Search Documents

By R. T. Rudd

DISCUSSION R. T. RUDD I have the following comments on Mr Bosman's paper. Before giving the company permission to discharge neutralized mine drainage containing 1800 mg/l of dissolved solids into a public stream, my Department had to consider the matter from both the legal and the practical viewpoint.

Jan 4, 1974

PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: Is there any member that has any question to ask Mr. McCleary on the subject? MR. TESCHER: What do you figure it costs to do this? MR. McCLEARY: Between one and a half and one and three-quarters cents per kilowatt hour. MR. TESCHER: That includes all charges? MR. McCLEARY: All charges, fuel and labor. PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: Mr. McCleary, you were talking about a ten-inch top on the cars. Don't you find there is considerable spillage when raising or lowering the cars? MR. McCLEARY : Not after the men get accustomed to loading cars properly; at first, they just loaded it on in any old way, but wall it onto the cars solidly after a few days at the mine. I do not think we have that condition now. PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: Did I understand from the paper there that the rock dust you are using contains 90 per cent silica? MR. McCLEARY: Twenty; less than twenty. PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: I got that figure wrong. Are there any other questions to ask? MR. SCHLOSS: I would like to know what kind of machinery Mr. McCleary is using for rock dusting and are they rock dusting the rooms, or not? MR. McCLEARY: We have only recently started rock dusting, and the machine that we are using is Mr. Tescher's machine. We start in at the face of the main entry and move against the air current rock dusting every room and the entry every 50 feet. Every 50 feet, we stop the machine fifteen or twenty minutes at that point and rock dust up in the room and around the entry at that point. PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: Do you do any water sprinkling at the faces-at the working face? MR. McCLEARY: Yes, sir, every working face is sprinkled every day, and at least every two days at all points in the mine. PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: Does it affect the rock dust in any way? MR. McCLEARY: That was true before we started rock dusting. The faces only are sprinkled now. PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: Where you stop to sprinkle with water, you do not figure on rock dusting? MR. McCLEARY: I will just change that around. Where we do rock dusting, we do not expect to sprinkle. Where the faces of the coal are fresh, from day to day, that is where the sprinkling will be clone. PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: That is the fresh faces? MR. McCLEARY: Yes. I might add right here, I believe Mr. Tescher made the statement that cross-cuts up an 8 per cent pitch were the steepest that

Jan 1, 1925

The Role of the Drilling Contractor BY FERRIS E. SAINSBURY Ron Haxby, Occidental Minerals What is the best method for drilling a 12-in. diam hole to a depth of 1200 ft and maintaining the deflection within 25ft from vertical? Ferris Sainsbury: In order to drill a 12-111. hole down to 1200 ft, In most places you would have to employ a rotary tricone bit With a down-the-hole hammer, I expect by that depth significant Inflows of water would be experienced Even with foams, we would not be able to get the water out of a hole of that diameter So the down-the-hole tricone method of drilling would be best. To keep it straight, we would probably employ the largest square drill stem compatible with the diameter of the hole. Ron Haxby: Is it common in drilling contracts to put in a vertical hole clause? Ferris Sainsbury: You can put in the vertical hole clause Ron Haxby: Does it cost more? Ferris Sainsbury: Normally, if the hole deviates, the driller can correct it with deflection wedges and will charge it back to you at cost, plus 10% or somewhere along that range Any drill hole has a tendency to go perpendicular to the dip, and there are times when stabilization systems are not successful in preventing the hole from turning into the dip of the formation. The only solution, in this situation, is to go in with an oriented wedge and kick the hole back out.

Jan 1, 1979

Discussion WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON, FEBRUARY 21, 1951 Ralph E. Grim presiding R. E. GRIM, CHAIRMAN-Has anyone a particularly fruitful point to make or question to ask on any of the papers that have been presented at the two sessions held on Monday and one held this morning? GENESIS OF ENDELLITE T. S. LOVERING-I think we are all a little bit embarrassed when we are asked if we have any particularly fruitful point for discussion; I just have a point. I believe that yesterday Bates said that he had found endellite in only hydrothermally altered rocks-he did not find it in sedimentary rocks-but this morning I heard Victor Allen say something about it as the normal product of weathering, and I am confused. My question concerns the genesis of endellite. I want to know whether endellite is found as a normal product of weathering. I understood from the paper by Bates that it was not a product of weathering and in the paper by Victor Allen* endellite was said to be a product of normal weathering. Did I misinterpret these two papers? T. F. BATES-I did not intend to state or imply that endellite is formed only under hydrothermal conditions. We have been studying the North Carolina deposits extensively and I feel that they illustrate very well the result of normal weathering processes acting on pegmatitic material. The resulting clay seems to be largely endellite or halloysite, almost to the exclusion of kaolinite. I may have misled you in the statement I made toward the end of my talk, to the effect that of all the kaolinic clays we have investigated with the electron microscope, we have not yet found halloysite or endellite in samples from clay deposits that are definitely sedimentary in origin. R. E. GRIM, CHAIRMAN-Professor Allen, have you anything to say on the matter of bauxite?

