Search Documents

Victor G. Hills, Cripple Creek, Colo. (communication to the Secretary): In continuation of the subject of the perform ance of "baby machine-drills," presented by Mr. Thane, I sub mit the following records of work done with these drills in the Cripple Creek district of Colorado. Two years ago, the Anchoria-Leland mine began to use baby drills ; and, to make the experiment more complete, began by purchasing two machines, of the same size, but of different make. The little drills were first used for stoping and up raising, in which they achieved at once an unqualified success. Soon after, they began to be used for the smaller branch-drifts and prospecting cross-cuts, while the large two-man drills were still used for the main drifts. Now they have almost entirely superseded the large drills, since it has been found that they will do any ordinary work in the mine at less cost, both for labor and for powder, per ton of rock broken. The large drills, of course, make more rapid progress; but it is only where time is a specially important factor that they are now used. The Portland mine, where, until within a year, only the large machines were used, is now using some small drills for stoping, and also for drifting. Mr. Thane speaks of having two men to operate a baby-drill; but in this district the baby-machine is always worked by one man without help. Again, in Prof. Christy's postscript, the quoted extract from a letter of Mr. L. T. Seymour, the South African engineer, mentions a " 2 1/2-inch Little Giant," as though that were the smallest machine used in that region. These statements leave some doubt as to just what Mr. Thane means by a " baby-drill." To avoid any such uncertainty as to the present communication, I will say that the large or two-man drill in common use at Cripple Creek has a 3 1/8-inch cylinder; while a few mines employ a 3-inch, and a few, in running large tunnels, a 3 1/2-inch drill. What we call a baby-drill here has a

Jan 1, 1900

PRESIDENT L. D. RICKETTS,1 NEW YORK, N. Y. PAST PRESIDENTS BENJAMIN B. THAYER,1 NEW YORK, N. Y. WILLIAM L. SAUNDERS,2 NEW YORK, N. Y. FIRST VICE-PRESIDENT SIDNEY J. JENNINGS1 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 4, 1916

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

By Robert H. Richards

The extent to which sizing by sieves should be carried, as a preliminary to the separation, by jigging, of minerals of different specific gravities, has been a matter of controversy for many years. The subject has been investigated by several authorities, yet the ground does not seem to have been completely covered, nor are the questions involved entirely settled. For my present purpose I shall refer to but three investigators—Rittinger, Munroe, and Hoppe. In seeking additional light, I have gone over part of the old ground which has been considered satisfactorily settled; and since these preliminary tests have thrown light on some points, they have been included in this paper. In the investigations here described, I have confined myself, for several reasons, wholly to small sizes—grains of 0.1 inch in diameter and less. Rittinger's work was mainly done upon larger sizes, and there is much need among millmen of information concerning the smaller sizes. Moreover, these sizes brought the investigation within the means at my disposal. The laws that have been claimed as the laws of jigging by the several authorities are: 1. The law of equal-settling particles. 2. The lam of interstitial currents. 3. The law of acceleration. 4. The law of suction. The first of these has been considered by investigators, generally, to be the most important of all, and the larger part of the work of jigging is thought to be governed by it. But that it does not cover the whole of jigging is clear to all; and to account for the increased efficiency which we may call the extra jigging-catch, the other three laws have been advanced. The investigation described in this paper was undertaken to determine, as far as possible, to what extent each of the four laws con-

Jan 1, 1895

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

TWO hundred enthusiastic engineers and coal, op-erators attended a joint meeting of the A. I. M. E., the National Coal Association, and the American So-ciety of Mechanical Engineers in the auditorium of the Alabama Power Co. building at Birmingham, Ala., on Jan. 21. S. W. Farnham, mining engineer of the Goodman Manufacturing Co., Chicago, in his paper on mechanical loading of coal discussed the feasibility of scraper and machine loading. A. R. Anderson of the Jeffrey Manufacturing Co., in a paper on loading coal with conveyors covered their adaptation for long-wall mining and for loading into cars. Discussion of these papers was hampered because the cheap labor costs prevailing in the district have handicapped gen-eral mechanization of the mines. The Bureau of Mines film, "The Story of a Rock-dusted Mine," showing the New Orient mine, West Frankfort, Ill., was also shown at the meeting. F. H. Crockard, president of the Wood-ward Iron Co., represented the A. I. M. E., S. L. Yerkes, vice-president of the Grider Coal Sales Agency, and J. L. Davidson, secretary of the Alabama Mining Institute, represented the National Coal Association, and Paul Wright represented the American Society of Mechan-ical Engineers.

