Search Documents

By Eckley B. Coxe

IN the anthracite coal regions of Pennsylvania the custom has been to sight either at an open light (generally a mine-lamp), or at the string of a plumb-bob. If the station was intended to he a permanent one, a spud, as it is called, that is, a nail resembling a horseshoe nail with a hole in the head, is driven into the timbers over the station, or, if there be no timber, a hole is drilled in the coal or rock roof, into which a wooden plug is driven, which serves to hold the spud. The first operation in making a survey is to lay out the stations, that is, to mark the place where the holes are to be drilled for the plugs or the points on the timbers where the spuds are to be driven in. This should be done before any instrumental work is begun, as much labor can generally be spared, and the use of very short sights can often be avoided, by carefully laying out the stations beforehand. When the stations were laid out, a plumb-bob was hung from the innermost spud, which I will call No. 1, the instrument was put in position at No. 2, by plumbing down and putting a centre-pin under the spud, and then setting up over the centre-pin, and another plumb-bob was suspended from No. 3. If great accuracy was not required, a mine-lamp was set up under the plumbbobs, at No. 1 and No. 3, and the engineer sighted at them. If great accuracy was required, a lamp or some white sbface was held by an assistant behind the strings of the plumb-bobs. To work with any speed by the latter method (i. e., the accurate one), it was necessary for the engineer to have three assistants on whom he could rely even when the chaining was done afterwards; viz. : one to hold the light behind the string at No. 1, one at No. 3, and an assistant at the instrument to hold the light while levelling, reading the in

By Eckley B. Coxe

IN the anthracite coal regions of Pennsylvania the custom has been to sight either at an open light (generally a mine-lamp), or at the string of a plumb-bob. If the station was intended to be a permanent one, a spud, as it is called, that is, a nail resembling a horseshoe nail with a hole in the head, is driven into the timbers over the station, or, if there be no timber, a hole is drilled in the coal or rock roof, into which a wooden plug is driven, which serves to hold the spud. The first operation in making a survey is to lay out the stations, that is, to mark the place where the holes are to be drilled for the plugs or the points on the timbers where the spuds are to be driven in. This should be done before any instrumental work is begun, as much labor can generally be spared, and the use of very short sights can often be avoided, by carefully laying out the stations beforehand. When the stations were laid out, a plumb-bob was hung from the innermost spud, which I will call No. 1, the instrument was put in position at No. 2, by plumbing down and putting a centre-pin under the spud, and then setting up over the centre-pin, and another plumb-bob was suspended from No. 3. If great accuracy was not required, a mine-lamp was set up under the plumb-bobs, at No. 1 and No. 3, and the engineer sighted at them. If great accuracy was required, a lamp or some white surface was held by an assistant behind the strings of the plumb-bobs. To work with any speed by the latter method (i. e., the accurate one), it was necessary for the engineer to have three assistants on whom he could rely even when the chaining was done afterwards; viz.: one to hold the light behind the string at No. 1, one at No. 3, and an assistant at the instrument to hold the light while levelling, reading the in-

Jan 1, 1873

By Howard N. Eavenson

In many of the bituminous-coal districts of this country, more than one seam of workable coal exists, and in most cases the lower seam is the more attractive, owing to either its greater thickness or its superior quality. Apprehension that the mining of a seam will destroy the availability of all overlying seams has hindered the development of many fields and has led to the unprofitable working of certain seams in order to save them from an expected total loss. The U. S. Coal & Coke Co., Gary, W. Va., was the first operator in the Pocahontas field to mine the No. 4 seam extensively, which occurs about 80 ft. above No. 3, the scam that was worked first. This was due to the fact that over large areas the upper seam was the only one of workable thickness, at that time. In two places, both seams were workable in the same area, the No. 4 being thinner and containing more impurities than No. 3 seam. In mining these areas, an attempt was made to keep the workings in the upper seam in advance of those in the lower one, and no pillar robbing was done in No. 3 seam until after pillars in that part of the upper seam directly over it had been mined. This resulted in an excessive development in the lower seam, with large areas of finished rooms and standing pillars. The top fell badly, and after a couple of years the falls became so heavy that pillar drawing was unduly expensive. To overcome this obstacle and allow No. 3 seam to be worked in some territory where No. 4 was thick, but too dirty for present use, a study was made of operating methods applied to superimposed seams in Pennsylvania and Maryland. This was started more than seven yean ago by the writer; his data, supplemented by more recent information gathered by his associates, and by two cases mentioned in recent foreign publications, form the basis of this paper. Central Pennsylvania In central Pennsylvania, the lower coal measures contain several seams of nearly the same thickness but of varying quality, and as mining

