Search Documents

By Allen Rogers

IT has always seemed to me that there is a certain similarity between the work of the mining engineer and that of the doctor of medicine-each has very often to be governed in his actions by conditions which he cannot. see. It is not necessary to detail the unseen conditions with which the mining engineer or geologist has to deal-the further extension of orebodies; the existence of new ones, the throw of a fault, the probable change in grade or character of the ore with advance of the workings, are a few of the conditions which the mining engineer has to determine as well as he can from the deductions he is able to make from what he can observe. Just so the physician is often confronted with conditions that he can not observe. Probably less than half of human ills make a manifestation at the surface of the body from which definite and certain conclusions can be drawn. The diagnostician must observe various things and, from these observations in combination, conclude what 'his course should be to bring about the cure of the trouble. Both professions would be assisted immensely by any agency that would permit them to look below the surface, something that would make more certain the diagnosis which each is called upon to make. The physician has had such an agency since 1895, when Röntgen discovered the X-ray; which, by making possible shadowgraphs of the osseous portion of the human body, advanced immensely the diagnosis of bone lesions. Later, with improvement in the technique and more understanding in the interpretation of what the photographic plate shows, other portions of the human anatomy could be examined and at the present time there is hardly an instance of internal disorder to which the aid of the X-ray is not called. Some organs are made opaque by administering mineral substances; in, other cases, conclusions are drawn from barely perceptible shadows on the photographic plate. Generally the surgeon's knife is directed with exactitude to the seat of the trouble and so not only is the difficulty revealed but the necessity for an exploratory' operation is averted.

Jan 1, 1928

The evaluation of Abandoned Mined Lands can involve the investigation of very large areas of land. Often, the locations of critical areas or impending problems are unknown, and are not easily identified from the surface. Microseismic monitoring has been demonstrated to be effective in identifying potential instabilities and active movement in mines from distances of several kilometers. By placing sensors in proximity to, or in contact with, a high acoustic conductance layer close to the mined zone, large areas can be monitored for potential problems with a minimum of sensors and drillholes. As part of a U.S. Bureau of Mines contract, a prototype system was developed to identify and locate potential instability problems over wide areas of land. Once a problem area has been located, the system can be used to analyze the type of the problem, its size, relative degree of instability, and potential for damage. Continued monitoring after application of remedial measures can effectively determine the efficacy of those measures.

Jan 1, 1993

By David K. Fountain

"The growth of the mining industry in British Columbia in the last ten years has been largely the result of the development of large low-grade copper and molybdenum deposits. There are two problems which must be solved in the search for mineral deposits of this type. It is necessary to detect large volumes of rock containing a low percentage of total sulphide mineralization1 and, secondly, to get some idea of the economic significance of this mineralization. The standard geophysical exploration techniques available have a varying degree of application in the search for disseminated sulphide de-posits. The electrical methods, and the induced polarization method in particular, are the most successful direct methods, and magnetic methods have indirect application in most situations. This is illustrated by geo-physical survey results from several properties in British Columbia."

Jan 1, 1968

By W M. Cameron

Geophysical studies have extended seaward in recent years, and the important discoveries which have been made have led to a better understanding of geological processes. A present source of certain minerals, the sea will eventually serve as an important source of desalinated water. The continental helves, in particular, represent a potential mineral resource. The expansion of Canadian oceanographic effort that is now underway will eventually lead to the exploitation of the wealth beneath the sea. THE subject of this symposium, which emphasizes the word "geophysics," the specialties of the speakers who are contributing and the nature of the audience at first made me believe that I, a a physical oceanographer, would be out of place. However, I shall undertake to classify myself as a geophysicist, and shall arrange my remarks on my specialty o that they might be of interest to those of you who are predominantly geologists, metallurgists or mining engineers.

