Search Documents

ALABAMA Aldrich.-Lloyd, T. W. Ashland.-Downs, F. G. Geary, E. S. Auburn.-Brown, R. L. Bessemer.-Abbott, C. E. Ball, T. L. Ferguson, V. Salmon, H. S. Stuart. Q. W. Birmingham.-Adams, J. H. Aldrich, T. H. Aldrich, T. H., Jr. Allen, A. W. Armstrong, W. D. Ball, E. M. Bonnyman, J. Bush, M. W. Crawford, G. G. Davis, C. B. Ellis. E. E.

Jan 1, 1923

(Members are urged to send in for this column any notes of interest concerning themselves or their fellow-members) The following is a partial list of members and guests who called at Institute headquarters during the period Mar. 10, 1917, to Apr. 10, 1917. George S. Blair, Pittsburgh, Pa. E. P. Mathewson, Toronto, Canada. H. M. Boylston, Cambridge, Mass. T. Poole Maynard, Atlanta, Ga. F. J. Brule, Toronto, Canada. . W. J. Mead, Madison, Wis. M. B. Cohen, Miami, Ariz.. D. G. Miller, Denver, Colo. W. M. Corse, Buffalo, N. Y. P. N. Moore, St. Louis, Mo. F. G. Cottrell, Washington, D. C. R. H. Morris, Ansted, W. Va. E. C. Cross, Cleveland, 0. W. J. Morrison, Toronto, Canada. Nelson Dickerman, San Francisco, Cal. M. F. Ortin, Petrograd, Russia. F. N. Flynn, Chuquicamata, Chile. G. W. Paymal, New York, N. Y. F. L. Garrison, Philadelphia, Pa. Edward H. Perry, Boston, Mass. J. S. Grasty, Charlottesville, Va. 0. G. Petersen, Somerset, Ky. H. D. Hibbard, Plainfield, N. J. H. C. Price, Bartlesville, Okla. H. L. Hollis, Chicago, 111. C. A. Richardson, Toronto, Canada. F. H. Jackson, Marysvale, Utah. Hallet R. Robbins, Vancouver, B. C., Can. W. Strickler Jones, Silver City, N. M. A. H. Rogers, Boston, Mass. E. B. Kirby, St. Louis, Mo. H. G. Smith, Princepulca, Nic. J. M. Lovejoy, Electra, Tex. Edwin G. Steele, Van Horn, Tex. A. F. Lucas, Washington, D. C. 'S. A. Taylor, Pittsburgh, Pa. Edwin Ludlow, Lansford, Pa. A. P. Thompson, Salt Lake City, Utah, E. Francis McCrossin, Birmingham, Ala. Milton A. Allen is now engaged in the New York office of Messrs. Arthur L. Pearse & Co. Percy E. Barbour, managing editor of the Engineering & Mining Journal, has been appointed, by Governor Whitman, Deputy Superintendent of Police of the State of New York.

Jan 6, 1917

Trans No. Place Date Vol. 1. Wilkes-Barre, Pa. May, '71 1 2. Bethlehem, Pa. Aug., '71 1 3. Troy, N. Nov., '71 1 4. Philadelphia, Pa. Feb., '72.. 1 5. New York, N. Y. May, '72 1 6. Pittsburgh, Pa. Oct., '72 1 7. Boston, Mass. Feb., '73 1 8. Philadelphia, Pa. May, '73 2 9. Easton, Pa. Oct., '73 2 10. New York N. Y. Feb., '74 2 11. St. Louis, Mo. May, '74 3 12. Hazleton, Pa. Oct., '74.. 3 13. New Haven, Conn. Feb., '75 3 14. Dover, N. J. May, '75 4 15. Cleveland, Ohio Oct., '75 4 16. Washington, D. C. Feb., '76 4 17. Philadelphia, Pa. June, '76 5 18. Philadelphia, Pa. Oct., '76 5

