Search Documents

By Robert H. Hafner, Irvin R. Kramer

In recent years considerable interest has been shown in surface-alloyed metals, particnlarly those of chromium (chromized steels), which have excellent corrosion resistance under a variety of severe conditions, and may undergo bending and flanging operations without spalling. An early method1 employed to produce a high-chromium case on steel was developed by Kelley in 1921. It consisted of heating a low-carbon steel in intimate contact with powdered chromium in the presence of hydrogen at temperatures sufficiently high to permit diffusion of chromium into the steel. The usefulness of this process was limited because the extremely high tem- peratures of 1200º to 1400ºC. (2200° to 2550°F.) caused excessive grain growth and warpage. Louenstein and Ulmer2 packed iron castings in ferrochromium and com- mon salt, and heated for approximately three hours at 930º to 1040°C. (1700º to 1900ºF.). A recent and more practical method of depositing chromium on steel surfaces has been developed in Germany by Daeves, Becker and Steinberg3-8 and in Russia by Izgaryshev and Sarkisov.9 This process consists of passing gaseous chromium chloride over the steel to be chromized at temperatures of 900º to 1000ºC., or packing them in a porous, ceramic material that previously had been saturated with chromium chloride. They reported obtaining a Chromized layer, 0.004 in. thick, on low-carbon steels. Later, Daeves4 established a relationship between the carbon content

Jan 1, 1943

By Robert H. Hafner, Irvin R. Kramer

IN recent years considerable interest has been shown in surface-alloyed metals, particularly those of chromium (chromized steels), which have excellent corrosion [ ] resistance under a variety of severe conditions, and may undergo bending and flanging operations without spalling. An early method' employed to produce a high-chromium case on steel was developed by Kelley in 1921. It consisted of heating a low-carbon steel in intimate contact with powdered chromium in the presence of hydrogen at temperatures sufficiently high to permit diffusion of chromium into the steel. The usefulness of this process was limited because the extremely high temperatures of 1200° to 1400°C. (2200° to 2550 F.) caused excessive grain growth and warpage. Louenstein and Ulmer2 packed iron castings in ferrochromium and com- [ ] mon salt, and heated for approximately three hours at 930° to 1040°C. (1700° to 1900°F.). A recent and more practical method of depositing chromium on steel surfaces has been developed in Germany by Daeves, Becker and Steinberg3-8 and in Russia by Izgaryshev and Sarkisov.9 This process consists of passing gaseous chromium chloride over the steel to be chromized at temperatures of 900° to 1000°C., or packing them in a porous, ceramic material that previously had been saturated with chromium chloride. They reported obtaining a chromized layer, 0.004 in. thick, on low-carbon steels. Later, Daeves4 established a relationship between the carbon content

Jan 1, 1942

By Kent W. Pilz

Wet dust suppression can be achieved by 1) confinement of the dust within the dust producing area with a curtain of moisture, 2) wetting of the dust by direct contact between the particles and droplets of moisture or 3) the formation of agglomerates too heavy to remain airborne, or too heavy to become airborne, by combining small dust particles with each other and with the droplets of liquid. From the standpoint of economy, availability and safety, water is the ideal fluid; however, it is not as effective for dust suppression as when small percentages of specially formulated dust control compounds are blended with it. Performance of dust control com pounds is related to surface active agents and surface activity. In all liquids there is an attractive force between molecules which varies inversely as the sixth power of the distance between molecules. Thus, in the liquid phase where molecules are crowded together, the intermolecular forces are powerful; whereas in the liquid-vapor phase where the molecules are relatively far apart, these forces diminish rapidly. In the body of a fluid there is an uneven distribution of forces resulting in an inward pull called surface tension. The force which keeps two surfaces apart or causes them to coalesce is termed interfacial tension. Fluids of high surface tension exhibit poor wetting, spreading and penetrating qualities. Water has the unusually high surface tension of 72.75 dynes per cm at 20°C.

