Search Documents

By Charles E. Hughes

HERBERT HOOVER had to sit through an hour and a half of eulogy of himself at Carnegie Hall last night, said the Sun and New York Herald of Feb. 19. When his turn to answer came he remarked that, although one of the speakers had referred to him as a modest man, he would never, in view of this experience, be able to prove it. The occasion was the presentation by the Civic Forum to Mr. Hoover of its medal of honor for distinguished service, the only recipients in past years having been General Goethals, Thomas A. Edison, and Alexander Graham Bell. Only by distortion of intent could there be said to be anything political in the affair, which was carefully described by the chairman, Charles E. Hughes, as non-partisan. Nevertheless, the praise bestowed on the former Food Administrator by the former Republican candidate for President, proved specially interesting to a much applauding audience which filled the hall to the uppermost gallery. A piece of real news was supplied by Horace V. Winchell, whom Mr. Hoover succeeded on Tuesday as President of the American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers. He said that Mr. Hoover, when in Europe after the . armistice, caused to be collected the literature of the war in all Europe.

Jan 1, 1920

By L. E. PORTNER

INCREASING military demands on the petroleum industry have brought into bold relief the crude-oil reserves now available to meet combined military and civilian demands, emphasizing the necessity for a greater efficiency in recovery from what has been discovered than ever before, particularly in light of the absence of new discoveries. This situation-and the fact that the industry, as well as members of the Government charged with governing oil production, desire to meet all crude-oil demands made of the industry with the least loss in tangible reserves through production practices-paves the way for increasing application of sound principles of production engineering and conservation.

Jan 1, 1944

By Sheldon P. Wimpfen

EVERYWHERE in mining circles the talk is of this new development of hard faced or insert bits which hints of many changes to come in mining practice and rock drill equipment. In the past fifteen years new equipment has appeared in rapid succession which brought one change after another in rock breaking practice. Detachable bits were an innovation which met with wide success. Blasthole diamond drilling has proven itself. Only recently, fusion piercing was announced as a possible solution to the problem of breaking taconite ores. For several years this interest in new methods has been growing and various experimental usages of tungsten carbides in rotary type rock drilling bits have been partially successful. American experts in rock drilling have been concerned with the subject for ten years but actual commercial practice was begun by European manufacturers and mining companies. At this time nearly every manufacturer of rock drilling bits is working on some type of an insert bit. On the Rand, European manufacturers are testing out various types of insert bits. The problems relating to rock drilling in South Africa vary greatly from ours. The bulk of the drilling there is limited to the 31/2-ft holes that are drilled for breaking the gold bearing reef ore. Rock drilling in most mines is far more diversified. Both drifting and ore breaking call for holes varying in length from 4 ft up to as much as 50 ft and more.

Jan 1, 1947

By Jose J. Alvarez

INTRODUCTION Three major plant processes control the operation of an uranium in-situ mining plant. The three pro- cesses can be categorized under the headings termed - loading, elution, and precipitation. All other plant processes can be subcategorized under the three. In summary, the major plant processes in an in- situ mining plant are: 1. Loading - The pregnant lixiviant from the production wells flows through anion exchange resin. The loading of the uranium on the resin is controlled by various factors, such as ionic strength, valence, functional groups, etc. 2. Elution - The uranium-loaded resin is eluted or regenerated by a high ionic strength solution. The effluent from this process is de- fined as the pregnant eluate. 3 . Precipitation - The pregnant eluate is chemically treated to attain the ideal conditions for the selective precipitation of uranium. Hydrogen peroxide is an ideal precipitating agent under URI conditions. This paper will focus on two of the major processes: Elution and Precipitation. For the most part this relatively young industry has grasped the theory of liquids in continuous flow for the operation of the plant processes. Likewise, URI initially operated the two processes of interest with the continuous flow concept. Through laboratory experiments, URI has abandoned the flow concept and operates the eluting and precipitating stages with the concept of "batch" processes, whereby only one container, filled to a specified liquid level, is chemically processed. In the proceeding sections, each of the two pro- cesses will be discussed in detail, from their original concept to the present operation. Only minor modifications were made to the existing circuits for the conversion with results revealing a greater level of efficiency. ELUTION The elution of the loaded anion exchange resin can be achieved by different high ionic strength solutions. The selection of constituents is dependent on both chemical and economic considerations (i .e., efficiency and operating/restoration factors). The regenerant presently used is a pH 9.5 solution containing 7.5% NaCl and a mixture of Na2C03/NaHC03. expressed as 2.5% NaHC03.

