Search Documents

By E. H. Rose

The question is often pondered whether the flotation process is still an art or has become a science. The fact is that flotation is a science in so many variables that only art can blend them. It is demonstrable that no less than one hundred variables are involved in any flotation operation, most of them immeasurable on a routine basis. The behavior of every one of them is always governed by orderly and unchanging law, as no man can doubt. There is nothing truly indefinite about that behavior; the only indefiniteness is in our knowledge of it, either in general or from hour to hour in the circuit. In dealing with a simultaneous equation in, say, one hundred variables, all not only affecting the outcome to some degree but many influencing each other as well, it is small wonder that the mineral-dressing profession presents a case history of debate and controversial opinion. The statement of the subject of this symposium—a symposium on flotation machines—seems to delimit and define the matters to be considered and at least the general nature of the conclusions sought. Nevertheless, in such a meeting it is not possible to meditate upon all the variables that do in one way or another affect performance of flotation machines. To attempt it would be much like trying to operate a hundred-ring circus. Perverse variables being what they are, one could expect the elephant in ring 36 to squirt a trunkful of water at the tightrope performer in ring 37 to ruin that artist's act, just as our learning to depress pyrite in the early 1920's ruined the act of the formerly faithful old Callows. Honest Disagreements Selective flotation dates from 1922 or 1923, when several plants established their regular flotation operations on a selective basis. Since then, two decades of efforr have gone into the development of better and better flotation machines. Many have come and gone. The competition has simmered down to perhaps a dozen machines, each one of which is staunchly defended by some operators as being the best for their particular jobs, and as scornfully dismissed by at least a few others elsewhere as being positively the poorest for theirs. These disagreements are honest disagreements, honestly arrived at after plenty of sweat. In many a flotation plant, one machine has been tried out against another under conditions as fair as they could possibly be made. Sometimes the results are on a par but more often one machine shows a consistent and unmistakable margin of superiority over the other. In equally honest and enlightened tests, machine A may win over machine B in one place, and machine B over machine A by as great a margin in another. This paper purposes to identify some of the more prominent reasons why this is so,

Jan 1, 1947

By E. H. Rose

THE question is often pondered whether the flotation process is still an art or has become a science. The fact is that flotation is a science in so many variables that only art can blend them. It is demonstrable that no less than one hundred variables are involved in any flotation operation, most of them immeasurable on a routine basis. The behavior of every one of them is always governed by orderly and unchanging law, as no man can doubt. There is nothing truly indefinite about that behavior; the only indefiniteness is in our knowledge of it, either in general or from hour to hour in the circuit. In dealing with a simultaneous equation in, say, one hundred variables, all not only affecting the outcome to some degree but many influencing each other as well, it is small wonder that the mineral-dressing profession presents a case history of debate and controversial opinion. The statement of the subject of this symposium-a symposium on flotation machines-seems to delimit and define the matters to be considered and at least the general nature of the conclusions sought. Nevertheless, in such a meeting it is not possible to meditate upon all the variables that do in one way or another affect performance of flotation machines. To attempt it would be much like trying to operate a hundred-ring circus. Perverse variables being what they are, one could expect the elephant in ring 36 to squirt a trunkful of water at the tightrope performer in ring 37 to ruin that artist's act, just as our learning to depress pyrite in the early 1920's ruined the act of the formerly faithful old Callows. HONEST DISAGREEMENTS Selective flotation dates from 1922 or 1923, when several plants established their regular flotation operations on a selective basis. Since then, two decades of efforr have gone into the development of better and better flotation machines. Many have come and gone. The competition has simmered down to perhaps a dozen machines, each one of which is staunchly defended by some operators as being the best for their particular jobs, and as scornfully dismissed by at least a few others elsewhere as being positively the poorest for theirs. These disagreements are honest disagreements, honestly arrived at after plenty of sweat. In many a flotation plant, one machine has been tried out against another under conditions as fair as they could possibly be made. Sometimes the results are on a par but more often one machine shows a consistent and unmistakable margin of superiority over the other. In equally honest and enlightened tests, machine A may win over machine B in one place, and machine B over machine A by as great a margin in another. This paper purposes to identify some of the more prominent reasons why this is so,

