Search Documents

By Krahmann, Rudolf

THE following is an account of a survey undertaken to test the possibility of outlining a kimberlite pipe by magnetouietric methods. Kimberlite is a basic igneous rock closely related to melilite-basalt or alnoite, which occurs either in the form of volcanic plugs or as dikes intruded into rocks of various types and geological ages up to and includ¬ing the Lower Cretaceous. The famous diamond mines of South Africa are all in kimberlite pipes and these pipes are probably the original source as well of the vast alluvial deposits found in various parts of the country. The pipe chosen for this experiment is one that ' occurs on the farm Goedgevonden No. 20, about sixteen miles north of the village of Klerksdorp and ninety miles southwest of Johannesburg. Some prospecting has been done on this pipe and diamonds were produced from it but not in paying quantities. The magnetometric survey was made in June, 1932, by R. Krahmann and H. Wallisch and the results are shown on the accompanying plan. On the plan are shown also the boundaries of the pipe as exposed at the surface and details in regard to the surrounding foundations. These are taken from a geological survey made at a later date by W. Beetz, of Johannesburg.

Jan 1, 1935

By Oliver Bololes

UNDER the able leadership of Samuel H. Dolbear, the Committee on Nonmetallic Minerals furnished a program of sixteen papers comprising three sessions. An outstanding accomplishment in technology presented at the first session by Benjamin L. Miller and C. H. Breerwood is the application of flotation to the purification of limestone used in cement manufacture. In place of selective quarrying to provide high-grade raw material, the quarry-run stone is pulverized and treated in froth flotation cells for removal of free silica and mica. Some advantages are cheaper quarrying, more complete utilization of quarry rock, avoidance of purchasing high calcium stone, lower fuel cost and improvement in the finished cement. Paul M. Tyler presented the general subject of milling methods as applied to nonmetal lies. He pointed out the importance of some of the more recent refinements in ore dressing, and urged the need of a wider appreciation of their possibilities. The gypsum industry of Canada was described by L. H. Cole. Crystal growth during the setting process was illustrated by moving pictures. The Coastal Plain and interior salt

Jan 1, 1935

By E. Horton Jones

CONTENTS I Page Introduction ....:......................... 3 Chapter I. Unit Costs. . ...................... 4 Chapter II. Comparative Costs ..................... 20 Chapter III. Composite Costs..................... 32 Chapter IV. Wage Scale....................... 36 Chapter V. Raw Material Prices................. 37 Chapter VI. Description oF Costs ................... 64 Introduction We have endeavored in the following "sheets" to give the unit construction costs derived from 'the building of the Arizona Copper Co.'s new smelter, Clifton, Ariz., starting in February, 1912, and completing February, 1914.l In Chapter I—Unit Costs—are to be found the most elementary total unit costs which the accounts provide for. They are usable in the Clifton district. Here too are found the percentages to be added to an estimate for Engineering and General Expense. In Chapter II—Comparative Costs—these elementary costs have been classified, averaged and reported as labor and material unit costs. In such form the labor unit costs, when properly applied to similar conditions as these under which they were derived, are usable anywhere. The material unit costs are better disregarded for more accurate estimates and replaced by a newly priced bill of material. In Chapter III Composite Costs are given. They are unit costs built up from several elementary units, and likewise units of larger dimensions and simpler application, valuable for

Jan 1, 1915

By Arthur E. Focke

IF a metallurgist employed in an industry producing mechanical parts or assemblies wishes to make the most of his opportunities he will be concerned with every use of metals in that industry. He will not only take part in the testing and treating of the metals used but will assist in their selection and study their behavior in processing and in service. In addition, he will attempt to develop an understanding of the problems involved in the use of the metals in all plant tools and equipment. Metallurgists that follow this course will soon recognize that frequently too little thought is given to the effect of the design of parts on the way the metal in them is expected to behave in service. He will come to realize that changes in the design of a part will often be much more useful than changes in the hardness, strength, composition, or structure of the metals used in them. Does this mean that a metallurgist is out of place in these industries and that he should leave the field to others or be content to fill only a minor role?

