GRAY    IRON    ORES    OF    TALLADEGA    COUNTY,  ALA. 
177 
nore   substances   under   one   head.     For  instance,    in   some   of   the 
inalyses  undoubtedly  all  the  insolubles  are  calculated  as  Si02. 
Table  II. — Analyses  of  Alabama  gray  iron  ores. 
Location. 
SIOi. 
Fe. 
P. 
S. 
CaO. 
AI2O3. 
Ti. 
Mn. 
MgO. 
K20 
and 
Na20. 
Ign. 
24.10 
32. 10 
42. 10 
25.  60 
14.72 
is.  32 
15.42 
15.04 
19.  58 
18.94 
15.44 
14.10 
22.  20 
21.64 
20.  82 
24.40 
24.00 
25.44 
17.00 
17.90 
39.90 
30.  00 
44.10 
52.  42 
0.239 
.137 
.418 
.404 
.148 
0.46 
5. 10 
3.  531 
5.53 
5.48 
.  395 
0.72 
'."66" 
.88 
.71 
6.' 25* 
.38 
.62 
0.  176 
.30 
.65 
1.14 
-> 
1.95 
1.57 
2.  1 1 
4.  15 
} 
1.12 
2.  34 
1.86 
I 
2.73 
48.  90      -  364 
J 
52.  28 
53.  55 
50.  45 
50.  70 
52.  74 
53.76 
47.79 
45.19 
46.  66 
45.  20 
44.98 
44.  52 
50. 00 
42.25 
49.15 
46.85 
38.02 
45.  56 
.147 
.  219 
3 
} 
.268 
.284 
) 
> 
} 
\ 
:  ... 
5 
1 

3 
} 
.30 
1 
L 
1,000  feet  south  of  Emauhee 
-> 
5 
200  yards  west  of  Emauhee 
21.63 
.  262 
.46 
1.  32 
3.  73 
.74 
.42 
.57 
1.88 
2.  91 
Analysis  1  by  A.  S.  McCreath;  analyses  2-4  by  B.  Crowell;  analyses  5-7  by  Hillman  (Birmingham  Test- 
ng  Laboratory);  analyses  8-10  by  P.  B.Condit;  analyses  11-18  by  Seifford  (Birmingham  Testing  Lab- 
ratory);  analysis  19  by  Meissner  (Vanderbilt  Steel  and  Iron  Co.) 
Table  II  is  incomplete,  for  the  main  elements  that  prospecting  com- 
>anies  wish  to  determine  are  the  iron  and  silica.  The  first  of  these 
dements  runs  considerably  lower  than  the  iron  of  Table  I,  being  on 
lie  average  about  45.56  per  cent.  The  silica  is  higher,  having  a  range 
>etween  14.10  and  42.10,  the  average  being  21.63  per  cent.  The 
)hosphorus  is  much  lower,  being  0.262  per  cent.  If,  however,  in 
rable  I  we  omit  the  excessive  phosphorus  of  analysis  13,  the  average 
)hosphorus  of  Table  I  becomes  0.268,  which  corresponds  very  closely 
vith  that  of  Table  II.  There  are  not  sufficient  data  to  permit  a  com- 
)arison  of  the  sulphur  of  the  two  tables. 
The  average  of  the  analyses  of  Tables  I  and  II  is  as  follows: 
Average  of  analyses  given  in  Tables  I  and  II. 
Si02 20.  78 
Fe263 68.  73 
P265 75 
S02 75 
Mn02 : 67 
CaO 1 .  09 
A1203 4. 46 
Tib2 26 
H20 _ 1.  30 
MgO 57 
K20  and  Na20 94 
100. 30 
