Search Documents

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 temperatures 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 particles had become one unit. From this discovery has been developed the coalescence process, whereby copper of cathode purity is squirted out in semifabricated form from an extrusion press, by the application of about 3000 tons pressure on a 10-in. piston. Stout decided that cathode copper produced 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 form, and to them must be given the greater part of the credit for this phase of the development program as well as for that relating to the gas cleaning of the cathode particles. Concurrently, the three metallurgists worked on the problem of effecting a complete union of the cathode particles. Adequate washing was all that was needed to free the particles from electrolyte solution and slimes. A press was designed to produce briquettes of the proper porosity and density, and a method was devised of removing surface oxidation from the particles of cathode, by treatment in an atmosphere of deoxidizing gas at an elevated temperature. The temperature was determined at which the surface cleansing and preheating could be done in one operation, and for this a charging and preheating furnace in which there is maintained a positive pressure of deoxidizing gas atmosphere was designed. And finally, a method of feeding the heated briquettes of deoxidized cathode copper into an extrusion press without contamination from the air was evolved. For the final stage, a press was required because not only heat but pressure was required to obtain complete growth of the new crystals between the cathode particles as well as the elimination of all voids or non-coalesced areas. All essential stages of the process are protected by patents or patent applications in the United States and principal foreign countries, and the copper is produced on a commercial scale.

Jan 1, 1941

By Charles H. Jacoby

A decision was made by the management of International Salt Co. in 1960 to eliminate all waste products which were entering the waters of Lake Seneca. This was to be accomplished by the injection of waste slurries into an abandoned brine cavity. The effluent from the cavity was to be treated and used for the manufacture of salt or disposed by deep well injection into the Cherry Valley limestone. After several years of research and design, a construction permit was granted by the state of New York; the injection, recovery, and disposal wells were constructed and after a public hearing an operational permit was issued. A summary of the operational results of the system is given.

Jan 1, 1974

By E. A. Sondreal, P. H. Tufte

Flue gas desulfurization when burning western U.S. coals can be expected to be easier to achieve and less costly than when burning higher sulfur eastern and central coals. However, western coals cannot generally be burned in compliance with federal and state new source emission standards without some degree of control. Western coals and lignite represent about 20% of total U.S. recoverable reserves with 90% of that strip minable, and their production is predicted to increase from the 60 million tons mined in 1973 to 300 million tons in 1985. Most will be used for electric power generation, where low sulfur content is a paramount concern. Western coals are predominantly below 1% sulfur; low compared with typical values of 2 and 3% for eastern and central coals. Coal cleaning for removal of sulfur is not commercially practiced on Western coals, which typically contain half organic and half pyritic sulfur. A fraction of the pyrite sulfur could possibly be removed, but the

Jan 1, 1976

By William Vietti

WEST TEXAS and New Mexico has been overshadowed by the develop-ment in East Texas to such an extent that the area has been placed on a settled production basis by most of the operators. Considerable develop-ment work on both proven and unproven acreage remains to be carried on, but the incentive, a ready and profitable market, has been lacking. The main characteristics of the fields in this area are so well known that they are not described again in this paper, which thus resolves itself into a statistical review of the more important production features of the area. Proration has been in effect during the year and has been rigorously applied with the full cooperation of all producers. Proration in West Texas and New Mexico is based in the more pro-ductive fields on a potential and acreage distrbution of the allowance to the individual wells or acreage units. Potentials are determined generally by a short production test of from 1 to 4 hr.; and the hourly rate is multiplied by 24 to obtain the 24-hr. production or rated potential of the separate wells. The potential values thus set up have been questioned by many production men who are not willing to concede that the instantaneous (hourly) capacity of a well to produce is its potential capacity for a day with all other wells in the pool producing at their capacity. However, the potential of a well determined as above remains its chief rating as a measure of the permeability in place and as an indication of the possible reserve feeding that well. , The acreage factor has made it unnecessary to overdevelop properties in order to obtain an allowance proportionate to neighbors who are willing to drill an excessive number of wells on a piece of acreage in the hopes of a quick drainage and a corresponding profit. Proration has resulted in an orderly development of many of the pools in this area on the base as out-lined above, resulting in more reasonable spacing of wells and the more even withdrawal of oil and the ensuing expectation of high recoveries.