Jan 1, 1963

By C. A. HEILANDG

THERE is a need for men well trained in geo- physical prospecting. Although the number of geophysicists required by the industry in the future cannot be expected to be very great, there will always be a demand for courses on the subject. A number of educational institutions are, therefore, interested in providing instruction in geophysical prospecting. Some institutions will be satisfied with courses in general geophysical prospecting designed to give the geologist fundamental concepts on the comparative merits of the methods and the interpretation of the results. Other institutions will want to give special instructions in theory, field procedure, and interpretation of any or all geophysical methods. In giving such special courses a number of problems will be faced, and it seems to me that such difficulties are easier to overcome in an engineering institution than in a university. A knowledge of basic engineering subjects, such as required of all students in an engineering school, seems to be the best foundation upon

Jan 1, 1930

By H. Landsberg

The curriculum presented here is an outgrowth of discussions by the Committee on Geophysics Courses of the A.I.M.E. in previous years. It had to be a compromise between the desires voiced by employers of geophysicists, professional geophysicists and the possibilities at an average college. There one has to face the questions of the available teaching staff, the inertia of administrators and teachers set in their ways, and the red tape involved in modernizing antiquated curricula. It is, of course, not ideal to have colleges and universities lag Io years behind the times. Rather, instead of being prodded by industry, they should be ahead of industrial needs. There should also be a certain amount of leeway for the student in any college curriculum. All these points had to be considered in drawing up a curriculum, which, instead of being narrowly termed "geology" or "geophysics" was rather called "earth science." It gives the student a chance to specialize in one of the various branches represented by teachers on the faculty of The Pennsylvania State College, giving as options Geology (with subdivisions of Mineralogy and Paleontology), Geophysics, Geography, and Meteorology. Table iA represents the option of geophysics in the curriculum that envisages that a student may want to make his career in any of the fields encompassed by the American Geophysical Union or in geoexploration. This is, of course, only the start of an education that in most cases will have to be followed by graduate work for complete professional training. The outlined curriculum is definitely of an engineering type and is identical for all of the four options mentioned for the first two years. Specialization will start in the junior year but even thereafter the branches are kept as closely allied as feasible in order to permit a student to change from one tO the other (e.g., because of a different aspect in the mployment situation) with a minimum of additional work. Table IB shows the geophysics option according to subject matter, indicating the considerable amount of work in the fundamentals of mathematics, physics and chemistry with a liberal number of geology courses, and some engineering. The courses in the field of geophysics are limited—just two lecture courses as a general introduction and one field course, to permit the student a visualization of the correlation between mathematically analyzed physical data and the geological realities. Thesis work is considered essential to teach the student, while he is still in college, some things S. F. Kelly has mentioned as desirable: (I) following of instructions for somewhat independent work; (2) organizing of material, and (3) producing a readable report. This, together with the personal contact with the advising faculty member, will help in forming a student's personality. The seminar course attempts to get the student into the habit of reading current literature, so that he can keep abreast of the times.

Jan 1, 1946

By H. Landsberg

The curriculum presented here is an outgrowth of discussions by the Committee on Geophysics Courses of the A.I.M.E. in previous years. It had to be a compromise between the desires voiced by employers of geophysicists, professional geophysicists and the possibilities at an average college. There one has to face the questions of the available teaching staff, the inertia of administrators and teachers set in their ways, and the red tape involved in modernizing antiquated curricula. It is, of course, not ideal to have colleges and universities lag Io years behind the times. Rather, instead of being prodded by industry, they should be ahead of industrial needs. There should also be a certain amount of leeway for the student in any college curriculum. All these points had to be considered in drawing up a curriculum, which, instead of being narrowly termed "geology" or "geophysics" was rather called "earth science." It gives the student a chance to specialize in one of the various branches represented by teachers on the faculty of The Pennsylvania State College, giving as options Geology (with subdivisions of Mineralogy and Paleontology), Geophysics, Geography, and Meteorology. Table iA represents the option of geophysics in the curriculum that envisages that a student may want to make his career in any of the fields encompassed by the American Geophysical Union or in geoexploration. This is, of course, only the start of an education that in most cases will have to be followed by graduate work for complete professional training. The outlined curriculum is definitely of an engineering type and is identical for all of the four options mentioned for the first two years. Specialization will start in the junior year but even thereafter the branches are kept as closely allied as feasible in order to permit a student to change from one tO the other (e.g., because of a different aspect in the mployment situation) with a minimum of additional work. Table IB shows the geophysics option according to subject matter, indicating the considerable amount of work in the fundamentals of mathematics, physics and chemistry with a liberal number of geology courses, and some engineering. The courses in the field of geophysics are limited—just two lecture courses as a general introduction and one field course, to permit the student a visualization of the correlation between mathematically analyzed physical data and the geological realities. Thesis work is considered essential to teach the student, while he is still in college, some things S. F. Kelly has mentioned as desirable: (I) following of instructions for somewhat independent work; (2) organizing of material, and (3) producing a readable report. This, together with the personal contact with the advising faculty member, will help in forming a student's personality. The seminar course attempts to get the student into the habit of reading current literature, so that he can keep abreast of the times.

