Search Documents

By R. Dawson Hall

*This paper was not read as it arrived too late. In the beginning of the last century "cottage industry" gave way to the factory system, and at present manufacturing that was once performed in homes is done wholly in factories. Division of labor came into being at the same time. In earlier years rarely more than a half-dozen men worked at the home of the master workman. Each group performed all the labor involved in changing crude material to the finished article, and many of the masters in a cottage industry themselves took the raw material and converted it by their own efforts into a highly specialized product ready for the market. Mining has in a degree moved in the same direction. But for the most part every man still has his own room. Pick miners in many places get their cars at the room neck, push them to the face, undercut their coal, drill their shot-holes, load and fire them, complete the breaking down of their coal, fill their cars, push them to the entry and also test their roof for weak spots, examine for gas, timber their rooms, bail them out and lay their own track. Mining is still in a way a "cottage" industry, only the cottage is a room in the mines instead- of a home. The men who gather the coal and take it to the tipple are in a measure like the middlemen who went from cottage to cottage and gathered the product of the owners or "masters", to use the term then prevalent. The change in ordinary industry from old methods to new came with machinery. The machines then introduced needed power for their operation, and distribution of power from house to house was too great a task for those times. Power could not readily be taken to machinery where water power only was available. It was necessary for the machinery and its workers to go to the power. Nor when steam was harnessed could every cottage have its steam engine. Compressed air and electricity had not arrived, and con-

Jan 1, 1922

Our presiding officer for this session is someone we are all proud to be associated with. One who is dedicated to Public Service and Safety in the State of Colorado, and known in the mining field and the Colorado Mining Association. We are very pleased to introduce Mr. Donald Haske, Chief Mine Inspector for the State of Colorado: Donald Haske: Officers, Members and guests. It is certainly my pleasure to be here today and an extra special pleasure to be presiding over this session. As some of you know, from natural up, heavy equipment is rapidly coming to the field of mining. This may seem a long way off at the present, but it certainly isn't. We are getting all the old annuals (Bi) together to be compiled for a guide and public attraction. However, we are unable to locate an (1894 panel). If any of you know of any of these please let us know.

Jan 1, 1967

By Graham Bright

Up until a few years ago most of the electrical equipment used in the mines of this country was developed for industrial purposes and was adapted for use in mines by slight modifications. It became apparent, however, that mining conditions differed widely from most industrial applications and it became necessary to design and develop apparatus, particularly suited for use under mining conditions. Most of the electrical apparatus used in mines today, however, does not owe its success entirely to mining development, but in many cases developments in other branches have been taken and improved upon and modified to meet mining conditions. Power Plant: In the earlier days the power plant for the production of electric power usually consisted of fairly small belt driven direct current generators operated from reciprocating non-condensing steam engines. Today where possible the mines purchase power from central stations and where not possible it is ususally produced from turbine driven plants using non-condensing turbines for the smaller plants and condensing turbines for the larger plants. The bad water conditions at many of the coal mines in this country is, responsible in a large measure for the high cost of upkeep and repairs in isolated power plants. This feature with the type of labor available makes it difficult to operate an isolated plant condensing except in the larger mines where water conditions are good and the apparatus can be taken care of. The geared turbine is a particularly simple and rugged piece of apparatus and requires very little attention over long periods of time. Hoists: The first electric hoists to be installed used various types of motors designed for railway or industrial purposes, and the control furnished was far from satisfactory. Today most of the mine hoist motors are of the alternating current type, especially designed for hoisting service. The control for motors of 200 H. P. or over is usually of the magnetic of liquid rheostat type, and as built today will operate over fairly long periods with a very moderate cost of up-keep. Hoists of 1000 H. P. or larger are usually of the direct current type using field control and receiving power from a flywheel or synchronous M. G. set. Hoists of this type have made remarkable records in regard to continuity of operation and low cost of up-keep. Where high speed operation is desired in either coal or metal mines, the D. C. equipment using field control and a separate M. G. set to supply power to the hoist motor is not only the safest and most economical but in many cases is the only type of equipment capable of satisfactorily obtaining the output required. A number of improvements have been brought out with the field control scheme in connection with the acceleration, retardation, overfeed and overwind of the hoist. With these new developments the hoist operator can no longer abuse the hoist by improper manipulation of the control handle. Until a few years ago the matter of safety devices was not given much consideration when installing hoisting equipment. At the present time the safety devices are considered one of the most important items in connection

