Tough good '

.....do......................

.....do......................

.....do......................

Good, considerable smoke. .

.....do............. .. .. .

Crumbles Pnnr ' Fair ... ...................

Strong, but not quite hard 

enough.

Good, slightly porous. ......

Pitch set too quick, porous.

Very unsatisfactory ........

.....do......................

Crumbly ...................

Porous, little cohesion .....

fin

7. 25 Hard and tough, good .....

7.40 

6.12

6.31 

5.85

5.40

Very good ..................

When cold, hard and 

strong.

Poor ..... ... ............ .

f

Very good ............

do

Very good, no disintegration.

Poor ........................

.....do......................

Fair Good

5,100 

9,327 

7,266

6,000 

9,125 

12, 810

5,600

6, 400

6,500 

3,200

11,300

do j..... do ...................... -..--.--..

.. .do . ............ .....do ......................

do . i .... .do ......................

Disintegrates .........

.... .do ...............

Becomes pitted . s. . . . . 

.....do................

Very good ............

Fair ..................

Good .......................

Disintegrates ............... 

Fair ........................

7,120 

5,900 

13,050

Disintegrates ............... ..........

.....do...................... ..........

do . 4 500

.....do.............. ........

Very good .................. 

Good .......................

17, 100

Satisfactory ................ ..........

Good .......................

Fell to pieces ...............

9,600

Bull. 261 05. (Face page 168.

a Black lignite. b Brown lignite.
INDEX.

A. Page.

Acid sludge for binding briquettes, tests of. 146 

Air-drying, loss due to...................... 30-31

Alabama, coal from, analyses of............ 32

coal from, boiler tests of................ . 80

boiler and gas-producer tests of,

summary of .................... 119

briquetting tests of........... 147,148,158

coking tests of ............... 121,122,130

producer-gas tests'of ........... 88-90,117

samples of, list of................... 22

washing tests of.................... 66

Allis-Chalmers Company, equipment contributed by ..................... 13

American Arithmometer Company, equipment contributed by........... 14

American Compressed Fuel Company,

equipment contributed by ..... 13

American Concentrator Company, equipment contributed by........... 13

American Fuel Company, coal contributed

by.............................. 20

American Steel Wire Company, equipment

contributed by................. 14

Analysis, methods of....................... 31

Anchor Coal Company,coal contributed by. 24 

Arens, Henry, work of..................... 84

Appliance Manufacturing Company, equipment contributed by........... 14

Appropriations, amount of................. 11

Arkansas, coal from, analyses of........... 33-35

coal from, boiler tests of................ 80

briquetting tests of........... 147-152,168

coking tests of.................... 122,130

samples of, list of.................... 22

washing tests of.................... 6,6

Ashcroft Manufacturing Company, equipment contributed by........... 14

Asphalt for binding briquettes, analyses of. 140 

tests of ............................... 142-144

use of................................... 140

Atchison Coal Mining Company, coal contributed by..................... 26

Austin Manufacturing Company, equipment contributed by........... 14

B.

Barrett Manufacturing Company, aid rendered by....................... 134,137

Barrett Manufacturing Company, equipment contributed by........... 14

Barrett Manufacturing Company pitch

Irom, character oi............ 137-138

Bartlett, C. 0., & Snow Company, equip-.

ment contributed by........... 13

Page.

Baum, F. W., Company, equipment contributed by..................... 14

BerwindrWhite Coal Mining Company, coal

contributed by ................. 26

Big Sandy Coal and Coke Company, coal

contributed by .................' 28

Binders used for making briquettes, description of................... 136-14(1

Boiler house, equipment of.............. 12,14-15

Boilers for steam tests, description of...... 74-75

Boyd.B.B., work of........................ 15

 Breckenridge, L. P., report by, on steam

tests ............................ 74-84

work of................................. 15

Breckenridge, L. P., and Fernald, R H., report by, on comparison of steam 

and producer-gas tests........ 118-120

Bridge & Beach Manufacturing Company,

equipment contributed by ..... 14

Bridgeman, A. P., work done by........... 84

Briquettes, binders used in making...... 136-146

binding materials for, laboratory tests

of............................. 141-146

character of.......................... 148-166

coals used in making................. 146-148

coking of, experiments in .............. 168

pitch used in making ................ 136-139

mode of making...................... 134-146

Briquetting, machinery for ................ 12

Briquetting plant, description of......... 134-130

Briquetting tests, report of J. H. Pratt on. 134-168 

Bryan, F. A., work of ...................... 31

Buck, S. M., coal contributed by........... 28

Buck Stove and Range Company, equipment contributed by........... 14

Buildings, character of ..................... 12

Bullock Electric Manufacturing Company,

equipment contributed by ..... 13

Burrell, G. A., work of...................... 31

Burrows, J. S., work of..................... 16,18

C.