Jan 1, 1944

By W. C. Elli, M. E. Fine

YOUNG'S modulus of elasticity in metals ordinarily decreases with rising temperature. The range of the thermoelastic coefficient at room tem- 1/E dE/dT perature (temperature coefficient of modulus, is illustrated1 by the values for tungsten and hard-drawn aluminum, —95 and —1220x10-6 eg C-1. However, a nearly zero thermoelastic coefficient is observed in some ferromagnetic alloys over a limited temperature range. In these alloys, as the temperature is raised, an increase in modulus arising from loss of ferromagnetism compensates the normal decrease. Iron-nickel alloys containing 36 to 52 pct Ni behave in this manner. In the present investiga- tion, the dependence of the modulus and thermo-elastic coefficient on cold working and annealing were studied in iron-nickel alloys in this range of nickel. Although these alloys, when fully annealed, have a coefficient near zero over a very small temperature interval, the temperature range of low coefficient can be extended greatly by straining and then stress-relief annealing. The modulus of face-centered cubic iron-nickel alloys annealed at 1000°C does not vary linearly with composition at room temperature but, as shown by the solid line of fig. 1, from Koster,' is minimum at 40 pct Ni and maximum at 87 pct Ni. The modulus increases with applied magnetic field but retains the minimum near 40 pct Ni. Schematic change of modulus with temperature for three compositions is shown in fig. 2.'. ' With increasing temperature, the slope becomes less negative, goes through zero (temperature of minimum modulus for the alloy), becomes positive, and resumes its normal negative value above the Curie

Jan 1, 1951

By James Terry Duce

In order to facilitate interpretation of the data in this chapter, we print the following excerpts from circulars to authors, compiled by Mr. Frank A. Herald when he was Vice-chairman for Production of the Petroleum Division, and revised in 1939. Generally in Table 1 the unit for prescntation of data is a field. For our purposes a field is defined as the whole of a surface area wherein productive locations are continuous. Such unit commonly includes and surrounds nonproductive areas. Such unit commonly includes a great variety of geologic conditions—several units of continuous productive reservoirs of distinctly different structure and of distinctly different stratigraphy. Therefore it is hoped that our authors will subdivide "field" so as to enable students to make analyses that may have scientific and /or commercial value. As to each spacc in the tabulation, it is citller (1) not applicable, (2) the proper entry is not determinable, (3) the proper entry is determinable, but not determinable from data available to the author, (4) the proper entry is determinable by the author. In spaces not applicable, the author will please draw horizontal lines; in spaces where the proper entries are not determinable, the author will please insert x; in spaces where the proper entries are detcrminable but not detcrminable from data available to the author, the author will please insert y; in spaces where the proper entries are determinable by the author he will, of course, make such entries. Generally, y implies a hope that in some future year a definite figure will be available. Inability to determine precisely the correct entry for a particular space should not lead the author to insert merely y. Contributions of great value may be made by the author in many cases where entries arc not subject to precise determination. In such rases the author should use his good judgment and make the best entry possible under the circumstances. For many spaces, the correct entries represent the opinion of the author (for example, "Area Proved") and in such cases the entries need not be hedged to such extent as in cases where the quantities are definite yet can be ascertained only approximately by the author. In cases under definite headings but where figures are only approximate, the author may use x. For example, if the total production of a field is known to be between 1,800,000 and 1,850,000, the author may report 1,8xx,xxx; or if the production is between 1,850,000 and 1,900,000, the author may report 1,9xx,xxx. Where a numeral is immediately to the left of x or y, such numeral represents the nearest known number in that position. As to quantity of gas produced from many fields the question will arise as to whether the figures should include merely the gas marketed or should include also estimates of gas used in operations and gas wasted. Although rough approximations

Jan 1, 1939

By J. B. Macelwane

Geophysics differs from geology and physics in in many respects. In the first place, geophysics is a complex science embracing the fields of seismology, geomagnetism, geoelectricity, geodesy, meteorology, vol-canology, physical oceanography, physical hydrology, tectonophysics and exploration geophysics. Geology is also a complex science and so extensive in its various fields that no one can master them all, and no part of geology deals in any sense with several of these fields of geophysics. In the second place, geophysics makes use of methods and instruments that are derived primarily from the science of physics. Geology, on the other hand, has methods of its own and it draws its borrowed techniques and its instrumental equipment not only from physics but also and perhaps primarily from chemistry and biology. The difference, therefore, between the geophysicist and the geologist lies partly in the phenomena that are observed, partly in the methods and instruments with which each carries on his exploration; but partly also, and perhaps principally, in the habitual attitude of mind and in the background of specialized training with which each approaches the problems presented by this planet of ours. The geologist as such, therefore, is no geophysicist. On the other hand, the physicist is not a geophysicist either. Isolation of each problem in a closed laboratow system under complete control is fundamental to the methods of the physicist. The geophysicist must apply physical instruments and physicomathematical reasoning to the study of physical quantities in their undisturbed natural environment. What, then, is a geophysicist? In the sense that he is a trained expert in all of the geophysical sciences, I do not believe that such a person ever existed. It would be beyond the possibilities of a single lifetime. I think there is confusion in our ideas and in our use of terms. We are not all thinking of the same thing when we say geophysics or geophysicist; yet we seem to talk as though we were. It is as absurd to say that the whole of geophysics belongs to geology because the field of a particular type of geophysicist—the exploration geophysicist —calls for some knowledge of geology as it would be to say that the whole of biology belongs to geology because a particular type of biologist—the paleontologist— needs some knowledge of geology. Development of a Geophysicist Since it is impossible to become an expert in all the fields of geophysics, and since students entering college seldom know the field they will choose as a career, what would we suggest as the best general preparation for work in geophysics, whether as a meteorologist, an oceanographer, a seismologist, a geodesist, a geomagneticist, a volcanologist, a tectonophysicist, a hydro1 ogist, or an exploration geophysicistp we may distinguish five phases in the development of a geophysicist: (I) his mathematical and scientific studies in high school; (2) the general mathematical and scientific