Jan 1, 1952

MR. HARRINGTON: I would like to ask Mr. Bottomley if they fire their shots while the men are in the mine? MR. BOTTOMLEY: No sir; the shot-firing law in our State requires the shots to be fired after the men are out of the mine. We fire more shots than we did under the hand method of loading. Where formerly four holes were drilled, now we drill eight, using the same amount of powder as we did formerly, perhaps a little more, but we use a slower grade of powder. CHAIRMAN LITTLEJOHN: Any further discussion, gentlemen? MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Bottomley, if, in his shot-firing system, as I understand it, he has a very high coal and is working something like eleven feet? MR. BOTTOMLEY: Something like that. MR. GIBSON: I read the article that you referred to. Did you use both the first and the second delay explo¬ders in shooting the coal? MR. BOTTOMLEY: We use the ordinary fuse. MR. GIBSON: That is what I wanted to find out; whether you use the delay exploders and the detonators. In Utah, we are getting away from the fuse altogether, because we do not think it is accomplishing anything to use the electric light on the cap, and' at the same time shooting with fuse. We are defeating the object we might gain in using the electric safety lamp. That is a point that might be discussed a little further. MR. E. H. JOHNSON, The Coloder Company: I would like-since it is a general opinion that mechanical loading breaks up the coal, to ask Mr. Bottomley, if he finds a larger percentage of small coal, or how much, through the use of the mechanical loaders? MR. BOTTOMLEY: We do not find any great difference. In fact, we have succeeded in improving our lump coal percentage, and that is important, because it is largely domestic. At first, when the machines were installed, the boys shot the coal too hard, and we fell down a little, about two or three per cent, the first month, in our lump percentage, and we tightened up a little and changed our methods in shooting and got on to the stunt of drilling more holes and getting a slower grade of powder. We could not load as much coal in one day as we could before, but we did succeed in in. creasing our lump coal percentage four and a half per cent over the hand method, and that is quite a factor-quite an important factor and since our domestic trade is over with, we loosened up on the shooting and we are running about the same as we did with the hand loading, maybe a half per cent more, or one per cent, but pretty much the same. MR. SHUBART: Your coal is very high? MR. BOTTOMLEY: Yes. MR. SHUBART: Have you tried sunbbing the coal before shooting? MR. BOTTOMLEY: No, we have not tried that. It is very hard coal to shoot; we have no defined cleavage in our coal. It is the worst coal I ever saw to shoot. We do not try to snub it. Formerly, as I said, the miners drilled four holes, pretty well up near the top, and then four holes down, within about three feet of the bottom. It is the same thing as a snub shot, and that we find is the best method for shooting the coal. We have not tried any mechanical device for snubbing as yet. SECRETARY SHUBART: At one mine I saw snubbing tried with a Jeffrey undercutter with a seven-foot Jeffrey bar. This mine, by the way, is very similar to Mr. Bottomley's condition. They have very high coal, so the snub cut is a small percentage. They cut a seven foot undercut and raise the machine on an eight inch tie and undercut five feet to give the effect of a snub cut, 14 inches at the front of the cut, and then six inches at the back of the cut. They made a very marked increase in lump. (The bug dust would be a small percentage of the total coal), and they increased the percentage of the slack at the same time. They found a decrease by reason of the easier shooting of about 15 per cent in their slack. In other words their nut and lump coal ran considerably higher and their slack decreased 5 per cent with the snubbing cut. Mr. Bottomley, I believe, understands those conditions.

Jan 1, 1926

By Katzer R. Klimpel, J. Sewell

Dr. Roussey Roussev The use of chemical additives on grinding is of significant importance considering the high energy consumption of grinding processes. My research indicates that the dispersant approach explains the effects, in this particular case of wet grinding. Further, the dispersant approach combined with torque measurements give the possibility of clarifying the mechanisms involved when using grinding aids. I find the conclusions derived from the data obtained to be correct and useful for grinding. In general, I agree with the explanations. However, I would like to discuss several additional points that I consider to be important, and in the same time to mention some of my own results from investigations similar to those presented in the study under discussion. The "bed volume concept" and the change of slurry viscosity explain adequately the data plotted on fig. 3, in conjunction with Figs. 1 and 2. However, the significant increase of the average torque in the case of 83% solid with XFS-4272 introduces the necessity of establishing the optimum of percent solid when dispersant is used. For example, the optimum percent of solid for different materials varies. One of the reasons is the material's mass density. On the other hand, it is necessary to determine the concentration of the chemical used. Because of this, it would be interesting to know how the cited concentration was selected. The supportive discussion and verification by Dr. Roussev, with results similar to that of the paper, is appreciated. I will try to answer the additional questions he has raised. To begin with, the mill was fitted with six lifters of approximately one-quarter inch height. There has been extensive lab and plant level work to understand downstream influences of using dispersants like XFS-4272*. In sulfide ore processing, which is the area in which most industrial scale testing has been performed with this approach, neutral to positive influences have been observed. For example, positive effects (e.g., increased recovery) have been noticed in flotation operations involving ores that have a tendency to produce excessive slimes upon grinding. (1) Also, the use of a dispersant has been shown to demonstrate a positive influence on classification by improving the sharpness of separation and preventing a decrease in d50 value that usually accompanies increasing flow rates to classifiers.(2) The biggest potential downstream problem is in thickening, which at the dosages involved, has not been a problem in plant scale usage. The commercial price of dispersants like XFS-4272 is quite variable depending on source, concentration, etc, but a typical cost of XFS-4272 to achieve a 10% increase in throughput in industrial mills has been between 20 and 35- US per ton of feed ore (1981).

