Search Documents

By W. M. Clark

OUR interest in the matter of pyrometers and pyrometry is primarily that of a user of considerable quantities of heat-measuring equipment; and while we play be somewhat critical on the subject we have aimed to make the nature of these comments constructive. The glass industry in America dates back to 1609, when Capt. John Smith started a small glass plant near Jamestown, Va., with a few Italian workmen, to manufacture glass beads for trading with the Indians. While the industry has expanded until it has reached a volume of over $200,000,000 per annum, the means of heat determination in Colonial days was the human eye, and in much of the industry the same means is used today. About 15 yr. ago the largest glass-house supply dealers began to sell platinum pyrometers, but as nearly all of these proved un-satisfactory, pyrometers met a temporary rebuff from the old-time glass manufacturers. As their ruggedness of construction, reliability, and stability have been improved, however, pyrometers have gradually won their way into more and more extensive use throughout the glass trade. But there are still many applications where pyrometers are not used, largely because of cost and upkeep considerations. There are two distinct fields in glass works for pyrometry. The first calls for accurate temperature measurement and the second only demands knowledge of relative comparative fluctuations of temperature, to know whether the work is becoming hotter or colder. For example, in a lehr for annealing glassware and removing strain we want accurate temperatures to know that the ware is heated to the critical temperature for rapid removal of strain. On the other hand, in a glass pot furnace nearly 120 ft. (36 m.) in circumference, where the pyrometer couples only project inside the furnace wall for less than 2 in. (50 mm.), it is inconceivable that these few inches represent the accurate temperature at every point of the 120-ft. circumference but the relative readings as to whether the pyrometer shows schedule temperature fluctuations are valuable indications for control. The glass melting in the pots is,

Jan 8, 1919

By Rodney P. Smith

THE solubility of columbium nitride in ? iron has been determined for the temperature range 1191o to 1336°C from the nitrogen content and metallogra-phic examination of a series of Fe-Nb alloys.* (0.0 to 0.92 pct Nb) equilibrated with a purified gas mixture of 1 pct hydrogen in nitrogen. The method is the same as that used by Darken, Smith, and Filer' to determine the solubility of aluminum nitride in y iron. The variation in the furnace temperature during an equilibration period was about ± 2.0°C. Each sample was approximately 1/2 in. wide, 2 in. long, and 1/16 in. thick. A time series at 1200°C using samples of highest columbium content indicated that one day was sufficient for equilibrium; however, to be on the safe side all samples were left in the furnace for either two or three days. Afterequilibration, the samples were brought to room temperature by quenching in water. The experimental results are shown in Fig. 1. To be in accord with the values reported by Wriedt and Gonzalez2 and the temperature coefficient of our results at higher temperatures, the nitrogen content of iron at 1191oC is assumed to be slightly lower than our experimental value. Our data for the single-phase regions are not sufficiently accurate to establish an interaction coefficient for nitrogen in these alloys. However, the change in nitrogen content with change in alloy content for a number of systems (Fe-N-A1;3,1 Fe-N-Ni;372 Fe-N-Si.3949 Fe-N-V;3,5 Fe-N-Cr;3,6 Fe-N-Mo3,7) has practically the same value for the liquid alloy at a temperature near 1600°C as for the solid alloy at temperatures near 1200oC when the alloy content is below a few percent. On this basis the lines through the single-phase regions have been drawn with a slope corresponding to an increase in nitrogen of 0.0013 pct per 0.1 pct Nb.3 The straight lines through the two-phase regions were drawn with a slope corresponding to a one-to-one atom ratio of nitrogen to columbium in the nitride. The X-ray

Jan 1, 1962

By E. W. McAllister

THE decision of the California Oil Umpire's1 office to accept well potentials established from subsurface-pressure data has brought to the attention of many operators for the first time the application of such data to production problems. This paper reviews the development and application of subsurface-pressure data in Kettleman Hills, where these data have been used in production work since 1932. The Kettleman Hills field was discovered in October 1928. The first subsurface-pressure surveys were made early in 1932 and by the middle of 1933 the two major operators in the field were making routine pressure runs in their respective wells. Shortly thereafter, these companies agreed to exchange pressure data, and later a third company entered into the agreement. This made it possible to analyze the effects upon the reservoir pressure of past production practices, which are discussed in the latter part of the report. It is interesting that many of the applications of subsurface-pressure data discussed herein were anticipated by C. L. Clarks and C. B. Kimberlin‡ in a reports dated March 1933. PRODUCTIVITY INDEX In the majority of individual well problems involving the use of subsurface pressure data, it is necessary to use a factor known as the "productivity index," which indicates the ability of a well to produce and represents the number of barrels of oil or oil and water per day that will enter the well bore for each pound per square inch pressure drop made opposite the producing interval of the well. The productivity index may be determined from pressure and production data for one or more rates of flow and a static or shut-in pressure survey or from production and pressure data for two or more rates of flow. Productivity indices may be based upon either net oil or total fluid production. All indices referred to in this report are based upon net oil. The value of the productivity index for Kettleman Hills wells decreases generally with time and it is not uncommon for the index to vary in value at any specific time for various rates of flow. The decline of the productivity index may be attributed partly to the loss of reservoir pressure. As. the reservoir pressure decreases, gas originally in solution is released from the oil, congesting the flow of fluids through the formation and increasing the viscosity and surface tension of the oil; thus the flow resistance of the fluids through the formation is increased, resulting in a decrease of the productivity index. For convenient reference, the productivity indices for each well are plotted against time and a curve is drawn through the points showing the trend of the average index value. Plotted on Fig. I are index values for five

Jan 1, 1941

[ ]

Jan 1, 1907

Jan 1, 1951

Jan 1, 1940

Jan 1, 1944

Jan 1, 1944

Jan 1, 1949

Jan 1, 1921

Jan 1, 1920

Jan 1, 1930

Jan 1, 1940

Jan 1, 1946

Jan 1, 1949

Jan 1, 1934

Jan 1, 1946

Jan 1, 1954

Jan 1, 1930