Mechanical Equipment (Concluded).

For over two hundred years from the introduction of drill-holes for blasting by Caspar Weindel in Hungary, to the invention of the first practicable steam percussion drill by J. J. Crouch of Philadelphia, in 1849, all drilling was done by hand. Since Crouch's time a host of mechanical drills to be actuated by all sorts of power have come forward, and even yet the machine-drill has not reached a stage of development where it can displace hand-work under all conditions. Steam-power was never adapted to underground work, and a serviceable drill for this purpose was not found until compressed air for transmission was demonstrated by Dommeiller on the Mt. Cenis tunnel in 1861.

The ideal requirements for a drill combine:—

No drill invented yet fills all these requirements, and all are a compromise on some point.

Power Transmission; Compressed Air vs. Electricity.—The only transmissions adapted to underground drill-work are compressed air and electricity, and as yet an electric-driven drill has not been produced which meets as many of the requirements of the metal miner as do compressed-air drills. The latter, up to date, have superiority in simplicity, lightness, ease of erection, reliability, and strength over electric machines. Air has another advantage in that it affords some assistance to ventilation, but it has the disadvantage of remarkably low mechanical efficiency. The actual work performed by the standard 3-3/4-inch air-drill probably does not amount to over two or three horse-power against from fifteen to eighteen horse-power delivered into the compressor, or mechanical efficiency of less than 25%. As electrical power can be delivered to the drill with much less loss than compressed air, the field for a more economical drill on this line is wide enough to create eventually the proper tool to apply it. The most satisfactory electric drill produced has been the Temple drill, which is really an air-drill driven by a small electrically-driven compressor placed near the drill itself. But even this has considerable deficiencies in mining work; the difficulties of setting up, especially for stoping work, and the more cumbersome apparatus to remove before blasting are serious drawbacks. It has deficiencies in reliability and greater complication of machinery than direct air.

Air-compression.—The method of air-compression so long accomplished only by power-driven pistons has now an alternative in some situations by the use of falling water. This latter system is a development of the last twelve years, and, due to the low initial outlay and extremely low operating costs, bids fair in those regions where water head is available not only to displace the machine compressor, but also to extend the application of compressed air to mine motors generally, and to stay in some environments the encroachment of electricity into the compressed-air field. Installations of this sort in the West Kootenay, B.C., and at the Victoria copper mine, Michigan, are giving results worthy of careful attention.

Mechanical air-compressors are steam-, water-, electrical-, and gas-driven, the alternative obviously depending on the source and cost of power. Electrical- and gas- and water-driven compressors work under the disadvantage of constant speed motors and respond little to the variation in load, a partial remedy for which lies in enlarged air-storage capacity. Inasmuch as compressed air, so far as our knowledge goes at present, must be provided for drills, it forms a convenient transmission of power to various motors underground, such as small pumps, winches, or locomotives. As stated in discussing those machines, it is not primarily a transmission of even moderate mechanical efficiency for such purposes; but as against the installation and operation of independent transmission, such as steam or electricity, the economic advantage often compensates the technical losses. Where such motors are fixed, as in pumps and winches, a considerable gain in efficiency can be obtained by reheating.

It is not proposed to enter a discussion of mechanical details of air-compression, more than to call attention to the most common delinquency in the installation of such plants. This deficiency lies in insufficient compression capacity for the needs of the mine and consequent effective operation of drills, for with under 75 pounds pressure the drills decrease remarkably in rapidity of stroke and force of the blow. The consequent decrease in actual accomplishment is far beyond the ratio that might be expected on the basis of mere difference of pressure. Another form of the same chronic ill lies in insufficient air-storage capacity to provide for maintenance of pressure against moments when all drills or motors in the mine synchronize in heavy demand for air, and thus lower the pressure at certain periods.

Air-drills.—Air-drills are from a mechanical point of view broadly of two types,—the first, in which the drill is the piston extension; and the second, a more recent development for mining work, in which the piston acts as a hammer striking the head of the drill. From an economic point of view drills may be divided into three classes. First, heavy drills, weighing from 150 to 400 pounds, which require two men for their operation; second, "baby" drills of the piston type, weighing from 110 to 150 pounds, requiring one man with occasional assistance in setting up; and third, very light drills almost wholly of the hammer type. This type is built in two forms: a heavier type for mounting on columns, weighing about 80 pounds; and a type after the order of the pneumatic riveter, weighing as low as 20 pounds and worked without mounting.

