1088 GEOLOGY OF OHIO. 
was mixed, and 100 to 200 grammes of it, after being pulverized so as. 
to go through a 90-mesh sieve, bottled for analysis; thus all of each 
sample received was averaged carefully. 
The material, as bottled, was used directly for analysis without 
drying, at 100°; this method of working was adopted as giving the 
actual composition of the material, as received ; moisture was, of course,. 
determined where present, and entered in the analysis. 
The materials analyzed were coals, limestones, iron ores, fire-clays, 
pig-irons and slags. The methods pursued in these analyses were those 
regularly in use in the laboratory, but a brief outline will be given of 
each, as there are several rather important differences from those pre- 
sented by Dr. Wormley, and published in the first chemical report in 
the volume for 1870. 
Coals.—Only the *‘ proximate” analysis was made; this was by 
the usual method, as follows: One gramme of the coal placed in a 
weighed platinum crucible was transferred to an air-bath and dried 
at 100° C for 1 hour; the loss of weight was water. The same 
crucible with its charge of coal was then heated 34 minutes over a 
Bunsen burner, and then, without cooling or being uncovered, over a 
blast lamp 3 minutes, then cooled and weighed; the further loss was 
the “volatile carbonaceous matter.” The coke remaining was then 
slowly burned by heating the uncovered crucible over a Bunsen burner 
until nothing but ash remained, which, being weighed and deducted 
from, the previously found weight of coke, left the “ fixed carbon.” 
The results obtained by this well-known method are fairly uniform,. 
and correspond closely with the results obtained in a large way on 
coking. This method differs radically from that used by Dr. Wormley, 
which consisted in heating the coal in a platinum boat placed in a glass. 
or iron tube. That our present work might be compared with his, one 
of the samples from the old Survey was obtained from the Geological 
Museum of the State University, and being first re-analyzed by Dr. 
Wormley’s method, was then examined by the present one, with the: 
following results (the sample in all is identical) : 
1. Dr. Wormley’s analysis. 
2, Dr. Wormley’s method, analysis by Lord. 
3. Present method. 
