Search Documents

By W. H. Young, P. D. Torrey

The Eastern fields comprise a distinct geological and geographical unit, located in the northern part of the Appalachian geosynclinal prov-ince. In this area are the fields of New York, producing from rocks of Devonian, Silurian and Ordovician age; the fields of western Pennsylvania, where oil and gas occur chiefly in rocks of Mississippian and Devonian age; the fields of eastern Ohio, where oil and gas are obtained from rocks of Pennsylvanian, Mississippian and Silurian age; and the fields of West Virginia, where oil and gas are produced from rocks of Pennsylvanian, Mississippian and Devonian age. Many of these fields are of great antiquity in comparison to the age of the producing areas in a greater part of this country, and consequently in most instances it is impossible to obtain accurate historical statistics. In addition, the records of many of the more recently discovered fields are either unobtainable or are not sufficiently reliable to justify their incorporation in a review of this character. Rather than overemphasize certain fields and areas, where complete records are available, when there are many other fields of equal importance for which statistical data are not available, the authors have made a tabulation of development that does not take into consideration past operations and production. The records utilized in preparing this paper were derived largely from the scout reports of several of the larger companies, which generously made them available to the authors. These were independently tabulated by counties and townships, in order to eliminate as far as possible duplications and, excepting the Clinton fields of Ohio, where many of the smaller wells have not been individually reported, they represent the most accurate information available. Market conditions in both the oil and gas industry were far from favorable during 1932 and in consequence there was a total decline in drilling in the Eastern States, which is 22 per cent less than the number of completions in the preceding year. This decline was not constant over the entire area, as is shown in Table 1. The oil fields of both New York and western Pennsylvania were the scene of renewed drilling activity, which was largely restricted to the water-flooding operations in the Bradford and Allegany fields. Practically no new operations were started, but a certain number of new wells

Jan 1, 1933

The following is an incomplete list of members and guests who called at Institute headquarters during the period Oct. 10, 1919, to Nov. 10,1919. Carl A. Allen, Salt Lake City, Utah. W. G. Mitchell, Montreal, Canada. M. M. Altmayer, Paris. Henry S. Munroe, Litchfield, Conn. A. E. Bellis, Major Ord., Springfield J. S. Negru, New York, N. Y. Armory, Springfield, Mass. Edmund Newton, New York, N. Y. R. S. Botsford, New York, N. Y. A. W. Newberry, Cleveland, Ohio. Henry S. Burnholz, Monterrey, Mexico. C. C. O'Harra, Rapid City, S. D. D. E. A. Charlton, New York, N. Y. Fred S. Porter, Philadelphia, Pa. C. C. Colburn, Denver, Colo. Donald A. Powell, Columbus, Ohio. C. V. Corless, Coniston, Ontario. Thomas T. Read, Washington, D. C. I. N. Daily, Seattle, Wash., W. L. Remick, Chrome, N. J. E. V. Daveler, Butte, Mont: Hallet R. Robbins, San Francisco, Calif. John Davis, Fairbanks, Alaska.' Milnor Roberts, University Station, E. W. Engelmann, Salt Lake City, Utah. Seattle, Wash. M. E. Erdofy, New York N. Y. Thos. S. Roberts, Lakehurst Proving W. F. Ferrier, Toronto, Canada. Grounds, N. J. H. A. Fisher, Pittsburgh, Pa. George B. Rodgers, Dobbs Ferry, N. Y. Walter Fitch, Sr., Eureka, Utah. John C. Rogers, Copper Cliff, Ontario. C. D. Grier, New York, N. Y. Joseph L. Rosenmiller, Bethlehem, Pa. A. Hibbert, London. . C. J. Saville, Portland, New South Wales. John E. Hodge, Minneapolis, Minn. W. A. Scheuch, New Jersey. W. E. Hopper, Newark, N. J. S. B. Shutts, Lynchburg, Va. M. R. Hull, McGill, Nev. E. W. Smith, U. S. Army. A. W. Ibbett, Trinidad, B. W. I. S. J. Speak, London. A. O. Ihlseng, Joplin, Mo. John. B. Stewart, Santiago de Cuba, Sherwin F. Kelly, Lawrence, Kans. Cuba. R. G. Knickerbocker, Logansport, Ind. S. A. Taylor, Pittsburgh, Pa. .M. H. Kuryla, Eureka Colo. Karl Thomas,' New York, N. Y. F. G. Lasier, Detroit, Mich. F. L. Torres, Eureka, Nev. David Lasuer, Elizabeth, N. J. Henry Traphagen, Toledo, .Ohio: H. H. Lauer, Allentown, Pa. W. D. Van Doren, Ottawa, Canada. J. Whitney Lewis, Care First Nat'l Bank, J. A. Vernon, Newport, R. I. Tulsa Okla James Wilding, San Francisco, Calif. James W. Love, Knoxville, Tenn. D. J. Williams, Butte, Mont. Dorsey A. Lyon, Washington, D. C. Harry J. Wolf, New York, N. Y. M. E. Martiner, Boston, Mass.. Dwight E. Woodbridge, Duluth, Minn. Benj. L. Miller, Bethlehem, Pa. Percy E. Wrighn, Seattle, Wash. W. G. Miller, Toronto, Canada. F. Yamada, Tokyo, Japan.