Jan 1, 1922

The Sixty-First Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convening at the Stanley Hotel in Estes Park, Colorado, was declared in session at 10:00 a.m. by Past President Claude P. Heiner, President, Minerals Development Corporation, Salt Lake City, Utah. Claude introduced Oren F. Bridwell, Secretary, Northern Colorado Coals, Inc., Denver, Colorado. His introduction of President Bridwell follows: Ladies and gentlemen, it is my privilege and pleasure to open this session of the Sixty-first Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute. My particular assignment is to introduce to you (those of you at least who do not know him) our Acting President, who for now we will call "Brid."

Jan 1, 1965

Mr. O. F. Lewis opened the meeting at 9:00 a.m. lie announced that Stan Shuhart, had the following announcement. to make: Stan. Shubart: George Delamater of Fort, Lauderdale, Florida scads greetings to his friends here at the meeting. O. F. Lewis: Thank yon, Stan. This morning we will start our meeting by turning it over to a very distinguished gentleman. I'm sure all of you know him. He started his work career many, many years ago, but lie doesn't look nearly this old, and his energy belies this. From 1.910 to 1916 he was a chemist with the American Smelting & Refining Co. at. Garfield, Utah. From 16 to '17 he was a broker with J. A. Hogle Company at Salt Lake. From 1917 to 1948 he was a metallurgist, ore buyer, assistant manager and later general manager of the Utah department. ASRC at Salt Lake City; and also president of the Garfield Chemical Co. Since 1951 to the present. time he has been President and General Manager of the Independent Coal & Coke Co. and Vice President of the Western Rock Bit Co. He has held many, many honorary positions; former Chairman of the Board of Regents of the University of Utah, former President of the Salt Lake Winter Sports Association, Past President. of the Community Chest there, and is presently a Director of National Coal Association, a Director of the First Security Bank of Salt Lake City, Utah, and also a Director of the Hotel Utah.

Jan 1, 1965

By Eli Follett

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

Jan 1, 1922

Article I1 of the RMCMI Bylaws reads: Section 1. Classes. The membership of the corporation shall be divided into three classs, consisting of active members, life members and senior members, who shall have such rights, privileges and qualifications as these bylaws may provide. The names of all active, life and senior members, together with current mailing addresses, follow. [Lt. Jay Abbott M. L. FOSS Co. 7458 S Jackson St Littleton. CO 80122 Lt. Ronald H. Achziger Midwest Rbr & Sply Co 6404 E 39th Are Denver, CO 80207 ]

Jan 1, 1986

[Adams, Dell H Consolidation Coal Co., 3300 One Oliver Plaza, Pittsburgh, Pa. Adams, Douglas K General Electric Co., P.O. Box 2331, Denver 1, Colo. Adams, Kenneth L Peabody Coal Co., 33 Carnation Dr., Belleville, Ill. Ahlborg, William Joy Mfg. Co., 580 Denver Club, Bldg., Denver, Colorado Albrechtsen, Ray H Mt. States Resources Corp., 2330 S. Main, Salt Lake City, Utah Allen, Dr. Harry C U. S. Bureau of Mines, Washington, D. C. 20242 Amerman, Richard W Utah Cons. & Mining Co., Box 155, Fruitland, New Mexico Anderson, G. A Walker Bank & Trust Co., 848 N 3rd E, Price, Utah Anderson, John S. Utah Cons. & Mining Co., 550 California St., San Francisco, Calif. Anderson, Robert Mine Safety Appliances Co., 1881 West N. Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah]