Jan 1, 1947

By Joseph Daniels

IN connection with a study of the feasibility of establishing a blast-furnace industry in the Puget Sound region of Washington, possible sources of ore supplies along the Pacific rim were investigated. Many of the South American countries are known to contain important resources of iron, particularly Brazil and Chile. This latter country, because of its position on the west coast and the easy accessibility of its de- posits, appeared to be a logical place to consider as a potential supply for the Pacific Northwest. Accordingly, a brief field study was made of the deposits in September, 1924. Attention was confined to a limited number of properties on the west coast in the provinces of Antofagasta, Atacama, and Coquimbo. Passing consideration was given to the question of coal resources, and a short visit was made to a blast-funace plant at Corral in southern Chile which had been operated for a limited period as a producer of pig iron. In the following paper, a brief outline is given of the general observations made and of the salient facts rioted in the time available for the general study.

Jan 1, 1926

By Thomas A. Wright

No symposium on die-casting could be complete without consideration of the methods of formula and impurity control. No corisideration of control would be complete without discussion of that new tool of the analytical chemist and inspector, the quartz spectrograph. Just as there is an increased appreciation of the possible applications of the die-casting process and of die castings, so too is there, slowly but surely, of the spectrograph. At present the role of the instrument might well be compared with that of brass or magnesium die castings. Neither is as widely understood or known as they will be. Product specifications are increasing and are getting more explicit and often more rigid. The designer, metallurgist and production engineer or superintendent will be forced to depend more and more on the chemical laboratory. Sampling, as well as analyses, testing and inspection problems will grow. The chemical laboratory must meet its increased responsibility and use of the spectrograph will become more common. Advantages of increased precision, greater speed, lessened labor and often lower costs cannot be ignored. It will be the purpose of this paper in part to outline the respective fields of chemical and spectrographic analyses and to indicate where one may overlap the other and in part to indicate certain possible sources of contamination of zinc-base die-cast alloys in particular. Composition Aluminum.-Aluminum die die castings are expected to conform to the specifications of the Amcrican Society for Testing Materialslt and the Society of Automotive Engineers2. The A.S.T.M. has recognized seven aluminum alloys in Tentative Specification B85-33-T. TWO are straight silicon and the remainder are of the copper-silicon type of which alloys VIII and IX have in addition respectively 2 and 4 per cent of nickel, but unlike the others are not covered by S.A.E. as well. All seven call for rigid control of certain impurities. With the exception of alloy XII,

Jan 1, 1935

By Thomas A. Wright

No symposium on die-casting could be complete without consideration of the methods of formula and impurity control. No corisideration of control would be complete without discussion of that new tool of the analytical chemist and inspector, the quartz spectrograph. Just as there is an increased appreciation of the possible applications of the die-casting process and of die castings, so too is there, slowly but surely, of the spectrograph. At present the role of the instrument might well be compared with that of brass or magnesium die castings. Neither is as widely understood or known as they will be. Product specifications are increasing and are getting more explicit and often more rigid. The designer, metallurgist and production engineer or superintendent will be forced to depend more and more on the chemical laboratory. Sampling, as well as analyses, testing and inspection problems will grow. The chemical laboratory must meet its increased responsibility and use of the spectrograph will become more common. Advantages of increased precision, greater speed, lessened labor and often lower costs cannot be ignored. It will be the purpose of this paper in part to outline the respective fields of chemical and spectrographic analyses and to indicate where one may overlap the other and in part to indicate certain possible sources of contamination of zinc-base die-cast alloys in particular. Composition Aluminum.-Aluminum die die castings are expected to conform to the specifications of the Amcrican Society for Testing Materialslt and the Society of Automotive Engineers2. The A.S.T.M. has recognized seven aluminum alloys in Tentative Specification B85-33-T. TWO are straight silicon and the remainder are of the copper-silicon type of which alloys VIII and IX have in addition respectively 2 and 4 per cent of nickel, but unlike the others are not covered by S.A.E. as well. All seven call for rigid control of certain impurities. With the exception of alloy XII,