Jan 1, 1933

YEAR OF ELECTION 1913. FRANK DAWSON ADAMS, Montreal, Canada. 1921. WILLIAM CUTHBERT BLACKETT Sacriston, Durham, England. 1923. GELASIO CAETANI Rome, Italy. 1920. HENRY STURGIS DRINKER Merion Station, Pa. 1933. KARL EIKERS NEW YORK, N. Y. 1922. FEDERICO GIOLITTI Torino, Italy. 1906. SIR ROBERT A. HADFIELD London, England. 1928. JOHN HAYS HAMMOND New York, N. Y. 1921. FRANK WILLIAM HARBORD London, England. 1917. HERBERT HOOVER Washington, D. C. 1905. HENRI LECHATELIER Paris, France. 1931. WALDEMAR LINDGREN Cambridge, Mass. 1921. C. McDERMID London, England. 1913. EZEQUIEL ORDONEZ Mexico City, Mexico.

Jan 1, 1934

PROF RICHARD ÅKERMAN Stockholm, Sweden PROF RICHARD BECK Friberg, Germany ANDREW CARNEGIR New York, N.Y. DR. JAMES DOUGLAS New York, N.Y. PROF HATON DE LA GOUPILLIERE Paris, France SIR ROBERT A. HADFEILD London, England PROF HANS HOFFER Leoben, Austria PROF HENRI LOUIS LE CHATELIER Paris France M FLORIS OSMOND Paris, France ALEXANDRE POURCEL Paris, France JOHN E. STEAD Middlesborugh, England DR. ING H. C. EMIL SCHROEDTER Dusseldorf, Germany JAMES M. SWANK (Associate) Philadelphia, Pa. PROF DIMITRY CONSTANTIN TSCHERNOFF St Petersburg, Russia PROF TSUNASHIRO WADA Tokyo, Japan CHARLES D WALCOT Washingtion D.C.

Jan 1, 1917

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEES OF LOCAL SECTIONS New York LOUIS D. HUNTOON, Chairman. ARTHUR S. DWIGHT, Vice-Chairman. THOMAS T. READ, Secretary, Woolworth Bldg., New York, N. Y. E. MALTBY SHIPP. Treasurer. GEORGE F. KUNZ, W. De L. BENEDICT. Boston ROBERT H. RICHARDS, Chairman. ALBERT SAUVEUR, Vice-Chairman. AUGUSTUS H. EUSTIS, Secretary-Treasurer, 131 State St., Boston, Mass. TIMOTHY W. SPRAGUE. HENRY A. WENTWORTH. Columbia F. A. THOMSON, Chairman. GEORGE W. RODDEWIG, Vice-Chairman. LYNDON K. ARMSTRONG, Secretary-Treasurer. P. O. Drawer 2154, Spokane, Wash. R. S. McCAFFERY. S. H. RICHARDSON.

Jan 5, 1914

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEES OF LOCAL SECTIONS New York LOUIS D. HUNTOON, Chairman. ARTHUR S. DWIGHT, Vice-Chairman. THOMAS T. READ, Secretary, Woolworth Bldg., New York, N. Y. E. MALTBY SHIPP. Treasurer. GEORGE F. KUNZ, W. DE L. BENEDICT. Boston ROBERT H. RICHARDS, Chairman. ALBERT SAUVEUR, Vice-Chairman. AUGUSTUS H. EUSTIS, Secretary-Treasurer, 131 State St., Boston, Mass. TIMOTHY W. SPRAGUE, HENRY A. WENTWORTH. Columbia F. A. THOMSON, Chairman. GEORGE W. RODDEWIG, Vice-Chairman. LYNDON K. ARMSTRONG, Secretary-Treasurer, P. O. Drawer 2154, Spokane, Wash. R. S. McCAFFERY. S. H. RICHARDSON.