Jan 12, 1982

By K. Hanumantha Rao, A. Nayak, K. S. Narasimhan, S. N. Mahapatra

B.A. Hancock It is not at all surprising that causticized potato and potato derived amylopectin starch solutions performed much better than their parent starches. Some preparation is required to rupture the starch granules to effect the polymeric adsorption and interparticle bridging necessary for selective flocculation. In laboratory work comparing the deslime performance of causticized and autoclave cooked laboratory corn starch solution preparations, it was found that higher deslime weight rejections, with attendant proportionally greater iron unit losses, occurred with the causticized starch. These results may be specific to the ore involved but they do suggest that cooking and causticizing cause different starch granule rupture and/or starch breakdown, which have an effect on desliming response. I calculated from the data in the article that the slimes product grades were high - 24.3% and 20.3% Fe when 53.7% and 54.5% Fe concentrate products were obtained, respectively, in Table 4, and 21% Fe with a 62.6% Fe concentrate in Table 5 - using the natural tailings sample, which had a head of 34.3% Fe. It may be advisable for the authors to consider different starch preparations in future investigations. The combination of upgrading and selectivity results presented in Table 4 are not as good as the authors suggest. The authors' claim that a system has been developed to produce saleable concentrates from the Kudremukh tailings is quite disconcerting. There are many hurdles yet to be crossed before commercial application of selective flocculation becomes possible because differences between the very small-scale laboratory tests conducted and commercial application are rather large. Among the many differences are varying circuit feed grades that will occur from use of tailings, the apparent face that much lower tailings grades will be encountered in practice (it is much easier to achieve a high concentrate grade with reasonable recoveries using 34.3% Fe tailings as in the study rather than 25.3% Fe tailings grades that the plant apparently averages), the hydraulic nature of the thickeners used in operations compared to the static system used in laboratory tests, the different size distributions that will be obtained from a plant closed grinding-classification circuit, and differences in water used in a plant operation and the laboratory. The authors wrote that it was necessary to overgrind to be sure that the coarse gangue would not settle with the iron oxide floccules. This situation is likely to be exaggerated in commercial operations where it is assumed cyclones would be used for classification. Because cyclone classification is greatly influenced by particle densities, there will probably be an even greater difference in size between the iron and gangue particles in the plant, which would make the gangue slightly coarser still in relation to the iron. This would make the selective flocculation-desliming separations using the procedure employed by the authors even more difficult and, using the dispersant system the authors employed, greater overgrinding would be required. To grind finer to minimize the coarse gangue in the flocculated iron oxides is quite inefficient and appears not to broach the problem. The actual problem appears to be insufficient dispersion of the ground pulp. In this situation, addition of a dispersant would likely be required to attain a sufficiently high pulp dispersion level to efficiently effect a selective flocculation-desliming separation. Although the very coarse particles would still have a tendency to settle with the floccules, it probably would be found unnecessary to overgrind as much as indicated. Use of an optimum combination of dispersant and pH modifying reagents may also significantly improve the selectivity of desliming. Additionally, although it is possible that sufficient dispersion may be obtained by pH control alone in some situations, it is quite probable that added dispersity was obtained in the reported work from using distilled water. It is research experience that distilled water enhances dispersion. In commercial operations it may not be expected that sufficient dispersion will be obtained by pH control alone, unless the water used in the process is by nature quite dispersive. Overall, a change in the Kudremukh tailings dispersant scheme appears necessary where a dispersant is used in conjunction with a pH modifying reagent. With this change, different dispersion-flocculation responses will result that would have to be further evaluated. Therefore, it is still an open question whether an efficient and effective selective flocculation separation using Kudremukh tailings may be obtained that will produce saleable concentrates.

