Search Documents

By F. C. von der Weid

The mining district of Sao Fidelis, in the northern part of the State of Rio de Janeiro, is situated on the Paraiba River, where it crosses the Serra do Mar (Mountain of the Sea), in the center of a mountainous country having numerous graphitic outcrops. For a long time, these outcrops were irregularly explored by local people, who had little means and no technical advice. A few years ago, the Cia. Brasileira de Minerasgo de Grafite took over the control of some of the more important outcrops and entrusted to me the task of studying the ores and establishing a flowsheet for a pilot plant to be situated in São Fidelis—the ore to be concentrated being mostly of a very high grade. Mineralization and Ores The rocks of the district are mostly gneiss and crystalline schists, with occasional interstratification of dolomitic limestone belonging to the Archean Brazilian Fundamental Complex. The general direction of the beds is roughly between 60" and 80°E., with variable dip, generally nearly vertical. Mostly, direction and dip of the graphitic outcrops is concordant with the embanking gneisses or schists. These outcrops seem to be aligned in two or three parallel zones (Pádua, São Fidelis, Mac- abu), the Sao Fidelis zone being the best known and the most important to date. Two outcrops of the São Fidelis zone, Saudade and Sao Benedito, are now being exploited. Mining has been carried out, so far, on a small scale. The mineralization consists of a vein of nearly massive graphite in a very compact, partially granitized gneiss, with vertical dip. The vein is most irregular, with nests and lenses irregularly distributed along the fracture plane. The ore consists chiefly (particularly in Sao Benedito) of massive graphite appearing and disappearing along the main direction of the vein, forming a succession of irregular lenses in a sort of rosary design. The average width is more or less one foot, with variations from zero to 6 feet. The lode minerals are quartz, a little feldspar and garnet (the latter having its origin perhaps in the embedding gneisses), with rare ferruginous clays on the outcrops. In Saudade a little pyrite, pyrrhotite and chalcopyrite is found occasionally, as well as a carbonaceous mineral, very light, black and shiny, with conchoidal fracture, looking like a sort of jet. The composition of this mineral has not yet been established, but it seems to be very complex. The mineralization seems to be hydro-thermal at a rather low temperature, perhaps mesothermal. The paragenesis, according to samples from Saudade, seems to be as follows, the earlier minerals being listed first: pyrrhotite, pyrite, chalcopyrite, with quartz concomitant to the three and graphite formed later. Age of the mineralization is still uncertain, owing to the very in-

Jan 1, 1948

By R. W. Gurry

Thermodynamic calculations indicate that boron is a better deoxidizer than silicon but probably is not quite as effective as aluminum. Boron should, therefore, be readily oxidized out of the open-hearth bath, which implies that it is not recovered in significant concentration from any scrap charged; also that, if added in the ladle, it tends to oxidize out during teeming unless protected by the presence of a better deoxidizing agent. These conclusions do not apply to liquid cast iron, in which the oxygen content is much lower than in liquid steel. The possibility of conserving certain strategic alloying elements widely used in steelmaking, notably manganese, chromium and molybdenum, by the use of boron, which in small concentration appears to be extraordinarily effective in promoting hardenability, raises a question as to what extent any boron present in the scrap charged into the open hearth is oxidized out during melting and subsequent refining. This question is significant because the optimum concentration of boron in the finished steel, which is fairly critical, would be very difficult to attain if the boron in the charge were largely retained in the metal. Moreover, unless boron is substantially eliminated in the open-hearth process its use on a large scale would eventually make it impossible to produce boron-free steel except by restricting the charge to virgin material. There is at present, unfortunately, virtually no satisfactory direct evidence to provide an answer to this question; but there are indications from practice that boron is oxidized out in the open hearth in the production of medium or low-carbon steel, although it may be retained if the carbon content remains fairly high; that is, if the oxygen is kept fairly low. In the absence of direct data, it is necessary to rely upon the indications of indirect evidence, the best approach now available being a thermodynamic calculation of the deoxidizing power of boron in liquid steel by the general method used so successfully by Chipman1 in his study of the reactions in the open-hearth process. The thermal data for boron, upon which such a calculation must be based, are reasonably satisfactory; the only quantities not directly determined are the entropy of melting of boron, the activity coefficient of boron in liquid steel, and the activity coefficient of B2O3in an open-hearth slag; but these values may be estimated with ample accuracy. The results of this calculation, which is presented later, are given in Table I, together with corresponding data for other deoxidizing elements. This table shows the calculated residual content of oxygen in equilibrium with different residual concentrations of the deoxidizer in the metal;