Jan 1, 1946

By James Terry Duce

In order to facilitate interpretation of the data in this chapter, we print the following excerpts from circulars to authors, compiled by Mr. Frank A. Herald when he was Vice-chairman for Production of the Petroleum Division: Generally in Table 1 the unit for presentation of data is a field. For our purposes a field is defined as the whole of a surface area wherein productive locations are continuous. Such unit commonly includes and surrounds nonproductive areas. Such unit commonly includes a great variety of geologic conditions-several units of continuous productive reservoirs of distinctly different structure and of distinctly different stratigraphy. Therefore it is hoped that our authors will subdivide "field" so as to enable students to make analyses that may have scientific and/or commercial value. As to each space in the tabulation, it is either (I) not applicable, (2) the proper entry is not determinable, (3) the proper entry is determinable, but not determinable from data available to the author, (4) the proper entry is determinable by the author. In spaces not applicable, the author will please draw horizontal lines; in spaces where the proper entries are not determinable, the author will please insert x; in spaces where the proper entries are determinable but not determinable from data available to the author, the author will please insert y; in spaces where the proper entries are determinable by the author he will, of course, make such entries. Generally, y implies a hope that in some future year a definite figure will be available. Inability to determine precisely the correct entry for a particular space should not lead the author to insert merely y. Contributions of great value may be made by the author in many cases where entries are not subject to precise determination. In such cases the author should use his good judgment and make the best entry possible under the circumstances. For many spaces, the correct entries represent the opinion of the author (for example, "Area Proved") and in such cases the entries need not be hedged to such extent as in cases where the quantities are definite yet can be ascertained only approximately by the author. In cases under definite headings but where figures are only approximate, the author may use x. For example, if the total production of a field is known to be between 1,800,000 and 1,850,000, the author may report 1,8xx,xxx; or if the production is between 1,850,000 and 1,900,000, the author may report 1,9xx,xxx. Where a numeral is immediately to the left of x or y, such numeral represents the nearest known number in that position. As to quantity of gas produced from many fields the question will arise as to whether the figures should include merely the gas marketed or should include also estimates of gas used in operations and gas wasted. Although rough approximations

Jan 1, 1938

By J. B. Macelwane

Geophysics differs from geology and physics in in many respects. In the first place, geophysics is a complex science embracing the fields of seismology, geomagnetism, geoelectricity, geodesy, meteorology, vol-canology, physical oceanography, physical hydrology, tectonophysics and exploration geophysics. Geology is also a complex science and so extensive in its various fields that no one can master them all, and no part of geology deals in any sense with several of these fields of geophysics. In the second place, geophysics makes use of methods and instruments that are derived primarily from the science of physics. Geology, on the other hand, has methods of its own and it draws its borrowed techniques and its instrumental equipment not only from physics but also and perhaps primarily from chemistry and biology. The difference, therefore, between the geophysicist and the geologist lies partly in the phenomena that are observed, partly in the methods and instruments with which each carries on his exploration; but partly also, and perhaps principally, in the habitual attitude of mind and in the background of specialized training with which each approaches the problems presented by this planet of ours. The geologist as such, therefore, is no geophysicist. On the other hand, the physicist is not a geophysicist either. Isolation of each problem in a closed laboratow system under complete control is fundamental to the methods of the physicist. The geophysicist must apply physical instruments and physicomathematical reasoning to the study of physical quantities in their undisturbed natural environment. What, then, is a geophysicist? In the sense that he is a trained expert in all of the geophysical sciences, I do not believe that such a person ever existed. It would be beyond the possibilities of a single lifetime. I think there is confusion in our ideas and in our use of terms. We are not all thinking of the same thing when we say geophysics or geophysicist; yet we seem to talk as though we were. It is as absurd to say that the whole of geophysics belongs to geology because the field of a particular type of geophysicist—the exploration geophysicist —calls for some knowledge of geology as it would be to say that the whole of biology belongs to geology because a particular type of biologist—the paleontologist— needs some knowledge of geology. Development of a Geophysicist Since it is impossible to become an expert in all the fields of geophysics, and since students entering college seldom know the field they will choose as a career, what would we suggest as the best general preparation for work in geophysics, whether as a meteorologist, an oceanographer, a seismologist, a geodesist, a geomagneticist, a volcanologist, a tectonophysicist, a hydro1 ogist, or an exploration geophysicistp we may distinguish five phases in the development of a geophysicist: (I) his mathematical and scientific studies in high school; (2) the general mathematical and scientific