Jan 1, 1980

By O. D. Sherby

In 1938, Kanter' revealed that the steady-state creep rate of low-carbon iron alloys could be correlated by an activation energy expression, where the activation energy for creep, Qc, was found equal to about 90.0 kcal per mole for most of the alloys investigated. He suggested that creep at high temperatures might be controlled by some sort of solid self-diffusion process since the value of Qc was about equal to the known value for self-diffusion, Qd. Correlations were not further attempted along these lines until many years later, when new evidence2-8 was presented suggesting that Qc = Qd for many metals. This equality now appears to be established for ten metals (Al, Pb, Ni, Mg, Cd, In, a Fe, y Fe, Cu, and Au). This experimental fact prompted several investigators to postulate various mechanisms of dislocation motion which would yield an activation energy for creep equal to that for self-diffusion.7-9 Possibly the most accepted theory is that based on dislocation climb7 where a dislocation is envisioned to surmount a barrier by an atom-vacancy exchange process, thereby "climbing" from one slip plane to another. Such a model would suggest that the steady-state creep rate, i, should be directly proportional to the rate of self-diffusion, D, for a given creep stress. In order to more clearly reveal the relationship between creep and diffusion, and to eventually determine the correct model, it would be desirable to obtain data showing correlations between i and D, rather than with a comparison of the temperature coefficients, Q. It has been known for some time that the self-diffusivity of iron atoms is greatly decreased when body-centered-cubic (a) iron transforms to face-centered-cubic (y) iron. This has been ascribed to the more close-packed structure of y iron. The diffusivity ratio at the transition temperature is Da/Dy =350. Correlations of creep data for a and y iron5 reveal that the creep rates under a given stress at the transition temperature differ by about the same ratio (ea/ey 2 200). It would be difficult to reconcile these results on any other basis than that the diffusivity of atoms probably controls creep of iron in some very direct way. No other published data on other allotropic metals appear currently available for further checking such a possible correlation between i and D. Thallium transforms from a hexagonal close-packed (a) structure to a body-centered-cubic (ß) structure at 230°C (503°K) and the self-diffusivities of the two structures have been determined by shirn.10 His results are plotted in Fig. 1 where it will be noted that Dß/Da = 25 at the transition temperature. It would appear desirable, therefore, to determine the creep rates of polycrystalline a and ß thallium at the transition temperature, as well as determine

