Search Documents

University of Alabama University, Alabama Mining and Metallurgical Society WILLIAM R. HIGGS, President ROBERT E. MEAD, Secretary J. R. CUDWORTH, Faculty Sponsor MILTON H. FIBS, Counselor University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona Miners' Society LEE BLESSING, President R. W. CORY, Secretary E. P. MATHEWSON, Faculty Sponsor B. R. HATCHER, Counselor University of California at Los Angeles Los Angeles, California Student Chapter, A.I.M.E. ARCHER WARNE, President ROBERT JOHNSTON, Secretary E. K. SOPER, Faculty Sponsor EMILE HUGUENIN, Counselor Colorado School of Mines Golden, Colorado Student Chapter, A.I.M.E. J. Ross REED, President ANDREW PERRY, JR., Secretary J. BURNS READ, Faculty Sponsor A. W. NEWBERRY, Counselor

Jan 1, 1936

Jan 1, 1961

By AIME AIME

WITH the example of the steel open-hearth men and their round table conference before the copper men, the query naturally arose "Why cannot we do likewise?" The advantage of pooling and comparing knowledge on smelting in the copper reverberatory furnace seems particularly pertinent at this time when all metallurgical economies possible must be rigorously enforced. A great deal of data had also been obtained and filed during the period of litigation over the Carson patent, and it would naturally be available with the cessation of further suits. With these ideas in mind, H. Foster Bain took up the advisability of holding such a conference directly with the heads of all the companies in the United States operating copper reverberatories, and found a nearly unanimous response. The mining companies appointed representatives directly, or indicated to the heads of various metallurgical operations what members of their staffs should be sent to such a conference.

Jan 1, 1930

By A. W. Fahrenwald

Flotation practice in Idaho is now about 13 years old. The advance has been steady during these 113 years. The operators have been alert to take advantage of the newest developments and they have themselves made a constant effort to improve their work. The metallurgical improvements are due to the development of (1) better equipment, (2) better reagents, and (3) better understanding and control of the process. During the eight years the writer has been in this district, there has been continuous experimentation by several companies to improve the ore dressing by flotation methods. Gravity concentration has fought hard to hold its place, and although it is true that gravity processes have been improved during this period, nevertheless, in several of the important mills of the district the few tables that managed to hang on have finally given way. On the straight-lead ores, tables and jigs are still used; and, due to better classification, their hold on this job has been strengthened. Ores of the District The ores of the district are of two general classes: (1) clean lead ores, such as those from the Bunker Hill and Hecla mines, and (2) complex lead-zinc ores. The general impression prevails that the clean lead ores, class 1, are simple and that it is easy to obtain high recoveries and good grade products. This, in a way, is a false impression; there is quite a high percentage of locked middling in these ores at 100 and' 150-mesh sizes. Improved classification preparatory to table treatment of this type of ore has made it possible to segregate effectively a high-grade middling which is further comminuted and floated. The complex lead-zinc ores of the district, of which the ore from the Morning mine of the Federal Mining & Smelting Co. is a typical example, always have presented a difficult problem. It always has been comparatively easy to make a clean lead concentrate, but it never has been possible to concentrate sphalerite with a specific gravity of 4.10 from siderite of gravity 3.88. Also, a large percentage of the galena and sphalerite of this class of ore refuses to separate out until the crushing has been carried

Jan 1, 1928

Jan 1, 1967

By C. W. Goodale

TOMBSTONE, a name not exactly full of cheerful suggestion, has a great record as a mineral producer and a colorful history as a frontier mining camp. The only practical route to Tombstone in the early 80's was by way of San Francisco and Los Angeles. The Southern Pacific was building across Arizona, and a sleeper was attached to a construction and freight train at Los Angeles, and was trailed slowly across the Colorado Desert to Benson in the San Pedro Valley. Thence one staged 26 miles to Tombstone, which is located near the foot of a range of hills at an altitude of about 4500 ft.