Jan 12, 1919

By H. Cecil Spicer

The results described in this article are based On field work conducted during the periods April-May, I939, and May-July, 1940. The United States Potash Co. is mining potash on Government land under a permit from the Department Of the Interior and the geophysical investigation was completed under a cooperative arrangemerit made between that company and the Conservation Branch Of the Geological Survey. The writer, a member Of the SeCtion of Chemistry and Physics of the Geologic Branch, was assigned to this investigation. Four definite objectives were in mind for the geophysical work in the studies over the salt deposits. The first was to determine the measure Of success that could be attained in this type of work with the resistivity methods that were to be employed. These methods had been introduced into the work of the Conservation Branch by Benjamin E. Jones for the investigation of dam sites, and have been used under his direction by the author for such work. If the method proved to be be an effort was to be made to contour the top of the salt beds and also the other formation boundaries known to be present in this area. Salt-water aquifers were to be studied in an effort to determine their boundaries, and an attempt was to be made to delineate the potash-bearing beds. Earlier Studies Others have made, and reported, restivity studies over saliferous deposits in different areas. Friedell and Messrs. Schlumberger2 reported geophysical work performed in the discovery of the salt domes of Alsace; Carrette and Kelly? described the geology of the same area. Leonardon and Kelly' published a resistivity curve obtained over the Hettenschlag dome, and a further discussion of this same area was given by the Messrs. Schlumberger6 in a communication. Messrs. Alty6 described studies on salt deposits in which the single-probe method was used. sinerez7 mentions that electrical methods were tried over salt deposits in Spain. Geoffrey and Charrin8 show a resistivity curve obtained over marl, gypsiferous marl and salt which is similar to that obtained over the New Mexico salt deposits. Kelly9 reported resistivity work performed with the ground Comparaor of Zuschlag over the salt deposits near Syracuse, N. Y., where the Salina formation is at a depth of 700 to 800 ft. Some structural studies on the potash basin of Alsace are described by Poldini.10 Another single-probe resistivity study, made over salt deposits in New Mexico, is briefly described by Heiland,11 through the courtesy of Harry Aurand, of the Midwest Refining co, Geological Features OF Area Covered The area discussed in this paper is in Eddy County, southeastern New Mexico, a