Jan 1, 1923

By Howard N. Eavenson

In many of the bituminous-coal districts of this country, more than one seam of workable coal exists, and in most cases the lower seam is the more attractive, owing to either its greater thickness or its superior quality. Apprehension that the mining of a seam will destroy the availability of all overlying seams has hindered the development of many fields and has led to the unprofitable working of certain seams in order to save them from an expected total loss. The U. S. Coal & Coke Co., Gary, W. Va., was the first operator in the Pocahontas field to mine the No. 4 seam extensively, which occurs about 80 ft. above No. 3, the scam that was worked first. This was due to the fact that over large areas the upper seam was the only one of workable thickness, at that time. In two places, both seams were workable in the same area, the No. 4 being thinner and containing more impurities than No. 3 seam. In mining these areas, an attempt was made to keep the workings in the upper seam in advance of those in the lower one, and no pillar robbing was done in No. 3 seam until after pillars in that part of the upper seam directly over it had been mined. This resulted in an excessive development in the lower seam, with large areas of finished rooms and standing pillars. The top fell badly, and after a couple of years the falls became so heavy that pillar drawing was unduly expensive. To overcome this obstacle and allow No. 3 seam to be worked in some territory where No. 4 was thick, but too dirty for present use, a study was made of operating methods applied to superimposed seams in Pennsylvania and Maryland. This was started more than seven yean ago by the writer; his data, supplemented by more recent information gathered by his associates, and by two cases mentioned in recent foreign publications, form the basis of this paper. Central Pennsylvania In central Pennsylvania, the lower coal measures contain several seams of nearly the same thickness but of varying quality, and as mining

Jan 1, 1923

Discussion of the paper of DOUGLAS BUNTING, presented at the New York meeting, February, 1915, and printed in Bulletin No. 97, January, 1915, pp. 1 to 21. ARTHUR HOVEY STORRS, Scranton, Pa.-I know something about accidents Nos. 4 and 8. At the Fuller mine there was no disturbance of the surface in connection with either of those accidents, there was no surface settling, nor signs of sand in the mine, and seemingly the water all came from a subterranean basin or water-bearing stratum overlying the Six Foot vein. A similar thing was shown, in an accident not referred to in Mr. Bunting's table, at the Avondale, where we had an inflow of water, as high as 12,000 gal. a minute, for a considerable period. Regarding the second accident (No. 8) at the Fuller mine: after the first inflow of water (No. 4 of the table), the mining was abandoned in the Six Foot vein. A long slope was. driven in an underlying seam, and when this had reached a point about 2,000 ft. southeast of the place where the first inflow of water occurred, and where the bore holes show there was apparently sufficient rock covering for the Six Foot vein, a rock plane was driven up to the upper vein (Six Foot) and one afternoon this exposed the coal. During the following night the inflow of the water occurred. There were absolutely no workings at this point so that no disturbance of the overlying rocks could have occurred. The result of the inflow of water was to fill up the entire lower-vein workings in about two or three clays and caused the abandonment of the mine. After several years, considerable time and money were spent in an effort to hoist the water from the shaft and mine workings, with varying, but in the main rather indifferent, success until, clue to the breaking of one hoisting rope, the engineer pulled the other hoisting tank up through the tower and down on to the engine, making a complete wreck of the whole plant. It was then decided to allow the mine to soak and it is still doing so, other portions of the property being mined from adjoining collieries.