Jan 1, 1946

By J. B. Macelwane

Geophysics differs from geology and physics in in many respects. In the first place, geophysics is a complex science embracing the fields of seismology, geomagnetism, geoelectricity, geodesy, meteorology, vol-canology, physical oceanography, physical hydrology, tectonophysics and exploration geophysics. Geology is also a complex science and so extensive in its various fields that no one can master them all, and no part of geology deals in any sense with several of these fields of geophysics. In the second place, geophysics makes use of methods and instruments that are derived primarily from the science of physics. Geology, on the other hand, has methods of its own and it draws its borrowed techniques and its instrumental equipment not only from physics but also and perhaps primarily from chemistry and biology. The difference, therefore, between the geophysicist and the geologist lies partly in the phenomena that are observed, partly in the methods and instruments with which each carries on his exploration; but partly also, and perhaps principally, in the habitual attitude of mind and in the background of specialized training with which each approaches the problems presented by this planet of ours. The geologist as such, therefore, is no geophysicist. On the other hand, the physicist is not a geophysicist either. Isolation of each problem in a closed laboratow system under complete control is fundamental to the methods of the physicist. The geophysicist must apply physical instruments and physicomathematical reasoning to the study of physical quantities in their undisturbed natural environment. What, then, is a geophysicist? In the sense that he is a trained expert in all of the geophysical sciences, I do not believe that such a person ever existed. It would be beyond the possibilities of a single lifetime. I think there is confusion in our ideas and in our use of terms. We are not all thinking of the same thing when we say geophysics or geophysicist; yet we seem to talk as though we were. It is as absurd to say that the whole of geophysics belongs to geology because the field of a particular type of geophysicist—the exploration geophysicist —calls for some knowledge of geology as it would be to say that the whole of biology belongs to geology because a particular type of biologist—the paleontologist— needs some knowledge of geology. Development of a Geophysicist Since it is impossible to become an expert in all the fields of geophysics, and since students entering college seldom know the field they will choose as a career, what would we suggest as the best general preparation for work in geophysics, whether as a meteorologist, an oceanographer, a seismologist, a geodesist, a geomagneticist, a volcanologist, a tectonophysicist, a hydro1 ogist, or an exploration geophysicistp we may distinguish five phases in the development of a geophysicist: (I) his mathematical and scientific studies in high school; (2) the general mathematical and scientific

Jan 1, 1946

By J. B. Macelwane

Geophysics differs from geology and physics in in many respects. In the first place, geophysics is a complex science embracing the fields of seismology, geomagnetism, geoelectricity, geodesy, meteorology, vol-canology, physical oceanography, physical hydrology, tectonophysics and exploration geophysics. Geology is also a complex science and so extensive in its various fields that no one can master them all, and no part of geology deals in any sense with several of these fields of geophysics. In the second place, geophysics makes use of methods and instruments that are derived primarily from the science of physics. Geology, on the other hand, has methods of its own and it draws its borrowed techniques and its instrumental equipment not only from physics but also and perhaps primarily from chemistry and biology. The difference, therefore, between the geophysicist and the geologist lies partly in the phenomena that are observed, partly in the methods and instruments with which each carries on his exploration; but partly also, and perhaps principally, in the habitual attitude of mind and in the background of specialized training with which each approaches the problems presented by this planet of ours. The geologist as such, therefore, is no geophysicist. On the other hand, the physicist is not a geophysicist either. Isolation of each problem in a closed laboratow system under complete control is fundamental to the methods of the physicist. The geophysicist must apply physical instruments and physicomathematical reasoning to the study of physical quantities in their undisturbed natural environment. What, then, is a geophysicist? In the sense that he is a trained expert in all of the geophysical sciences, I do not believe that such a person ever existed. It would be beyond the possibilities of a single lifetime. I think there is confusion in our ideas and in our use of terms. We are not all thinking of the same thing when we say geophysics or geophysicist; yet we seem to talk as though we were. It is as absurd to say that the whole of geophysics belongs to geology because the field of a particular type of geophysicist—the exploration geophysicist —calls for some knowledge of geology as it would be to say that the whole of biology belongs to geology because a particular type of biologist—the paleontologist— needs some knowledge of geology. Development of a Geophysicist Since it is impossible to become an expert in all the fields of geophysics, and since students entering college seldom know the field they will choose as a career, what would we suggest as the best general preparation for work in geophysics, whether as a meteorologist, an oceanographer, a seismologist, a geodesist, a geomagneticist, a volcanologist, a tectonophysicist, a hydro1 ogist, or an exploration geophysicistp we may distinguish five phases in the development of a geophysicist: (I) his mathematical and scientific studies in high school; (2) the general mathematical and scientific