Jan 1, 1946

By H. Cecil Spicer

The results described in this article are based On field work conducted during the periods April-May, I939, and May-July, 1940. The United States Potash Co. is mining potash on Government land under a permit from the Department Of the Interior and the geophysical investigation was completed under a cooperative arrangemerit made between that company and the Conservation Branch Of the Geological Survey. The writer, a member Of the SeCtion of Chemistry and Physics of the Geologic Branch, was assigned to this investigation. Four definite objectives were in mind for the geophysical work in the studies over the salt deposits. The first was to determine the measure Of success that could be attained in this type of work with the resistivity methods that were to be employed. These methods had been introduced into the work of the Conservation Branch by Benjamin E. Jones for the investigation of dam sites, and have been used under his direction by the author for such work. If the method proved to be be an effort was to be made to contour the top of the salt beds and also the other formation boundaries known to be present in this area. Salt-water aquifers were to be studied in an effort to determine their boundaries, and an attempt was to be made to delineate the potash-bearing beds. Earlier Studies Others have made, and reported, restivity studies over saliferous deposits in different areas. Friedell and Messrs. Schlumberger2 reported geophysical work performed in the discovery of the salt domes of Alsace; Carrette and Kelly? described the geology of the same area. Leonardon and Kelly' published a resistivity curve obtained over the Hettenschlag dome, and a further discussion of this same area was given by the Messrs. Schlumberger6 in a communication. Messrs. Alty6 described studies on salt deposits in which the single-probe method was used. sinerez7 mentions that electrical methods were tried over salt deposits in Spain. Geoffrey and Charrin8 show a resistivity curve obtained over marl, gypsiferous marl and salt which is similar to that obtained over the New Mexico salt deposits. Kelly9 reported resistivity work performed with the ground Comparaor of Zuschlag over the salt deposits near Syracuse, N. Y., where the Salina formation is at a depth of 700 to 800 ft. Some structural studies on the potash basin of Alsace are described by Poldini.10 Another single-probe resistivity study, made over salt deposits in New Mexico, is briefly described by Heiland,11 through the courtesy of Harry Aurand, of the Midwest Refining co, Geological Features OF Area Covered The area discussed in this paper is in Eddy County, southeastern New Mexico, a

Jan 1, 1946

By C. L. Mantell

When considered from the viewpoint of world annual output, tin is one of the rarest metals. Its annual production is exceeded by that of iron, copper, lead, zinc. aluminum, magnesium; probably by that of the ferroalloys of manganese, chromium, and silicon, and possibly by the world production of sodium; while it exceeds only the output of such common metals as nickel, antimony, mercury, tungsten, molybdenum, silver, gold and the precious metals. Cassiterite, or tinstone, until the second World War was the only mineral that was an important source of tin. This mineral is frequently called "tin ore." The use of the term should be restricted to the ore containing the mineral, and not, in addition, to the concentrates of the mineral obtained from the ore or from stanniferous alluvial deposits. There is a general misuse of the term "tin ore" in the Malay Peninsula and adjacent localities, particularly where most of the mineral is obtained from secondary stanniferous deposits. The term "cassit-erite" is exclusively used in mineralogical, geological, and other scientific writings; it is unfortunate that it is not mole frequently used when referring to the occurrence of the mineral on an economic scale. Ores "Tinstone" js a very convenient old English term deserving a more frequent use. Tinstone is a dioxide of tin, or stannic oxide. When chemically Pure, as in the very rare transparent variety, it has a metallic content of 78.6 per cent tin. Frequently, however, the crystals and grains contain appreciable amounts of impurities, chiefly iron and tantalum. The impurities here referred to are those actually in the mineral itself. Tinstone usually has a deep brown or black color with an adamantine luster. Several other colored varieties are known, among them red ruby tin, yellow rosin tin, and yellow wax tin. the names jn each case being descriptive of the mineral's appearance. Ainalite is a variety of cassiterite con-taining almost g per cent of tantalum pentoxide. Sparable tin, tooth tin, and needle tin, as a result of their acute dite-tragonal pyramidal crystalline form, re-ceive their names from their crystallo-graphic appearance. Wood tin is a compact variety of cassiterite composed of radiating fibers resembling dry wood. Toad's-eye tin is a similar variety on a smaller scale in which the fibers appear to resemble the eye of a toad. Stream tin is water-worn tin-stone. Float tin is sometimes employed to describe the cassiterite occurring in soil derived from the weathered surface of a mineralized area. Stannite is an ore of tin of lesser impor-tance than cassiterite. It is a sulphide of tin, copper, and iron, sometimes known as tin pyrites or bell-metal ore. Its chemical com-position is sometimes expressed by the for-mula Cu,S.FeS.SnSz with zinc usually present in varying quantities. The tin con-tent varies from 22 to 27 per cent and there is about 29 per cent of copper, 13 per cent of iron, and 30 Per cent of sulphur.