Jan 5, 1915

By W. H. Moore, E. T. Powell

IN the early days of mining in the Anthracite field, only the thicker and better seams of coal were mined, because of the limited mining and coal-cleaning facilities, therefore many of the thinner and less productive seams were permitted to remain unmined. With improvements in mining methods, the introduction of modem preparation plants, and the increased market demand for small-size coal, the thinner and more laminated seams have now become assets. In many instances these seams overlie the mined-out beds of the thicker and better seams, from which all recoverable coal was removed by the conventional breast-and-pillar method of mining. Some collieries in certain sections of the Anthracite field are now relying on these thinner and laminated seams. For the purpose of illustration, a large area in the Hickory Swamp-Ridge Basin of the western middle coal field has been selected, where as early as 1898 the No. 4, or Little Buck Mountain, seam was mined and pillars removed. The No. 5, or Buck Mountain, seam lying on a comparatively light pitch and with intervening strata of but 55 ft. of rock was not mined until 1935. Farther east, in the same basin the Nos. 8 and 9 seams, which are two splits of the Mammoth seam, have been mined and robbed and the workings have been abandoned since 1896. The overlying No. 9½ seam, or the upper split of the Mam- moth, and the No. 9¾ or 4-ft. seam remained virgin, with only an interval of 50 ft. of rock separating them, and with 40 to so ft. of rock strata separating the No. 9½ seam from the completely mined area of the Nos. 8 and 9 seams. These seams lie on a pitch of 45° on the south side of the basin and on 75° on the north side of the basin. Mining has been carried on in the 9½ and 9¾ seams for 3 years on both dips of the basin, for a distance of 3500 ft. In some sections the overlying strata of the thicker seams previously mined have settled without any apparent breaks in the upper strata, as indications have shown in the top split of the Mammoth; while in other areas the roof and bottom of this top split of the Mammoth have settled unevenly, thereby causing the bottom and roof to break into blocks. In attempting to mine over a large area of the No. 5 or Buck Mountain seam, a similar settlement has been encountered; the roof of the seam has been broken and a considerable amount of timbering has been necessary in order to make the mining of the seam possible. The conventional breast-and-pillar method, using shaker conveyors, has been used in the No. 5 seam, and a slant-breast method in the mining of Nos. 9½ and 9¾ seams. Mining OF Light-pitch Seams The No. 4 seam was mined and robbed by the conventional breast-and-pillar system. In this area the seam pitched from 5° to 25° on the north dip, averaged 8 ft. in thickness and had a slate bottom and a

Jan 1, 1942

By W. H. Moore, E. T. Powell

IN the early days of mining in the Anthracite field, only the thicker and better seams of coal were mined, because of the limited mining and coal-cleaning facilities, therefore many of the thinner and less productive seams were permitted to remain unmined. With improvements in mining methods, the introduction of modem preparation plants, and the increased market demand for small-size coal, the thinner and more laminated seams have now become assets. In many instances these seams overlie the mined-out beds of the thicker and better seams, from which all recoverable coal was removed by the conventional breast-and-pillar method of mining. Some collieries in certain sections of the Anthracite field are now relying on these thinner and laminated seams. For the purpose of illustration, a large area in the Hickory Swamp-Ridge Basin of the western middle coal field has been selected, where as early as 1898 the No. 4, or Little Buck Mountain, seam was mined and pillars removed. The No. 5, or Buck Mountain, seam lying on a comparatively light pitch and with intervening strata of but 55 ft. of rock was not mined until 1935. Farther east, in the same basin the Nos. 8 and 9 seams, which are two splits of the Mammoth seam, have been mined and robbed and the workings have been abandoned since 1896. The overlying No. 9½ seam, or the upper split of the Mam- moth, and the No. 9¾ or 4-ft. seam remained virgin, with only an interval of 50 ft. of rock separating them, and with 40 to so ft. of rock strata separating the No. 9½ seam from the completely mined area of the Nos. 8 and 9 seams. These seams lie on a pitch of 45° on the south side of the basin and on 75° on the north side of the basin. Mining has been carried on in the 9½ and 9¾ seams for 3 years on both dips of the basin, for a distance of 3500 ft. In some sections the overlying strata of the thicker seams previously mined have settled without any apparent breaks in the upper strata, as indications have shown in the top split of the Mammoth; while in other areas the roof and bottom of this top split of the Mammoth have settled unevenly, thereby causing the bottom and roof to break into blocks. In attempting to mine over a large area of the No. 5 or Buck Mountain seam, a similar settlement has been encountered; the roof of the seam has been broken and a considerable amount of timbering has been necessary in order to make the mining of the seam possible. The conventional breast-and-pillar method, using shaker conveyors, has been used in the No. 5 seam, and a slant-breast method in the mining of Nos. 9½ and 9¾ seams. Mining OF Light-pitch Seams The No. 4 seam was mined and robbed by the conventional breast-and-pillar system. In this area the seam pitched from 5° to 25° on the north dip, averaged 8 ft. in thickness and had a slate bottom and a

