Search Documents

By Arthur F. Taggart

This paper proposes two units (believed to be new) for designating, respectively, capacity and efficiency for primary and intermediate crushers. Capacity Operators know that the tonnage of rock that can be put through a particular crusher in a given time depends primarily upon the crusher setting (open setting for jaw and primary gyratory types; closed setting for cones and rolls), and secondarily on the lithological character of the feed, its maximum size, the amount of fines that it carries, its moisture content, and the method of feeding. The proposed capacity formula states a relationship between all of these factors in one empirical equation, as follows: Tr = TR80K'K" [I] in which Tr, called "reduction tons per hour" is the new capacity unit; T = tons of feed per hour requiring crushing; R80 = "80-per cent reduction ratio"; and K, K', and K" are constants that approximate quantitatively lithological character, moisture content and method of feeding, respectively. T is the hourly weight of material in the feed that is coarser than the coarsest discharge of the crusher. (For marked departures from the normal specific-gravity range—2.5 to 2.7—T should be adjusted to corresponding volumes.) In the crushers under consideration, discharge from the crushing zone is limited by the minimum dimension of a particle. Passage of the particle through a square-mesh screen is limited by its intermediate dimension. Sheppardl has shown that the ratio of maximum: intermediate: minimum average dimensions of broken rock fragments may be taken as about 1.5:=:0,6 for nonslabby rocks such as are normally crushed, while for slabby rocks, such as thin-bedded sedimentaries, foliated schists and gneisses, and the blocky metamorphics, the ratio is of the average order I.3:I:o.3, with the possibility of an even smaller relative value for the thickness. Gaudin2 finds the corresponding ratio for —I50 + 200-mesh pyrite to be I.4: I:0.6. The hourly tonnage of crusher-plant feed, therefore, should be diminished by the amount thereof that would pass a square-mesh screen of which the aperture is S times the crusher setting, where S is a shape factor with the value 1.7 for rocks that break exceptionally cubic; 2 for ores and rocks that exhibit no appreciabie tendency to slabbiness; and 2.5 to 3, or, in exceptional cases, even larger, when the tendency to slabbiness is marked. R80 is the quotient of the theoretical square-mesh aperture that would pass 80 per cent of the feed, divided by the aperture that would pass 80 per cent of the product. It is best determined from screen tests. If, as is usual with primary crushers, a sizing test of feed is not available, the

Jan 1, 1943

By G. G. Gunther, C. L. Boeke

DISCUSSION I. M. Symonds, (Cia. Minera de Penoles, Monterrey, N. L., Mexico)—Messrs. Boeke and Gunther have written most interesting papers describing their zinc de-leading operations. Mr. Gunther was kind enough to show me his operation last fall. Aside from the excellent results, I was most impressed by the ease of control. I had expected a difficult operation requiring careful control and supervision, but found one requiring little attention. The only disappointing fact of the separation is the poor copper recovery in the concentrate of the delead-ing float. The final zinc concentrate still has about 3 pct chalcopyrite, assuming the copper is chalcopyrite, and adversely affects the zinc grade. If the copper mineral is free, the poor recovery is probably due to the high cyanide concentration. Fortunately, about 75 pct of the copper is recovered before the pulp goes to the zinc circuit. Mr. Gunther's remarks about proper cyanide to zinc sulphate ratios cannot be overemphasized. Although our experience has been confined mostly to the conventional lead-zinc separation, we have found these ratios most important, and more important in the mill than in the laboratory. The laboratory appears to give optimum results over a wider range of reagent control than the mill, especially in regard to the effect of cyanide. In handling relatively high grade ores in the mill we usually find that ratios of cyanide to zinc sulphate of 1 to 10 or 20 or higher work best. Where there is a substantial amount of chalcopyrite present it has been noted that cyanide in the range of 0.02 to 0.10 lb per ton of ore is often beneficial in zinc rejection and possibly in copper recovery in the lead concentrate, while larger amounts, say 0.20 to 0.25 lb per ton, will float more zinc and cause a serious rejection of chalcopyrite. On an ore with 15 to 20 pct zinc content we have had to use 0.8 to 1.2 pounds of zinc sulphate per ton of ore with the above cyanide to obtain optimum results. Some time ago we made a laboratory study following Parral and Santa Barbara practice on an ore which had never a very satisfactory rejection of zinc in the lead concentrate. The results were not encouraging and a mill test was not run. Since then the study has been reopened using in the laboratory fresh zinc concentrate from the mill instead of one made in the laboratory. A reasonably clean lead float from the zinc concentrate was obtained. It has been checked several times and each time the zinc concentrate made in the mill responds and the one made in the labora-