Jan 1, 1944

By Reaves. M. J.

The title of my talk, "What Happened to the Uranium Boom?" is old news. Certainly it is for this group. All of us that make our living in uranium know that the boom of the last half of the 1970's is over. U.S. production has been exceeding consumption by more than two to one. Mines and mills are closing and yellowcake prices have been dropping for over 20 months. The gloomy outlook for the industry in the near term has been well documented by soothsayers of various descriptions, your daily newspapers, and in the Nuexco Monthly Reports. I'd like to attempt to describe the next upturn in the market (speculate, really) based upon the clues we're seeing now. In order to do that, I'd first like to go over briefly, some of the market factors that contributed to the recent price drop and resultant production cutbacks, and then hypothesize on the way these factors are changing and will change. Market prices are greatly affected (maybe even entirely determined) by buyer perceptions. This is particularly true with uranium, because of the long lead times associated with nuclear plant construction and also with conventional mine/mill development. Before the price rise (say, 1975) utility uranium buyers believed that: 1) U.S. producers would have difficulty expanding to meet U.S. demand. 2) Australian and Canadian production was essential to avoid shortages in the early 1980's. 3) Uranlum prices would continue to rise as demand exceeded supply. 4) Enrichment capacity would become inadequate. It was thought necessary, therefore, to build enriched inventory in the early 1980's for use in the late 1980's. Artificially accelerated expansion of the uranium producer industry was necessary to accommodate anticipated enrichment demand. Current perceptions are largely the opposite. These are the beliefs that were held most of this year and late last year as prices dropped. 1) U.S. production is far in excess of domestic need. Contraction of the U.S. production lndustry is necessary. 2) Canadian and Australian supply is optional and not essential. Producers in those countries are expanding mainly by displacing higher cost production and not because they fill a void, 3) Prices may be essentially stable for some time. 4) Enriched uranium is in excess supply. That is 1981. 1982 is shaping up to look like this: 1) Prices will have bottomed out. (That is not Nuexco's opinion necessarily, by the way, but it is my opinion.) 2) There will still be substantial utility inventories, but fewer spot sales. 3) Canadian and perhaps Australian sellers will have made substantial sales in the U.S. and will be aggressively seeking more. 4) U.S. production will have been dramatically curtailed. U.S. utilities that wish to con- tract long term will have difficulty in finding domestic sellers. Concern will develop about the availability of U.S. production capability. Virtually all long term con- tracts signed will be with non-U.S. sellers. 5) An awareness will begin to develop among U.S. buyers that we are approaching a period of dependence upon foreign uranium (which will be true). The history of the uranium market has been one of dramatic changes and overreaction to those changes. The rapid price rise of a few years ago generated excess U.S. production capacity and the rapid price drop of the last two years will almost certainly result in too little capacity. It will soon be difficult for U.S. buyers to buy domestic material except on the spot market. The question is, "will they care?" The lack of demand, of course, is the underlying reason for the current poor health of the uranium industry. In 1972, 1973 and 1974 collectively, there were 105 nuclear reactors ordered in the U.S. That ordering rate was expected to continue and accelerate throughout this century. In 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, and 1980 altogether, there were 56 more reactors cancelled than ordered. The net growth of our only customer since 1974 has been a negative 56. TO put this in perspective, if these 56 reactors were operating now it would more than double present U.S. uranium consumption. Underlying lack of demand is something that is simply not going to change in this decade. Time is going to be required. The NRC indicates that the maximum feasible number of new reactors that can be licensed each year is six. That would increase uranium consumption by only 10% per year. New reactors, if ordered tomorrow, would not generate new uranium demand until after 1990. Even so, United States' consumption of uranium will rise from the 1980 level of 18 million pounds per year, to

Jan 1, 1982

By S. F. Shaw

MINING conditions in Mexico during the current year have been most unfavorable, synchronizing with conditions in the United States, but the outlook for the near future is improving. The chief difficulties met with are because of the following conditions: severe drop in prices of metals; high smelting rates; high prices of supplies; inadequate means of transportation; low efficiency of labor. In comparison with pre-war prices for metals it cannot be said that prices are low, particularly for silver, which recently has gone to a level that would have been considered exceedingly good in 1912. But conditions have changed so greatly that only the most favorably situated properties can operate without loss.

