Search Documents

Edward Keller, Baltimore, Md. (communication to the Secretary*) :—The authors of this paper are to be commended for their industry and congratulated upon the many interesting results which were the fruit of their researches. While thoroughness has marked their work in general, yet on a few points in particular they have touched but lightly, for which reason, it would appear to me, they have hit wide of the mark in their respective conclusions. The work alluded to pertains chiefly to the occurrence of magnetic iron oxide (ferroseferric oxide) in copper-mattes. Because the authors find that the magnetic residue, left by the dissolved sulphides, varies largely in quantity according to the strength of nitric acid used (with potassium chlorate) in dissolving the mattes, they conclude :— "It appears, therefore, that the ferroso-ferric oxide is the result of precipitation by the oxidizing agent, rather than an original constituent of the matte." In this part of their investigation, Messrs. Gibb and Philp have ignored some well-established data,. In the first place, they have overlooked the fact that there are mattes which are strongly magnetic and others which scarcely show any magnetic property. There is nothing in their work tending to explain this variation. They Seem to have tested none of their products for magnetism. Secondly, they have overlooked the fact that magnetic iron oxide probably exists in all ore-charges in the copper-matting furnaces, and, under the given conditions, that this oxide is very difficult to reduce and to combine with silica to form slag. Thirdly, they pay no attention to the varying specific gravity of the several grades of copper-matte, which may exceed, equal, or fall below that of the magnetic oxide. These are .essential points which, I believe, clearly in-

Jan 1, 1906

Adolph Greiner, Seraing, Belgium:—I have nothing special to add to Professor Hubert's paper except to say that there are some little things that it would be well to have corrected when the paper comes to be published. In dealing with the thermal efficiency of the engine, you will find that the 29.84 per cent. was a very high one. Professor Hubert has forgotten those engines built under the Cockerill type, but he has referred to them in Appendix 11. At our works at Cockerill we have built 63 engines, giving 63,000 h.p., and the other companies who have received licenses have built 113 engines, making 103,000 h.p., and aggregating 176 engines and 166,000 h.p. Eight years ago I had the pleasure of giving to the Institute the results obtained up to that time. Since then a good many engines have been constructed. In 1898 I thought a blast-furnace producing 100 tons of pig iron would allow 3,000 h.p. Professor Witz and Professor Hubert show that with the same production of pig the new engines take 3,800 h.p. out of the gas. At present at Cockerill we make 700 to 800 tons of pig iron per day, and we hope to have 26,000 h.p. in a few years. At present we have only half of that in gas-engines, but we hope to have in five or six years all the gas out of these furnaces to the number of 25,000 or 26,000 h.p. Tom WEstGarth, Middlesbrough, England :—My contribution is not a paper in the ordinary sense of the word, because I am sure you will agree with me that what I have written is only supplementary to the other two papers. The notes are schedules of the larger-size gas-engines built by British engine-makers, of 500 h.p. and upwards. If you look at the schedules you will find that in England gas-engines have become quite ordinary motors for a good many purposes. It was at first thought that gas-engines were troublesome, and ill-

Jan 1, 1907

David T. Day, Washington, D. C.: The paper of Mr. Adams is chiefly valuable because it emphasizes the ease with which petroleum can migrate in the earth's crust. Concerning this migration, I have little faith in the rôle of water as a carrier of gaseous or liquid hydrocarbon, suspended or mixed in the water in any way. My lack of faith is due to observation of

