Search Documents

By O. B. Buchlen, J. W. Smith

The Coal Research Bureau of the School of Mines at West Virginia University, using an experimental flotation cell designated an airlift-cyclone was able to obtain a clean coal product containing 7.64% ash with 94% yield and 97% coal recovery. This favorable performance was obtained with the experimental flotation cell operating as a simulated three-stage unit on slurry taken from the fine coal circuit of a coal preparation plant. This experimental device, consisting of a sheet metal cyclone-like unit mounted on a U-shaped uplift pipe, uses a combined flotation and cyclone action to beneficiate the minus 14 mesh partially cleaned feed product. In addition to providing comparable analytical results, the airlift-cyclone possesses other attractive features among them being a low capital expenditure, utilization of moderate plant floor space, efficient operation on high density feed slurry, and absence of moving parts. The primary shortcoming of the experimental cell is its limited capacity. The Coal Research Bureau presently has under construction a larger unit which, it is hoped, will provide the capacity and quality to establish the airlift-cyclone as a commercially feasible unit. Froth flotation of fine coal is a practice which has only recently gained wide acceptance in this country. Various explanations can be put forth for this delayed acceptance of a very selective and efficient system of coal preparation. Among these reasons would be the advent of continuous mining machines resulting in the increased production of coal fines, the change in market patterns from domestic and rail consumers who did not want fines to a predominantly utility market which normally consumes fines, and also the imposition of legal restrictions in regard to stream pollution. However, the major detriment is probably the high cost involved both in installation and operation of the flo- tation unit and auxiliary systems. These facts assume greater emphasis when considering that froth flotation installations normally process a low quality feed product. A recent estimate' of installation costs including dryers, filters, and other auxiliary equipment for a flotation system was $5000 to $7000 per ton of capacity while the operating costs, exclusive of auxiliary equipment, were estimated at 10 to 306 per ton of feed. The Coal Research Bureau of the School of Mines at West Virginia University is currently developing a simplified froth flotation cell, designated an airlift-cyclone, which may provide considerable savings in capital and operating costs without sacrificing product quality or recovery. This experimental cell consists of three primary components: 1) a vertically mounted U-shaped pipe; 2) an air injector device; and 3) an integrally mounted cyclone-like unit (Fig. 1). A feed slurry is introduced at the top of one leg of the U-pipe while compressed air is injected near the base of the other leg. The air serves both to aerate the pulp and to cause it to flow upward into the base of the cyclone unit where the floated clean coal is separated from the reject material and unfloated coal which remains in slurry. The Coal Research Bureau's experimental airlift-cyclone is somewhat similar in principle to a flotation device developed by Russian engineers in the late 1950's. In tests upon a two-stage pilot-size device, the Russians obtained very favorable cleaning efficiencies.' However, later experience with production models demonstrated that rated capacities and acceptable product quality could not always be maintained.3 Because of these limitations, Russian engineers subsequently recommended that conventional, mechanical cells be used when cleaning difficult to float slurries. Engineers at the Coal Research Bureau felt that such a device utilizing the combined actions of a cyclone and a froth flotation machine offered numerous attractive features and merited investigation. Accordingly, a small capacity experimental airlift-cyclone was designed and, with the permission of the Christopher Coal Company Div. of Consolidation Coal Co., installed in Christopher's Humphrey preparation plant near Morgantown, West Virginia.

Jan 1, 1964

By AIME AIME

BY the end of 1943, the United States will be able to produce aluminum at a rate of 1,150,000 tons a year. How much aluminum is 1,150,000 tons? It is sufficient to replace every railroad passenger car in this country three times a year. Or, it would put a thirty-piece aluminum cooking utensil set in every one of America's 34,000,000 homes with enough metal left over to make 5,000,000 miles of aluminum transmission cable, such as was used in the electrification of much of rural America. Expansion of aluminum production capacity for the war program has occurred in three steps: (1) expansion by private industry; (2) the letting of contracts by the Defense Plant Corp. for the construction of additional aluminum plants which may remain after the war to compete with existing facilities; and (3) the more recently announced D.P.C. program for the building of emergency plants to make aluminum, using stand-by power available in large metropolitan centers power of relatively higher cost, making it questionable whether such plants, now gravely needed, will be able to compete in a peacetime economy.

Jan 1, 1943

By Carl F. Floe, Michael B. Bever

ACCELERATED by the demands of war, research and development work in nonferrous physical metallurgy has continued at a rapid pace during the past year. In particular, advances have been made in processing and fabrication, especially of the light alloys, and in the surface treatment of metals. Theoretical physical metallurgy, although less active, has not been neglected and the year has brought forth some -notable contributions to our understanding of the fundamental structure of metals and their behavior in service. Of course, much work that has been done cannot be publicly discussed because of wartime restrictions.

