OF SOUTH CAROLINA. 277 
wanting here, to render this comparison a fair one, is the amount of ore used in both cases for pro- 
ducing the same quantity of iron. 
The forge, under ordinary circumstances, requires more; but it can, in no case, come any where 
near compensating for so great a difference in the cost. If there be no mistake here, this subject 
is worthy of the most serious consideration. The peculiar character of the ore used by the bloom- 
ery, itt obtaining these results, must not be lost sight of. 
In offering these remarks, suggested by the ores of the State, my object was not, of course, an 
outline, much less a treatise, on the manufacture of iron—but simply to direct attention to some of 
the prominent points that appeared to me not yet clearly worked out in our processes, and yet upon 
which much seems to depend. 
I have piepired, from the same scale, vertical sections of three furnaces, that may, for the sake 
of comparison, have some interest. 
Fig. 40. 
b ¢ 
Ss 
SCALE OF FEET. » 
3 uw 
—eE—————E—EE—L——E——EEE Ee SS | 
Fig. 40. a is the blast furnace, in use in Derbyshire, England, for coke ; 6, South Carolina fur- 
nace, for charcoal ; and c, the furnace used at Barum, Norway, also for charcoal. The angle of the 
boshes is a matter of some importance, and must vary with the nature of the ore, and the fuel 
employed. Where the ore is easily reduced, and the fuel strong, the boshes must be steeper. In 
this respect the Norway differs from the South Carolina furnace, although the fuel, and, I believe, 
the ore, are the same. 
Of the mining processes connected with the ore, I can only say that the ore has been procured 
64 