Jan 1, 1941

Trans No. Place Date Vol. 1. Wilkes-Barre, Pa. May, '71 1 2. Bethlehem, Pa. Aug., '71 1 3. Troy, N. Nov., '71 1 4. Philadelphia, Pa. Feb., '72.. 1 5. New York, N. Y. May, '72 1 6. Pittsburgh, Pa. Oct., '72 1 7. Boston, Mass. Feb., '73 1 8. Philadelphia, Pa. May, '73 2 9. Easton, Pa. Oct., '73 2 10. New York N. Y. Feb., '74 2 11. St. Louis, Mo. May, '74 3 12. Hazleton, Pa. Oct., '74.. 3 13. New Haven, Conn. Feb., '75 3 14. Dover, N. J. May, '75 4 15. Cleveland, Ohio Oct., '75 4 16. Washington, D. C. Feb., '76 4 17. Philadelphia, Pa. June, '76 5 18. Philadelphia, Pa. Oct., '76 5

Jan 1, 1936

Trans No. Place Date Vol. 1. Wilkes-Barre, Pa. May, '71 1 2. Bethlehem, Pa. Aug., '71 1 3. Troy, N. Nov., '71 1 4. Philadelphia, Pa. Feb., '72.. 1 5. New York, N. Y. May, '72 1 6. Pittsburgh, Pa. Oct., '72 1 7. Boston, Mass. Feb., '73 1 8. Philadelphia, Pa. May, '73 2 9. Easton, Pa. Oct., '73 2 10. New York N. Y. Feb., '74 2 11. St. Louis, Mo. May, '74 3 12. Hazleton, Pa. Oct., '74.. 3 13. New Haven, Conn. Feb., '75 3 14. Dover, N. J. May, '75 4 15. Cleveland, Ohio Oct., '75 4 16. Washington, D. C. Feb., '76 4 17. Philadelphia, Pa. June, '76 5 18. Philadelphia, Pa. Oct., '76 5

Jan 1, 1934

Trans No. Place Date Vol. 1. Wilkes-Barre, Pa. May, '71 1 2. Bethlehem, Pa. Aug., '71 1 3. Troy, N. Nov., '71 1 4. Philadelphia, Pa. Feb., '72.. 1 5. New York, N. Y. May, '72 1 6. Pittsburgh, Pa. Oct., '72 1 7. Boston, Mass. Feb., '73 1 8. Philadelphia, Pa. May, '73 2 9. Easton, Pa. Oct., '73 2 10. New York N. Y. Feb., '74 2 11. St. Louis, Mo. May, '74 3 12. Hazleton, Pa. Oct., '74.. 3 13. New Haven, Conn. Feb., '75 3 14. Dover, N. J. May, '75 4 15. Cleveland, Ohio Oct., '75 4 16. Washington, D. C. Feb., '76 4 17. Philadelphia, Pa. June, '76 5 18. Philadelphia, Pa. Oct., '76 5

Jan 1, 1943

Trans No. Place Date Vol. 1. Wilkes-Barre, Pa. May, '71 1 2. Bethlehem, Pa. Aug., '71 1 3. Troy, N. Nov., '71 1 4. Philadelphia, Pa. Feb., '72.. 1 5. New York, N. Y. May, '72 1 6. Pittsburgh, Pa. Oct., '72 1 7. Boston, Mass. Feb., '73 1 8. Philadelphia, Pa. May, '73 2 9. Easton, Pa. Oct., '73 2 10. New York N. Y. Feb., '74 2 11. St. Louis, Mo. May, '74 3 12. Hazleton, Pa. Oct., '74.. 3 13. New Haven, Conn. Feb., '75 3 14. Dover, N. J. May, '75 4 15. Cleveland, Ohio Oct., '75 4 16. Washington, D. C. Feb., '76 4 17. Philadelphia, Pa. June, '76 5 18. Philadelphia, Pa. Oct., '76 5

Jan 1, 1932

Trans No. Place Date Vol. 1. Wilkes-Barre, Pa. May, '71 1 2. Bethlehem, Pa. Aug., '71 1 3. Troy, N. Nov., '71 1 4. Philadelphia, Pa. Feb., '72.. 1 5. New York, N. Y. May, '72 1 6. Pittsburgh, Pa. Oct., '72 1 7. Boston, Mass. Feb., '73 1 8. Philadelphia, Pa. May, '73 2 9. Easton, Pa. Oct., '73 2 10. New York N. Y. Feb., '74 2 11. St. Louis, Mo. May, '74 3 12. Hazleton, Pa. Oct., '74.. 3 13. New Haven, Conn. Feb., '75 3 14. Dover, N. J. May, '75 4 15. Cleveland, Ohio Oct., '75 4 16. Washington, D. C. Feb., '76 4 17. Philadelphia, Pa. June, '76 5 18. Philadelphia, Pa. Oct., '76 5