Jan 1, 1942

By W. H. Moore, E. T. Powell

IN the early days of mining in the Anthracite field, only the thicker and better seams of coal were mined, because of the limited mining and coal-cleaning facilities, therefore many of the thinner and less productive seams were permitted to remain unmined. With improvements in mining methods, the introduction of modem preparation plants, and the increased market demand for small-size coal, the thinner and more laminated seams have now become assets. In many instances these seams overlie the mined-out beds of the thicker and better seams, from which all recoverable coal was removed by the conventional breast-and-pillar method of mining. Some collieries in certain sections of the Anthracite field are now relying on these thinner and laminated seams. For the purpose of illustration, a large area in the Hickory Swamp-Ridge Basin of the western middle coal field has been selected, where as early as 1898 the No. 4, or Little Buck Mountain, seam was mined and pillars removed. The No. 5, or Buck Mountain, seam lying on a comparatively light pitch and with intervening strata of but 55 ft. of rock was not mined until 1935. Farther east, in the same basin the Nos. 8 and 9 seams, which are two splits of the Mammoth seam, have been mined and robbed and the workings have been abandoned since 1896. The overlying No. 9 ¾ seam, or the upper split of the Mammoth, and the No. 9 ¾ or 4-ft. seam remained virgin, with only an interval of 50 ft. of rock separating them, and with 40 to 50 ft. of rock strata separating the No. 9 ½ seam from the completely mined area of the Nos. 8 and 9 seams. These seams lie on a pitch of 45° on the south side of the basin and on 75° on the north side of the basin. Mining has been carried on in the 9 ½ and 9 ¾ seams for 3 years on both dips of the basin, for a distance of 3500 ft. In some sections the overlying strata of the thicker seams previously mined have settled without any apparent breaks in the upper strata, as indications have shown in the top split of the Mammoth; while in other areas the roof and bottom of this top split of the Mammoth have settled unevenly, thereby causing the bottom and roof to break into blocks. In attempting to mine over a large area of the No. 5 or Buck Mountain seam, a similar settlement has been encountered; the roof of the seam has been broken and a considerable amount of timbering has been necessary in order to make the mining of the seam possible. The conventional breast-and-pillar method, using shaker conveyors, has been used in the No. 5 seam, and a slant-breast method in the mining of Nos. 9 ½ and 9 ¾ seams. MINING OF LIGHT-PITCH SEAMS The No. 4 seam was mined and robbed by the conventional breast-and-pillar system. In this area the seam pitched from 5° to 25° on the north dip, averaged 8 ft. in thickness and had a slate bottom and a

Jan 1, 1941

By R. S. Dean

JUST as the mineralogical name bauxite has come to include several minerals not known at the time the name was first applied, so the concept of bauxite as the one source of alumina must be enlarged during the war period to include the production of alumina from other, low-grade sources. Speaking in a narrow mineral logical sense, there is no such thing as bauxite, and similarly there is now no one source of alumina, and no one process for its extraction.

Jan 1, 1943

By George M. Fowler

MINING geology is a progressive study, so we must look to the future for the solution of many of its most significant problems. These problems, world-wide in scope, offer ample opportunity for the exercise of the utmost skill and intelligence by all that attempt to solve theta, as it is generally recognized that many ore deposits of the future will he found only by months or years of combined intelligent effort by the several engineering groups. Renewed appraisals are continually being made to better understand the relationship of physical-chemical processes to ore deposition and other mineralization and to interpret the findings of the geophysicists and others in terms of economic results. A study of current geologic activi¬ties clearly reflects the growing tendency for cooperation between the different branches of geology in order to appraise their united efforts. In line with these activities arrangements have been made to transfer the geophysical section of the U. S. Bureau of Mines to the Geological Survey.

