V'ICK.] 
WASH TNG TESTS. 
Analyses shotting effect of washing Missouri No. 2 coal. 
71 
Sulphur 
Washed coal 
for coking. 
7.76 
3.24 
West Virginia No, 2. — Run-of-mine coal from Pitcairn mine, Pit- 
aim Coal Company, Clarksburg, W. Va. 
Two coking tests were made on this sample, one of raw coal and one of 
vashed coal. This affords an additional means of judging of the effect- 
veness of washing, for the coke shows improvement in the second 
washed coal) test, which can be accounted for only by better quality 
f coal. The following table shows the results: 
Analyses showing the effect of washing West Virginia No. 2 coal. 
Coal. 
Coke. 
Raw. 
Washed. 
From raw 
coal. 
From 
washed coal. 
sh 
8.22 
3.38 
7.05 
2.84 
14.95 
3.40 
11.40 
oke 
2.24 
Vest Virginia JYo. 3. — Run-of-mine coal from West Virginia Coal 
Company, Richard, W. Va. 
This coal was tested in the coke ovens in both the raw and the 
ashed condition, and a comparison of results shows that washing as 
one in this test had little effect. The charge that was washed weighed 
30ut 7i tons. 
Analyses showing effect of washing West Virginia No. 3 coal. 
Coal. 
Coke. 
Raw. 
Washed. 
From raw 
coal. 
From 
washed coal. 
sh 
9.75 
.99 
9.01 
1.18 
18.18 
.93 
14.27 
llphur 
1.19 
West Virginia Wo. If. — Run-of-mine coal from West Virginia Coal 
bmpany, Bretz, W. Va. 
Two coking tests were made of this coal, one in the raw and one in 
washed condition. The charge that was washed weighed about 5 
»ns. The results of these tests, as shown by the analyses of the coal 
