Search Documents

By E. C. Burke

IN view of rather widespread use of calcium as an alloying addition to magnesium alloys, it is rather surprising to find that, although the general features of the Mg-Ca equilibrium diagram are known with a fair degree of certainty,' ," considerable ambiguity concerning the solid solubility of calcium in magnesium exists. By using the disappearing phase technique in a metallographic study, Haughton' found that 0.6 pct Ca was soluble at 300°C and 1.8 pct was soluble at 516°C, the eutectic temperature

Jan 1, 1956

By Sherwin F. Kelly

THIS is intended as a simple review of the principles and practice of geophysics, so will not be of interest to the geophysicist, who is hereby warned of its elementary character. The engineers for whom it is written are those who, having glimpsed the formidable formulas and discussions of the geophysicists, give all publications on the subject a wide berth. For a few years now the geo-physicists have had a tendency to be ingrowing at their meetings, going deeper and deeper into theory and instrument construction, and forgetting to present the topics that would interest the practicing engineer who desires merely to know how geophysics can help him, not why.

Jan 1, 1934

PRESIDENTS DAVID THOMAS 1871 Born November 3, 1794, Cadoxtan, Glamorganshire, South Wales. Died in 1882. Attended schools in Wales. Came to America in 1839. A.I.M.E.: Member, 1871; Honorary Member. Iron manufacturer; inventor. Built first anthracite fired hot-blast furnace in America. Known as the "Father of the Lehigh Valley." President, Catasauqua and Fogelsville Railroad; Director, Lehigh Valley Railroad; Founder, Thomas Iron Co. and St. Luke's Hospital at Bethlehem, Pa.; Trustee, Lafayette College.4 ROSSITER WORTHINGTON RAYMOND 1872-1874 Born April 27, 1840, Cincinnati, Ohio. Died in 1918. Brooklyn Polytechnic Institute, 1857; Lafayette College, Ph.D., 1868; Lehigh University, LL.D., 1906; University of Pittsburgh, Hon. LL.D., 1915., Gold Medal, Institution of Mining and Metallurgy (London). A.I.M.E.: Founder, Member of 1871; Vice President, 1871, 1876-1877; Secretary, 1884-1911; Secretary Emeritus, 1911-1918; Honorary Member. Consul¬ing mining engineer; practicing lawyer, sailor, soldier, writer, orator, editor, theologian, teacher, novelist, chess player. Recognized as the "Grand Old Man of the Institute." ALEXANDER LYMAN HOLI,EY 1875 Born July 20, 1832, Lakeville, Conn. Died in 1882. Brown University, 1853; Hon. LL.D., 1878. A.I.M.E.: Member, 1871; Vice President, 1874; Manager, 1877-1879. Bessemer Medal (Iron and Steel Institute, London), posthumously. Brought bessemer process to United States. A statue was erected in Washington Square in his memory and presented to the City of New York in 1889. The inscription notes: "foremost among those whose genius and energy established in America and improved throughout the world the manufacture of bessemer steel." ABRAM STEVENS HEWITT 1876 Born July 31, 1822, Haverstraw, N. Y. Died in 1903. Columbia University, 1842; Hon. LL.D., 1887. A.I.M.E.: Member, 1871; Manager, 1872-1875. Bessemer Medalist and Honorary Member, Iron and Steel Institute (London). Gold Medal, Chamber of Commerce of New York City. Philanthropist, lawyer, statesman, publicist, pioneer in the iron and steel industry. Mayor of New York City in 1887. Business partner of Peter Cooper, Executive Manager of Board of Trustees, Cooper Union, New York City.

Jan 1, 1947

Jan 1, 1967

JoHN W. BELL, Montreal, Quebec, Canada (communication to the Secretary*).-Mr. Taggart's reply illuminates a puzzling element in his original paper. Unconsciously, he has allowed practical considerations to influence some of his conclusions. In certain cases, he accepts the direct conclusions indicated by his Stadler efficiencies, and these are proved wrong by both the Rittinger and practical method for estimating efficiency. In other cases, a direct conclusion based on his Stadler figures would be so unsatisfactory to him, that he is. compelled to argue how he could have obtained satisfactory results if lie had crone something that

Jan 10, 1917

Jan 1, 1943

By M. E. Gershon

The development of long-term plans and schedules for strip mines now faces many companies, especially those developing large properties in the West. The rule of mining the lowest strip ratios first, while delaying equipment acquisitions and recouping investment the fastest, sometimes creates the situation where stripping ratios are too high in the latter years of mining operations. A program concept taking life of mine return on investment into account is developed in this paper to optimize mine scheduling and equipment acquisition. In addition, quality considerations (heat content, ash, sulfur, and washability) can be considered by including the appropriate blending constraints to meet contract requirements.