Jan 1, 1935

By J. V. W. REYNDERS

FIRST of all let me express my affectionate gratitude for the cordiality and good will of your reception. On the part of the men I venture to interpret the character of your greeting, not only as a recognition of the position to which you have been good enough to elect me, but also as an expression of your friendly attitude. However, I cannot pass over the tribute of the ladies so casually: Nor does it seem possible to do justice to my sentiments in addressing them collectively. I would feel more equal to the task if I could have the opportunity to talk to them singly, in doing which I know I may count upon their good sportsmanship not to compare notes. There has been some discussion between Mr. Kelly and myself as to our respective duties on this occasion: The precedents are not clear as to whether the retiring or the incoming president is expected to speak at length. Mr. Kelly's argument was that as the incoming president confines himself to promises for the future his field is a broad one and his opportunities for extending his remarks correspondingly unlimited.

Jan 1, 1925

DR. PeRsifor Frazer, Philadelphia, Pa. (communication to the Secretary):* Mr. Campbell's very interesting contribution, after complimentary mention, finally decides against the acceptance of the classification proposed by me in a paper bearing the same title and read at the Wilkes-Barre meeting, May, 1877.2 That paper was written primarily for the Second Geological

Jan 1, 1906

By J. J. Fritts, J. L. Patrick, T. L. Wright, C. O. Ensign, W. S. White, J. W. Trammell, J. C. Wright, D. J. Hathaway, R. J. Leone

The copper deposit at White Pine, Michigan, from which a little more than 5 per cent of United States primary copper currently is produced, is a large stratiform orebody, 4 to 25 feet thick and several miles across. The present ore column, containing about 1.2 per cent copper as chalcocite and native copper, is confined to the basal beds of the Nonesuch Shale. This upper Keweenawan (Upper Precambrian) formation is a distinctive gray siltstone unit, about 600 feet thick, overlying and overlain by thick red-bed sequences. All these rocks contain abundant volcanic debris, but the latest known igneous activity within 50 miles antedated the Nonesuch Shale. The rocks are unmetamorphosed and only moderately deformed, mainly by tilting and faults. Pyrite, presumably syngenetic, is the only prominent sulfide throughout most of the Nonesuch Shale. The basal beds of the formation, however, contain disseminated copper minerals instead of pyrite and constitute the cupriferous zone. On a regional scale, the top of the cupriferous zone cuts across bedding, and ranges from an inch or so above the base of the formation in some areas to more than 50 feet in others. However, within the cupriferous zone the distribution of copper shows remarkable stratigraphic control. Certain beds are copper-rich compared to the beds that lie between them and the differences persist throughout the White Pine region. Several darkgray thinly laminated beds in the lower 10 to 25 feet of the Nonesuch Shale are rich enough and sufficiently close enough together to constitute a mineable thickness where they lie within the cupriferous zone. Pyrite is the characteristic sulfide of the Nonesuch Shale as a whole. The principal sulfide mineral of the cupriferous zone at the base of the formation is chalcocite. The succession of minerals outward and upward from the center of the cupriferous zone is native copper-chalcocite-bornite-chalcopyrite- pyrite. The bornite and chalcopyrite are confined to a narrow fringe at the margin of the cupriferous zone. This pattern of mineral zones is believed to represent reaction between syngenetic pyrite and introduced copper. The main copper mineralization is independent of structure and apparently antedates deformation. Details of the geometry of the cupriferous zone indicate the possibility that copper was introduced from the underlying sandstone prior to lithification. The source of the mineralizing solutions and their copper is not known.