Jan 1, 1946

By J. B. Macelwane

GEOPHYSICS differs from geology and physics in many respects. In the first place, geophysics is a complex science embracing the fields of seismology, geomagnetism, geoelectricity, geodesy, meteorology, volcanology, physical oceanography, physical hydrology, tectonophysics and exploration geophysics. Geology is also a complex science and so extensive in its various fields that no one can master them all, and no part of geology deals in any sense with several of these fields of geophysics. In the second place, geophysics makes use of methods and instruments that are derived primarily from the science of physics. Geology, on the other hand, has methods of its own and it draws its borrowed techniques and its instrumental equipment not only from physics but also and perhaps primarily from chemistry and biology. The difference, therefore, between the geophysicist and the geologist lies partly in the phenomena that are observed, partly in the methods and instruments with which each carries on his exploration; but partly also, and perhaps principally, in the habitual attitude of mind and in the background of specialized training with which each approaches the problems presented by this planet of ours. The geologist as such, therefore, is no geophysicist. On the other hand, the physicist is not a geophysicist either. Isolation of each problem in a closed laboratory system under complete control is fundamental to the methods of the physicist. The geophysicist must apply physical instruments and physicomathematical reasoning to the study of physical quantities in their undisturbed natural environment. What, then, is a geophysicist? In the sense that he is a trained expert in all of the geophysical sciences, I do not believe that such a person ever existed. It would be beyond the possibilities of a single lifetime. I think there is confusion in our ideas and in our use of terms. We are not all thinking of the same thing when we say geophysics or geophysicist; yet we seem to talk as though we were. It is as absurd to say that the whole of geophysics belongs to geology because the field of a particular type of geophysicist-the exploration geophysicist -calls for some knowledge of geology as it would be to say that the whole of biology belongs to geology because a particular type of biologist-the paleontologistneeds some knowledge of geology. DEVELOPMENT OF A GEOPHYSICIST Since it is impossible to become an expert in all the fields of geophysics, and since students entering college seldom know the field they will choose as a career, what would we suggest as the best general preparation for work in geophysics, whether as a meteorologist, an oceanographer, a seismologist, a geodesist, a geomagneticist, a volcanologist, a tectonophysicist, a hydrologist, or an exploration geophysicist? We may distinguish five phases in the development of a geophysicist: (I) his mathematical and scientific studies in high school; (2) the general mathematical and scientific

Jan 1, 1941

By Walter Henoch

THE subject of my talk is, "What 'the college, student expects when he gets out of college." Since all of us, here tonight are engineers, I think it will be proper to limit the discussion to "What the engineering student expects when he emerges from college." It might be well to con-sider just why we chose engineering rather than some other of the many courses open to us. We certainly did not choose it because it is easy nor because we thought it would be a very pleasurable way to spend four years of our lives. The majority of students who choose this profession have a pretty well-formed idea of what an engineering course requires. They at least know that they must work to re-ceive their credits. The minority, which is no small num-ber, are soon disillusioned and as a result they either quit college entirely or they join the' Commerce School. I asked a number of my fellow students just what it was that induced them to join the engineering profession, but it was hard to obtain a clear cut statement from any of them. Some said it was due to environment; others said, they took it because they liked it, and still others said they took it because their folks wanted them to. These state-ments are rather vague and incomplete, but underlying them all is something that the fellows found hard to ex-press. I think it is this: To the layman there is something of romance and adventure about the engineering profes-sion, and this fact coupled with the reputed high salaries and high commands of certain noted engineers no doubt fired our imaginations and consequently led us to join the ranks of the engineers. No doubt many engineers have gone out into the world and have found little romance or adventure .attached to their work, but nevertheless it is an occupation of a wide diversity of interest, of constant change of scene, and of vivid and human relations.