Jan 1, 1921

President-Mrs John R C Mann, 90 Edgemont Road, Scarsdale, N Y First Vice-President-Mrs C P Pollock, 27 Dante Street, Larchmont, N Y. Second Vice-President-Mrs Mendum B Littlefield, 40 Lincoln Street, Larchmont, N Y Third Vice-President-Mrs J B Cunningham, 236 East 2nd St , Tucson, Ariz Fourth Vice-President-Mrs Theodore Loftus, 410 Cowles St, Fairbanks, Alaska Fifth Vice-President-Mrs George L Craig, 109 Calumet Avenue, Calu¬met, Mich Recording Secretary-Mrs Arnold H Miller, 601 West 115th St, New York 25, N Y Assistant Recording Secretary-Mrs R J Mechin, 66 East 79th St, New York 21, N Y Corresponding Secretary-Mrs John A Poulin, 4 East 70th St , New York 21, N Y Treasurer-Mrs Robert W Rowen, 29 West 39th Street, Room 914, New York 18, N Y Assistant Treasurer-Mrs Samuel H Dolbear, 1000 Park Avenue, New York 28, N Y Assistant Treasurer-Mrs Roger H Sherman, 8 Roman Avenue, Forest Hills Gardens 75, N Y.

Jan 1, 1957

The following list comprises the names of those persons who became members during the period May 10, 1919, to June 10, 1919. ALAYZA, CARLOS Box 850, Lima, Peru, S. A. BALLARD, P. A Surveyor, Midwest Refin. Co., Custer, So. Dakota. BARNEBL, A. J., JR.... Mech. Eng., The Dorr Co., 101 Park Ave., New York, N. Y. BILLINGS, GOODSELL Platteville, Wis. BRONSON, C. B., Mech. & Met. Engr., New York Central Lines, Room 1520, Grand Central Terminal, New York, N. Y. BUNCE, E. H Met., The New. Jersey Zinc Co., Palmerton, Pa. CHARLTON, D. E. A., Editorial Staff, Engrg. & Mm. Journals 10th Ave. & 36th St., New York, N. Y. DAVIS, JOHN N., Supt. of Mills, Engels Copper Min. Co., Engelmine, Plumas Co., Cal. DUKES, GLENN H., Chief Engr., The Sunday Creek Coal Co.,1001 Outlook Bldg., Columbus, Ohio. ERICKSON, ARTHUR .... Engr., United Smelt., Refin. & Min. Co., Mldvale, Utah. FLYNN, A. E Supt., Rand Consolidated Mines, Ltd., Goudreau, Ont., Canada. HIBBARD, WALTER R 63 Ashley St., Bridgeport, Conn. HOBSBAWN, I. BERKWOOD, Cons. Tech. Chem., Messrs. Gibbs. & Co., Valparaiso, Chile, S. A.

