Part I. Report of progress in 1869, by J. S. Newberry, chief geologist. Part II. Report of progress in the second district, by E. B. Andrews, assist. geologist. Part III. Report on geology of Montgomery County, by Edward Orton, assist. geologist.
Annotations Tools
110 The average fixed carbon in the above coals, is 57.43 per cent. It will be noticed that the Briar Hill coal, from Chestnut Ridge, contains less than the average quantity of water, and this fact increases the percentage of the fixed carbon and other constituents. The Blue Chippewa coal, from Massillon, contains 6.95 per cent. of water, and the quantity of fixed carbon is 57.49 per cent., which is a little less than that of the two Jackson coals. The Ashland or Co'alton coalt (No. 33) is a very successful furnace coal, from Boyd county, Ky. Its percentage of fixed carbon is 54.28, while the average of the great Nelsonville seam, from all the localities, is 55.79. The proportion of fixed carbon in the Brazil coal, of Indiana, is less than that of the Ashland coal, being 53.99 per cent. In the light of all these facts, the very great excellence of the Nelsonville seam of coal must be conceded. For the purpose of additional comparison, I give the results of the analyses of a large number of British coals, used in the manufacture of iron, taken from the Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, for the year 1863. They are taken from a very elaborate paper on the " Manufacture of Iron in connexion with the Northumberland and Durham Coal-fields," by Isaac Lowthian Bell, Mayor of Newcastle: Samples. Locality. * c ~o 0 ~C 30 4Q 0 a 0. n k 18 Newcastle...... 1.256 82.15 5.31 1.35 1.24 5.69 3.77 60.67 56.90 36 Wales........ 1.315 83.78 4.79 0.98 1.43 4.15 4.91 72.62 67.71 8 Scotland....... 1 259 78.53 5.61 1.00 1.11 9.69 4.03 54.22 50.19 7 Derbyshire..... 1.192 79.68 4.94 1.41 1.01 10.28 2.65 59.32 56.67 In the above analyses we have all the different elements given separately. It will be noticed that the sulphur in the coals runs from 1.01 to 1.43. This is in excess of our better Ohio coals, as will be seen by referring to the analyses of Prof. Wormley. As the English iron manufacturers generally coke the coal, and, in the blast furnaces, they expel, in coking, about one half of the sulphur. In regard to the coke used in the celebrated Cleveland Iron District, England, Mr. Bell, from whom I have first quoted, writes:-" To form an idea of the extent to which ash and sulphur exist in the coke of the South Durham coal-field, the following analyses are extracted from the Clarence Laboratory journal: * I have given the fixed carbon, as ascertained by subtracting the ash from the coke. The Welsh coals are partly anthracite, hence the large percentage of fixed carbon. t The sulphur in table doubtless too high for average of the coal.-E. B. A.
-
Scan #1
Page 1
-
Scan #2
Page 2
-
Scan #3
Page 3
-
Scan #4
Page 4
-
Scan #5
Page 5
-
Scan #6
Page 6
-
Scan #7
Page 7
-
Scan #8
Page 8
-
Scan #9
Page 9
-
Scan #10
Page 10
-
Scan #11
Page 11
-
Scan #12
Page 12
-
Scan #13
Page 13
-
Scan #14
Page 14
-
Scan #15
Page 15
-
Scan #16
Page 16
-
Scan #17
Page 17
-
Scan #18
Page 18
-
Scan #19
Page 19
-
Scan #20
Page 20
-
Scan #21
Page 21
-
Scan #22
Page 22
-
Scan #23
Page 23
-
Scan #24
Page 24
-
Scan #25
Page 25
-
Scan #26
Page 26
-
Scan #27
Page 27
-
Scan #28
Page 28
-
Scan #29
Page 29
-
Scan #30
Page 30
-
Scan #31
Page 31
-
Scan #32
Page 32
-
Scan #33
Page 33
-
Scan #34
Page 34
-
Scan #35
Page 35
-
Scan #36
Page 36
-
Scan #37
Page 37
-
Scan #38
Page 38
-
Scan #39
Page 39
-
Scan #40
Page 40
-
Scan #41
Page 41
-
Scan #42
Page 42
-
Scan #43
Page 43
-
Scan #44
Page 44
-
Scan #45
Page 45
-
Scan #46
Page 46
-
Scan #47
Page 47
-
Scan #48
Page 48
-
Scan #49
Page 49
-
Scan #50
Page 50
-
Scan #51
Page 51
-
Scan #52
Page 52
-
Scan #53
Page 53
-
Scan #54
Page 54
-
Scan #55
Page 55
-
Scan #56
Page 56
-
Scan #57
Page 57
-
Scan #58
Page 58
-
Scan #59
Page 59
-
Scan #60