Jan 1, 1984

By L. Edeleanu

Crude petroleum is a mixture of various groups of hydrocarbons and some bodies containing oxygen or sulphur.

Jan 1, 1915

By T. N. Singh, B. Singh

SUMMARY. The supports account for over 501 of the total expenditure for a longwall face. The success and economics of a face depend upon the optimum selection of type and density of the supports. Empirical solutions involving uncertain safety factor are replaced by a geo-mining approach developed at OMRS in which the support resistance is defined by the stability index of the roof rock mass and the failure pattern of the immediate roof. The paper gives the methodology adopted to define the support resistance for Alkusha colliery longwall face of Jharia coalfield (India). The stability index of the roof mass varied from 218 to 520 for the individual beds and 1100 to 1374 for the immediate roof mass. The exact support resistance for the condition was found to be 42 t/m2.

Jan 1, 1982

By A. H. Daane, B. J. Beaudry

The uranium-antimony system has been investigated by metal-lographic, therma1, and X-ray methods. There are four intermediate phases present: USbz and U,Sb, which undergo peritectic decomposition at 1355°and 1695OC, respectively, and USb and UPSbs which melt congruently at 1850"and 1800°C, respectively. There is a eutectic between U4Sbs and USb which melts at 1770°C. USb,, UsSb4, and USb are line compounds while U4Sbs has a solubility range of approximately 1.5 at. pct at 1770°C. Single crystal studies of the cmpo,und U.,SbS show it to have a hexagonal unit cell with a, = 9.268A and c, = 6.201b;. The solubility of uranium in liquid antimony increases from 0.1 at. pct at 650°C to 1.5 at. pct at 900°C. The solubility of antimony in a, P, and y uranium is approximately 0.02, 0.1, and 0.05 at. pct respectively. IN nuclear reactors, uranium has been used mainly in the form of solid-fuel elements of the pure-metal or uranium-rich alloys. However, in attempts to overcome some of the difficulties inherent in solid-fueled reactors, reactor concepts hive been proposed in which the fuel would be a liquid metal, such as a solution of uranium in another metal. The liquid-metal fueled reactor (LMFR) designed by the Brook-haven National Laboratory of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission is an example. Fuel for this reactor is a solution of approximately 800 ppm enriched uranium in bismuth.' To design such liquid-fueled reactors, a background of information on the solubility of uranium in various metals is obviously necessary. The present study was undertaken to pro- vide information for such purposes, and in addition, to study the uranium-antimony system as a whole. A preliminary literature search showed that some work had been done previously on uranium-antimony alloys, but no attempts had been made to make a complete study of this system. The solubility of uranium in antimony was studied by Cammack and Bridger' up to 950°C and by Hayes and Gordon up to 900'-C. Their data are plotted in Fig. 1. Ferro, in an X-ray structure study of some uranium-antimony compounds, found USg to be tetragonal with a, = 4.2724 and c, = 8.471A, U3S4 to be b.c.c. with aO = 9.095A and USb to be f.c.c. with a,= 6.191A. Colani reported the compound UsSba; however, work by Ferro and by this Laboratory showed that this compound does not exist. foote' reported several intermediate phases in the uranium-antimony system, but did not identify them. Greninger' re-ported finding an intermediate phase in a 5 at. pct Sb

