KEYA -In this table the matters soluble in water and the nitrogen are calculated to two places of decimals; the other ingredients are expressed in round numbers.B -Soluble in water.C -Insol. in water, but soluble in carbonate of soda.D -Insol. in water and carbonate of soda.E -Total.F -Total matters soluble in water.G -Nitrogen.H -Nitrogen in per cent. of the organic matter.ORGANIC MATTER.INORGANIC MATTER.ABCDEBCDEFGH1. Lewis M. Norton204060401.751.462.25Goshen, Conn.2. Lewis M. Norton751590102.322.58Goshen, Conn.3. Lewis M. Norton60359552.952.232.36Goshen, Conn.4. Messrs. Pond & Miles81159642.031.491.55Milford, Conn.5. Messrs. Pond & Miles79199823.971.091.12Milford, Conn.6. Samuel Camp5311641818363.082.584.03Plainville, Conn.7. Russell U. Peck463783173.271.962.34Berlin, Conn.8. Rev. B. F. Northrop481159411.881.502.49Griswold, Conn.9. J. H. Stanwood751186142.771.992.15Colebrook, Conn.10. N. Hart, Jr.691382187.752.613.21West Cornwall, Conn.11. A. L. Loveland4344753.851.132.43North Granby, Conn.12. Daniel Buck, Jr.33609373.582.923.15Poquonock, Conn.13. Daniel Buck, Jr.414990102.162.892.23Poquonock, Conn.14. Philip Scarborough61309191.701.421.57Brooklyn, Conn.15. Adams White632790106.783.333.72Brooklyn, Conn.16. Paris Dyer21526742.851.124.31Brooklyn, Conn.17. Perrin Scarborough628703017.591.001.43Brooklyn, Conn.18. Geo. K. Virgin2.48239350.351154652.830.722.06Collinsville, Conn.19. Geo K. Virgin1.7214823.43275772.150.512.20Collinsville, Conn.20. Geo. K. Virgin1.6722832.58266682.250.652.04Collinsville, Conn.21. Solomon Mead3.70489602.921127406.621.702.90New Haven, Conn.22. Edwin Hoyt3.05148262.922150746.070.481.88New Canaan, Conn.23. Edwin Hoyt2.47148251.631360754.100.953.76New Canaan, Conn.24. Edwin Hoyt1.23189281.791555723.021.083.82New Canaan, Conn.25. A. M. Haling4.90751292.50785.402.322.52Rockville, Conn.26. A. M. Haling4.50831097.27234.771.531.57Rockville, Conn.27. A. M. Haling6.2471784.8278167.063.043.64Rockville, Conn.28. Albert Day4.01761090.5218104.531.361.52Brooklyn, Conn.29. C. Goodyear2.11541268.40922322.511.982.91New Haven, Conn.30. Rev. Wm. Clift4.567113883.868128.421.291.46Stonington, Conn.31. Henry Keeler2.66561573.97521273.631.982.64South Salem, N. Y.32. John Adams2.375915761.40220243.772.443.18Salisbury, Conn.33. Rev. Wm. Clift5.93188328.137536814.061.444.49Stonington, Conn.
TABLE III.—DESCRIPTION, ETC., OF PEATS AND MUCKS.