Jan 7, 1919

By R. W. Raymond

Franklin Guiterman was born March 7, 1856, in Cincinnati, Ohio, where his father, William Guiterman, was at that time engagcd in the wholesale dry-goods business. Both of his parents were natives of Bavaria, but the inspiration of America was upon them, as they gave to their son a peculiarly American name, symbolizing thrift, individualism and scientific knowledge. Franklin Guiterman received his general education in the grammar schools and the Hughes High School of Cincinnati. He finished the latter course in the early 70's of the last century, when the great demand for mining and metallurgical experts in this country naturally led his parents to direct his further studies in that direction. Accordingly, he went to Europe, and studied at the Royal Saxon Mining Academy of Freiberg, where he completed the course in 1877, at the age of 21, and returned to the United States to engage in mining and metallurgical practice. Going to Colorado, he became assayer for the Terrible mine, at Georgetown, and in 1878, for the Little Chief mine at Leadville. The position of assayer, particularly at that period and in that region, was the door to much valuable knowledge of mines and ores. Besides learning the nature and value of the different classes of ore from the mines of his own company (if he was employed by a company) the assayer, had the first chance, through his outside customers, of seeing and testing the specimens brought by prospectors, and thus learning of important new discoveries. Moreover, if he possessed metallurgical knowledge, he might advance to the position of a metallurgical manager. Guiterman stayed in Leadville four years, and during that period was assayer or chemist for several different companies. Then for about a year he superintended copper-mining operations at Hartville, Wyo. In 1884, he had charge of sampling works at Silverton, colo.—an admirable opportunity for gaining wide knowledge of the varied ores of the San Juan country. In 1885, he was Superintendent of the Mingo plant of the Pennsylvania Lead Co., at Sandy, near Salt Lake City, Utah. The foregoing list of employments, each occupying not more than a year, certainly looks like the history of a rolling stone, gathering no moss. But the cause of these frequent changes was not inefficiency in each new position. In that time and period, a man who lost his place for such a reason was not likely to get another in the same neighborhood might away. And as for gathering "moss," the kind of "moss" that

Jan 1, 1918

By Raymond Mancha

The purpose of an accurate underground pressure survey is to obtain a pressure gradient along the circuit or circuits under investigation. The pressure gradient shows the rate of pressure drop between various observation points along a circuit. This determines excessive resistance regions and the economic feasibility of correcting such conditions by cleaning airways, driving additional airways, or modifying existing airways. A pressure gradient is useful for predicting the effect on other parts of the circuit when adjusting the air regulation on any one split or when planning a field airshaft or slope or a new drift to the outcrop. A single-compartment airshaft often produces disappointing results because it relievcs only a part of the circuit instead of the over-all mine pressure. It is valuable to know how the circuit pressure drop is distributed. The underground pressure survey is used also to determine the friction coefficient for various types of airway. High precision work is required to establish these vital data for predicting the characteristics of mine pressure volume when projecting new mine developments. Methods Regardless of the type of instrument used to conduct a circuit pressure survey, the work should preferably be performed at a time when the mine is idle, in order to avoid air-flow disturbances from moving trips and cages or from the opening or closing of trap doors. Preferably the survey should be made when the barometer is comparatively steady, to restrict variation in the air specific weight at observation stations while the circuit is traversed. The two most commonly used instruments for underground pressure surveys are: (I) the altimeter; (2) the inclined manometer with hose extensions. The altimeter is sufficiently accurate for determining the underground pressure gradient and is preferable to the nianometer for such work because of greater flexibility and shorter time required for the traverse. With the altimeter it is possible to select more widely separated observation stations than is practical with the manometer, with its restricted hose extension lengths. The altimeter also permits easier travel along haulage roads between airway observation stations, avoiding badly obstructed airways. The inclined manometer is more reliable than the altimeter for establishing friction coefficients in mine airways. Manometer readings are unaffected by differences in elevations between stations, which require corrections to altimeter data. The manometer provides direct reading without temperature correction, which may or may not be true with the altimeter, depending upon the make of instrument used. The elimination of correction factors combined with the instantaneous, simultaneous and

