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.

111
Ash, per cent. Sulphur, per cent.
5.86................................................. 0.58
5.79.-......................... 0.68
7.54............................................... 0.77
9.00........................................ 0.44
6.33..................... 0.50
L As a rule," he adds, "6 per cent. of ash and about 0.60 of sulphur
may be considered as the average analytical results of the best coke of
the district, just quoted."
A more recent authority, Prof. I. Bauerman, of the Royal School of
Mines, in a work on Metallurgy, published in London, 1868, says that
"the Cleveland district is remarkable for the large size and height of its
furnaces (from 70 to 102 feet high), which are entirely worked with hard
coke from the south of Durham, containing on an average from 0.60 to
0.80 per cent. of sulphur, and from 4J to 8 per cent. of ash."
In the examination of the analyses of coals made by Prof. Wormley,
and the comparison of his results with most other analyses, it must be
remembered that the Professor makes a careful determination of the
combined water. The samples analyzed are, of course, dry, in the ordinary sense, to begin with. But if the temperature be kept at 212 deg.,
the coal continues to lose weight for a considerable time, after which, if
the heat is continued, the weight begins to increase, doubtless from the
oxidation of one or more of the constituents of the coal. After the loss
of weight, if the coal be allowed to cool and remain for a time, it regains
from the atmosphere moisture enough to restore its original gravity.
The water thus lost is given by Prof. Wormley in the tables. It is not
generally given in other analyses of coals, but clearly should be, not only
because it is a constant constituent in western coals, generally increasing
in quantity the farther west we obtain the coal, but because it is a source
of loss to the consumer, who not only buys water, but must use a part of
the heating power of his coal to expel it.
One of the most important of the practical questions connected with
this coal, is its adaptation to the smelting of iron. It has been already
seen that the percentage of sulphur is relatively small, that the ash is
small, and that the amount of fixed carbon is large. It is also a dryburning coal, and could be used in furnaces in the raw state. Where the
seam is thickest, six or seven feet of the coal can be obtained which, in
all the qualifications named, would be remarkably adapted to iron-making. Can there, then, be any reasonable doubt on this point-? I think
not, unless it may lurk in the yet undetermined physical properties of
the coke. Will the coke be firm and strong enough to resist, without
crushing, the great burden which must necessarily come upon it in the
furnace? Although a dry coal, and not needing to be coked beforehand,
yet it will necessarily be changed to coke in passing from the top of the
furnace down to the melting zone in the lower part of the stack. Should