Search Documents

By J. D. A. Morrow

This discussion relates to the distribution of coal under the di , of the U. S. Fuel Administration beginning Apr. 1, 1918. At t' L a definite method of controlling and directing distribution was put int effect. Prior thereto, although some of the machinery utilized was in operation, especially in the few weeks immediately preceding' Apr. 1, distribution had not been effectively and comprehensively organized. The writer was called to the Fuel Administration by Dr. Garfield about the first of February, 1918, to assume general direction of the distribution of coal for the Fuel Administration, to develop the general plans, and to obtain practical men to assist in this work and in carrying through the program finally devised. A study of the situation and conferences with the Fuel Administrator and leading men in the business made it plain that it would be necessary to begin at the bottom, measure the undertaking, develop plans to meet the need thus shown, and build an organization to effect the distribution required. This work had to be done under war pressure in the midst of a bad coal shortage. The successful performance of such a task is always primarily a matter of putting competent men in the right places and giving them the power and opportunity to function properly together. In the Distribution Division of the U. S. Fuel Administration, the men who were chiefly responsible for whipping plans into practical form and then for carrying out these plans were A. W. Calloway, of Baltimore, President of the Davis Coal & Coke Co., who served as the Director of Bituminous Coal Distribution; S. Lovell Yerkes, of Birmingham, Alabama, Secretary of the Grider Coal Sales Agency, who assumed general charge of distribution while the new plans and organization were being perfected and then became the Assistant Director of Bituminous Coal Distribution; Warren S. Blauvelt, of Detroit, who was Director of Coke Distri. bution; A. S. Learoyd of New York, Director of Anthracite Distribution, in connection with the Anthracite Committee, consisting of Joseph P. Dickson, President of Dickson & Eddy, Chairman; S. D. Warriner, President of the Lehigh Coal & Navigation Co., and W. H. Richards,

Jan 1, 1920

By Roy Lindgren

SINCE the year 1643, when the first blast furnace in America for treating iron ore was built at Saugus, Mass., out of mica schist quarried in the neighboring district, the procurement of a suitable refractory for furnace lining has been a problem of concern to the operators of furnaces. The stacks built of mica schist continued to smelt iron ore until about 1836, when, according to F. H. Norton, the first firebrick were produced1, at Queens Run, Pa. Other writers speak of brick having been molded and burned in Massachusetts about the year 1834. In 1841, Andrew Russell began to produce medium refractory plastic clay brick near East Liverpool, Ohio, that were used for lining blast furnaces1. The well-known Kentucky clay-producing district was not opened up until the year 1871, but since then it has produced a large percentage of the linings for iron blast furnaces. While some strides have been made by the refractories industry during the 100 years that have passed since the first firebrick were produced, it has been only during the last two decades that any real progress has been made towards bettering the product, even though the method of production had improved. Perhaps the fault lies with the user of the brick rather than with the producer, for not sooner demanding a supe-rior product. During the past 15 years the tonnage produced per lining has increased from 500,000 gross tons to 1,000,000 gross tons, and now some furnaces are producing 1,600,000 gross tons and better on a single lining. It is true that enlarged capacity of furnaces and improved practice have accounted for some of this increase in tonnage, nevertheless better quality in firebrick must be given credit for its share. However, we are not yet ready to say that we have reached a maximum life of furnace lining. We believe that a better product can be produced and that the refractories industries of America will, through their extensive research depart-

Jan 1, 1937

By Roy Lindgren

Since the year 1643, when the first blast furnace in America for treating iron ore was built at Saugus, Mass., out of mica schist quarried in the neighboring district, the procurement of a suitable refractory for furnace lining has been a problem of concern to the operators of furnaces. The stacks built of mica schist continued to smelt iron ore until about 1836, when, according to F. H. Norton, the first firebrick were produced1, at Queens Run, Pa. Other writers speak of brick having been molded and burned in Massachusetts about the year 1834. In 1841, Andrew Russell began to produce medium refractory plastic clay brick near East Liverpool, Ohio, that were used for lining blast furnaces1. The well-known Kentucky clay-producing district was not opened up until the year 1871, but since then it has produced a large percentage of the linings for iron blast furnaces. While some strides have been made by the refractories industry during the 100 years that have passed since the first firebrick were produced, it has been only during the last two decades that any real progress has been made towards bettering the product, even though the method of production had improved. Perhaps the fault lies with the user of the brick rather than with the producer, for not sooner demanding a supe¬rior product. During the past 15 years the tonnage produced per lining has increased from 500,000 gross tons to 1,000,000 gross tons, and now some furnaces are producing 1,600,000 gross tons and better on a single lining. It is true that enlarged capacity of furnaces and improved practice have accounted for some of this increase in tonnage, nevertheless better quality in firebrick must be given credit for its share. However, we are not yet ready to say that we have reached a maximum life of furnace lining. We believe that a better product can be produced and that the refractories industries of America will, through their extensive research depart-