Jan 1, 1945

By John Tyssowski

IN 1925, Harry Howard Stout, then metallurgist for Phelps Dodge Corporation, while investigating the cleaning of cathode copper by various gases at elevated temper-atures below the melting point of the metal, observed in the laboratory that particles of pure copper heated in a closed tube filled with hydrogen seemingly "stuck together." By further investigation he found that there was actual crystal growth across the boundaries of the particles of pure metal; in other words, there was a complete new crystal realignment and growth throughout the newly formed copper mass. It was coalescence, not adhesion; the several parti-cles had become one unit. From this dis-covery has been developed the coalescence process, whereby copper of cathode purity is squirted out in semifabricated form from an extrusion press, by the appli-cation of about 3000 tons pressure on a 10-in. piston. Stout decided that cathode copper pro-duced by electrolytic deposition was the logical source of the pure copper required for the coalescence process, but as there was no way of reducing the ordinary tough commercial cathodes to the small particles required he was confronted by a serious problem at the outset. Under his direction, this problem was solved by William H. Osborn and Harry Howard Stout, Jr. They developed the process and technique for producing cathode copper in brittle, friable

Jan 1, 1940

By W. C. Hauber

Techniques previously published to predict the production performance of a water flood when the mobility ratio is not unity have been primarily restricted to a five-spot well pattern. When other types of well patterns are considered, the prediction of performance has required either a model study or a complex numerical solution of a multiple-fluid system with a high-speed digital computer. Simple methods are developed in this report for predicting the areal sweep efficiency and injectivity history of a water flood for arbitrary well patterns and mobility ratios. The effect of an initial gas saturation can be incorporated into this method of prediction. With the layer superposition concepts published by Prats, et al.,1 these methods can be used to predict the production performance of a water flood in a reservoir having a wide range in permeability. A reasonably good agreement is shown by comparisons of the results calculated by this method with those obtained either by model studies or by complex numerical solution of multiple-fluid systems. Therefore, it has been concluded that a reasonably accurate method has been developed for predicting the production performance of a water flood employing an arbitrary type of well pattern for any given mobility ratio. A medium-speed digital computer can be used in applying this method. INTRODUCTION Production performance of multi-fluid five-spot water floods can be predicted by the techniques published by Prats, et al.1 This technique takes into account the effects of initial gas saturation, mobility ratio and vertical variations in horizontal permeability. A basic assumption in applying this technique is that unit displacement efficiency does not vary with time after the passage of the flood front. Prats, et al. demonstrated that this assumption is valid for normal waterflood applications with small mobility ratios. To extend Prats' technique to other types of well patterns has required either an experimental model study or a numerical solution of a multiple-fluid system to describe the performance of an individual homogeneous layer. Sheldon and Dougherty2 presented an exact numerical solution employing any arbitrary well pattern. This technique is complex to apply, requiring (1) numerical solution of the single-fluid system, (2) conformal mapping of the streamlines and iso-potential lines to form a new grid network, and (3) a numerical solution of the multi-fluid system on the new grid network. A method was developed in this paper to approximate areal sweep efficiency and injectivity as functions of time for an individual homogeneous layer for arbitrary well patterns and mobility ratios. Analytic expressions were derived to directly apply this method to five-spot and direct line drive well patterns. For other types of well patterns, this method is similar to the approach of Higgids and Leighton,6 in that it utilizes the stream tubes and iso-potential lines obtained by the solution of differential equations when the mobility ratio is unity. However, this method is easier to apply than the Higgins-Leighton method since it does not require knowledge of the variation between oil and water relative permeabilities and saturation. Using the relationship between areal sweep efficiency, injectivity and the volume of water injected into an individual homogeneous layer as obtained by the method presented in this paper, and Prats' technique for the superposition of individual layers, one can predict the production performance of any water flood. ASSUMPTIONS GENERAL Basic assumptions made in this report are that fluids are incompressible and the layers are horizontal, homogeneous and uniformly thick. It is assumed that as water is injected into the layer, three distinct regions are formed —a water bank, an oil bank, and an unflooded region. Each region is assumed to displace other regions in a pis-tonlike manner, with only one fluid flowing in each region, so that there is no change in unit displacement efficiency with time after the flood front has passed in the reservoir. Therefore, the residual oil saturation in the water bank and the oil saturations in the unflooded region are constant throughout the layer. The ratio (F) of the bulk volume of a layer occupied by the oil and water banks at any time before oil breakthrough, to the corresponding bulk volume of a layer occupied by the water bank, is given' by the equation BREAKTHROUGH AREAL SWEEP EFFICIENCY To predict the behavior of any type of waterflood pattern, one must know the breakthrough areal sweep efficiency Eb(Mc,o, F) for the pattern for any water:oil mo-

Jan 1, 1965

PRESIDENT CHARLES F. RAND,1 NEW YORK, N. Y. PAST PRESIDENTS CHARLES KIRCHHOFF,1 NEW YORK, N. Y. JAMES F. KEMP,2 NEW YORK, N. Y. FIRST VICE-PRESIDENT BENJAMIN B. THAYER,1 NEW YORK, N. Y. TREASURER GEORGE C. STONE,1 NEW YORK, N. Y. SECRETARY EMERITUS ROSSITER W. RAYMOND NEW YORK, N.Y. SECRETARY BRADLEY STOUGHTON NEW YORK, N. Y.