Jan 2, 1927

By Irwin Roman

NUMEROUS results and formulas have been published for analyzing seismic records, but most of them apply only to large-scale phenomena such as are encountered in studying earthquakes. In a few cases,1 formulas have been published for some of the simpler structures. In the present paper, an attempt will be made to analyze several types of struc-tures without using methods more advanced than those of a first course in calculus. In, tracing a disturbance through a medium, it is almost always possible to base the analysis on Fermat's Principle of Extreme Time, which states that waves of displacement travel between points in such a manner as to make the time of travel an extremum with respect to all neighboring paths. In the simpler cases, comprising most of those used in optics or geophysical prospecting, this time is a minimum and the principle is often referred to as the Principle of Least Time. Within a homogeneous medium, having a uniform speed of transmission of the disturbance in all directions and throughout the medium, the paths are straight and are refracted at the interfaces in accordance with the Snell law of refraction, which states that the ratio of the sine of the angle, made by the ray with the normal to the interface, to the speed of trans-mission is the same on both sides of the interface. Thus, in any medium composed of homogeneous sections, this same ratio has a constant value at all points. In particular, if all interfaces are horizontal, it is apparent that the angles of incidence are the angles made by the ray with the vertical direction. Furthermore, the incident ray, the refracted ray and the normal to the interface are all in the same plane at each refraction;

Jan 1, 1933

PRESIDENT WILLIAM L. SAUNDERS,1 NEW YORK, N. Y. PAST PRESIDENTS CHARLES F. RAND,1 NEW YORK, N. Y. BENJAMIN B. THAYER,2 NEW YORK, N. Y. FIRST VICE-PRESIDENT PHILIP N. MOORE,1 ST. Louis, Mo. 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 5, 1915

By J. F. K. Brown, E. E. Roecker

For three years The Hudson Coal Co. has used egg anthracite instead of coke in its foundry cupola. It has long passed the stage of being told it cannot be done—the metal would be cold, of poor quality, or the speed of operation would be low. From observation, from use and from test. we know that our metal is about average; the cast iron invokes no adverse comment from the machine shop and the speed suits our foundry requirements. We have there-iore resolved into practice anthracite combustion processes in an industrial furnace formerly using coke, under conditions suitable to our needs. When it comes to translating what we know into use in another cupola, however, where operating conditions may be different, or to explaining why, with seemingly the same conditions in our own cupola, we have attained sometimes a temperature of 2800° in the metal and at another time 2600°, or a speed of 5 tons per hour against 2 35 tons per hour, we cannot do it. We cannot do this because there seems to be an unbridged gap between laboratory ideas on combustion and practical ideas on com-bustiqn, which we have been unable to cross in terms understandable to us as practical consumers. This gap or bridge centers around the problem of how combustion actually takes place; and we believe it is controlled by two factors: (I) the character of the surface of the fuel and (2) the space provided and needed within which the oxygen of the air is allowed to or can act on that surface. It has long been contended on behalf of coke that porosity is an important factor in combustion, although, admittedly, there are two schools of opposing thought on this question, as revealed in technical literature. It has been understood generally that a light, porous coke is the best metallurgical fuel because there are more square inches of carbon exposed to the blast of air, therefore more useful carbon-dioxide reactions can take place in the given space between the entrance of the air and the point where useful work is done. It is now our general idea that the heavier and the harder the coal, the better the metallurgical fuel, provided the surface of that fuel is suitable for fast reaction with the oxygen. Time and Space A cupola is loaded in layers of fuel and iron. The horizontal line where the first charge of iron rests on the coal is the top of the bed coal. With us that is 22 in., usually, above the tuyeres where the air enters. This means 600 lb. of coal. Every subsequent coal layer is 100 to 125 lb. of coal, and that 100 to 125 lb. of coal melts 1000 lb. of iron at around 2700° in the ladle. This quantity of coal represents a 3-in. layer spread across the cupola. The question arises: If this 3 in. of coal will melt 1000 lb. of metal, why was it necessary to use 600 lb., or 22 in., of coal beneath and between the first charge of iron and the air entrance?

