November 19, 1915.

THE COLLIERY GUARDIAN.

1031

ovens. If their ammonia scrubbers were pretty ample
for their work, they might pass through them, in addi-
tion to the gas coming directly from the coke ovens, a
certain amount of producer gas, and that producer gas
would largely increase their make of sulphate of
ammonia, and would also increase the power gas at
their disposal, or, if they preferred it, they could use
that gas directly in heating the oven flues, and take
the more valuable coke oven gas for power purposes.
Ordinary gas engines, of course, were quite accepted
now as reliable and manageable machines, but in con-
nection with coke oven gas, most of those who had been
working them had had to go through a good many
difficulties and expenses. In the case of his colliery,
following Dr. Dugald Clerk’s device of passing back a
proportion of burnt gases into the explosion chamber,
they had overcome their difficulties in regard to high
calorific value of the coke oven gas. They were now
using about 1,300 horse-power every day from a battery
of 50 ovens. But they could do with more gas than
they got, and as a matter of fact, they bought some from
an adjoining colliery. Neither producer gas pure and
simple, say, from 125 to 150 British thermal units, nor
gas with a calorific value of over 400 British thermal
units, was the ideal mixture.- They could get much
better results if they adopted a gas which, although it
was powerful, was still not so violent in its action that
they need run the risk of breaking their cylinder ends,
or anything of that kind. Therefore, the mixture of
producer gas with coke oven gas was highly advan-
tageous from that point of view. He thought Mr.
Mairet’s suggestion was a practical and cheap one.

Mr. Mairet said there were certain other points he
would like to bring out. At their colliery, during the
last coal strike, they had to continue running a certain
power for running pumps, etc., and the question arose
whether they should burn coal to fire boilers, and run
a steam set, or try to get the last ounce out of the
battery of coke ovens. They decided to run one of the
gas engines, and to run the coke ovens on a kind of
semi-producer principle. A certain air leakage was
allowed at the oven doors, and a certain amount of air was
drawn into the coke after it had been carbonised. Some
sulphate of ammonia was given off, but not much, of
course. No benzol was given off after the fuel had been
carbonised. But they ran 350 horse-power constantly
for one oven charge, of about seven tons of coal, per
day. The calorific value then went as low as 100 British
thermal units, and on the gas engine that they had
operating at that time, with the compression in the
neighbourhood of 130 to 1351b., the engine worked
perfectly. There was ample power in the engine for
the full load output of 350 horse-power. The only draw-
back they saw to working the ovens in that state was
the blistering of the oven walls, caused by the excessive
heat formed by burning the coke in the oven. They had
to renew some of the oven walls.

The President said he was certain that Mr. Mairet’s
suggestion was a very practical thing, and one which
they might adopt at any colliery. He thought that if
the running of the exhauster for pulling off the gas did
not alter the pull on the ovens, or in any way affect it,
there must be very little practical difficulty in carrying
it out. What would weigh with him most in putting up
producers would be the possibility of utilising the batts,
or inferior coal, the breeze dust, which was too small to
be sold for blacksmiths’ purposes, and the slurry, which
they got out of the water. Of course, there were* some
very fine recovery plants now—in fact, they were just
starting one at Monckton—but he believed they would
still have a certain amount of slurry, because they were
bound to change the water so often, in order to get
fresh water. If they put a gas producer down, it seemed
to him that they would be able to get rid of their muck
stacks. If they could get anything like as much sul-
phate of ammonia out of the bad coal as they could out
of the coke ovens, then he thought it was self-evident
that it would pay them to put down an expensive plant
and extract the by-products.

Mr. W. H. Chambers said allusion was made in the
paper to a plant which had been put down at Denaby
Main Colliery, but, as it had only practically been
working for about a week, he (the speaker) had not very
much experience of it to communicate at present. The
reason why it was adopted was because they had no
room to put boilers down, and they wanted more power.
At one time they had a good many coke ovens, and the
result of working them was that it was very strongly
impressed upon him, and his company that they were
a very bad way of disposing of the coal. Coke ovens
were a very inferior sort of gas producers, and, when
they were trying to get by-products out of these ovens,
they installed a plant and made the coke a by-product.
Their object was not to go on in the extravagant way of
trying to make gas out of coke ovens, but to get the
utmost value out of poor fuel, to utilise it to better
and more economical advantage. They had not
installed, and it was not their intention to instal at
present, any recovery plant in connection with what
they had put down, because they did not think it was
quite big enough to pay for the outlay and cost of
attendance for a small unit like that. But if it was
successful, and was extended, then they would certainly
lay themselves out to take all the by-products out of it
that they possibly could. Previously, they put coke
ovens down to make coke, not to get by-products. Now
they had abandoned that altogether. They could get
far better value out of their coal without making it into
coke. Unfortunately, they had not any inferior coal
that they could use for this purpose.