Jan 1, 1971

MR. MARGOLF: Thank you very, very much Harris. There's sure a lot there to think about in terms, of our image, particularly. I think we should keep' in mind what Harris said about our history not being monolithic. Therefore our image can only be that, which is reflecting the weakest link in our industry and I think that's a burden on all of us. Perhaps to do some policing amongst ourselves to try to improve whatever might be our weakest link and thereby elevate our entire industry. Our third speaker this afternoon is another good friend of mine of long standing and I am very pleased to be able to introduce to the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute Bob Golten. Bob is a graduate of the University of Michigan with a degree in Economics and Harvard Law School. His professional experience encompasses private practice in Chicago where he was born and in the federal government as a public defender in Washington, D.C. and in the Department of Justice as a tax , attorney. Some of us have come to know Bob more in his present role as the senior counsel for the I National Wildlife Federation. He's also Adjoint Professor of Law and Director of the National Wildlife Federation Resource Clinic, University of Colorado. Boulder campus. In addition, Bob has served with the Rocky Mountain Center on Environment as one of its directors for a number of years. He's very active in a number of areas that are not only civic but he does reflect what I would present by way of introduction as a perspective

Jan 1, 1982

By T. H. Butler

February 22nd, 1926. Mr. Benedict Shubart, 521 Boston Building, Denver, Colorado. Dear Mr. Shubart: At your request, am submitting to you several suggestions for the amendment of our safety code which you felt should be kept up to date. As before, am advising you that these suggestions do not have the approval of the entire Safety Committee, but rather are the individual opinions of several members who have expressed their wishes in the form of letters to me. I am particularly indebted to Mr. Dan Harrington and Mr. Wm. Littlejohn for their assistance. Would recommend the following amendment a to the various sections. Section 1. Wherever possible trolley wires should be securely hung to roof or timbers at a distance of not less than five feet and not more than six and one-half feet above rail and six inches to one side. Spacing of hangers should be from 20 to 25 feet apart. Section 2. 500 volts D. C. should not be allowed in any installations. Trolley wires should not carry a voltage of more than 250 D. C. Pumps, mining machines and other small machinery units where A. C. power is used should not carry a voltage of more than 220. Large units, such as pumps, motor genera- tor set and hoists, may use a voltage of 2,200. When power cables to operate same are of armored construction, cables should be securely buried at all crossings. Section 4. Where power lines pass through door frames or stoppings they should be properly insulated with porcelain or rubber tubing. Whenever men get on or off man-trips in vicinity of trolley wires same

Jan 1, 1926

Jan 1, 1922

By Hugh McLeod

To make the statement that coal mine operation has been entirely revolutionized within the last ten years is a mild statement. This has been entirely due, of course, to the almost universal introduction of mechanical loading in coal mines. Under the old system of contract loading too much was left to the individual miner's judgment and willingness to do the right thing. Each miner regarded the place in which he worked as "his place," and depending upon the judgment and ability of the miner, conditions as found in these places largely reflected that man's individuality or personality. Many men kept their places well timbered and in such condition that they were not only able to load their turn but were able to take advantage of any surplus cars that might be available in their particular entry. These men were often regarded as "coal hogs." However, these men's places were usually found to be well timbered and well maintained. Supervision under this old system in a strict sense of the word amounted to casual visits to the man's working place by the foreman or his assistant once each day as required by law.

Jan 1, 1938

The first session of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute was called to order by Past President, R. R. Williams, Jr., Manager of Mines, The Colorado Fuel and Iron Corporation, Pueblo, Colorado, who introduced the President, W. K. Dennison, Jr., Superintendent, Raton Operations, Kaiser Steel Corporation, Raton, New Mexico. His speech of welcome to the Institute follows: The President's Remarks Guests and Members of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute: It is my privilege and pleasure to welcome you to the 56th regular meeting of the Institute. A look at the program will show that the various chairmen and their committees, headed by General Chairman A. Z. Dimitroff, have been hard at work to prepare a program which I am sure you will find to be informative as well as entertaining. I think that a special vote of thanks and appreciation is due Glenn Sorensen, who stepped in to head the Program Committee when Clint Cornelius moved from this area.