Jan 1, 1942

Trans No. Place Date Vol. 1. Wilkes-Barre, Pa. May, '71 1 2. Bethlehem, Pa. Aug., '71 1 3. Troy, N. Nov., '71 1 4. Philadelphia, Pa. Feb., '72.. 1 5. New York, N. Y. May, '72 1 6. Pittsburgh, Pa. Oct., '72 1 7. Boston, Mass. Feb., '73 1 8. Philadelphia, Pa. May, '73 2 9. Easton, Pa. Oct., '73 2 10. New York N. Y. Feb., '74 2 11. St. Louis, Mo. May, '74 3 12. Hazleton, Pa. Oct., '74.. 3 13. New Haven, Conn. Feb., '75 3 14. Dover, N. J. May, '75 4 15. Cleveland, Ohio Oct., '75 4 16. Washington, D. C. Feb., '76 4 17. Philadelphia, Pa. June, '76 5 18. Philadelphia, Pa. Oct., '76 5

Jan 1, 1934

Trans No. Place Date Vol. 1. Wilkes-Barre, Pa. May, '71 1 2. Bethlehem, Pa. Aug., '71 1 3. Troy, N. Nov., '71 1 4. Philadelphia, Pa. Feb., '72.. 1 5. New York, N. Y. May, '72 1 6. Pittsburgh, Pa. Oct., '72 1 7. Boston, Mass. Feb., '73 1 8. Philadelphia, Pa. May, '73 2 9. Easton, Pa. Oct., '73 2 10. New York N. Y. Feb., '74 2 11. St. Louis, Mo. May, '74 3 12. Hazleton, Pa. Oct., '74.. 3 13. New Haven, Conn. Feb., '75 3 14. Dover, N. J. May, '75 4 15. Cleveland, Ohio Oct., '75 4 16. Washington, D. C. Feb., '76 4 17. Philadelphia, Pa. June, '76 5 18. Philadelphia, Pa. Oct., '76 5

Jan 1, 1944

Trans No. Place Date Vol. 1. Wilkes-Barre, Pa. May, '71 1 2. Bethlehem, Pa. Aug., '71 1 3. Troy, N. Nov., '71 1 4. Philadelphia, Pa. Feb., '72.. 1 5. New York, N. Y. May, '72 1 6. Pittsburgh, Pa. Oct., '72 1 7. Boston, Mass. Feb., '73 1 8. Philadelphia, Pa. May, '73 2 9. Easton, Pa. Oct., '73 2 10. New York N. Y. Feb., '74 2 11. St. Louis, Mo. May, '74 3 12. Hazleton, Pa. Oct., '74.. 3 13. New Haven, Conn. Feb., '75 3 14. Dover, N. J. May, '75 4 15. Cleveland, Ohio Oct., '75 4 16. Washington, D. C. Feb., '76 4 17. Philadelphia, Pa. June, '76 5 18. Philadelphia, Pa. Oct., '76 5

Jan 1, 1932

Trans No. Place Date Vol. 1. Wilkes-Barre, Pa. May, '71 1 2. Bethlehem, Pa. Aug., '71 1 3. Troy, N. Nov., '71 1 4. Philadelphia, Pa. Feb., '72.. 1 5. New York, N. Y. May, '72 1 6. Pittsburgh, Pa. Oct., '72 1 7. Boston, Mass. Feb., '73 1 8. Philadelphia, Pa. May, '73 2 9. Easton, Pa. Oct., '73 2 10. New York N. Y. Feb., '74 2 11. St. Louis, Mo. May, '74 3 12. Hazleton, Pa. Oct., '74.. 3 13. New Haven, Conn. Feb., '75 3 14. Dover, N. J. May, '75 4 15. Cleveland, Ohio Oct., '75 4 16. Washington, D. C. Feb., '76 4 17. Philadelphia, Pa. June, '76 5 18. Philadelphia, Pa. Oct., '76 5