Mr. W. McD. Mackey (Leeds) said perhaps one of the
things that deterred colliery people from utilising their

waste fuel in producers was the fact that they had to
face the difficulty of the effluent that they got from
washing the gas. It had been his painful experience to
have to examine a good many burning muck stacks, and
certainly at first sight it did appear that the proper
thing would be to collect the more bituminous refuse,
and burn it in a producer. He had had no experience of
the Kynoch producer, which was referred to in the
paper, but he thought that there the by-products were
not recovered. He took it that there would be no
scrubbing with that plant : the downward draught and
the tar was used in order to give gas. Probably, if they
had not to face the difficulty of an effluent, many men
might use a gas producer. If the Kynoch producer got
over the tar difficulty successfully, this was certainly a
great point towards simplification. One of the points
that one was always asked, when examining a fuel for
an ordinary producer, was Is the tar going to be a
nuisance?” It very often was, if there was not adequate
scrubbing of the gas. It seemed to him that the
Kynoch producer got over that difficulty, and certainly
that was a great advantage in its favour.

The President said he supposed Mr. Mackey meant
the liquid effluent.

Mr. Mackey said he did.

The President said surely that would not be as bad
as the fumes from .the burning muck-stack, which would
be overcome by consuming the dirt and shale in the
gas producer.

Mr. Mackey agreed. But, he pointed out, the muck-
stack was already burning, and gave no trouble to any-
body, unless to outsiders, whereas, if they started
putting the fuel into the producer, the effluent was a
thing that had to be faced. The main point was that
probably it would not pay to have double picking to
get the bituminous fuel.

Compressed Air for Coal Cutters.

The President, referring to Mr. Sam Mavor’s paper
on “ Compressed Air for Coal Cutters,” supported the
author’s suggestion that, with a view to making the
air as cheap as possible, tests should be made at the
air engines. The test suggested was a simple one of
seeing how many strokes a minute it took to keep up
the air pressure under various conditions. If everybody
would make this test on their own plant, and look into
the size of their pipes, and give the information to the
institute (not necessarly for publication, if they did not
desire it) it would be very useful. He had received
a letter from Mr. Mavor, referring to a visit which he
paid to their colliery some years ago, and asking him
to bring a drawing of a coupling box which they used
underground. It was nothing very elaborate. It was a
patent of their engineer’s, and was simply an ordinary
coupling box made with the joint where the indiarubber
went on the same form as an ordinary stuffing box, but
it certainly made a very good joint. Mr. Mavor’s
engineer, when he went down their colliery, must have
been rather impressed with the fact that the pipes were
not leaking very much. He certainly would have been
impressed if he had seen some of the pipes that he (the
speaker) saw the other day. They had only just been
put down, with smooth joints, temporarily, and he did
not think there was one that was not leaking very
badly. They did not use any rigid joints at all, and
had not done for many years. It would be very useful
if people would give them their experience as to the
size of pipe which they found most suitable, and the
coupling box and the packing which they had proved to
be the best. There was n© doubt that the packings
varied very considerably. Mr. Mavor, in his paper,
enquired how many collieries had an expert mechanic
or engineer going round and examining the compressed
air machines underground. But was there one that had
not got a staff of electricians who were running round
the place ?

President’s Offer of Prizes.

Mr. Walter Hargreaves drew attention to an offer
of prizes for papers made by the president. He said
Mr. Ellison had generously offered two prizes of 10
guineas and five guineas respectively for papers on the
very subject they had been discussing that afternoon—
the economical production and use of power at
collieries. The best paper was to be read at the annual
meeting on July 18 next. Mr. Ellison also offered two
other prizes, of five guineas and two guineas respec-
tively, for the best papers written by members or
students who had not yet contributed to the
Transactions of the institute. This offer should be a
considerable spur to the younger members. He offered
his personal congratulations to the president on his new
idea, and hoped it would be productive of a considerable
influx of good papers to the institute.

At a meeting of the executive board of the Shipbuilding
Employers’ Federation, Mr. G. J. Carter, managing director
of Cammell, Laird and Company, Birkenhead, was elected
president.

Mr. V. H. Manning, who has been appointed director of
the United States Bureau of Mines of Department of the
Interior to succeed the late Dr. Joseph A. Holmes, was
assistant to Dr. Holmes, and then acting director of the
Bureau during the illness of his chief. Mr. Manning was
born at Corn Lake Depot, Miss., December 15, 1861. For
more than 20 years he was engaged in scientific and
technical work under the Department of the Interior. From
1885 to 1910 he was a civil engineer to the United States
Geological Survey, engaged in topographical mapping in
nearly every State in the Union. In addition to scientific
work he has long held administrative positions in the
Government service.

PARLIAMENTARY INTELLIGENCE.

HOudE OF COMMONS.—November 17.

Mineral Rights Duty and Excess Profits.

In Committee on the Finance (No. 3) Bill, the Financial
Secretary to the Treasury moved that the following new
clause should be read a second time and added to the Bill :—

New Clause.—(Excess Mineral Rights Duty.)

