When I was a mere lad there was a chemical fertiliser plant next to
the village I lived in. Part of the works was a lead chamber sulphuric
acid plant with a Glover and a Gay-Lussac tower which emitted a
stinking yellow stream of fumes. All this has gone now but during a
good old days discussion the other day someone came up with the remark
that the input to the plant was copper pyrites being burnt and the
flue gas used to make the acid. I don't recall anything about copper
bearing ash being shipped out but I suppose it could have been.
Does this sound right to our chemists?

In message
,
cynic writes
When I was a mere lad there was a chemical fertiliser plant next to
the village I lived in. Part of the works was a lead chamber sulphuric
acid plant with a Glover and a Gay-Lussac tower which emitted a
stinking yellow stream of fumes. All this has gone now but during a
good old days discussion the other day someone came up with the remark
that the input to the plant was copper pyrites being burnt and the
flue gas used to make the acid. I don't recall anything about copper
bearing ash being shipped out but I suppose it could have been.
Does this sound right to our chemists?

Ammonium sulphate?

regards

--
Tim Lamb

cynic wrote:
When I was a mere lad there was a chemical fertiliser plant next to
the village I lived in. Part of the works was a lead chamber sulphuric
acid plant with a Glover and a Gay-Lussac tower which emitted a
stinking yellow stream of fumes. All this has gone now but during a
good old days discussion the other day someone came up with the remark
that the input to the plant was copper pyrites being burnt and the
flue gas used to make the acid. I don't recall anything about copper
bearing ash being shipped out but I suppose it could have been.
Does this sound right to our chemists?
Ass a chemist and chemistry teacher, I could not recall the lead chmber
process as it was obsolete on the industrial scale and therefore not
taught in detail Google provided this link
http://www.sulphuric-acid.com/techma...ad_Chamber.htm
which suggests that your memry may be flawed. there are other
references on google which may help

malcolm

"cynic" wrote in message
...
When I was a mere lad there was a chemical fertiliser plant next to
the village I lived in. Part of the works was a lead chamber sulphuric
acid plant with a Glover and a Gay-Lussac tower which emitted a
stinking yellow stream of fumes. All this has gone now but during a
good old days discussion the other day someone came up with the remark
that the input to the plant was copper pyrites being burnt and the
flue gas used to make the acid. I don't recall anything about copper
bearing ash being shipped out but I suppose it could have been.
Does this sound right to our chemists?

If there was copper pyrites, I would imagine you had a copper smelters, who
used the waste sulphur for making acid via the scrubber (which from your
description of the chimney didn't work very well: bet all people's washing
used to fall to bits!), rather than an acid plant per se. They would not
waste copper ore just to make sulphuric acid. Just about the only UK source
would have been in Cornwall: is that where your village was?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalcopyrite

S

When I was a mere lad there was a chemical fertiliser plant next to
the village I lived in. Part of the works was a lead chamber sulphuric
acid plant with a Glover and a Gay-Lussac tower

You wouldn't want more than one of those in the village ;-)

--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

"Malcolm" wrote in message
newscLZn.114493$m87.35376@hurricane...
cynic wrote:
When I was a mere lad there was a chemical fertiliser plant next to
the village I lived in. Part of the works was a lead chamber sulphuric
acid plant with a Glover and a Gay-Lussac tower which emitted a
stinking yellow stream of fumes. All this has gone now but during a
good old days discussion the other day someone came up with the remark
that the input to the plant was copper pyrites being burnt and the
flue gas used to make the acid. I don't recall anything about copper
bearing ash being shipped out but I suppose it could have been.
Does this sound right to our chemists?
Ass a chemist and chemistry teacher, I could not recall the lead chmber
process as it was obsolete on the industrial scale and therefore not
taught in detail Google provided this link
http://www.sulphuric-acid.com/techma...ad_Chamber.htm
which suggests that your memry may be flawed. there are other references
on google which may help


just read "nitrous vitriol (sulfuric acid with nitric oxide, NO, and
nitrogen dioxide, NO2, dissolved in it)"

now that sounds like a real mans drink !

On 9 July, 19:34, cynic wrote:
When I was a mere lad there was a chemical fertiliser plant next to
the village I lived in. Part of the works was a lead chamber sulphuric
acid plant with a Glover and a Gay-Lussac tower which emitted a
stinking yellow stream of fumes. All this has gone now but during a
good old days discussion the other day someone came up with the remark
that the input to the plant was copper pyrites being burnt and the
flue gas used to make the acid. I don't recall anything about copper
bearing ash being shipped out but I suppose it could have been.
Does this sound right to our chemists?

