Search Documents

By E. W. Davis

The mixing of fine ores with fuel and burning under induced draft is called sintering in iron-ore practice and either sintering or roasting in copper and lead metallurgy. The first development of sintering was the Huntington-Heberlein process, in which fine sulfide ores mixed with fuel were charged into a pot and burned under the action of an upcast current of air introduced at the bottom of the pot. Modern development has resulted in two types of machine; the continuous Dwight-Lloyd machine, which consists of heat-resisting grates and a moving beltlike type of hearth constructed of metal, in which air is drawn downward through the bed, and the stationary Greenawalt batch process, which operates in the same manner as the Dwight-Lloyd except that the hearth is stationary. The recent rapid increase in the use of sintering has been the result of two great advances in metallurgical process—flotation and the treatment of flue dust. The Dwight-Lloyd machine is used in many plants for agglomerating flotation concentrates and at the same time reducing the sulfur content to furnace requirements and it has become standard practice to treat iron blast-furnace flue dust by either the Greenawalt or Dwight-Lloyd machine, so that it can be recharged into the furnace. The mining of low-grade magnetite iron deposits and their beneficiat-ing by grinding and magnetic separation resulted in a fine concentrate extremely detrimental to blast-furnace practice. These concentrates are sintered and made into ideal material for blast-furnace use. Incidentally, coke savings of about 400 lb. per ton of pig are reported. Sintering at Evergreen Plant The application to limonitic iron ores is the most recent development of the sintering process. The first plant in the Lake Superior region was erected by the Minnesota Sintering Co., a subsidiary of the Evergreen Mining Co., at Ironton, Minn., in 1924. This plant was designed to treat Cuyuna Range iron and manganiferous ores containing low silica, high moisture and a structure objectionable because of a large proportion

Jan 1, 1930

By A. C. Fieldner, W. A. Selvig

For purposes of coal classification it is desirable to know the composition and calorific value of the pure coal substance; that is, of the coal free from its ash-forming minerals. Two methods suggest themselves: (1) To free the coal from most of the ash-forming material previous to the analysis; and (2) to analyze the coal as received and calculate the analysis, with certain more or less arbitrary corrections, to the pure-coal basis. Calculation methods are obviously more apt to give correct results with low-ash than high-ash coals. With coals of unusually high ash it would appear preferable to remove, previous to the analysis, as much of the inorganic matter as possible, by float-and-sink or acid-treating methods. Effect of Ignition on Inorganic Constituents of Coal The need of corrections in calculating analysis to the pure-coal basis is due to the fact that the ash, as determined by ignition, is not the same, in either weight or composition, as the inorganic mineral matter in the coal. On ignition a number of changes occur in the coal such as loss of water of hydration of the shaly material, conversion of pyrite (FeS2) to ferric oxide (Fe203) with evolution of the sulfur as sulfur dioxide or possible fixation of more or less of the sulfur in the ash as calcium sulfate (CaSO4), and decomposition of calcite (CaC03) to calcium oxide (CaO). The amount of sulfur from pyrite which remains in the ash as calcium sulfate depends on the amount of calcite and pyrite in the coal. Certain coals high in both calcite and pyrite show relatively large amounts of sulfate sulfur in the coal ash. The determination of total carbon and hydrogen in coal includes, besides the organic carbon and hydrogen, the carbon of inorganic carbonates such as calcite, and the hydrogen of the water of composition of some of the ash-forming minerals. For detailed discussion of corrections proposed for calculations of coal analyses to the " pure "

Jan 1, 1930

By E. O. Chartkoff

IN 1926 one of the authors published researches on the determination and description of the iron-tungsten and iron-molybdenum systems,1 including the equilibrium diagrams. In 1929, further work was carried on, including the examination by X-rays, which is recorded here. Measurements were made of changes in lattice parameters in the solid solutions. Precipitation from the solid solution and the accompanying changes in hardness were studied as well as the formation of the intermetallic compound phases upon sintering a mixture of metal powders.