Jan 7, 1972

By F. B. Plummer

THE physical properties of oil-producing sands, such as grain size, porosity, and permeability, are becoming more and more important in petroleum production engineering as oil fields are being repressured and rejuvenated. A number of excellent papers have been published recently on all three of these properties. Faucher, Lewis and Barnes1 give a com-plete survey of the work done through 1932 and contribute also much information on sands that they themselves have examined. Muskat and Botset,2 Wykoff, Botset, Muskat and Reed,3 Hurst,4 and Muskat5 have contributed a great deal to the theory and actual measurement of flow of liquids and gases through porous media. Muskat and Botset have measured the permeabilities of different sands with gases and liquids. They find that the radial is always slightly under the linear permeability. However, in most of the previous experiments small samples of the sand were used, and the method of production of fluid or gas through the sands has not been very close to actual oil-field conditions. In addition, so far as the authors are aware, no measurements of linear and radial permeabilities have been made simultaneously under exactly the same conditions. The multiple permeability apparatus described here is a part of the equipment being acquired by this laboratory for thorough investigation of the physical properties of producing sands. It possesses certain advantages for comparative studies of liquid flow. Additional data and descriptions of other instruments will follow in papers to be written later on. The essential features of the permeability apparatus are as follows:

Jan 1, 1934

By T. R. Armstrong

Total crude oil production in Mexico in the year 1941 is estimated at approxi- mately 41,000,000 bbl.; a daily average of 112,700 bbl. and a decrease of about 5 per cent as compared with the daily average of 120,000 bbl. produced in the year 1940, and nearly 11 per cent decrease as com-

Jan 1, 1942

By T. R. Armstrong

Total crude oil production in Mexico in the year 1941 is estimated at approxi- mately 41,000,000 bbl.; a daily average of 112,700 bbl. and a decrease of about 5 per cent as compared with the daily average of 120,000 bbl. produced in the year 1940, and nearly 11 per cent decrease as com-

Jan 1, 1942

By W. R. McMillan, E. A. Gulbransen, K. F. Andrew

Annealed and electrolytically polished pure iron was oxidized between 650° and 850°C at oxygen pressures of 0.1 to 2 microns Hg. Electron optical studies showed that oxidation occurs discontinuously over the surface and orients crystallographically with the substructure of the metal grains. IN previous papers', " the authors described the formation of oxide films on high purity iron at norrnal pressures and at temperatures below 300°C. Electron optical studies showed that the oxide film consisted of many individual oxide crystallites having nearly random orientation on each metal grain. The size of the oxide crystallites depended upon the temperature and upon the extent of oxidation. In these studies the crystallite size varied from 250 to 1800Å. Recently, Bardolle and Benard3 studied the crystal habit of the oxide crystallites formed on Armco iron between 650" and 850°C in what might be defined as a "poor vacuum" atmosphere in which the pressure could be varied between 10-1 to 10-3 mm of Hg. Their results showed that, at 850°C and a vacuum of l0-2 to 10-3 mm of Hg, a few well oriented nuclei of oxide were formed on the metal grains. At pressures between l0-1 to 10-2 mm of Hg, many oriented nuclei of oxide were formed. At 750°C the metal surface was bright although an oxide was present. Unfortunately, the extent of oxidation, the oxygen pressure, and the influence of carbon in the metal were not determined, and it was, therefore, impossible to give a theoretical interpretation to the very beautiful light micrographs. Bardolle and Benard used the light microscope to determine the crystal habit of the oxide and X-ray diffraction to determine the orientation relationships. It was believed that the use of controlled amounts of oxidation at high temperature is an important method for the study of the initial stages of oxidation of metals at high temperatures. This paper presents the first results of an electron optical study of this problem for iron. Since the electron microscope and electron-diffraction methods using stripped oxide films and surface replicas yielded finer details of the crystal habit and structure of oxide film, these methods were used in this study. Two types of iron having different carbon contents were used: Puron and Armco* iron. A com- parison of the results for these materials made possible a study of the influence of the surface oxide-carbon reaction on the initial stages of oxidation. Before discussing the experimental results, the thermodynamic equilibria of 1—the oxidation reaction, 2—the surface oxide-carbon reaction, and 3—the solubility of oxygen in iron, will be considered. In addition, it is important to consider the kinetic-theory predictions on the rate of collision of oxygen with the iron surface. Thermodynamic and Kinetic-Theory Calculations Only one type of reaction is usually considered in the oxidation of iron at normal pressures at high temperatures: Fe(a) + 1/2O2(g) = FeO(s) 3Fe(a) + 2O2(g) = Fe3O4(s) 2Fe(a) +3/2O2(g) = a-Fe2O3(s). [11 However, two other reactions may occur: FeO(s) + C (solid solution in Fe) + Fe(a) + CO(g) [2] and Fe(a) + O2(g) e Fe(a) (solid solution of 0,). [ 3 ] In addition, iron will react with the higher oxide at certain temperatures to form FeO. For a complete interpretation of the oxidation of iron at low pres-