Caledonian Coal Company, coal contributed

by ........................:..... 26

California, asphalt from.................... 140

Cambria Fuel Company,' coal contributed

by.............................. 28

Cameron, William, work done by .......... 84

Campbell, M. R., report by,on field work.. 18-29 

work in charge of...................... 16

Campbell, M. R., Parker, E. W., and Holmes, 

J. A., introduction by, giving 

general description of the investigations. ....................... 11-17

169
170 INDEX.

Page.

Our samples, 11st of......................... 22-29

method of obtaining........... 18-19,20-21,30

Casper, Wyo., asphalt from, test of......... 140

Cedar Coulee Coal Company, coal contributed by......................... 26

Central Coal and Coke Company, coal contributed by..................... 22

Centerville Block Coal Company, coal contributed by ..................... 24

Chatfield Manufacturing Company, aid rendered by.................. 134,137-138

equipment'contributed by ............. 14

Chemical laboratory, work of.............. 30

Chisholm, Boyd & White press, description

of............................. 134,136

Clay for binding briquettes, tests of........ 146

use of................................... 141

Clover Leaf Coal Company, coal contributed

by .............................. 22

Coffman, W. H., coal contributed by....... 28

Coke, manufacture of, experiments in..... 168

Coke breeze, use of, in briquettes ........ 167-168

Coke breeze, vise of, for briquettes, tests

of............................. 167-168

Coking tests, report on ................... 121-133

Colorado, coal from, analyses of........... 35

coal from, boiler tests of................ 80

boiler and gas-producer tests of, 

summary......................... 119

coal from, briquetting tests of....' 147,152,168

producer-gas tests of........... 90,91,117

samples of, list of................... 22

Consumers' Lignite Company, coal contributed by......................... 28

Cravvford, J. H., jr., work of ............... 31

Crosby Steam Gage and Valve Company,

equipment contributed by..... 14

Culbertson, J. G., work of.................. 15,86

Cummings, R. W., work of................. 86

Cupola tests of coke, report on ............. 129

D.

Davis Colliery Company, coal contributed

by.............................. 28

De Wolf, F. W., work of.................... 16,18

Dirks, H. B., work of....................... 84

Donk Bros. Coal and Coke Company, coal

contributed by ................. 22

E.

Ecker, H. G., work of...................... 86

Edwards, D., & Son, coal contributed by .. 24 

Electric generator used in steam tests, char- _

' acter of......................... 75

Engelhard, Charles, equipment contributed

by.............................. 14

Engine house, equipment of................ 12

Equipment, list of........................... 12-15

F.

Fairbanks, Morse & Co., equipment contributed by..................... 13

Famous Filter Comp_ny, equipment contributed by..................... 14

Vage. 

Fankboncr, Bert, work of.................. .1.4

Fernald, R. IT., report by, on producer-gas

tests ........................... Sfi-l1.7

work of................................. 15

Fernald, R. H., and Breckenridge, L. P., . 

report by, on comparison of 

steam and producer-gas tests.. 118-120 

Field, H. E., work done by................. 129

Field work, method of .................. 16,18-29

Fogarty, W. J., work done by.............. 129

Frost Engine Company, equipment contributed by..................... 13

Galloway Coal Company, coal contributed

by.............................. 22

Gauley Mountain Coal Company, coal contributed by..................... 28

Generator, electric, used in steam tests .... 75

Gibson Coal Mining Company, coal contributed by..................... 24

Green, C. H., work done by................ 84

Grine, H. A., work done by ................ 86

Groves, J. W., work of...................... 16,18

Gulf Refining Company, acid sludge furnished by ...................... 146

asphalt furnished by ................... 140

petroleum furnished by ..............'. 141

H.

Harman, J. J., work done by............... 84

Hawkins, C. C., acknowledgments to...... 134

Heine Safety Boiler Company, equipment

contributed by................. 12

Henion & Hubbell, equipment contributed

by .............................. 14

Hohmahn & Maurer Manufacturing Company, equipmentcontributed by 13 

Holmes, J. A., Parker, E. W., and Campbell, 

M. R., introduction by, giving 

general description of the investigations. ....................... 11-17

Horstmeier, H. M., work done by.......... 84

Houston County Coal and Manufacturing

Company, coal contributed by. 28 

Hughes, H. H., equipment contributed by.. 13

I.