Jan 1, 1944

By Samuel E. Doak

The utilization of rotary kilns, of the well-known cement type, for the preparation of iron ores for the blast furnace, has become of considerable economic importance within the past 10 years in certain localities, notably those where the native ores are lean. Such kilns may be used simply for the agglomeration of ores too fine to be charged into the blast furnace (i.e., ores whose, loss in the dust catchers is excessive, and whose fineness is detrimental to the working of the furnace), or for the desulphurization of lump and fine ores the sulphur content of which does not exceed 6 or 7 per cent. The desulphurizing action can be combined with that of agglomeration provided the kiln is sufficiently large. Other processes have been developed for the same purpose, but while I am not able to draw a comparison between them by reason of lack of sufficient data, it is safe to say that the kiln, if properly dimensioned for the character of ore to be treated, will compare favorably in its results, both as to economy and quality of product, with any other process. It is not, however, as well adapted for the treatment of flue dust as is a sintering operation, on account of the large percentage of fine coke contained therein. Any combustible entering the kiln at its feed end renders the process very much more expensive and unsatisfactory on account of the difficulty of controlling the temperature, also because of the rapidity with which long "rings" form, due to the increased heat at the cooler end of the kiln. The greatest value of the kiln at present is in the treatment of pyrites cinder; that is, the residue from pyrites ore after the extraction of the greater part of the sulphur. This cinder, while high in iron content, has too much sulphur remaining in it to be allowed to form a large part of the blast-furnace burden, without further treatment. It will range in metallic iron from 42 per cent., representing a very low-grade cinder from a domestic pyrites, to 64 per cent. of the residue from the best Spanish ore, and the corresponding silica content will vary from the maximum of about 25 per cent. to 11/2 per cent. The residual sulphur depends largely on the type of burner used in the original desulphurization. In general, the leanest original ores retain the greatest amounts of sulphur. In modern practice the percentage of sulphur in the cinder is rarely as great as six, and seldom lower than one and one-half. Average analyses for iron, silica, and sulphur of the cinders that have come under my personal observation are as follows:

Jan 1, 1916

By H. L. Talbot, A. J. Hall, R. S. Young

A METHOD for the chemical differentiation of oxidized cobalt from sulphide cobalt in complex mine and concentrator products is of considerable interest to a number of mining companies throughout the world. At Rhokana Corporation, in Northern Rhodesia, for instance, cobalt is found chiefly in the sulphide form, as carrollite, but a cobalt oxide mineral also occurs irregularly underground, and relatively small quantities in the mill feed from time to time are difficult to detect it visually at the concentrator. The oxide cobalt is not amenable to the sulphide flotation process used at Rhokana and nearly all of it passes into the tailing. The occasional. period when high tailing losses occur with no appreciable change in the cobalt content of the mill feed has naturally been disturbing to the concentrator staff, who had no means of determining whether an influx of cobalt oxide ore or laxity on the part of the mill flotation operators were responsible for these results. A procedure for determining oxidized copper minerals, based on their solubility in dilute sulphuric acid saturated with SO2, has been used for many years in the copper industry. In the presence of cuprite the procedure fails, but otherwise it gives results quite satisfactory for control purposes. Empirical methods for determining oxidized forms of zinc and lead have been proposed, but they are generally unsatisfactory except in isolated cases of a very simple ore. No published procedure for determining oxidized forms of cobalt or similar elements has come to the authors' notice. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE There are obviously two alternatives in attacking a problem of this nature. One is to employ a solvent for oxide cobalt that will not dissolve cobalt sulphide. The other is, to find a substance capable of oxidizing the cobalt sulphide to sulphate, which of course is water-soluble and can then be leached from the water-insoluble oxide cobalt. A representative sample of Rhokana cobalt oxide ore was secured, ground to minus 200-mesh, and carefully rolled to furnish a standard sample for this work. The analysis of this material gave the following percentages: Co, 0.55; Cu, 1.64; Fe, 2.98; S, 0.08; SiO2, 41.42; A1203, 11.20; CaO, 13.82; MgO, 3.80. As a source of cobalt sulphide a similar large sample of carrollite was prepared, analyzing Co, 23.36 per cent; Cu, 27.32; and S, 31.13. This sample of course was not pure carrollite, but was the best obtainable in quantities sufficient for a standard intended for considerable work. It was a pure sulphide sample, microscopic examination showing only carrollite, a little bornite, and gangue, with no visible sign of oxidized ore present. A wide variety of reagents were used in an effort to selectively dissolve oxide cobalt or to oxidize sulphide cobalt to