Jan 1, 1959

By David J. Mack, A. H. Kasberg

The transformation characteristics are found to resemble a similar binary alloy. The differences are due to the alpha iron particles. While strength properties of the isothermally transformed alloys are high, ductility is low, resulting in high notch sensitivity. The elastic modulus can be varied widely and correlates with strength. Abnormal grain growth sometimes occurs. A CONSIDERABLE amount of work has been done on the isothermal transformation of high purity aluminum bronzes using the methods pioneered by Davenport and Bain.' The first isothermal study of these alloys was made by Smith and Lind-lief,' but more recently Mack", " and Klier and Grymko5 have continued the work. In commercial aluminum bronzes, one or more elements are always added to refine the ß grain size and to improve the mechanical properties. The effect of these elements on the isothermal transformation has not been reported in the literature. No systematic study of the properties of isother-mally transformed aluminum bronzes has apparently been reported, although adequate information is available on their properties after more conventional heat treatments. The fact that a eutectoid alloy will reject face-centered cubic a during isothermal transformation at appropriate temperatures2'" warrants investigation of the properties of such structures. Another cogent reason for determination of properties is the fact that the modulus of elasticity of the eutectoid alloy varies widely with the nature of the heat treatment." Preliminary experiments7 indicated that a high purity eutectoid alloy would not give reproducible results in property determinations because of ex- cessive ß grain growth during heat treatment, a single ß grain frequently occupying the entire cross-section of a standard test bar. For this reason a commercial aluminum bronze containing iron as a grain growth inhibitor was used. The isothermal transformation diagram of the alloy was first determined. On this basis, the heat treatments necessary to produce representative structures were selected and the properties determined. Material A commercial alloy (Ampco Grade 20) of the following composition was used: Cu, 83.68 pct; Al, 12.31 pct; Fe, 3.68 pct; Ni, 0.28 pct; and Mn, 0.03 pct. This alloy proved to be very close to the eutectoid composition and may be compared with the accepted value of 11.8 pct A1 in the binary Cu-A1 system. Comparison is valid only because of the "negative replacement effect" of the iron? Since traces of excess y² are present, the alloy is slightly hyper-eutectoid. The material was received in the form of 3/4 in. round, hot extruded bars. Specimens of approximately ? in. thickness were cut from this stock and drilled to allow suspension in the salt bath. The structure of the as-received material varied from 5 to 40 pct a + y2* in a matrix of ß. The amount of a + y² present was dependent upon the ß grain size of the extruded material. The coarse grained portions did not form as much a + Y, as did

Jan 1, 1952

By James Terry Duce

In order to facilitate interpretation of the data in this chapter, we print the following excerpts from circulars to authors, compiled by Mr. Frank A. Herald when he was Vice-chairman for Production of the Petroleum Division: Generally in Table 1 the unit for presentation of data is a field. For our purposes a field is defined as the whole of a surface area wherein productive locations are continuous. Such unit commonly includes and surrounds nonproductive areas. Such unit commonly includes a great variety of geologic conditions-—several units of continuous productive reservoirs of distinctly different structure and of distinctly dzerent stratigraphy. Therefore it is hoped that our authors will subdivide "field" so as to enable students to make analyses that may have scientific and/or commercial value. As to each space in the tabulation, it is either (1) not applicable, (2) the proper entry is not determinable, (3) the proper entry is determinable, but not determinable from data available to the author, (4) the proper entry is determinable by the author. In spaces not applicable, the author will please draw horizontal lines; in spaces where the proper entries are not determinable, the author will please insert x; in spaces where the proper entries are determinable but not determinable from data available to the author, the author will please insert y; in spaces where the proper entries are determinable by the author he will, of course, make such entries. Generally, y implies a hope that in some future year a definite figure will be available. Inability to determine precisely the correct entry for a particular space should not lead the author to insert merely y. Contributions of great value may be made by the author in many cases where entries are not subject to precise determination. In such cases the author should use his good judgment and make the best entry possible under the circumstances. For many spaces, the correct entries represent the opinion of the author (for example, "Area Proved") and in such cases the entries need not be hedged to such extent as in cases where the quantities are definite yet can be ascertained only approximately by the author. In cases under definite headings but where figures are only approximate, the author may use 2. For example, if the total production of a field is known to be between 1,800,000 and 1,850,000, the author may report l,8x,xxx; or if the production is between 1,850,000 and 1,900,000, the author may report 1,9xx,xxx. Where a numeral is immediately to the left of x or y, such numeral represents the nearest known number in that position. As to quantity of gas produced from many fields the question will arise as to whether the figures should include merely the gas marketed or should include also estimates of gas used in operations and gas wasted. Although rough approximations

