Search Documents

By W. L. Dumoulin

A RATHER detailed description of the entire plant and leaching process was given in a paper recently presented to the Institute,1 so this paper will cover briefly only the crushing practice of the New Cornelia Copper Co. for the year, 1918. The ore, which is mined by steam shovels and loaded in side-dump cars, passes through two crushing plants. These crushing plants were constructed to crush the ore required by a leaching plant of 5000 tons daily, capacity, during a crushing period of 16 hours. The primary plant reduces to less than 3 in. (76 mm.) and the secondary plant, to ¼ in. (6.35 mm.), which is sufficiently fine for satisfactory percolation of solution through the ore in the leaching tanks, and to give good extraction. The ore is then conveyed to the leaching tanks by a system of 28-in.. (71-cm.) belt conveyors. On the way to the leaching tanks, it passes through an automatic sampling plant, where a 1-per cent. sample is taken. From the primary crushing plant, the ore is conveyed by two 36-in. (91-cm.) belt conveyors to a 10,000-ton steel storage bin, with a reinforced-concrete flat bottom. The ore discharges from the bottom of this bin onto four 20-in. belt conveyors, which deliver it to the four units of crushers in the secondary crushing plant. There is no storage bin between the mine and the primary crushing plant. The ore breaks very coarse, is very hard, and contains a great many boulders, some as large as 4 ½ by 4 1/2 by 10 ft. (1.3 by 1.3 by 3 m.). Jams form in the bowl of the coarse crusher in the primary crushing plant, as a consequence, and are freed by means of an immense steel hook operated from a 40-ton electric traveling crane.

Jan 8, 1919

In 1973, US Borax & Chemical Corp. began investing three days wages and about $20 in training materials in every new employee before having him report to his first job. The result? Accidents involving new employees in the past two years have dropped by more than half from the 1972 level. What made this success possible was safety training done with programmed instruction materials-which, incidentally, US Borax also uses for vocational training.

Jan 4, 1976

Jan 1, 1944

Jan 1, 1944

Map

Jan 1, 1939

THE solid nonmetallic inclusions present to some extent in all commercial steels have been variously designated. In early references they were usually called slag inclusions, and this terminology is still retained to some extent. On the premise that all nonmetallic matter produced in a metallurgical process is slag, this can be justified. We have come to think of slag, how- ever, in a more restricted sense, and calling these particles slag inclusions is further objectionable because it fosters the erroneous concept that they are actually incorporated portions of furnace slag. Rarely is this true. The term sonims (coined from solid nonmetallic impurities) was proposed many years ago but never came into common use. In general, the term non- metallic inclusions seems to be satisfactory and adequate. NATURE AND CONSTITUTION OF NONMETALLIC INCLUSIONS From the standpoint of origin, inclusions fall naturally into two classes: (1) those occurring as a result of reactions taking place in the body of molten or solidifying metal and (2) those resulting from mechanical incorporation of refractories or other materials with which molten steel comes in contact. The former are by far the more numerous and have been called indigenous, natural, or native inclusions. The latter are by their very nature sporadic in occurrence and have been called exogenous, accidental, adventitious, or foreign inclusions. They are often referred to as the "slag-stringer" type, though here also the material is not likely to be furnace slag. Substances Found in Inclusions. Nonmetallic inclusions are composed principally of oxides and sulfides but carbides and nitrides sometimes play an important role. In the case of indigenous inclusions the reactions by which these particles are precipitated from molten or solidifying steel may be caused by: (1) oxidation such as may occur during refining or during tapping and teeming, (2) deoxidation by added alloys, (3) change

Jan 1, 1951

Jan 1, 1966

Jan 1, 1968

By William Campbell

(Cleveland Meeting, October, 1912.) [SECRETARY'S NOTE.-To avoid repetitions of foot-notes, references to authorities are made in the paper by means of figures, referring to a numbered list in the appendix.-J. S.] I. INTRODUCTION. IN the olden days the making of alloys was au art, and the secrets of the craft were jealously guarded. To-day it has become a science, though the old ideas in regard to the secrets and formula are dying hard. Modern progress may be attributed to scientific research and testing of materials, and the substitution of chemical analytical control for " cook-book " methods. We know to-day a great deal about the constitution of alloys, the reasons of the change in structure and physical properties by heat and mechanical treatment; and this new knowledge is due for the most part to the physical chemist and metallographist, who have shown us that alloys are simply solutions, and as such obey definite laws. The application of the theories of solutions and of the phase rule tells us what ought to happen when our alloys are in a state of equilibrium. The working-out of the temperature-composition diagram (thermal diagram) for numerous alloys has thrown a light on the structure and constitution which has dispelled most of the darkness in which we labored before the advent of metallography. The work began with the determination of the freezing-point curves, and here the research of Le Chatelier,1 Gautier,2 Roberts-Austen,3 and the other pioneers broke the ground. Next the physical chemists, Tammann,4 Rooseboom,5 Bancroft,6 and their colleagues, showed us the complete thermal diagram and its meaning. Then the researches of Heycock and Neville 7 on the Cu-Sn series and of Shepherd 8 on the * Associate Professor of Metallurgy, Columbia University in the City of New York.

