174 J. Wharton on the Manufacture of Spelter. 
liveries of ore. On the latter date I surrendered possession to 
the Lehigh Zinc Co., and have consequently no later statistics 
than those above given except for the months of January, Feb- 
ruary and March, 1863, whose details resemble those of the 
preceding periods so closely that I will give here only the lead- 
ing figures, viz: 
Raw ore consumed in first three months of 1863, 4,184,544 Ibs. 
Charge coal “ ¥f do. . 1,349,880 “ 
Fuel coal, = - do. - 7,083,798 “ 
Spelter produced = 986,080 “ 
A 
it to have been in the fraction o 1,100,580 Ibs. 
ing the year 1861, 3,158,630 “ 
“6 
8 
[w) 
7 
<> 
oo 
“ 
for) 
~-I 
for) 
a 
1862, 
“ $ months of 1863, 986,080 “ 
Total, 8,949,966 “ 
This weight being not that shown by the daily furnace state- 
ments, but the weight actually sold and detiversd to purchasers. 
m aware that to give the details here presented their full 
scientific or technical value, they should be accompanied be! 
reliable statements of the composition of the ores treated, 
and of the s thrown out, but no continuous series of 
analyses was made of either ores or slags, since my duties as 
superintendent, bookkeeper, and business manager of the estab- 
lishment prevented a very close attention to its chemistry. 
Among my analyses, however, are those of 5 specimens of ore 
at various times in 1859 and 1860, which were of such a nature 
as to be fairly presentable for samples of the ore treated in the 
u ' do. 7 
resumé of the spelter produced during the entire term shows 
i 1860, yl 
spelter works: these five specimens show an average of 36°07 
h 
present, particularly in the year 1861 and the spring of 1862. 
Nine specimens examined for moisture at various times, and 
8, 
Of slags, I find only two reliable analyses; one made in No 
Jesbae enc one in Dee aA i imi 
each other in time, an m 
working of the establishment, they can hardly be presented 2 
representative specimens. It i doubte 
that the slags were always tolerably rich in zine, since of the ore 
treated probably at least { was silicate of zinc, only the remaly 
ing fraction being carbonate of zinc. 