Jan 1, 1955

Aamot, Olav Crone, (M'29) Chem. Engr., Elektrokemisk, Raadhusgt. 23, Oslo, Norway. Abadilla, Quirico A., (M'3S) Min. Engr., Dir., Bu¬ reau of Mines. Manila, P. I. Abbott, Agatin Townsend, (J'40) Jr. Engr., Phelps Dodge Corp., Morenci Branch, Morenci. Ariz. Abbott, Clarence E., (M'04) Civil Engr., V.P., Ten¬nessee Coal Iron & R.R.. Co., 1542 Brown -Marx Bldg.. Birmingham, Ala. Abel, Raymond L., (M'28) Chem. Engr., Command¬ing, Officer, Pittsburgh Chem. Warfare Procurement Dist., American Bank Bldg., Pittsburgh. Pa. Abel, Walter D., (M'32) Alin. Engr.. Div. of Cor¬porations, State of Calif., 403 California State Bldg., Los Angeles, Calif. Abele, Louis T., (M'31) 423 3rd Ave., Decatur, Ga. Abell, Leo M., (M'31) Mill Supt. & Met., Emperor Gold Min. Co., Led., Vatnkoula, Fiji Islands. Abernathy, G. E., (M'38) Geol., Kansas State Geol. Survey, Pittsburg, Bans. Abernathy, Jack H., (M'40) Peer. Engr., c/o Superior Oil Corp., National Bank of Tulsa Bldg., Tulsa, Okla. Aborn, Robert H., (M'10) Asst. Met., Research Lab., U. S. Steel Corp., Lincoln Highway, Kearny, N. J. Abraham, A. W., (M'39) Peer. Engr., Richfield Oil Corp., 555 S. Flower St., Los Angeles, Calif. Abramowitz, William L., (J'40) Chem., Industrial Inventions, Inc., 103 Foster Se., Peabody, Mass.

Jan 1, 1942

Trans No. Place Date Vol. 1. Wilkes-Barre, Pa. May, '71 1 2. Bethlehem, Pa. Aug., '71 1 3. Troy, N. Nov., '71 1 4. Philadelphia, Pa. Feb., '72.. 1 5. New York, N. Y. May, '72 1 6. Pittsburgh, Pa. Oct., '72 1 7. Boston, Mass. Feb., '73 1 8. Philadelphia, Pa. May, '73 2 9. Easton, Pa. Oct., '73 2 10. New York N. Y. Feb., '74 2 11. St. Louis, Mo. May, '74 3 12. Hazleton, Pa. Oct., '74.. 3 13. New Haven, Conn. Feb., '75 3 14. Dover, N. J. May, '75 4 15. Cleveland, Ohio Oct., '75 4 16. Washington, D. C. Feb., '76 4 17. Philadelphia, Pa. June, '76 5 18. Philadelphia, Pa. Oct., '76 5

Jan 1, 1941

Trans No. Place Date Vol. 1. Wilkes-Barre, Pa. May, '71 1 2. Bethlehem, Pa. Aug., '71 1 3. Troy, N. Nov., '71 1 4. Philadelphia, Pa. Feb., '72.. 1 5. New York, N. Y. May, '72 1 6. Pittsburgh, Pa. Oct., '72 1 7. Boston, Mass. Feb., '73 1 8. Philadelphia, Pa. May, '73 2 9. Easton, Pa. Oct., '73 2 10. New York N. Y. Feb., '74 2 11. St. Louis, Mo. May, '74 3 12. Hazleton, Pa. Oct., '74.. 3 13. New Haven, Conn. Feb., '75 3 14. Dover, N. J. May, '75 4 15. Cleveland, Ohio Oct., '75 4 16. Washington, D. C. Feb., '76 4 17. Philadelphia, Pa. June, '76 5 18. Philadelphia, Pa. Oct., '76 5

Jan 1, 1934

Trans No. Place Date Vol. 1. Wilkes-Barre, Pa. May, '71 1 2. Bethlehem, Pa. Aug., '71 1 3. Troy, N. Nov., '71 1 4. Philadelphia, Pa. Feb., '72.. 1 5. New York, N. Y. May, '72 1 6. Pittsburgh, Pa. Oct., '72 1 7. Boston, Mass. Feb., '73 1 8. Philadelphia, Pa. May, '73 2 9. Easton, Pa. Oct., '73 2 10. New York N. Y. Feb., '74 2 11. St. Louis, Mo. May, '74 3 12. Hazleton, Pa. Oct., '74.. 3 13. New Haven, Conn. Feb., '75 3 14. Dover, N. J. May, '75 4 15. Cleveland, Ohio Oct., '75 4 16. Washington, D. C. Feb., '76 4 17. Philadelphia, Pa. June, '76 5 18. Philadelphia, Pa. Oct., '76 5

