24 
ALASKAN MINERAL RESOURCES IN UK)' 
Equivalt nt evaporation from and at 212° F. per pound of coal as fired. a 
Pounds. 
Pocahontas coal, run of mine (ayerage of tests 1 to 3) 8.65 
Pocahontas coal, run of mine (average of tests 4 to 6) 9.40 
New River coal, run of mine (average of tests 7 to 9) 9.37 
Pocahontas coal, hand picked and screened (average of tests 10 to 17) 9.30 
The character of the coal used in these tests is shown in the following table, of which it, is 
said:& 
From each can or bag of coal thai was brought into the fireroom a specimen was taken and collected 
in a box, so that there could be forwarded for analysis a fair sample of the fuel used. 
The following table gives t lie result of analyses of samples of each lot of coal. The analyses were made 
by the chemist at the New York Navy-yard: 
I nalyses of coal used in comparative fuel tests. 
Coal. 
Pocahontas coal, n.m of mine, used in tests 
I to 3 
Pocahontas coal, run of mine, used in tests 
1 to6 
\i w River coal, nm of mine, used in tests 
7 to 9 
Pocahontas coal, hand picked and screened, 
nsed in test s in to 17 
Moisture, 
0. 19 
.79 
. 19 
.73 
Volatile 
matter. 
17.61 
19.53 
21.79 
19.62 
Fixed 
carbon. 
73.30 
i 5. 78 
72.99 
76.81 
Ash. 
8.60 
3.90 
1.7:5 
2.84 
Sulphur. 
0.48 
.71 
.46 
. 73 
Fuel 
ratio. 
4.16 
3.88 
3. 35 
3.91 
Coal. 
C. 
II. 
O. 
N. 
S. 
Ash. 
B.T. U.o 
Pocahonl as coal, run of mine, used in 
I to 3 
82. 26 
84.96 
83.60 
85.94 
:;. 89 
4.07 
1 . 85 
1. 15 
1. 12 
5.46 
4.87 
4.50 
0.64 
.'.Ml 
l.ll 
1.14 
0.49 
.71 
.46 
.82 
8.00 
.'{.90 
4.81 
3.15 
14,061 
Pocahontas coal, run of mine, used in test s 
i to (') 
1 1,531 
\r\\ River coal, run of mine, used in tests 
7 to :• 
1 1,841 
Pocahontas coal, hand picked and screened, 
1 1, 991 
a The British thermal unit (B. T. [].) is the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of 1 
pound of water I V. at or near 39.1° F. It is equal to 0.55 calorie. 
The following conclusions are stated in the report:*: 
'I he relative evaporative efficiency Of Oil and coal as a fuel, as determined by this extended series of 
comparative experiments, is practically in the proportion of 15 to 10. The actual superiority of oil 
will be considerably greater, for in the coal experiments unusual skill was exercised in the management 
Of the tires. Lump coal of superior quality was used; and as the tests with coal were of comparatively 
short duration, the resulting loss from cleaning fires was much less than would occur in actual service. 
The oil experiments, however, were carried on under conditions that more closely approximated those 
that could be secured on hoard the seagoing vessel. The actual evaporative efficiency of a pound of oil 
as compared with a pound of coal will therefore be in the ratio of 17 to 10, and these figures can be re- 
garded as substantially correct. 
In noting the comparative economic efficiency, for naval purposes, of Oil and coal, there must also he 
taken into consideration the fact thai a ton of oil can he stowe I in somewhat less space than a ton of 
bituminous coal. Then, again it must be considered that in the carrying of the oil the compartment! 
can be more completely filled. The relative efficiency of oil an 1 go >d steaming coal from the naval 
standpoint of fuel supply in war ships may thus be regarded as in the ratio of 18 to 10. 
It was found by comparative tests of coal and oil on the steamship Alameda between 
San Francisco and Honolulu that tin 1 efficiency of oil fuel and a mixture of British Colum- 
bia and Australia coal was in the ratio of 1 .42 to 1, or 1 ton of coal equaled 4.10 barrels of oil. 
a Kept, i . s. Naval " 
bOp. cit , p. 10. 
c Op. cit., pp. 417, 418. 
Liquid Fuel" Board, 1904, p. 52. 