No.Color.Condition at Time of Analysis, Reputed Value, etc.1. Lewis M. Nortonchocolate-brown,air-dry, tough, compact, heavy; from bottom; 3 to 4 feet deep; very good in compost.2. Lewis M. Nortonchocolate-brown,air-dry, tough, compact, heavier than 1, from near surface; very good in compost.3. Lewis M. Nortonlight-brown,air-dry, coherent but light, from between 1 and 2, very good in compost.4. Messrs. Pond & Mileschocolate-brown,air-dry, coherent but light, surface peat, considered better than No. 5; good in compost.5. Messrs. Pond & Milesbrownish-red,air-dry, very light and loose in texture, from depth of 3 feet, good in compost.6. Samuel Campblack,air-dry, hard lumps, half as good as yard manure, in compost equal to yard manure.7. Russell U. Peckchocolate-brown,air-dry, is good fresh, long exposed, half as good as barn-yard\ manure.8. Rev. B. F. Northropgrayish-brown,air-dry, light, easily crushed masses containing sand, has not been used alone, good in compost.9. J. H. Stanwoodchocolate-brown,moist, hard lumps, used fresh good after first year; excellent in compost.10. N. Hart, Jr.brownish-black,air-dry, hard lumps, excellent in compost.11. A. L. Lovelandblack,air-dry, hard lumps, contains grains of coarse sand.12. Daniel Buck, Jr.chocolate-brown,air-dry, coherent cakes, good as top dressing on grass when fresh; excellent in compost.13. Daniel Buck, Jr.chocolate-brown,air-dry, light surface layers of No. 12.14. Philip Scarboroughair-dry, after exposure over winter, has one-third value of yard-manure.15. Adams Whitechocolate-brown,air-dry, hard lumps, good in compost, causes great growth of straw.16. Paris Dyergrayish-black,air-dry, easily crushed lumps, largely admixed with soil.17. Perrin Scarboroughchocolate-brown,air-dry,well-characterized "vitriol peat;" in compost, after 1 year's exposure, gives indifferent results.18. Geo. K. Virginlight brownish-grayair-dry light, coherent, surface peat; sample long exposed; astonishing results on sandy soil.19. Geo. K. Virginchocolate-brown,moist, crumbly, contains much sand, four feet from surface.20. Geo. K. Virginblack,wet.21. Solomon Meadgrayish-brown,air-dry, light, porous, coherent from grass roots; long weathered, good; fresh, better in compost.22. Edwin Hoytbrownish-gray,air-dry, loose, light, much mixed with soil, good in compost.23. Edwin Hoytbrownish-gray,air-dry, No. 22 saturated with horse urine, darker than No. 22.24. Edwin Hoytbrownish-gray,air-dry, No. 22 composted with white fish, darker than No. 23; fish-bones evident.25. A. M. Halingchocolate-brown,moist, fresh dug.26. A. M. Halingchocolate-brown,air-dry, No. 25 after two year's weathering.27. A. M. Halingchocolate-brown,moist, fresh dug, good substitute for yard manure as top-dressing on grass.28. Albert Daydark-brown,moist, coherent and hard; fresh dug, but from surface where weathered; injurious to crops; vitriol peat. (?)29. C. Goodyearblack,air-dry, very hard tough cakes; when fresh dug, "as good as cow dung."30. Rev. Wm. Cliftchocolate-brown,moist, from an originally fresh water bog, broken into 100 years ago by tide, now salt marsh; good after weathering.31. Henry Keelerlight-brown,air-dry, leaf-muck, friable; when fresh, appears equal to good yard manure.32. John Adamslight-brown,moist, overlies shell marl, fresh or weathered does not compare with ordinary manure.33. Rev. Wm. Cliftdark ash-gray,air-dry, from bottom of salt ditch, where tide flows daily; contains sulphate of iron.
[2]The oxygen thus absorbed by water, serves for the respiration of fish and aquatic animals.
[2]The oxygen thus absorbed by water, serves for the respiration of fish and aquatic animals.
[3]This sample contained also fish-bones, hence the larger content of nitrogen was not entirely due to absorbed ammonia.
[3]This sample contained also fish-bones, hence the larger content of nitrogen was not entirely due to absorbed ammonia.
[4]Reichardt's analyses are probably inaccurate, and give too much ammonia and nitric acid.
[4]Reichardt's analyses are probably inaccurate, and give too much ammonia and nitric acid.
[5]These analyses were executed—A by Professor G. F. Barker; B by Mr. O. C. Sparrow; C by Mr. Peter Collier.
[5]These analyses were executed—A by Professor G. F. Barker; B by Mr. O. C. Sparrow; C by Mr. Peter Collier.
[6]Shell marl, consisting of fragments and powder of fresh-water shells, is frequently met with, underlying peat beds. Such a deposit occurs on the farm of Mr. John Adams, in Salisbury, Conn. It is eight to ten feet thick. An air-dry sample, analyzed under the writer's direction, gave results as follows:Water30.62Organic matter{soluble in water0.70 }6.52{insoluble in water5.82 }Carbonate of lime57.09Sand1.86Oxide of iron and alumina, with traces of potash, magnesia, sulphuric and phosphoric acid3.91100.00Another specimen from near Milwaukee, Wis., said to occur there in immense quantities underlying peat, contained, by the author's analysis—Water1.14Carbonate of lime92.41Carbonate of magnesia3.43Peroxide of iron with a trace of phosphoric acid0.92Sand1.6099.50
[6]Shell marl, consisting of fragments and powder of fresh-water shells, is frequently met with, underlying peat beds. Such a deposit occurs on the farm of Mr. John Adams, in Salisbury, Conn. It is eight to ten feet thick. An air-dry sample, analyzed under the writer's direction, gave results as follows:
Water30.62Organic matter{soluble in water0.70 }6.52{insoluble in water5.82 }Carbonate of lime57.09Sand1.86Oxide of iron and alumina, with traces of potash, magnesia, sulphuric and phosphoric acid3.91100.00
Another specimen from near Milwaukee, Wis., said to occur there in immense quantities underlying peat, contained, by the author's analysis—
Water1.14Carbonate of lime92.41Carbonate of magnesia3.43Peroxide of iron with a trace of phosphoric acid0.92Sand1.6099.50
[7]To the kindness of Joseph Sheffield, Esq., of New Haven, the author is indebted for facilities in carrying on these experiments.