Jan 1, 1943

Trans No. Place Date Vol. 1. Wilkes-Barre, Pa. May, '71 1 2. Bethlehem, Pa. Aug., '71 1 3. Troy, N. Nov., '71 1 4. Philadelphia, Pa. Feb., '72.. 1 5. New York, N. Y. May, '72 1 6. Pittsburgh, Pa. Oct., '72 1 7. Boston, Mass. Feb., '73 1 8. Philadelphia, Pa. May, '73 2 9. Easton, Pa. Oct., '73 2 10. New York N. Y. Feb., '74 2 11. St. Louis, Mo. May, '74 3 12. Hazleton, Pa. Oct., '74.. 3 13. New Haven, Conn. Feb., '75 3 14. Dover, N. J. May, '75 4 15. Cleveland, Ohio Oct., '75 4 16. Washington, D. C. Feb., '76 4 17. Philadelphia, Pa. June, '76 5 18. Philadelphia, Pa. Oct., '76 5

Jan 1, 1944

Trans No. Place Date Vol. 1. Wilkes-Barre, Pa. May, '71 1 2. Bethlehem, Pa. Aug., '71 1 3. Troy, N. Nov., '71 1 4. Philadelphia, Pa. Feb., '72.. 1 5. New York, N. Y. May, '72 1 6. Pittsburgh, Pa. Oct., '72 1 7. Boston, Mass. Feb., '73 1 8. Philadelphia, Pa. May, '73 2 9. Easton, Pa. Oct., '73 2 10. New York N. Y. Feb., '74 2 11. St. Louis, Mo. May, '74 3 12. Hazleton, Pa. Oct., '74.. 3 13. New Haven, Conn. Feb., '75 3 14. Dover, N. J. May, '75 4 15. Cleveland, Ohio Oct., '75 4 16. Washington, D. C. Feb., '76 4 17. Philadelphia, Pa. June, '76 5 18. Philadelphia, Pa. Oct., '76 5

Jan 1, 1936

Trans No. Place Date Vol. 1. Wilkes-Barre, Pa. May, '71 1 2. Bethlehem, Pa. Aug., '71 1 3. Troy, N. Nov., '71 1 4. Philadelphia, Pa. Feb., '72.. 1 5. New York, N. Y. May, '72 1 6. Pittsburgh, Pa. Oct., '72 1 7. Boston, Mass. Feb., '73 1 8. Philadelphia, Pa. May, '73 2 9. Easton, Pa. Oct., '73 2 10. New York N. Y. Feb., '74 2 11. St. Louis, Mo. May, '74 3 12. Hazleton, Pa. Oct., '74.. 3 13. New Haven, Conn. Feb., '75 3 14. Dover, N. J. May, '75 4 15. Cleveland, Ohio Oct., '75 4 16. Washington, D. C. Feb., '76 4 17. Philadelphia, Pa. June, '76 5 18. Philadelphia, Pa. Oct., '76 5

Jan 1, 1942

Trans No. Place Date Vol. 1. Wilkes-Barre, Pa. May, '71 1 2. Bethlehem, Pa. Aug., '71 1 3. Troy, N. Nov., '71 1 4. Philadelphia, Pa. Feb., '72.. 1 5. New York, N. Y. May, '72 1 6. Pittsburgh, Pa. Oct., '72 1 7. Boston, Mass. Feb., '73 1 8. Philadelphia, Pa. May, '73 2 9. Easton, Pa. Oct., '73 2 10. New York N. Y. Feb., '74 2 11. St. Louis, Mo. May, '74 3 12. Hazleton, Pa. Oct., '74.. 3 13. New Haven, Conn. Feb., '75 3 14. Dover, N. J. May, '75 4 15. Cleveland, Ohio Oct., '75 4 16. Washington, D. C. Feb., '76 4 17. Philadelphia, Pa. June, '76 5 18. Philadelphia, Pa. Oct., '76 5