Jan 1, 1947

By Raymond Mancha

The purpose of an accurate underground pressure survey is to obtain a pressure gradient along the circuit or circuits under investigation. The pressure gradient shows the rate of pressure drop between various observation points along a circuit. This determines excessive resistance regions and the economic feasibility of correcting such conditions by cleaning airways, driving additional airways, or modifying existing airways. A pressure gradient is useful for predicting the effect on other parts of the circuit when adjusting the air regulation on any one split or when planning a field airshaft or slope or a new drift to the outcrop. A single-compartment airshaft often produces disappointing results because it relievcs only a part of the circuit instead of the over-all mine pressure. It is valuable to know how the circuit pressure drop is distributed. The underground pressure survey is used also to determine the friction coefficient for various types of airway. High precision work is required to establish these vital data for predicting the characteristics of mine pressure volume when projecting new mine developments. Methods Regardless of the type of instrument used to conduct a circuit pressure survey, the work should preferably be performed at a time when the mine is idle, in order to avoid air-flow disturbances from moving trips and cages or from the opening or closing of trap doors. Preferably the survey should be made when the barometer is comparatively steady, to restrict variation in the air specific weight at observation stations while the circuit is traversed. The two most commonly used instruments for underground pressure surveys are: (I) the altimeter; (2) the inclined manometer with hose extensions. The altimeter is sufficiently accurate for determining the underground pressure gradient and is preferable to the nianometer for such work because of greater flexibility and shorter time required for the traverse. With the altimeter it is possible to select more widely separated observation stations than is practical with the manometer, with its restricted hose extension lengths. The altimeter also permits easier travel along haulage roads between airway observation stations, avoiding badly obstructed airways. The inclined manometer is more reliable than the altimeter for establishing friction coefficients in mine airways. Manometer readings are unaffected by differences in elevations between stations, which require corrections to altimeter data. The manometer provides direct reading without temperature correction, which may or may not be true with the altimeter, depending upon the make of instrument used. The elimination of correction factors combined with the instantaneous, simultaneous and

Jan 1, 1947

1944 WALTER HULL ALDRIDGE New York, N Y 1946 PETER M ANDERSON Johannesburg, South Africa 1946 CHARLES CAMSELL Ottawa, Ont, Canada 1946 CHARLES AUGUSTUS CARLOW Fife, Scotland 1946 CECIL H DESCH London, England 1946 WILLIAM FRASER London, England 1917 HERBERT HOOVER New York, N Y 1941 DANIEL COWAN JACKLING San Francisco, Calif 1939 HENRY KRUMB New York, N Y 1942 ESSINGTON LEWIS - Melbourne, Vic , Australia 1921 C MCDERMID London, England 1944 WALTER C MENDENHALL Washington, D C 1942 PAUL DYER MERICA New York, N Y 1913 EZEQUIEL ORDONEZ Mexico City, Mexico 1938 A M PORTEVIN Paris, France 1937 GEORGE S RICE Washington, D C 1934 T A RICKARD Victoria, B C, Canada 1946 JOHN R SUMAN Houston, Texas 1946 WONG WEN-HAO Chungking, China

Jan 1, 1952

By Arthur F. Taggart

Tins paper proposes two units (believed to be new) for designating, respectively, capacity and efficiency for primary and intermediate crushers. CAPACITY Operators know that the tonnage of rock that can be put through a particular crusher in a give time depends primarily upon the crusher setting (open setting for jaw and primary gyratory types; closed setting for cones and rolls), and secondarily on the lithological character of the feed, its maximum size, the amount of fines that it carries, its moisture content, and the method of feeding. The proposed capacity formula states a relationship between all of these factors in one empirical equation, as follows: TR = TR80KK'K" [I] in which Ts, called "reduction tons per hour" is the new capacity unit; T = tons of feed per hour requiring crushing; R80 = "80-per cent reduction ratio"; and K, K', and K" are constants that approximate quantitatively lithological character, moisture content and method of feeding, respectively. T is the hourly weight of material in the feed that is coarser than the coarsest discharge of the crusher. (For marked departures from the normal specific gravity range - 2.5 to 2.7 - T should. be adjusted to corresponding volumes.) In the crushers under consideration, discharge from the crushing zone is limited by the minimum dimension of a particle. Passage of the particle through a square-mesh screen is limited by its intermediate dimension. Sheppard1 has shown that the ratio of maximum: intermediate: minimum average dimensions of broken rock fragments may be taken as about 1.5 : 1 : 0.6 for nonslabby rocks such as are normally crushed, while for slabby rocks, such as thin-bedded sedimentaries, foliated schists and gneisses, and the blocky metamorphics, the ratio is of the average order I.3:I:0.3, with the possibility of an even smaller relative value for the thickness. Gaudin2 finds the corresponding ratio for 150 + 200-mesh pyrite to be 1.4: 1 : 0.6. The hourly tonnage of crusher-plant feed, therefore, should be diminished by the amount thereof that would pass a square-mesh screen of which the aperture is S times the crusher setting, where S is a shape factor with the value 1.7 for rocks that break exceptionally cubic; 2 for ores and rocks that exhibit no appreciable tendency to slabbiness; and 2.5 to 3, or, in exceptional cases, even larger, when the tendency to slabbiness is marked. R80 is the quotient of the theoretical square-mesh aperture that would pass 80 per cent of the feed, divided by the aperture that would pass 80 per cent of the product. It is best determined from screen tests.