Jan 1, 1968

By Bert S. Sandell

Much has been said and written about the various uses of die castings, their applications in the various industries and their advantages and disadvantages. Examination of this literature, however, fails to disclose any data concerning the effect of temperature upon any of the physical properties of die-casting alloys. The uses and applications of die castings are so numerous, and of such a varied nature, that far too lengthy a manuscript would be required to list all of them. Brief mention of some specific cases will suffice to illustrate the temperature ranges in which certain die castings function. Automobile hardware, such as hub caps, door handles, radiator caps, etc., can be used as one example. Castings of this type are constantly exposed to varying climatic conditions, temperatures ranging from below zero to upwards of 100" F. Refrigerator parts, such as ice-cube trays, etc., form another example. Approaching the other temperature extreme, we encounter conditions such as are found in kitchens in which oven-heat indicator parts, cooking utensils, waffle grids, etc., embody use of die castings, where temperatures as high as 500" F. are often met with. Because of this variation in service temperatures, it was felt necessary to ascertain the effect of these temperatures upon the physical properties of die-casting alloys. The Charpy impact test was chosen first because of its simplicity, and because of the fact that brittleness is more likely to be objectionable in die castings than hardness or other physical properties. Alloys Investigated Two types of alloys were used in this investigation—zinc-base and aluminum-base alloys. Two alloys of each group were included. Those most generally employed in the industry at present were selected. Alloys A and B are of the same nominal composition, and correspond to A. S. T. M. alloy XXI, containing 4 per cent aluminum, 3 per cent copper, 0.1 per cent magnesium, and the balance zinc of 99.99 per cent

Jan 1, 1932

By F.B. Foley, S.P. Howell

Not infrequently, in the case of the failure of a metal structure, such as a bridge, tank, airplane, gun carriage, etc., a doubt arises whether the failure was due, among other causes, to the effect of an overburden or of an explosive maliciously or accidentally exploded in contact with it. As few means of discriminating between the effects of these causes have been known and these means were of a rough qualitative character, it was surprising to find in the record of an inquiry into the failure of a structure, the statement that, by observations on the Neumann bands in the structure, it was possible to determine the speed of breakage in the metal and to distinguish between a fracture caused by an explosion and one caused by an ordinary mechanical strain. Such a criterion, if well proved, was of value to the explosives experts of the Bureau of Minea, the Ordnance Department of the United States Army and the Bureau of Ordnance of the United States Navy, but search showed no record of it in the literature nor did any of the metallurgists and metallographers consulted know of any data on which such a criterion could be based having been assembled and critically studied. However, it was universally held that there was promise in the idea and that there exkted unique facilities at the Bureau of Mines Experiment Station at Pittsburgh for the preparation, under definitely known conditions, of material for study by metallographers, and that material of value might also be obtained from the proving grounds of the Army and Navy. Therefore, with the approval of the Director of the Bureau of Minea and the Chiefs of Ordnance of the War and Navy Departments, the Chairman of the Division of Engineering of the National Research Council, on April 12, 1919, appointed a Committee on the Investigation of Neumann Bands, which has since been engaged in this study and which, after some slight change in its personnel, consists now of the following: Dr. William Campbell, Advisory Metallurgist, Bureau of Ordnance, Navy Department. P. B. Foley, Metallurgist, Bureau of Mines. S. P. Howell, Explosives Engineer, Bureau of Mines. Comdr. 0. M. Hustvedt, U. S. N., Bureau of Ordnance, Navy Department. Dr. Charles E. Munroe, Chief Explosives Chemist, Bureau of Mines.

Jan 1, 1923

By S. P. Howell, F. B. Foley

Not infrequently, in the case of the failure of a metal structure, such as a bridge, tank, airplane, gun carriage, etc., a doubt arises whether the failure was due, among other causes, to the effect of an overburden or of an explosive maliciously or accidentally exploded in contact with it. As few means of discriminating between the effects of these causes have been known and these means were of a rough qualitative character, it was surprising to find in the record of an inquiry into the failure of a structure, the statement that, by observations on the Neumann bands in the structure, it was possible to determine the speed of breakage in the metal and to distinguish between a fracture caused by an explosion and one caused by an ordinary mechanical strain. Such a criterion, if well proved, was of value to the explosives experts of the Bureau of Minea, the Ordnance Department of the United States Army and the Bureau of Ordnance of the United States Navy, but search showed no record of it in the literature nor did any of the metallurgists and metallographers consulted know of any data on which such a criterion could be based having been assembled and critically studied. However, it was universally held that there was promise in the idea and that there exkted unique facilities at the Bureau of Mines Experiment Station at Pittsburgh for the preparation, under definitely known conditions, of material for study by metallographers, and that material of value might also be obtained from the proving grounds of the Army and Navy. Therefore, with the approval of the Director of the Bureau of Minea and the Chiefs of Ordnance of the War and Navy Departments, the Chairman of the Division of Engineering of the National Research Council, on April 12, 1919, appointed a Committee on the Investigation of Neumann Bands, which has since been engaged in this study and which, after some slight change in its personnel, consists now of the following: Dr. William Campbell, Advisory Metallurgist, Bureau of Ordnance, Navy Department. P. B. Foley, Metallurgist, Bureau of Mines. S. P. Howell, Explosives Engineer, Bureau of Mines. Comdr. 0. M. Hustvedt, U. S. N., Bureau of Ordnance, Navy Department. Dr. Charles E. Munroe, Chief Explosives Chemist, Bureau of Mines.