Jan 9, 1986

T. T. READ, BUREAU OF MINES: Mr. McAuliffe has asked a very practical question. Expressed in another way, the question is: If we have decided to use rock dust to prevent coal dust from exploding, have we got to take rock, that is, solid material,, break it up and finally grind it into dust (and fine grinding is very expensive), or can we take material that is already in a pretty fine state of subdivision and thereby save the expense of pulverizing it? Most of the preceding discussion has been from the view-point of practical experience, and I should like to suggest that we have not had enough practical experience in rock dusting to be able to answer this question, from the viewpoint of experience, with the degree of definiteness that Mr. McAuliffe desires. With your permission I will discuss the matter briefly from the theoretical standpoint, because after all the theoretical considerations, insofar as we understand them correctly, will apply to every' case, whereas in coming to a decision on this matter it will be necessary to take into consideration local conditions, which will necessarily vary in every case. Considering the matter in a rather elementary way, the first point is: What makes coal dust explode? The air of this room is full of dust at the present moment, even though we do not notice it. If you were to close up the room for a week, enough dust would settle on the floor so you could write your name on it. Of course, the dust which is in the air of this room is not coal dust but even if it were coal dust and you were to bring an open light in' here we all know that the dust would not explode. The reason for that is that the dust particles are not close enough together for the flame to propagate itself from one to the next. You will probably be able to see in the demonstration in the gallery on Saturday that the coal dust explosion is practically a very rapid burning of the dust. When you light one piece of dust it burns and gives out heat and if there is another piece of dust close enough to it so that the heat from the first piece is able to bring a second piece up to the burning temperature, then the flame will propagate itself through the mixture. But, if the particles are so far apart in the air that the' heat from one particle is dissipated before it reaches an adjoining one, and is therefore not able to bring the second particle up to the burning temperature, then the flame will not propagate. To get a coal dust explosion, it is not sufficient to have coal dust suspended in the air. The coal dust particles must be close enough together in the air so that the heat from one burning particle is able to heat the adjoining particles up to the point at which they will burn. There has been some discussion of the size of dust particles that will cause an explosion to propagate, and it has been pointed out that the minus 200-mesh dust is the most dangerous, and that particles coarser than 20-mesh will not propagate an explosion. There are two reasons for that. A large particle has very much smaller surface in proportion to its weight than a small particle has. You know the old story about the Indian who when asked how he could go around in cold weather without any clothes on said that an Indian was all face. A 200-mesh particle is almost all surface and there= fore is able to burn almost instantaneously, which means that it gives out its heat almost instantaneously, whereas a large particle with less surface in proportion to its weight burns more slowly, gives out its heat more slowly, and the heat has more time to be dissipated. The second reason why coarse dust does not easily propagate a flame is because it is so hard to make it

Jan 1, 1924

By Adrian C. Dorenfeld, John T. Oleksy

John D. Maefadyen Subject paper unfortunately has some serious flaws negating the usefulness of the paper. The authors claim that sulfur is the major source of production problems in cement kilns. This is not the case. Sulfur is not a problem as long as the mole ratio of sulfur to alkali oxides is less than, or equal to, 1. This is attributed to the sulfur preferentially combining with the alkali oxides and not acting as a clogging agent due to the nature of the pre-heater vessels. Where the mole ratio exceeds 1, many methods are available to eliminate or reduce the clogging problems such as using the preheater bypass or a precalciner with up to 100% kiln gas bypass. In non-preheater kilns, the presence of sulfates is hardly ever a problem anyhow. Thus, the level of sulfur in the fuel and raw material that might cause problems is not a fixed amount, but is predictable. The purpose of the paper is to discuss the economics of conversion of kilns in the Indonesian and Phillippine cement industries from oil firing to coal firing. This economic analysis has very little to do with the sulfur levels. Thus, the section of the paper on sulfates is actually rather meaningless. The economic analysis is also rather meaningless because the authors have failed to follow accepted economic analysis procedures by including interest charges. They have fallen into the trap of confusing financing with economic evaluation. When the accepted methods of economic evaluation are used, the return on investment increases to about 35%. In conclusion, the paper is not a meaningful contribution, and sadly, quite erroneous.