Jan 1, 1937

By James Terry Duce

In order to facilitate interpretation of the data in this chapter, we print the following excerpts from circulars to authors, compiled by Mr. Frank A. Herald when he was Vice-chairman for Production of the Petroleum Division, and revised in 1939. Generally in Table 1 the unit for prescntation of data is a field. For our purposes a field is defined as the whole of a surface area wherein productive locations are continuous. Such unit commonly includes and surrounds nonproductive areas. Such unit commonly includes a great variety of geologic conditions—several units of continuous productive reservoirs of distinctly different structure and of distinctly different stratigraphy. Therefore it is hoped that our authors will subdivide "field" so as to enable students to make analyses that may have scientific and /or commercial value. As to each spacc in the tabulation, it is citller (1) not applicable, (2) the proper entry is not determinable, (3) the proper entry is determinable, but not determinable from data available to the author, (4) the proper entry is determinable by the author. In spaces not applicable, the author will please draw horizontal lines; in spaces where the proper entries are not determinable, the author will please insert x; in spaces where the proper entries are detcrminable but not detcrminable from data available to the author, the author will please insert y; in spaces where the proper entries are determinable by the author he will, of course, make such entries. Generally, y implies a hope that in some future year a definite figure will be available. Inability to determine precisely the correct entry for a particular space should not lead the author to insert merely y. Contributions of great value may be made by the author in many cases where entries arc not subject to precise determination. In such rases the author should use his good judgment and make the best entry possible under the circumstances. For many spaces, the correct entries represent the opinion of the author (for example, "Area Proved") and in such cases the entries need not be hedged to such extent as in cases where the quantities are definite yet can be ascertained only approximately by the author. In cases under definite headings but where figures are only approximate, the author may use x. For example, if the total production of a field is known to be between 1,800,000 and 1,850,000, the author may report 1,8xx,xxx; or if the production is between 1,850,000 and 1,900,000, the author may report 1,9xx,xxx. Where a numeral is immediately to the left of x or y, such numeral represents the nearest known number in that position. As to quantity of gas produced from many fields the question will arise as to whether the figures should include merely the gas marketed or should include also estimates of gas used in operations and gas wasted. Although rough approximations

Jan 1, 1939

By James Terry Duce

In order to facilitate interpretation of the data in this chapter, we print the following excerpts from circulars to authors, compiled by Mr. Frank A. Herald when he was Vice-chairman for Production of the Petroleum Division: Generally in Table 1 the unit for presentation of data is a field. For our purposes a field is defined as the whole of a surface area wherein productive locations are continuous. Such unit commonly includes and surrounds nonproductive areas. Such unit commonly includes a great variety of geologic conditions-several units of continuous productive reservoirs of distinctly different structure and of distinctly different stratigraphy. Therefore it is hoped that our authors will subdivide "field" so as to enable students to make analyses that may have scientific and/or commercial value. As to each space in the tabulation, it is either (I) not applicable, (2) the proper entry is not determinable, (3) the proper entry is determinable, but not determinable from data available to the author, (4) the proper entry is determinable by the author. In spaces not applicable, the author will please draw horizontal lines; in spaces where the proper entries are not determinable, the author will please insert x; in spaces where the proper entries are determinable but not determinable from data available to the author, the author will please insert y; in spaces where the proper entries are determinable by the author he will, of course, make such entries. Generally, y implies a hope that in some future year a definite figure will be available. Inability to determine precisely the correct entry for a particular space should not lead the author to insert merely y. Contributions of great value may be made by the author in many cases where entries are not subject to precise determination. In such cases the author should use his good judgment and make the best entry possible under the circumstances. For many spaces, the correct entries represent the opinion of the author (for example, "Area Proved") and in such cases the entries need not be hedged to such extent as in cases where the quantities are definite yet can be ascertained only approximately by the author. In cases under definite headings but where figures are only approximate, the author may use x. For example, if the total production of a field is known to be between 1,800,000 and 1,850,000, the author may report 1,8xx,xxx; or if the production is between 1,850,000 and 1,900,000, the author may report 1,9xx,xxx. Where a numeral is immediately to the left of x or y, such numeral represents the nearest known number in that position. As to quantity of gas produced from many fields the question will arise as to whether the figures should include merely the gas marketed or should include also estimates of gas used in operations and gas wasted. Although rough approximations