Jan 1, 1930

By George Stanley Scott

Many requests for information as to the possibility of washing coals to some predetermined percentage of ash or sulfur have suggested that the producers aim to satisfy some degree of purity set by the user of the fuel, rather than to attain the greatest economic benefit to all concerned. This paper is written to show that the highest economic purity of washed coal can be determined from washability studies of the raw coal, costs of mining and washing coal, and data on the effect of ash and sulfur on the value of the coal for the particular use for which it is intended. Coke fob Blast-fuenace Use For purposes of illustration, we take the case of coal washed for coke to be used in the iron blast furnace. The method outlined can be made general in its application by substituting for the figures used here the actual operating figures for the particular case under consideration. In general, it costs the blast-furnace operation from 8 to 25 c. per ton of pig iron to slag out each 1 per cent. of ash introduced into the blast furnace by the coke. This figure depends on which one per cent. of ash is removed, and decreases with decrease in ash. When blast furnaces and coal mines are considered as a whole, the figure decreases to zero and then becomes negative, on account of low recovery of washed coal. Various figures1 have been given by different investigators. These figures necessarily differ, not only on account of the differences in operating costs but on account of the difference in the respective fuels as well. For the purpose of this paper, which, as explained, is to point out a method of attacking a certain problem, the figures used in the exposition of the method are of secondary importance. It is apparent that no universally applicable figures can be used, because there are none. Each plant has its own coal,2 its own operating cost, and its own conditions.