Jan 1, 1953

by their overdogmatic picture of geology and their resulting drastic oversimplification and idealization of geologic features. I am in hearty disagreement with the recommendation that geophysics should be done by cooperative work between a geologist and a geophysi-cist. That arrangement would be comparable to doing petrography by having a physicist at the microscope and a geologist sitting by his side. The interpretation of the geological significance of geophysical data can be done efficiently only by a physicist who has become also a good geologist or by a geologist who is also a good geophysicist. Less Well-trained Men The rank and file, composing perhaps two-thirds of the personnel of exploratory geophysics, is not, and should not be, composed of highly trained men. The routine, stereotyped character of the work and the impossibility of promotion of more than a few from these lower ranks even under the best circumstances justify companies in filling the bulk of these rank and file positions with men having only a bachelor's degree at the most. There can be a wide range of training for such positions, although certain lines of study are preferred for certain kinds of work, and different employers have different preferences. For work in gravitational and magnetic prospecting, first preference will be for men having geological training and second for men with civil engineering training. In seismic work, men with geological training are preferred by some employers for computers; physicists, electrical engineers and all whose technical education has covered radio circuits are preferred for the other technical positions. Collegiate training in geophysical prospecting brings no preference and by many employers is given a slightly inferior rating. One large company seldom hires men who have just graduated with a major in geophysical prospecting. This prejudice is based on the reasoning that much of what is learned in college is obsolete or obsolescent, that most of the techniques learned in college will have to be unlearned, because different from those used by the employing company, and that in the long run additional courses in basic physics, mathematics and geology are of more value to a man than the courses on geophysical prospecting. DISCUSSION [This discussion refers to the five papers beginning on page 23 and ending on page 74.1 L. W. Blau,* Houston, Texas.—I have had some rather sad experiences with forecasting. For example, I could not foresee 10 years ago my present occupation, and I do not profess to be able to look ahead 10 years and tell anyone what he will be doing then. Referring to the point raised in the discussion, I do not know, for example, what the price of oil will be 10 years from now. If an appreciable number of

Jan 1, 1940

By J. B. Clemmer, F. D. DeVaney, H. A. Doerner

PRODUCTION of magnesium metal in the United States during the past decade has increased from less than 6oo,ooo lb. in 1928 to more than 4,800,000 lb. in 1938.1 The growing industry has stimulated interest in methods of production and in sources of raw material. All of the present domestic production is from brines. However, the availability of large tonnages of magnesite in the state of Washington, together with the possibility of cheap power, have created interest in the utilization of magnesite for the production of magnesium metal as well as for other purposes. Magnesite, the carbonate of magnesium (MgCO3), usually is associated with limestone (CaCO3) and dolomite (MgCO3CaCO3). It occurs in crystalline and microcrystalline (sometimes termed amorphous) forms.2 The more common crystalline mineral is found in various shades of white, gray, yellow and brown, the colors being due to impurities, chiefly iron. Magnesite has a hardness of 3.5 to 4.5 and a specific gravity of 3.0 to 3.1. It forms rhombohedral crystals in the hexagonal system, having a vitreous, pearly luster. The quarries and mines of the Northwest Magnesite Co. near Chewelah, Wash., are large producers of magnesite for refractories. The deposits are extensive, some veins being hundreds of feet wide. The boundaries of the veins are indefinite, and the magnesite is interfingered with dolomite. Calcite, talc, serpentine, quartz and shale are disseminated through the deposits. The quality of the ore cannot be determined by appearance or by simple tests; chemical analysis is required. These features make it difficult to determine the boundaries or total quantity of workable ore.3 Only the higher-grade ores are mined, and a considerable proportion of the magnesite content is discarded by hand-sorting and log-washing methods. After calcining, the sorted product meets the specifications for usual refractory material, as it contains approximately 81 per cent MgO, 7 per cent Si02, 6 per cent CaO and 6 per cent Fe203 + A1203. A sample of the reject material had the following analysis after calcining: 65.4 per cent MgO, 6.3 CaO, 21.1 Si02 and 6.5 R203. The percentage reported as R203 includes compounds whose chlorides are acid-soluble but give precipitates in ammoniacal solution that are ignited and weighed. The more common constituents are Fe203, A1203 and Ti02. The sorted magnesite product is not the best grade, even for refractory purposes, and leaves much to be desired for a reduction process. The rejected material contains a large proportion of magnesite. It is apparent that an effective concentration method would yield a higher recovery and a better product. In general, the refractory grade is not suitably pure for other uses. Recent developments in the production of