Jan 1, 1925

Jan 1, 1968

Jan 1, 1969

By W. M. Peirce

COMMENCING in 1922, each year a lecture has been presented to the Institute of Metals Division at this February meeting. The range of subjects has been very broad. Some speakers have dealt with the most advanced work in the very heart of the science of physical metallurgy. Others have stimulated our imaginations by discussing the most recent progress in related fields of science. Others have told us of the latest art, which is at any moment of greater practical importance than the latest science, of metals. I feel that this broad precedent in the choice of subjects will justify my choosing to talk about some of the prosaic details of how, during the last generation, industry has effectively organized research to accelerate progress in our own and all other fields of science and related art. A number of years ago I visited one of this country's well-known research laboratories and had the pleasure of chatting for a few minutes with its equally well-known director. Being particularly interested at the time in the organization problems connected with industrial research, I broached that subject. My host stated in effect that he didn't believe in organized research. He was, of course, resorting to a rhetorical hyperbole to point out the danger of overorganization which can so easily drift into regimentation and destroy individual initiative. Actually nearly all of us, much as we cherish our personal freedom of action, believe in organization because the history of progress in every field of human activity has been a history of men learning to work together, to cooperate, to create an efficient division of labor. We use organization to achieve this coordination. At the same time our form of organization must not stifle individual initiative or it will prove a deterrent rather than an aid to accomplishment. Research, too, must be organized for greatest achievement but especial skill and care are perhaps needed to avoid stifling the initiative of the individual workers. I have, of course, followed with keen interest and much benefit the vast amount that has been said and written on this subject in the past twenty years but I still find new stimulation in discussions with my good friends working in this field. It is my hope that this discussion may serve a like purpose. It would be ungracious not to make due acknowledgment to the many able contributors to this particular phase of human progress, but their very number and the great volume of their writing makes it impossible to trace to any one individual a particular significant and valuable idea. I shall content myself therefore with this general acknowledgment and with acknowledgment of the specific debt that every research man owes to those who have so ably kept before the public, and in particular before industrial executives, the place of research in the modern scheme of things. Because of the legitimate publicity thus given to research, the day is past when any

Jan 1, 1944

By AIME AIME

ON THE occasion of the eightieth birthday of Captain Robert W. Hunt, the Iron and Steel Committee of the Institute, desiring to commemorate the great contributions made to the steel industry by Captain Hunt during his long career, conceived the idea of a Hunt Medal to be awarded annually by the Institute for meritorious contributions to the art of making steel. The project was received enthusiastically by all to whom it was proposed, especially by Captain Hunt's partners and employees who considered it their right, and asked for the privilege of -. - raising the necessary funds within their own circle. This was agreed to, and the Institute has received from them $7500 as an endowment fund to provide an annual award, and $1000 for the expenses of providing of medal.

Jan 1, 1920

By Robert S. Young

During the last quarter-century, exploration for metallic deposits in Maine has been sporadic with peaks generally coinciding with periods of high metal prices. Known cases of regional or semi-regional evaluations are few; most efforts have been local and usually intensive. On the basis of broad geologic groups, the State has been divided into five fundamental environments: ( 1) coastal metamorphic belt; (2) southern volcanic belt; (3) Silurian slate belt; ( 4) northern volcanic belt; and ( 5) Devonian slate belt. Although not restricted to these areas, exploration in recent years has been concentrated in the northern and southern volcanic belts. Notable examples of recent exploration activity, directed to sulfide minerals, include: ( 1) the Knox County nickel-copper-bearing ultramafic rocks; (2) the Harborside (Cape Rosier) copper-zinc deposit; (3) the Second Pond (Black Hawk) zinc-copper-lead-silver deposit; ( 4) the Big Hill-Barrett lead-zincsilver- copper-gold zones; (5) the Parmachenee copper-zinc belt; ( 6) the Moxie Lake nickeliferous peridotite; and (7) the Attean quartzmonzonite molybdenum-copper occurrences. The Second Pond and Harborside prospects appear to be close to production. Systematic investigations for non-metallic deposits appear to have been aimed principally toward limestone, asbestos, diatomaceous earth, and spodumene-bearing pegmatites. Advances in prospecting methods, high metal prices, a favorable business outlook, increasing cooperation from large landholders, and some discoveries support the probability of increased exploration activity in Maine during the coming decade.

Jan 1, 1968

Jan 1, 1891

By James P. Sloss

WHAT is the likelihood if any-that a real gold mining industry will be developed in the southern Appalachian region? Has the increase in the dollar value of gold from $20.67 to $35 per ounce potency to turn the trick? Suppose it be assumed that the price of gold will, at worst, not recede, and that the cost of digging ore and treating it of which the average level of commodity prices and wages is a fair index-will, at most, not exceed that prevailing in 1926. One may or may not accept these as reasonable assumptions; but one must arbitrarily remove some of the potential variables if one is to get anywhere on a problem like this. As a matter of fact, this article is not going to venture a conclusive answer to the question that has been posed; but it will endeavor to present some of the factors that have a bearing on the problem. The writer spent ten days visiting a dozen properties in Virginia and the Carolinas early in April, 1935, and in doing so got a first-hand slant on mining conditions in the domain of King Cotton.

