Search Documents

[Adams, Douglas K General Electric Co., P.O. Box 2331, Denver 1, Colo. Alger, Van Kaiser Steel, Sunnyside, Utah Allan,-Andrew Thompson Creek Coal & Coke Corp., Glenwood Springs, Colo. Allen, Earl W Mine Safety Appliances Co., 257 Rio Grand St., Salt Lake City, Utah Allen, John P Development & Resources Corp., 50 Broadway, N. Y. 4, N. Y. Allen, Thomas Chief State Coal Mine Inspector, State Services Bldg., Denver, Colo. Alston, George L Mine Safety Appliances Co., 201 N. Braddock, Pittsburgh 8, Pa. Anderson, Nephi W Book Cliffs Coal Co., Dragerton, Utah Anderson, W. J Texaco, Inc., 845 N. 5th E., Price, Utah Ankeny, Marling J U. S. Bureau of Mines, 5308 Roosevelt St., Bethesda, Md. Archer, Bryon J., Jr Peabody Coal Co., 421 Glenwood St., Grand Junction, Colo. Arentzen, E. M Lee-Norse Co., Charleroi, Pa. Arentzen, L. E Lee-Norse Co., 2975 18th St., Boulder, Colo. Artis, Cliff E Big Horn Coal Co., 247 Sherman Ave., Sheridan, Wyo. Atchison, Lee Atchison Construction Co., Drawer D, Aztec, N. Mex.]

Jan 1, 1963

PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: Until Mr. Wood comes back, we have a gentleman with us who has been sitting in one of the back seats. He has never gotten up and showed himself, and I think we ought to call on Mr. Ryan to stand up and say two words, or a half dozen words. Mr. Ryan! (Applause.)

Jan 1, 1925

PRESIDENT MARKS: We have a letter from Mr. Frank N. Cameron, of the Utah Fuel Company, that perhaps I had better read to you. It is addressed to Mr. Shubart, Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute (hands letter to Secretary Shubart). UTAH FUEL COMPANY MINE SUPERINTENDENT Castle Gate, Utah, February 9, 1926 Mr. F. N. Cameron, Vice-President & General Manager, Salt Lake City, Utah. Dear Sir: It has now been about nine months since we started the system of having the fire bosses take charge of all shooting and gas inspections at the Castle Gate Mines. We had considerable trouble when we started. Like all other new systems which have been installed, this one was hard to get started and was criticised both by the miners and officials in our own organization, as well as by other organizations in the mines of this county. The older the official and miner was the stronger they seemed to be opposed to the new method. They have no arguments to offer against it, but they know it is not right "because their grandfather did not work it in that way." We know that when some of the other systems were started in the mines of this county, they were fought from all angles. The electrical shooting almost brought the miners at Sunnyside out on strike; their main argument was that they could not make a living if they had to obey the rules that the company was trying to enforce. They also claimed that they could not make enough coal for the day's work by only shooting once at the end of the shift. The same applies to the sprinkling the miners claimed that they would all die of some disease if they were forced to work in a sloppy, wet mine every day. The mining machine was another thing that was hard to install the miners claimed that the company was trying to rob the Door miner out of a chance to make living by installing mining machines to cut the coal. I do not think that the system we have at our mines is perfect-there is still room for improvement in the shooting and inspection of the mines, but I do really think that for safety and efficiency, the inspection department at our mines, working under the new system, is as good if not better than any other inspection department working under the old method in the other mines. I am giving some of the arguments in favor of the new system and would like to hear the arguments against it-if there are any. In cutting the men from monthly to day wages, I do not think it is only the company that benefits by the arrangement, but the fireboss is the one that gets the best of it by the change. How often have we heard the fireboss complain of the hours he had to put in just because he was a monthly man? Under the new wage scale he is paid for every hour he puts in the mines, and when the mines are working every day he makes considerable more than when he was being paid a monthly salary. When the mines are working slow, there is generally some work that has to be done on idle days, or in slow times the force could be cut to a point where some of the work could be done on idle days, and thus the fireboss could be given the preference in this extra work and in this way, his wage could be kept up to the standard monthly salary he was getting before. Under this arrange-