Jan 1, 1946

By H. W. Straley

Some ten years ago the writer1 made a survey of college catalogues to determine what sort of training geologists were receiving in basic sciences. In the light of this compilation and subsequent experience, he made the statement at the 1939 meeting of the Institute that apparently only in schools offering a curriculum in geological engineering or in the geological option of mining engineering curricula could geologists hope to receive the training advocated by Hubbeet.2 In the former study, schools of engineering were excluded because the preparation was known beforehand. The present study aims to consider engineering schools in an effort to determine not only what basic studies are required but what use is made of them in geological courses of the third and fourth years. The present study combined the method of consulting catalogues with a questionnaire. Letters were mailed to officials responsible for supervision of mineral industries curricula requesting information On' (I) the extent to which the engineering preparation of the first two years is actually used in the work of the last two; (2) the extent to which the engineering of the last two years is used in courses in geological engineering or geology; and (3) whether geologists or geological engineers teach descriptively or analytically. Both methods of securing information are open to criticism; the former on the basis of the incomplete information supplied by university catalogues concerning prerequisites and curricula and the latter on the ground that the questions may be phrased poorly or given insufficient consideration by replying officials. Fifty-six questionnaires were mailed and 39 (70 per cent) replies were received. Of the replies, 6 (11.3 per cent) were from colleges of liberal arts unconnected with engineering schools, 11 (20 per cent) were from schools having curricula in geological engineering and 22 (39 per cent) were from departments of mining engineering. The number of replies and their distribution were satisfactory in spite of the receipt of only six from liberal arts colleges. It should be understood that the universities of which the catalogues were examined were not necessarily the same in both compilations. No departments that are admittedly or known to be acting solely as service departments were recorded in the second study. Table I shows that all professional schools require mathematics through calculus, whereas only 7 per cent of the liberal arts curricula expect the same level of preparation; only 73 per cent require trigonometry and 40 per cent college "algebra. The proportion of geological engineering curricula requiring differential equations is higher than mining. All of the engineering schools require general and analytical chemistry, whereas only 77 per cent of liberal arts curricula require general and 18 per cent analytical. Twenty-two per cent of the mining and 40 per cent of the geological engineering