Jan 1, 1932

Trans No. Place Date Vol. 1. Wilkes-Barre, Pa. May, '71 1 2. Bethlehem, Pa. Aug., '71 1 3. Troy, N. Nov., '71 1 4. Philadelphia, Pa. Feb., '72.. 1 5. New York, N. Y. May, '72 1 6. Pittsburgh, Pa. Oct., '72 1 7. Boston, Mass. Feb., '73 1 8. Philadelphia, Pa. May, '73 2 9. Easton, Pa. Oct., '73 2 10. New York N. Y. Feb., '74 2 11. St. Louis, Mo. May, '74 3 12. Hazleton, Pa. Oct., '74.. 3 13. New Haven, Conn. Feb., '75 3 14. Dover, N. J. May, '75 4 15. Cleveland, Ohio Oct., '75 4 16. Washington, D. C. Feb., '76 4 17. Philadelphia, Pa. June, '76 5 18. Philadelphia, Pa. Oct., '76 5

Jan 1, 1932

Trans No. Place Date Vol. 1. Wilkes-Barre, Pa. May, '71 1 2. Bethlehem, Pa. Aug., '71 1 3. Troy, N. Nov., '71 1 4. Philadelphia, Pa. Feb., '72.. 1 5. New York, N. Y. May, '72 1 6. Pittsburgh, Pa. Oct., '72 1 7. Boston, Mass. Feb., '73 1 8. Philadelphia, Pa. May, '73 2 9. Easton, Pa. Oct., '73 2 10. New York N. Y. Feb., '74 2 11. St. Louis, Mo. May, '74 3 12. Hazleton, Pa. Oct., '74.. 3 13. New Haven, Conn. Feb., '75 3 14. Dover, N. J. May, '75 4 15. Cleveland, Ohio Oct., '75 4 16. Washington, D. C. Feb., '76 4 17. Philadelphia, Pa. June, '76 5 18. Philadelphia, Pa. Oct., '76 5

Jan 1, 1939

Trans No. Place Date Vol. 1. Wilkes-Barre, Pa. May, '71 1 2. Bethlehem, Pa. Aug., '71 1 3. Troy, N. Nov., '71 1 4. Philadelphia, Pa. Feb., '72.. 1 5. New York, N. Y. May, '72 1 6. Pittsburgh, Pa. Oct., '72 1 7. Boston, Mass. Feb., '73 1 8. Philadelphia, Pa. May, '73 2 9. Easton, Pa. Oct., '73 2 10. New York N. Y. Feb., '74 2 11. St. Louis, Mo. May, '74 3 12. Hazleton, Pa. Oct., '74.. 3 13. New Haven, Conn. Feb., '75 3 14. Dover, N. J. May, '75 4 15. Cleveland, Ohio Oct., '75 4 16. Washington, D. C. Feb., '76 4 17. Philadelphia, Pa. June, '76 5 18. Philadelphia, Pa. Oct., '76 5

Jan 1, 1934

By John Riegle

To date. utility company underground storage of gas has generally been restricted to depleted dry gas fields. The Playa del Rey project is probably the first to successfully store gas in a partially depleted oil reservoir with the recovery of large volumes of pas at high rates as the main objective. Oil recovery has been a secondary consideration. Problems encountered unusual to those of storage in a dry gas zone were: (1) the removal and retardation of formation of emulsion. (2) the upstructure movement of fluid during withdrawal periods which formed fluid blocks, and (3) reservoir shrinkage resulting from encroachment of edgewater. The solution of these problems as outlined in the paper has resulted in increasing the withdrawal rate from the original design capacity of 4,000 Mcf per hour to the current 10.000 Mcf per hour. Additional increase is anticipated as the operations continue. Migration. reservoir performance. operational procedure and a historical record are included to make this a resume of the project from its war-time inception in 1942 to the first of 1952. INTRODUCTION The Playa del Rey underground gas storage project is probably the first project in which gas has been stored in a partially depleted oil reservoir, with the recovery of large volumes of gas at high rates as the main objective and the recovery of oil a secondary consideration. Problems unusual to those of storage in dry gas zones have made this a pioneer endeavor. The total storage capacity of approximately 1,500,000 Mcf of this reservoir is small in comparison with other underground gas storage projects. However. by study and experiment the deliverability into transmission lines. operating at pressures in excess of 150 lbs., has been nearly tripled in the past three years. to the current 10.000 Mcf per hour late, without the use of compression. It is anticipated this rate will gradually increase as additional fluid is removed from the formation. LOCATION AND HISTORY Playa del Key is located on Santa Monica Bay about two miles south of the beach commuity of Venice and 15 miles southwest of the renter of the City city Los Angeles. Fig. 1. The discovery well was completed at 6,194 ft in 1929. An upper zone at 3,905 ft was found on June 18. 1930. Townlot development was very rapid and by the end of 1930 there were 141 producing wells in the field. The Union Oil Co. completed a lower zone well south of the Townlot Field in May, 1931, which was believed to be an extension, until additional drilling of about 50 wells during 1934 and 1935 indicated this area to be a separate accumulation as shown on Fig. 2. The lower oil horizon, which is now the storage zone, had no original gas cap and is believed to be a continental detrital deposit of conglomerate that accumulated in valleys and depressions of a weathered schist high. which later subsided and was overlain by an impervious nodular shale. This type of formation has rapid variation of porosity. permeability and thickness due to lack of sorting action common to marine deposition. and the uneven surface of the original schist high. Production was limited on the upstructure sides by the pinching out of the conglomerate, and downstructure by edgewater. Unrestricted production, together with high permeabilities, led to large wastage of gas from this new area as facilities were not available for transport of gas to market. The decline was very rapid and by 1942 the portion of the new area south of Ballona Creek was nearly depleted. ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY The rapid increase in industrialization of Southern California during World war 11 forced upon the local gas com-