Jan 1, 1939

By Philip B. Bucky

[CONTENTS t. How Does One Determine WhetherPAGE an ore Body Will Block-cave?R. W. Hughes13 Sherman R. Burdick 13 PAGER. T. Gallagher 14 Mark A. Smith 2 C. F. B. Price, Jr.14 Harry A. Leidich2Benjamin F. Tillson 14 McHenry Mosier2C. F. Jackson14,17 R. W. Hughes2R. Taborelli15 Sherman R. Burdick3Frank A. Ayer16 R. T. Gallagher 3Philip B. Bucky16 Benjamin F. Tillson 3Rollin Farminr6 Lucien Eaton 3J. L. G. Weysser15, 0,17 C. F. Jackson 3George S. Rice17 Philip B. Bucky32. How Does One Determine the Block4. What Determines the Procedure in Dimensions and the DevelopmentRemoving Caved Ore? Work Necessary to Make an OreHarry A. Leidich17 Body Cave?McHenry Mosier17,21 Mark A. Smith 5,7,() R. W. Hughes17 Harry A. Leidich6Sherman R. Burdick 18 McHenry Mosier6,7,12 R. T. Gallagher 18 R. W. Hughes6Mark A. Smith I8 Sherman R. Burdick 7Philip B. Bucky20, 21, 23 R. T. Gallagher 7C. F. B. Price, Jr20 Benjamin F. Tillson 7,11R. H. Bennett21 L. E. Young7C. F. Jackson 21, 23 Robert D. Hoffman8, 1 2Gerald Sherman 3 . 21 Gerald Sherman8Tell Ertl21 Philip B. Bucky10, 11, 12G. K. Foster 23 R. S. McClellan 12C. H. Shoemaker23 Tell Ertl 12 3. How Do the Forces Act and What Are5. What Are the Criteria for Determining the Stresses Developed in a Blockthe Efficiency of a Block-caving That Cause It to Block-cave?Operation? Mark A. Smith 12, ISHarry A. Leidich23 Harry A. Leidich13McHenry Mosier24 McHenry Mosier13R. W. Hughes24 Sherman R. Burdick 24 R. T. Gallagher 24]

Jan 1, 1942

Jan 1, 1957

New York Meets first Wednesday after first Tuesday of each month. J. E. JOHNSON, Jr., Chairman EDGAR RICKARD; Vice-Chairman D. M LIDDELL, Secretary, 7 Wall St., New York, N. Y. C. A. BORN, Treasurer JOHN V. N. DORR - LEWIS W. FRANCIS Boston Meets first Monday of each winter month. R. L. AGASSIZ, Chairman JAMES G. CARLETON, Vice-Chairman E. E. BUGBEE Secretary-Treasurer, -Mass. Inst. of Technology. Cambridge, Mass. W. E. C. EUSTIS G. A. PACKARD Columbia Holds four sessions during year. Annual meeting in September or October. W. H. LINNEY, Chairman OSCAR LACHMUND. Vice-Chairman LYNDON K. ARMSTRONG, Secretary-Treasurer, P. 0. Drawer 2154, Spokane, Wash. STANLY A. EASTON S. SHEDD