Jan 1, 1946

By H. W. Straley

Some ten years ago the writer1 made a survey of college catalogues to determine what sort of training geologists were receiving in basic sciences. In the light of this compilation and subsequent experience, he made the statement at the 1939 meeting of the Institute that apparently only in schools offering a curriculum in geological engineering or in the geological option of mining engineering curricula could geologists hope to receive the training advocated by Hubbeet.2 In the former study, schools of engineering were excluded because the preparation was known beforehand. The present study aims to consider engineering schools in an effort to determine not only what basic studies are required but what use is made of them in geological courses of the third and fourth years. The present study combined the method of consulting catalogues with a questionnaire. Letters were mailed to officials responsible for supervision of mineral industries curricula requesting information On' (I) the extent to which the engineering preparation of the first two years is actually used in the work of the last two; (2) the extent to which the engineering of the last two years is used in courses in geological engineering or geology; and (3) whether geologists or geological engineers teach descriptively or analytically. Both methods of securing information are open to criticism; the former on the basis of the incomplete information supplied by university catalogues concerning prerequisites and curricula and the latter on the ground that the questions may be phrased poorly or given insufficient consideration by replying officials. Fifty-six questionnaires were mailed and 39 (70 per cent) replies were received. Of the replies, 6 (11.3 per cent) were from colleges of liberal arts unconnected with engineering schools, 11 (20 per cent) were from schools having curricula in geological engineering and 22 (39 per cent) were from departments of mining engineering. The number of replies and their distribution were satisfactory in spite of the receipt of only six from liberal arts colleges. It should be understood that the universities of which the catalogues were examined were not necessarily the same in both compilations. No departments that are admittedly or known to be acting solely as service departments were recorded in the second study. Table I shows that all professional schools require mathematics through calculus, whereas only 7 per cent of the liberal arts curricula expect the same level of preparation; only 73 per cent require trigonometry and 40 per cent college "algebra. The proportion of geological engineering curricula requiring differential equations is higher than mining. All of the engineering schools require general and analytical chemistry, whereas only 77 per cent of liberal arts curricula require general and 18 per cent analytical. Twenty-two per cent of the mining and 40 per cent of the geological engineering

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

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 Donald C. Branford

The place of geophysics in the curriculum of a college or an engineering school has been much discussed. There is uncertainty as to whether the graduate may be called a "geological geophysicist" or a "geophysical geologist." Some have used the term "geophysical engineer." The question of the specialized undergraduate curriculum versus a general undergraduate training in the parent sciences with the addition of cultural electives has been and is still being argued. The literature during the past Io years shows that there are two rather definite schools of thought on this subject. The prospective employer, engaged in active geophysical exploration, visualizes the graduate in terms of the routine work he will do in the field. The school administrator, grounded in many years of tradition in the cultural type of education, visualizes the graduate in terms of his position in a political and cultural society as well as in his work as a professional geophysicist. Both are right and both wrong. A third school of thought, that of the student himself, has been almost totally ignored. It would seem best, for the purpose of this paper, to treat these various points and allied material separately, and then to integrate the conclusions as a set of conditions that should be fulfilled as far as possible in the ideal curriculum. At the end the relationship of our findings to the curriculum that has been tentatively adopted at the University of Pittsburgh will be considered. Divisions in Definition or Field of Geophysics Geophysics is that field of science in which geological and earth problems are solved with the use of physical and chemical techniques. Altogether too much attention has been paid to the artificial separation in this science of the commercial applications from the so-called "pure" or academic geophysics. The only real difference in the two types of work is one of scale of operations. In the commercial field the scale is large in terms of fmancial backing, immediate economic importance, and speed of operations. In the academic field the scale is large in terms of breadth of interests, in eventual economic importance, and length of time allowable for theoretical investigations. In exploration work the scale is small in terms of dimensions, since the methods are applicable only to the outer 20,000 ft. or SO of the earth's crust. In academic work, the student is not pressed for results of immediate economic importance, and therefore can afford to spend more time on problems that seem unimportant at the time. In the sense of background knowledge of the parent sciences necessary to the geophysicist, no essential difference can be found. Physics, chemistry, geology, and mathematics together, and in their proper proportionate amounts, form the matrix from which geophysical ideas and methods may spring.