Jan 1, 1926

The Wednesday morning session was called to order by President Geiger at 9:30 a.m. He asked Stan Shubart to conduct the meeting. Stan thanked Loren Linville and Bill Grant for the excellent job they did in their assignments. He called on John Schmidt, Chairman of the Auditing Committee, to report on the financial statement of the treasurer. Mr. Schmidt read the data and asked for its approval. A motion was made, seconded and approved. Stan called on Joseph Berta, Chairman of the Resolutions Committee, who submitted the following resolutions: (1) RESOLVED: Whereas, in the year since the last convention of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute, the Institute and the coal mining industry generally have suffered the loss through death of the services of: Clement Audin, Jr. C. Herbert Clendenin Donald Haske William H. Hays M. J. Keenan Fred W. Koelling James Mecca Neil Robinson C. M. Shott

Jan 1, 1974

By C. E. Drennan

Your Chairman and the Program Committee have limited the time allotted to me, and so, with your permission, I will omit the preliminaries, and wade right into my subject. I believe I am safe in taking for granted that you are all agreed that electricity is the most feasible means of transmitting the power used in coal mining. If you are not, then the papers read before the Association in previous years have failed of their object. If you are so convinced, the only question is as to the choice between alternating and direct current, and the voltage. Fundamentally, this is primarily a matter of dollars and cents. With the sole exception of your trolley locomotives, there is no part of your equipment that cannot be operated as well on alternating as on direct current. With your pay rolls at their present high level and the efficiency of the labor you employ at the stage it now occupies, I believe you will agree, first, that everything possible must be done to increase the tons of coal produced per man employed; and, second, that ample power at all times must be available at every machine so that every one of your men can really get out a day's work without any avoidable delay. Speaking Electrically, all this means is a machine instead of a man wherever it is possible for a machine to do a man's work, and full voltage at the machine always, so that there can be no excuse for the work not being done promptly and efficiently-and dependably. The real reason for the selection of one kind of current or the other can best be understood by considering the formula which determines the size of wire required for transmitting electrical energy. The size of the copper required, and, consequently; its weight and cost, depends upon four factors: 1. The amount of energy or power to be transmitted. 2. The distance to be covered. 3. The percentage of loss allowed. 4. The voltage at the receiving end of the line. These factors enter into the problem to different extents, and, briefly, the size of wire depends directly upon the amount of power and the distance transmitted, and inversely upon the percentage of loss allowed and the square of the voltage. From this it will be seen that, with the amount of power and the distance fixed, if the loss is to be cut in two, the wire must be doubled with a given voltage, while if the loss remains constant and the voltage is doubled, the wire may be cut in four; that is, reduced 75 per cent in weight and cost. Now, standard motors are designed and recommended by their builders to run within a range of 10 per cent under voltage to 10 per cent above voltage - 440-volt motor, then, should preferably not be operated on less than 400 volts

Jan 1, 1923

Mr. Robert Von Storch opened the meeting at 9:00 a.m. Mr. Von Storch: As a matter of fact, I am very much surprised to see many of these faces. The way you were acting last night I did not expect to see so many but you are evidently all right, and survived. This morning's session is the ?RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT? theme, and our first speaker- (and we made a little switch) - is Jack Huebler, Associate Director, Research Institute of Gas Technology, Chicago, Ill. The switch is because of a projector problem. Jack Huebler was born in Michigan and received degrees in Chemical Engineering and Mathematics from the University of Michigan in 1941. He joined the Surface Combusion Corp. immediately and was with them for 20 years, rising to the head of research. He took leading roles in the invention and development of many heat using processes involving gas chemistry combustion and metallurgy. The now famous Erie Mining Taconite Pellet Process was one of these. He pioneered in gas carburizing and in the preparation and use of prepared atmospheres. He specialized in the heat transfer aspects of many new industrial metal heating processes. He left Surface 5 years ago to join IGT.