Jan 1, 1941

By Arthur F. Taggart

THIS paper proposes two units (believed to be new) for designating, respectively, capacity and efficiency for primary and intermediate crushers. CAPACITY Operators know that the tonnage of rock that can be put through a particular crusher in a given time depends primarily upon the crusher setting (open setting for jaw and primary gyratory types; closed setting for cones and rolls), and secondarily on the lithological character of the feed, its maximum size, the amount of fines that it carries, its moisture content, and the method of feeding. The proposed capacity formula states a relationship between all of these factors in one empirical equation, as follows: TR = TR80KK'K" [I] in which TR, called "reduction tons per hour" is the new capacity unit; T = tons of feed per hour requiring crushing; R50 = "80-per cent reduction ratio"; and K, K', and K" are constants that approximate quantitatively lithological character, moisture content and method of feeding, respectively. T is the hourly weight of material in the feed that is coarser than the coarsest discharge of the crusher. (For marked departures from the normal specific-gravity range-2.5 to 2.7-T should be adjusted to corresponding volumes.) In the crushers under consideration, discharge from the crushing zone is limited by the minimum dimension of a particle. Passage of the particle through a square-mesh screen is limited by its intermediate dimension. Sheppard' has shown that the ratio of maximum: intermediate: minimum average dimensions of broken rock fragments may be taken as about I.5: I: 0.6 for nonslabby rocks such as are normally crushed, while for slabby rocks, such as thin-bedded sedimentaries, foliated schists and gneisses, and the blocky metamorphics, the ratio is of the average order I.3:I:0.3, with the possibility of an even smaller relative value for the thickness. Gaudin2 finds the corresponding ratio for -150 + 200-mesh pyrite to be I.4: I : 0.6. The hourly tonnage of crusher-plant feed, therefore, should be diminished by the amount thereof that would pass a square-mesh screen of which the aperture is S times the crusher setting, where S is a shape factor with the value I.7 for rocks that break exceptionally cubic; 2 for ores and rocks that exhibit no appreciable tendency to slabbiness; and 2.5 to 3, or, in exceptional cases, even larger, when the tendency to slabbiness is marked. R80 is the quotient of the theoretical square-mesh aperture that would pass 8o per cent of the feed, divided by the aperture that would pass S0 per cent of the product. It is best determined from screen tests.

Jan 1, 1941

By Arthur F. Taggart

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

Jan 1, 1943

By Arthur F. Taggart

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

Jan 1, 1943

By 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

By E. P. Pfleider, W. G. Pariseau

Even as the rational selection of excavation equipment requires a matching of machine performance capabilities to rock response characteristics, the functional features of transportation systems must be matched to the characteristics of the materials handled in order to secure optimum, trouble-free operation. In particular, ore passes and chutes must be designed for flow in order to insure controlled draw whenever a chute is opened. The alternative to quantitative design is, of course, the well known ad hoc procedure of freeing plugged ore passes, cleaning up spillage from flooded chutes, etc., after installation of the system. Since the voluminous empirical work sporadically undertaken through the years evidently had not led to reliable design methodology, it seemed worthwhile to attempt a rational and complete description of the movement of material through ore passes. The concepts of de- formable body mechanics applicable to gravity-induced flows of granular media or "soils" were involved. Accordingly, the mathematical theory of soil plasticity was adopted as a working hypothesis, and a two-dimensional laboratory model of an ore pass constructed in order to investigate the appropriateness of the theory. The general experimental strategy consisted of formulating the movement of material in ore passes as a boundary value problem in soil plasticity, determining the required boundary values of stress and velocity experimentally, and then using these data for the initiation of a theoretical solution for stress and velocity throughout the moving mass of material. A comparison between the theoretical and experimental constituted the test of the original hypothesis.

Jan 6, 1968