Jan 1, 1940

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 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 G. W. Thompson

G. W. THOMPSON,* Brooklyn, N. Y.-This subject has two aspects, neither of-which can be ignored: these are the economic aspect and the technical aspect. Under ordinary conditions, economic law will take care of the conservation of tin. Under present conditions it seems desirable that economic law should still be permitted to operate as far as is practicable. It is true that this law operates rather slowly, and that under war conditions it cannot be depended upon to give our Government the supply it immediately needs. There should, therefore, be a designation of the essential industries by the Government, and tin should be supplied for those needs, letting the non-essential industries take what is left. At the same time, information ought to be forthcoming as to how tin can be conserved; with tin selling at 80 c. per pound, more or less, it is to the interest of every consumer to get the best information he can as to how he can save tin. Economic law would properly punish those who do not study their own interests in this way. I deprecate, therefore, any centralized socialistic effort toward avoiding penalties through failure to observe and obey economic law. In saying this, however, I am not unmindful that it is desirable for our Government to take such control of the tin situation as may be necessary to the prosecution of the war, practically regardless of the effect of such action upon individual industry, which should studiously seek to adjust itself to the new condition. The Government should promulgate such technical information as it can collect, showing how tin can be conserved, and should urge upon every consumer the exercise of his common sense in self-protection. There is very little danger of any one attempting to hoard or corner tin, in the present state of the market. Most consumers will be glad to live from hand to mouth, covering their sales by purchases, or vice versa. As to the technical aspects: Tin and tin alloys are used to give certain practical and also certain artistic results. The practical factors are those involved in proper adhesion, continuity of surface, protection, the right degree of hardness, proper working qualities, etc. The artistic results are those that appeal purely to the eye or to our cultivated sense of what is desirable. There is no doubt that a great deal of tin could be saved if there were not a demand for certain pleasing effects. How can this saving be brought about? The users of tin hearing alloys are not the only ones involved in this question. The manufacturers of solder and babbitt have for a long time sought to give certain appearances to their fabricated bars and ingots in order to make them more salable. The user of a solder is very apt to judge of its working qualities by the appearance of the bar; the same thing is true with regard to babbitts. Under ordinary conditions, manufacturers are justified in trying to

Jan 12, 1918

By Maurice Rey, H. Beavers

THROUGH circumstances connected with the war, the senior author lost his records, therefore it has been impossible to include numerical data in this paper. The arsenical quicksilver ore investigated had been roasted, with poor metallurgical results. The vapor-tension temperature curves of mercury and arsenious trioxide are similar, and the arsenical compound hampers the coalescence of mercury drops in the condenser and is the cause of large stack losses. The ore was a gray limestone carrying small amounts of carbon and mineralized with cinnabar and two arsenic minerals, realgar (As2S2) and arsenopyrite (FeAsS). The proportion of realgar often exceeded that of cinnabar; the proportion of arsenopyrite was smaller. The grade of the ore varied between 0.8 and 4 per cent Hg. The problem was to make a high-grade mercury concentrate, as free from arsenic as possible. The water used throughout the testing was hard, having a pH of about 8. FLOTATION OF REALGAR Realgar showed a very strong tendency to float. It formed a film at the surface of the pulp and floated in abundance with only pine oil. Therefore an attempt was made to float the realgar before the cinnabar, but this was not very successful; the percentage of mercury in the realgar concentrate could never be brought below 2 or 3 per cent. Cinnabar slimed easily and floated with pine oil, so that some of it always accompanied the realgar. There was also the question of the cinnabar-arsenopyrite separation. On further investigation it was found that realgar can be floated not only with pine oil but even better with a combination of hydrocarbons and pine oil. Washing the ore with ether revealed that it contained hydrocarbons, which helped to float the realgar. In this connection it belongs to the same class as carbon, sulphur and talc. It can be floated also with a xanthate, when activated by a heavy-metal salt. The conditions favoring the two types of flotation are opposed, as activation by a copper salt facilitates xanthate flotation (in fact, is even necessary to it), whereas it hinders pine oil and petroleum flotation. One type of flotation can be termed nonpolar and the other polar, a distinction that has been stressed in a previous paper.1 DEPRESSION OF REALGAR AND FLOTATION OF CINNABAR 'Many chemicals were tested in an attempt to float the cinnabar and depress the realgar. Finally starch rendered soluble with caustic soda was tried, also several grades of commercial soluble starch, and dextrin was found to be the best and the most convenient reagent. Several of these starch preparations have a strong flocculating effect on the pulp, which is a distinct disadvantage. Dextrin, with its low flocculating power, is excellent. It is noteworthy that starch preparations are also depressants for carbon and talc, so that the fact apparently has a general