Jan 1, 1960

T. T. READ, BUREAU OF MINES: Mr. McAuliffe has asked a very practical question. Expressed in another way, the question is: If we have decided to use rock dust to prevent coal dust from exploding, have we got to take rock, that is, solid material,, break it up and finally grind it into dust (and fine grinding is very expensive), or can we take material that is already in a pretty fine state of subdivision and thereby save the expense of pulverizing it? Most of the preceding discussion has been from the view-point of practical experience, and I should like to suggest that we have not had enough practical experience in rock dusting to be able to answer this question, from the viewpoint of experience, with the degree of definiteness that Mr. McAuliffe desires. With your permission I will discuss the matter briefly from the theoretical standpoint, because after all the theoretical considerations, insofar as we understand them correctly, will apply to every' case, whereas in coming to a decision on this matter it will be necessary to take into consideration local conditions, which will necessarily vary in every case. Considering the matter in a rather elementary way, the first point is: What makes coal dust explode? The air of this room is full of dust at the present moment, even though we do not notice it. If you were to close up the room for a week, enough dust would settle on the floor so you could write your name on it. Of course, the dust which is in the air of this room is not coal dust but even if it were coal dust and you were to bring an open light in' here we all know that the dust would not explode. The reason for that is that the dust particles are not close enough together for the flame to propagate itself from one to the next. You will probably be able to see in the demonstration in the gallery on Saturday that the coal dust explosion is practically a very rapid burning of the dust. When you light one piece of dust it burns and gives out heat and if there is another piece of dust close enough to it so that the heat from the first piece is able to bring a second piece up to the burning temperature, then the flame will propagate itself through the mixture. But, if the particles are so far apart in the air that the' heat from one particle is dissipated before it reaches an adjoining one, and is therefore not able to bring the second particle up to the burning temperature, then the flame will not propagate. To get a coal dust explosion, it is not sufficient to have coal dust suspended in the air. The coal dust particles must be close enough together in the air so that the heat from one burning particle is able to heat the adjoining particles up to the point at which they will burn. There has been some discussion of the size of dust particles that will cause an explosion to propagate, and it has been pointed out that the minus 200-mesh dust is the most dangerous, and that particles coarser than 20-mesh will not propagate an explosion. There are two reasons for that. A large particle has very much smaller surface in proportion to its weight than a small particle has. You know the old story about the Indian who when asked how he could go around in cold weather without any clothes on said that an Indian was all face. A 200-mesh particle is almost all surface and there= fore is able to burn almost instantaneously, which means that it gives out its heat almost instantaneously, whereas a large particle with less surface in proportion to its weight burns more slowly, gives out its heat more slowly, and the heat has more time to be dissipated. The second reason why coarse dust does not easily propagate a flame is because it is so hard to make it

Jan 1, 1924

By George B. Pryde

Dear Sir: Yours of July 23rd, relative to my appointment on the Safety Committee in connection with the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute. As you say in your letter, "The duty of this committee is to draft suggestions as to safer mining practices with the idea of preventing disasters in coal mines." Much has been written and many suggestions made on this same subject, and it is very hard to put up further recommendations than have already been made. The disasters you mention in your letter unquestionably have direct reference to coal mine explosions, which from time to time still occur in this and other countries. As far as our Western mines are concerned, you know that sprinkling and shot firing by electricity have been very extensively carried out. Notwithstanding these precautions; we have had a few rather serious disasters in the past in these mines. I do not care to place any blame or responsibility on the companies having these disasters, but it is a fact that in each and all of them, after careful investigation has been made, that the human element has had more or less bearing on the accidents happening. From most reports that we gain, either directly or indirectly, it is very evident that investigation shows after an explosion that the rules governing one or both of the above safety measures have been somewhat carelessly or negligently carried out. Much has been written and read about rock dust sprinkling, but it is questionable if this method is doing a great deal toward the eliminating of disasters. While it is true it may have the effect of preventing propagation, still I do not believe anyone claims for it a sure preventative against initial explosions. I had occasion not long ago to visit a mine, after an explosion, in which dust barriers were supposed to be hung, and from indications it was quite evident that the dust barriers had been in operation, but they did not prevent the explosion from reaching all open parts of the mine. It is also true that profuse scattering of rock dust throughout a mine would have a beneficial effect, but there is a question arises here as to whether the sprinkling by rock dust or the spraying by water, if available, is the most effective. I am satisfied that if all coal mines are kept well sprinkled and all open workings maintained in a thorough moist condition, that the biggest factor in a coal mine explosion is in this way eliminated. There is no doubt but what the use of permissible powder, particularly if shot by electricity, has had a very marked effect on the number of disasters in mines, and if this method of shooting was energetically carried out there would be a difference in the number of explosions, both minor and Major, all over the country. Some of the recent explosions have taken place where no shooting was being done, but there is no denying the fact that the other ingredient, namely, coal dust, entered in the elements very extensively. We have read and heard of hydraulic cartridges and other patents (substitutes for powder) that were being worked out for the purpose of