Jan 1, 1936

By Roy A. Lindgren

Since the year 1643, when the first blast furnace in America for treating iron ore was built at Saugus, Mass., out of mica schist quarried in the neighboring district, the procurement of a suitable refractory for furnace lining has been a problem of concern to the operators of furnaces. The stacks built of mica schist continued to smelt iron ore until about 1836, when, according to F. H. Norton, the first firebrick were produced1, at Queens Run, Pa. Other writers speak of brick having been molded and burned in Massachusetts about the year 1834. In 1841, Andrew Russell began to produce medium refractory plastic clay brick near East Liverpool, Ohio, that were used for lining blast furnaces1. The well-known Kentucky clay-producing district was not opened up until the year 1871, but since then it has produced a large percentage of the linings for iron blast furnaces. While some strides have been made by the refractories industry during the 100 years that have passed since the first firebrick were produced, it has been only during the last two decades that any real progress has been made towards bettering the product, even though the method of production had improved. Perhaps the fault lies with the user of the brick rather than with the producer, for not sooner demanding a superior product. During the past 15 years the tonnage produced per lining has increased from 500,000 gross tons to 1,000,000 gross tons, and now some furnaces are producing 1,600,000 gross tons and better on a single lining. It is true that enlarged capacity of furnaces and improved practice have accounted for some of this increase in tonnage, nevertheless better quality in firebrick must be given credit for its share. However, we are not yet ready to say that we have reached a maximum life of furnace lining. We believe that a better product can be produced and that the refractories industries of America will, through their extensive research depart-

Jan 1, 1937

By Roy Lindgren

SINCE the year 1643, when the first blast furnace in America for treating iron ore was built at Saugus, Mass., out of mica schist quarried in the neighboring district, the procurement of a suitable refractory for furnace lining has been a problem of concern to the operators of furnaces. The stacks built of mica schist continued to smelt iron ore until about 1836, when, according to F. H. Norton, the first firebrick were produced1, at Queens Run, Pa. Other writers speak of brick having been molded and burned in Massachusetts about the year 1834. In 1841, Andrew Russell began to produce medium refractory plastic clay brick near East Liverpool, Ohio, that were used for lining blast furnaces1. The well-known Kentucky clay-producing district was not opened up until the year 1871, but since then it has produced a large percentage of the linings for iron blast furnaces. While some strides have been made by the refractories industry during the 100 years that have passed since the first firebrick were produced, it has been only during the last two decades that any real progress has been made towards bettering the product, even though the method of production had improved. Perhaps the fault lies with the user of the brick rather than with the producer, for not sooner demanding a supe-rior product. During the past 15 years the tonnage produced per lining has increased from 500,000 gross tons to 1,000,000 gross tons, and now some furnaces are producing 1,600,000 gross tons and better on a single lining. It is true that enlarged capacity of furnaces and improved practice have accounted for some of this increase in tonnage, nevertheless better quality in firebrick must be given credit for its share. However, we are not yet ready to say that we have reached a maximum life of furnace lining. We believe that a better product can be produced and that the refractories industries of America will, through their extensive research depart-