Jan 1, 1923

By Walter Miller

NOW, after a year's continued impact of war, the task of the petroleum-refining industry stands out clearly and looms up in larger aspect. This time it is not, as it was so largely in the first World War, simply a matter of increased quantity- more and more of the same petroleum products that had substantially been standard for years. In this era the emphasis is largely on newer and improved materials which had been produced, if at all, in comparatively insignificant quantities, and for which manufacturing equipment was not available on a large scale. At the beginning of 1942 four great product needs (besides a number of lesser one-) confronted the industry: 100-octane aviation gasoline, toluene for T.N.T. production, high-quality lubricating oils for aviation and Army equipment service, and petroleum chemicals for synthetic rubber manufacture.

Jan 1, 1943

Trans. No. Place Date Vol. Page 1. Wilkes-Barre Pa......May.71 1 3 2. Bethlehem, Pa.........Aug., '71 I 10 3. Troy, N.Y............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, Mesa..........Feb., '73.. 1 28 8. Philadelhia, Pa.*......May, '73.. 2 3 9. Easton, is............Oct..' 73.. 2 7 10. New York, N. Y.......Feb..' 74 . . 2 11 11. St. Louie. Mo.*........May,' 74 . . 3 3 12. Hazleton, Pa...........Oct., '74.. 3 8 13. New Haven Conn......Feb., '75.. 3 15 14. Dover,N.J.*..........May, 75.. 4 3 15. Cleveland,O...........Oct. 75. 4 0 16. Washington D. C......Feb.'' 76.: 4 18 17. philadelphia, Pa.......June,: 76.. 5 3 18. Philadelphia Pa........Oct 76.. 5 19 19. New York, N. Y.......Feb: '77.. 5 27 20. Wilkes-Barre. Pa.*.....Mag :77.. 0 3 21. Amenia N. Y..........Oct. 77.. 6 10 22. Philadeiphia Pa........Feb.;' 78. . 6 18 23. Chattanooga' Term.*. . . May' 78. . 7 3 24. Lake George: N. Y....: Oct. 78. . 7 103 25. Baltimore, Md.*.......Feb:' 79.. 7 217 26. ~ittsburgi, Pa.........~a;' 79.. 6 3 27. Montreal, Canada......~ept.;' 79.. 8 121 28. New York, N. Y.*......Feb., '80.. 8 275 29. Lake Superior, Mich....Aug., '80. . 9 1 30. Philadelphia, Pa.*......Feb., '81. 9 275 31. Staunton, Va..........May, '81. .10 1 32. Harrisburg, Pa.........Oct.. '81..10 119 33. Washington, I). C.*....Feb., '82. . 10 226 34. Denver. Colo..........Aug.. '82. . ll 1 35. Boston. Mass.*.........Feb.. '83..11 217 38. Roanoke, Va...........June, '83.. 12 3 37. Troy, N. Y...........Oct.. '83. .12 175 38. Cincinnati. O.*.... Feb, '84..12 4 39. Chicago Ill............May, '84. . 13 1 40. philadelphia, Pa........Sept., '84. . 13 285 41. New York, N. Y.*......Feb., '85. . 13 586 42. Chattanooga, Tenn.....May, '85..14 1 43. Halifax, N. S..........Sept., '85.. 14 307 44. Pittsburgh, Pa.*........Feb.. '86 . . 14 587 45. Bethlehem. Pa.........May, '86 .. 15 Ixiii. 46. St. Louis, Mo..........Oct, 86.. 15 Ixx. 47. Scranton, Pa.*.........Feb.', '87. . 15 lxxvi 48. Utah and Montana.....July '87.. 16 xvii. 49. Duluth, Minn...........July' '87. -16 xxiv. 50. Boston. Mass.*.........Feb.: '88. . 16 xxviii. 51. Birmingham, Ala.......May, '88. .17 xix. 52. Buffalo N. Y..........Oct. '88.. 17 xxiv. 53. New york, N.Y........feb.' ;89 . . 17 xxxi. 54. Colorado..............June' 89 . . 18 xvii. 55. Ottawa, Canada........Oct., 89. . 18 xxiv. 56. Washington, I). C.*. . . Feb. 90. .18 xxx. 57. New York, N. Y........sept:, '93. .19 vii. 58. New York, N. Y.*......Feb. '91. . 19 xxv. 59. Cleveland, O.......... June, :91 . .a xvi. 60. Glen Summit, Pa.......Oct, 111. . 20 lxi. 61. Baltimore, Md.*.......Feb.: '92. .21 xix. 62. Plattsburg, N. Y.......June, '02. . 21 xxxiii. 