Jan 1, 1914

PRESIDENT. CHARLES F. RAND,1 NEW YORK, N. Y. PAST PRESIDENTS. CHARLES KIRCHHOFF,1 NEW YORK, N. Y. JAMES F. KEMP,2 NEW YORK, N. Y. FIRST VICE-PRESIDENT. BENJAMIN B. THAYER,1 NEW YORK, N. Y. TREASURER. GEORGE C. STONE,' NEW YORK, N. Y. SECRETARY EMERITUS. ROSSITER W. RAYMOND NEW YORK, N. Y. SECRETARY. BRADLEY STOUGHTON NEW YORK, N. Y.

Jan 11, 1913

PRESIDENT. CHARLES F. RAND,1 NEW YORK, N. Y. PAST PRESIDENTS. CHARLES KIRCHHOFF,1 NEW. YORK, N. Y. JAMES F. KEMP,2 NEW YORK, N. Y. FIRST VICE-PRESIDENT. BENJAMIN B. THAYER,1 NEW YORK, N. Y. TREASURER. GEORGE C. STONE,' NEW YORK, N. Y. SECRETARY EMERITUS. ROSSITER W. RAYMOND NEW YORK, N. Y. SECRETARY. BRADLEY STOUGHTON NEW YORK, N. Y.

Jan 7, 1913

PRESIDENT. CHARLES F. RAND,1 NEW YORK, N. Y. PAST PRESIDENTS. CHARLES KIRCHHOFF,1 NEW YORK, N. Y. JAMES F. KEMP, 2 NEW YORK, N. Y. FIRST VICE-PRESIDENT. BENJAMIN B. THAYER,1 NEW YORK, N. Y. TREASURER. GEORGE C. STONE,1 NEW YORK, N. Y. SECRETARY EMERITUS. ROSSITER. W. RAYMOND NEW YORK, N. Y. SECRETARY BRADLEY STOUGHTON, NEW YORK, N. Y.

Jan 12, 1913

PRESIDENT BENJAMIN B. THAYER,1 NEW YORK, N. Y. PAST' PRESIDENTS JAMES F. KEMP,1 NEW YORK, N. Y. CHARLES F..RAND,2 NEW YORK, N. Y. FIRST VICE-PRESIDENT SIDNEY K. KENNINGS,1 NEW YORK, N. Y. TREASURER GEORGE C. STONE,1 NEW YORK, N. Y. SECRETARY EMERITUS ROSSITER W. RAYMOND, NEW YORK, N. Y. SECRETARY BRADLEY STOUGHTON NEW YORK, N. Y

Jan 6, 1914

PRESIDENT. CHARLES F. RAND,1 NEW YORK, N. Y. PAST PRESIDENTS. CHARLES KIRCHHOFF,1 NEW YORK, N. Y. JAMES F. KEMP,2 NEW YORK, N. Y. FIRST VICE-PRESIDENT. BENJAMIN B. THAYER,1 NEW YORK, N. Y. TREASURER. GEORGE C. STONE,1 NEW YORK, N. Y. SECRETARY EMERITUS. ROSSITER W. RAYMOND NEW YORK, N. Y. SECRETARY. BRADLEY STOUGHTON NEW YORK, N. Y.

Jan 10, 1913

PRESIDENT BENJAMIN B. THAYER,2 NEW YORK, N. Y. PAST PRESIDENTS JAMES F. KEMP,1 NEW YORK, N. Y. CHARLES F. RAND,2 NEW YORK, N. Y. FIRST VICE-PRESIDENT SIDNEY J. JENNINGS,1 NEW YORK, N. Y. TREASURER GEORGE C. STONE,1 .NEW YORK, N. Y. SECRETARY EMERITUS ROSSITER W. RAYMOND, NEW YORK, N. Y. SECRETARY. BRADLEY STOUGHTON NEW YORK, N. Y.