Jan 11, 1982

By J. H. Tu

The technical paper correctly points out that the kriging variance is not a good measure of the uncertainty of the estimated (i.e., kriged) value of individual blocks. The au thors claim that their proposed jackknife method, which is a rekriging of each block by eliminating, in turn, one sample from the original sample set and then taking the average of the rekriged estimates, not only gives good block estimates, but the resulting jackknife kriging standard deviation is a useful indicator of the "true uncertainty associated with block estimates." However, they immediately abandon the idea of using the block-by-block standard deviations, reasoning that these standard deviations are not independent and that there is no easy way to utilize them. There may be another reason for not using them. The jackknife standard deviations for individual blocks given in their example are mostly in the range of 0.004 to 0.005 oz/st (0.14 to 0.17 g/t) with only one block having a high value of 0.012 oz/st (0.41 g/ t). These individual block standard deviations are as low as the jackknife standard deviation for the mean grade of the entire shape, i.e., 0.0041 oz/st (0.14 g/t). Do they represent the "true uncertainty" of the individual block estimates? Could the authors explain this? In a global shape consisting of a large number of blocks, any given sample will affect the kriged estimate of only those few blocks within its vicinity. This is the rationale for the authors' selective rekriging, making the jackknife algorithm more efficient. On second thought, why not do away with jackknifing altogether? Just cumulate and normalize, if necessary, the kriging weights of each sample used during the ordinary block kriging process, and then compute the global variance from these kriging weights and their respective sample grades? After all, isn't the global mean grade nothing but the weighted average of the samples used in the estimation? Reply by G.S. Adisoma and M.G. Hester The jackknife is one of the many tools in a practitioner's toolbox to solve estimation problems. The strengths of the technique lies in its simplicity, i.e., it uses the concept of mean and standard deviation and the fact that it can be easily combined with other tools, in this case kriging. Because the jackknife kriging (JK) estimate is also the mean of the pseudovalues, the JK standard deviation is attractive just as the standard deviation of the mean explains the variability of the data. The difference is that the pseudovalue calculation in jackknife kriging uses the ordinary kriging (OK) weighting scheme instead of simple arithmetic averaging. The data used to illustrate the jackknife technique in the paper consist of high values that are roughly three times the low values. The resulting JK estimate of the block grades show that the highest estimate is roughly twice the grade of the lowest estimate. The contrast between the low and the high estimate is more evident in the JK estimate than in the OK estimate, even though the mean grades of the blocks for the two estimates are very similar. Nonetheless, in this paper, we are concentrating more on the need for a more realistic measure of uncertainty, or precision, for the estimate. Unlike its OK counterpart, the JK standard deviation of the blocks clearly reflects the original data variation. The highest JK standard deviation of the blocks is three times its lowest value. This follows our intuition that, when the samples used to estimate a block is more variable, the resulting estimation variance (or standard deviation) should be higher than the case where the samples are more uniformly valued. However, block-by-block standard deviation or variance is of little practical value in reserve estimation and classification, as well as in mine planning. One is usually more interested in quantifying not the variance of the individual block estimate, but the uncertainties associated with a much larger dimension, such as the minable reserve. Thus, the thrust of the paper is to find a simple way to obtain a single estimation variance or standard deviation associated with the reserve grade estimate. The discussion by J.H. Tu did not mention how one would obtain the global variance from the OK weights and the sample grades. As a technique that offers a data valuebased measure of uncertainty for its estimate, the "leave-one-out" jackknife fills this need nicely through the block kriging shortcut approach described in the paper. Note: The first column and the last two columns of Table 3 in the paper should have contained a single number each, namely, an OK estimate of 0.0317, a JK estimate of 0.0333 and a JK standard deviation of 0.0041 oz/st, respectively, for the shape, as are obvious from the text. ?

Jan 1, 1998

By C. J. Pritchard, R. E. Gundersen

I commend the authors on examining an interesting method of shaft lining and attempting to improve safety in a dangerous environment by remotely installing the shaft lining. It is important, though, to not trade off shaft lining safety for long-term mine safety by lining an intake shaft with combustible material. In many operations, the mine utilities are installed next to the lining of the intake shaft, supplying a possible ignition source if damaged or overloaded. Although the polyurethane studied in the paper is of relatively high density, no mention is made of the flame retardency of the samples. When exposed to heat, small amounts of polyurethane will melt and bum but are extinguished when the heat source is removed. If large surface areas of combustible polyurethane - a tunnel or mine shaft- are exposed to ignition heat sources that are not removed or extinguished early, an uncontrollable, fuel rich fire may result with high carbon monoxide levels, low oxygen concentrations, and greatly increased burning rates that can have devastating effects on the ventilation system and miners' safety. Although these heavy polyurethanes lend themselves to a "pouring" application around the annulus of the shaft liners and is a continuous process, past experience with atomizing and frothing polyurethane spray systems indicates a high degree of maintenance and operator attention to the nozzle1 delivery system. This may require more miner's time to be spent in the shaft maintaining the foam system, negating some of the safety advantages of the system. If polyurethane foams are to be used in mines, they must be of the highest quality available in terms of flame spread, heat emitted while curing, and contaminants emitted while curing and spraying. In addition, employees must be given adequate training and be thoroughly informed in all aspects of polyurethane foam safety procedures. As witnessed by our fellow miners in South Africa, we can accept no less.

Jan 1, 1991

By Jay F. Smith

The Alan Wood BOF Shop consists of two 140 ton furnaces with a rated yearly capacity of 1-1/4 million ingot tons, he hot metal for the BOF Shop is supplied by two 18 foot blast furnaces which produce an average of 2000 tons per day, To achieve the rated ingot ton capacity with this limited supply of hot metal, the preheating of scrap is necessary. This is accomplished in the furnace by using an oxygen-natural gas burner. Piping Arrangement The natural gas and oxygen are piped into the Shop through 8-inch lines to their respective valving stations. As can be seen from Figure 1, the flow of natural gas passes through a flow control valve which is common to both furnaces, after which it divides into two 6-inch lines forming two identical and independent gas control lines, one for each furnace.