03. Reading. Pa...........Oct., :92. .21 xliv. 64. Montreal. Canada*.....Feb. 93..21 65. Chicago, Ill............aug.: '93..22 XI. 66. Virginia Reach. Va.*. ...Feb., '04. .24 xwl. 67. Bridgeport Coon.......Oct., '94..24 xxx?. 08. Florida ...'............Mar., '95. .25 xix 69 Atlanta. Ga......... Oct 95. 25 xi 70. Pittsburgh. Pa.*........Feb., '96.. 26 xvii. Trans. No. Place Date Vol. Page 71. Colorado..............Sept. '96. .26 xxix. 72. Chicago, Ill............Feb.. "97.. 27 xvii. 73. Lake Superior..........July '97. .27 xxx. 74. Atlantic City, N. J.*. ..Feb.: :98. .28 xvii. 75. Buffalo N. Y..........Oct. 08. .28 XXXVI. 76. New York,N. Y.*......Feb.: '99. .29 xvii. 77. California.............Sept., ;99. . 29 xlix. 78. Washington, D. C.*.....Feb., 00. .30 xix. 79. Canada...............Aug.. '00. .30 xlv. 80. Richmond. Va.*........Feb.. '01. . 31 xix. 81. Mexico................Nov..'01.. 32 cxviii. 82. Philadelphia Pa. $......May, :02. . 33 xxxv. 83. New Haven, Conn......Oct.. 02.. 33 xlvii. 84. Albany N. Y.*........Feb '03. .34 xxiii. 85. New York, N. Y........Oct.': '03. .34 xi. 86. Atlantic City. N. J.*....Feb., '04. .35 XXIII. 87. Lake Superior..........Sept.'04. .35 dii. 88. Washington. D. C......May' '05. .36 xlii. 89. British Columbia.......July, '05. . 36 90. Bethlehem. Pa.........Feb. '06. .37 xli. 91. London, England.......July: '06. .37 xlviii. 92. New York, N. Y........April, '07. . 38 lii. 93. Toronto, Canada.......July. '07. .38 lix. 94. New York, N. Y........Feb., :08. .39 xli. 95. Chattanooga, Tenn.....Oct.. 08..39 xlviii. 06. New Haven Conn......Feb. '09. .40 xli. 97. Spokane,Wash.........Sept:.'09. .40 xlviii. 98. Pittsburgh, Pa.........Mar.,'10. .41 xxxviii. 99. Canal Zone............Nov.,'10. .41 dv. 100. Wilkes-Barre, Pa.......June. ' 11. . 42 xxxiv. 101. San Francisco, Cal......Oct.. '11..42 xliv. 102. New York. N. Y.*......Feb 12. .43 Ixxvii. 103. Cleveland, Ohio........0ct;' '12.. 44 wii. 104. New York, N. Y.*......Feb.. '13. .45 xv. 105. Butte, Mont...........Aug., '13. .46 ?' 108. New York, N. Y........Oct., 13..47 vii 107. New York. N. Y.*......Feb.. '14..48 xv. 108 Salt Lake City. Otah Aug. :l. 49 5: 109. Pittsburgh, Pa.........Oct., 14. .50 vii. 110. New York, N. Y.*......Feb., '15. .51 xvi. 111. San Francisco, Cal......Sept., '15. .52 xii. 112. New York,N. Y.*......Feb., '16..54 xvi. 1 Arizona...............Sept.,'l6. .55 VII 114. New York, N. Y.*......Feb., '17: .56 vii. 115. St. Louis, Mo..........Oct.. '17..57 vii. 116. NewYork,N. Y.*......Feb.. '18..59 xvii 117. Colorado.....:........Sept.,'18. .60 vii. 118. Milwaukee, Wis........Oct.. '18. .60 x:!: 119. NewYork,N. Y.*......Feb., '19..61 xi. 120. Chicago...............Sept.,' l9.. 62 VII. 121. New York, N. T.*......Feb., '20..63 ix. 122. Lake Superior District. .Aug., '20.. 66 ix. 123. New York, N. Y.*......Feb., '21. .66 xiii. 124. Wilkes-Barre, Pa...... Sept.. : 21.. 66 xix. 125. New York, N. Y.*......Feb., 22. .67 ix. 126. San Francisco. Cal......Sept.,:22. .68 xxix. 127. New York, N.Y.*.....Feb., 23. .69 xxix 128. Canada...............Aug., '23. .69 xxxv! 128.129. New York, N. Y.*......Feb., ;24. .70 xxxi. 130. Birmingham, Ala.......Oct. 24. .71 xxxiii 131. NewYork.N Y.*......Feb.: '25.. 71 xxxviii. 132. 131.Salt Lake City, Utah .. .Sept., '25. .73 xvi 133. New York, N. Y.*......Feb., '26. .73 xxii. 134. Pittsburgh Pa ....... Oct.. '26. .74 xv. 135. New York,' N. Y.*............Feb., '27. .75 x::: 135.136. NewYork,N. Y.*......Feb., '28..76 104 137 NewYork.N. Y.*......Feb., '29. .291 116 138.San FranciscoYork,N.Y. Cal..........Oct. 29..308 406 139. New York, N. Y.*...Feb., '30..30H 1321