Jan 1, 1944

By E. E. Roecker, J. F. K. Brown

For three years The Hudson Coal Co. has used egg anthracite instead of coke in its foundry cupola. It has long passed the stage of being told it cannot be done—the metal would be cold, of poor quality, or the speed of operation would be low. From observation, from use and from test. we know that our metal is about average; the cast iron invokes no adverse comment from the machine shop and the speed suits our foundry requirements. We have there-iore resolved into practice anthracite combustion processes in an industrial furnace formerly using coke, under conditions suitable to our needs. When it comes to translating what we know into use in another cupola, however, where operating conditions may be different, or to explaining why, with seemingly the same conditions in our own cupola, we have attained sometimes a temperature of 2800° in the metal and at another time 2600°, or a speed of 5 tons per hour against 2 35 tons per hour, we cannot do it. We cannot do this because there seems to be an unbridged gap between laboratory ideas on combustion and practical ideas on com-bustiqn, which we have been unable to cross in terms understandable to us as practical consumers. This gap or bridge centers around the problem of how combustion actually takes place; and we believe it is controlled by two factors: (I) the character of the surface of the fuel and (2) the space provided and needed within which the oxygen of the air is allowed to or can act on that surface. It has long been contended on behalf of coke that porosity is an important factor in combustion, although, admittedly, there are two schools of opposing thought on this question, as revealed in technical literature. It has been understood generally that a light, porous coke is the best metallurgical fuel because there are more square inches of carbon exposed to the blast of air, therefore more useful carbon-dioxide reactions can take place in the given space between the entrance of the air and the point where useful work is done. It is now our general idea that the heavier and the harder the coal, the better the metallurgical fuel, provided the surface of that fuel is suitable for fast reaction with the oxygen. Time and Space A cupola is loaded in layers of fuel and iron. The horizontal line where the first charge of iron rests on the coal is the top of the bed coal. With us that is 22 in., usually, above the tuyeres where the air enters. This means 600 lb. of coal. Every subsequent coal layer is 100 to 125 lb. of coal, and that 100 to 125 lb. of coal melts 1000 lb. of iron at around 2700° in the ladle. This quantity of coal represents a 3-in. layer spread across the cupola. The question arises: If this 3 in. of coal will melt 1000 lb. of metal, why was it necessary to use 600 lb., or 22 in., of coal beneath and between the first charge of iron and the air entrance?