Jan 1, 1938

By James Terry Duce

In order to facilitate interpretation of the data in this chapter, we print the following excerpts from circulars to authors, compiled by Mr. Frank A. Herald when he was Vice-chairman for Production of the Petroleum Division, and revised in 1939. Generally in Table 1 the unit for prescntation of data is a field. For our purposes a field is defined as the whole of a surface area wherein productive locations are continuous. Such unit commonly includes and surrounds nonproductive areas. Such unit commonly includes a great variety of geologic conditions—several units of continuous productive reservoirs of distinctly different structure and of distinctly different stratigraphy. Therefore it is hoped that our authors will subdivide "field" so as to enable students to make analyses that may have scientific and /or commercial value. As to each spacc in the tabulation, it is citller (1) not applicable, (2) the proper entry is not determinable, (3) the proper entry is determinable, but not determinable from data available to the author, (4) the proper entry is determinable by the author. In spaces not applicable, the author will please draw horizontal lines; in spaces where the proper entries are not determinable, the author will please insert x; in spaces where the proper entries are detcrminable but not detcrminable from data available to the author, the author will please insert y; in spaces where the proper entries are determinable by the author he will, of course, make such entries. Generally, y implies a hope that in some future year a definite figure will be available. Inability to determine precisely the correct entry for a particular space should not lead the author to insert merely y. Contributions of great value may be made by the author in many cases where entries arc not subject to precise determination. In such rases the author should use his good judgment and make the best entry possible under the circumstances. For many spaces, the correct entries represent the opinion of the author (for example, "Area Proved") and in such cases the entries need not be hedged to such extent as in cases where the quantities are definite yet can be ascertained only approximately by the author. In cases under definite headings but where figures are only approximate, the author may use x. For example, if the total production of a field is known to be between 1,800,000 and 1,850,000, the author may report 1,8xx,xxx; or if the production is between 1,850,000 and 1,900,000, the author may report 1,9xx,xxx. Where a numeral is immediately to the left of x or y, such numeral represents the nearest known number in that position. As to quantity of gas produced from many fields the question will arise as to whether the figures should include merely the gas marketed or should include also estimates of gas used in operations and gas wasted. Although rough approximations

Jan 1, 1939

By C. G. Dunn

Identification of the kinds of orientation relationships that may exist among crystals is an important problem in the metallurgical field. As an aid to its solution standard orientations of several orders of twins would be very useful for rapid analyses to discover high-order as well as low-order twin relationships. Although data have been published that give orientations for three generations of twins, these data are not readily useful in the form presented; i.e., in a stereo-graphic projection with one pole per orientation.' However, accurate data based on calculations of the positions of all {1001 planes for such groups would be very useful when presented in tabular form. Therefore, calculations have been made for a group of four orders of twins and the data are listed in Table 3. Illustrative applications are considered briefly, with the idea of pointing out what may be done with large groups of orientations. Method of Computing Orientation OF a Twin It is common practice to describe the orientation of a crystal in terms of the positions on a stereographic net of the poles of certain planes of the crystal. A single position on a net may be given in terms of two angle variables, two sets of which appear in the following equations: Polar Net Wulff Net x = , sin ?p cos Fbp x = r COS ?w y = r sin ?p sin Fp y = r sin ?w cos Fw % = r cos ?p z = r sin ?w, sin +, The three numbers z, y and z determine a length r as well as a direction (0, 4) in an X, Y, Z coordinate system. In the present case, r will be set equal to (h2 + k2 + L2)1/2, where h, k and I are the usual Miller indices for a crystallographic plane, a restriction that facilitates determination of the positions of poles of new planes from those of old or known ones,2 as will become evident later. Furthermore, since twinned lattices have certain planes in common, it is an easy matter to determine the orientation of a twin of a crystal if the orientation of the crystal itself is known. We start therefore with a crystal of known orientation (positions of three {Ioo} poles given) and determine where the cube poles occur in first, second, third and fourth-order twins. Methods for identifying twinned lattices and for making the calculations to find the orientation of a twin have been published.3,4' Reference 4 will be illustrated in the calculation of the orientation of a twin, even though this method differs from the one used by the writer in obtaining the following data on four orders of twins. Consider a crystal S and its twin A1, A' being one of the four {112} or {III} type* first-order twills of S. The orientation of S—i.e., the positions of poles of (I00)

