Search Documents

[Trans. No.Place Date Vol. Page 1. Wilkes-Barre, Pa.* .... May, '71.. 1 8 2. Bethlehem Pa Aug., '71.. 1 10 3. Troy N. 'l Nov., '71.. 1 13 4. Philadelphia, Pa Feb., '72.. 1 '17 5. New York, N. Y.• ....May, '72 1 20 6. Pittsburgh, Pa Oct., '72.. 1 25 7. Boston, Mass Feb., '73.. 1 28 8. Philadelphia, Pa.' May, '73.. 2 3 9. Easton, Pa Oct., '73.. 2 7 10. New York, N. Y Feb.. '74 2 11 11. St. Louis, Mo' May, '74.. 3 3 12. Hazleton, Pa Oct., '74.. 8 8 13. New Haven, Conn....Feb., '75.. 8 15 14. Dover. N. J.' Mav. '75.. 43] [ ]

Jan 1, 1925

[Trans. No. Place Date Vol. Page 1, Wilkes-Barre, Pa.* .... May, '71.. 1 3 2. Bethlehem, Pa Aug., '71.. 1 10 3 Troy, N. Y Nov.,'71.. 1 13 4. Philadelphia, Pa Feb., '72.. 1 17 6. New York, N. Y •.... May, '72.. 1 20 6. Pittsburgh, Pa..:.Oct., '72.. 1 25 7. Boston, Mass Feb., '73.. 1 28 8 Philadelphia, Pa.' May, '73.. 2 3 9. Easton, a Oct., '73.. 2 7 10. New York, N. Y Feb., '74.. 2 11 11. St. Louis, Mo.* May, '74.. 3 3 12. Hazleton. Pa Oct.. '74.. 38 13. New Haven, Conn Feb., '75.. 3 15 14. Dover, N. J.' May, '75.. 4 3 16. Cleveland, 0 Oct., '75.. 4 9] [ ]

Jan 1, 1925

By Gernot Kostorz

In a recent paper, Raffo and itcheell1 compared solid solution hardening of various bcc alloy single crystals at room temperature and concluded that the expression for localized elastic interaction between dislocations and solute atoms2 that gives the critical resolved shear stress (CRSS) 7,: to = Z . µE3/2 C1/2 where c = concentration, e = misfit parameter, (µ = shear modulus, Z = numerical constant Fig. 1—The slope dT0/dc1/2 for niobium alloy single crystals deformed at 570°K plotted against the misfit parameter € = In' I + 1616 I. from Ref. 6, •estimated from Ref. 7. Table I. Plateau Hardening and Alloy Parameters for Niobium Alloys dT0/dc1/2, kg/mm2 Solute Ref. 6 Tantalum 3.7 ± 0.3 1.9 0.73 + 0.06 9 0.0 ± 0.5 15 Vanadium 16.1 ±1.4 - 0.69 i 0.01 9 -7.4 ± 0.5 16 Tungsten 12.5 ? 1.5 20.9 0.92 i 0.05 10 -5.0 t 0.4 17 Rhenium - 25.9 1.24 11.12 -8.5 ± 0.4 I5 Molybdenum - 14.6 1.04 13,14 -4.6 s†±?˜µ?fF?? 0.5 17 Hafnium - 13.9 0.37 12 4.8 ± 0.5 17 Table 11. Solid Solution Hardening and Alloy Parameters for Tantalum Alloys i)' dTo/dc1/2 kg/mm2, dTp/dc1/2 kg/mm2, Ref. 22 1006 Solute ˜570°K Ref. 7 See Text Ref. 25 Rhenium 44.3 32.5 0.65 -8.5 Tungsten 32.1 24.3 0.34 -4.6 Molybdenum 29.3 19.1 -0.19 -5.9 Niobium 5.8 5.5 -0.43 0.I

Jan 1, 1970

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, 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, 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, 1939

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, 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, 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, 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, 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

By William E. Ford, Edward Salisbury Dana

1. Simple Hydrocarbons. Chiefly members of the Paraffin Series C,H2,+2. SCHEERERITE. In whitish monoclinic crystals. Perhaps a polymer of marsh-gas (CHI). Found in brown coal at Uznach, Switzerland. HATCHEITITE. Mountain Tallow. In thin plates, or massive. Like soft wax. Color yellowish. Indices, 1.47-1.50. Ratio of C to H = nearly 1 : 1. From the Coal-measures near Merthyr-Tydvil in Glamorganshire, England; from Galicia. PARAFE-IN. A native crystallized paraffin has been described as occurring in cavities in basaltic lava near Paterno, Sicily. Indices, 1.49-1.52. OZOCERITE. Mineral wax in part. Like wax or spermaceti in appearance and consistency. Colorless to white when pure; often leelr-green, yellowish, brownish yellow, brown. Indices, 1.51-1'54. Essentially a paraffin, and consisting chiefly of one of the higher members of the series. Occurs in beds of coal, or associated bituminous deposits, as at Slanik, Moldavia; Roumania; Boryslaw in the Carpathians. Also occurs in southern Utah on a large scale.