Jan 1, 1966

Past President Ralph Moore opended the meeting at 9:30 a.m. He thanked all the committees for their part in making the 1977 meeting the success is was. He then turned the meeting over to President-elect, Shirl McArthur. President McArthur called on the Auditing Committee to present its report. Gabe Ishley, Chairman, read the report and asked that it be approved. A motion was made, seconded and carried. Loren Linville gave his report on registration and new members which figures are in the Monday a.m. business meeting of the Proceedings. The Resolutions Committee was asked to give its report. William Bear, Chairman, submitted the following: (1) RESOLVED: WHEREAS, in the year since the last convention of The Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute, the Institute and the coal mining industry have suffered the loss through death of the services of: John A. Garcia John B. Huehes H. B. Lindeman Richard B. Miller Charles Pliley Wilford Ruff James Westfield

Jan 1, 1977

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

The Tuesday morning session opened at 9:00 a.m. and was presided over by John Peperakis, Manager Sunnyside Mines, Kaiser Steel Corporation, Sunnyside, Utah. It consisted of a Round Table. The first speaker was Mr. G. A. Bennewitz, Market Director - Fuels - Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad, Denver, Colorado. Subject - "Transportation." Mr. Gary Bennewitz has been a Market Director of the Rio Grande R.R. since February 1968. He joined the D&RGW in 1966. Mr. Bennewitz has a degree in Civil Engineering from The Cooper Union in New York City. Following graduation, he spent two years working with a consulting soil engineer. He then went to work for the New York Central R.R. as a Structural Engineer and Transportation Economist. He also had a year's stint at the Port of New York Authority before moving to Denver. His paper today deals with some of tile economic factors inherent in the development of an efficient, economic unit train system. His experience in this vein includes trains operating from the Sunnyside Mines, of Kaiser Steel, the coal delivery system to Geneva Works of U. S. Steel, and from the facility of Mid-Continent Coal & Coke Co. at Carbondale, Colo.

Jan 1, 1970

By Joseph Harrington

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

Jan 1, 1925

At the meeting of the American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers, G. S. Rice, Chief Mining Engineer of the U. S. Bureau of Mines, announced the definition of a gassy mine. This definition has been awaited with much interest, especially by the Safety Committee of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute. It applies to the whole area of all mines, any part of which is on the public domain of the United States. Consequently it will be of wide application in the western part of this country. The safety committee of the R. M. C. M. I. has been hopeful that the Institute would adopt this definition without exception as the codes of rules to be recommended at all mines in the Rocky Mountain area. The statement follows: "The U. S. Bureau of Mines believes that all coal mines are potentially gassy; but for purposes of administration in respect to prevention of explosions and fires, the Bureau recommends the following classification: "Class 1 coal mine-A practically non-gassy mine in which flammable gas in excess of 0.05 per cent cannot be found by systematic search. "Class 2. coal mine-A slightly gassy mine in which (a) flammable gas has been found, ? but in quantity less than two per cent in still air in any active or unsealed-abandoned workings; or (b) flammable gas can be found, but in quantity less than four per cent, in some place from which the ventilating current has been shut off for a period of one hour; or (c) flammable gas can be found,* but in quantity less than one-fourth per cent in a split** of the ventilating current; or (d) flamamble gas is found in quantity greater than' specified rate*** of not more than 25 cu. ft. per minute. "Class 3 coal mine- A gassy mine in which flammable gas is found in quantity greater than specified for a Class 22 coal mine. GENERAL NOTES REGARDING DECISION NO. 3 "(A) Flammable gas found in coal mines is, with rare exceptions, methane. In coal-mining fields where natural gas is found in lower geologic horizons by deep wells which pass through or nearby the coal mines, there have been rare instances of la leakage from the well. Natural gas is chiefly methane; that constituent almost always forms more than 85 per cent of the whole, but it usually contains ethane, propane and traces of butane also. Therefore if the latter gases are found in mine air it is an indication of leakage. The lower limit of explosibility of methane-air mixture when there is turbulence of five per cent and of natural-gas-air mixtures with about ten per cent ethane and associated hydro-carbon gases is 4.6 per cent. The limit therefore varies with the character of the mixture. " (B) To determine the proper classification of a coal mine, it is advisable that systematic testing and sampling be done at least three times in a period of not less than 72 hours. All tests and samples of the mine air, except one, must show an inflammable-gas content less than the maximum limit of the class to which the mine is assigned. In other words, a tolerance of one test or analysis may be permitted to provide for a mistake or a very exceptional occurrence. "(C) When a new mine is being opened in a coal field where existing mines are generally gassy, it is common sense to assume that similar conditions will be found in the new mine, and its development and equipment should be based upon the expectation that it will be assigned to Class 3."