The weight and consequent mobility of a drill, aside from labor questions, have a marked effect on costs, for the lighter the drill the less difficulty and delay in erection, and consequent less loss of time and less tendency to drill holes from one radius, regardless of pointing to take best advantage of breaking planes. Moreover, smaller diameter and shorter holes consume less explosives per foot advanced or per ton broken. The best results in tonnage broken and explosive consumed, if measured by the foot of drill-hole necessary, can be accomplished from hand-drilling and the lighter the machine drill, assuming equal reliability, the nearer it approximates these advantages.

The blow, and therefore size and depth of hole and rapidity of drilling, are somewhat dependent upon the size of cylinders and length of stroke, and therefore the heavier types are better adapted to hard ground and to the deep holes of some development points. Their advantages over the other classes lie chiefly in this ability to bore exceedingly hard material and in the greater speed of advance possible in development work; but except for these two special purposes they are not as economical per foot advanced or per ton of ore broken as the lighter drills.

The second class, where men can be induced to work them one man per drill, saves in labor and gains in mobility. Many tests show great economy of the "baby" type of piston drills in average ground over the heavier machines for stoping and for most lateral development. All piston types are somewhat cumbersome and the heavier types require at least four feet of head room. The "baby" type can be operated in less space than this, but for narrow stopes they do not lend themselves with the same facility as the third class.

The third class of drills is still in process of development, but it bids fair to displace much of the occupation of the piston types of drill. Aside from being a one-man drill, by its mobility it will apparently largely reproduce the advantage of hand-drilling in ability to place short holes from the most advantageous angles and for use in narrow places. As compared with other drills it bids fair to require less time for setting up and removal and for change of bits; to destroy less steel by breakages; to dull the bits less rapidly per foot of hole; to be more economical of power; to require much less skill in operation, for judgment is less called upon in delivering speed; and to evade difficulties of fissured ground, etc. And finally the cost is only one-half, initially and for spares. Its disadvantage so far is a lack of reliability due to lightness of construction, but this is very rapidly being overcome. This type, however, is limited in depth of hole possible, for, from lack of positive reverse movement, there is a tendency for the spoil to pack around the bit, and as a result about four feet seems the limit.

The performance of a machine-drill under show conditions may be anything up to ten or twelve feet of hole per hour on rock such as compact granite; but in underground work a large proportion of the time is lost in picking down loose ore, setting up machines, removal for blasting, clearing away spoil, making adjustments, etc. The amount of lost time is often dependent upon the width of stope or shaft and the method of stoping. Situations which require long drill columns or special scaffolds greatly accentuate the loss of time. Further, the difficulties in setting up reflect indirectly on efficiency to a greater extent in that a larger proportion of holes are drilled from one radius and thus less adapted to the best breaking results than where the drill can easily be reset from various angles.

The usual duty of a heavy drill per eight-hour shift using two men is from 20 to 40 feet of hole, depending upon the rock, facilities for setting up, etc., etc.[*] The lighter drills have a less average duty, averaging from 15 to 25 feet per shift.

[Footnote *: Over the year 1907 in twenty-eight mines compiled from Alaska to Australia, an average of 23.5 feet was drilled per eight-hour shift by machines larger than three-inch cylinder.]

Machine vs. Hand-Drilling.—The advantages of hand-drilling over machine-drilling lie, first, in the total saving of power, the absence of capital cost, repairs, depreciation, etc., on power, compresser and drill plant; second, the time required for setting up machine-drills does not warrant frequent blasts, so that a number of holes on one radius are a necessity, and therefore machine-holes generally cannot be pointed to such advantage as hand-holes. Hand-holes can be set to any angle, and by thus frequent blasting yield greater tonnage per foot of hole. Third, a large number of comparative statistics from American, South African, and Australian mines show a saving of about 25% in explosives for the same tonnage or foot of advance by hand-holes over medium and heavy drill-holes.