Jan 1, 1922

By H. C. Theuerer

GeC14 may be purified by extraction with HCI and chlorine. The process is as effective for the removal of AsCI:, as the more cumbersome distillation methods usually used for this purpose. GERMANIUM for semiconductor use contains impurities at levels no higher than a few parts in ten million. Material of this quality is obtained from highly purified GeC1, by hydrolysis to the oxide and reduction of the oxide in hydrogen. When purifying GeCl,, AsC1, is the most difficult impurity to remove. This is usually accomplished by multiple distillation procedures.1-3 AsC1, may also be removed from GeC1, by extraction with HC1.1-4 Reducing the arsenic to low concentrations is not practicable, however, because of the large number of extractions needed. This paper discusses a new method for the removal of arsenic from GeC1, by extraction with HC1 and chlorine. The method is rapid, leads to little loss of germanium and is at least as efficient as the distillation procedures currently being used. Theory of Extraction Procedures In the simple extraction of GeC1, with HC1, the following reaction occurs ASCl8G8C1 D AsCl3rc1 at equilibrium CA/Cn= K, where K is the distribution coefficient, and C, and C,, are the molar concentrations of AsC13 in HC1 and GeCl,, respectively. The materials balance equation for this reaction is VACA + vncn = VnC,, where V, and Vn are the volumes of HC1 and GeCl4, respectively, and C, is the initial concentration of AsC13 in GeC1,. From this it can be shown that for multiple extractions where C,, is the concentration of AsC13 in GeC14 after n extractions, and r is the ratio of V, to V,,. It is assumed that r is maintained constant, that equilibrium is established during each extraction, and that K is independent of the AsCl3 concentration. By saturating the system with chlorine, the following reaction occurs in the aqueous phase AsCl3 + 4H2O + Cl2 D H5AsO4 + 5HC1 at equilibrium K' = ------------ ai - a4 h2u - aet2 where a is the activity of the various components. The effect of this reaction is to reduce the concentration of the AsC1, in the aqueous layer and, therefore, to promote further extraction of this component from the GeC1, layer. If the arsenic acid remains entirely in the aqueous phase, the net effect of this reaction is to promote the removal of arsenic from the GeC11. The materials balance equation for extraction with HC1 and chlorine with the foregoing reaction is, then, VaCC + VACA + VACn = VnCo where C,. is the molar concentration of H3AsO, in the HC1. With the added assumptions that the activities of AsC13 and H8ASO4 in the aqueous phase are equal to their molar concentrations, it can be shown that for n extractions Cn/Cu = (1/rkK + rK + 1) n where k - K1 a4h2o - acl2/aoncl. It can be seen by comparing Eqs. 1 and 2 that if k is large, the removal of AsC1, by HC1 extraction will be greatly improved by the addition of chlorine. Dilution of the HCI used in the extraction with chlorine would also favor the separation. This, however, would increase the loss of GeCl,, which is undesirable. Experimental Procedure Germanium prepared from oxide of semiconductor purity is n-type with resistivities greater than one ohm-cm. The resistivity is controlled by the donor concentration, which is —lo-: mol pct. Germanium prepared from material with added arsenic will have lower resistivity commensurate with the arsenic concentration. With such material, at arsenic concentrations above 10-1 mol pct the resistivity is controlled by the added arsenic, and effects due to other impurities initially in the oxide are negligible. In this investigation GeO, of semiconductor purity was converted to GeCl,, and -0.01 mol pct As was added. This material was used for the extraction experiments and the purification attained determined by a comparison of the resistivity data for samples of germanium prepared from the initial and purified GeC1,. A method for calculating the arsenic concentration from the resistivity data is discussed later. The details of the experimental procedures used are as follows: Two hundred and thirty cu cm GeC1, were prepared by the solution of GeO, in HC1, followed by