Jan 1, 1926

(Referring to map) If there are any methods to improve on this I would like to have some suggestions on it. The maps there are on a scale of one inch to two hundred feet. At the time of each extension a letter is used and a line drawn across the entry and the room. The date of the extension is given up in the margin of the map. Here is an extension made April 6th. Extension L is shown in each one of the rooms, November 29th. N-you see the two rooms have been finished down into here. 0-the last extension, has just been stopped, and the three working rooms. Now, one of the features of this plan, when the rooms have been stopped, the line is drawn straight across. When the room or entry is still going, there is a small projection beyond the line, indicating that the next cut is changed. When the distance cannot be ascertained by the engineer, he gets the distance from the mine boss or some other source which is reliable, and that is put on in a dotted line. That gives you a complete story. Anyone looking over the map can see immediately every place that was working at the time of this extension, every place that is inaccessible, and get a complete picture. The extension of the coal is put on the extension at each extension. The survey stations are put in, showing each survey point. The pillars when they are pulled-only the pillars that are pulled are cross-hatched. The whole map is in cross-hatch without any regard as to what pillars are pulled. If a little stump is left in, that is shown on the map. The engineer only shows what pillars are pulled that he has actual knowledge of, or has been given to him in detail by the mine foreman. I believe that concludes the work on the mine map, and there is certainly room for a lot of improvement on most of the mine maps which we have been getting into the office. PRESIDENT PRYDE: Does anyone want to ask any questions? Any questions about the leasing regulations? I want to say there are several leases in the Rock Springs field, and when Mr. Smith comes on one of his visits the Rock Springs Institute have asked him to address them on the leasing proposition.

Jan 1, 1924

By Geo. 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 dis¬asters 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 Jerry M. Eyster

The Bush Administration is committed to reducing emissions from existing power plants Candidate George W. Bush said: The key to reducing emissions from older power plants on the federal level is to cap emissions on a level that makes sense?. And harness the power of the market place and provide economic incentives to produce better environmental results. I would want to make sure that any program we pursue does not result in excessive and unnecessary increases in electric bills.

Jan 1, 2002

PRESIDENT MOSES: I thank you, Mr. Emrick. Mr. Shubart would like to supplement your paper with another article. SECRETARY SHUBART: My paper really should not supplement Mr. Emrick's paper, because I secured some data from him, I knew Mr. Emrick had had a great deal of experience in shearing and I thought he could give you some useful data. (Here Mr. Shubart read the following:) "For the past two years, there has been considerable discussion among coal mining men concerning the advantages of a shearing cut in addition to the undercut, in mine work. We have had a number of requests for information on sheared coal. We were asked questions like these: What percentage increase in lump can be obtained from sheared coal? What has been the experience of mine men who have employed the shearing cut? Is the shearing cut a means of increasing the lump content? If so, is it increased to such an extent as to warrant the installation of shearing machines? Upon investigation it was found that no one could give us any definite information on the subject as no one had weighed separately the grades of coal produced from' the shearing cut. With a view of getting this information first-hand, the Goodman Manufacturing Company built up a shearing machine to be used in experimental work only. The officials of the Troy Coal Company were eager to share in the expense of obtaining this information, so that in May of this year we shipped to their mines our first type 319 shearing machine. The Troy Coal Company operates a mine at Troy, Illinois, in the No. 6 seam and produces about 275 tons daily. The coal seam averages five and one-half feet in thickness. Previous to the arrival of the shearing machine the coal was undercut six feet deep by a' Goodman Shortwall Machine. To break down the coal required two shots in the entries and three in the rooms. The percentage of lump measured over two-inch screens, averaged 58.2 per cent. The conditions of the mine were very favorable for obtaining accurate weights on the amount of lump and slack coal run over the shaker screens. The shearing machine easily cut the entire tonnage of the mine so that all coal dumped into the railroad cars had been produced from a shearing cut, in addition to an undercut. Accurate records were kept of the railroad weights and front this data the percentages of lump and slack were computed. During the month of June the percentage of lump produced over two-inch shaker screens was 69.9 per cent. This result demonstrated that the introduction of the shearing cut had increased the percentage of lump twenty per cent. The entries were driven ten feet wide and the rooms thirty feet wide The shearing cut was made near the center of the face in all places. A hole was drilled in each rib and the coal shot down with one-half the powder required when the places had been undercut only. The coal was broken down to the back of the cut so that very little pick work was necessary to load it out. The benefits derived from the shearing cut were as follows: 1. Increased percentage of lump, thus increasing the average price of coal per ton. 2. Preservation of a tender top due to the decreased amount of explosive used. 3. Facilitated handling of coal by the miner thus increasing the tonnage per man. 4. Eliminated coal yardage in entries and crosscuts of ten feet or less in width for the reason that the shearing cut provides a loose end from which to shoot the coal. This applies to the union fields only, as the non-union mines do not pay for coal yardage. Based on a price of $2.50 for lump coal and $1.25 for slack coal, the average price per ton was increased