[7]To the kindness of Joseph Sheffield, Esq., of New Haven, the author is indebted for facilities in carrying on these experiments.
[8]At the instigation of Henry A. Dyer, Esq., at that time the Society's Corresponding Secretary.
[8]At the instigation of Henry A. Dyer, Esq., at that time the Society's Corresponding Secretary.
[9]Derived from the communications published in the author's Report. Trans. Conn. State Ag. Soc. 1858 p.p. 101-153.
[9]Derived from the communications published in the author's Report. Trans. Conn. State Ag. Soc. 1858 p.p. 101-153.
1.—Kinds of peat that make the best fuel.
The value of peat for fuel varies greatly, like its other qualities. Only those kinds which can be cut out in the shape of coherent blocks, or which admit of being artificially formed into firm masses, are of use in ordinary stoves and furnaces. The powdery or friable surface peat, which has been disintegrated by frost and exposure, is ordinarily useless as fuel, unless it be rendered coherent by some mode of preparation. Unripe peat which contains much undecomposed moss or grass roots, which is therefore very light and porous, is in general too bulky to make an effective heating material before subjection to mechanical treatment.
The best peat for burning, is that which is most free from visible fiber or undecomposed vegetable matters, which has therefore a homogeneous brown or black aspect, and which is likewise free from admixture of earthysubstances in the form of sand or clay. Such peat is unctuous when moist, shrinks greatly on drying, and forms hard and heavy masses when dry. It is usually found at a considerable depth, where it has been subjected to pressure, and then has such consistence as to admit of cutting out in blocks; or it may exist as a black mud or paste at the bottom of bogs and sluices.
The value of peat as fuel stands in direct ratio to its content of carbon. We have seen that this ranges from 51 to 63per cent. of the organic matter, and the increase of carbon is related to its ripeness and density. The poorest, youngest peat, has the same proportion of carbon as exists in wood. It does not, however, follow that its heating power is the same. The various kinds of wood have essentially the same proportion of carbon, but their heating power is very different. The close textured woods—those which weigh the most per cord—make the best fuel for most purposes. We know, that a cord of hickory will produce twice as much heat as a cord of bass-wood. Peat, though having the same or a greater proportion of carbon, is generally inferior to wood on account of its occupying a greater bulk for a given weight, a necessary result of its porosity. The best qualities of peat, or poor kinds artificially condensed, may, on the other hand, equal or exceed wood in heating power, bulk for bulk. One reason that peat is, in general, inferior to wood in heating effect, lies in its greater content of incombustible ash. Wood has but 0.5 to 1.5per cent.of mineral matters, while peat contains usually 5 to 10per cent., and often more. The oldest, ripest peats are those which contain the most carbon, and have at the same time the greatest compactness. From these two circumstances they make the best fuel.
It thus appears that peat which is light, loose in structure, and much mixed with clay or sand, is a poor or verypoor article for producing heat: while a dense pure peat is very good.
A great drawback to the usefulness of most kinds of peat-fuel, lies in their great friability. This property renders them unable to endure transportation. The blocks of peat which are commonly used in most parts of Germany as fuel, break and crumble in handling, so that they cannot be carried far without great waste. Besides, when put into a stove, there can only go on a slow smouldering combustion as would happen in cut tobacco or saw-dust. A free-burning fuel must exist in compact lumps or blocks, which so retain their form and solidity, as to admit of a rapid draught of air through the burning mass.
The bulkiness of ordinary peat fuel, as compared with hard wood, and especially with coal, likewise renders transportation costly, especially by water, where freights are charged by bulk and not by weight, and renders storage an item of great expense.
The chief value of that peat fuel, which is simply cut from the bog, and dried without artificial condensation, must be for the domestic use of the farmer or villager who owns a supply of it not far from his dwelling, and can employ his own time in getting it out. Though worth perhaps much less cord for cord when dry than hard wood, it may be cheaper for home consumption than fuel brought from a distance.