Jan 1, 1945

By Frank A. Herald

Generally in Table 1 the unit for presentation of data is a field. For our purposes a field is defined as the whole of a surface area wherein productive locations are continuous. Such unit commonly includes and surrounds nonproductive areas. Such unit commonly includes a great variety of geologic conditions-—several units of continuous productive reservoirs of distinctly different structure and of distinctly different stratigraphy. Therefore it is hoped that our authors will subdivide "field" so as to enable students to make analyses that may have scientific and /or commercial value. As to each space in the tabulation, it is either (I) not applicable, (2) the proper entry is not determinable, (3) the proper entry is determinable, but not determinable from data available to the author, (4) the proper entry is determinable by the author. In spaces not applicable, the author will please draw horizontal lines; in spaces where the proper entries are not determinable, the author will please insert x; in spaces where the proper entries are determinable but not determinable from data available to the author, the author will please insert y; in spaces where the proper entries are determinable by the author he will, of course, make such entries. Generally, y implies a hope that in some future year a definite figure will be available. Inability to determine precisely the correct entry for a particular space should not lead the author to insert merely y. Contributions of great value may be made by the author in many cases where entries are not subject to precise determination. In such cases the author should use his good judgment and make the best entry possible under the circumstances. For many spaces, the correct entries represent the opinion of the author (for example, "Area Proved") and in such cases the entries need not be hedged to such extent as in cases where the quantities are definite yet can be ascertained only approximately by the author. In cases under definite headings but where figures are only approximate, the author may use 2. For example, if the total production of a field is known to be between 1,800,000 and 1,850,000, the author may report 1,8xx,xxx; or if the production is between 1,850,000 and 1,900,000, the author may report 1,9xx,xxx. Where a numeral is immediately to the left of x or y, such numeral represents the nearest known number in that position. As to quantity of gas produced from many fields the question will arise as to whether the figures should include merely the gas marketed or should include also estimates of gas used in operations and gas wasted. Although rough approximations may be involved, our figures should represent as nearly as possible the total quantity of gas removed from the reservoir. Wile we have not provided a column for showing the thickness of the productive zone, generally the difference between average depth to bottoms of productive wells

Jan 1, 1935

By ELLSIVOKTH DAGGETT

THE Berlin gold quartz mine is situated in Nye county, Nevada, on the west flank of the Shoshone range, about 40 miles south and 30 miles west from the town of Austin, the county-seat of Lander county. The distance from Austin is about 60 miles by stage-road. The outcrop of the vein, at the top of the incline-shaft, is situated just at the base of the mountain proper, almost exactly at the intersection of the mountain-side with the gravelly bench that slopes for about three-quarters of a mile to the flatter sage-brush plain, or desert valley, below. The -vein itself consists almost entirely of quartz, with perhaps 2 per cent. of sulphide of iron, copper, lead, zinc and antimony, and perhaps a trace of some of the compounds of tellurium with gold and silver, although none of the latter have been as yet positively identified. The relative proportion, by weight, of silver and gold in the ores, varies in different parts of the vein, from 12 silver for 1 of gold, to 7 silver for 1 of gold. The quartz vein-filling is usually frozen fast to the walls, and is very hard and compact, seldom showing the friable, fissured, or shelly structure often to be found in quartz veins. Comparatively little evidence of relative motion of one wall of the vein upon the other is to be found-a fact indicating that during the formation of the vein, and prior to the extensive movements herein described, little disturbance had taken place. No evidence whatever of metasomatic origin has been observed. On the other hand, occasional occurrences of comby structure, in which the axes of the quartz crystals are at right angles to the plane of the vein, rather indicate deposition from solution in a pre-existing fissure. Spurs, or branches, and small parallel veins, while not en-\