Jan 3, 1914

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEES OF LOCAL SECTIONS New York LOUIS D. HUNTOON, Chairman. ARTHUR S. DWIGHT, Vice-Chairman. THOMAS T. READ, Secretary, Woolworth Bldg., New York, N. Y. E. MALTBY SHIPP, Treasurer. GEORGE F. KUNZ. W. DE L. BENEDICT. Boston ROBERT H. RICHARDS, Chairman. ALBERT SAUVEUR, Vice-Chairman. AUGUSTUS H. EUSTIS, Secretary-Treasurer, 131 State St., Boston, Mass. TIMOTHY W. SPRAGUE, HENRY A. WENTWORTH. Columbia F. A. THOMSON, Chairman. GEORGE W. RODDEWIG, Vice-Chairman. LYNDON K. ARMSTRONG, Secretary-Treasurer, P. 0. Drawer 2154, Spokane, Wash. R. S. McCAFFERY, S. H. RICHARDSON.

Jan 4, 1914

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEES OF LOCAL SECTIONS New York L. W. FRANCIS, Chairman, WILLARD S. MORSE, Vice-Chairman. THOMAS T. READ, Secretary, Woolworth Bldg., New York, N. Y. P. A. MOSMAN, Treasurer. LOUIS D. HUNTOON. WILLIAM A. POMEROY. Boston HENRY L. SMYTH, Chairman. ALFRED C. LANE, Vice-Chairman. AUGUSTUS H. EUSTIS, Secretary-Treasurer, 131 State St., Boston, Mass. ROBERT H. RICHARDS,. ALBERT SAUVEUR. Columbia F. A.. THOMSON, Chairman. GEORGE W. RODDEWIG, Vice-Chairman. LYNDON K. ARMSTRONG, Secretary-Treasurer, P. O. Drawer 2154, Spokane, Wash. R. S. McCAFFERY, S. H. RICHARDSON.

Jan 12, 1914

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEES OF LOCAL SECTIONS New York L. W. FRANCIS, Chairman, WILLARD S. MORSE, Vice-Chairman. THOMAS T. READ, Secretary, Woolworth Bldg., New York, N. Y. P. A. MOSMAN, Treasurer. LOUIS D. HUNTOON. WILLIAM A. POMEROY. Boston HENRY L. SMYTH, Chairman. ALFRED C. LANE, Vice-Chairman. AUGUSTUS H. EUSTIS, Secretary-Treasurer, 131 State St., Boston, Mass. ROBERT H. RICHARDS, ALBERT SAUVEUR. Columbia F. A. THOMSON, Chairman. GEORGE W. RODDEWIG, Vice-Chairman. LYNDON K. ARMSTRONG, Secretary-Treasurer, P. O. Drawer 2154, Spokane, Wash. R. S. McCAFFERY, S. H. RICHARDSON.

Jan 11, 1914

NEW MEMBERS. The following list comprises the names of those persons who became members during the months of July and August, 1913: Members. ALDERSON, VICTOR C., Prest. of Colorado School of Mines :.Golden, Colo. ALLEN, JOSEPH W., Secy. & Treas. International S. & R. Co;, 42 Broadway, New York, N. Y. AMMON, ROBERT, Chief Sampler B. & M. Reduction Wks., Anaconda Copper Min.Co., Great Falls, Mont. BARBER, RAYMOND J., Min. Engr 234 Newbury St., Boston, Mass. BARDWELL, EARL S., Genl. Concen rator Foreman Boston & Mont. Reduction Plant, Great Falls; Mont.