Jan 1, 1930

Trans. No. Place Date Vol. Page 1. Wilkes-Barre Pa......May.71 1 3 2. Bethlehem, Pa.........Aug., '71 I 10 3. Troy, N.Y............Nov..: 71 1 13 4. Philadelphia, Pa........Feb., 72.. 1 17 5. New York. N. Y.*......May, '72.. 1 20 6. Pittsburgh. Pa.........Oct..' 72.. 1 25 7. Boston, Mesa..........Feb., '73.. 1 28 8. Philadelhia, Pa.*......May, '73.. 2 3 9. Easton, is............Oct..' 73.. 2 7 10. New York, N. Y.......Feb..' 74 . . 2 11 11. St. Louie. Mo.*........May,' 74 . . 3 3 12. Hazleton, Pa...........Oct., '74.. 3 8 13. New Haven Conn......Feb., '75.. 3 15 14. Dover,N.J.*..........May, 75.. 4 3 15. Cleveland,O...........Oct. 75. 4 0 16. Washington D. C......Feb.'' 76.: 4 18 17. philadelphia, Pa.......June,: 76.. 5 3 18. Philadelphia Pa........Oct 76.. 5 19 19. New York, N. Y.......Feb: '77.. 5 27 20. Wilkes-Barre. Pa.*.....Mag :77.. 0 3 21. Amenia N. Y..........Oct. 77.. 6 10 22. Philadeiphia Pa........Feb.;' 78. . 6 18 23. Chattanooga' Term.*. . . May' 78. . 7 3 24. Lake George: N. Y....: Oct. 78. . 7 103 25. Baltimore, Md.*.......Feb:' 79.. 7 217 26. ~ittsburgi, Pa.........~a;' 79.. 6 3 27. Montreal, Canada......~ept.;' 79.. 8 121 28. New York, N. Y.*......Feb., '80.. 8 275 29. Lake Superior, Mich....Aug., '80. . 9 1 30. Philadelphia, Pa.*......Feb., '81. 9 275 31. Staunton, Va..........May, '81. .10 1 32. Harrisburg, Pa.........Oct.. '81..10 119 33. Washington, I). C.*....Feb., '82. . 10 226 34. Denver. Colo..........Aug.. '82. . ll 1 35. Boston. Mass.*.........Feb.. '83..11 217 38. Roanoke, Va...........June, '83.. 12 3 37. Troy, N. Y...........Oct.. '83. .12 175 38. Cincinnati. O.*.... Feb, '84..12 4 39. Chicago Ill............May, '84. . 13 1 40. philadelphia, Pa........Sept., '84. . 13 285 41. New York, N. Y.*......Feb., '85. . 13 586 42. Chattanooga, Tenn.....May, '85..14 1 43. Halifax, N. S..........Sept., '85.. 14 307 44. Pittsburgh, Pa.*........Feb.. '86 . . 14 587 45. Bethlehem. Pa.........May, '86 .. 15 Ixiii. 46. St. Louis, Mo..........Oct, 86.. 15 Ixx. 47. Scranton, Pa.*.........Feb.', '87. . 15 lxxvi 48. Utah and Montana.....July '87.. 16 xvii. 49. Duluth, Minn...........July' '87. -16 xxiv. 50. Boston. Mass.*.........Feb.: '88. . 16 xxviii. 51. Birmingham, Ala.......May, '88. .17 xix. 52. Buffalo N. Y..........Oct. '88.. 17 xxiv. 53. New york, N.Y........feb.' ;89 . . 17 xxxi. 54. Colorado..............June' 89 . . 18 xvii. 55. Ottawa, Canada........Oct., 89. . 18 xxiv. 56. Washington, I). C.*. . . Feb. 90. .18 xxx. 57. New York, N. Y........sept:, '93. .19 vii. 58. New York, N. Y.*......Feb. '91. . 19 xxv. 59. Cleveland, O.......... June, :91 . .a xvi. 60. Glen Summit, Pa.......Oct, 111. . 20 lxi. 61. Baltimore, Md.*.......Feb.: '92. .21 xix. 62. Plattsburg, N. Y.......June, '02. . 21 xxxiii. 03. Reading. Pa...........Oct., :92. .21 xliv. 64. Montreal. Canada*.....Feb. 93..21 65. Chicago, Ill............aug.: '93..22 XI. 66. Virginia Reach. Va.*. ...Feb., '04. .24 xwl. 67. Bridgeport Coon.......Oct., '94..24 xxx?. 08. Florida ...'............Mar., '95. .25 xix 69 Atlanta. Ga......... Oct 95. 25 xi 70. Pittsburgh. Pa.*........Feb., '96.. 26 xvii. Trans. No. Place Date Vol. Page 71. Colorado..............Sept. '96. .26 xxix. 72. Chicago, Ill............Feb.. "97.. 27 xvii. 73. Lake Superior..........July '97. .27 xxx. 74. Atlantic City, N. J.*. ..Feb.: :98. .28 xvii. 75. Buffalo N. Y..........Oct. 08. .28 XXXVI. 76. New York,N. Y.*......Feb.: '99. .29 xvii. 77. California.............Sept., ;99. . 29 xlix. 78. Washington, D. C.*.....Feb., 00. .30 xix. 79. Canada...............Aug.. '00. .30 xlv. 80. Richmond. Va.*........Feb.. '01. . 31 xix. 81. Mexico................Nov..'01.. 32 cxviii. 82. Philadelphia Pa. $......May, :02. . 33 xxxv. 83. New Haven, Conn......Oct.. 02.. 33 xlvii. 84. Albany N. Y.*........Feb '03. .34 xxiii. 85. New York, N. Y........Oct.': '03. .34 xi. 86. Atlantic City. N. J.*....Feb., '04. .35 XXIII. 87. Lake Superior..........Sept.'04. .35 dii. 88. Washington. D. C......May' '05. .36 xlii. 89. British Columbia.......July, '05. . 36 90. Bethlehem. Pa.........Feb. '06. .37 xli. 91. London, England.......July: '06. .37 xlviii. 92. New York, N. Y........April, '07. . 38 lii. 93. Toronto, Canada.......July. '07. .38 lix. 94. New York, N. Y........Feb., :08. .39 xli. 95. Chattanooga, Tenn.....Oct.. 08..39 xlviii. 06. New Haven Conn......Feb. '09. .40 xli. 97. Spokane,Wash.........Sept:.'09. .40 xlviii. 98. Pittsburgh, Pa.........Mar.,'10. .41 xxxviii. 99. Canal Zone............Nov.,'10. .41 dv. 100. Wilkes-Barre, Pa.......June. ' 11. . 42 xxxiv. 101. San Francisco, Cal......Oct.. '11..42 xliv. 102. New York. N. Y.*......Feb 12. .43 Ixxvii. 103. Cleveland, Ohio........0ct;' '12.. 44 wii. 104. New York, N. Y.*......Feb.. '13. .45 xv. 105. Butte, Mont...........Aug., '13. .46 ?' 108. New York, N. Y........Oct., 13..47 vii 107. New York. N. Y.*......Feb.. '14..48 xv. 108 Salt Lake City. Otah Aug. :l. 49 5: 109. Pittsburgh, Pa.........Oct., 14. .50 vii. 110. New York, N. Y.*......Feb., '15. .51 xvi. 111. San Francisco, Cal......Sept., '15. .52 xii. 112. New York,N. Y.*......Feb., '16..54 xvi. 1 Arizona...............Sept.,'l6. .55 VII 114. New York, N. Y.*......Feb., '17: .56 vii. 115. St. Louis, Mo..........Oct.. '17..57 vii. 116. NewYork,N. Y.*......Feb.. '18..59 xvii 117. Colorado.....:........Sept.,'18. .60 vii. 118. Milwaukee, Wis........Oct.. '18. .60 x:!: 119. NewYork,N. Y.*......Feb., '19..61 xi. 120. Chicago...............Sept.,' l9.. 62 VII. 121. New York, N. T.*......Feb., '20..63 ix. 122. Lake Superior District. .Aug., '20.. 66 ix. 123. New York, N. Y.*......Feb., '21. .66 xiii. 124. Wilkes-Barre, Pa...... Sept.. : 21.. 66 xix. 125. New York, N. Y.*......Feb., 22. .67 ix. 126. San Francisco. Cal......Sept.,:22. .68 xxix. 127. New York, N.Y.*.....Feb., 23. .69 xxix 128. Canada...............Aug., '23. .69 xxxv! 128.129. New York, N. Y.*......Feb., ;24. .70 xxxi. 130. Birmingham, Ala.......Oct. 24. .71 xxxiii 131. NewYork.N Y.*......Feb.: '25.. 71 xxxviii. 132. 131.Salt Lake City, Utah .. .Sept., '25. .73 xvi 133. New York, N. Y.*......Feb., '26. .73 xxii. 134. Pittsburgh Pa ....... Oct.. '26. .74 xv. 135. New York,' N. Y.*............Feb., '27. .75 x::: 135.136. NewYork,N. Y.*......Feb., '28..76 104 137 NewYork.N. Y.*......Feb., '29. .291 116 138.San FranciscoYork,N.Y. Cal..........Oct. 29..308 406 139. New York, N. Y.*...Feb., '30..30H 1321