Jan 1, 1972

By B. E. Grant

There are several exceptions from the practical operating viewpoint that might be taken with the paper. The author recommends using a "curve" in plotting safety factors of ropes and suggests that the U. S. Bureau of Mines change its present "step curve" method to the "curve" method. From an engineering theoretical point of view that is possible, but from a practical standpoint it is not possible. Rope manufacturers fabricate their ropes in diameter gradients of 1/16 in. to 1/4 in. which automatically sets up a step pattern gradient. If ropes were manufactured in the diameter gradients of 1/1000 of an inch or thereabouts, the curve method could be used. Also, from a practical standpoint, if an operator is to hoist from a depth of 4000 ft, for example, he will determine the size of the rope necessary for that depth, and it is only natural that he will have safety factor to spare at lesser depths, and in plotting this excess capacity the natural end result is a curve. The U. S. Bureau of Mines tables are set up so that the operator will know what size rope at the required safety factor he will need at his maximum depth. He is not concerned with lesser depths. W. A. Boyer (author's reply)-Mr. Grant states, "Rope manufacturers fabricate their ropes in diameter gradients of 1/16" to 1/4" which automatically sets up a step pattern gradient." There is no connection or relationship between the "size" pattern gradient and the present "factor of safety" step pattern gradient. The inherent factor of safety values for any particular size of rope with a given connected load when plotted for various depths is a curve, and with modern rope material and construction the inherent factor of safety curve is quite far removed from the present recommended factor of safety step curve. This is shown quite clearly in Figs. 3 and 4 of my paper.

Jan 11, 1954

Three -dimensional boundary value problems are difficult to solve. Indeed, while the separation of the scalar wave equation can be effected in 11 different coordinate systems, an analytic solution requires that the boundaries, both external and internal, possess the same symmetry as the coordinate system. Numerical methods are thus of great importance for the solution of such problems; however, despite the availability of high-speed, large memory digital computers , the solution to a significant three -dimensional problem is by no means trivial. It is unfortunate that the results reported here by Jones are invalid. Jones discusses a model in which a three-dimensional island lies off a linear coastline where all the interfaces lie in the coordinate planes in a Cartesian system. A downward plane em wave polarized with the electric field parallel to the linear coastline, and two of the islands coast, is incident downward. This, of course, requires that the incident electric field is perpendicular to the other faces of the idealized Cartesian island. The significant equation used by Jones for his finite difference calculations is [ ] where n2 = sµ? . is the conductivity, µ=µo is the permeability of the appropriate medium, and w is the angular frequency of a Fourier component of the incident field. We see that the displacement current term is omitted, which is an excellent approximation for the parameters of interest in this model. In the similar equation for the y- component of the diffusion equation, the same considerations which we are about to discuss are equally valid. It can be seen from the equation that the field components are related and thus any errors introduced will be propagated into all three components. The difficulty arises when Ex or E is perpendicular Y to one or other of the surfaces of discontinuity in s. The continuity of current at the air-earth interface (upper surface), e. g., jy, requires

Jan 1, 1973

Gerald Sherman, Bisbee, Ariz. (written discussion*) .—The fact that, after a change in the hours of labor, as much work is found to be done in 8 hr. as was accomplished in 10, probably results from the more rigid examination of operating methods that is made when the management faces new and more difficult conditions. Although A better working pace will prevail, most of the gain will result from economies of plan and only a part of it from the improved effciency of labor. The Iabor of shoveling is so severe that it may be easily believed that a working period of less than 7 hr. will give maximum results, but there arc many other occupations about a mine in which this is not true, and in which the rate of accomplishment is in proportion to the time employed, up to 9 or 10 hours. Mr. Harley's study of shoveling has becn thorough, and demonstrates the benefit of investigation and education even in such simple work, but his reference to methods of payment opens a subject even more important in mine management. The efficiency of labor may be excellent, but unless a method of equitable payment accompanies it, the result will be only temporary. With strict but sympathetic supervision, a good average day's work can be obtained; but with the exception of those unusual men who cannot be restrained from working to their limit, an average daily wage does not bring out the remarkable performance of which many men are capable. There is also a considerable variation in the average amount accomplished, dependent on the supply of Iabor. This can readily be shown by any labor record that covers several periods of shortage or superabundance of labor. An increase in the daily wage in the time of labor shortage does not necessarily bring out an increased day's work; there is usuaIly a decrease in labor efficiency at such times regardless of the wage, whenever a daily rate is used. Rewards to individuals for exceptional performance appearing as an increased rate of pay cannot be made in a large organization without bad feeling. In a small organization, an individual's ability may be so well recognized that different rates of pay can be applied. Exceptional work can only be obtained by a method of payment based on the valuable results accomplished. As a basis for such payment, an