Jan 1, 1936

By W. A. Roper

Since 1950, several papers have been published which have described various methods for studying mobility ratio effects. The methods which have been described for studying mobility ratio effects include X-ray shadowgraph techniques, stepwise potentiometric model procedures, stepwise numerical procedures, gelatin model studies and fluid mapper model studies. The purpose of this paper is to describe a procedure for using a resistance network for studying mobility effects. DESCRIPTION OF APPARATUS The basic unit of the experimental model consisted of a network of 840 resistors fastened to a sheet of black Lucite which was mounted on a wooden frame, Fig. 1. The dimensions of the Lucite sheet were 36 X 36 in. The resistors were fastened to the Lucite sheet at mesh points by means of snaps. The mesh points were arranged in a square pattern, 30 X 30 in., spaced at intervals of l1/2 in. The snap fasteners permitted several resistors to be "stacked" in parallel. By adding additional resistors to the basic unit, the specific resistance on each side of the flood front could be varied. The square network of resistors represented one of four symmetrical elements of a five-spot well pattern. The current input was analogous to an injection well and the current output was analogous to a production well." The power supply was essentially a full wave transformer-rectifier system for converting alternating-current into direct-current. The DC voltage could be varied from 41.43 to 290 v in steps of 41.43 v by selecting the proper outlet jacks. The major components of the power supply were: a Triro power transformer, R 11-A; a dual 5Y3 vacuum tube; two gas filled OD-3 tubes; and a Triplett voltmeter, model 227-1, range 0 to 500 DC v. The voltages at the mesh points were determined with a Keithley electrometer, model 210, No. 185, manufactured by Keithley Instruments, Cleveland, Ohio. A Heathkit vacuum tube volt-

The program of 'the Chicago meeting, which is to be held Sept. 22-26, is as follows: Monday. Morning-Registration. Afternoon-Technical Session. Evening Smoker. Tuesday. Morning and Afternoon-Excursion by boat to Gary and trip, through United States Steel Co's. plant. Evening-Technical Session. Wednesday. Morning- Technical Session. Afternoon-Technical Session. Evening-Banquet, Congress Hotel. Thursday. Morning and Afternoon-Special train to La Salle and De Pue, Ill., Inspection of Zinc Smelters, Cement Works, and Coal Mines. Trip to Starved Rock and points of historical interest. Evening-Return by train to Chicago. Friday. Morning-Optional trips. 1. East Chicago Metallurgical Plants and Oil Refineries at Whiting, Ind. 2. North Chicago and Milwaukee. 3. Local Chicago Plants. 4. Coal trip to Franklin and McCoupin Counties.

Jan 6, 1919

By E. B. Fitch

The operating behavior of liquid-solid cyclones is outlined, together with the nature and range of the process results obtainable, to serve as a background for engineers wishing to consider application of this new process tool.

Jan 3, 1953

By R. E. J. Putman

Introduction Self-tuning regulators are a class of controllers built around the concepts of sampled data theory, and are especially suitable for implementation in a digital microprocessor or minicomputer control system. The algorithms used are distinctly different from those based upon analog control techniques and include automatic adjustment features which permit them to adapt to unmeasured changes (in, for example, ore grindability) or process nonlinearities (as exhibited by cyclone classifiers). They are also designed to handle transport lags in a simple manner, for example, anticipating the effects of a variable recycle rate on particle size distribution. The advent of distributed control systems will encourage the exploration of these techniques in the minerals processing industries, and particularly for improving the control of comminution circuits, which are especially energy intensive. This paper outlines some current work in progress on this topic. Background Those engaged in the practice of process control have long had two philosophical problems for which solutions have been actively sought - what is optimal control and how can we attain it in some heuristic fashion automatically. The basic analog controller can be represented by the differential equation: [V = Ko + K1 f y • dt + K2 dt(1)] where: v and y are the instantaneous values of output and error respectively and K0, K1, and K2 are tuning constants. The empirical rules for establishing the values of K0, K1, and K2, which provide stability, have evolved from the initial suggestions of Ziegler and Nichols(9) in 1942 and have served their purpose well. However, later analyses demonstrated that there are in fact many combinations of the values of K0, K1, and K2 which, besides being stable, behave better or worse in relation to other process control criteria; some examples are duration of error, amplitude of a damped response, magnitude or rate of movement of control valve or adjustment of speed regulator, etc. The definition of optimality had broadened. In 1964, Kalman(4) published his classic paper which tried to resolve these problems. He defined a

Jan 1, 1982

In order to assist in the building up of the industries and commerce of France, by cooperating with the Congres General du Genie Civil, the four Founder Societies have appointed the following committee: E. G. Spilsbury and Arthur S. Dwight representing the American In-stitute of Mining and. Metallurgical Engineers; George F. Swain and Nelson P. Lewis to represent the American Society of Civil Engineers; Charles T. Main and George W. Fuller to represent the American Society of Mechanical Engineers; Lewis B. Stillwell and Andrew M. Hunt to represent the American. Institute of Electrical Engineers.