Jan 1, 1946

By Donald C. Branford

The place of geophysics in the curriculum of a college or an engineering school has been much discussed. There is uncertainty as to whether the graduate may be called a "geological geophysicist" or a "geophysical geologist." Some have used the term "geophysical engineer." The question of the specialized undergraduate curriculum versus a general undergraduate training in the parent sciences with the addition of cultural electives has been and is still being argued. The literature during the past Io years shows that there are two rather definite schools of thought on this subject. The prospective employer, engaged in active geophysical exploration, visualizes the graduate in terms of the routine work he will do in the field. The school administrator, grounded in many years of tradition in the cultural type of education, visualizes the graduate in terms of his position in a political and cultural society as well as in his work as a professional geophysicist. Both are right and both wrong. A third school of thought, that of the student himself, has been almost totally ignored. It would seem best, for the purpose of this paper, to treat these various points and allied material separately, and then to integrate the conclusions as a set of conditions that should be fulfilled as far as possible in the ideal curriculum. At the end the relationship of our findings to the curriculum that has been tentatively adopted at the University of Pittsburgh will be considered. Divisions in Definition or Field of Geophysics Geophysics is that field of science in which geological and earth problems are solved with the use of physical and chemical techniques. Altogether too much attention has been paid to the artificial separation in this science of the commercial applications from the so-called "pure" or academic geophysics. The only real difference in the two types of work is one of scale of operations. In the commercial field the scale is large in terms of fmancial backing, immediate economic importance, and speed of operations. In the academic field the scale is large in terms of breadth of interests, in eventual economic importance, and length of time allowable for theoretical investigations. In exploration work the scale is small in terms of dimensions, since the methods are applicable only to the outer 20,000 ft. or SO of the earth's crust. In academic work, the student is not pressed for results of immediate economic importance, and therefore can afford to spend more time on problems that seem unimportant at the time. In the sense of background knowledge of the parent sciences necessary to the geophysicist, no essential difference can be found. Physics, chemistry, geology, and mathematics together, and in their proper proportionate amounts, form the matrix from which geophysical ideas and methods may spring.

Jan 1, 1946

By W. C. Krumbein

Geological problems are approached from a geometrical (space relations) viewpoint, a kinematical (time sequence) viewpoint, or a dynamical viewpoint. The first two require sound training in conventional geology and in field methods. The third approach requires a solid foundation of chemistry, physics, and mathematics. Modern training for geologists should include close integrltion of basic sciences with geological principles. Introduction Our knowledge of the earth has increased tremendously during the last half century. We know more about its surface configuration, the distribution of its natural resources, the proccssion of living forms that inhabited it in the past, the chemical composition of its oceans, the areal distribution of its surface rocks, the movements of its atmosphere, and so on. Not only do we know more facts about the earth, but we have a better understanding of the processes that take place on and within it, such as the nature of earthquakes, the thermodynamics of the atmosphere, the chemical equilibria involved in the formation of igneous rocks, the mechanics of stream flow, the dynamics of the earth's origin, and so on. Many sciences contributed to the sum total of this knowledge, including such established disciplines as geology, geography, physics, chemistry, astronomy, biology. Out of this accumulation of new knowledge grew also a group of new sciences, such as seismology, oceanography, meteorology, volcanology, hydrology. Collectively these latter are known as the geophysical and geochemical sciences, and to a large extent they began as branches of geology. Until the turn of the century, for example, the study of earthquakes (seismology) was a part of geology, although as early as 1846 Mallet, a physicist, had suggested that the subject could be investigated by elastic-wave theory. Comparatively little progress was made along these lines until the seismograph was developed near the turn of the century; since then, additional earthquake data have accurnul~ted rapidly, but more important, the interpretation of these data essentially has kept pace with their accumulation. In similar fashion, meteorology was generally considered a branch of geology as recently as one or two decades ago. Considerable progress had been made in such aspects as weather forecasting, but the science dates its recent rapid rise from the year 1911, when Bjerknes first applied the principles of dynamics to the analysis of air masses. The rapid development of such disciplines as oceanography, volcanology and hydrology was due in part to the application of principles of chemical equilibrium, of dynamics, and of thermodynamics to earth problems, by men who were essentially physicists or chemists by training. The last half century, therefore, and particularly the last two decades, saw the influx of numerous chemists and physicists into the realm of the earth sciences. In the meantime the main body of geology itself showed a marked growth, and