Jan 1, 1930

Jan 1, 1930

By Glenn Allen

SAN FRANCISCO Mines of Mexico, Ltd. owns and operates an extensive group of claims in the San Francisco del Oro-Santa Barbara district, about 15 miles southwest of Parral, Chihuahua. The property comprises the mines, aerial tramways, flotation mill, power plant, shops, offices, assay and testing laboratories, modern hospital, water and sanitary system, quarters for miners, mechanics and operators, a well housed colony for Mexican staff employees and residences for foreigners. Each colony has a club house and mess and tennis courts. The employees have constructed a nine-hole golf course. In other words, the property is self-contained and completely integrated for production of lead and zinc concentrates from complex sulfide ores.

Jan 1, 1930

Jan 1, 1930

By E. W. Parker

Anthracite, as sent to market, comes under three general terms of description: characteristics, source and size. Anthracite is generally classified as white ash, red ash, or Lykens Valley. The white ash coals are sometimes further described as "hard" or "free-burning." Lehigh white ash would come under the former description and Shamokin white ash under the latter. As a rule, it may be said that the nearer the origin of the coal to the western extremity of the anthracite region, the softer and more free-burning it is. Indeed, for many years the coal from Trevorton, at the western tip of the Middle Western field, was classified as "semianthracite" in the shipment reports. Lykens Valley coal is always a red ash coal, with a higher volatile content than the general run of anthracite, and consequently free-burning. The name does not exclusively indicate the neighborhood in which the coal is dug, but rather refers to the beds from which it is obtained. These beds lie, not above the Pottsville conglomerate, as is the rule, but encased in it. The extreme eastern limit of the Lykens Valley beds would seem to be about Tremont, in Schuylkill County, and the Natalie mine, near Mount Carmel. There are, of course, traces of these beds farther to the east, but they do not seem to be workable. There are as many as six of the Lykens Valley measures found in the conglomerate at some points, but to a large extent they are unworkable. Whether this coal is obtained in the Lykens Valley proper, where the beds were first identified, or from the Shamokin Valley, it is always Lykens Valley coal, and it has long been considered a premium coal, especially desirable for domestic use, particularly when a quick, hot kitchen fire is desired. Coals are, of course, frequently marketed under special names—Jeddo, Scranton, Kingston, Old Company Lehigh, Famous Reading, Lacka-wanna, etc.—which, of course, have the trade significance which their producers and vendors have built up. General Description of the Various Coals, with Name of Seam and Producing District This is partly covered in the paragraphs above. Lykens Valley coal is produced from one or another of the six Lykens Valley beds lying within