Jan 5, 1928

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 Gerhard Derge

THE extension of metallurgical control of steelmaking processes has always made it desirable to have some quick method for determining the oxygen content of molten steel. To meet the practical demands of the steel industry, this method must also be simple enough so that the sampling can be done by the regular furnace crew. This requirement was kept in mind continually in the work to be described. An oxygen value is required for proper control, whether it be of a rimming steel or of a fully killed steel. However, two factors have discouraged the development of such direct methods: I. The reaction C + FeO -+ Fe + CO is rapid enough to make the correct sampling of the bath a difficult problem. The most generally accepted means of circumventing this difficulty have been the aluminum-killed bomb test of McCutcheon and Rautio1 and the aluminum-killed spoon test of Herty.2 The theory of these tests is that all of the oxygen in the iron is converted to A1203, which can then be determined by chemical methods. Even when simplified so that the analysis is made by a measurement of turbidity, this method is too slow to be used in routine control. Furthermore, the results obtained have never been entirely satisfactory, and some of the reasons for this will be discussed later in this paper. 2. The ordinary chemical methods of analysis for oxygen in steel are not reliable. The only analysis that seems to possess sufficient dependability to be of value is vacuum fusion,3 and the apparatus and technique developed for this have been too complex and slow for routine work. INDIRECT METHODS Indirect methods of estimating the oxygen have been resorted to in mill practice. Generally these depend upon the chemical equilibria involved. The oxygen in the bath is related to other components in the slag or metal that can be analyzed more readily. These methods have many difficulties in common. Steelmaking processes involve a complicated set of interrelated reactions, all of which tend to approach equilibrium at varying rates. The degree to which any particular equilibrium is approached, is not , well established. Moreover, a proper use of theoretical equilibrium constants requires a more extensive knowledge of the activities of the reactants than we now have. This is well illustrated by the irregularities observed when trying to determine the oxygen in the metal by its ratio to the iron oxide in the slag. Equilibrium relations may be used more readily if they are evaluated by plant experience, but the extent of approach to equilibrium remains an undetermined variable and lack of an entirely satisfactory means of determining oxygen for the calibration is felt keenly. For example, the statistical analysis of the relation between carbon and oxygen4 5 illustrates that even in a single plant wide variations exist under normal conditions of operation. Nevertheless, this is one of the best methods now

Jan 1, 1943

By F. H. Wilson, E. W. Palmer

G. L. Bailey (British Non-Ferrous Metals Research Association, London, England)—I was glad to see this further work on the structure and properties of the Cu-Ni-Fe alloys of low nickel content in which we have been so interested in the United Kingdom since before the war." The authors' data on the variation in solubility of iron in both 5 and 10 pct Ni alloys with temperature is based on more detailed observations than we have made but is generally in line with our own work. The difficulty in these matters is in the identification of the structures obtained. The precipitation of the second phase which we presume to be the a' solid solution, richer in nickel and iron, from the a solution with which it is in equilibrium occurs in such a fine state of division that its resolution by ordinary micro-graphic methods is impossible in the early stages. We have published some electron micrographs which illustrate the effects observed more clearly but we agree with the authors when they say that dark staining characteristics when the alloys are subjected to sea-water corrosion are more sensitive in detecting the presence of the a' phase than is the microscope. After taking this point into consideration, however, I confess to some difficulty in understanding Fig. 4. I can only assume that the precipitates visible at such a low magnification as 150 diam in these relatively coarse forms are produced from iron-rich areas of the initial solid solution due to inadequate homogenization. If this is so I find it difficult to accept the authors' contention that such local variations in iron concentration as are capable of giving the heavy precipitates shown in Fig. 4 do not in fact materially affect the solvus surfaces of their equilibrium diagrams. I share the authors' enthusiasm about the resistance to corrosion of these alloys by seawater but I am not fully in agreement with them on the vexing question of the best iron content for these alloys. In Fig. 3 of ref. 8, we give many results showing that the resistance of these alloys to impingement attack in the Jet Test increases as the iron content rises to 2 pct. With higher iron contents pitting at shielded areas is likely to occur. Admittedly the addition of 0.75 pct Fe produces a large improvement in corrosion resistance compared with a pure 90/10 Cu-Ni alloy, but the further improvement on raising the iron to 2 pct is substantial. We recommend from 1.5 to 2 pct Fe as the desirable range from the point of view of corrosion resistance. While it is true that British practice generally uses a hard tube, the corrosion resistance of the 10 pct Ni alloys has in our work been little affected by the structural condition. Although the annealed alloys blacken in seawater, this effect seems to be superficial and not to be accompanied by any real decrease in