Jan 1, 1953

By R. Simon

The sources of energy dissipation for concentrated loadings on rock are considered in an attempt to account for the experimentally measured magnitude of the work required to break out a unit volume of rock from the free surface of an essentially semi-infinite medium. It is concluded that most of this work probably represents the elastic strain energy developed by the loading in a much larger volume of rock beneath the loaded region than the volume of the rock fragment broken out to the side of the loaded region. This strain energy is largely dissipated in the form of stress waves generated by the high rate of unloading produced by the propagating cracks. The energies associated with the formation of the new surfaces of the cracks and with the stress waves generated directly by the loading process are computed to be negligibly small. Possibilities for improving the utilization of energy to drill rod. subject to the geometrical limitations imposed by down-hole operation, are discussed. It is pointed out that any such possible improvements would probably have to be differential ones, since each rock configuration of more favorabIe loading geometry that can be created down the hole is accompanied by a complementary configuration of less favorable loading geometry. INTRODUCTION Dislodging each cubic inch of rock from the bottom of the hole by the action of a bit requires the expenditure of an amount of energy that varies from approximately 5,000 in.-lb to approximately 100,000 in.-lb, depending on the hardness of the rock, or, more technically, upon its fragmentation strength.1 In this paper we will discuss (I) why the energy expended in drilling is so large, (2) what happens to this energy upon completion of the drilling process, and (3) what are the possibilities for reducing the magnitude of the energy required to drill rock. DETERMINATION OF ROCK DRILLING ENERGY The volume of rock removed per unit time from the bottom of a hole of diameter D is evidently (7/4)D2R, where R is the rate of penetration of the bit. If P is the rate at which work is done by the bit on the rock at the bottom of the hole, the energy required to break out a unit volume of rock is given by: Ev =(4/p) P/D2R............(i) For rotary drilling, of either the rolling-cone or drag-bit varicty, P = 2pLN, where L is the torque resistance to rotation at the bottom of the hole and N is the rate of rotation of the bit. L is essentially the same as the torque measured at the rotary table only when drilling in shallow holes. The energies expended in rotating the drill string against the frictional resistance of the walls of the hole and and against the viscous drag of the drilling fluid are extraneous to the subject under consideration, although these may be much greater in magnitude than E, when drilling in a deep hole. For percussion drilling, P = fE where f is the percussion frequency and E is the work done on the rock per impact. The latter quantity can be both computed and measured for a percussion drilling machine. 2 (Under satisfactory drilling conditions, defined in terms of ranges of numerical values of certain dimensionless parameters, E is only 30 to 50 per cent less than the impact energy of the striker.2) Alternatively, E, may be measured directly by dropping chisels shaped like bit edges, backed by rigid weights, onto the surfaces of laboratory rock samples of effectively semi-infinite extent. Under these circumstances, essentially all of the impact energy is converted to work done on the rock, and the relationships among volume of rock broken out, chisel shape, impact energy and indexing distances can be obtained.3 The values of the energy required to break out a unit volume of rock under favorable circumstances are substantially in agreement for rotary drilling, percussion drilling and drop testing at atmospheric pressure. The energy per unit volume is a quantity of the order of magnitude of roughly twice the com-pressive strength of the rock as measured by a uniaxial loading test. The phrase "order of magnitude" in this paper means from about 1/3 as much to 3 times as much; i.e., the energy per unit volume may range from roughly the same up to several times