Jan 1, 1920

By M. A. Schimmelpfennig, A. D. S. Gillies

M.J. McPherson Having worked on the thermodynamics of air/liquid-water mixtures passing through the surface fans of deep mines, I find this paper of great interest and congratulate the authors on producing it. There are two matters, however, deserving discussion. First, the authors have described the classical theory of fog formation with fogging occurring at "supersaturation." In fact, the process of fog formation begins well below 100% humidity. The more strongly hygroscopic nuclei in the atmosphere will attract water molecules and begin to grow at a relative humidity perhaps as low as 70%. The process is a dynamic one with both condensation and evaporation taking place throughout the mixture on microscopic liquid surfaces. As saturation is approached, the rate of condensation accelerates rapidly producing the familiar reduction in visibility. Hygroscopic nuclei are present in all natural atmospheres and under the appropriate conditions of pressure and temperature, will produce clean fogs. However, if the air is polluted by particulates from combustion or other processes then the resultant coagulation with growing liquid particles may produce dense (and sometimes photochemical) smogs. It is this process that is likely to occur in underground mines when moist air is cooled below dew point. Second, the authors have summarized very well the individual measures that might alleviate the problem. In particular, I agree that neither heating nor refrigerating the air, by themselves, provides a satisfactory solution. However, there is a combination of these that provides a neat and effective control of fog formation. This involves a small, self-contained refrigeration unit within a duct but without the usual external heat rejection facility. The air is cooled below dew point and, hence, dehumidified on passing over the cold evaporator coils. The heat from the condenser is rejected back into the air downstream from the water eliminator, as shown in Fig. 1. The duct configuration can be designed to create good mixing at the outlet. I have used a climatic simulation program to illustrate the effect, assuming a 500-m (1,640 ft) long airway of cross section 60 m2 (645 sq ft), an airflow of 9 m3/s (318 cu ft per sec), inlet conditions of 19/19.25°C (66/67°F) wet bulb/dry bulb temperatures, a virgin rock temperature of 17°C (63°F) and typical rock thermal properties for a hard-rock mine. I have also assumed that 10% of the rock surface is wet. Figure 2 shows the variation in temperatures along the airway if no measures are taken. The relative humidity remains close to 100% and condensation will occur throughout the length of the airway. Before any such installation is designed, the exercise must, of course, be repeated for each location with accurate data. However, this example demonstrates the potential of the system. The idea is not new - the principle is sometimes used in air-conditioning plants for buildings. Figure 3 shows the effect of removing 30 kw of heat by evaporator coils sited 40 m (131 ft) along the airway and rejecting that heat (plus another 10 kw of compressor and fan power) into the air at 60 m (197 ft). Condensate water is produced, at a rate of 0.45 L/min (0.12 gpm). The result of this sequential cooling/dehumidification/heating process is to separate the wet and dry bulb temperatures along the length of the airway. The relative humidity increases from 80% at the duct outlet to 92% at 500 m (1,640 ft). The airway is maintained free from fog.

Jan 11, 1983

By M. J. McPherson

Having worked on the thermodynamics of air/liquid-water mixtures passing through the surface fans of deep mines, I find this paper of great interest and congratulate the authors on producing it. There are two matters, however, deserving discussion. First, the authors have described the classical theory of fog formation with fogging occurring at "supersaturation." In fact, the process of fog formation begins well below 100% humidity. The more strongly hygroscopic nuclei in the atmosphere will attract water molecules and begin to grow at a relative humidity perhaps as low as 70%. The process is a dynamic one with both condensation and evaporation taking place throughout the mixture on microscopic liquid surfaces. As saturation is approached, the rate of condensation accelerates rapidly producing the familiar reduction in visibility. Hygroscopic nuclei are present in all natural atmospheres and under the appropriate conditions of pressure and temperature, will produce clean fogs. However, if the air is polluted by particulates from combustion or other processes then the resultant coagulation with growing liquid particles may produce dense (and sometimes photochemical) smogs. It is this process that is likely to occur in underground mines when moist air is cooled below dew point. Second, the authors have summarized very well the individual measures that might alleviate the problem. In particular, I agree that neither heating nor refrigerating the air, by themselves, provides a satisfactory solution. However, there is a combination of these that provides a neat and effective control of fog formation. This involves a small, self-contained refrigeration unit within a duct but without the usual external heat rejection facility. The air is cooled below dew point and, hence, dehumidified on passing over the cold evaporator coils. The heat from the condenser is rejected back into the air down-stream from the water eliminator, as shown in [Fig. 1]. The duct configuration can be designed to create good mixing at the outlet.

Jan 1, 1984

By Bunting S. Crocker

Bunting S. Crocker (Executive Vice President, Kilborn Engineering Ltd., Toronto, Ont., Canada)-This is an interesting report on laboratory-scale testing with pebble charges in 12-in.-diam mills, and the author correctly concludes that useful laboratory testing can be done. In the opening paragraphs he states, "laboratory pebble-milling tests have been considered too difficult to perform and not relevant enough to the actual grinding situation"!! This is definitely not so! The writer published detailed tests done in a 12-in.-diam mill comparing pebble and steel balls in 1952 6 and again in 1954 7. We note that our review paper in 1963 was the only one mentioned in the References. The author states that "a smooth lining is more frequently used in commercial-scale pebble grinding." The writer has designed some 22 plants treating 134,000 tpd in North America and Australia. He has also visited pebble installations in Norway, Sweden, Finland, and South Africa. All these plants correctly use heavier lifters than would be considered standard for ball mills of a similar size. Smooth liners are not recommended in wet ore treating plants. In the 1952 paper6 it was clearly demonstrated in the test work that the individual ore pebbles had to be the same weight-not the same diameter or size-as the steel balls if comparable grinding results were to be obtained. In the tests performed in this study most of the pebbles "passed 50-mm round hole screen openings and remained on a 40-mm round hole sieve. Correspondingly most of the ball mill experiments were performed with 50 or 40-mm steel balls". Thus, the balls and pebbles were essentially the same size or diameter. This means we are comparing apples and oranges. When the feed being ground is fine enough the pebbles will be superior. When the feed is coarse the steel balls will be the better. This is similar to grinding tests in which two sizes of steel balls are compared. In the middle of the article, "Crocker5 has reported that equal weights of pebbles and steel balls achieve the same grinding capacities under similar conditions …", then he proceeds to question this postulate. In the eight reports that I have published, I have never made this statement. What I have said is "for comparable grinding, the individual pebbles in the mill charge should be the same weight as the individual steel balls." This is not the first time that I have been misquoted on this point! It is most unfortunate that this test work has been done with a ball and pebble of the same diameter and not the same weight. It is impossible to properly evaluate the results. I also regret the fact that the screen analyses of the tests were not shown. Many of us who have been 40 years or less in the grinding game can easily read screen analyses at a glance. We can tell whether the top meshes are being ground by the ball charge, etc., etc. The graphs are fine for the summary or to illustrate conclusions but are often misleading in the report itself. However, we do agree that useful pebble grinding tests can be done in a 12-in. mill.