Jan 9, 1913

By A. L. Labbe

SOON after the Cottrell treater was placed in operation in the Murray plant in 1918 to treat combined lead sinter and Wedge roaster smoke, it was noticed that the power flowing through the treater did not remain constant. This was indicated by the varying milliamperes and also by the total amount of power consumed by the rectifiers. At times, for then unknown reasons, the treater current fluctuated through a wide range of from 40 to 300 milliamperes. Fortunately, these variations in power did not affect the treater's overall recovery, as this installation consisted of three independent units in series, a feature which made the Murray Cottrell an outstanding installation over many years of operation. Water conditioning of the smoke as a means of improving recovery was already known, but was not adaptable to this installation for reasons of excessive corrosion, which had been the case with other treaters using water as a conditioner exclusively. Tests conducted on the smoke had proved conclusively that water vapor played no part in the fluctuation of power, and the same was true of the SO2 contents and dust burden of the smoke. Neither did temperature variations of from 150 to 400°F have any effect on the power. Finally it was noticed that the variation in power taken by the treater, and the efficiency of recovery, had some definite relation to the number of Wedge roasters operating, and particularly to the sulphur contents of the charge. This observation soon led to the discovery that free sulphuric acid was the conditioner for Murray smoke and that variations in acid contents of smoke accounted for fluctuations of treater power. Analysis of recovered dust revealed that only a few hundredths of a per cent free acid was necessary to maintain a very efficient recovery. Once this knowledge was available, the roaster charge was adjusted as to sulphur contents to produce the necessary acid conditioner. For a number of years this practice was followed, but with improvements in the field of flotation, excess pyrites were eliminated from the smelting picture, so with a change in metallurgical practice we were confronted with the problem of providing the deficiency in acid by some other means. The situation was aggravated and our problem of acid conditioning made more difficult by the increase in the lead contents of concentrates roasted resulting from better flotation methods. The first step towards introducing acid vapors into the smoke stream by accessory means was accomplished by boiling sulphuric acid in cast iron pots placed in an open fire box. Acid fumes evaporated from the pots together with the combustion gases from the fire box were discharged into the flue through a cast iron pipe. Capacity of the iron pots was quite limited because of the comparatively slow rate of evaporation and the use of lump coal as a fuel, which did not lend itself to practical temperature control. This method of firing resulted in frequent pot failures due to overheating. In spite of these incidental difficulties, encountered in any new venture, the pot evaporator demonstrated the practicability of fuming sufficient acid to make up the deficiency in that naturally evolved in the Wedge furnace operation. As time progressed, less and less high sulphur material was available for Wedge roasting, and the necessity for accessory acid conditioning reached a climax when the supply of this material was entirely eliminated. Since the cast iron pots could only evaporate a few hundred pounds of acid per day, and were costly to replace, the logical thought presented itself of spraying the acid in a heated chamber. This new type of acid evaporator was simpler and more economical to operate and had sufficient capacity to fume several thousand pounds per day. The attached fig. 1 presents the outstanding features of the new furnace. A is the vaporizing drum, which is heated by the combustion gases of coal stoker fire box, B. Acid is sprayed into the hot gas stream within the drum through a number of air-acid atomizers, C, and the acid vapor, together with combustion gases, is introduced into the smoke stream through two cast iron pipes extending to different points in the flue. The operation of this type of furnace requires control of temperature inside the drum to prevent overheating, which dissociates the acid vapor to SO, and eventually to SO2, with resulting loss of acid. The dissociation to SO, at elevated temperatures is comparatively high, and in some cases accounts for as much as 60 pct of the acid sprayed into the drum. To reduce the loss of acid, through dissociation, some Cottrell plants, where the rate of acid sprayed reaches at times 9 ppm, use two evaporating units. Fuming the acid into the smoke stream is only