Jan 1, 1946

By W. C. Krumbein

Geological problems are approached from a geometrical (space relations) viewpoint, a kinematical (time sequence) viewpoint, or a dynamical viewpoint. The first two require sound training in conventional geology and in field methods. The third approach requires a solid foundation of chemistry, physics, and mathematics. Modern training for geologists should include close integrltion of basic sciences with geological principles. Introduction Our knowledge of the earth has increased tremendously during the last half century. We know more about its surface configuration, the distribution of its natural resources, the proccssion of living forms that inhabited it in the past, the chemical composition of its oceans, the areal distribution of its surface rocks, the movements of its atmosphere, and so on. Not only do we know more facts about the earth, but we have a better understanding of the processes that take place on and within it, such as the nature of earthquakes, the thermodynamics of the atmosphere, the chemical equilibria involved in the formation of igneous rocks, the mechanics of stream flow, the dynamics of the earth's origin, and so on. Many sciences contributed to the sum total of this knowledge, including such established disciplines as geology, geography, physics, chemistry, astronomy, biology. Out of this accumulation of new knowledge grew also a group of new sciences, such as seismology, oceanography, meteorology, volcanology, hydrology. Collectively these latter are known as the geophysical and geochemical sciences, and to a large extent they began as branches of geology. Until the turn of the century, for example, the study of earthquakes (seismology) was a part of geology, although as early as 1846 Mallet, a physicist, had suggested that the subject could be investigated by elastic-wave theory. Comparatively little progress was made along these lines until the seismograph was developed near the turn of the century; since then, additional earthquake data have accurnul~ted rapidly, but more important, the interpretation of these data essentially has kept pace with their accumulation. In similar fashion, meteorology was generally considered a branch of geology as recently as one or two decades ago. Considerable progress had been made in such aspects as weather forecasting, but the science dates its recent rapid rise from the year 1911, when Bjerknes first applied the principles of dynamics to the analysis of air masses. The rapid development of such disciplines as oceanography, volcanology and hydrology was due in part to the application of principles of chemical equilibrium, of dynamics, and of thermodynamics to earth problems, by men who were essentially physicists or chemists by training. The last half century, therefore, and particularly the last two decades, saw the influx of numerous chemists and physicists into the realm of the earth sciences. In the meantime the main body of geology itself showed a marked growth, and

Jan 1, 1946

The papers that appear on pages 326 through 367 were presented at two joint meetings of the Mineral Industry Education Division, Geophysics Committee, the American Geophysical Union and the Committee on College Curricula of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, at the A.I.M.E. meeting in New York on Feb. 17 and 18, 1941. At the first meeting, the Mining Geology Committee, the Society of Economic Geologists and the Committee on Applications of Geology of the ilmerican Association of Petroleum Geologists also took part.

Jan 1, 1946

The papers that appear on pages 326 through 367 were presented at two joint meetings of the Mineral Industry Education Division, Geophysics Committee, the American Geophysical Union and the Committee on College Curricula of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, at the A.I.M.E. meeting in New York on Feb. 17 and 18, 1941. At the first meeting, the Mining Geology Committee, the Society of Economic Geologists and the Committee on Applications of Geology of the ilmerican Association of Petroleum Geologists also took part.

Jan 1, 1946

For four years your Committee has been engaged in the study of problems connected with the educational preparation of professional geophysicists. The Present report represents the conclusions drawn from the investigations and deliberations undertaken since it was first organized. These studies have shown that the evolution of geophysics has proceeded along lines that differed from those marking the advance of classical geology. The latter science developed as a descriptive one, dealing with directly observable terrestrial phenomena, and the elementary, rational explanations that could be offered therefor. The fact that these phenomena were also chemical and physical in nature was seldom given more than passing acknowledgment. During the last half century, however, a new approach to problems of terrestrial phenomena has become of greater significance. This new attack has come through the sciences of physics and chemistry, as the people trained therein have investigated the facts of the earth as problems in their respective sciences. This development has been chiefly at the hands of European investigators, and European universities have long recognized it by establishing departments or institutions of geophysics. In the universities of North America, their arbitrary departmentalization into fields of physics, chemistry, astronomy, geology, etc., has prevented the academic recognition of such domains of science as geophysics and geochemistry. In consequence, the development of these subjects in the United States has been largely at the hands of nonacademic institutions, while the universities themselves are evidently in a state of confusion as to how the subject should be handled. In some places an attempt to teach geophysics is made in the physics department, in others in the geology department, in some in the engineering school, and occasionally as a cooperative effort; a Department of Geophysics is seldom found in North America. In some instances, proper academic plan. ning has been precluded by interdepart. mental jealousies, or by lack of appreciation of the significance of the subject. For the background upon which these conclusions are based, the reader is referred to reports previously issued or SPonsored by Your Committee. The "First Report of the A.I.M.E. Mineral Industry Education Division's Committee of Geophysics Education, 1939," summarizes the replies received to question-

Jan 1, 1946