Jan 1, 1930

By R. W. Raymond

The immense commercial value of the Gayley dry-blast process has been established beyond controversy. The testimony of practical blast-furnace managers, on both sides of the Atlantic, agrees that it reduces the cost of pig-iron about $1 per ton; but from the same testimony it appears that this direct economy does not by any means cover its commercial advantages—in fact, that under conditions frequently encountered in practice, it presents other benefits of even greater immediate financial importance. To this point I shall recur in a later part of the present paper. The history of the reception given to this invention, especially on the other side of the Atlantic, has repeated an experience familiar to American engineers. First, the reports of our practice were rejected as theoretically impossible, according to generally accepted notions and formulas; then the figures were reluctantly accepted; and finally the attempt has been made to explain how they could have been obtained. As to the Gayley dry blast, me Americans have been for several years in the last stage of the discussion, and the rest of the professional world is rapidly coming to it. Meanwhile, the remark has been repeatedly made that, whatever Mr. Gayley's process may turn out to be worth, it was not an invention on his part, but simply the energetic and persevering execution of a procedure already proposed by others. This question I wish to discuss first in the present paper. I. What Did Mr. Gayley Invent? Realizing that this is not the place for detailed argument on an issue of patent law, I shall not undertake to quote and criticise the publications prior to Mr. Gayley'a first patents. It may be admitted, without such critical analysis, that the possible advantages of removing moisture from the air forced into an iron blast-furnace were recognized and talked about a hun-

Jan 1, 1909

By David B. Reger

New discoveries of gas in the southern counties featured the petroleum industry in West Virginia during 194;. Drilling for oil increased slightly over 1944 and a small increase of initial production resulted. Out of 28 wildcats drilled, there were 16 gas discoveries and 12 dry holes. No commercial oil was found in the 28 wells.

