British coals analysis

The authors would like to expresst heir gratitude to the Science and Engineering Research Council and the British Coal Coiporation for their financial support (grant reference number GR/D 41163), to the Coal Research Establishment for carrying out and interpreting the GC/MS analysis and to Akzo Chemie, The Netherlands, for the supply of catalysts and the catalyst support. 

The coal used was Point of Ayr, siq>plied preground to -200 pm by British Coal. An analysis of the coal is given in Table 2. The HAO solvent uised was also supplied by British Coal. 

John T. Boyd Company, Pittsburgh, PA. (1993). Executive summary Independent analysis. 21 ebsure review collieries. British Coal Corporation. United Kingdom. Drndon Department of Trade and Industry, Coal Review Team. 

Analysis andTesting of Coal And Coke, British Standards, parts 1—16,1957—1964, p. 1016. 

As a result, the formation of various national standards associations has led to the development of methods for coal evaluation. For example, the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) has carried out uninterrupted work in this field for many decades, and investigations on the development of the standardization of methods for coal evaluation has occurred in all the major coal-producing countries (Montgomery, 1978 Patrick and Wilkinson, 1978). There are in addition to the ASTM, organizations for methods development and standardization that operate on a national level examples are the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the British Standards Institution (BS), which covers the analysis of coal under one standard number (BS 1016) (Table 1.2). 

TABLE 1.2 British Standard 1016 Methods for Analysis and Testing of Coal and Coke... 

Part of this data in Table II is a series of British maceral concentrates. The Woolley Wheatly Lime sample is 93% fusinite while the Teversal Dunsil concentrate is 80% semifusinite with 13% fusinite. The Aldwarke Silkstone sample contains 43% semifu-sinite and 43% fusinite. The petrographic analysis of PSOC-2 reveals nearly equivalent amounts of fusinite, semifusinite, micrinite, and macrinite (6.8, 8.1, 7.5 and 8.5% respectively in the whole coal) while PSOC-858 contains primarily semifusinite as the inertinite. The differences in faH values for these iner-tinite samples are greater than the experimental error and these differences suggest that NMR techniques may be useful in characterizing the chemical structural differences between inertinite macerals. 

British Standard 1016, Methods for the analysis and testing of coal and coke, Part 13 1980 Test special to coke. 

British Standard BS 1016 Part 21 1981, Analysis and testing of coal and coke. Determination of moisture-holding capacity of coal. 

The volatile matter of coal is determined under rigidly controlled standards. In Australian and British laboratories, this involves heating the coal sample to 900°C 5°C (1650°F 10°F) for 7 min in a cylindrical silica crucible in a muffle furnace. The ASTM standard method of analysis involves heating coal to 950°C 25°C (1740 45 F) in a vertical platinum crucible. 

BSI. 2011. EN-analysis and testing of coal and coke. Part 107 Caking and swelling properties of coal. Section 107.1 Determination of crucible swelling number (BSI BS 1016-107.1). British Standards Institution, London, U.K. 

The development of GC and the analysis of petroleum and petrochemicals have enjoyed a mutually beneficial relationship. Indeed, the first international symposium on vapor-phase (gas) chromatography was sponsored by the British Institute of Petroleum in 1956 (9). Papers describing the analysis of refinery gas, solvents, aromatics in coal-tar naphthas, and samples from the internal combustion engine were presented. Most of the work included in these presentations was done on homebuilt chromatographs. The first commercial gas chromatograph or vapor-phase fractometer was also described, along with the first ionization detector. 

The present analysis focuses on representations of roof support because roof control represents one of the most dangerous and uncertain aspects of safety in a coal mine. To help readers understand the uncertainties inherent in roof control, I have provided a brief overview of three methods of roof support in U.S. and British mines. This overview will set the stage for a more theoretical discussion of the nature of warrants grounded in experience, the effect of warrants on risk decisions and risk outcomes, the rhetorical incompleteness of written instructions and procedures, and finally, the textual dynamics of disaster. In the conclusion, I look at the implications of this analysis for writers and rhetorical theorists. 

---