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 A. A. Jr. Smith, J. S. Smart

Numerous investigations of the effects of the various impurities common to commercial coppers have been published, and the data have found wide use in industry. Naturally, emphasis has been placed on the oxygen-bearing coppers of the tough-pitch variety, but need is now evident for data covering the oxygen-free condition as well. Furthermore, relatively few of the important reactions between oxygen and the various impurities are well understood, and often the data at hand are not applicable to the low concentrations encountered in commercial coppers. This paper presents the changes in conductivity and softening temperature derived from individual additions of the group VIII triad, iron, cobalt and nickel, to high-purity copper, and constitutes a portion of the copper-research program being conducted at the Central Research Laboratory of the American Smelting and Refining Co. The method of preparation of high-purity copper and its alloys in either the oxygen-free or oxygen-bearing form has been described previous1y.l The purity of this material, and the methods developed to produce it, provide the means for direct investigation of the very low concentration range in which the various impurities generally exist in commercial coppers. The usual necessity for extrapolation to this range using the results obtained from higher concentrations, and the interfering effects of extraneous impurities, are thus simultaneously circumvented. Since previously published data have adequately presented the effects of higher concentrations of iron, cobalt and nickel, the present investigation has been confined to the composition range o to 0.05 per cent. All alloys were initially prepared in the form of oxygen-free continuous cast rod, the weighed alloying additions in suitable form being charged with the pure copper to the continuous casting crucible. The best of the available high-purity alloying materials were used, and spectrographic analyses confirmed the absence of interfering elements from the alloys formed. Each series was compounded in the direction of increasing concentration, starting with pure copper in a new crucible and finishing with the 0.05 per cent alloy. Composition was closely controlled by adding the alloying element in the form of a carefully compounded and analyzed master alloy rendered uniform by continuous casting. The accuracy of this method of synihesis was proved by chemical analysis of the more concentrated alloys, and, accordingly, there is every reason to credit the stated composition of the very dilute alloys in the range where chemical analysis becomes highly uncertain. Oxygen-free samples for measurements of conductivity and softening temperature Were obtained by drawing the continuous cast rod to wire of 0.08I-in. diameter. employing a number of intermediate anneals to refine the grain structure. The