Dec 1, 1912

Jan 1, 1968

By Walter O. Snelling

Discussion of the paper of WALTER 0. SNELLING, presented at the San Francisco meeting, September, 1915, and printed in Bulletin No. 100, April, 1915, pp. 695 to 704. A. C. McLAUGHLIN, San Francisco, Cal.-It seems to me that Mr. Snelling's work, if it is what it appears to be, is one of the most important contributions to petroleum technology that has been brought out iii the last 25 years. If his end products are what they seem to be, he has made a discovery, which, in my judgment, will revolutionize the petroleum industry. As to industrially carrying out these processes I do not think there is the slightest difficulty, for I have had some work recently where crude oils were handled successfully at a temperature of 750°F. and pressure of 750 lb. per square inch. WILLIAM A. WILLIAMS, San Francisco, Cal.-What metal did you use, Mr. McLaughlin? - A. C. McLAUGHLIN.-Ordinary seamless tubing, extra strong. WILLIAM A. WILLIAMS.-Tests were made in Dr. Rittman's experimental plant at Pittsburgh, upon samples of residuum furnished by Mr. Bell, the residuum being the remainder of the crude oil after the lighter fractions had been removed. After the material had been run through Dr. Rittman's plant, yields of from 43 to 58 per cent. of material, boiling under 150°C. were obtained. The distillate had a peculiar odor, due to the presence of benzene, toluene, and other unsaturated hydrocarbons. W. N. BEST, New York, N. Y.-What is the difference between the Rittman and the Snelling process or system? WILLIAM A. WILLIAMs.-The fundamental difference is that reactions take place under relatively higher temperatures and pressures and with none of the oil present in its original or liquid state, while the reactions secured by Mr. Snelling and other investigators have been from the liquids in the presence of some vapors. Under such conditions as Mr. Snelling operates, the temperatures and pressures used are limited and the flexibility in the control of these variables is extremely limited when compared with the Rittman process.

Jan 1, 1916

Jan 1, 1967

Jan 1, 1966

Jan 1, 1967

By T. F. Witherbee

THE Fletcherville Furnace was built in 1864 and 1865, making its first blast from August until October of the latter year, when it was blown out to prevent its "bunging-up." Repairs were made in time to enable it to be blown in again December 12th, 1865, the blast ending October 7th, 1866. Total product 1921.15 tons iron, an average of 6.8.2.5 tons per day, from ores yielding 44.8 per cent. Consumption of charcoal 223.2 bushels per ton of iron. The furnace journal up to this time shows no record of furnace dimen¬sions, or temperature of the blast, but as near as can be ascertained, they were as follows, viz. Height of stack, 42 feet. Diameter of bosh, 11 feet. Angle of bosh, 7 1/2 inches to 12 inches rise, about 58°. Diameter of open tunnel head, 42 inches. Number of tuyeres 3; each 3 inches in diameter. Dam 15 inches high. Tuyeres 24 inches high. Tymp 22 1/2 inches high. Diameter of steam cylinder, 20 1/4 inches. Stroke 5 feet. Diameter of blast cylinder, 64 inches. The engine is direct-acting horizontal non-condensing. December 26th, 1.866, the furnace was again put in blast, having been considerably altered in the crucible; the height of stack, bosh, and tunnel head remaining as before. Six tuyeres were put in, three in each of the side arches. The hearth or crucible was rectangular in form, 3 feet wide x 32 feet long x 62 feet high. Inclination of bosh 58°. Height of tuyeres 26 inches ; nozzles 2 1/4 inches diameter. Temperature of blast estimated to be about 500°.

Jan 1, 1874

By E. C. Potter

FUEL-OIL was first substituted for coal at these works in September, 1888. It was first applied in the converting-department to the battery of boilers, consisting of 14 tubular boilers, 16 feet in length by 5 feet in diameter. To operate these boilers with coal for 24 hours required 14 strikers, 3 ash-wheelers, 6 men unloading coal, and 2 water-tenders, making a total of 25 men. With fuel-oil the same boilers require for the same period 2 water-tenders and 4 men to attend to the burners, making a total of 6 men. This gives a saving of 19 men, which, at an average of $2 per day each, amounts to $38 per day. Comparing the consumption of oil with that of coal, we find that for the week ending January 5, 1889, with an ingot output of 6403 tons, 2731 barrels of fuel-oil were used as against a necessary consumption of coal for the same work of 848 tons, showing 3.22 barrels of fuel-oil to be equivalent to one ton of Indiana block-coal. Figuring oil at 60 cents per barrel, and coal at $2.15 per ton, we have as the cost of oil $1.93, as against $2.15 for its equivalent in coal. In December, 1888, the rail-mill battery of 26 boilers, of the same dimensions as those in the converting-department, was equipped for fuel-oil. For the week ending January 5, 1889, with a rail out-put of 5208 tons, 5987 barrels of oil were consumed, as against a necessary consumption of coal, to do the same work, of 1805 tons, showing 3.31 barrels of fuel-oil to be equivalent to one ton of Indiana block-coal, which at the costs named above would show $1.98 worth of fuel-oil to he equal to $2.15 worth of coal. The labor required to operate the rail-mill boilers for 24 hours, with coal as fuel,is: 26 stokers, 4 water-tenders, 6 ash-wheelers, 12 men unloading coal; total, 48 men. With oil as fuel, the same work requires 4 water-tenders and 6 men to attend to the burners; total, 10 men; a saving over coal of 38 men in 24 hours, which, at an average price of $2 per day, would be $76 per day. In the brief experience we have had with oil as fuel, we find that the efficiency of the boilers is somewhat increased and the repairs are

Jan 1, 1889

Jan 1, 1970