Jan 12, 1919

By Alexander Deussen

The figures listed in a table for Gulf Coast fields given by L. P. Teas1 in 1934 are so greatly at variance with results that I have obtained from a serious study of this subject over a number of years, that I am disposed to challenge the correctness of Mr. Teas' figures as an accurate representation of acre-foot yields of Gulf Coast fields, and as regards at least two of the fields listed by Mr. Teas I desire to "put into the record" some figures that, according to my study, are more nearly in accord with what I conceive to be the actual facts. Upon investigation I find that Mr. Teas' figures, inadvertently no doubt, arc not what they purport to be. Apparently the figures were arrived at by considering as thickness of the producing formation the net thickness of producing rock corresponding "to the total of the net portions of the producing zones which actually yield oil into the drill hole"—and in following this method I am under the impression that Mr. Teas was acting under instructions of the Institute in the preparation of this paper, in order to get comparable figures from the several fields of the United States. Apparently the author interpreted these instructions to mean that in the absence of cored thicknesses of producing horizons the actual number of feet of screen set in the various producing zones was to be taken as the basis for arriving at the thickness of these zones and the "acre-foot" yields. It is obvious that in many instances only 20 ft. of screen, or even 10 ft. of screen, might be set in a well, when there might be actually 100 ft. of oil sand present. In the early operations in the Gulf Coast it was usual to set much less screen than the amount of sand. It follows that the "acre-foot yields" so arrived at would be much greater than those found by using the full amount of sand. In Mr. Teas' table, it was indicated that up to the end of 1933 "acre-foot" yields had been obtained in the several fields as listed in Table 1. A casual inspection of these yields will show that certainly they do not properly reflect the amount of oil produced from an acre-foot of the

Jan 1, 1936

By Alexander Deussen

The figures listed in a table for Gulf Coast fields given by L. P. Teas1 in 1934 are so greatly at variance with results that I have obtained from a serious study of this subject over a number of years, that I am disposed to challenge the correctness of Mr. Teas' figures as an accurate representation of acre-foot yields of Gulf Coast fields, and as regards at least two of the fields listed by Mr. Teas I desire to "put into the record" some figures that, according to my study, are more nearly in accord with what I conceive to be the actual facts. Upon investigation I find that Mr. Teas' figures, inadvertently no doubt, arc not what they purport to be. Apparently the figures were arrived at by considering as thickness of the producing formation the net thickness of producing rock corresponding "to the total of the net portions of the producing zones which actually yield oil into the drill hole"—and in following this method I am under the impression that Mr. Teas was acting under instructions of the Institute in the preparation of this paper, in order to get comparable figures from the several fields of the United States. Apparently the author interpreted these instructions to mean that in the absence of cored thicknesses of producing horizons the actual number of feet of screen set in the various producing zones was to be taken as the basis for arriving at the thickness of these zones and the "acre-foot" yields. It is obvious that in many instances only 20 ft. of screen, or even 10 ft. of screen, might be set in a well, when there might be actually 100 ft. of oil sand present. In the early operations in the Gulf Coast it was usual to set much less screen than the amount of sand. It follows that the "acre-foot yields" so arrived at would be much greater than those found by using the full amount of sand. In Mr. Teas' table, it was indicated that up to the end of 1933 "acre-foot" yields had been obtained in the several fields as listed in Table 1. A casual inspection of these yields will show that certainly they do not properly reflect the amount of oil produced from an acre-foot of the

Jan 1, 1936

By J. H. Craig

As a result of information that the Navy Department was questioning the advisability of raising the maximum allowable exposure temperature for zinc-coated steel parts from 500 to 750 F., it was decided to make a series of high temperature tension tests on several types of uncoated and zinc-coated steels. The objective was to determine at what temperature intergranular penetration of galvanized steel by zinc might take place under conditions of rapidly applied stress and temperature. Tests were conducted in the range from room temperature to 1400 F. In this range, low-carbon and high-carbon steels did not suffer any adverse effects due to zinc coatings. In fact, at 1400 F. the zinc coatings appeared to have a beneficial effect. In stainless steel, the coating had no effect up to 1000 F. Above this temperature, the zinc coating appeared to cause a marked loss in ductility and a less pronounced loss in strength. There was no visible evidence of zinc penetration of the stainless steel structure, but it was assumed that this was the cause of the adverse effect.