Jan 1, 1935

[Aamot, Clav Crone, (Member '29) Met., Det Norske Aktieselskab for Elektrokemisk, Industri, Inc., Oslo, Norway. Aamot, 0, Crone, (Member '29) c/o Elektrokemisk, Radhusgaten 23, Oslo, Norway. Aase, Glenn D., (Junior Member '40) Jr. Met., American Smelt. & Refin. Co., Selby, Calif. Abadie, Henry G., (Junior Member '43) Div. Petr. Engr., Union Pacific R.R. Co., 422 W. 6th St., Los Angeles 14, Calif. Abbott, Clarence E., (Member '04) Civil Engr., V.P., Tennessee Coal, Iron & R.R. Co., 1542 Brown Marx Bldg., Birmingham, Ala. Abbott, Fred E., Jr., (Member '44) Petr. Engr., c/o Arabian American Oil Co., A.P.O. 816, c/o Postmaster, New York, N. Y. Abel, Raymond L., (Member '28) Chem. Engr., 0. 0., Pittsburgh Chem. Warfare Procurement Dist., American Bank Bldg., Pittsburgh, Pa.]

Jan 1, 1946

By W. M. Peirce

Commencing in 1922, each year a lecture has been presented to the Institute of Metals Division at this February meeting. The range of subjects has been very- broad. Some speakers have dealt with the most advanced work in the very heart of the science of physical metallurgy. Others have stimulated our imaginations by discussing the most recent progress in related fields of science. Others have told us of the latest art, which is at any moment of greater practical importance than the latest science, of metals. I feel that this broad precedent in the choice of subjects will justify my choosing to talk about some of the prosaic details of how, during the last generation, industry has effectively organized research to accelerate progress in our own and all other fields of science and related art. A number of years ago I visited one of this country's well-known research laboratories and had the pleasure of chatting for a few minutes with its equally well-known director. Being particularly interested at the time in the organization problems connected with industrial research, I broached that subject. My host stated in effect that he didn't believe in organized research. He was, of course, resorting to a rhetorical hyperbole. to pain: out the danger of overorganization which can so easily drift into regimentation and destroy individual initiative. Actually nearly all of us, much as we cherish our personal freedom of action, believe in organization because the history of progress in every field of human activity has been a history of men learning to work together, to cooperate, to create an efficient division of labor. We use organization to achieve this coordination. At the same time our form of organization must not stifle individual initiative or it will prove a deterrent rather than an aid to accomplishment. Research, too, must be organized for greatest achievement but especial skill and care are perhaps needed to avoid stifling the initiative of the individual workers. I have, of course, followed with keen interest and much benefit the vast amount . that has been said and written on this subject in the past twenty years but I still find new stimulation in discussions with my good friends working in this field. It is my hope that this discussion may serve a like purpose. It would be ungracious not to make due acknowledgment to the many able contributors to this particular phase of human progress, but their very number and the great volume of their writing makes it impossible to trace to any one individual a particular significant and valuable idea. I shall content myself therefore with this general acknowledgment and with acknowledgment of the specific debt that every research man owes to those who have so ably kept before the public, and in particular before industrial executives, the place of research in the modern scheme of things' Because of the legitimate publicity thus given to research, the day is past when any

Jan 1, 1944

By W. M. Peirce

Commencing in 1922, each year a lecture has been presented to the Institute of Metals Division at this February meeting. The range of subjects has been very- broad. Some speakers have dealt with the most advanced work in the very heart of the science of physical metallurgy. Others have stimulated our imaginations by discussing the most recent progress in related fields of science. Others have told us of the latest art, which is at any moment of greater practical importance than the latest science, of metals. I feel that this broad precedent in the choice of subjects will justify my choosing to talk about some of the prosaic details of how, during the last generation, industry has effectively organized research to accelerate progress in our own and all other fields of science and related art. A number of years ago I visited one of this country's well-known research laboratories and had the pleasure of chatting for a few minutes with its equally well-known director. Being particularly interested at the time in the organization problems connected with industrial research, I broached that subject. My host stated in effect that he didn't believe in organized research. He was, of course, resorting to a rhetorical hyperbole. to pain: out the danger of overorganization which can so easily drift into regimentation and destroy individual initiative. Actually nearly all of us, much as we cherish our personal freedom of action, believe in organization because the history of progress in every field of human activity has been a history of men learning to work together, to cooperate, to create an efficient division of labor. We use organization to achieve this coordination. At the same time our form of organization must not stifle individual initiative or it will prove a deterrent rather than an aid to accomplishment. Research, too, must be organized for greatest achievement but especial skill and care are perhaps needed to avoid stifling the initiative of the individual workers. I have, of course, followed with keen interest and much benefit the vast amount . that has been said and written on this subject in the past twenty years but I still find new stimulation in discussions with my good friends working in this field. It is my hope that this discussion may serve a like purpose. It would be ungracious not to make due acknowledgment to the many able contributors to this particular phase of human progress, but their very number and the great volume of their writing makes it impossible to trace to any one individual a particular significant and valuable idea. I shall content myself therefore with this general acknowledgment and with acknowledgment of the specific debt that every research man owes to those who have so ably kept before the public, and in particular before industrial executives, the place of research in the modern scheme of things' Because of the legitimate publicity thus given to research, the day is past when any

Jan 1, 1944