Jan 1, 1951

By C. E. Lesher

Coal has been fighting a rear-guard action since the last World War. The battle against competitive fuels has been largely guerilla warfare with more sniping within the ranks than of organized opposition. Oil and natural gas are the fuels that over these twenty odd years have driven coal backward and out of many profitable markets. Now, somewhat timidly, the coal industry is trying a new weapon; namely, Research, or let us more properly say, Organized Research. Engineers have been designing this weapon for many years, supported by those interested in coal, including some coal producers. A part of this pioneer work has been Fundamental Research, the Ph.D. kind that is over the heads of most of us. Another part has been aimed at immediate objectives and realizable profits, the practical, man-in-the-street sort. That is Industrial Research. Enough has been accomplished to make a fair exhibit, but whether this new weapon will have sufficient fire power to rout the opposition, whether the industry will really go into production and use it, the next few years will tell. Need foR Coal Research To utter "Research" is to use the modern magic word; to conjure up the miraculous—rubber from weeds; radar; magnesium from sea water; yes, even gasoline from coal. Research is a very general term. It means something different to every man. What is the coal industry seeking with its research; or what should it seek? And, specifically, how is it going about the job; and is it taking the best way? There are many who say that Coal has been asleep at the switch, while Oil and Gas have been taking the energy business. In an organized way this is true. Large-scale, privatelyfinanced research is just started in the Pennsylvania anthracite industry, and it is still a dream for bituminous coal. What has been done so far collectively is purely defensive; as, for instance, to improve mechanical devices for burning coal so as to be able to recover markets for house-heating fuel long since abandoned to oil and gas. To appreciate just how seriously bituminous coal has slipped back in the national economy in the past 2 5 years, one has only to recall that, in the last war the Navy required for its operations all the high-grade, low-volatile coal that could be produced, and that anthracite was withdrawn from the middle and northwest markets to keep the eastern seaboard warm. All coal was "rationed" by zones, if not to individuals. Now the Navy, the Armed forces and the Merchant Marine are propelled by oil and gasoline. Gasoline and heating oil are rationed to individuals. Production of all coal in this country in 1918 reached the historic figure of 678,200,-000 tons, and in 1943, after 25 years, it is expected to reach a special wartime total of 660,000,000 tons. Meanwhile, production of crude oil this year may exceed 1 ,500,000,000 bbl., and like that of natural gas, reach four times the amount produced in 1918.

Jan 1, 1944

By C. E. Lesher

Coal has been fighting a rear-guard action since the last World War. The battle against competitive fuels has been largely guerilla warfare with more sniping within the ranks than of organized opposition. Oil and natural gas are the fuels that over these twenty odd years have driven coal backward and out of many profitable markets. Now, somewhat timidly, the coal industry is trying a new weapon; namely, Research, or let us more properly say, Organized Research. Engineers have been designing this weapon for many years, supported by those interested in coal, including some coal producers. A part of this pioneer work has been Fundamental Research, the Ph.D. kind that is over the heads of most of us. Another part has been aimed at immediate objectives and realizable profits, the practical, man-in-the-street sort. That is Industrial Research. Enough has been accomplished to make a fair exhibit, but whether this new weapon will have sufficient fire power to rout the opposition, whether the industry will really go into production and use it, the next few years will tell. Need foR Coal Research To utter "Research" is to use the modern magic word; to conjure up the miraculous—rubber from weeds; radar; magnesium from sea water; yes, even gasoline from coal. Research is a very general term. It means something different to every man. What is the coal industry seeking with its research; or what should it seek? And, specifically, how is it going about the job; and is it taking the best way? There are many who say that Coal has been asleep at the switch, while Oil and Gas have been taking the energy business. In an organized way this is true. Large-scale, privatelyfinanced research is just started in the Pennsylvania anthracite industry, and it is still a dream for bituminous coal. What has been done so far collectively is purely defensive; as, for instance, to improve mechanical devices for burning coal so as to be able to recover markets for house-heating fuel long since abandoned to oil and gas. To appreciate just how seriously bituminous coal has slipped back in the national economy in the past 2 5 years, one has only to recall that, in the last war the Navy required for its operations all the high-grade, low-volatile coal that could be produced, and that anthracite was withdrawn from the middle and northwest markets to keep the eastern seaboard warm. All coal was "rationed" by zones, if not to individuals. Now the Navy, the Armed forces and the Merchant Marine are propelled by oil and gasoline. Gasoline and heating oil are rationed to individuals. Production of all coal in this country in 1918 reached the historic figure of 678,200,-000 tons, and in 1943, after 25 years, it is expected to reach a special wartime total of 660,000,000 tons. Meanwhile, production of crude oil this year may exceed 1 ,500,000,000 bbl., and like that of natural gas, reach four times the amount produced in 1918.