Jan 1, 1930

By George H. Ashley

The Legislature of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania at its last session passed a new act dealing with barrier pillars, which may have a wide interest in other states. In the past the laws of Pennsylvania have required that the superintendent of a mine "shall not permit the mining of coal within 50 ft. of any abandoned mine containing a dangerous accumulation of water, until said danger has been removed by driving a passageway to tap and drain off said water, as provided for in this act: Provided, That the thickness of the barrier pillars shall be greater aid shall be in proportion of one foot of pillar thickness to each one and one-quarter feet of water head, if in the judgment of the engineer of the property and that of the district inspector it is necessary for the safety of the persons working in the mine." Thus it has happened that a thickness of several hundred feet has necessarily been left in pillars in mining. It has seemed to many in the mining industry that this left an unnecessary amount of coal in pillars, and did not provide that the pillar be left equally on the two sides of the mine. As a result the General Assembly of 1927 by Joint Resolution authorized the Governor to appoint a Commission of "seven prominent citizens, of whom four shall be recognized mining engineers, one shall be a hydraulic engineer, one a geologist of recognized standing in his profession, and one a State mine inspector from the bituminous coal mining district, to investigate and report upon barrier pillars in the bituminous coal region." The Governor appointed the following Commission: Morris Coulter, Clearfield Bituminous Coal Corp., Indiana, Pa.; A. E. Roberts, Monroe Coal Mining Co., Revloc, Pa.; George T. Lewis, Westmoreland Coal Co., Irwin, Pa.; Morris Knowles, hydraulic engineer, Pittsburgh, Pa.; Thomas A. Mather, State Inspector of Mines, Tyrone, Pa.; A. B. Jessup, Anthracite Coal Operators Association, Jeddo, Pa.; George H. Ashley, State Geologist, Harrisburg, Pa. Mr. Coulter was elected Chairman and Mr. Ashley, Secretary. This Commission held meetings in Harrisburg, Johnstown and Pittsburgh. It obtained and considered the laws and experiences of other states and European countries. Some of its members conferred at length with the directors and other members of the U. S. Bureau

Jan 1, 1930

"DEEPHOLE " or "Longhole" drilling is the name given to the drilling of prospecting holes with the pneumatic hammer drill. The drilling bit is of the same form, and is prepared in the same way as ordinary rock drill steel, and is extended to the bottom of the hole by sectional hollow rods, through which water is forced.The cuttings from the hole provide a sample of the ground drilled.Deephole drilling was developed at an American mine where the cost of diamond drilling, owing to loss of diamonds, was excessive, and proved very successful, holes being drilled as deep as 220 ft., in limestone, at a cost of one dollar per foot. The use of the method in other mines, and in a variety of rocks, has since been described in the technical literature. From the published descriptions the following data are drawn:

Jan 1, 1930

Jan 1, 1930

By L. B. Berger

In this investigation, the ampoule type of carbon-monoxide (CO) detector which is manufactured under license of U. S. Patent 1,644,014 (October 4, 1927) was tested for sensitivity and reliability. This detector was devised primarily for examining the air of manholes and sewers for possible dangerous contamination with CO before workmen enter these places, but due to the simplicity of the device it may have a more general usage for examination of atmospheres which are known or suspected, to be contaminated with CO. Some of the suggested uses are the examination of the air in garages, tunnels, mines, around blast furnaces, gas plants, and in the home.