Illinois, coal from, analysis of.............. 36,37

coal from, boiler tests of................ 80

boiler and gas-producer te'sts of,

summary....................... 119

briquetting tests of....... 147,153-154,168

coking tests of................ 122,123,130

producer-gas tests of ........... 91-94,117

samples of, list of.................. 22

washing tests of.............. 61-63,66,67

Indiana, coal from, analyses of ............ 38

coal from, boiler tests of................ 80,81

boiler and gas-producer tests of,

summary....................... 319

briquetting tests of........... 147,154-155,168

coking tests of.................... 123,130

producer-gas tests of ........... 94-97,117

samples of, list of................... 24

washing tests of.................... 63,64
INDEX. 171

Page.

Indian Territory, coal from, analyses of ... 39-41 

coal from, boiler tests of..........:..... 81

boilerand gas-producer tests of, summary ........................... 11.9

'. briquetting' tests of....... 147,155-158,108

coking tests of................ 123,124,130

producer-gas tests of............ 98,99,117

' samples of, list of................... 24

washing tests of.................... 67,68

Inland Fuel Company, coal contributed by. 24 

Iowa, coal from, analyses of ............... 41-43

coal from, boiler tests of ............... 81

briquetting tests of....... 147,158-159,168

coking tests of................ 124,125,130

samples of, list of .................. 24

washing tests of.................... 68-70

I"y Coal and Iron Company, coal contributed by................. '.:...... 22

J.

Johnson, William, & Sons, briquetting machine furnished by........... 131-136

equipment contributed by ............. 13

K.

K ansas, coal from, analyses of............. 44,45

coal from, boiler tests of ............... 81

briquetting tests of........... 147,159,168

coking tests of-................ 125,126,130

samples of, list of................... 24,26

Kentucky, coal from, analyses of.......... 46,47

coal from, boiler tests of ............... 81,119

briquetting tests of....... 147,159-160,168

coking tests of.................... 126,130

producer-gas tests of...... 99-101,117,119

samples of, list of................... 26

washing tests of.................... 70

Keuffel and Esser Company, equipment

contributed by ................. M

Kinner, Otto, work of...................... 15,84

Kreisinger, H., work of.................... 84

Kuss, R. H., work of........................ 84

L.

Laclede Fire Brick Manufacturing Company, equipmentcontributed by 13

Laird, John A., work of.................... 15,86

Ljgler, L. H., work of...................... 15

L:.me, for binding briquettes, tests of...... 146

use of................................... 141

L: nk Belt Machinery Company, equipment

contributed by ................. 13

Lord, N. W., report by, on work of chemical

laboratory....................... 30-59

work of................................. 15,86

Lmuinis, C. W., work of.................... 15,86

M.

McClure, C. H., work of.................. 84

McCormick (J. S.) Co., Pittsburg, machinery furnished by ............... 129

McNeil, John, asphalt furnished by........ 140

Mammoth Vein Coal Company, coal contributed by..................... 24

Mendota Coal and Mining Company, coal

contributed by................. 26

M Ine samples, method of obtaining..... 19-20,30

I'age. 

Missouri, coal from, annlyses of............ 48,4'.)

coal from, boiler tests of.;............. 81,82

boiler and gas-producer tests of,

summary....................... Ill)

briquetting tests of........... 147,160,168

coking tests of.................... 126,130

producer-gas tests of......... 101,102,117

samples of list of ................... 26

washing tests of.............. 64,65,70,71

Molasses for binding briquettes, tests of... 145 

use of................................... 141

Moldenke, Richard, work of............... 129

Montana, coal from, analyses of ........... 49

coal from, briquetting tests of. 147,160-161,168 

producer-gas tests of ......... 102-104,117

samples of list of................... 26

Moore, Edward, work of ................... 60

Morgan County Coal Company, coal contributed by..................... 26

Mount Carbon Coal Company, coal contributed by..................... 28

Mount, M. H., work of..................... 80

 N.

National Coal and Iron Company, coal contributed by..................... 26

National Compressed Fuel Company, briquetting machine furnished 

by............................ 134,136

New Home Coal Company, coal contributed

by .~........................... 26

New Mexico, coal from, analyses of........ 49,50

coal from, boiler tests of................ 82

briquetting tests of....... 147,161-162,1.68

samples of, list of................... 26

New River Smokeless Coal Company, coal

contributed by ................. 28

Nordenson, C. 0., work of.................. 15,86

North.Dakota, coal from, analyses of...... 51

coal from, boiler tests of................ 82

briquetting tests Of....... 147,162-163,168

producer-gas tests of......... 104-106,117

samples of; list of .................. 26

Northern Coal and Coke Company, coal

contributed by................. 22

Northwestern Coal and Mining Company,

coal contributed by ............ 26

P.