Jan 1, 1944

By W. J. PRIESTLEY

WHEN during the war the Navy Department decided to build an armor-plate and gun-forging plant of its own at South Charleston, W. Va., one of the most important units of the equipment proposed was a 14,000 gross ton forging-press to be used for forging, bending, and rectifying battleship armor-plate and making hol¬low forgings for large caliber guns. A press suitable for doing this kind of work was put into operation in the fall of 1921 and was operated successfully on armor-plate and large forgings until the closing down of the ordnance plant following the Limitation of Armament Conference held in Washington, February, 1922. PURPOSE OF THE PRESS There are three methods by which armor-plate can be made, namely, hammering, forging, and rolling the ingot. Each method produces a different result in the mechanical working of the steel. The hammer was eliminated as impractical from an operating standpoint. The first armor-plate made in this country was worked under a hammer at the Bethlehem Steel Co., between the years 1891 and 1893, but was superseded by forging when the large press was completed in 1893. Harry T. Morris of the Bethlehem Steel Co. informs me that the 1.25-ton steam hammer began operations in 1891 and was in operation for about two years. The Carnegie Steel Co. and the Midvale Steel and Ordnance Steel Co. also forged armor-plate. Certain European manufacturers rolled the plates from large slab ingots, after removing the sink-head and giving the body of the ingot a light pass under a hydraulic press. While rolling accomplished more mechanical work on the surface of an armor plate, forging, on the other hand, resulted in a greater amount of work in the interior of the plate. Either type of equipment involved an enormous expendi¬ture, so it was deemed advisable to adopt the method which would make it possible to use the equipment for more than one purpose. Since g large rolling-mill could be used only for the single operation of rolling armor-plate, a press was decided on, for the reason that it might be designed so as to forge armor, as well as bend and rectify it, and also be used in the forging of ingots for large caliber guns, both in the form of hollow forgings and also solid shafts.

Jan 1, 1926

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

By J. H. Frye, R. M. Treco

One of the chief hindrances to an understanding of the hardness of solid solutions is the sparsity of suitable hardness data. There is great need of a large body of hardness data obtained from many different alloys of high purity by identical testing methods and corrected to correspond to a single grain size. A considerable amount of such data has been obtained by means of the Meyer analysis on copper-rich and silver-rich solid solutions. There are enough of these data to permit comparison of numerous alloys at equal solute concentration in these two solvents, but only in a few cases is it possible to construct hardness-concentration curves for any given alloy. Therefore additional hardness work on most of these alloys is desirable. The primary solid solutions of silver with cadmium, indium, tin, or antimony as solute are of special interest, since all elements are from the same period of the periodic table and since, as shown previously,l the hardening effect of equal percentages of these solutes is proportional to the lattice expansion produced by them. This paper presents the relation between hardness and concentration in the silver-antimony system from very dilute to nearly saturated solutions of antimony in silver. Experimental Procedure Alloys were made from silver, 99.99 per cent pure, and antimony, 99.975 per cent pure. Silver and antimony were placed in graphite crucibles that had an ash content of less than 0.7 5 per cent. These metals were melted and allowed to solidify in a vacuum, which, after melting was corn- . plete, was usually equivalent to 3 mm. of mercury. A high-frequency furnace was used. The ingots so obtained were worked and annealed to lessen segregation and to control grain size. Annealing was done in evacuated and sealed glass tubes. Hardness measuremeuts on specimens from these ingots were by means of the Meyer analysis.394 Using a 4-mm. ball, impressions were made under seven loads from 25 to 400 kg. The diameter of impression made under each load was measured. This enabled calculation of the constants in the well-known formula of Meyer. L = adn where L = load, d = diameter of impression, a = a constant, n = a constant The Meyer hardness is defined as P = L/i(1/4pd2) or P = 4adn-2/p Meyer hardnesses corresponding to d = I and to d = 4 are of especial interest, since the first corresponds to comparatively slight 'plastic deformation and the second to the maximum plastic deformation producible by penetration of the ball. These

Jan 1, 1945

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 9, 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. STONE1 NEW YORK, N. Y. SECRETARY EMERITUS ROSSITER W. RAYMOND, NEW YORK, N. Y. SECRETARY BRADLEY STOUGHTON NEW YORK, N. Y

Jan 3, 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 7, 1913

PRESIDENT L. D. RICKETTS,1 NEW YORK, N. Y. PAST PRESIDENTS BENJAMIN B. THAYER,1 NEW YORK, N, Y. WILLIAM L. SAUNDERS,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 6, 1916

PRESIDENT WILLIAM L. SAUNDERS,1 NEW YORK, N. Y. PAST PRESIDENTS CHARLES F. RAND,1 NEW YORK, N. Y. BENJAMIN B. THAYER,2 NEW YORK, N. Y. FIRST VICE-PRESIDENT PHILIP N. MOORE,1 ..... ST. Louis, Mo. 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, 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. 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