Jan 1, 1936

By AIME AIME

A CERTAIN area in the State of Indiana seems to be a breeding place for presidents and near president about eighteen miles southeast of Elwood is the little village of Daleville, and there, on April 9, 1890, John Robert Suman, newly elected President of the A.I.M.E., was born. It was not long before he migrated to California, however, where he went to the Los Angeles High School, then for two years to the University of Southern California, after which he went up to Berkeley

Jan 1, 1940

By John M. Kelly

This report covers the development, exploratory drilling, and production of oil and gas in New Mexico during 1945. The statistical information was gathered from state regulatory agencies and other sources believed to be reliable; it is presented here in combined form for general information only, and the author assumes no responsibility for its accuracy or completeness.

Jan 1, 1946

By AIME AIME

In taking account of stock, on the occasion of the recent removal of the office of the Institute, it was found that pamphlet copies of the papers named in the list given below were on hand, in excess of the average number deemed adequate for future casual demand. Special reduced rates will be made for these surplus copies to members applying promptly. "First come; first Served." Author. Title. Ref. No. ASHBURNER, C. A. " Petroleum and Natural Gas in New York State." 273 MARTENS, A. "The Microstructure of Ingot¬ Iron and Cast Ingots." 626

Jan 1, 1907

By James T. Kemp

AN historical society of particular interest to mining engineers all over the world was born in Cornwall in 1935. A hundred-year-old winding engine then finished its long labors at the Levant mine on the cliffs near Lands End, England. The engine was to be dismantled and scrapped. A few men living near-by, appreciating that this event was one of the final acts in closing a long century of extraordinary mining and engineering evolution. armed a committee to prevent the destruction of the old mine hoist and succeeded in purchasing the engine. They restored the engine house and in time arranged with the Manor of Trewellard, owners of the land, for a 99-year ground lease on a peppercorn rental.

Jan 1, 1947

By OTTO HERRES

TO operate the bituminous coal industry in the United States in 1929 cost $770,237,000, of which $30,739,000 was paid for purchased power and $34,947,000 for new machinery and equipment. Equipment aggregated 3,124,000 hp. A mining industry that spends $65,000,000 a year for power and machinery is likely to be fairly well mechanized, and when the machinery in use takes three million horsepower to drive it, the probabilities are that mechanization has been in progress in at least some of the mines for quite a few years. Mechanization in its broadest sense implies machine cutting, power drilling, mechanical loading, electric haulage, mechanical sizing and cleaning, and lesser applications of machinery to mining operations. But the introduction and development of mechanical loading has been the feature of coal mining recently and its extraordinary progress is causing great changes within the industry. First, let us look at the records. The quantity of coal loaded mechanically in bituminous mines was:

Jan 1, 1933

(Under this heading will be published notes sent to the Secretary of the Institute by members or other persons. ) Position in sales department is open for a mining engineer with experience in mine ventilation and possessing some knowledge of fan design; one competent to lay out ventilating systems to meet various conditions. No. 2. A large company manufacturing mining machinery has an opening in one of its Western agencies for a young mechanical engineer who has had some experience in designing along general machine shop lines, and who is familiar with cost systems. No. 3. A large university desires to secure a prominent metallurgist for a vacant professorship in metallurgy. No. 4. Opening at a mine in New Jersey for a technical graduate to begin work as chairman on the surveying squad. Salary $50 per month to start. No. 5.