Jan 1, 1953

By James Terry Duce

In order to facilitate interpretation of the data in this chapter, we print the following excerpts from circulars to authors, compiled by Mr. Frank A. Herald when he was Vice-chairman for Production of the Petroleum Division: Generally in Table 1 the unit for presentation of data is a field. For our purposes a field is defined as the whole of a surface area wherein productive locations are continuous. Such unit commonly includes and surrounds nonproductive areas. Such unit commonly includes a great variety of geologic conditions-—several units of continuous productive reservoirs of distinctly different structure and of distinctly dzerent stratigraphy. Therefore it is hoped that our authors will subdivide "field" so as to enable students to make analyses that may have scientific and/or commercial value. As to each space in the tabulation, it is either (1) not applicable, (2) the proper entry is not determinable, (3) the proper entry is determinable, but not determinable from data available to the author, (4) the proper entry is determinable by the author. In spaces not applicable, the author will please draw horizontal lines; in spaces where the proper entries are not determinable, the author will please insert x; in spaces where the proper entries are determinable but not determinable from data available to the author, the author will please insert y; in spaces where the proper entries are determinable by the author he will, of course, make such entries. Generally, y implies a hope that in some future year a definite figure will be available. Inability to determine precisely the correct entry for a particular space should not lead the author to insert merely y. Contributions of great value may be made by the author in many cases where entries are not subject to precise determination. In such cases the author should use his good judgment and make the best entry possible under the circumstances. For many spaces, the correct entries represent the opinion of the author (for example, "Area Proved") and in such cases the entries need not be hedged to such extent as in cases where the quantities are definite yet can be ascertained only approximately by the author. In cases under definite headings but where figures are only approximate, the author may use 2. For example, if the total production of a field is known to be between 1,800,000 and 1,850,000, the author may report l,8x,xxx; or if the production is between 1,850,000 and 1,900,000, the author may report 1,9xx,xxx. Where a numeral is immediately to the left of x or y, such numeral represents the nearest known number in that position. As to quantity of gas produced from many fields the question will arise as to whether the figures should include merely the gas marketed or should include also estimates of gas used in operations and gas wasted. Although rough approximations

Jan 1, 1937

By James Terry Duce

In order to facilitate interpretation of the data in this chapter, we print the following excerpts from circulars to authors, compiled by Mr. Frank A. Herald when he was Vice-chairman for Production of the Petroleum Division, and revised in 1939. Generally in Table 1 the unit for prescntation of data is a field. For our purposes a field is defined as the whole of a surface area wherein productive locations are continuous. Such unit commonly includes and surrounds nonproductive areas. Such unit commonly includes a great variety of geologic conditions—several units of continuous productive reservoirs of distinctly different structure and of distinctly different stratigraphy. Therefore it is hoped that our authors will subdivide "field" so as to enable students to make analyses that may have scientific and /or commercial value. As to each spacc in the tabulation, it is citller (1) not applicable, (2) the proper entry is not determinable, (3) the proper entry is determinable, but not determinable from data available to the author, (4) the proper entry is determinable by the author. In spaces not applicable, the author will please draw horizontal lines; in spaces where the proper entries are not determinable, the author will please insert x; in spaces where the proper entries are detcrminable but not detcrminable from data available to the author, the author will please insert y; in spaces where the proper entries are determinable by the author he will, of course, make such entries. Generally, y implies a hope that in some future year a definite figure will be available. Inability to determine precisely the correct entry for a particular space should not lead the author to insert merely y. Contributions of great value may be made by the author in many cases where entries arc not subject to precise determination. In such rases the author should use his good judgment and make the best entry possible under the circumstances. For many spaces, the correct entries represent the opinion of the author (for example, "Area Proved") and in such cases the entries need not be hedged to such extent as in cases where the quantities are definite yet can be ascertained only approximately by the author. In cases under definite headings but where figures are only approximate, the author may use x. For example, if the total production of a field is known to be between 1,800,000 and 1,850,000, the author may report 1,8xx,xxx; or if the production is between 1,850,000 and 1,900,000, the author may report 1,9xx,xxx. Where a numeral is immediately to the left of x or y, such numeral represents the nearest known number in that position. As to quantity of gas produced from many fields the question will arise as to whether the figures should include merely the gas marketed or should include also estimates of gas used in operations and gas wasted. Although rough approximations