The duty of a skilled white man, single-handed, in rock such as is usually met below the zone of oxidation, is from 5 to 7 feet per shift, depending on the rock and the man. Two men hand-drilling will therefore do from 1/4 to 2/3 of the same footage of holes that can be done by two men with a heavy machine-drill, and two men hand-drilling will do from 1/5 to 1/2 the footage of two men with two light drills.

The saving in labor of from 75 to 33% by machine-drilling may or may not be made up by the other costs involved in machine-work. The comparative value of machine- and hand-drilling is not subject to sweeping generalization. A large amount of data from various parts of the world, with skilled white men, shows machine-work to cost from half as much per ton or foot advanced as hand-work to 25% more than handwork, depending on the situation, type of drill, etc. In a general way hand-work can more nearly compete with heavy machines than light ones. The situations where hand-work can compete with even light machines are in very narrow stopes where drills cannot be pointed to advantage, and where the increased working space necessary for machine drills results in breaking more waste. Further, hand-drilling can often compete with machine-work in wide stopes where long columns or platforms must be used and therefore there is much delay in taking down, reËrection, etc.

Many other factors enter into a comparison, however, for machine-drilling produces a greater number of deeper holes and permits larger blasts and therefore more rapid progress. In driving levels under average conditions monthly footage is from two to three times as great with heavy machines as by hand-drilling, and by lighter machines a somewhat less proportion of greater speed. The greater speed obtained in development work, the greater tonnage obtained per man in stoping, with consequent reduction in the number of men employed, and in reduction of superintendence and general charges are indirect advantages for machine-drilling not to be overlooked.

The results obtained in South Africa by hand-drilling in shafts, and its very general adoption there, seem to indicate that better speed and more economical work can be obtained in that way in very large shafts than by machine-drilling. How far special reasons there apply to smaller shafts or labor conditions elsewhere have yet to be demonstrated. In large-dimension shafts demanding a large number of machines, the handling of long machine bars and machines generally results in a great loss of time. The large charges in deep holes break the walls very irregularly; misfires cause more delay; timbering is more difficult in the face of heavy blasting charges; and the larger amount of spoil broken at one time delays renewed drilling, and altogether the advantages seem to lie with hand-drilling in shafts of large horizontal section.

The rapid development of special drills for particular conditions has eliminated the advantage of hand-work in many situations during the past ten years, and the invention of the hammer type of drill bids fair to render hand-drilling a thing of the past. One generalization is possible, and that is, if drills are run on 40-50 pounds' pressure they are no economy over hand-drilling.

WORKSHOPS.

In addition to the ordinary blacksmithy, which is a necessity, the modern tendency has been to elaborate the shops on mines to cover machine-work, pattern-making and foundry-work, in order that delays may be minimized by quick repairs. To provide, however, for such contingencies a staff of men must be kept larger than the demand of average requirements. The result is an effort to provide jobs or to do work extravagantly or unnecessarily well. In general, it is an easy spot for fungi to start growing on the administration, and if custom repair shops are available at all, mine shops can be easily overdone.

A number of machines are now in use for sharpening drills. Machine-sharpening is much cheaper than hand-work, although the drills thus sharpened are rather less efficient owing to the difficulty of tempering them to the same nicety; however, the net results are in favor of the machines.

IMPROVEMENT IN EQUIPMENT.

Not only is every mine a progressive industry until the bottom gives out, but the technology of the industry is always progressing, so that the manager is almost daily confronted with improvements which could be made in his equipment that would result in decreasing expenses or increasing metal recovery. There is one test to the advisability of such alterations: How long will it take to recover the capital outlay from the savings effected? and over and above this recovery of capital there must be some very considerable gain. The life of mines is at least secured over the period exposed in the ore-reserves, and if the proposed alteration will show its recovery and profit in that period, then it is certainly justified. If it takes longer than this on the average speculative ore-deposit, it is a gamble on finding further ore. As a matter of practical policy it will be found that an improvement in equipment which requires more than three or four years to redeem itself out of saving, is usually a mechanical or metallurgical refinement the indulgence in which is very doubtful.