Jan 1, 1926

The 72nd Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convened at The Mark Conference Center, Lionshead Village, Vail, Colorado, and was in session at 10:00 a.m. Past President Roy Coulson, President Kemmerer Coal Company, Frontier, Wyoming, called the meeting to order. He introduced Robert W. Wilson, President of the Institute 1975-1976. Bob's biography follows: Born August 20, 1923 in Washington, D.C.; P-47 Fighter Pilot for three years with the U.S. Air Corps, flying 101 missions, Discharged October 1945; Married Barbara J. Polley August 1945 in Golden, Colorado; Moved to Colorado in 1948; Parents of two sons, Alan born in 1948 and Russell (deceased); Now residents of Conifer, Colorado and planning retirement on ranch property in Santa Rita, New Mexico; His education consists of Elementary and High School in Arlington, Va.; Two years at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Va.; B.S. in Mechanical Engineering, Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana 1948; Business-Salesman for K&P, Inc. since 1949, President and Owner since 1968; Representatives for T. J. Gundlach Co., Johnson-March Corp., Ramsey Engineering Co., Omni-Lift, Smoot Company, Sweco, Inc. and FMC-Syntron; Member, RMCMI since 1957, Served as Registration Chairman, Reservation Chairman, Member of the Executive Board and Vice President for Colorado; Member, Society Mining Engineers (AIME), Colorado Mining Association, New Mexico Mining Association, Industries for Jefferson County, and Denver Coal Club.

Jan 1, 1976

The Tuesday morning session of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute was opened at 9:00 a.m. by Bob von Storch, in the absence of the President. Mr. von Storch appointed the following new members to the Resolution Committee in the absence of three of the members: Albert Keenan, E. S. O'Connor and Howard Crandell. This committee was asked to be ready to report at the Wednesday morning session. Mr. von Storch then introduced Lyman Fearn, State Mine Inspector for the State of Wyoming, who presided over the morning session. Mr. Fearn introduced the first speaker for the morning, Louis A. Engstrom, Engineer at Kemmerer Coal Company, Kemmerer, Wyoming, who delivered a talk illustrated with slides in the absence of Mike Zakotnik, Jr., who was unable to attend. (Please refer to the index for printed text of this paper.) The next paper, "New Horizons -Coal for the Steam Plants of the West," was delivered by Don Newberry, superintendent of the Castle Gate Mine of the Independent Coal and Coke Company, Castle Gate, Utah, in the absence of W. J. O'Connor. (Please refer to the index for printed text of this paper.) Bob von Storch then introduced Edward G. Fox, President of Bituminous Coal Operators' Association, Washington, D. C., who delivered a paper on "A New Era in Labor Relations."