Mar 1, 1907

By H. B. FERNALD

THE interesting and carefully developed formula which Professor Bucky presents for answering the question of whether proposed new equipment will give a net return on investment equal to or greater than that on present equipment starts with an assumption that the management may make this relative return a determining factor in its decision whether or not the new equipment should be provided. I do not question that in some cases the management may take this position, but I would point out the error involved in so doing. The proper test is not a comparison of the return on new as compared with the return on old investment, but is rather a comparison of the return on a particular new investment as compared with the return which would be obtainable from some other new investment which now might be made. Then I would point out that I believe Professor Bucky is in error in using as a factor in his computations the item of unamortized cost of old investment. The financial advantage to be derived from a new investment does not depend on the extent to which we may in the past have written off the cost of old equipment, nor does it even depend upon what was the original cost of that old equipment. Even the salvage or resale value of the old equipment will only enter into the picture to the extent that the present salvage or resale value differs from the ultimate salvage or resale value otherwise to be obtained, after due allowance for the interest factor.

Jan 1, 1930

By Lucius W. Mayer

The iron-mines of the Ilsede Hütte Co. are at a town called Peine, about 20 miles east of the city of Hanover, on the railroad to Brunswick (Braunschweig). Hanover, the capital of the province, is a military city, of approximately 250,000 inhabitants, and Brunswick, 33 miles to the westward, has half this number. The mines here described are located in a hamlet called Bülten. The Ilsede Hütte Co. operates two mines, 1.5 miles apart, in this district, Gruber Bülten Adenstadt and Gruber Lengede Bodenstadt. It also operates an iron-mine north of Hanover, known as Eiserhaven, and one in the Harz mountains, the Georg Friedrich, at Grauhof. At Bülten a coarse conglomerate, a, Figs. 1 and 2, contains nodules of limonite, cemented together by calcium phosphate. The ore contains Fe, 25 to 45; Mn, 3 to 4; P, 0.6 to 1.4; S, 0.02 to 0.09; and CaCO3, 40 per cent. Directly above the conglomerate is limestone, b, followed by a mixture of clay and sand, c. Below the conglomerate is a hard clay floor, d. The ore-body, from 10 to, 12 km. long, and from 3 to 4 km. wide, has a maximum thickness of 20 m. It clips approximately 10° S.E., and strikes N. 45° E. Diamond-drill prospecting shows that the thickness diminishes to 1 m. as the end of the deposit is approached to the northward. At this point the deposit is 250 m. below the surface. In Fig. 2, the arrow, A, indicates the general direction of the work along the face, a, which is carried forward in a straight line for its entire length. At B, a train is approaching, which has come from the bench-track, shown at G, by a circuitous route, and is dumping the overburden behind the face, in the space left by the excavated rock. Formerly the work at this mine was essentially open-cut, the deposit having a very strong outcrop. Figs. 1 and 2 show also

