Search Documents

By Charles E. Locke

IN gathering material for this review the aid of the individual members of the Milling Committee was invoked and the assistance received is hereby most grate- fully acknowledged. The replies were much alike; almost everyone stated that in 1932 his operations had been cur- tailed or stopped entirely, that the only activity and progress were in milling gold ores, and that the Hadsel mill' looked like a coming machine in the crushing and grinding field. However, further inquiry and search have shown that the year was not quite so barren of developments as the foregoing statement would indicate.

Jan 1, 1933

FEB. 17-The past month found the average citizen backed off just a little more into his blind corner staring glassily at hydrogen bombs, unbalanced budgets, John L. Lewis, more inflation, a rising wave of strikes, the country's only active battleship on a mudbank, a famous scientist in gaol as a traitor, a favorite actress on a Roman holiday, and rising mountains of potatoes, butter and eggs begging for destruction. About the only bright spot has been industrial activity and employment, but even these are menaced by the coal shortage. Most industries have orders on hand or in prospect to warrant high operations for some time to come. The trend of the Reserve Board's production index is upward except as strikes may interfere. There has been heavy buying at the seasonal merchandise shows, particularly in furniture and house-hold goods. The demand for goods of this kind illustrates greater confidence in the Spring outlook than was generally felt a year ago. Further, the demand also reflects improved market positions due to curtailment of output and reduction of inventories in 1949 and sustained consumer buying power. It demonstrates the strong support that is given directly to many businesses, and indirectly to all, by the phenomenal construction activity that is now under way. The Commerce Department places the number of new dwelling units started in 1949 at the new all-time high of 1,019,000.

Jan 3, 1950

By Orville R. Lyons, A. C. Richardson

F. X. Ferney—We are pleased that this paper was presented at this meeting and thank Mr. Richardson and Mr. Lyons for their effort and work in preparing it. We agree with the authors that it was unfortunate that more comprehensive data were not available when the paper was prepared, this being particularly true since we had no knowledge that the paper was being written and could not make available data which were in our process files. Further, it is our opinion that because the data are not sufficiently comprehensive the results which are presented are erratic and will lead to false conclusions. As we see it, there are three Specific reasons why the data which are presented cannot be considered accurate. 1. The preparation plant was not at equilibrium while the samples were being taken. This is indicated by the fact that the percent of solids in the circulating water varied from 3.9 pct to 10.7 pct during the period when the plant was sampled. 2. We do not believe that the samples of Bird feed which were taken were representative and could indicatc the true feed to the filter. Evidence of this is shown in the data where the dewatered product leaving the centrifuge contains more coarse material than the feed to it, that is, material which is +6-mesh in size. 3. We question if the data concerning screen analysis in the fine sizes is accurate and would conclude (from the data) that these tests were made by a dry-screen method. We have found that wet screening is always necessary to obtain a true picture of the quantity of —200-mesh fines which is present. The test work described in the Lyons-Richardson paper was conducted some time ago and the tests were carried on during a period when the preparation plant had not ironed out all of their start-up problems. Since that time most of these problems have been corrected and now this is a smooth running, well-operated prep-

Jan 1, 1951

By Orville R. Lyons, A. C. Richardson

F. X. Ferney—We are pleased that this paper was presented at this meeting and thank Mr. Richardson and Mr. Lyons for their effort and work in preparing it. We agree with the authors that it was unfortunate that more comprehensive data were not available when the paper was prepared, this being particularly true since we had no knowledge that the paper was being written and could not make available data which were in our process files. Further, it is our opinion that because the data are not sufficiently comprehensive the results which are presented are erratic and will lead to false conclusions. As we see it, there are three Specific reasons why the data which are presented cannot be considered accurate. 1. The preparation plant was not at equilibrium while the samples were being taken. This is indicated by the fact that the percent of solids in the circulating water varied from 3.9 pct to 10.7 pct during the period when the plant was sampled. 2. We do not believe that the samples of Bird feed which were taken were representative and could indicatc the true feed to the filter. Evidence of this is shown in the data where the dewatered product leaving the centrifuge contains more coarse material than the feed to it, that is, material which is +6-mesh in size. 3. We question if the data concerning screen analysis in the fine sizes is accurate and would conclude (from the data) that these tests were made by a dry-screen method. We have found that wet screening is always necessary to obtain a true picture of the quantity of —200-mesh fines which is present. The test work described in the Lyons-Richardson paper was conducted some time ago and the tests were carried on during a period when the preparation plant had not ironed out all of their start-up problems. Since that time most of these problems have been corrected and now this is a smooth running, well-operated prep-

Jan 1, 1951

Jan 1, 1938

By NA NA

Jan 1, 1949

Jan 1, 1946

Jan 1, 1940

Jan 1, 1944

Jan 1, 1944

Jan 1, 1946

Jan 1, 1940

Jan 1, 1936

Jan 1, 1948

Jan 1, 1937

Jan 1, 1936

Jan 1, 1946

Jan 1, 1946

Jan 1, 1942

Jan 1, 1949