Various processes have been devised for preparing peat, with a view to bringing it into a condition of density and toughness, sufficient to obviate its usual faults, and make it compare with wood or even with coal in heating power.
The efforts in this direction have met with abundant success as regards producing a good fuel. In many cases, however, the cost of preparation has been too great to warrant the general adoption of these processes. Weshall recur to this subject on a subsequent page, and give an account of the methods that have been proposed or employed for the manufacture of condensed peat fuel.
2.—Density of Peat.
The apparent[10]specific gravity of peat in the air-dry state, ranges from 0.11 to 1.03. In other words, a full cubic foot weighs from one-tenth as much as, to slightly more than a cubic foot of water, = 62-1/3 lbs. Peat, which has a specific gravity of but 0.25, may be and is employed as fuel. A full cubic foot of it will weigh about 16 lbs. In Germany, the cubic foot of "good ordinary peat" in blocks,[11]ranges from 15 to 25 lbs. in weight, and is employed for domestic purposes. The heavier peat, weighing 30 or more lbs. per cubic foot in blocks, is used for manufacturing and metallurgical purposes, and for firing locomotives.
Karmarsch has carefully investigated more than 100 peats belonging to the kingdom of Hanover, with reference to their heating effect. He classifies them as follows:—
A.Turfy peat, (Rasentorf,) consisting of slightly decomposed mosses and other peat-producing plants, having a yellow or yellowish-brown color, very soft, spongy andelastic, sp. gr. 0.11 to 0.26, the full English cubic foot weighing from 7 to 16 lbs.
B.Fibrous peat, unripe peat, which is brown or black in color, less elastic than turfy peat, the fibres either of moss, grass, roots, leaves, or wood, distinguishable by the eye, but brittle, and easily broken; sp. gr. 0.24 to 0.67, the weight of a full cubic foot being from 15 to 42 lbs.
C.Earthy peat.—Nearly or altogether destitute of fibrous structure, drying to earth-like masses which break with more or less difficulty, giving lustreless surfaces of fracture; sp. gr. 0.41 to 0.90, the full cubic foot weighing, accordingly, from 25 to 56 lbs.
D.Pitchy peat, (Pechtorf,) dense; when dry, hard; often resisting the blows of a hammer, breaking with a smooth, sometimes lustrous fracture, into sharp-angled pieces. Sp. gr. 0.62 to 1.03, the full cubic foot weighing from 38 to 55 lbs.
In Kane and Sullivan's examination of 27 kinds of Irish peat, the specific gravities ranged from 0.274 to 1.058.
3.—Heating power of peat as compared with wood and anthracite.
Karmarsch found that in absolute heating effect
100 lbs. of turfy, air-dry peat, on the average = 95 lbs. of pine wood.100 lbs. of fibrous, air-dry peat, on the average = 108 lbs. of pine wood.100 lbs. of earthy, air-dry peat, on the average = 104 lbs. of pine wood.100 lbs. of pitchy, air-dry peat, on the average = 111 lbs. of pine wood.
The comparison of heating power by bulk, instead of weight, is as follows:—
100 cubic ft. of turfy peat, on the average[12]= 33 cubic ft. of pine wood, in sticks.100 cubic ft. of fibrous peat, on the average = 90 cubic ft. of pine wood, in sticks.100 cubic ft. of earthy peat, on the average = 145 cubic ft. of pine wood, in sticks.100 cubic ft. of pitchy peat, on the average = 184 cubic ft. of pine wood, in sticks.
According to Brix, the weight per English cord and relative heating effect of several air-dry peats—the heating power of an equal bulk of oak wood being taken at 100 as a standard—are as follows,bulk for bulk:[13]
Weight per cord.Heating effect.Oak wood4150 lbs.100Peat from Linum, 1st quality, dense and pitchy3400 lbs.70Peat from Linum, 2d quality, fibrous2900 lbs.55Peat from Linum, 3d quality, turfy2270 lbs.53Peat from Buechsenfeld, 1st quality, pitchy, very hard and heavy3400 lbs.74Peat from Buechsenfeld, 2d quality2730 lbs.64
These statements agree in showing, that, while weight for weight, the ordinary qualities of peat do not differ much from wood in heating power; the heating effect ofequal bulksof this fuel, as found in commerce, may vary extremely, ranging from one-half to three quarters that of oak wood.
Condensed peat may be prepared by machinery, which will weigh more than hard wood, bulk for bulk, and whose heating power will therefore exceed that of wood.
Gysser gives the following comparisons of a good peat with various German woods and charcoals, equal weights being employed, and split beech wood, air-dry, assumed as the standard.[14]