Jan 1, 1941

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 A. U. Seybolt

DURING the course of experiments involving oxygen equilibrations with a high-purity Pd-5 at. pct Rh alloy, the appearance of a subscale was noted. Most of the heat treatments in a pure oxygen atmosphere were performed at 900°C. The presence of the subscale was noted when the oxygen partial pressure was in excess of approximately 95 mm, up to 1 atm, the highest pressure used. According to available thermodynamic information' on the free energy of formation of Rh2O3 (the only reliably reported solid oxide of rhodium), this oxide should not be stable under these conditions, nor, of course, any oxide of palladium. Extraction of the subscale from the matrix was affected by treatment with aqua regia, and the resulting X-ray diffraction powder pattern is shown in Table I. This pattern is not that of Rh2O3, nor that of any known rhodium or palladium oxide. It can be indexed on a hexagonal lattice with a. = 5.22Å and co = 6.0Å. In addition to this unknown material, there was a weak Rh2O3 pattern. An X-ray fluorescence analysis of the powder gave 3214 palladium counts per sec and 5381 rhodium counts per sec, thus indicating the likelihood of a double oxide of palladium and rhodium. In view of the fact that the above result was obtained on a single sample, it is perhaps best not to insist upon the above ratio of about 0.6, but possibly to tentatively assume 0.5 or 1/1. The small amount of Rh2O3 in the X-ray pattern might have occurred on cooling, and it seems possible that the double oxide, below some temperature level, is not as stable as Rh2O3. To examine this point, some of the extracted double oxide was heated on a sheet of pure palladium in air at 900°C, and allowed to furnace-cool over a period of several hours. The X-ray diffraction pattern of the powder showed approximately the same intensity of Rh2O3 and the "hexagonal" oxide as before, but, in addition, a rather faint pattern of another crystalline species made its appearance. This finding again suggests partial transformation of the major (double) oxide to other oxides on cooling from 900°C. Application of the phase rule shows that only one equilibrium oxide (subscale) could have been present at temperature. Vacuum-fusion, oxygen analysis of the extracted subscale showed 7.7 ± 0.7 pct O. Combining this information with that of the X-ray fluorescence analysis suggests the formula PdRhO. This compound should have an oxygen content of 7.07 pct, which is within the range of error of the oxygen analysis. However, until a more careful stoichiometric study is made, it is suggested that the formula be written