Jan 1, 1918

By C. H. P. Lupis, Henri Gaye

There are m -I conditions for the stability of a solution of m components with respect to infinitesinzal flucturations. However, in most cases, only one of these conditions has to be considered to determine the domain of instability and the existence of this more restrictive condition greatly simplifies the calculations. It may be used advantageously for the prediction of miscibility gaps and the method is illustrated in details for the case of the Ag-Pb-Zn system. THE thermodynamic conditions for the formation of a miscibility gap may be viewed as a necessary consequence of the conditions for spinodal decomposition. A previous article1 has examined in detail the form of these conditions for multicomponent systems. There is only one condition for the stability of a binary system (with respect to infinitesimal fluctuations), but there are two conditions for a ternary system, and m — 1 conditions for an m-component system. The probability of violating a stability condition, and thus forming a miscibility gap, obviously increases with the number of components, a result which is rather intuitive since the atoms of the solution have now many more ways of redistributing themselves and introducing complexities in the form of the free energy hy-persurface. It is of interest to take advantage of this possibility of precipitating new phases and to examine which stability condition is the likeliest to be violated, that is, which stability condition is thermodynamically the most restrictive. The finding of such a condition would greatly simplify the application of the stability criteria since only one condition could then be considered, instead of m - 1. In Ref. 1, coherency strain energy terms were neglected, thus restricting the applications of the treatment to solutions where they are negligible, such as liquid alloys. In the following study the same assumption will be made. To generalize the treatment to systems where the strain energy terms are sizable, the reader is referred to Cahn's classical article on spinodal decomposition.2 Let us designate by Gij the second derivative of the Gibbs free energy with respect to the number of moles ni and n j. There are several equivalent sets of m — 1 stability conditions.' The one considered here expresses that the successive diagonal determinants of order 1, 2, ... m — 1, associated with the symmetric Gij matrix (for 2 5 i, j 5 m) are positive.' For a binary solution 1-2, the condition for stability is: O(u=G22^0 [1] For a ternary system 1-2-3, the condition [I.] is re- tained (the value of G22 will differ, of course, according to the concentration of 3) and another condition is introduced: £>(21 = G22G33 - Gl3 ^ 0 [2] In a composition diagram, these two conditions define two domains of instability. Starting at a point where the solution is stable (for instance at a point where the solution is very dilute) we gradually change the composition until the condition [I] or [2] is violated. As already noted in the literature, e.g., in the work of Prigogine and Defay,3 it is the boundary of the domain (2) which is first crossed. For if we assume that the boundary of the domain (1) is reached first, at this point G22 = 0 and the second condition is necessarily violated (D(2) = -& 5 0), in contradiction with our original assumption. An exhaustive study of the ternary regular solution case may be found in the work of Meijering.4 Moreover if the boundaries of the two domains have a common point, they also have a common tangent. For if the two lines were to cross each other as is illustrated in Fig. 1(a) any point M in the line QP would be such that £> = 0 and 0"' > 0 which, as shown above, are incompatible results. Thus, the two lines must be tangent at their common point Q as illustrated in the example of Fig. l(b). The reasoning of Fig. l(a) implies that the point Q is not a "singular" point for either boundary line. This singularity may be of two types. First, the lines meet without crossing each other and without being tangent. Second, the tangent at Q for D"' or 0"' is not single-valued. Other types of singularity are unlikely because of the usual analytical forms of D"' and 0"'. The exception to the common tangent requirement due to the first type of singularity was pointed out by John Morral;5 it occurs when the common point, Q' or (3" in Fig. l(b), is located at a boundary of the composition diagram, e.g., at the line X3 = 0. It may also be noted that at the common nonsingular point Q of D(1) and D(2), Fig. 1(b), G23 is necessarily equal to zero, whereas at a point such as Q' or Q", this conclusion is no longer valid because the product G22G33 is now indefinite (of the form 0. a). The exception to the common tangent requirement due to the second type of singularity occurs when two branches of the same boundary line intersect, for example when D(1)or D(2) decomposes into a product of functions, at a point which belongs to the boundary of the other condition. It is possible to show by a simple analytical calculation that, in this case, if Q is a singular point of D(1), then it is necessarily a singular point of D(2), and that the reciprocal is true except if G33 = 0 at Q. For the present article, however, more elaboration on these singularities appears to be unwarranted. To generalize the previous results to an m -component system, we use the mathematical theorem stating that if the diagonal determinant D(r) = 0, then