Jan 1, 1939

The officers and staff of the Petroleum Division are the servants of the members, and to the extent that the wishes of the members are made known and are practicable they will be carried out. The tentative plans outlined here are in general accord with previous custom, but modified by suggestions received recently from various members. The advice of all members is solicited, and it is hoped that the general expression on matters of policy can soon be facilitated by circulation of a questionnaire. Plans for two mid-year meetings of the Petroleum Division and for participation in the annual meeting at New York were inaugurated at the last annual meeting and are being carried forward as rapidly as possible in the belief that an early start will increase the possibility of finding the best available program material and permit the careful preparation, review, editing, and advance discussion of papers. While a number of papers have already been solicited, both members and nonmembers are hereby invited to submit additional papers, with the assurance that such papers will be given just as favorable consideration as the papers that have been requested. Mid-year meetings will be held at about the same time both in the Mid-Continent and California. The time will be selected if possible to coincide with the visits of President Lovejoy, who expects to be in California the last of September and in Texas early in October. Fort Worth, Dallas and Austin have been suggested for the Mid-Continent meeting. The Pacific Coast meeting will be held at Los Angeles. It is to be noted particularly that a Pacific Coast meeting was waived last year in favor of the annual meeting of the American Petroleum Institute, which was held at Los Angeles for the first time in nine years. It is hoped, and it was the understanding at the time among a number of individuals interested in both organizations, that in view of this action of the Petroleum Division the industry will give more than the usual support to the A.I.M.E. meeting this year. Ultimate Recovery is being considered as the keynote topic for the mid-year meetings. In view of trying financial conditions combined with an exceptionally high current potential rate of production, it is natural that the attention of the industry should be focused upon means of controlling production and reducing cost of operation. It seems that the Petroleum Division of the A.I.M.E., as a professional group, might

Jan 1, 1936

The officers and staff of the Petroleum Division are the servants of the members, and to the extent that the wishes of the members are made known and are practicable they will be carried out. The tentative plans outlined here are in general accord with previous custom, but modified by suggestions received recently from various members. The advice of all members is solicited, and it is hoped that the general expression on matters of policy can soon be facilitated by circulation of a questionnaire. Plans for two mid-year meetings of the Petroleum Division and for participation in the annual meeting at New York were inaugurated at the last annual meeting and are being carried forward as rapidly as possible in the belief that an early start will increase the possibility of finding the best available program material and permit the careful preparation, review, editing, and advance discussion of papers. While a number of papers have already been solicited, both members and nonmembers are hereby invited to submit additional papers, with the assurance that such papers will be given just as favorable consideration as the papers that have been requested. Mid-year meetings will be held at about the same time both in the Mid-Continent and California. The time will be selected if possible to coincide with the visits of President Lovejoy, who expects to be in California the last of September and in Texas early in October. Fort Worth, Dallas and Austin have been suggested for the Mid-Continent meeting. The Pacific Coast meeting will be held at Los Angeles. It is to be noted particularly that a Pacific Coast meeting was waived last year in favor of the annual meeting of the American Petroleum Institute, which was held at Los Angeles for the first time in nine years. It is hoped, and it was the understanding at the time among a number of individuals interested in both organizations, that in view of this action of the Petroleum Division the industry will give more than the usual support to the A.I.M.E. meeting this year. Ultimate Recovery is being considered as the keynote topic for the mid-year meetings. In view of trying financial conditions combined with an exceptionally high current potential rate of production, it is natural that the attention of the industry should be focused upon means of controlling production and reducing cost of operation. It seems that the Petroleum Division of the A.I.M.E., as a professional group, might