Jan 1, 1942

By J. K. Stanley

It has been known for many years that the magnetic properties of a ferromagnetic material are very sensitive to internal strain. Any structure-sensitive property such as ferromagnetism, which is a function of the regularity of the atomic arrangement, and discontinuities such as grain boundaries must show deviations from an equilibrium state when the regularity of the lattice is disturbed. Experience has shown that such distortions have a marked effect on the magnetic properties of a ferromagnetic material. The purpose of this paper is to show the feasibility of using magnetic methods in detecting internal strains. More specifically, it will be shown how such properties as permeability, rema-nence, and coercive force change on cold-working of aluminum iron and how these magnetic properties change during the annealing below the recrystallization temperatures. This work was conducted for two reasons. One was the desire to see in what manner strains are relieved in aluminum iron at low temperatures—a subject of practical importance in soft magnetic materials—and the other was the feeling that a study of cold-working and strain relief might shed some light onour understandingof what takes place in the deformation of metals. Definition of Terms It is necessary to define the terminology used in this Paper because magnetic nomenclature is usually unfamiliar to the metallurgist, and certain other terms, such as recovery, have been used ambiguously by metallurgists and others. Magnetic terms are best explained by reference to the common hysteresis loop of ferromagnetic materials (Fig. I). In Fig. 1 the coordinates are magnetic induction, B, (ordinate) and magnetizing force, H. (abscissa). The c.g.s. unit for the magnetic induction is the gauss, the number of flux lines per square centimeter, and the unit for the magnetizing force is the oersted, the number of lines of force per centimeter in air or vacuum. If one starts with a completely demagnetized specimen and magnetizes it, a typical virgin magnetization curve beginning at the origin is obtained. This curve is also the locus of tips of a family of smaller hysteresis loops. From this curve it is to be noted that the induction is not proportional to the magnetizing force, and that it appears to approach a limiting induction called the saturation value, and does so for values of H of 1000 oersteds. The ratio of the magnetic induction (gauss) to the magnetizing force (oersteds) is called permeability, . Thus u= B/H and if the magnetizing force H (oersteds) is specified as ro or 100 oersteds, the permeability is written as or l00 This is the accepted notation, and will be used in this paper. The values of permeability for H = 10 or I00 are chosen as indices for 106

Jan 1, 1945

By H. L. James

This paper presents the results and analysis of field trials of various magnetic instruments over anomalies ranging from 20 to 5000 gammas of vertical intensity. The following instruments were used: Askania vertical magnetometer, Wolfson vertical magnetometer (model M-I), Hotchkiss Superdips (used both parallel to and normal to the magnetic meridian, with several settings of the "sigma" angle), Lake Superior dip needle, and the dipping circle for measurements of inclination. The change in inclination over the measured anomalies ranged up to 4"; this caused pronounced changes in sensitivity of the Hotchkiss Superdip oriented parallel to the magnetic meridian. The variable sensitivity not only gives apparent displacement of crests of anomalies, particularly at high sensitivities, but also makes the data difficult or impossible to use in preparation of iso-anomaly maps. This weakness in field performance of the Superdip is shown to be eliminated by orienting the instrument normal to the magnetic meridian and measuring vertical intensity only, which in the latitude of upper Michigan is equal to 97 pct of the total intensity. The dip needle is seen to be relatively ineffectual for location of anomalies of less than 400 gammas. Introduction The U.S- Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Geological Survey Division of Michigan Department of Conservation, has for the past three years been engaged in a restudy of the Iron River-Crystal Falls iron mining district of upper Michigan. The bedrock in a large part of this area is covered with glacial deposits as much as 500-ft thick, and, inasmuch as some of the rocks have moderate to high magnetic permeability, extensive magnetic mapping has been done to assist in unraveling the complicated structure of the area. Several types of instruments have been used, and the major purpose of this paper is to present comparative data on the field performances of some of these instruments so as to aid others who face similar problems elsewhere to evaluate and choose the instruments best suited for the work. The paper is directed primarily to geologists and engineers rather than to geophysicists, although some familiarity with the instruments is presumed. The geology of the area consists of a complexly folded series of weakly metamorphosed sedimentary rocks, including the iron formation, which rests on older greenstones. Although the iron formation itself is only locally magnetic, some of the beds stratigraphically above the iron formation are rather strongly so. By tracing these hanging wall magnetic anomalies valuable information is obtained from which the structure and distribution of the iron formation can be inferred. Critical anomalies range from 25 to 6000 gammas of vertical intensity. Many anomalies can be traced in part with the common dip needle, but detection of others requires more sensitive instruments.

Jan 1, 1949

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. 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