Jan 1, 1957

The papers discussed in the following pages were presented during two sessions of the Geophysics Education Committee of the Mineral Industry Education Division on Feb. 17 and 18, 1941. At the first meeting, to consider the "Influence of Geophysics upon Geology Curricula," this Committee was joined by the Geophysics and Mining Geology Committees of the A.I.M.E., the Society of Economic Geologists, representatives of the American Geophysical Union, and delegates from the Committees on College Curricula and on Applications of Geology of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Quentin D. Singewald and Sherwin F. Kelly presided. At the ensuing session, especially emphasizing the integration of geology, physics and chemistry for the solution of earth problems, the joint participants with the Geophysics Education Committee were the Geophysics Committee, and representatives of the American Geophysical Union and of the Committee on College Curricula of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Richard M. Field and W. R. Chedsey presided. In the following summary of the discussion at the two meetings, written discussion submitted subsequently is not differentiated from that offered orally at the session. A provisional report of the Geophysics Education Committee was presented at the second session, and some of the following discussion refers to it. This report has not been printed (it is anticipated that a more comprehensive, final one will be rendered at the 1942 annual meeting). A few mimeographed copies of this provisional report were made. Dr. W. P. Haynes presented some notes prepared by Dr. F. H. Lahee, Chairman of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists' Committee on College Curricula. This Com- mittee's inquiries reveal the general opinion that a four-year academic preparation is inadequate, five or six being advisable. The fundamentals, mathematics, physics, chemistry, and English composition, should be stressed in the first three years, with specialization in the last two or three years. Some companies provide an apprenticeship period, and themselves give additional training. During academic years more attention needs to be given to engineering training, to field mapping, and in geology to stratigraphy and sedimentation. The amount of mere memory work should be cut, and men trained to observe and reason. Dr. Lahee emphasized the need of more adequate preparation in English composition, because of the inability of many graduates to compose acceptable reports. Sherwin F. Kelly pointed out that much time in university training, which ought to be devoted to technical subjects, was taken .up with English courses. He emphasized that it is the part of the universities to demand of the high schools that the students they send to the university be properly trained to speak and write English. Prof. W. T. Thom protested against the crowding of high-school material into already overcrowded college curricula. C. E. Dobbin, chairman of the Committee on Applications of Geology of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, described briefly the work of his committee in publicizing geology, and said that it found a widespread popular interest in the subject but a lack of appreciation of its importance. He recommended that attempts to coordinate the works of geologists and geophysicists be expanded somewhat toward the further developing and encouraging of a "species of geopolitician" capable of assisting the progress of geology and geophysics by more vigorous advertising of

Jan 1, 1946

The papers discussed in the following pages were presented during two sessions of the Geophysics Education Committee of the Mineral Industry Education Division on Feb. 17 and 18, 1941. At the first meeting, to consider the "Influence of Geophysics upon Geology Curricula," this Committee was joined by the Geophysics and Mining Geology Committees of the A.I.M.E., the Society of Economic Geologists, representatives of the American Geophysical Union, and delegates from the Committees on College Curricula and on Applications of Geology of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Quentin D. Singewald and Sherwin F. Kelly presided. At the ensuing session, especially emphasizing the integration of geology, physics and chemistry for the solution of earth problems, the joint participants with the Geophysics Education Committee were the Geophysics Committee, and representatives of the American Geophysical Union and of the Committee on College Curricula of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Richard M. Field and W. R. Chedsey presided. In the following summary of the discussion at the two meetings, written discussion submitted subsequently is not differentiated from that offered orally at the session. A provisional report of the Geophysics Education Committee was presented at the second session, and some of the following discussion refers to it. This report has not been printed (it is anticipated that a more comprehensive, final one will be rendered at the 1942 annual meeting). A few mimeographed copies of this provisional report were made. Dr. W. P. Haynes presented some notes prepared by Dr. F. H. Lahee, Chairman of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists' Committee on College Curricula. This Com- mittee's inquiries reveal the general opinion that a four-year academic preparation is inadequate, five or six being advisable. The fundamentals, mathematics, physics, chemistry, and English composition, should be stressed in the first three years, with specialization in the last two or three years. Some companies provide an apprenticeship period, and themselves give additional training. During academic years more attention needs to be given to engineering training, to field mapping, and in geology to stratigraphy and sedimentation. The amount of mere memory work should be cut, and men trained to observe and reason. Dr. Lahee emphasized the need of more adequate preparation in English composition, because of the inability of many graduates to compose acceptable reports. Sherwin F. Kelly pointed out that much time in university training, which ought to be devoted to technical subjects, was taken .up with English courses. He emphasized that it is the part of the universities to demand of the high schools that the students they send to the university be properly trained to speak and write English. Prof. W. T. Thom protested against the crowding of high-school material into already overcrowded college curricula. C. E. Dobbin, chairman of the Committee on Applications of Geology of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, described briefly the work of his committee in publicizing geology, and said that it found a widespread popular interest in the subject but a lack of appreciation of its importance. He recommended that attempts to coordinate the works of geologists and geophysicists be expanded somewhat toward the further developing and encouraging of a "species of geopolitician" capable of assisting the progress of geology and geophysics by more vigorous advertising of