Jan 7, 1914

PRESIDENT BENJAMIN B. THAYER,2 NEW YORK, N. Y. PAST PRESIDENTS JAMES F. KEMP,1 NEW YORK, N. Y. CHARLES F. RAND,2 NEW YORK, N. Y. FIRST VICE-PRESIDENT SIDNEY J. JENNINGS; NEW.-YORK, N. Y. TREASURER ' GEORGE C. STONE,1 .NEW YORK, N. Y. SECRETARY EMERITUS ROSSITER W. RAYMOND, NEW YORK, N. Y. SECRETARY BRADLEY STOUGHTON NEW YORK, N. Y.

Jan 8, 1914

PRESIDENT BENJAMIN B. THAYER,2 NEW YORK, N.. Y. PAST PRESIDENTS JAMES F. KEMP,1 NEW YORK, N. Y. CHARLES F. RAND,2 .NEW YORK, N. Y. FIRST VICE-PRESIDENT SIDNEY J. JENNINGS,1 NEW YORK, N. Y. TREASURER GEORGE C. STONE,1 NEW YORK,. N. Y. SECRETARY EMERITUS ROSSITER W. RAYMOND, NEW YORK, N.Y. SECRETARY BRADLEY STOUGHTON NEW YORK, N. Y.

Jan 9, 1914

PRESIDENT BENJAMIN B. THAYER,1 NEW YORK, N. Y. PAST PRESIDENTS JAMES F. KEMP,1 NEW YORK, N. Y. CHARLES F. RAND,2 NEW YORK, N. Y. FIRST VICE-PRESIDENT SIDNEY J. JENNINGS,1 NEW YORK, N. Y. TREASURER GEORGE C. STONE,1 NEW YORK, N. Y.. SECRETARY EMERITUS ROSSITER W. RAYMOND, NEW YORK, N. Y. SECRETARY BRADLEY STOUGHTON, NEW YORK, N. Y.

Jan 10, 1914

PRESIDENT. CHARLES F. RAND,1 NEW YORK, N. Y. PAST PRESIDENTS. CHARLES KIRCHHOFF,1 NEW YORK, N. Y. JAMES F. KEMP,2 NEW YORK, N. Y. FIRST VICE-PRESIDENT. BENJAMIN B. THAYER,1 NEW YORK, N. Y. TREASURER. GEORGE C. STONE,1 NEW YORK, N. Y. SECRETARY EMERITUS. ROSSITER W. RAYMOND NEW YORK, N. Y. SECRETARY. BRADLEY STOUGHTON, NEW YORK, N. Y.

Jan 8, 1913

PRESIDENT BENJAMIN B. THAYER,1 NEW YORK, N. Y. PAST PRESIDENTS JAMES F. KEMP,1 NEW YORK, N. Y. CHARLES F. RAND,2 NEW YORK, N: Y. FIRST VICE-PRESIDENT SIDNEY J. JENNINGS,1 NEW YORK, N. Y. TREASURER GEORGE C. STONE,1 NEW YORK, N. Y. SECRETARY EMERITUS ROSSITER W. RAYMOND, NEW YORK, N. Y. SECRETARY BRADLEY STOUGHTON NEW YORE, N. Y.

Jan 12, 1914

PRESIDENT. .CHARLES F. RAND,1 NEW YORK, N. Y. PAST PRESIDENTS. CHARLES KIRCHHOFF,1 NEW York, N. Y. JAMES F. KEMP,2 NEW YORK, N. Y. FIRST VICE-PRESIDENT. BENJAMIN B. THAYER'1 NEW YORK, N. Y. TREASURER. GEORGE C. STONE,' NEW YORK, N. Y. SECRETARY EMERITUS. ROSSITER W. RAYMOND, NEW YORK, N. Y. SECRETARY . BRADLEY STOUGHTON NEW YORK, N. Y.

Jan 6, 1913

PRESIDENT BENJAMIN B. THAYER,1 NEW YORK, N. Y. PAST PRESIDENTS JAMES F. KEMP,1 NEW YORK, N. Y. CHARLES F. RAND,2 NEW YORK, N. Y. FIRST VICE-PRESIDENT SIDNEY J. JENNINGS,1 NEW YORK, N. Y. TREASURER GEORGE C: STONE,1 NEW YORK, N. Y. SECRETARY EMERITUS ROSSITER W. RAYMOND NEW YORK, N. Y. SECRETARY BRADLEY STOUGHTON NEW YORK, N. Y.

Jan 1, 1915

PRESIDENT. CHARLES F. RAND,1 NEW YORK, N. Y. PAST PRESIDENTS. CHARLES KIRCHHOFF,1 NEW YORK, N. Y. JAMES F. KEMP,2 NEW YORK, N. Y. FIRST VICE-PRESIDENT. BENJAMIN B. THAYER,1 NEW YORK, N. Y. TREASURER. GEORGE C. STONE,1 NEW YORK, N. Y. SECRETARY EMERITUS. ROSSITER W. RAYMOND NEW YORK, N. Y.

Jan 5, 1913