Jan 1, 1960

By Virgil Miller, F. B. Petermann, S. F. Ravitz

The Cle Elum nickeliferous iron deposit is in Kittitas County, Washington, in a rugged, mountainous region about 23 miles north of the town of Cle Elum. The Biewett Pass deposit, which is similar in character and occurrence, is in Chelan County, about 18 miles east of the Cle Elum deposit. A more or less continuous ore zone may extend between the two deposits, since iron ore is reported to have been discovered at Iron Mountain, which lies directly between them. The ore probably was formed by meta-morphism of laterite resulting from Ieach-ing of serpentine derived from peridotite. It consists largely of magnetite grains distributed through a matrix of limonitic material containing a small amount of hematite and chromite. Many of the chromite grains have shells and inclusions of magnetite. The magnetite grains range in size from 1200-mesh to 1/4-in., the average size being 48 to 65-mesh; the chromite grains range from 20 to 150-mesh. The gangue minerals are olivine and serpentine with a small, amount of chlorite, and appear both as very thin bands in the ore and 's minute fragments in the limonitic matrix. The nickel is present as minUte inclusions of a nickel silicate mineral within the magnetite and gangue par- ticles, varying in size from 1500 to about 280-mesh. Detailed analyses of 3000-lb. lots of Cle Elum and Blewett Pass ore are given in Table I. TABLE i.—Analyses of Ore Samples Per Cent Ore from Constituent cle Elum' Blewett Pass Cr....................... 2.23 2-12 Ni...................... 1.43 0.9s Fe...................... 52.9 41.4 SiOz.................... 5.6 13.4 CaO.................... 0.3 0.8 MgO................... 4-1 7-5 AI2O3................... 7.0 2.g P...................... 0.022 0.034 S....................... O.O1 o.oa Mn..................... I.I 0.4 Ba..................... nil co..................... o.oa 0.02 CU..................... 0.02 0.03 As...................... 0.03 Au..................... nil Ag°..................... O.58 Pt...................... ml Fe++.................... 8.9 5-9 Fe+++.................. 44-0 35-5 « Ounces per ton, 1 sr,cte,so,","&&$ally absent: B, W, M~, T~, V, ~i, Bi, Pb. Sb. Sn. Be, In, Hg. Zn, Zr. Cd. Preliminary Tests Attempts to beneficiate the ore by ore-dressing methods, including various 'cornbinations of sink and float, tabling, jigging, flotation, and magnetic separation, were consistently unsuccessful. A wide variety of roasting and leaching tests were made on both raw and reduced ore, but in most of the tests little or no nickel was extracted, and in none did the extraction exceed 50 Per cent. No nickel could be volatilized as the carbonyl. by treating reduced ore with carbon monoxide. Fairly good sepa-

Jan 1, 1944

By P. W. George, G. A. Hellstrand

In 1915, H. A. Guess, Vice President of American Smelting & Refining Co., in charge of its Mining Department, learned that the Anglo-Newfoundland Development Co., Ltd., a pulpwood and paper-mill enterprise, had found upon its large concession in Newfoundland, and had opened up by shaft to the third level and some drifting, a lenticular orebody indicating about 100,000 tons, as an extremely fine-grained sulfide ore, averaging about 0.05 oz. Au, 4 oz. Ag, 1.5 per cent Cu, 10 per cent Pb, 18 per cent Zn; and that having sent parcels of this ore to Minerals Separation, Ltd., and various other metallurgical testing concerns without obtaining any success in commercial separations thereof, had discontinued work thereon and let the workings fill. Mr. Guess wrote to the general manager of that company and obtained a few hundred pounds of the typical ore, which he sent to his company's metallurgical testing laboratory at Flat River, Mo., outlining various flotation tests desired thereon, in an endeavor to obtain separation into a commercial lead concentrate and a zinc concentrate. But the art of flotation had not then progressed far enough to treat such ore, the galena and zinc blende being so fine grained that grinding to about 300 mesh was required to release the mineral particles in their gangue. Mr. Guess had flotation and other tests continued upon this ore from time to time with whatever new reagents and flotation devices were evolved as time went on, and finally, in 1925, he succeeded in effecting in his company's testing plant, then at Wallace, Idaho, separations into lead concentrates and zinc concentrates of satisfactory commercial grade. Mr. Guess then proceeded to unwater, examine and sample the property and made with the owners a partnership operating agreement upon the mine itself and a considerable area surrounding it, and in the early summer of 1926 began to prospect for additional orebodies, utilizing for such prospecting geophysical methods under the direction of Hans Lundberg, methods which up to that time had been little used in mining in the western hemisphere. This geophysical work found two large flat-lying orebodies of a type precisely similar to the smaller body of the original discovery. The larger orebody, some 3500 ft. west of the original

Jan 1, 1935

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

Jan 1, 1932

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

Jan 1, 1941

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

Jan 1, 1934

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

Jan 1, 1939

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

Jan 1, 1944

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

Jan 1, 1936

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

Jan 1, 1932

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

Jan 1, 1934