Jan 1, 1973

By Alfred James

John Stewart MacARthUr, born in 1856, was the son of Robert MacArthur of Glasgow, and came of Scots stock distinguished for character and religious conviction. His election as elder of the Free Kirk gave him greater pride than the receipt of the gold medal of the Institution of Mining and Metallurgy. The former honor was for character— it marked him as a son worthy to follow in his father's footsteps; the latter was awarded for his life work of eminent service to the gold industry. Cheery optimism, resolution, tenacity of purpose, and industry ever characterized his actions. Apprenticed to the Tharsis Sulphur & Copper Co., his work on the chemical staff brought him to the notice of the Cassel Gold Extracting CO.,. at that time struggling with an unworkable electrolytic process..He was engaged by that company, in 1886, as technical manager and before long brought out the perchloride process, which was speedily followed (in 1887) by the epoch-making cyanide process. This process revolutionized gold mining and directly led the way to the elevation of the mining engineer to the most broadly trained product of the engineering profession. A noteworthy feature of the cyanide process was its completeness when introduced. Over thirty years have elapsed and the use of the process has been worldwide, but no suggested improvement has stood the test of time. The extension of the process to the beneficiation of silver ores—containing far more metal per ton and thus requiring the employment of stronger solutions—has brought us the Merrill and Crowe improvements in precipitation and the Nipissing desulfurization process for certain silver-hearing minerals. Roasting apparatus, fine crushing, filtration, and settling equipment have all aided the extension of the process in and from its original field. As Hennen Jennings put it,, the cyanide process today is essentially that of 1890. This self-containedness of the cyanide process arose from no mere chance; it was directly due to MacArthur. It was he who personally investigated every known method of precipitation and then every form of zinc from sheet, punchings, filings, millings, rods and shaving down to fume; it was he who investigated the effect of protective alkalies, of so-called accelerators, and of the addition of lead salts; he was determined to leave nothing to chance.

Jan 1, 1921

By J. Laskowski

J. Laskowski (Associate Professor, Dept, of Mineral Processing and Coal Preparation, Silesian University of Technology, Gliwice, Poland) -Referring to the papers by J. A. L. Campbell and S. C. Sun, I must say that I am very pleased to see that type of work, because it is the only way to progress towards an understanding of flotation mechanisms. All those interested in the science of the surface chemistry of coals would find these papers a valuable contribution to the literature. In their extensive research, the authors attempt to synthesize their findings into a theory of coal flotation. To do this, the zeta potential of bituminous coals and their lithotypes, as well as that of an anthracite coal, was measured and H+ and OH- ions were found to be potential determining ions. The measured ZPC of bituminous coals was at a pH range from 3.5 to 4.6 and for the anthracites between 2.0 and 4.5. The authors have pointed out that since the hydrophobicity is pH-controlled, the flotation mechanism should also be. The Campbell and Sun papers confirm a good many of the conclusions on surface properties of coals reported in recent years. It is noteworthy to point out that the ZPC found in the paper on bituminous coals was approximately pH 4, similar to the ZPC for the anthracite coal. In fact, we have been investigating different coals from low to high ranks. Thus, the plot of the pH for ZPC against rank could be derived and this curve-an electrocapillary one-indicates a pH near which the hydrophobicity of the coal surface should be at maximum. This can be proved by so-called salt flotation, which, in a sense, can be treated as method of surface charge measurement. It is obvious that the salt flotation experiment is possible when the native hydrophobicity of the mineral surface is high, e.g., when the solid surface does not have an orienting influence on an adjacent water layer and the hydration layers are controlled by the electrical double-layer potential. The addition of electrolyte or a change of pH which decreases the thickness of the stabilizing double-layer "opens up" the hydrophobic surface micro-area mosaic. Thereby the surface becomes hydrophobic and particles become floatable. The orienting influence of surface on hydration layer increases even after very slight oxidation and flotation is affected by it. It seems that such an explanation agrees reasonably well with those of Campbell and Sun.

Jan 1, 1972