Not a chemist but had just been reading about hydrochloric and
sulphuric acid, in Vol 2 of Harmsworth's popular science (1911).
The sulphur source would have been a by-product from the LeBlanc
process or direct from roasted Iron Pyrites.
The sulphur free pyrites clinker then mixed with salt and re-roasted,
giving copper chloride. The copper along with silver and gold
residues then extracted leaving a pure iron oxide for supply to the
steel makers.
It was the copper content that regulated the pyrites price. Seems the
sulphur was just a means to an end.

wrote in message
...
On 9 July, 19:34, cynic wrote:
When I was a mere lad there was a chemical fertiliser plant next to
the village I lived in. Part of the works was a lead chamber sulphuric
acid plant with a Glover and a Gay-Lussac tower which emitted a
stinking yellow stream of fumes. All this has gone now but during a
good old days discussion the other day someone came up with the remark
that the input to the plant was copper pyrites being burnt and the
flue gas used to make the acid. I don't recall anything about copper
bearing ash being shipped out but I suppose it could have been.
Does this sound right to our chemists?

Not a chemist but had just been reading about hydrochloric and
sulphuric acid, in Vol 2 of Harmsworth's popular science (1911).
The sulphur source would have been a by-product from the LeBlanc
process or direct from roasted Iron Pyrites.
The sulphur free pyrites clinker then mixed with salt and re-roasted,
giving copper chloride. The copper along with silver and gold
residues then extracted leaving a pure iron oxide for supply to the
steel makers.
It was the copper content that regulated the pyrites price. Seems the
sulphur was just a means to an end.

They are good those old Harmsworth's books. Shame about all the eugenics
though!

S

On 9 July, 19:34, cynic wrote:
When I was a mere lad there was a chemical fertiliser plant next to
the village I lived in. Part of the works was a lead chamber sulphuric
acid plant with a Glover and a Gay-Lussac tower which emitted a
stinking yellow stream of fumes. All this has gone now but during a
good old days discussion the other day someone came up with the remark
that the input to the plant was copper pyrites being burnt and the
flue gas used to make the acid. I don't recall anything about copper
bearing ash being shipped out but I suppose it could have been.
Does this sound right to our chemists?

Pretty common this sort of thing in the good old days. During WW1
there was an explosives manufacturer in the town where Ilived.
Seventy years later there still was a huge area of ground down wind of
the plant where nothing grew. I think they were making amatol.
Even more deadly the old gas works was demolished, the ground was
laced with arsenic, cost a fortune to clear up.

On 10 July, 00:26, "Spamlet" wrote:
wrote in message

...





On 9 July, 19:34, cynic wrote:
When I was a mere lad there was a chemical fertiliser plant next to
the village I lived in. Part of the works was a lead chamber sulphuric
acid plant with a Glover and a Gay-Lussac tower which emitted a
stinking yellow stream of fumes. All this has gone now but during a
good old days discussion the other day someone came up with the remark
that the input to the plant was copper pyrites being burnt and the
flue gas used to make the acid. I don't recall anything about copper
bearing ash being shipped out but I suppose it could have been.
Does this sound right to our chemists?

Not a chemist but *had just been reading about hydrochloric and
sulphuric acid, in Vol 2 of Harmsworth's popular science (1911).
The sulphur source would have been *a *by-product from the LeBlanc
process or direct from roasted Iron Pyrites.
The sulphur free pyrites clinker then mixed with salt and re-roasted,
giving copper chloride. The copper along with *silver and gold
residues then extracted leaving a pure iron oxide for supply to the
steel makers.
It was the copper content that regulated the pyrites price. Seems the
sulphur was just a means to an end.

They are good those old Harmsworth's books. *Shame about all the eugenics
though!

S

Indeed!. It's quite clear we were the world's leading eugenicists at
the time. Amazing how our eugenics history could be so easily edited/
revised/deleted after WW2.
Love reading the books though. So utterly non-PC they would cause a
greenie to look for urgent counselling. White superiority, the Empire,
the British as world leaders in virtually everything, industry/
machinery/engineering as the means to any end, jingoism by the
bucketful. But also offering masses of basic 'truths' and analysis
that apply moreso today and an almost tactile national pride in our
achievements and history.
The books are the intellectual equivalent of eating a mucky fat
sandwich, followed by a couple of Capstan full strength

wrote:
On 10 July, 00:26, "Spamlet" wrote:
wrote in message

...