Jan 1, 1936

By James Terry Duce

In order to facilitate interpretation of the data in this chapter, we print the following excerpts from circulars to authors, compiled by Mr. Frank A. Herald when he was Vice Chairman for Production of the Petroleurn Division: Generally in Table 1 the unit for presentation of data is a field. For our purposes a field is defined as the whole of a surface area wherein productive, locations are continuous. Such unit commonly includes and surrounds nonproductive areas. Such unit commonly includes a great variety of geologic conditions-—several units of continuous productive reservoirs of distinctly different structure and of distinctly different stratigraphy. Therefore it is hoped that our authors will subdivide "field" so as to enable students to make analyses that may have scientific and/or commercial value. As to each space in the tabulation, it is either (1) not applicable, (2) the proper entry is not determinable, (3) the proper entry is determinable, but not determinable from data available to the author, (4) the proper entry is determinable by the author. In spaces not applicable, the author will please draw horizontal lines; in spaces where the proper entries are not determinable, the author will please insert 2; in spaces where the proper entries are determinable but not determinable from data available to the author, the author will please insert y; in spaces where the proper entries are deter-minable by the author he will, of course, make such entries. Generally, y implies a hope that in some future year a definite figure will be available. Inability to determine precisely the correct entry for a particular space should not lead the author to insert merely y. Contributions of great value may be made by the author in many cases where entries are not subject to precise determination. In such cases the author should use his good judgment and make the best entry possible under the circumstances. For many spaces, the correct entries represent the opinion of the author (for example, "Area Proved") and in such cases the entries need not be hedged to such extent as in cases where the quantities are definite yet can be ascertained only approximately by the author. In cases under definite headings but where figures are only approximate, the author may use 2. For example, if the total production of a field is known to be between 1,800,000 and 1,850,000, the author may report 1,8xx,xxx; or if the production is between 1,850,000 and 1,900,000, the author may report 1,9xx,xxx. Where a numeral is immediately to the left of x or y, such numeral represents the nearest known number in that position. As to quantity of gas produced from many fields the question will arise as to whether the figures should include merely the gas marketed or should include also estimates of gas used in operations and gas wasted. Although rough approximations may be involved, our figures should represent as nearly as possible the total quantity of gas removed from the reservoir.

Jan 1, 1936

By Peter J. Maxworthy

INTRODUCTION There is no hard and fast rule on whether functions within a company, diversified or otherwise, should be strongly centralized or decentralized. In all diverse organizations, there are certain basic functions which remain common (or central) to each element of the business, viz: Personnel Management Cash Management Taxation Management Legal Planning Accounting Standards It would follow that each of these common factors requires some supervision at a central level to ensure that overall group objectives are met. It is true that other functions including: Industrial Relations Marketing and Distribution Production Research and Development Purchasing Management Accounting may also be common to each element of the organization. However, there is far less commonality in the degree to which these functions are central to the efficient performance and financial well-being of the business. Role of Operating Units The resources of operating centers may be viewed as a bank of funds, the nature of which can be changed from time to time, but the employment of which must provide for ongoing increases in the net worth of the total enterprise expressed in terms of market values. Operating units are required to continually review products, methods, and opportunities and to monitor avenues for incremental investment--all with a view to attaining the necessary additive net present value of future cash flows of the enterprise. Operating units should be permitted sufficient autonomy to enable the best use to be made of the skills and experience of the people it employs in order to produce a return appropriate to the value of assets employed. Role of Head Office The head office will typically comprise a specialist group--the leaner the better if one strongly adopts the decentralist approach--often acting as Service Centers but also performing a control function in the corporate sense. The head office function is a cost center. It may be instrumental in developing strategies for increasing revenues or reducing costs on a group scale, but it does not generate revenue. Every dollar spent on this function is an extra dollar to be generated by the operating centers in order to achieve an increase in corporate wealth. TREASURY MANAGEMENT Treasury management is concerned with the provision of finance, cash-flow management, and risk analysis. Each decision taken within the enterprise has a cash implication. It follows that a well-integrated central Treasury function can, in all likelihood, produce economic benefits. The degree to which the function should be centralized depends largely upon the unique nature of the operating units it is servicing. Levels of ownership, the calibre of unit operating managers, and the nature and geographic distribution of the business are all factors determining the degree to which the Treasury function is centralized. In the case of Peko-Wallsend, the Treasury Department is small, comprising four people. While divisional cash-flow management is largely decentralized, Treasury is responsible for the daily management of funds surplus to the immediate needs of operating units. Treasury also operates as central banker and provides funds to

Jan 1, 1985

By Robert M. Abrams

The passage of an ore pulp through the froth flotation process results in the production, after dewatering, of a finely divided concentrate. This intermediate product must be handled to the subsequent process facilities via beit or other types of conveyors, hoppers, bins, chutes and feeders, and the like. Flotation concentrate has some difficult handling properties such as abrasiveness, sluggishness when moist, or fluidity when dry. These characteristics require the judicious selection or design of handling equipment and the careful engineering of transfer chutes. It is to the special problems which are encountered in this in-plant handling procedure that this paper is addressed. The methods which will be discussed have been developed primarily for the handling of the froth flotation concentrates of copper, lead, and taconite iron ores, but may be generalized, with appropriate modifications, to apply to other similar metallic concentrates. The controlled feeding of concentrates from bins and hoppers is covered along with some of the techniques used to transfer concentrates from one belt conveyor to another. Methods are described for unloading belt conveyors into bins or storage piles. The reclamation from storage piles is also treated.

Jan 1, 1979