Search Documents

By Louis E. Reber

Jan 1, 1922

Adams, Benjamin C., Jr., Student, Univ. of Oklahoma Norman, Okla. '36 Adams, Ernest C., Student, Univ. of Illinois 908 W. Green St., Urbana, Ill. '35 Adams, George H., Student, Colorado School of Mines Golden, Colo. '36 Adams, Robert Keller Mitchell Hotel, No. 18, Golden, Colo. '35 Afshar, Hadji Khan A., Student Box 63, Univ. Sta., Moscow, Idaho. '36 Ahrenholz, Herman William, Jr., Student, Lehigh Univ Bethlehem, Pa. '35 Alger, Robert P., Student, Missouri School of Mines & Met.Rolla, Mo. '36 Allen, Paul W., Student, Mass. Inst. of Tech Cambridge, Mass. '35 Allen, R. M., Jr., Student, Virginia Polytechnic Inst., "G" Co.Blacksburg, Va. '35 Alley, John Arnold, Student, Montana School of Mines Butte, Mont. '36 Amberger, R. H., Student, Michigan College of Min. & Tech Houghton, Mich. '35 Ambrosiani, F. Peter, Student, Michigan College of Min. & Tech Houghton, Mich. '36 Andersen, Burton Lee, Student, School of Mines, Univ. of Washington Seattle, Wash. '36 Anderson, Carlos, Student, Univ. of Oklahoma Norman, Okla. '36 Anderson, J. Wendell, Student, Pennsylvania State College State College, Pa. '36 Anderson, Joseph S. Cornelia Hotel, Ajo, Ariz. '35 Anderson, R. C., Student, Univ. of Washington Seattle, Wash. '35 Anderson, Roy A., Student, Washington State College Pullman, Wash. '35 Anderson, Willard. Student. Univ. of Oklahoma Norman, Okla. '36

Jan 1, 1936

By A. Aly Selim

A computer model was developed to calculate the fragmentation cost for in situ leaching operations as a function of the blast design and deposit parameters. The model is based on blasting an ore zone only or an ore zone plus overburden by either a coyote blast or a vertical blasthole system. The model calculates the blast design parameters and the fragmentation cost based either on a user input powder factor value or on a powder factor calculated by the model as a function of the overburden height and the ore zone thickness. Examples of blast design parameters calculated by the model are the number and spacing of blastholes for a vertical blasthole system and the number and spacing of crosscuts for a coyote system. The model also calculates the total amount of explosives, the detonating cord length, and the number of primers. The cost of blasthole drilling can be calculated by the model based either on purchasing and operating a drill or on a user input value of the contracted cost of drilling. Application of the model to an example ore deposit showed that the vertical blasthole systems were more economical than the coyote system when there was no overburden and the deposit had an average ore thickness less than 45 meters. With no overburden and ore thickness greater than 45 meters, the vertical blasthole system was either more or less expensive than the coyote system depending on the number of levels used in the coyote system. With overburden, the coyote system was less expensive than the vertical blasthole system for blasting either the ore only or the ore plus the overburden. A coyote blast will usually produce larger particle sizes than a vertical blasthole system. Larger particle sizes can result in lower copper recoveries so that a less expensive coyote blast may not improve the overall economics of an in situ leaching operation. Blasting the ore zone only was generally less expensive than blasting the ore plus the overburden by either blasting system. Also, for the example considered, the coyote system costs were less sensitive to changes in overburden thickness and powder factor while the vertical blasthole system costs were less sensitive to changes in ore thickness.

Jan 1, 1977

By Charles A. Stetefeldt

This treatise is the sequel of a paper on "Russell's Improved Process for the Lixiviation of Silver-ores," etc., read at the Chicago meeting, in May, 1884, and published in the Transactions, vol. xiii., page 47. The facts it presents are principally compiled from Mr. Russell's notes on his practical experience gained in various places where the Russell process has been introduced. For a complete understanding of this paper a perusal of my former one is desirable, as can be seen from the frequent references here made to it. All silver-ores that do not carry a large percentage of lead or copper can be treated by Russell's process with success and economy. I do not mean to create the impression that from ores containing considerable quantities of lead and copper a high percentage of the silver cannot be extracted by this process. Such ores, however, will, in many localities, be reduced to better advantage by smelting. In case lead-bearing silver-ores are suitable for concentration, it may be profitable to concentrate the ore by Krom's dry system, obtaining a smelting-product high in lead, and to lixiviate the tailings and the dust. This plan has been adopted in a mill recently erected in Cortez District, Nevada. The dry system of concentration deserves the preference because it delivers the tailings and the dust in a condition ready for chloridizing-roasting. In wet concentration the drying of the tail ings would be expensive, and there would be a considerable loss of silver in slimes. Oxidized ores, containing silver chloride and lead minerals, may be lixiviated after crushing, and the tailings may be concentrated for lead. In this case wet concentration would be most suitable. This has been done at the Old Telegraph Mine, Utah. I would give, however, the preference to dry concentration in all cases which, of course, requires that concentration should precede lixiviation. The Russell process is also adapted to the treatment of tailings resulting from ores which have been worked either by the old

Jan 1, 1887

By C. A. Meissner

THE following is a further discussion of the paper of James Gayley, " The Application of Dry-Air Blast to the Manufacture of Iron " (Trans., xxxv., 746), with special reference to his sup-plementary paper (Bi-Monthly Bulletin, No. 4, July, 1905, pp. 797 to 819), and. to the paper of J. E. Johnson, Jr., "Notes on the Physical Action of the Blast Furnace " (Bi-Monthly Bulletin, No. 5, September, 1905, pp. 1111 to 1146). Mr. Gayley's paper has been discussed also by E. Windsor Richards, R. W. Raymond, E. H. Saniter, W. J. Foster, H. M. Howe, V. Pendred, B. H. Thwaite, James Gayley and Alexander Pourcel (Trans., xxxv., pp. 1022 to 1042), Joseph W. Richards (Bi-Monthly Bulletin, No. 4, July, 1905, pp. 703 to 718); T. W. Robinson (Bi-Monthly Bulletin, No. 4, July, 1905, pp. 788 to 796) ; C. B. Dudley, R. W. Raymond, J. E. Johnson, Jr., W. F. Mattes, James Gayley, David Baker, John Birkinbine and F. E. Bachman (Bi-Monthly Bulletin, No. 5, September, 1905, pp. 1147 to 1152);.E. de Mille Campbell (Bi-Monthly Bulletin., No. 1, January, 1906, pp. 25 to 50) ; John Birkinbine (Bi-Monthly Bulletin, No. 1, January, 1906, pp. 137, 138). At the Washington meeting of the Institute, May, 1905, a very instructive and interesting paper was presented by Mr. J. E. Johnson, Jr., entitled " Notes on the Physical Action of the Blast Furnace,"' in which reference is made to Mr. Gayley's dry-blast process. A few of Mr. Johnson's conclusions, as summarized in the last pages of his paper, do not appear to me to be in complete accordance with the results obtained at the Isabella furnaces; and I therefore present the following notes which may throw further light on this subject: Mr. Gayley has called attention to the fact that the moisture in the air is an extremely variable and uncertain factor; and

May 1, 1906

By A. W. Ashbrook

There are essentially three main classifications for extractants: acidic, basic, and neutral. The acidic and basic are also referred to as cationic and anionic, respectively. Some extractants are shown in Table 11-1. Acidic Extractants Acidic extractants which are of use, because of cost and/or insolubility in water, are alkylphosphoric, sulphonic, aliphatic monocarboxylic acids and naphthalene derivatives.

Jan 1, 1978