Jan 11, 1913

By Ralph Hultgren, David W. Mitchell

MAGNESIUM alloys usually are superheated before casting in order to ensure fineness of grain. Superheat temperatures in common use range from 1600° to 1700°F while the casting temperature, which depends upon the mold shape, is usually 200° to 300°F lower. The process of superheating requires considerable time and seriously shortens the life of the iron pots used. Recently it has been reported' that if acetylene, carbon dioxide or natural gas is bubbled through molten electrolytic A.S.T.M. No. 4 alloy at 1400°F. for 5 min., grain refinement equivalent to that of superheating will take place. Addition of certain solids such as graphite or aluminum carbide accomplishes the same results.2 As will be shown in this paper, it is possible to achieve grain refinement in magnesium casting alloys at low temperatures by mechanical stirring of the molten metal for a short time. This process was developed in the course of research work, supervised by the War Metallurgy Committee under the "Restricted" Project NRC-550, for the Office of Production Research and Development of the War Production Board. This paper, based on that work, has been released for publication by the O.P.R.D. MATERIALS AND METHODS The alloys studied were the most common American sand-casting alloys designated as No. 4 and No. 17 by the American Society for Testing Materials. The magnesium used in these alloys was of both carbothermic3 and electrolytic4 origin. Chemical analyses supplied by the producers are shown in Table I. Each heat consisted of approximately 5 lb. of alloy melted in a Tercod crucible. It was refined by fluxing with Permanente No. 7* refining flux at 1300° to 1350°F. After cooling to 1200' to 1250°F., portions of approximately one pound each were ladled into iron crucibles contained in an electric furnace at about 1250°F. The molten metal was covered with Permanente No. 21† covering flux and then heated to the temperature to be investigated. Normally each of the four portions was given a different treatment. In a typical case one portion was stirred vigorously for 5 min., acetylene gas was passed through a second portion for 5 min., a third portion was superheated to 1600°F for 15 min., then cooled to casting temperature, and the fourth was held for 5 min. at the temperature of stirring or gassing without other treatment. Each portion was then cast into one-inch diameter cylinders in three "nonturbulent" molds of identical shape. One mold was made of cast iron and the other two of baked sand. The cast-iron mold and one of the baked sand molds were heated to 360°F., the other baked sand mold was at room temperature. The freezing times in these molds were

Jan 1, 1945

By F. W. Bloecher, A. M. Gaudin

H. H. Kellogg—There is one point that the author has failed to emphasize sufficiently in his paper. What is commonly called the equilibrium contact-angle (the author's "maximum contact-angle") can have only one value on a smooth, flat, homogeneous surface under a given set of conditions. The equilibrium contact-angle is defined, for such a system, as the angle between the solid-liquid and liquid-gas interfaces, measured through the liquid. The value of the equilibrium contact-angle is uniquely determined by the value of the interfacial energies of the three intersecting interfaces and is independent of other forces in the system. When the liquid-gas interface intersects the solid at an edge—as was the case for all the experiments reported in this paper—the orientation of the solid-liquid interface is indeterminate or varies through 90" for a right-angle edge. Mr. Morris has called the angle between the horizontal and the liquid-gas interface for this edge condition a "static contact-angle." I feel that this term is unnecessarily misleading. In the first place, "static contact-angle" sounds too much like "equilibrium contact-angle." In the second place, the magnitude of the "static contact-angle," which I would prefer to call the "supporting angle," is determined by the forces in the system other than those derived from the interfacial energies, hence "contact angle" is misleading. If Mr. Morris had said that the "supporting-angle" is variable and depends on the weight of the particle and size of the bubble and that it has a maximum possible value equal to the equilibrium contact-angle, his discussion would have been more accurate. T. M. Morris (author's reply)—Mr. Kellogg puts forth a reasonable criticism of some of the terminology used in the paper. I agree that the term "static contact angle" may be misleading. Substitution of the term "supporting angle" or "vector angle" may be more suitable. F. X. Tartaron—In this paper the author presents a very interesting mathematical development of the forces present when a mineral particle adheres to an air bubble. Excellent concordance is obtained between mathematical formulation and experimental results. It is the writer's understanding that when the mineral surface presented to an air bubble is greater than the area of contact, the maximum contact angle is obtained. However, this contact angle represents distortion of the bubble, the normal shape of which is spherical or in cross-section, circular. This distortion produces a force that acts in opposition to the force of adhesion between the bubble and particle. Hence, at maximum contact angle, the force of adhesion between bubble and particle is at a minimum for static conditions. However, when the size of bubble is increased, the size of particle remaining the same (and all other conditions remaining the same), the contact angle decreases, the distortion of the bubble decreases and the force in opposition to adherence of bubble and particle also decreases. Thus, there is stronger attachment between bubble and particle. When this situation is applied to actual flotation conditions, it is doubtful that it has any significance. The reason is that the bubbles are normally so much larger than the particles, that in substantially all cases, it is probable that negligible distortion of the bubble takes place. In table IV, the author makes computations for bubbles from 0.50 to 2 mm diam. This is from 0.02 in. to 0.08 in. Certainly the bubbles generated in a flotation machine are far larger than this. The surfaces of the author's bubbles range from 0.79 to 12.6 sq mm. The area of contact of the glass rod (0.15 mm diam) is 0.017 sq mm. Thus, ratio of bubble surface to mineral area of contact ranges from 47 to 741 in round numbers. If we take a %-in. diam bubble and a 65-mesh (0.208 mm) particle of cubical shape, the ratio of bubble surface to mineral area of contact is 2931. Mineral particles do not readily become attached to air bubbles. Taggart has shown that in pneumatic flotation machines collector-coated particles are only temporarily attached to bubbles. They keep falling off and down in the froth but at a delayed rate as compared with gangue. Spedden and Hannan's motion pictures confirm the difficulty of attaching particles to air bubbles. In the agitation froth process, according to Taggart, air is precipitated from the water selectively on to the collector-coated particles and these