Jan 1, 1945

By C. F. Tolman

In February 1913, Prof. L. C. Graton and Dr. Joseph Murdochl presented to the American Institute of Mining Engineers a notable contribution to economic geology under the title The Sulphide Ores of Copper. The value of the work was recognized by mine operators, and Mr. Graton was assisted in his plan to extend his investigations, by the organization of a commission to undertake a "secondary enrichment investigation." In this work he secured the cooperation of the Geophysical Laboratory of the Carnegie Institution of Washington. The report2 on the chemical phascs of the investigation has just been published. Incidental to investigations3 carried on in our laboratory of Economic

Jan 1, 1916

By C. K. Leith

AT the outset I would like to make it clear that I do not enter this discussion in a controversial spirit, but in an attempt to contribute something helpful to an understanding of a difficult problem. I have too high regard for the sterling quality of the work of the men who have studied this subject in detail to offer anything in the way of essential contradiction to their statements of fact. Difference of opinion arises from differing valuation of the possible alternative hypothesis which these facts suggest. Some degree of recrystallization in limestone contact zones has been recognized by many investigators. Earlier investigators, for the most part, assigned an important, if not the most important, role to recrystallization in development of these zones. With the growing recognition, of introduction of ores and gangue materials into the contact zone from igneous rocks through the medium of primary magmatic solutions, there has been a tendency to ascribe to this process most, if not all, of the chemical and mineralogical characteristics of the contact zone. This has involved a correspondingly diminished emphasis on recrystallization of substances already there as a factor in the process, and in some cases even the complete elimination of this hypothesis. From detailed study of a few contacts, casual observation of others, and a general familiarity with the literature, some of us have been led in recent years to raise the question whether the pendulum has not swung too far away from recrystallization toward direct introduction from igneous sources, and to argue for more recognition of the part played by recrystallization.1 The inevitable sequence has been that those of us who have taken this view have been charged, at least by inference, with emphasizing recrys-tallization to, the total exclusion of the alternative process. Scientists, like other men, like to classify and pigeon-hole views under simple and definite designations, leaving out qualifications which would tend to make the classification more difficult to state. This has made the problem seem more definite and simple, but has tended to obscure the fact that the disagreement is primarily not one relating to essential facts, but one of

Jan 6, 1914

By C. K. Leith

At the outset I would like to make it clear that I do not enter this discussion in a controversial spirit, but in an attempt to contribute something helpful to an understanding of a difficult problem. I have too high regard for the- sterling quality of the work of the men who have studied this subject in detail to offer anything in the way of essential contradiction to their statements of fact. Difference of opinion arises from differing valuation of the possible alternative hypothesis which these facts suggest. Some degree of recrystallization in limestone contact zones has been recognized by many investigators. Earlier investigators, for the most part, assigned an important, if not the most important, ro1e to recrystallization in development of these zones. With the growing recognition of introduction of ores and gangue materials into the contact zone from igneous rocks through the medium of primary magmatic solutions, there has been a tendency to ascribe to this process most, if not all, of the chemical and mineralogical characteristics of the contact zonc. This has involved a correspondingly diminished emphasis on recrystallization of substances already there as a factor in the process, and in some cases even the complete elimination of this hypothesis. From detailed study of a few contacts, casual observation of others, and a general familiarity with the literature, some of us have been led in recent years to raisc the question whether the pendulum has not swung too far away from recrystallization toward direct introduction from igneous sources, and to argue for more recognition of the part played by recrysta11ization.l The inevitable sequence has been that those of us who have .taken this view have been charged, at least by inference, with emphasizing recrystallization to the total exclusion of the alternative process. Scientists, like other men, like to classify and pigeon-hole views under simple and definite designations, leaving out qualifications which would tend to make the classification more difficult to state. This has made the problem seem more definite and simple, but has tended to obscure the fact that the disagreement is primarily not one relating to essential facts, but one of

