How remove ashes from gilsonite

Be it known that 1, CHARLES N. FORREST, a citizen of the United States, and a resident of Rahway, in the county of Union and State of New Jersey, have invented certain new and useful Improvements in Processes of Treating Gilsonite, whereof the following is a specification.

My invention relates to Gilsonite products iid their manufacture, and its object is the ap-reduction from gilsonite of various fiseful substances in a commercially practicable and economical way. The novelty of my invention resides not only in my processes and methods of manufacture, but extends, also, to some of the substances obtained, which are in themselves new.

My present application, it will be understood, is in part a continuation of my application, Serial No. 195,721. filed October 10, 1917, under the title Liquid hydrocarbon.
Gilsonite is a natural solid bitumen, of well known physical properties, including a peculiar, characteristic co nchoidal fracture, found principally in certain sections of Utah. As compared with other natural bitumen in their native state, it is remarkable for its very high degree of purity.

Its specific gravity at 7 7 F. varies over a range of, approximately, 1.040 to 1.056. It has been used as an ingredient in paints and varnishes; in paving, waterproofing, and roofing ‘compo-unds;-‘ and in rubber manufactures.
Of the chemical nature or possibilities of ilsonite, practically nothing is a known. Scientific investigations heretofore attempted have been perfunctory, abortive, and inconclusive; and exploitation commercially has not even been attempted.

The vague state of the world’s informas I I 1 3 tion regarding gilsonite prior to my invention is well illustrated in a paper by Day entitled Investigation of Utah gilsonite, a variety of asphalt read June 18, 1895, before the chemical se tion of the Franklin Institute (Journal 0 the Franklin Institute, Vol. 140, pp.

9,1919; Serial No. 318,588.

others are such as naturally to discourage all expectation of useful products from gilsonite.
Days work avowedly failed of attaining the definite information that he sought regarding the nature of gilsonite; and his own tentative conclusions go very little further than that distillation of gilsonite is unpromising, and that future work on the substance should be along the lines of direct treatment with reagents such as nitric and sulphuric acids, according to a method outlined as a result of his investigation.

While the indefiniteness of his descriptions makes any attempt to repeat or reproduce his work quite futile, such data and results as he does report, nevertheless, show very clearly that he could not really have been working with true Gilsonite at all,-except,- perhaps, in admixture with dominant amounts of other substances.

Thus he states that the material on which he worked was lighter than water, whereas in fact gilsonite is heavier; that when heated, his material gave a final, irreducible residue of some 43%, whereas gilsonite yields no more than 30% of residue that all the volatile matter driven 011’ by distillation was condensable by water cooling, whereas gilsonite yields such substantial proportions as some 15% of vapor not’so condensable, including some 13% of well-known gases; that no solid separated out in any of his distillations, whereas, under the gen and nitrogen together, whereas gilsomte contains .-about -2 to 3%-of n1trogen I alone; and that his refining operations consumed a proportion of. the oil treated that is almost unbelievable. It is also noteworthy that he does not mention the peculiar con- ‘sonite.

sawdust and fresh herring, ‘ Day tells of making,
choidal fracture so characteristic of gil In a, later paper (Am: Philosophical So ciety, Proc.,’Yp; :37, pp. 171-474; 1898), by distillation of pine a substance which he found practically indistinguish able from native gilsonite.