Search Documents

Jan 1, 1892

Jan 1, 1885

Jan 1, 1935

Jan 1, 1888

Jan 1, 1896

Jan 1, 1904

Jan 1, 1907

Jan 1, 1937

Jan 1, 1910

Jan 1, 1916

United Engineering Society J VIPOND DAVIES,-President WILLIAM L SAUNDERS ALFRED D FLINN Secretary GEORGE H PEGRAM, 2d Vice-president JOSEPH STRUIHERS, Treasurer HENRY A LARDNER Assistant treasurer Finance Committee House Committee WILLIAM L SAUNDERS, Chairman ALFRED D FLINN, Chairman GEORGE H PEGRAMO FREDERICK F SHARPLESS ARTHUR S DWIGHT JOHN H DUNLAP BANCROFT GHERARDI CALVIN W RICE I VIPOND DAVIES, ex-officio F L HUTCHINSON

Jan 1, 1923

Societies, Boards, Etc , on Which Institute Has Representation United Engineering Society WILLIAM L SAUNDERS, President GEORGE H PEGRAM, 1st Vice-president ALFRED D FLINN, Secretary J V W REYNDERS, 2d Vice-president JACOB S LANGTHORN, Treasurer HENRY A LARDNER, Assistant Treasurer Finance Committee GEORGE H PEGRAM Chairman J VIPOND DAVIES BANCROFT GHERARDI W F M GOSS WILLIAM L SAUNDERS, ex-officio House Committee ALFRED D FLINN, Chairman FREDERICK F SHARPLESS' GEORGE T SEABURYO F L HUTCHINSON CALVIN W RICE

Jan 1, 1923

Jan 1, 1888

By N. F. Mott

Jan 1, 1961

Trans No. Place Date Vol. 1. Wilkes-Barre, Pa' May, '71 1 2. Bethlehem, Pa Aug., '71 1 3. Troy, N. Y Nov., '71.. 1 4. Philadelphia, Pa Feb., '72.. 1 5. New York, N. Y.' May, '72.. 1 8. Pittsburgh, Pa Oct., '72.. 1 7. Boston, Maas Feb., '73.. 1 8. Philadelphia, Pa." May, '73.. 2 9. Easton, Pa Oct., '73.. 2 10. New York, N. Y Feb.. '74.. 2 11. St. Louis, Mo.* May, '74.. 3 12. Hazleton, Pa Oct., '74.. 3 13. New Haven, Conn Feb., '75.. 3 14. Dover, N. J. ? May, '75.. 4 15. Cleveland, 0 Oct., '75.. 4 16. Washington, D. C Feb., '76.. 4 17. Philadelphia, Pa.} June, '76.. 5 18. Philadelphia, Pa Oct., '76.. 5 19. New York, N. Y Feb., '77.. 5 20. Wilkes-Barre, Pa. ? May, '77.. 8 21. Amenia, N. Y Oct., '77, . 6 22. Philadelphia, Pa Feb., '78:. 6 23. Chattanooga, Tenn.*...May, '78'.. 7 24. Lake George, N. Y Oct., '78.. 7 25. Baltimore, Md.* Feb., '79.. 7 26. Pittsburgh, Pa Mayo '79.. 8 27. Montreal, Canada Sept., '79., 8 28, New York, N. Y.? Feb., 'SO.. 8 29. Lake Superior, Mich. ..Aug., '80.. 9 30. Philadelphia, Pa.' Feb., '81.. 9 31. Staunton, Va May, '81..10 32. Harrisburg, Pa Oct., '81..10 33. Washington, D. C.? ....Feb., '82..10 34. Denver, Colo Aug., '82..11

Jan 1, 1928

By George J. Young

Jan 1, 1911

GENERAL COMMITTEE GERALD F. G. SHERMAN, Chairman. ARTHUR NOTMAN, Secretary. NORMAN CARMICHAEL, JOHN C. GREENWAY, W. L. CLARK, W. G. McBRIDE, B. BRITTON GOTTSBERGER, FOREST RUTHERFORD. General Committee on Transportation WALTER DOUGLAS, Chairman. CLEVELAND E. DODGE, Secretary. ARTHUR S. DWIGHT, JOHN C. GREENWAY, JULIUS KRUTTSCHNITT, JR. Committee at El Paso W. D. GORDON, ROBERT McCART, JR., W. W. ROSE. Committee at Santa Rita JOHN M. SULLY, Chairman.