Jan 1, 1930

By R. A. Hancock, L. C. Uren, G. V. Feskov, P. P. Gregory

The resistance to flow of mixtures of gas and oil in passing up through the flow tubing of oil wells operated by gas-lift or by natural flow is a factor in oil-recovery technic that has received but little attention. Yet accurate design of a tubing installation for a particular set of conditions, where operation is by either of these methods, is impossible without quantitative data on the pressure loss suffered by the oil-gas mixture in its passage through the well tubing to the surface. Because of lack of such information, petroleum production technologists have been compelled to approach this problem by " cut-and-try" methods, which, doubtless in many cases, has resulted in the installation and use of tubing too large or too small for most efficient utilization of the expansive force of the gas used in lifting the oil. Impressed with the necessity for information of this character, the authors have conducted a series of tests with large-scale apparatus in the petroleum engineering laboratories of the University of California, designed to be productive of data that would afford a means of attacking the problem of flow-tubing design on a more scientific basis. Mechanics of Expulsion of Gas-oil Mixtures in Naturally Flowing and Gas-lift Wells When oil is lifted from a well by the expansive force of compressed natural gas or air, the fluids enter the lower end of the eduction tube under elevated pressure, with the gas partly in solution, but largely distributed in the form of occluded bubbles within the oil mass. As discharged from deep wells, after reaching the surface, there will normally be at least 60 times as much gas, by volume, as of oil; and in many cases the ratio of gas volume to that of the oil will have a value as great as 1000 or more. On entering the lower end of the eduction tube, however, a relatively smaller volume of gas will be found in the oil-gas mixture, on account of compression of the gas in accordance with the elevated pressure necessary. If the pressure at the point of admission to the

Jan 1, 1930

By G. P. de Forest, G. O. Hiers

The object of the experiments reported in this paper is to determine the eutectic composition of copper and tin and to determine the location of the part of the liquidus line immediately above the eutectic composition in copper. Three methods were used in the investigation: (1) the method of dissolving copper in a bath of molten tin at constant temperature, with the idea that when the bath was saturated with copper its copper content, by analysis, together with the temperature at which the saturation took place would locate a point on the liquidus line; (2) the method of the differential cooling curves, and (3) the method of microscopic examination. This paper is principally concerned with the results of the last two methods mentioned. The results of the first method, that of dissolving copper in molten tin, did not agree with the results of Miller,' by the same method, nor with the results of other investigators by other methods, nor yet with the results of the cooling-curve experiments and microscopic examination reported here. Solution of Copper in Molten Tin To determine the amount of copper that would be dissolved by molten tin at a given constant temperature the apparatus shown in Fig. 1 was used. It consists of a cast-iron pot a, 6 in. deep and 8 in. dia., well cleaned inside and dressed with graphite. This pot, which holds 15 lb. of tin, g, rests on a hot plate b with resistance winding c. The thermocouple d leads to a Wilson-Maeulen temperature regulator for maintaining the temperahre at the heating coils at a fixed temperature to within ±5°C. There is a shallow bath of solder e on the top of the hot plate to improve the thermal contact between the plate and the pot. An insulating jacket f of asbestos prevents the irregular radiation of heat from the apparatus. The copper stirrer h slowly rotates in, and is dissolved by the bath of molten tin g. This bath is protected from excessive oxidation by a layer of charcoal j. The stirrer h is fixed to the lower end of the iron tube k, which is so mounted that it can be driven by a motor with reducing gear. The temperature of the bath is indicated

Jan 1, 1930

By A. C. Fieldner

The usual analytical determinations made in analyzing coal are comprised in the proximate and ultimate analysis and the determination of calorific value. The proximate analysis includes determinations of moisture, volatile matter, fixed carbon and ash; the ultimate analysis determinations of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur and ash. The proximate analysis is an empirical process, and the results, obtained, especially for volatile matter and fixed carbon, are materially influenced by the method of conducting the determinations. This fact must be kept in mind in comparing coal analyses from different laboratories for classification purposes. Unless these laboratories have followed the same standard methods, differences due to variations in the analytical methods may, in some cases, be large enough to change the classification of the coal. It is unfortunate that the determinations of volatile matter and fixed carbon, which are most used in coal classification, are the two that are subject to the greatest variations. Moisture comes next in the scale of variation. The ultimate analysis is less influenced by method, since it comprises the determination of definite chemical elements. However, even the ultimate analysis is subject to errors, due to inorganic carbon from carbonates and to inorganic hydrogen from water. For these reasons it is evident that the Committee on Coal Classification must be informed on the evolution of methods of coal analysis in America and the average differences in analytical results that may be expected from variations in methods. The committee should be informed also on which methods should be accepted as standard for classifying coal and on the magnitude of the differences in results that may be expected from duplicate samples of the same coal sent to different laboratories for analysis by the same standard methods. It is the purpose of the present paper to provide this information. The subject will be discussed under the following main heads:

Jan 1, 1930

The following discussion occurred on the afternoon of Sept,. 22, 1930, as part of the fall meeting of the Iron and Steel Division at Chicago. About seventy-five men attended this session. C. B. Murray opened the meeting, as follows: C. B. Murray, Cleveland, Ohio.—It is very encouraging to see so many here this afternoon to discuss this important matter of beneficiation. The producers of ore, I am sure, are anxious to furnish the grade of ore that the consumer wants. The consumer sometimes wants that which cannot be economically produced and often the producer cannot understand why the consumer wants certain things. It was to bring together these two interested parties that this meeting was proposed. I was appointed the chairman of the meeting, chiefly because I happened to be the chairman of the Iron Ore Committee of the Institute. I know a little about iron ore but have not perhaps kept up with the times in blast-furnace practice. I am asking Mr. Sweetser, who is well informed from both sides, to take over the meeting and carry on the discussion. R. H. Sweetser, Columbus, Ohio.—We want to have a free discussion between the iron-ore men and the blast-furnace men as to just what we are trying to reach in the beneficiation of iron ores. Many of those present have had a great deal of experience. There are men here from the ranges who have been passing through the experimental stage of beneficiation of iron ores, and there are some who have already gone on to commercial production. We have reached the point where the beneficiation of iron ore is important to the whole iron and steel industry. The connection between iron-ore beneficiation and the cleaning of coal is so close that I think we can profit by working very close to the coal people. Some Aspects of the Iron-ore Situation W. G. Swart, Babbitt, Minn.—I was very much interested in Mr. Richards'* paper on tonnages and the 20-year life. There is one interesting thing about the ore reserves; that is, the irregular distribution of that tonnage. On the Mesabi Range, for example, the United States Steel Corpn. owns between 70 and 75 per cent. of the reserve tonnage. They ship bctween 40 and 50 per cent. of the annual Lake Superior

Jan 1, 1930

By Walter Scott

THE removal of lead by fire refining methods from copper of electrolytic quality is growing in importance. Particularly is this true of the refining of secondary copper and copper cathodes obtained from electrolytic cells where lead is used as the anode material, as in the electrolysis of ore-leaching solutions and foul electrolyte. When investigating the removal of small amounts of lead from molten copper in a reverberatory furnace during the refining of secondary copper of otherwise electrolytic copper quality,1 it was found necessary first to FIG. 1.-SAMPLING DEVICE. know something about the distribution of the lead throughout the bath. The authors believe that it is not generally known how small amounts of lead as an impurity are distributed in a molten copper bath; that is, whether the lead is concentrated at the bottom or at the top, or whether it occurs more or less uniformly throughout the bath. The data contained in this report may help, therefore, in the development of a satis-factory fire refining method for the removal of this obstinate element from a molten copper bath.

Jan 1, 1930

By Hamilton Bell, E. W. Webb

RepressuRIng, or gas drive, was first tried in the Seal Beach oil field during the fall of 1927, and was carried on until the spring of 1928. This experiment in the Upper or Bixby zone was highly successful in proving the feasibility of compressing gas to high pressures and also showed great increases in production. The project was discontinued because there were not enough wells to protect the property lines. In the development of the second or Selover zone, many more wells were drilled and after 2½ years of production the gas was depleted so that all producing wells in the zone were either pumping or on gas-lift. Edge-wat'er encroachment and the deepening of wells on neighboring properties to a third zone practically isolated the lease, so that during the spring of 1929 it was considered feasible to repressure the Selover zone on the Bixby lease of the Continental Oil Co. (Marland). As shown on Fig. 1, the main Seal Beach structure is an elongated dome with a northwest-southeast trend, and the north flank is cut by a fault nearly parallel to the axis of the structure. Bixby well No. 24 was chosen for the injection well on account of its location, as it is backed up by the fault and is surrounded by wells that protect the property lines. The results of the test made in the Bixby zone indicated that an injection well on the flanks of the structure would drive oil quickly to up-structure wells but would have a tendency to cause by-passing, while the drive to down-structure wells would be slower but more evenly distributed. Preferably the injection well would have been located on top of the dome but property divisions made this inadvisable. Well 24 had been completed in November, 1928, but on account of gas depletion the well failed to flow naturally. On gas-lift the well had an initial production of 1000 bbl. of oil with 30 per cent. emulsion. This well is 4825 ft, deep, penetrating 200 ft. of oil-bearing formation. At the time the well was prepared

Jan 1, 1930

Jan 1, 1930