Jan 1, 1965

By J. F. Myers, F. M. Lewis

C. G. McLACHLAN*-I have read this paper with considerable interest and wish to congratulate the authors on the care with which they carried out their experiments and for the detailed sizing data they have presented. 011 the other hand I do not feel that these data establish their contention that "with other factors the same, the work accomplished in a fine crushing rod mill is directly proportional to the rotating speed." My reason for making this statement is that their conclusion is based on the percentage of minus 65 mesh material produced at each of the speeds at which their tests were run. The rod mill is, however, not a fine grinding machine and therefore figures based on minus 65 mesh production are figures outside the range at which it operates to best advantage. Further, if rod mill performance is to be judged on the production of such material it should have been established that a rod mill will produce it as effectively as a ball mill. To check this last point I have gone over some of the rod and ball mill grind-ing figures for our Waite-Atnulet operation and find that the ball mill at that property produces more minus 65 mesh material per horsepower than the rod mill. Moreover, this comparison is even more favorable to the ball mill if it is limited to minus 100 mesh production. It therefore seems to me that the most satisfactory basis on which to try to com-pare the performance of the rod mill in the present case is by taking a weighted average of all the new surface produced per horsepower. W. H. Coghill3 has published data which can be applied to the sizing figures presented by the authors, and if this is done the units of new surface per horsepower produced in the Tennessee tests are as follows: Admittedly the increment of increase in new surface per horsepower shown in the foregoing figures is not great, but its trend is nevertheless definitely in favor of slower speed operation, for the conditions under which these particular tests were run. I also feel that some information regarding liner contour should have been given as I think it will be found that a mill which is equipped with liners which lift the rod load can be run at a slower speed than a mill in which the liners are comparatively smooth. J. F. MYERS and F. M. LEWIS (authors' reply)—The position taken by Mr. McLachlan is to be respected even though we are all aware of the faults of surface considerations. As he points out. the increment of increase is very small. It is so small in fact that for all practical purposes it does not conflict with the conclusions of the paper. The authors appreciate Mr. McLachlan's comprehensive study of the data.

Jan 1, 1950

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 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 J. B. Macelwane

GEOPHYSICS differs from geology and physics in many respects. In the first place, geophysics is a complex science embracing the fields of seismology, geomagnetism, geoelectricity, geodesy, meteorology, volcanology, 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 laboratory 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 paleontologistneeds 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 hydrologist, or an exploration geophysicist? 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, 1941

By Marsh S. Watson, Robert A. Howard

An electrolytic model study has been made of the relative productivity of perforated casing. The results show that the relative productivity is roughly one-half to two-thirds of that predicted from point-sink calculations. This discrepancy can he satisfactorily explained on the basis of casing interference. The relative productivity was found to he insensitive to spatial arrangement of the perforations. INTRODUCTION The relative productivity of wells with perforated casing has been treated mathematically by Muskat.' In his treatment the perforations are represented by small spheres, thus enabling him to approximate the flow by that to point sinks. By neglecting interference between the flow into the various spheres representing the perforations, one may deduce the approximate formula Qu 1/rp - 1/rw • (1) I + b/2n _________ 2n In re/rw Where Q is the flow rate into spherical sinks located in the median plane of the sand laver Qo is the open hole flow rate (uncased hole of radius rw) b is the thickness of sand layer under consideration (always one foot in this paper) n is the number of spherical sinks in the sand layer rp is the radius of a spherical sink rw is the well radius re is the drainage radius of the well. Fig. 1 is a comparison of values calculated from equation (1) with Mus-kat's values. It will be observed that the approximate values are in error by less than 21/2 per cent. The disturbing effect of the casing on the flow line; is not explicitly taken into account by Muskat, but he reasons that interference between the flow pat- terns from the various point sinks will result in a negligible flow in the region within the well radius, and that no appreciable error will result from not explicitly excluding flow from this region. This line of reasoning is open to question, however, as the flow impedance, in the immediate vicinity of the well, of a hemispherical cavity in contact with an opening in the casing is twice that of a spherical sink in a continuous sand layer. There will be a difference, moveover, between the flow into a hemispherical cavity and that into a circular hole in the casing. .This latter difference can best be appreciated by comparing the flow from a semi-infinite medium into a hemispherical cavity at the edge of the medium with the flow out of a circular opening of the same radius as the hemisphere and which is also on the edge of the medium. In this case2 ------= —2, showing that the difference in flow rates into differently shaped cavities is quite appreciable. It was the purpose of the investigation reported here to determine to what extent flow into circular perforations in casing departs from the values calculated by Muskat. For this purpose an electrolytic model was used.