Jan 1, 1970

By T. H. Alden

BaCKOFEN, Avery, and Turner have shown"2 that the large tensile elongation in superplastic metals is correlated with a high strain-rate sensitivity of the flow stress. At present, the reported superplastic materials are complex eutectic or eutectoid systems with a large solubility range in at least one of the terminal phases. This note describes the behavior of a solid-solution alloy (at 22°C)5,= Sn-1 wt pct Bi, which has been processed in order to produce a fine grain size.2,3,6 The chill-cast, 1/2-in.-diam ingot was homogenized for 1 week at 130°C, extruded at O°C to 0.083 in. diam, quenched within 15 sec, and stored at -196°C. Samples were warmed to room temperature 16 hr prior to mechanical testing or metallography. During tension testing at room temperature, it was found that the flow stress reached a steady-state value which depended on the imposed elongation rate and was independent of strain to an error of about ±5 pct. In Fig. 1 is plotted log a vs log e where a is the measured steady-state flow stress and i the imposed strain rate. These quantities were calculated using "instantaneous" area and length to an accuracy in the sample diameter of ±5 x 10-4 in. The log a-log 1 curve is sigmoidal. The strain-rate sensitivity, which may be given by d log old log 6,' has a maximum value of about 0.48 between i = 5 x 10-4 and 5 x 10-3 per min. The value is well above frequently measured values for metals at creep temperatures (0.1 to 0.3) and comparable to the rate sensitivity for Pb-Sn solder: which has been shown to be superplastic.2,3 Note, however, that below or above the strain rate of 10-3 per min the rate sensitivity of Sn-1 pct Bi decreases and at high rates is more nearly like that of conventional metals. The grain size of this material is relatively uniform, Fig. 2, and may be specified by an average linear intercept i.' Grain growth occurs at room temperature but after 16 hr, L = 5. Tensile elongation was measured on finer-grain-size specimens, which had been at room temperature 15 min prior to testing. After 15 min, the samples are fully recrystallized. Three strain rates, 5 x 10-3, 10-2, and 2.5 x 10-2 per min, were employed for which the measured elongations varied from 425 to 500 pct. These results would seem to justify the term superplastic, applied to this alloy, although the ductility is inferior to that of the Sn-Bi eutectic.3 The Sn-1 pct Bi alloy, which is a single-phase material with equiaxed, fine grains, is an excellent one on which to make an estimate of the Nabarro-Herring9 creep rate. According to the model of Avery and Backofen2 a substantial part of the deformation must be accomplished by N-H creep in the strain rate-temperature regime in which d log a/d log 1 = 0.5. The maximum N-H creep rate is given by9 L2kT where v is the atomic volume and D the self-diffusion coefficient. For this test v = 3.O x 10-23 cu cm, D = 1.4 e-23,300/RT = 2.5 x 10-l7 sq cm per sec,7 L = 5x 10+4 cm, T = 295°K, and a = 2000 lb per sq in. = 1.38 x 10' dyne per sq cm. The calculated creep rate is E= 4 x 10-11 per sec which may be compared with the measured creep rate at this stress, Fig. 1, of 6.7 x 10-5 per sec. The N-H creep rate is seen to be negligible. Earlier consideration2 of this question was in error because incorrect diffusion coefficients were used. The assistance of R. R. Russell in metallography is acknowledged gratefully.

Jan 1, 1967

By N. L. Hancox

Previous researchers have used the cutting and rejoining model to represent a porous body when attempting to place Archie's law on a theoretical basis and calculate rock permeabilities (F = Ø-m, where F = formation factor, = - porosity and m = a constant). In using the model, a porous solid is assumed to consist of sections with parallel sides containing straight. continuous pores of total porosity 4 (pore to total volume or, for a homogeneous body, pore to total area). The joining of pores at an interface between two sections is assumed to be random which results in a common pore area Ø2. This reduced area Ø2 is then taken as that area which limits electrical conduction or fluid flow in the body. Agreement between experimental results and results calculated using a model is not always good Because of this, various modifications of the model are presented — for instance, the random nature of the joining is questioned. Formation factor measurements on specially constructed porous specimens are described in this paper. it is concluded that the common pore area limits flow completely only if sections containing straight pores are very thin, and that, in most natural materials, the common pore area at an interface must be greater than that given by random joining. However, the model is still useful in permeability calculations, provided that the fractional area limiting flow is determined from formation factor measurements. INTRODUCTION Two important properties of porous media are permeability k, which describes the ease with which a fluid can flow through a porous medium, and formation factor F, defined as the ratio of the resistivity of a saturated specimen to the resistivity of the saturating liquid which describes the electrical properties of the saturated material. k is defined by Darcy's law,l k= µqL/P Ae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [1] where µ = liquid viscosity, q = flow rate, L = length of specimen, p = pressure across the specimen and = - the effective area over which flow occurs, F is given experimentally by Archie's law,2 F = Ø-m ,..............(2) where 4 is porosity defined as the pore to total volume or, for a homogeneous body, the pore to total area; and m lies between 1.3 for loose sand and 2 for cemented sand. Consider a porous body of total cross-sectional area A and length L, saturated with a liquid of resistivity R and with an effective area for conduction of Ae. Then, from the definition of F given previously, F=A/Ae , ................(3) or, from Eqs. 2 and 3, Ae = A Øm ..............(4) Thus, in any attempt to calculate k or F, some assumptions must be made concerning the pore structure of the body and a value derived for A,. To determine Ae, Childs and George3 and Wyllie and Gardner4 suggested an elementary statistical representation often referred to as the cutting and rejoining model of a porous body. The body is assumed to be composed of two or more parallel-sided sections of porosity 4, containing straight, continuous pores with a common pore area of Ø2 at an interface between two sections. The value is given by a random joining of the pores in either section. Two such sections,