Jan 1, 1957

By O. C. Irwin

For several years the C. F. & I. Co. men have been working on a fan signal and many different schemes have been tried. I will describe a few of them. A make-and-break attachment was placed on the fan shaft which caused a light to flicker. A hinged door was placed on air course and counter balanced so that it would have a slight travel when the air pressure was reduced an appreciable amount. This motion was used to open the power circuit, blow a whistle, or ring a bell. Series transformers were placed in motor leads of fan drive motor and the variation in amount of power to motor was used to control the fan signal through a magnet or relay. A governor was placed on the fan shaft which opened a signal circuit when speed of fan was reduced. We tried to produce a machine actuated by the volume of air, (that is on the principle of the anemometer) but had to discard this due to its being too delicate. None of the above schemes seemed to fill the conditions which the State and our Mine Inspector wanted covered. They gave us the following demands for a signal: 1. Must open mine circuit and sound alarm when air pressure was reduced below a certain amount. 2. Must be fool proof. 3. Must work on any kind of fan drive (steam or motor). 4. Must be safe to ' install- in any mine or fan house. 5. Must not depend upon mechanical device which could become inactive due to friction or other causes. 6. Must be as simple and easy to adjust as possible.

Jan 1, 1925

By Eugene McAuliffe

The subject of my few remarks addressed to the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute, "Guessing or Knowing! Which," may perhaps suggest but little to you here today. However, I am sure you will all agree with me when I say that in the conduct of a coal mining operation there should be no choice between guessing and knowing. The value of, and the results to be obtained from this Institute, its meetings and printed transactions, as well as those of other similar educational organizations, depend very largely on the mental attitude of those who constitute, through their pronouncements, the more active portion of the membership. Perhaps the most apt criticism that is now being made of the coal industry is that, to an extent possibly exceeding any other industry of similar magnitude and importance, it depends for its conduct altogether too much on "rule of thumb" and "tradition," rather than on proven practice and actual fact. The records of our coal mining association meetings bear expression of many conflicting opinions, the majority of which are sincerely put forth by those expressing same as representing the facts; the extremes expressed, however, frequently fix the question raised as one yet located in "no man's land." There are yet too many chances taken we are still "weighing pounds on railroad track scales" and measuring yards with the proverbial "bit of string." The actual expense of conducting any one of the several operations incident to the production of coal is rarely determined, and in many instances the general cost figures, prepared some weeks after the work is complete, are of that sweeping character that very little can be abstracted therefrom. Many coal companies are now making a daily cost sheet, showing the cost of labor and material in detail, as used in the several related operations,, and such is decidedly helpful, particularly to the mine superintendent and his foreman, who, without such, sail an uncharted sea; the auditor's belated monthly summary rarely ever seen by these men who are held responsible for the labor and material used. I have made reference to this situation as an accentuation of the fact that the coal industry contains more "serious minded, conscientious guessers" than does any other similar industry, although the annual cost of our product runs up well beyond the billion dollar mark, and what is more important, our industry is one that still continues to exact a heavy toll of human life. Now this brings me to the question of safety, the one question that should be, and which is, I know, uppermost in your minds. The coal mining world, engineering and operating, is now well sold on at least two things the theory of using permissible explosives and the elimination of the open light. Furthermore, the industry, particularly that portion which is located in Great Britain and the United States and Canada, are now planning vast extensions of the use of "rock" or "shale dust," both in the form of "dust barriers" and in "direct application" to entries and cross-cuts. This is well; however,, my study of past mine explosions has convinced me that the great majority of such had their very beginning in gas accumulations; frequently originating in restricted areas at the working face, in abandoned worked-out areas, or in some other certain place where ventilation is not, maintained as it should be; and that again leads me to the point where it can again be well said, that there is too much "rule of thumb," too much guessing now being done in regard to the volume of air required, and continuously furnished, in a given entry,, panel, room or area. Just to emphasize this situation, is it not a fact that the majority of mine inspectors express the ventilation conditions as measured by them, in terms of cubic feet per man employed, in each certain split, and does not the mining laws of many states yet demand a minimum of "100 or 150 cubic feet

Jan 1, 1924

PRESIDENT WETZEL: Gentlemen, the fortieth regular meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute will now come to order. It is my pleasure to present Mr. William Fealey, who will introduce the first speaker. WILLIAM A. FEALEY (Bethlehem Steel Company, Salt Lake City, Utah): Mr. Wetzel and Gentlemen of-the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute: The Governor of the State of Utah was sup- posed to be here this morning, but he heard Bracken Lee was in town and he took a runout powder. So without any further ado, I am just going to present the Mayor of Price, Utah, who is perhaps better known to all of you than anybody else. Mayor Bracken Lee.

Jan 1, 1942