Sep 1, 1908

By WALTON H. HAMILTON

THE demand for "production control" has, like the poor, been with us always. With the development of the nation, the accumulation of business experience, and a maturing understanding of how our many and varied industries work, it is increasingly evident that an uncontrolled output is a source of great mischief and that order and performance demand a control of production. To see clearly the demand for "production control" we must look in detail at the ways in which industries operate. General pictures, grand aggregates, situations as "wholes," and smoothed curves are likely to be deceptive. An industry may seem to keep the even tenor of its ways, and yet the establishments which made it up may experience a great range of fortunes. A nice bundle of statistics may show in the aggregate a lovely regularity which is not shared by the firms which make up a trade. An industry may appear to be reasonably profitable, and yet the profits may be very unevenly distributed. The people in an industry, and dependent on it, are managers, laborers, stockholders, creatures of flesh and blood, such as you and I. General pictures and abstract statements must not blind us to what is happening to firms, corporations and individuals.

Jan 1, 1929

By AIME AIME

OUR own Institute of Metals and Iron and Steel divisions cooperated with the Iron and Steel Division of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, the American Welding Society, and the American Society for Steel Treating in a busy week at Cleveland. The morning sessions were held at the Hotel Cleveland and the afternoon ones at the Auditorium, where the metallurgical exhibition under the auspices of the American Society for Steel Treating not only occupied the arena of the Auditorium but completely filled the huge adjacent Annex. In the intervals of sessions the members thronged the exhibits but in the evenings the local attendance was so great that if the crowds had been any larger it would have been difficult to see the exhibits. With so many firms, both producers of metals and of equipment accessory to their production and use, it would be impossible to mention them -all and unfair to single out a few, since no two individuals' judgment would coincide as to relative interest and importance. In any case an exhibit is a thing to be seen rather than described, and these were well worth seeing.

Jan 1, 1929

By R. T. ROLFE

IN this critical age, people are not content .with the judgments passed on men and things long ago, but must needs revise them. It is an excellent spirit, so long as we do not start out with the idea that old opinions must necessarily be wrong, and that all ancient malefactors must therefore be whitewashed. That interesting ogre, Gilles de Retz, to whom the process has recently been applied, is no longer with us, so no one will be the worse for it, but the old bugbear8 of the steelmaker, sulfur and phosphorus, still are, and now Mr. McIntosh, in a recent article in these pages, asks us to regard one of them in a new light.' This article is a most interesting one, with much of which one must agree. One of his -statements, how- ever, although correct, is somewhat' misleading, and he rather discounts the fundamental objection of the steelmaker to phosphorus, its dangerous propensity to segregate and the secondary effect on the carbon distribution and therefore on the homogeneity of the steel that is produced thereby. Further, the evidence on which he bases his claim that phosphorus does not lower the impact strength of steel is rather slight. The writer views with the utmost misgiving any proposal to increase the amount of phosphorus in steel, and cannot regard it in any other light than as a prejudicial impurity, to be kept down to as low a proportion as possible. It thus becomes necessary to examine the evidence upon which Mr. McIntosh's claims are based

Jan 1, 1926

By W. W. Anderson

A formula for quantitative efficiency is proposed, in which the efficiency value is a function of the improperly distributed material at the, gravity of separation effected by the cleaning equipment. The misplaced material is expressed as a percentage of the total material discharged from the equipment. Numerous examples are given, demonstrating application of the formula to various types of separation, including multiple-product separations.

Jan 1, 1950

By CHARLES COURT

I must tell you at the outset that I come to this conference deeply disturbed at the 'role of Government in international dealings in mineral and energy resources'. I am disturbed by- the confusion that now passes for policy. I am disturbed by the short- range view of critical problems taken by a majority of Governments. I am equally disturbed by the even shorter range of view taken by a growing army of industries. Many of them clamour for Governments to solve their problems in a specific way, with little regard for any other sector but their own-and with even less regard for the fact that every time a Government takes over some of their responsibilities they surrender some of their freedom. I would not say that longer range views don't exist. But I would say that they don't prevail at the present time. Instead, we are seeing the constant development of many policies for individual problems which don't tackle the fundamental causes. We must get back to basics without delay.

Jan 1, 1978