Parker, E. W., Holmes, J. A., and Campbell, 

M. R., introduction by, giving 

general description of the investigations .................... 11-17

Pennsylvania, coal from, analyses of...... 51

coal from, boiler tests of ............... 82

briquetting tests of .......147,163-165,168

samptesof, listof .................. 26,28

Pennsylvania Coal Company, coal contributed by...................... 28

Peshak, R. E., work done by............... 86

Petroleum for binding briquettes, tests of. 145 

u^eoL................................ 140-141

Pitcairn Coal Company, coal contributed

by.............................. 28

Pitch, for binding briquettes, tests of.... 141-142

use of...............'.................. 187-139
172 INDEX.

Page.

Piltsburg Meter Company, equipment contributed by ..................... I'l

Post, R.H., work of........................ 8-1

Pratt, J. H., report by, on briquotting

tests.......................... 134-168

work of................-................. 15

Producer-gas tests, comparison of, with

steam tests ................... 118-120

equipment for......................'.... 85-86

method of conducting.................. 8G-88

report by R. H. Fernald on ........... 85-117'

results of.............................. 88-117

R.

Randall, D. T., work of ..................... 15,84

Raven Mining Company, asphalt furnished by.......................* 140

Results, summary of....................... 16-17

Robins Conveying Belt Company, equipment contributed by ...... 13,134,136

Roberts and Shafer Company, work of..... 14

Rock Island Coal Company, coal contributed by......................... 24

Rosin for binding briquettes, test of...... 144-145

use of................................. 139-140

Rutt, R. W., work of....................... 84

St. Bernard Mining Company, coal contributed by......:.................. 26

Samples, method of obtaining ....... 16,18-20,30

Scales, T. D., Coal Company, coal contributed by.......................... 24

Schrenk, Herman von, acknowledgments

to............................... 134

Smith, C. H., acknowledgments to......... 134

Somermeier, E. E., analyses by .......... 138,140

work of................................. 15,31

Southern Illinois Coal Mining and Washing

Company, coal contributed by. 22,24 

Southwestern Development Company, coal

contributed by ................. 24,26

Stammler, F. W., report by, on coking

tests.......................... 121,133

work of ................................ 15

Standard Oil Company, asphalt furnished

by.............................. 140

wax furnished by...................... 145

Stanton, F. M., work of.................... 31

Steam tests, boilers for...........:......... 74-75

coals used in........................... 75-78

comparison of, with producer-gas

tests.......................... 118-120

electric generator used in.............. 75

engine used in ......................... 76

methods of conducting................. 74

report by L. P. Breckenridge on ...... 74-133

Steel, A. A., acknowledgments to.......... 134

work of................................. 16

Steel Mill Packing Company, equipment

contributed by................. 14

Stilwell-Bierce Smith-Vaile Company,

equipment contributed by..... 14

Storage building, equipment of............ 12

Texas, coal from, atmlyse.s of............... 52

coal from, producer-gas tests of .. 106-109,117 

samples of, list of.................... 28

Toensfeldt, Kurt, work of.................. 86

U. 

Underwood, Jos., work of.................. 15,84

V.

Virginia and Pittsburg Coal and Coke Company, coal contributed by...... 28

W. 

Washery building, equipment of........... 12,60

Washing tests, report on ................... 60

Waters-Pierce Oil Company, equipment

contributed by................. 14

Wax tailings for binding briquettes, tests

of............................. 145-146

Weeks, H. W., work of..................... 84

Weidmann, W. C., work of................. 86

West Virginia, coal from, analyses of ...... 53-58

coal from, boiler tests of ............... 82,83

boiler and gas-producer tests of,

summary....................... 119

briquetting tests of........... 148,165,168

coking tests of................ 126-130,132

producer-gas tests of......... 109-115,117

samples of, list of................... -28

washing tests of .................... 71-73

West Virginia Coal Company, coal contributed by......................... 28

Western Anthracite Coal and Coke Company, coal contributed by...... 22

Western Coal and Mining Company, aid

rendered by .................... 13

coal contributed by..................... 22,24

Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing 

Company, equipment contributed by .......................... is

Westiughouse Machine Company, equipment contributed by........... 13

WheatcroftCoal and Mining Company, coal

contributed by ..................... 26

Whitehead Coal and Mining Company, coal

contributed by ................. 24

Whiting Foundry Equipment Company, 

Chicago, 111., machinery furnished by ....................... 129

Wick, J. D., report by, on washing tests.... 60-73

work of ................................ 15

Williams Patent Crusher and Pulverizer 

Company, equipment contributed by......................... 13

Woolley, J., Coal Company, coal contributed by......................... 24

Wood, R. D., & Co., equipment contributed

by.............................. 13,58

Wyoming, coal from, analyses of .......... 59

coal from, boiler tests of............... S3

boiler and gas-producer tests of,

summary....................... 119

briquetting tests of........... 148,165-168

producer gas, tests of...........'.. 115-117

samples of, list of................... 28

Wyoming Coal Mining Company, coal contributed by...................... 28

o