COLLOIDAL FUEL

Hokitika Guardian, 8 July 1932, Page 6

COLLOIDAL FUEL

COAL AND OIL MIXTURE,

RESEARCH IN BRITAIN

SYDNEY. July 8.

Intense interest has;< been aroused inSydney shipping circles,; by . cabled advice of successful experiments by tlie Cunard -with a new fuel, comprising 60 per cent,: crude oil and 40 per cent.-' pulverised: '’bituminous ■ com. Further details • are 'eagerly -aWaitedy but doubt regarding the successful exploitation of the discovery in the Australian trade has already been raised (says the "Sydney Morning Herald”). It is admitted that, where oil is available cheaply, the new fuel, with an efficiency greater than that of either crude oil itself or coal, has tremendous possibilities. _ But, it is asked, would the new fuel be a commercial proposition in trade between ports where coal is obtainable cheaply? To take Australia as a typical example, it is doubted whether it would be economically possible to "ptilise" Australian- c«al for- the maiius factuVjj- of the new- fuel, .us ; 'the cost of importing the necessary oil would probably he prohibitive. It foi'-Jows that the new fuel-, must be manufactured abroad, under expensive patents, and' imported in bulk. , It is well known that oil fuel, par-, ifsicularly the thick product, of South, America, is often difficult to handle, in ‘.cold climates, and the question arises whether the new fuel would be more difficult or less difficult to handle in these conditions, and, if more difficult. Whether the present system of heating the oil with steam coils wou'd b e • adequate to cope wish it. The history of experiments .w’th mixture reveals,-many advantages. The department of Engineering Technology of Sydney University advises that many tests with a mixture of pulverised coal and fuel oil were carried out during the, .war, and that the new fuel was considered to have,.reached, a high istate of development in 1918. In that' year trials on the l United States war- . ship Gem showed that the mixture h • | an evaporative efficiency of 91.5 per cent, on a short run, as compared ! with "9.4 per cent, for crude oil, an 72.6 per' cent. / for pulverised coal.

Further calculations showed tha: /. mixture had a .greater calorific va.ue per unit volume than either oil it:,.

or coal itself. Its other advantages soon became manifest. . It was founu that, if the new fuel caught fire, it could be subdued 'with water, giv-ng it an obvious advantage over oil.

-was -discovered to be non-explosive, in striking contrast to pulverised coal. It still further reduced the risks of carriage. when it proved to be dense enough to enable its carriage under water. In short, it was -found topossess practically all the advantages of both crude oil and pulverised coai, with increased efficiency, and without the disadvantages of either. The, most important part of the process of making the new fuel lias been withheld from publication. It is generally taken -for granted that the whole success of the process depends upon the use of a -suitable fixateur, or geptising agent. Something must be added' to keep the coal suspended in the oil. Without that agent, the coal would sett'e ou the bottom of the container.' Authorities have suggested that it may be, a ‘Special 'kind of soap, pointing out that such a substance, would no: reduce y the calorific vaiUe of the fuel.

It will be remembered that the invention of pulverised coal created ju-t as much public interest as the present discovery. And yet only two vessels in the Australian and New Zealand trade arei now fired in this way, the German steamer Stassfurt, and the -British freighter Hororata.