Jan 1, 1946

By Willard Jillson

WITHIN the last ten years Kentucky has become celebrated for its low-sulfur bituminous coals. Prior to this time, many investigators had discovered the abundance of this coal but the fact was unknown to the general public until the last extension of Kentucky's mountain railroads was completed. The coals of Kentucky are, broadly, separated into two geographic units-the eastern and the western coal fields. On a basis of their sulfur content these coal fields fall into three units, which are indicated on the accompanying map, by numbers, 1, 2, and 3. The area marked 1, the very southeastern part of the State, shows the lowest sulfur, all coals being averaged. In this field the maximum is 1.04 per cent. and the minimum as low as 0.68 per cent.-both averages and not individual analyses, which would of course show much greater variation. Included in this group are the following counties: Lawrence, 0.87 per cent.; Martin, 0.75 per cent.; Johnson, 0.73 per cent.; Magoffin, 0.S7 per cent.; Floyd, 0.88 per cent.; Pike, 0.68 per cent.; Knott, 1.04 per cent.; Perry, 0.77 per cent.; Letcher, 0.80 per cent.; Leslie, 0.70 per cent.; Harlan, 0.79 per cent.; Knox, 0.86 per cent.; and Bell, 0.92 per cent. The total average sulfur content for these thirteen counties is 0.82 per cent. Bordering the restricted low-sulfur field of eastern Kentucky is the No. 2 belt (slightly darker), which is commonly known as the western border of the eastern coal field. Here the maximum sulfur is 2.91 per cent. and the minimum 1.05 per cent. Again these are averages and not individual analyses. The counties in this group are: Greenup, 2.60 per cent.; Boyd, 1.67 per cent.; Carter, 1.07 per cent.; Morgan, 1.40 per cent.; Wolfe, 1.83 per cent.; Lee, 2.93 per cent.; Breathitt, 1.85. per cent.; Owsley, 1.09 per cent.; Jackson, 1.06 per cent.; Rockcastle, 2.30 per cent.; Clay, 1.09 per cent.; Laurel, 1.08 per cent.; Pulaski, 2.24 per cent.; Whitley, 1.05 per cent.; McCreary, 1.50 per cent.; and Wayne. The sulfur percentage average for this area including fifteen important counties is 1.65 per cent.

Jan 9, 1919

By Walter E. Lewis

Myriad problems face all of us in the next decade. Vietnam, poverty, and pollution are perhaps the most pres- sing. A lesser one but still vital to us as a Nation is the slow hut apparently relentless extinction of the mining, metallurgical. geological and petroleum engineer. Are we doomed to take our place in the crossword puzzle with the moa. to be defined like it as an "extinct bird"? Or can we reverse the trend perhaps, in the next decade? The plain fact is we are an endangered species, and must resign ourselves to virtual extinction in the 1970's unless the trend is reversed. Probably, many of us have felt the problem will solve itself if left in the in-basket long enough, believing, that the trend will reverse solely on the basis of demand for these disciplines. This approach has not worked up to now, it gives no promise of working in the future, and furthermore, the problem has been in the in-basket much too long. The point is simply this: What can each of us do as an individual, or as part of a company, a State agency, a Federal agency, a university, or an organization such as AIME?

Jan 1, 1970

By AIME AIME

FOUK fields of activity are now recognized by the A.I.M.E. in its award of medals for conspicuous achievement: the Saunders medal for mining, the Douglas medal for non- ferrous metallurgy the Lucai medal for petroleum, and the Rand medal for distinguished achievement in the broad field of mining administration including the organization and development of enterprises in all branches of the mineral industry. This last is known officially as the Charles F. Rand Memorial Medal, and it award is made possible through funds supplied by the Charles F. Rand Foundation. Until this year money thus available was used for other special projects, so that the forthcoming presentation of the Rand medal to Robert C. Stanley is notable as being the first time that achievement in mining administration has been thus recognized.

Jan 1, 1940