Jan 1, 1950

By Maurice Rey, H. Brevers

THROUGH circumstances connected with the war, the senior author lost his records therefore it has been impossible to include numerical data in this paper. The arsenical quicksilver ore investigated had been roasted, with poor metallurgical results. The vapor-tension temperature curves of mercury and arsenious trioxide are similar, and the arsenical compound hampers the coalescence of mercury drops in the condenser and is the cause of large stack losses. The ore was a gray limestone carrying small amounts of carbon and mineralized with cinnabar and two arsenic minerals, realgar (As2S2) and arsenopyrite (FeAsS). The proportion of realgar often exceeded that of cinnabar; the proportion of arsenopyrite was smaller. The grade of the ore varied between 0.8 and 4 per cent Hg. The problem was to make a high-grade mercury concentrate, as free from arsenic as possible. The water used throughout the testing was hard, having a pH- of about 8. FLOTATION OF REALGAR Realgar showed a very strong tendency to float. It formed a film at the surface of the pulp and floated in abundance with only pine oil. Therefore an attempt was made to float the realgar before the cinnabar, but this was not very successful; the percentage of mercury in the realgar concentrate could never be brought below 2 or 3 per cent. Cinnabar slimed easily and floated with pine oil, so that some of it always accompanied the realgar. There was also the question of the cinnabar-arsenopyrite separation. On further investigation it was found that realgar can be floated not only with pine oil but even better with a combination of hydrocarbons and pine oil. Washing the ore with ether revealed that it contained hydrocarbons, which helped to float the realgar. In this connection it belongs to the same class as carbon, sulphur and talc. It can be floated also with a xanthate, when activated by a heavy-metal salt. The conditions favoring the two types of flotation are opposed, as activation by a copper salt facilitates xanthate flotation (in fact, is even necessary to it), whereas it hinders pine oil and petroleum flotation. One type of flotation can be termed nonpolar and the other polar, a distinction that has been stressed in a previous paper. DEPRESSION OF REALGAR AND FLOTATION OF CINNABAR Many chemicals were tested in an attempt to float the cinnabar and depress the realgar. Finally starch rendered soluble with caustic soda was tried, also several grades of commercial soluble starch, and dextrin was found to be the best and the most convenient reagent. Several of these starch preparations have a strong flocculating effect on the pulp, which is a distinct disadvantage. Dextrin, with its low flocculating power, is excellent. It is noteworthy that starch preparations are also depressants for carbon and talc, so that the fact apparently has a general

Jan 1, 1941

By M. F. Trice

Pyrophyllite is a hydrous aluminum silicate (A1²Si4O10(OH)²)1 that, occurs in both the foliated and the massive forms. The foliated variety resembles talc in that it has a greasy feel, a pearly luster, perfect basal cleavage, and usually is white, although in some deposits apple green, gray, brown, russet, and nearly black specimens may be found. The massive deposits of pyrophyllite yield pearl gray to light tan aggregates, some of which are so friable that they may be crushed with the hands into a fine gritty powder. Frequently specimens of the massive variety are studded with crystals of radial structure. The mineral has a specific gravity of about 2.7 and a hardness of 1 on Mohs' scale.' The chemical composition of commercial pyrophyllite reflects the mineralogy of the deposits, which, according to Stuckey12 contain pyrophyllite and quartz, together with chloritoid, sericite, and a few other minerals of negligible importance. The latter, he says, ('are noticed in but small quantities to the extent they might occur as accessory constituents of an igneous rock or as products of regional metamorphism or weathering. . . . Quartz is abundant everywhere except in the very best grades of pyrophyllite." Analyses of specimens from several deposits are listed in Table 1, showing that the silica content varies from 57 to 73 per cent and the alumina from 22 to 33 per cent. Oxides of iron and the alkaline metals are collectively present, with one exception, to an extent of about 1 to 1.5 per cent. Sources At present, North Carolina is the only commercial source of pyrophyllite, although the mineral has been found in small quantities in many parts of the world. The North Carolina deposits are in the "Carolina Slate Belt," which traverses the center of the state in a southwesterly direction. This belt varies from 8 to 50 miles in width. Two major deposits of pyrophyllite lie along its eastern boundary, in what is known as the Deep