Jan 1, 1946

By AIME AIME

A discussion of the Papers by Prof. H. Hubert, Liege, Belgium ; Mr. Tom Westgarth, Middlesbrough, England ; and Mr. K. Reinhardt, Dortmund, Germany, presented at the London Meeting, July, 1906, and printed in Bi-Monthly Bulletin, No. 12, November, 1906; pp. 910 to 930, 971 to 987, 1037 to 1163. MR. ADOLPH GREINER, Seraing, Belgium :-I have nothing special to add to Professor Hubert's paper except to say that there are some little things that it would be well to have cor-rected when the paper comes to be published. In dealing with the thermal efficiency of the engine, you will find that the 29.84 per cent was a very high one. Professor Hubert has forgotten those engines built under the Cockerill type, but he has referred to them in Appendix II. At our works at Cockerill we have built 63 engines, giving 63,000 h.p., and the other companies who have received licenses have built 113 engines, making 103,000 h.p., and aggregating 176 engines and 166,000 h.p. Eight years ago I had the pleasure of giving to the Institute the results obtained up to that time. Since then a good many engines have been constructed. In 1898 I thought a blast-furnace producing 100 tons of pig iron would allow 3,000 h.p. Professor Witz and Professor Hubert show that with the same production of pig the new engines take 3,800 h.p. out of the gas. At present at Cockerill we make 700 to 800 tons of pig iron per day, and we hope to have 26,000 h.p; in a few years. At present we have only half of that in gas-engines, but we hope to have in five or six years all the gas out of these furnaces to the number of 25,000 or 26,000 h.p. MR. Tom WESTGARTH, Middlesbrough, England:-My contribution is not a paper in the ordinary sense of the word, because I am sure you will agree with me that what I have written is only supplementary to the other two papers. The notes are schedules of the larger-size gas-engines built by the engine-makers, of 500 h.p. and upwards. If you look at the schedules you will find that in England gas-engines have be-

Jan 1, 1907

By AIME AIME

TRADITIONALLY, the Annual New York Meetings of the A.I.M.E. cover four days, but the program is growing on each end as well as in the middle, and this year it lasted from 3 p. m., Sunday, Feb. 16, when the Education Division got under way, to 8:40 p. m., Friday the 21st, when a trainload of electrical inspectors, pro tern, got back fro111 the General Electric plant at Schenectady. The meeting has ceased to be a mere three- ring circus: on Wednesday afternoon eight sessions were being held simultaneously in the Engineering Societies Building, if one includes the Woman's Auxiliary, and according to frequent testimony one should include the W. A. as one of the most important units in Institute affairs.

Jan 1, 1936

By DIFTIGIHT E. WOODBRIDGE

(Glen Summit Meeting, June, 1911,) DURING April, May, and June, 1910, I was in charge of an examination of the greater part of the Moa iron-ore area in Oriente Province, Cuba, on the north coast, near the east end of the island. My instructions, on arrival at the properties, were to check former estimates of tonnages and grades, and to re-examine the ore comprised in claims covering 44,727 acres. This work included .the running of lines dividing the properties into co-ordinate planes, the boring of many thousand feet of holes spaced at the intersections of these co-ordinates, the taking of samples of the ore penetrated, the analysis of these samples for their various constituent minerals, and the determination of the results as to tonnages, depths, and grades, both for individual properties and for the entire group. Each section of every one of the thousand holes drilled was to be compensated for depth and grade with every other, a series of simple arithmetical calculations of no slight magnitude, the mere mechanical labor of which consumed much time, but finally resulted in giving a complete average of all the essential facts for the entire area of 18,000 hectares. Had it not been for the more than willing, active, and able co-operation of the officers of the Spanish-American Iron Co., from Charles F. Rand, President, and Jennings S. Cox, General Manager, down to the most humble water-carrier, the work would have consumed far more time than it did. Papers prepared by others, and to which my present paper may be considered an addendum, elucidate, more fully than I could hope to do, the origin and geological character of these ores. I will confine myself to the situation, method and expense of exploration, and to probable courses of development and mining, with some attention to the cost of the ore delivered in the United States.

Mar 1, 1911