66 
PRELIMINARY REPORT ON COAL-TESTING PLANT, [bull. 2d 
As previously stated, the congested condition of the conveying 
apparatus prevented the weighing of any of these small charges aftd 
washing, but some idea of the effects of washing may be gained hi 
comparing the chemical analyses made before and after washing anj 
by noting the character of coke produced when tests were made d 
washed and unwashed material. 
Alabama No. 1— Lump coal from mine No. 8, Ivy Coal and IrJ 
Company, Horse Creek, Ala. 
Coking tests were made of both washed and unwashed coal f roj 
this mine. The first charge of unwashed coal consisted of 8,0(1 
pounds. Although the coking process was continued for 88 hourj 
the coke was very light and spongy and high in ash. Washirj 
reduced the percentage of impurities but slightly, though it is belie vd 
that with more thorough washing a coke of good quality might ti 
obtained. 
Analyses showing effect of washing Alabama No. 1 coal. 
Ash.... 
Sulphur 
Raw coal. 
13.88 
.76 
Washed co 
for cokirl 
il 
Arkansas No. 6.— Slack coal from mine No. 18, Western Coal a 
Mining Company, Jenny Lind, Ark. 
About 5 tons of this coal were washed for coking purposes, 
coke was produced, but the chemical analyses show improvement 
Analyses showing effect of washing Aska,nsas No. 6 coal. 
Ash.... 
Sulphur 
Raw coal. 
13.81 
1.26 
Washed iti 
for coki 
Illinois No. 3— Run-of-mine coal from mine No. 3, Southern 111! 
Coal Mining and Washing Company, Marion, 111. 
Two coking tests were made of this coal, one of raw coal and 
other washed for the purpose. These tests permit direct compari 
and the effect of washing is plainly apparent. The unwashed ch 
of 9,000 pounds was tested for 43 hours.. The coal lay dead in 
oven, burning on top, but did not coke. In the second test the ch 
(washed) consisted of 13,000 pounds and was burned 90 hours, y 
ing 6,378 pounds of coke, which was very brittle and which b 
up in handling into fine-fingered pieces. 
is 
8 
k 