Jan 1, 1923

By John M. Jennings

The Hiawatha pitmouth is located at the head of the middle fork of Miller creek, at an altitude of approximately 8,100 feet. The coal is lowered to the tipple down a gravity tram two miles long, in 16 car trips which carry about 60 tons net. The average running time of the trip is about nine minutes. At the bottom of the tram there are two tracks for the loads and two for the empties. The trip, after being cut off the rope, is dropped by gravity onto a feeder, where the cars are uncoupled and fed one at a. time across the pitcar scales and into the dump. The dump is of the full revolution type, friction driven. On passing out of the dump the cars are returned by a kickback onto the empty car haul. They are caught at the bottom by a brake which consists of a pair of steel squeeze blocks operated by heavy springs. The empties are elevated to the double tracks, where the trips are made up. The feeder, scales, dump and empty car haul are all built on the solid ground of the hillside instead of being incorporated in one structure with the screening plant. The coal is dumped into a small hopper with a capacity of about 15 tons, whence it is fed by a reciprocating feeder onto a scraper conveyor which takes the coal over to the screening plant, a distance of 120 feet. This conveyor is 48 inches wide and travels at 120 feet per minute. The screen itself is interesting. It is of the Marcus Horizontal type.

Jan 1, 1925

By T. H. Butler

The two most talked of questions in the mining industry today are rock dusting and mechanical loading. The one as a matter of safety, and the other as a matter of economy, and both are of vital interest to the mining fraternity. Rock dusting and other safety methods will be dealt with by others at this meeting, so I will confine my few remarks to the matter of mechanical loading. I will not attempt to tell you what mechanical loaders are doing in the different mining fields throughout the country, or what they should do, but will endeavor to give you an outline of the work being done with mechanical loaders in No. 4 Mine of the Union Pacific Coal Company, at Hanna, Wye. In order that you may better understand and be in a position to follow me it will be necessary to cite the conditions under which we are working. and the type of loaders in use. The seam pitches from 14 to 17 degrees, and is normally 32 feet in thickness, and is overlaid with a soft sandstone roof. The panel system of working is used, planes being driven on the pitch, and rooms driven on the strike. Owing to faults being encountered planes are driven between the faults, and the. rooms on either side are in some instances 800 to 1,000 feet in depth. Rooms are advanced eight feet in height, and 32 feet in width, by hand loaders and .Toy mechanical loaders, and when driven to the boundary,, 18 feet of the remaining 24 is loaded out with Thew electric shovels, and six feet left to protect the roof. In January, 1916 the company installed a Type 1 Thew shovel, equipped with a 1 1/4-yard dipper, and in July, 1917, they installed a Type 0 Thew electric shovel, equipped with a 1-yard dipper, and in the year 1918 two additional Type 0 Thew shovels, equipped with a 1-yard dipper, were installed, making a total of four Thew shovels for this mine. The introduction of these shovels caused the employees much concern, and like all departures from the old methods of mining, met with indifference by some and open antagonism by others, so that for some time they results obtained were not satisfactory. However, by constant supervision and changes in the method of haulage the results obtained at present, while not entirely satisfactory, are much better and the production and costs are reasonably good. The Thew shovels in use are mounted on traction wheels with swivel axle and move. in all directions by their own power, and while the weight of each is approxi¬mately 20 tons, they are not as cumbersome as. one would think and are easily operated. The system used in working these shovels is to shoot the coal clown ahead of the shovels and maintain two tracks, two cars being used on each track so that shovel is loading on one track while driver is, changing cars on the other. When place is finished the shovel is run back to the first cross-cut by its own power and lowered to the next room with block and tackle, the roof coal in cross-cut being shot down to a height of 16 feet to allow passage of the boom. With better results from the Thew shovels we soon realized that it was necessary to find some method of developing rooms faster than was being done with hand loaders in order to keep the Thew shovels in working places, and in November, 1923, the company purchased from the Joy Machine Company two Type 4 B U Joy loaders, and the installation of same met with the same indifference and antagonism from the employees as did the Thew