Jan 1, 1951

By F. W. Bloecher, A. M. Gaudin

H. H. Kellogg—There is one point that the author has failed to emphasize sufficiently in his paper. What is commonly called the equilibrium contact-angle (the author's "maximum contact-angle") can have only one value on a smooth, flat, homogeneous surface under a given set of conditions. The equilibrium contact-angle is defined, for such a system, as the angle between the solid-liquid and liquid-gas interfaces, measured through the liquid. The value of the equilibrium contact-angle is uniquely determined by the value of the interfacial energies of the three intersecting interfaces and is independent of other forces in the system. When the liquid-gas interface intersects the solid at an edge—as was the case for all the experiments reported in this paper—the orientation of the solid-liquid interface is indeterminate or varies through 90" for a right-angle edge. Mr. Morris has called the angle between the horizontal and the liquid-gas interface for this edge condition a "static contact-angle." I feel that this term is unnecessarily misleading. In the first place, "static contact-angle" sounds too much like "equilibrium contact-angle." In the second place, the magnitude of the "static contact-angle," which I would prefer to call the "supporting angle," is determined by the forces in the system other than those derived from the interfacial energies, hence "contact angle" is misleading. If Mr. Morris had said that the "supporting-angle" is variable and depends on the weight of the particle and size of the bubble and that it has a maximum possible value equal to the equilibrium contact-angle, his discussion would have been more accurate. T. M. Morris (author's reply)—Mr. Kellogg puts forth a reasonable criticism of some of the terminology used in the paper. I agree that the term "static contact angle" may be misleading. Substitution of the term "supporting angle" or "vector angle" may be more suitable. F. X. Tartaron—In this paper the author presents a very interesting mathematical development of the forces present when a mineral particle adheres to an air bubble. Excellent concordance is obtained between mathematical formulation and experimental results. It is the writer's understanding that when the mineral surface presented to an air bubble is greater than the area of contact, the maximum contact angle is obtained. However, this contact angle represents distortion of the bubble, the normal shape of which is spherical or in cross-section, circular. This distortion produces a force that acts in opposition to the force of adhesion between the bubble and particle. Hence, at maximum contact angle, the force of adhesion between bubble and particle is at a minimum for static conditions. However, when the size of bubble is increased, the size of particle remaining the same (and all other conditions remaining the same), the contact angle decreases, the distortion of the bubble decreases and the force in opposition to adherence of bubble and particle also decreases. Thus, there is stronger attachment between bubble and particle. When this situation is applied to actual flotation conditions, it is doubtful that it has any significance. The reason is that the bubbles are normally so much larger than the particles, that in substantially all cases, it is probable that negligible distortion of the bubble takes place. In table IV, the author makes computations for bubbles from 0.50 to 2 mm diam. This is from 0.02 in. to 0.08 in. Certainly the bubbles generated in a flotation machine are far larger than this. The surfaces of the author's bubbles range from 0.79 to 12.6 sq mm. The area of contact of the glass rod (0.15 mm diam) is 0.017 sq mm. Thus, ratio of bubble surface to mineral area of contact ranges from 47 to 741 in round numbers. If we take a %-in. diam bubble and a 65-mesh (0.208 mm) particle of cubical shape, the ratio of bubble surface to mineral area of contact is 2931. Mineral particles do not readily become attached to air bubbles. Taggart has shown that in pneumatic flotation machines collector-coated particles are only temporarily attached to bubbles. They keep falling off and down in the froth but at a delayed rate as compared with gangue. Spedden and Hannan's motion pictures confirm the difficulty of attaching particles to air bubbles. In the agitation froth process, according to Taggart, air is precipitated from the water selectively on to the collector-coated particles and these

Jan 1, 1951