(1)	Where the amount payable to any person as rent in
respect of the right to work minerals or of any mineral way-
leaves (in cases where the right to work the minerals and
the mineral wayleaves are not part of the assets of any trade
or business) varies according to the price of the minerals and
the amount so payable in respect of any working year ending
on any date after the commencement of the present war (in
this section referred to as the accounting year) exceeds the
pre-war standard of that rent, there shall be paid as an addi-
tion to any mineral rights duty payable or paid, either
directly or by deduction, by reference to the amount of the
rent paid in that working year, by that person (in this
section referred to as the person liable) an amount equal to
50 per cent, of that excess.

(2)	The pre-war standard of rent shall, for the purposes of
this section, be taken to be the average of any two of the
three last pre-war rent values to be selected by the taxpayer,
and in cases where the minerals have not been worked or the
wayleave have not been let throughout the three years by
reference to which the three last pre-war rent values are to
be calculated, or for any other reason there are no proper
data for ascertaining the pre-war rent values, shall be taken
to be such amount as may be fixed by the Commissioners of
Inland Revenue, having regard to the data afforded by the
working and price of minerals in like circumstances, subject
nevertheless to the same appeal as that to which the assess-
ment of duty by the Commissioners is subject under Part I.
of the Finance (1909-10) Act, 1910.

The pre-war rent value shall, as respects each of the three
years immediately preceding the first accounting year, be
taken to be the sum to which the rent for the accounting
year would have amounted in each of those years if the rent,
so far as variable according to price, were based on the
average prices governing the payment of the rent in that
year.

(3)	Any amount payable in any accounting year by the
lessee of minerals or w’ayleaves to a superior lessor as rent in
respect of the minerals or wayleaves shall be treated as a
deduction from the amount payable to the lessee as rent for
that year, and in computing the pre-war rent values a corre-
sponding deduction shall be made on account of any such
rent.

(4)	Any increment value duty payable annually under
section 22 of the Finance (1909-10) Act, 1910, shall, when
paid, be treated as a deduction from the rent payable to any
person in the year in which the duty is paid, and a corre-
sponding deduction shall be made in computing the pre-war
standard with which the rent for that year is to be compared.

(5)	Any duty payable under this section shall be assessed
by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue on the person
liable, subject to the same appeal as that to which an
assessment of duty by the Commissioners under Part I. of
the Finance (1909-10) Act, 1910, is subject, and shall be
recoverable as a debt due to his Majesty from that person.

(6)	Sub-section (3) of section 20 of the Finance (1909-10)
Act, 1910. shall extend so as to authorise particulars to be
required of any lease of minerals or wayleaves, and as to the
sums paid or payable thereunder, and of such other
particulars as to the minerals or wayleaves as the Com-
missioners may require for the purpose of this section.

(7)	Expressions to which a special meaning is attacned
by Part I. of the Finance (1909-10) Act, 1910, shall have the
same meaning in this section.

The question was put, and agreed to, and the clause read
a second time.

Consulting Engineers and Alleged Wrongful Dismissal.—
In the King’s Bench Division on Monday, Mr. Justice A. T.
Lawrence and a special jury had before them an action
brought by Mr. Reginald Edward Horrex, consulting mining
engineer, residing at Hand worth, near Sheffield, against the
New Russia Company Limited, to recover damages for
alleged wrongful dismissal. The defendants admitted the
dismissal, and said their action was justified.—Mr. Compston
(for the plaintiff) said the defendants were an English com-
pany, having coal mines in Southern Russia. In February
1909 the plaintiff, who had been engaged in colliery work at
Sheffield, entered into a contract to perform the duties of
resident consulting mining engineer in respect of the com-
pany’s collieries in Russia for a period of three years from
March 1, 1909, at a salary of .£1,000 a year and a bonus.
In 1912 it was arranged that the plaintiff should continue
his services as general manager of the Central Collieries and
the Krivoi Rog iron mines, at a salary of £1.500 per year.
The plaintiff became the manager also of the company’s
works known as the Smolininoff group, which was incor-
porated in the Central group. Owing to differences between
them, plaintiff dismissed Mr. Kivalski, an under-manager,
and eventually the plaintiff himself was dismissed by
Mr. Switzen, the company’s general manager. There was
no suggestion of negligence or mismanagement by the
plaintiff in the working of the pits, but it was alleged that he
had been guilty of insubordination. The plaintiff was
entitled to six months’ notice under the second agreement.—
Mr. Maurice Deacon, past-president of the Institution of
Mining Engineers, gave evidence with reference to the powers
conferred on consulting engineers and managers. Plaintiff
would have the right to dismiss the certificated engineer of
the pit even if the general manager, Mr. Switzen. objected.
—Mr. Salter (for the defendants) submitted that Mr. Switzen
had ample authority to dismiss the plaintiff, as he was the
general manager of the whole of the company’s undertaking
in Russia. The plaintiff’s contract with a French company
to superintend the working of a seam of coal in that com-
pany’s pits while he was in the service of the defendants was
ample justification for the plaintiff’s dismissal.—The jury
found that Mr. Horrex was wrong in insisting on dismissing
the mining engineer against the wishes of his chief, but
were of opinion, on the whole of the evidence, that the dis-
missal of Mr. Horrex should carrv with it six months’ salary
—£750.—On the application of counsel for the defendants, his
lordship postponed judgment to hear arguments on points of
law.