Jan 1, 1924

Secretary's Apology: Although every effort was made to secure efficient stenographers, the railroad conditions at the time made it impossible to get stenographers from Salt Lake City. Practically all of the discussion was therefore lost, and the Secretary's apologies are offered to those whose names and remarks we are unable to record. 'We are indebted to R. Dawson Hall of Coal Age for what we have been able to print. The question was asked why belt conveyors are not more generally used. BENEDICT SHUBART: Belt conveyors lack the ruggedness of metal conveyors and require more accurate alignment. They are much used in England though comparatively scarce here. The H. C. Frick Company's belt installation at Colonial mine is an unusual installation for unusual purposes. It is hardly main haulage, but is more comparable to railroad transportation. The belts are in long sections,, nine hundred to twenty-three hundred feet, there are no particular grades, only two turns, and the immense tonnage handled justifies a quality of installation that at this day would not prove economical in most mines. EUGENE McAULIFFE, Union Pacific Coal Co., Omaha: Was much impressed on learning at the American Mining Congress that the Hudson Coal Company had mined last year 1,500.000 tons of coal from a 36-inch bed and had transported this coal to the mine cars by scrapers and conveyors. He did not believe that because one or two percent of the men around the mines were opposed to loading machines, that it should be said that the mine workers were inimical to such labor saving means. He believes that when duly explained to them they could see the advantages of the equipment offered and would be friendly to its introduction. The Sheridan-Wyoming Coal Company at Sheridan have eight Goodman Hydraulic loaders in operation in rooms .with Joy loaders driving the headings. It is not possible for the mines which had to pay high wages to compete with those whose wage scales were lower unless by the introduction of loading machines. He received a letter from Dr. L. E. Young of St. Louis, general manager of the Union Collieries Company, that his two Goodman Hydraulic machines were loading an average of three hundred tons each daily. THE SECRETARY: H. N. Taylor, president, Sheridan-Wyoming Coal Company, said Mr. Green of the American Federation of Labor told him he would have no trouble with Union Labor, and, if any local disturbances were created, they would be stopped. The Union nationally is with the introduction of labor saving equipment. J. B. FORRESTER, General Superintendent. United States Fuel Company, Hiawatha. In his opinion metal conveyors are preferred because they can be lengthened and shortened at pleasure, and so can be operated with greater flexibility than belt conveyors. W. C. HOLMAN, Chief Engineer. Phelps Dodge Corp: The Phelps Dodge Corporation have two Jeffrey belt conveyors in tandem which obviates brushing where the coal is low. MR. E. O. WIEDERANDERS, Jeffrey Mfg. Co.: Says he has seen belt conveyors in use in England and is much taken with the idea. MR. WM. MOORHEAD, Phelps Dodge Corp.: Our conveyors are in twenty-foot sections, each with a motor. Three of them tandem make a sixty-foot face. GENERAL: There was discussion regarding the size of the coal produced by conveyors. It was said that when the Gunn-Quealy Company started their operations, the coal was very large, but now there is not so much care taken to produce large coal as the market is now demanding smaller coal. The Secretary said that the use of conveyors at the Kemmerer Coal Company's mine had almost doubled the percentage of lump coal. Mr. McAuliffe questioned