On 9 July, 19:34, cynic wrote:
When I was a mere lad there was a chemical fertiliser plant next to
the village I lived in. Part of the works was a lead chamber
sulphuric acid plant with a Glover and a Gay-Lussac tower which
emitted a stinking yellow stream of fumes. All this has gone now
but during a good old days discussion the other day someone came
up with the remark that the input to the plant was copper pyrites
being burnt and the flue gas used to make the acid. I don't recall
anything about copper bearing ash being shipped out but I suppose
it could have been.
Does this sound right to our chemists?

Not a chemist but had just been reading about hydrochloric and
sulphuric acid, in Vol 2 of Harmsworth's popular science (1911).
The sulphur source would have been a by-product from the LeBlanc
process or direct from roasted Iron Pyrites.
The sulphur free pyrites clinker then mixed with salt and
re-roasted, giving copper chloride. The copper along with silver
and gold residues then extracted leaving a pure iron oxide for
supply to the steel makers.
It was the copper content that regulated the pyrites price. Seems
the sulphur was just a means to an end.

They are good those old Harmsworth's books. Shame about all the
eugenics though!

S

Indeed!. It's quite clear we were the world's leading eugenicists at
the time. Amazing how our eugenics history could be so easily edited/
revised/deleted after WW2.
Love reading the books though. So utterly non-PC they would cause a
greenie to look for urgent counselling. White superiority, the Empire,
the British as world leaders in virtually everything, industry/
machinery/engineering as the means to any end, jingoism by the
bucketful. But also offering masses of basic 'truths' and analysis
that apply moreso today and an almost tactile national pride in our
achievements and history.
The books are the intellectual equivalent of eating a mucky fat
sandwich, followed by a couple of Capstan full strength

Nudge, nudge. "Could you provide me with two CFS please?"

"It'll cost ya."

"Tenner?" Done!

"harry" wrote in message
...
On 9 July, 19:34, cynic wrote:
When I was a mere lad there was a chemical fertiliser plant next to
the village I lived in. Part of the works was a lead chamber sulphuric
acid plant with a Glover and a Gay-Lussac tower which emitted a
stinking yellow stream of fumes. All this has gone now but during a
good old days discussion the other day someone came up with the remark
that the input to the plant was copper pyrites being burnt and the
flue gas used to make the acid. I don't recall anything about copper
bearing ash being shipped out but I suppose it could have been.
Does this sound right to our chemists?

Pretty common this sort of thing in the good old days. During WW1
there was an explosives manufacturer in the town where Ilived.
Seventy years later there still was a huge area of ground down wind of
the plant where nothing grew. I think they were making amatol.
Even more deadly the old gas works was demolished, the ground was
laced with arsenic, cost a fortune to clear up.

Round our way thy just tarmacked over the gasworks and called it Lidl &
Sainsburys; and Laporte's waste they tarmacked over and called it Aldi &
B&Q. The latter being not such a bad idea as for half a century they were
dumping right over an adit to one of the town's main wells...

S

On 10 July, 21:35, wrote:
On 10 July, 00:26, "Spamlet" wrote:



wrote in message

...

On 9 July, 19:34, cynic wrote:
When I was a mere lad there was a chemical fertiliser plant next to
the village I lived in. Part of the works was a lead chamber sulphuric
acid plant with a Glover and a Gay-Lussac tower which emitted a
stinking yellow stream of fumes. All this has gone now but during a
good old days discussion the other day someone came up with the remark
that the input to the plant was copper pyrites being burnt and the
flue gas used to make the acid. I don't recall anything about copper
bearing ash being shipped out but I suppose it could have been.
Does this sound right to our chemists?

Not a chemist but had just been reading about hydrochloric and
sulphuric acid, in Vol 2 of Harmsworth's popular science (1911).
The sulphur source would have been a by-product from the LeBlanc
process or direct from roasted Iron Pyrites.
The sulphur free pyrites clinker then mixed with salt and re-roasted,
giving copper chloride. The copper along with silver and gold
residues then extracted leaving a pure iron oxide for supply to the
steel makers.
It was the copper content that regulated the pyrites price. Seems the
sulphur was just a means to an end.

They are good those old Harmsworth's books. Shame about all the eugenics
though!

S

Indeed!. It's quite clear we were the world's leading eugenicists at
the time. Amazing how our eugenics history could be so easily edited/
revised/deleted after WW2.
Love reading the books though. So utterly non-PC they would cause a
greenie to look for urgent counselling. White superiority, the Empire,
the British as world leaders in virtually everything, industry/
machinery/engineering as the means to any end, jingoism by the
bucketful. But also offering masses of basic 'truths' and analysis
that apply moreso today and an almost tactile national pride in our
achievements and history.
The books are the intellectual equivalent of eating a mucky fat
sandwich, followed by a couple of Capstan full strength


tangibly put ;))))))

Jim K