Jan 1, 1944

This Committee, formerly known as the Membership Committee, had its title changed as above by the new Constitution which was adopted February, 1928. During the year 1928, 607 applications for membership were submitted to the Committee for its action; and after careful consideration 601 were recommended to the Board of Directors for election to the various grades. Of this number 597 accepted election and became members during 1928. The changes in the membership resulting therefrom are set forth in tabular form on the following page. The Rocky Mountain members, who now appear in this list for the first time, were added pursuant to the action taken at the Annual Meeting

Jan 1, 1929

By Eugene S. Perry

The oil and gas industries in Montana continued through the year of 1937 with but little change. No new fields were discovered, and production of old fields did not vary greatly. No outstanding wildcat wells were drilled. Perhaps most notable were extensions in the western part of the Kevin-Sunburst field. Acid treatment of wells in the Kevin and Pondera fields continued with gratifying results.

Jan 1, 1938

By Gen-Hua Shi, William Boyle, Richard E. Goodman

This keynote paper calls attention to two critically important issues relating to selecting supports for excavations in hard rock. The first is the proportion of the ultimate sliding volume that needs to be stabilized by the support system. Some excavations can be imagined to liberate very large rock volumes, whose weight can not be assigned to supports without severe economic penalty. Using the keyblock principle, it is argued that only the most critically oriented and finite blocks right on the periphery of the opening have to be supported; if these are retained by the support system, or by self resistance due to friction on the sliding faces, then the blocks behind will remain in place. As all concepts, this one has bounds and limits. Since the keyblock analysis for rock engineering is very new, these limits are not yet understood ... The second issue is the degree to which possibly stabilizing forces associated with the in-situ stress field ought to be accepted as support for potential keyblocks. It is shown that the initial stress can be effective in stabilizing rock wedges whose faces are nearly perpendicular to the excavation surface. It is too early to decide this issue but important to consider it.

Jan 1, 1982

The four papers making up this symposum have been prepared especially for those who have no knowledge of seismograph prospecting. To many people mathematics is a formidable subject, and many are discouraged from studying seismograph prospecting under the mistaken assumption that the mathematical requirements are severe. In the papers presented here there is not a single mathematical equation. We believe that considerable competence in dealing with some of the most important problems of this work can be attained without any mathematical training whatever. At the present time, there is a real need for interpretation of results by persons thoroughly competent to bring geologic experience and imagination to bear on data that are subject to multiple interpretation from a strictly physical viewpoint. Likewise, those charged with the responsibility of planning seismograph exploration campaigns would do well to become familiar with as much as possible of the technical aspests of the work. They would then be in better position to judge of its success in individual cases. It has often been said that the seismograph is a new structure-finding tool for the geologists to use. Using a tool and using its product are two different things. One does not use an automatic screw-threading machine when he buys a box of screws at the hardware store. Neither does the geologist

Jan 1, 1940

The four papers making up this symposum have been prepared especially for those who have no knowledge of seismograph prospecting. To many people mathematics is a formidable subject, and many are discouraged from studying seismograph prospecting under the mistaken assumption that the mathematical requirements are severe. In the papers presented here there is not a single mathematical equation. We believe that considerable competence in dealing with some of the most important problems of this work can be attained without any mathematical training whatever. At the present time, there is a real need for interpretation of results by persons thoroughly competent to bring geologic experience and imagination to bear on data that are subject to multiple interpretation from a strictly physical viewpoint. Likewise, those charged with the responsibility of planning seismograph exploration campaigns would do well to become familiar with as much as possible of the technical aspests of the work. They would then be in better position to judge of its success in individual cases. It has often been said that the seismograph is a new structure-finding tool for the geologists to use. Using a tool and using its product are two different things. One does not use an automatic screw-threading machine when he buys a box of screws at the hardware store. Neither does the geologist

Jan 1, 1940