WICK.] 
WASHING TESTS. 
Analyses showing effect of washing Illinois No. 2 coal. 
63 
Ash.... 
Sulphur 
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 wash- 
ing is now done in this district, but the coal contains considerable 
impurit} 7 , 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 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, 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. 
Raw coal. Washed coal. Refuse 
Moisture 11. 40 
Ash 13. 40 
Sulphur 2. 50 
Weight, in pounds 15, 250 
^oal, pounds ! 11, 468 
16.72 
7.16 
2.23 
12, 620 
9, 600 
14.85 
31. 71 
5.68 
3, 485 
1,860 
The results of this test are not so satisfactory as that of Illinois No. 
i, 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 
he impurities is concerned, but it is not satisfactory when it is con- 
sidered 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 
tor commercial success, but, as noted above, there is every reason to 
believe that washing could be done that would result in a much cleaner 
oal 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 