Jan 12, 1916

By C. E. Lesher

Two processes for agglomerating fine sized ores with low temperature coke are described. One process (Orcarb) agglomerates ores with limited amounts of carbon; the other (ore-carbon pellets) pelletizes fine sized ores, using low temperature cokes as the binder. Data are presented on the products obtained when taconite, magnetite, and hematite concentrates and several titanium oxide ores were used. Reduction of finely divided oxide ores has long been a major metallurgical problem. Various methods of agglomerating, notably briquetting, sintering, nodulizing, and pelletizing, have been developed and are in industrial use. Carbon is the usual reducing agent for oxide ores and attempts have been made to agglomerate fine ores with coking coal in order to get the metallurgical advantages of intimate contact and increased particle sizes suitable for subsequent smelting or reduction.

Oct 1, 1955

All data about shipments from the present state of West Virginia, even when it was still a part of the "Old Dominion," are shown in Table 56 together with the source of information, and all other figures are estimated. While the earliest production was undoubtedly in the extreme northern part of the state, coal having been quite largely used in Pennsylvania before any is credited to West Virginia, the largest production in the early days of the industry was along the Kanawha River where the salt furnaces used tremendous quantities for years before shipments were made by river. When we take into consideration the economic conditions existing then, it is evident that the consumption of coal by the salt industry along the Kanawha and Kiskiminitas Rivers rivalled in importance that of any industry today. There were no canals built in this state, the shipments before railroads were built being by the Ohio and Kanawha Rivers, and production in the northern counties began after the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad was completed from Cumberland to Wheeling. For some years after this line was completed all locomotive fuel used on it was hauled from the Cumberland region. The movement of coal from Boone County by Coal River to the Kanawha and Ohio Rivers from 1857 to 1880 is rather unique in its size and the length of movement, nearly all the coal going at least as far as Cincinnati and much of it to New Orleans. Fayette County began shipping when the Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad was completed and Mercer County, when the Norfolk & Western Railroad reached there in 1884; none of the other large producing counties in the southern part of the state began producing coal in the period under study.

Jan 1, 1942

By C. A. Stout, S. W. Nicksic

The materials that stubilize emulsions of some Southern California crude oils were isolated from the produced crude. These substances were separated into acidic and nonionic fractions by ion exchange chromatography. Each fraction was further broken into groups of homogeneous molecular weight composition by gel permeation chromatography. Both ionic character and molecular weight of the individual fractions are reflected in the properties of the original crude oil emulsion. Specifically, the more acidic and the higher molecular weight fractions appear to be the most effective stabilizers. INTRODUCTION The treatment of oilfield emulsions is a continuing problem for the oil industry. In almost all cases, these are water-in-oil emulsions. Much more is known about the formation and stabilization of oil-in-water (O/W) emulsions than of the water-in-oil (W/O) type. To understand W/O emulsions, more information is needed on the materials responsible for their formation and stabilization. This is especially true in the case of oilfield emulsions where the stabilizing materials are complex mixtures of large asphaltene-like molecules. To study the chemical and physical properties of these emulsion stabilizers, it is necessary first to separate them from crude oil. This separation was achieved in the case of two Southern California crude oils. The materials that were isolated appear at first to be little different from an asphaltene mixture. However, if a mixture of distilled water and mineral oil containing about 1 percent of the natural emulsion stabilizers is passed through a colloid mill, the W/O emulsion formed may be stored in the laboratory for many months without any sign of breaking. This could not be done using undifferentiated asphaltenes from the same wells, indicating that there is a real difference between these materials and ordinary asphaltenes. The colloid mill used to generate the emulsion was required because tile natural emulsion stabilizers had very little effect on oil-water interfacial tension. The one characteristic — complexity of composition — that emulsion stabilizers share with asphaltenes makes virtually impossible the exact structure determination of the components of the mixture. For this reason, it was decided to investigate first the influence of molecular weight on the ability of these materials to stabilize emulsions. The emulsion stabilizers were first separated into acidic and neutral fractions according to whether or not the material was retained on a weakly basic ion exchange column. The extraction procedure was not designed to remove basic components from tile oils, and no attempt to isolate such a fraction was made. Following this separation, selected fractions were analyzed by gel permeation chromatography. Gel permeation separates according to molecular size, largely independently of chemical or polar characteristics. A heterogeneous mixture is separated into a number of fractions having much more homogeneous molecular weight distribution. A number average molecular weight of each fraction is therefore close to the true molecular weight of the principal component of that fraction. The fraction weights, expressed as weight percent of the sample, and the number average molecular weight of a representative selection of the fractions, will be referred to in this paper as the molecular weight profile of the original sample. DESCRIPTION OF GEL PERMEATION ANALYSIS The first reported gel permeation analyses were for separating partially hydrolyzed protein molecules in an aqueous system using expanded starch granules. Most of the theoretical work on gel permeation has been done by biochemists.1 This theoretical treatment is still incomplete, but the

Jan 1, 1969