Post by: Pseudoscience-is-malarkey on 09/09/2021 01:05:25
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/09/2021 08:38:04
Or you could "cheat" by spending lots of time undercutting coal, but not not actually bringing it down.
Then one day, dig out all the coal you previously loosened.
A Russian reportedly did thisWhat did he get, another day older and deeper in debt?
Post by: Petrochemicals on 09/09/2021 09:25:15
Post by: TommyJ on 09/09/2021 11:36:26
No heavy machinery, several people. It was a new technology of team working, when they needed to mine the coal and fortified with logs the vault of the mine.
I believe there must be a special case of the mining front, where fortification is easy and the mining front is wide enough.
Cannot argue the numbers.
There are many videos on youtube showing, how mining is done in extreme cases.
Still in many cases automatization and heavy machinery may not be implemented in the front.
Post by: TommyJ on 09/09/2021 12:47:57
Did he pack it and bring it to the surface too?No, just 'mined', not bringing to the surface.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 09/09/2021 13:06:05
Did he pack it and bring it to the surface too?No, just 'mined', not bringing to the surface.
Post by: TommyJ on 09/09/2021 13:30:12
Post by: Just thinking on 16/09/2021 18:40:42
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/09/2021 19:31:53
In 1935 they had steam engines that burnt more coal than that in a dayGot evidence?
Post by: Just thinking on 16/09/2021 19:47:36
Big boy locomotive..PNG (634.08 kB . 671x704 - viewed 2574 times)Got evidence?Yes, the big boy locomotives carried 38 tons of coal and when working hard it will consume all of that within two hours as well as that much water.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/09/2021 21:08:52
(WIKI says 28 short tons)
29 tons in 2 hour is 14.5 tons per hour.
Whereas 102 tons of coal in 5 hours is over 20 tons per hour.
So... not quite.
And, rather more importantly, Wiki also tells me
". Coal was carried from the tender to the firebox by a stoker motor: a steam engine driving an auger."
Post by: Just thinking on 16/09/2021 21:20:47
Well, It seems to say 29 tons.You weren't paying attention I said more than 102 tons in a day that is 24 hours making it possible for this locomotive to consume over 400 tons of coal in a 24 hour period and that is taking into consideration for reloading every 2 hours. And the train runs for longer than 24 hours crossing the US.
29 tons in 2 hour is 14.5 tons per hour.
Whereas 102 tons of coal in 5 hours is over 20 tons per hour.
So... not quite.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/09/2021 21:28:52
14.5 tons per hour implies about 350 tons per day.
But the point is moot.
Who cares what a machine can do?
Obviously, there were things that shifted coal faster than that, but the important aspect of the (admittedly dubious) record is that it was done by a man, rather than a steam powered auger.
Post by: Just thinking on 16/09/2021 21:37:44
Obviously, there were things that shifted coal faster than that, but the important aspect of the (admittedly dubious) record is that it was done by a man, rather than a steam powered auger.The OP only stated 1935 technology what technology a pick and hand shovel?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/09/2021 22:52:24
Post by: TommyJ on 17/09/2021 08:31:55
Post by: Just thinking on 17/09/2021 14:55:23
The end of XIX - beginning of XX mining tools: hand drills, hammers, pneumatic coal picks, blasting (where it is possible), collapsing of the coal seam roof was used for the thick coal seams.There was no shortage of power and technology in 1935 to extract coal. Coal mining was the main necessity for advancement in tool technology and machinery after the first war. PS and before the first war.
Post by: TommyJ on 17/09/2021 15:20:00
2. Stakhanov team used pneumatic coal picks.
3. His 'new idea' of the teamwork strategy was: effective tasks separation.
4. He selected a coal-rich mine site for the test.
5. The record ‘confusion’ is that actually 5 miners were working, but the whole volume was attributed only to Stakhanov.
Post by: Just thinking on 17/09/2021 15:38:10
1. The industrial field was not so advanced and implemented in Russia at that time.I think this whole thing is a Russian attempt to push workers to work harder and achieve the goal of achievement steam power was an industrial achievement long before 1935 in all civilized countries and coal is the main source of fire.
2. Stakhanov team used pneumatic coal picks.
3. His 'new idea' of the teamwork strategy was: effective tasks separation.
4. He selected a coal-rich mine site for the test.
5. The record ‘confusion’ is that actually 5 miners were working, but the whole volume was attributed only to Stakhanov.
Post by: TommyJ on 17/09/2021 16:08:07
I think this whole thing is a Russian attempt to push workers to work harder and achieve the goal of achievement steam power was an industrial achievement long before 1935 in all civilized countries and coal is the main source of fire.I think so.
By one local example they pushed the industry with hands. That former united area is reach in coal and workers and its output in the end.
Trying to understand leads to depths of history)
Post by: nicephotog on 30/09/2021 10:59:04
That's 20 tons P/hour, and presuming a standard ton (all similar imperial , SAE or ?Soviet) not short ton or long ton or tonne , it would be around or less than one cubic metre 1x1x1 and twenty volumes of this P/hour.
"Possible" with a pick and enough air for the miner but mainly space to swing in without worrying they would kill anyone else !
This last point (space to swing) apart a vein good enough to get that much from (with a double ended pick and a wide enough path inside a vein you can swing back on the other wall side) is probably the biggest factor.
But of essence, what does "mined" mean, when is that point achieved e.g. at the surface,? in the truck?
Note: a 44 gallon drum of water weighs 213kg - forklift license info
What do you actually want with it?
Are you trying to incite coal mining Olympics as an event?
Remains just possible(since the assessing my reading error)
Post by: Petrochemicals on 01/10/2021 15:16:41
Half a metre square. Ie 0.5x1x1. Favourable coal all you would really need to do would be to stick a pick behind it.
That's 20 tons P/hour, and presuming a standard ton (all similar imperial , SAE or ?Soviet) not short ton or long ton or tonne , it would be around or less than one cubic metre 1x1x1 and twenty volumes of this P/hour.
Coal is a broad term, jade is in fact coal but I would think it was harder to mine.
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/10/2021 18:15:06
Coal is a broad term, jade is in fact coalI presume you mean jet.
I can see why you might identify with jade; it's tough to get through, green and dense.
Post by: nicephotog on 03/10/2021 10:14:31
Quote
[Half a metre square. Ie 0.5x1x1. Favourable coal all you would really need to do would be to stick a pick behind it.
One problem there is Soviet diet in the 1930s , it apparently was short of meat and mainly was for some mostly Corn.
How much rice was ever their diet is neither understood but it wasn't ever traditional protein intake at any one rate.
More than that the Five ears of corn law would have been heavily serviced at that time so a wonder about miners diets.