Jan 1, 1942

By F. M. Lewis, J. F. Myers

The selection of the proper type of flotation machine involves the consideration of a wide variety of factors. Under any condition, all types of machines will promote some kind of separation. Obviously, the correct way of deciding which type of machine is best suited for a particular problem would be to set up all types of machines and test them out in a competitive manner, but the vast number of small concentrating plants are unable to make such complete and exhaustive tests. The experience of the authors of this paper indicates that if all the factors involved in any particular problem can be determined, and if all the flotation-machine characteristics are understood, some basis for selection could be arrived at other than actual comparison. This paper is presented to show how the process factors and machine characteristics have been combined at the mills of the Tennessee Copper Co. from studies of several types of flotation machines. At the two mills of the Tennessee Copper Co. in the Ducktown Basin of Tennessee, four distinct flotation separations are made on the complex sulphide ore. Three different concentrates are produced from the ore—in the order of their importance: iron concentrate, copper concentrate, and zinc concentrate. Four different types of flotation machines are used. The selection of these four machines, for the plant operation, was based upon the study and operating experience of the machine units shown in the following list: Fagergren machine; square cell, size 56 inches Fagergren machine; level type, size 56 inches Denver machine; conical disk impeller, size 24 inches Denver machine; receded disk impeller, size 24 inches Minerals Separation Sub-A, size 24 inches Munro-Pearse deep cell, pneumatic Southwestern air machine, Hunt principle To date the study of flotation machines has been confined almost entirely to the rougher circuits. The various cleaning operations, being relatively a much simpler matter, have not been investigated so thoroughly. Table I shows a typical analysis of the two ores as well as of the mineral content.

Jan 1, 1947

By S. LeFevre

, The solution of the housing and sanitation problem in mining communities, keeping in view both economic and humanitarian aspects, demands the best thought of the management of such enterprises. Upon the solution depend the health and comfort of the employee and his family, and as a consequence his contentment and efficiency. The following description covcrs briefly the methods installed for Witherbee, Sherman & Co. The operation of the system has been for about two years under the direct supervision of T. A. Hammond, Land Agent, and I am indebted to him for a compilation of the results. Sanitation The sanitary service covers 238 tenements. The installation cost was about $22 per tenement, as follows: Privy, $15; privy box, $3; proportion of incinerator cost, $2; garbage can, $2. The operating cost is $1 per month for each tenement. In considering the installation of an ordinary village system of water supply and sewerage two difficulties were encountered: First, lack of a sufficient quantity of water; there is no stream large enough, as Mineville is situated very close to the divide between the Lake Champlain and Hudson River watersheds. A storage reservoir was tried, but the only location available, among glacial hills, would not hold water. Second, the expense of digging ditches for the distribution of water and sewer pipes is so great as to be prohibitive; Mineville is built chiefly in a valley covered in the bottom with drift, in this case a combination of boulders and hard pan. Digging in this material costs 80c. to $1 per cubic yard, and pipes must be placed 41/2 ft. down to be below frost. The houses are scattered along 4 miles of streets, the oldest having been built in the original forest 65 years ago. The newer houses have gone up a few at a time wherevcr a clear space could be found and the slopes were not too steep. This has advantages, as it separates the dwellings into

Jan 1, 1915

By John Birkinbine

The experience of the past five years has furnished opportunities to study and to partially explain the operation and some of the causes of the short blast of Warwick Furnace at Pottstown, Pennsylvania, as described in the paper read at the Lake Superior Meeting, in August, 1880.* The many inquiries concerning the details of furnace operation which followed the publication of the paper, and the expressed desire of furnace managers to be informed as to future operations of this plant, have encouraged the preparation of the following data. To make the record continuous, and add to the value of both contributions, the present paper commences where the review of a short blast of Warwick Furnace ended, and includes the data of another short blast of two months, and a subsequent continuous campaign of nearly five years, which, by comparison, we shall designate as "the long blast." Frequent visits to the plant in the five years, during which its operation could be studied, and correspondence with the manager, Mr. Edgar S. Cook, have given a knowledge as to general features and details, and the courtesy of the officers of the Company which has given free access to the books of record permits the presentation of data which it is believed will be welcomed by furnace managers. Interest will undoubtedly be increased by the remarkable results which Mr. Cook has achieved chiefly with anthracite coal in a furnace whose details of construction will scarcely be generally admitted as embodying advanced ideas, its height being but 55 feet, with a bosh diameter of 15 feet 6 inches, its bosh-slope comparatively flat, its crucible smaller than the average, and the heat of the blast never reaching 1000' Fahrenheit. At present writing the credit of the best anthracite blast-furnace practice recorded in our Transactions is conceded to be that pursued by Mr. Fackenthal, at the Durham furnace, and Mr. Cook, at War-

Jan 1, 1886