Jan 1, 1969

W. L. SaundeRs, New York City (communication to the Secretary*):—Notwithstanding the sweeping statements made by Mr. Clarke in this paper, the friends of compressed air are not dismayed. There is no war between electricity and compressed air. Each one has its field of usefulness, and in that field each is supreme. In spite of commercial interests, in spite of prejudices and the enthusiasm of the inventor, the thing that is best will survive and flourish. At least ten years ago, our engineering papers contained large advertisements and pages of reading-matter about the application of electricity to mines, recording the introduction of numerous rock-drilling plants, and claiming that the problem had been solved, greatly to the advantage of the miner and with promise of large profits to the manufacturers of electrical apparatus. Edison and Thomson labored to apply electricity to mines, and each believed that the probabilities of success were great. This was the period of the solelloid rock-drill, which mas admirably suited, theoretically, to the percussive principle and in the development of which hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent without satisfactory result. I have searched in vain for a standard mining equipment where electric rock-drills are in constant, commercial operation. During a recent trip made from New York to California, I visited most of the important mines of the West and failed to discover a single electric equipment, so far as this class of mining-work is concerned. If any one will inform me where there exists today an electric-drilling equipment in constant service in mines in the United States, I shall be glad to receive the information. Mr. Clarke has been for some years an active and intelligent writer on the subject of electricity for mining. Whenever his

Jan 1, 1904

By C. C. Herrick

The vapor pressure of indium has been measured by the torque-effusion technique, as a function of temperature between 1102o and 1422oK. For liquid indium, the vapor pressure (in atmospheres) can be represented by the equation -R In P = 5.782 x104/T - 25.29from 1000o to 1422oK. Extrapolation yields a calculated normal boiling point of 2329°K and a heat of vaporization at 298 oK of 58.09 kcal per mole by the third-law method and of 58.39 kcal per mole by the second-law method. Calculations indicate that the free-energy functions of Hultgren are to be preferred to those of Guruich. BECAUSE of the potential uses of liquid metals, it is important that convenient experimental methods be developed which will lead to a sufficient body of thermodynamic data so that reasonable estimates of properties of liquid metals can be made. Indium is particularly well-suited to investigation, since it remains liquid over a long temperature interval, it alloys readily, suitable containers for it are easily procured, and relatively few investigations of its thermodynamic properties in the region above 1000°K have been made. PREVIOUS RESEARCH The first determination of the vapor pressure of indium was made by Anderson,' using the Knudsen method and silica-lines stainless-steel cells. Kohlmeyer and spandau2 determined the normal boiling point, and a mass-spectroscopic investigation has been made by Lyubimov and Lyubitov.3 (Unfortunately, only an equation representing the data of the latter investigators has been available to us.) Hultgren et al.4 and Gurvich5 have published discordant tables of the free-energy functions for indium. EXPERIMENTAL METHOD The torsion-effusion principle has been described amply in the literature.8,7 With this method, one observes the angular deflection induced by effusion of vapor from a multihole effusion cell which is suspended from a filament producing a small rotational restoring force. The pressure within the effusion cell can be computed from the relation ziaifiai where k is the torsion constant of the filament, 6 is the observed angular deflection, and ai, fi, and qi are the area, force factor, and moment arm of the ith effusion orifice. The force factor f is analogous to the Clausing factor,' and corrects for the reduction in effusive force attributable to the finite geometry of the effusion orifice. Schultz and Searcy' have tabulated the force factors for various tube geometries. EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS The physical arrangement employed in this study is shown in Fig. 1. The furnace elements are six Globar heat rods with 15-in. hot zones. Temperature is maintained to * 1°K by a Beck mechanism driving two 26-amp Powerstats in parallel. A Pt (Pt, Rh 10 pct) thermocouple serves as the sensing element. Four inner tubes act as vibration isolators; the air pressure required for maximum isolation was determined empirically, and is maintained by a solenoid valve. The tungsten fiber, 9 by 0.002 in., is joined to an 0.008-in. tungsten wire or graphite rod via a machined lightweight chuck.

Jan 1, 1964