Jan 1, 1925

By T. H. Brien, O&apos

At nearly all of the copper smelters in the Southwest, at some time, calculations have been made having in view the economy of replacing fuel oil with pulverized coal as a heat-producing medium for smelting operations This matter has been, and is more so now than at any time heretofore, of very great importance. Due to the intensive development of oil-producing areas of the world and the tremendous use of fuel oil for many purposes, it seems that before many years the supply of oil will become so small as to prohibit its use for such operations as smelting. This may be caused by prohibitive prices, or even by government decree as a conservation measure. In the event that the use of fuel oil becomes out of the question, the copper companies have just two alternatives: the use of pulverized coal or electricity. The copper companies of the Southwest produced an average of 808,400,000 pounds of copper per year for the war years of 1916, 1917 and 1918. This figure is, of course, a higher one than has prevailed since the war, but at the present time nearly all of the mines and smelters are getting back to capacity. There is no doubt whatever that the consumption of copper is going to increase, perhaps for the next ten years. This means that more copper mines will be discovered and developed, and that the mines which are now producing will be called upon for a greater production. This all tends to show that the mine manager who is looking ahead must develop some substitute for fuel oil in the event of its use becoming prohibitive, and all indications seem to point in that direction. The only coal which is commercially available to the smelters in the district under discussion must come from Colorado and New Mexico. These coals are high in ash and volatile matter and comparatively low in calorific value. The proximity of the smelter to the coal mines is a large factor in determining which fuel is more economical. Most of the smelters within two or three hundred miles of the coal mines find it more profitable to burn coal, while those at greater distance find that the higher freight charges on the coal make the use of oil more economical.

Jan 1, 1923

By John Bevan

In a discussion of the personal dangers that may arise from mine gases, it is necessary to take into consideration the gases which may result from an underground fire, or a fire in or about the downcast shaft, and the methods of avoiding or minimizing the danger arising therefrom. In all cases of the combustion of carbonaceous material such as coals and timber, carbon dioxide and water vapor are formed. In cases where the air supply is limited, some carbon monoxide is produced, the quantity varying with the readiness with which the oxygen from the air can get into intimate contact with the consuming carbon; in addition to these products there may be produced large volumes of irritating fumes consisting of unconsumed vapors' distilled from the burning material. Apart from the physical distress that may be caused by the irritant action of the fumes, the chief danger to life underground arising from a fire in or about the downcast shaft or intake airways is due to the carbon monoxide which the smoke is almost certain to contain. The physiological effects of this gas have already been discussed in mining papers and ref¬erence should be made to this. The prevention of fires at the surface near to the mouth of the downcast shaft, or in the shaft itself, or at the bottom of the shaft, usually lies outside the duties of the fireboss. An outbreak of fire at such places would, however, immediately foul the air current passing into the mine, and, assuming the men were in the mine, create a situation demanding urgent attention of the fireboss. As a rule, each case of fire creates its own problems, but in all cases the guiding principle should be to restrict the poison-laden 'air to the smallest part of the mine that is practicable, by opening separation doors, or breaking down selected stoppings at the most accessible points near the seat of the fire, so that the gases and smoke may pass directly into the return and so to surface. In the case of a shaft fire it will have the effect of fouling both shafts and in the case of a fire in an intake airway, both roadways leading to the shafts. It requires the use of some judgment. Therefore, in circumstances as to whether men inside the mine should attempt to escape to the shafts or should remain in the mine, and attempt to protect themselves from the poisonous air by suitably short circuiting the air-current and retiring from the main air-ways. In order to make such restraint easier, it is very desirable that all mines should be equipped with telephone communication from all sections of the mine to the surface so that men in the mine may be informed of what is being done at the surface to secure their safety, or instructed as to what they themselves should do. In cases of fire in or about the shafts, the question of the reversal of the air-current will probably arise. Should this be decided on by the management at the surface, the fireboss in the mine may have to give some attention to the effects which this action will have on the circulation of the

Jan 1, 1922