Page 60
-
Scan #61
Page 61
-
Scan #62
Page 62
-
Scan #63
Page 63
-
Scan #64
Page 64
-
Scan #65
Page 65
-
Scan #66
Page 66
-
Scan #67
Page 67
-
Scan #68
Page 68
-
Scan #69
Page 69
-
Scan #70
Page 70
-
Scan #71
Page 71
-
Scan #72
Page 72
-
Scan #73
Page 73
-
Scan #74
Page 74
-
Scan #75
Page 75
-
Scan #76
Page 76
-
Scan #77
Page 77
-
Scan #78
Page 78
-
Scan #79
Page 79
-
Scan #80
Page 80
-
Scan #81
Page 81
-
Scan #82
Page 82
-
Scan #83
Page 83
-
Scan #84
Page 84
-
Scan #85
Page 85
-
Scan #86
Page 86
-
Scan #87
Page 87
-
Scan #88
Page 88
-
Scan #89
Page 89
-
Scan #90
Page 90
-
Scan #91
Page 91
-
Scan #92
Page 92
-
Scan #93
Page 93
-
Scan #94
Page 94
-
Scan #95
Page 95
-
Scan #96
Page 96
-
Scan #97
Page 97
-
Scan #98
Page 98
-
Scan #99
Page 99
-
Scan #100
Page 100
-
Scan #101
Page 101
-
Scan #102
Page 102
-
Scan #103
Page 103
-
Scan #104
Page 104
-
Scan #105
Page 105
-
Scan #106
Page 106
-
Scan #107
Page 107
-
Scan #108
Page 108
-
Scan #109
Page 109
-
Scan #110
Page 110
-
Scan #111
Page 111
-
Scan #112
Page 112
-
Scan #113
Page 113
-
Scan #114
Page 114
-
Scan #115
Page 115
-
Scan #116
Page 116
-
Scan #117
Page 117
-
Scan #118
Page 118
-
Scan #119
Page 119
-
Scan #120
Page 120
-
Scan #121
Page 121
-
Scan #122
Page 122
-
Scan #123
Page 123
-
Scan #124
Page 124
-
Scan #125
Page 125
-
Scan #126
Page 126
-
Scan #127
Page 127
-
Scan #128
Page 128
-
Scan #129
Page 129
-
Scan #130
Page 130
-
Scan #131
Page 131
-
Scan #132
Page 132
-
Scan #133
Page 133
-
Scan #134
Page 134
-
Scan #135
Page 135
-
Scan #136
Page 136
-
Scan #137
Page 137
-
Scan #138
Page 138
-
Scan #139
Page 139
-
Scan #140
Page 140
-
Scan #141
Page 141
-
Scan #142
Page 142
-
Scan #143
Page 143
-
Scan #144
Page 144
-
Scan #145
Page 145
-
Scan #146
Page 146
-
Scan #147
Page 147
-
Scan #148
Page 148
-
Scan #149
Page 149
-
Scan #150
Page 150
-
Scan #151
Page 151
-
Scan #152
Page 152
-
Scan #153
Page 153
-
Scan #154
Page 154
-
Scan #155
Page 155
-
Scan #156
Page 156
-
Scan #157
Page 157
-
Scan #158
Page 158
-
Scan #159
Page 159
-
Scan #160
Page 160
-
Scan #161
Page 161
-
Scan #162
Page 162
-
Scan #163
Page 163
-
Scan #164
Page 164
-
Scan #165
Page 165
-
Scan #166
Page 166
-
Scan #167
Page 167
-
Scan #168
Page 168
-
Scan #169
Page 169
-
Scan #170
Page 170
-
Scan #171
Page 171
-
Scan #172
Page 172
-
Scan #173
Page 173
-
Scan #174
Page 174
-
Scan #175
Page 175
-
Scan #176
Page 176
-
Scan #177
Page 177
-
Scan #178
Page 178
-
Scan #179
Page 179
-
Scan #180
Page 180
-
Scan #181
Page 181
-
Scan #182
Page 182
Actions
About this Item
- Title
- Part I. Report of progress in 1869, by J. S. Newberry, chief geologist. Part II. Report of progress in the second district, by E. B. Andrews, assist. geologist. Part III. Report on geology of Montgomery County, by Edward Orton, assist. geologist.
- Author
- Geological Survey of Ohio.
- Canvas
- Page 118
- Publication
- Columbus,: Columbus printing company, state printers,
- 1870.
- Subject terms
- Geology -- Ohio.
Technical Details
- Collection
- Making of America Books
- Link to this Item
-
https://name.umdl.umich.edu/agm6058.0001.001
- Link to this scan
-
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/moa/agm6058.0001.001/118
Rights and Permissions
These pages may be freely searched and displayed. Permission must be received for subsequent distribution in print or electronically. Please go to http://www.umdl.umich.edu/ for more information.
Related Links
IIIF
- Manifest
-
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/api/manifest/moa:agm6058.0001.001
Cite this Item
- Full citation
-
"Part I. Report of progress in 1869, by J. S. Newberry, chief geologist. Part II. Report of progress in the second district, by E. B. Andrews, assist. geologist. Part III. Report on geology of Montgomery County, by Edward Orton, assist. geologist." In the digital collection Making of America Books. https://name.umdl.umich.edu/agm6058.0001.001. University of Michigan Library Digital Collections. Accessed April 28, 2025.