Jan 1, 1915

An index covering the papers presented at the 19 Open Hearth Conferences from the first meeting at Pittsburgh, April 15 and 16, 1925, through the most recent meeting in Detroit, April 16 and 17, 1936, the reports of the meetings and the discussions that took place has been published, accompanied by a list of the papers presented, grouped by subject matter and a list of books of interest to open hearth men The list below gives the Open Hearth Conference meetings in chronological order and the symbols used to designate them in the index SYMBOL MEETINGS P25 Pittsburgh, April 15 and 16, 1925 C125 Cleveland, Oct 13 to 15, 1925 Ch26 Chicago, April 12 and 13, 1926 P26 Pittsburgh, October, 1926 B27 Buffalo, May 3 to 5, 1927 D27 Detroit, Nov 2 and 3, 1927 Y28 Youngstown, May 3 and 4, 1928 P28 Pittsburgh, Nov 15 and 16, 1928 C129 Cleveland, May 16 and 17, 1929 Ch29 Chicago, Nov 5 and 6, 1929 B30 Buffalo, May 20 and 21, 1930 C130 Cleveland, Nov 20 and 21, 1930 Ch31 Chicago, May 12 and 13, 1931- D31 Detroit, Nov 24 and 25, 1931 P32 Pittsburgh, May 24 and 25, 1932 Ch33 Chicago, June 29 and 30, 1933 P34 Pittsburgh, June 28 and 29, 1934 C135 Cincinnati, April 11 and 12, 1935 D36 Detroit, April 16 and 17, 1936 The list of papers mentioned in the first paragraph above is reprinted on pages 428 to 431 The Index of the Open Hearth Proceedings may be purchased at A I M E headquarters, 29 W 39th St, New York

Jan 1, 1936

By Tell Ertl, Will Mitchell

THE Mineral Industry Education Division made the headlines when Columbia's President, Nicholas Murray Butler, welcomed it in a provocative address made before a record crowd of over 100 members attending the opening Sunday session in the Columbia Men's Faculty Club. Arthur F. Greaves- Walker, Chairman of the Division, who was presented by H. R. Hanley, told of the excellent job of war research being carried on in the colleges. E. A. Holbrook led a discussion on the unionization of engineers, stating that he had learned that professional engineers were being forced into unions by subprofessionals. This might become a serious problem if the professional engineering organizations are lax in combating the

Jan 1, 1944

Lead-zinc production in Canada accounted for 19% of the total value of metals and minerals produced in 1976, says Keith C. Hendrick, president of Noranda Sides Corp. Mine production of recoverable zinc w as 1. 158 million toils of 27.4% of free world production in 1976. Slab zinc pro¬duction was placed at 472,000 tons that year. Canadian mine production of recoverable lead was 247,000 tons or 10.6% of the free world production. Refined lead that year was at 177,000 tons.

Jan 11, 1977

By Robert M. Yonco, Irving Johnson, Martin G. Chasanov

The thermodynamics of the cadmium-rich portion of the Pu-Cd system has been studied with a high-temperature galvanic-cell method. The partial phase diagram of the Pu-Cd system was determined. The existence of the intermediate phases PuCd11 (cubic BaHg11 structure, ao= 9.282) and PuCd6 (cubic, CeCd6 structure, a, = 15.59) was established. The existence of at least one other intermediate phase richer in plutonium was indicated. PuCd11 was found to peritectically decompose into PuCd6 and liquid at 406" * 2°C. The solubility of plutonium in liquid cadmium may be represented by the equations: (355' to 399°C) log (at. pct Pu) = 6.223 -4282T-1 (399° to 632°C) log (al. pct Pu) - 5.148 - 5277T-1 > 1.156 x 106 T-2 The free energy of formation values (kcal per mole) of the two intermetallic phases are given by the equations: (PuCd11), ?Gf= -45.9 + 35.7 x 10-3 T (PuCd6), ?Gf0- -39.27 + 25.86 X 10-3T The excess free energy (kcal per mole) of plutonium in liquid cadmium may be represented by the equation: -(-16.72 * 29.54 NPu) 10-3T in which Npu and Ned are the atom fractions of plutonium and cadmium. The thermodyanamics of the U- Cd and Pu-Cd systems are compared. THERMODYNAMIC information on systems of the actinide metals with low-melting metals, such as zinc and cadmium, is useful in the design of pyro-metallurgical processes for the purification of nuclear reactor fuels. The thermodynamics of the Pu-Zn,1 Th-Zn.2,3 U-Zn,4-5 and U-Cd6 systems have been reported. The present report on the Pu-Cd system concerns the liquidus composition in the cadmium-rich region, the characterization of the two most cadmium-rich intermetallic phases, and the thermodynamic properties of these intermetallic phases and dilute liquid solutions of plutonium in cadmium. EXPERIMENTAL Phase Studies. The liquidus composition was determined by analysis of filtered samples of the liquid phase withdrawn at a series of temperatures. The apparatus and procedure were identical to that used in the previous study of the Pu-Zn system.' Briefly. a sample of the melt was withdrawn into a tantalum tube fitted with a porous tantalum filter (30-µ pore). the entire sample dissolved in hydrochloric acid (to avoid errors due to segregation

Jan 1, 1965