Jan 1, 1903

HeRbert A. MeGRaw, San Luis de la Paz, Guanajuato, Mex. (communication to the Secretary*) :—Although Mr. Bordeaux prefaces his paper with the statement-that it is a general outline of practice in the Republic, many of his statements seem to be made from the view-point of a particular case, which does not always agree with general practice. For the purpose of calling attention to some of these variations, I respectfully offer the following comments: The operation of crushing and grinding is performed by so many different methods and systems that it is useless to select any one as the standard. However, primary crushing in rock-breakers followed by stamps is thus far so general that it might be so classified. Whether or not it is the best way, is open to question. Regrinding may be performed by any of the various types of Chilean mills, Huntington mills, or similar machines, or the material may be taken directly from the stamps and delivered to the tube-mills. Mr. Bordeaux's statement that " the slimes can be treated only by decantation; the new Butters slime-filter, as used in Nevada, does not seem to be successful with silver-ores," is surely an error. All over Mexico many of the purely silver-ores are being successfully handled by the Butters or similar filters, such as the Moore and the Burt filters, and a letter to the manufacturers of these filters will undoubtedly bring a list of the silver-ores now being successfully treated in this way. The statement that crushing silver-ores in solution is impossible is equally erroneous. Most modern mills crush the ore in solution, in some cases containing as much as 0.12 per cent, of KCN. I cannot for the moment recall any modern mill in Mexico which does not follow this practice. There may be some reason for it in particular instances, but, generally speaking, the practice is to crush in solution. Care in installation avoids any mechanical loss of cyanide, and the chemical loss is so small as to be negligible.

Jan 1, 1910

A. H. Bromly, Zihuatanejo, Guerrero, Mexico (communication to the Secretary*):—The following criticism of what "is offered as a summary which may be found useful by mining engineers," is not dictated by any captious spirit, but in the intereet of historical and scientific accuracy. The States of Queretaro and Oaxaca have produced sufficient silver to warrant more extended notice. Referring to Pachuca, State of Hidalgo, the eomewhat loose and inexact statement is made that "the ore-depdsit is an andesite, intermixed with quartz-veins, rich from the surface." A better description mould be,—the ore-deposits consist of quartz-veins in andesite. It is notable that many of the rich shoots worked in recent days did not come to surface. In consequence, Pachuca is often quoted by the ill-informed as a camp in which values improve with depth, the truth being that the veins carry shoots, or clavos, some of which were exposed at surface and some not. The name of " electric plow," applied to the mechanical stirrer of recent use, is certainly not to be recommended. The stirrer, or agitator, consists essentially of a traversing gang-plow, operated by power through shafting; drums, and wire-rope. The fact that in certain plants the motive-power used is electricity does not make it an electric plow. Such a name suggests a machine of which the motor is an essential and integral part; which is not so in this case. A lathe in a factory driven by water-power is not called a hydraulic lathe. My experience agrees with Dr. Raymond's note as to azulapue, which in some districts is also applied to blue copper carbonate. The El Oro, Esperanza, and Mexico mines should be allocated to the State of Mexico; the Dos Estrellas being in Michoacan, as stated. The El Oro quartz certainly does not appeal to me

Jan 1, 1910

William Kent, New York, N. Y.:—The Institute may congratulate itself on the opportunity of reading the splendid address of President Brunton. It is an admirable summary of the progress that has been made in the mining and metallurgical arts in recent years. The paper rightly gives the chief credit for this progress to the aid which has been rendered to these arts by the advances in mechanics, chemistry, and electricity. It is notable that most of the headings in Mr. Brunton's address refer to the work of the mechanical engineer, the electrical engineer, and the chemist, rather than to that of the specialist in mining-operations. It seems that the most successful mining engineer of the present day is the one who makes the most intelligent application of the inventions and designs of engineers and others who are not directly engaged in mining. A tabulation of the headings of the address, grouped as below, shows this most clearly. Work of the Mechanical Engineer—Rock-drills, hoisting-machinery, tramming, pumping, ventilation, dredging, Sampling, concentration, briquetting, fume-recovery. Work of the Electrical Engineer—Electric machinery for hoisting, pumping, tramming, lighting and signaling, electric transmission, electric smelting. Work of the Chemist and Metallurgist—Explosives, chlorina-tion, cyanidation, roasting, lead-smelting, and copper-smelting. Work of the Geologist—Economic geology. Work of the Mining Engineer—Mine-mapping, surface-mining, timbering, tunneling; and planning and supervision of the work in general. The mining engineer of the present day, who is in responsible charge of a large plant, finds his chief work not in doing those things he was trained to do as a specialist, but in making use of the knowledge of geologists, chemists, and electrical and

Jan 1, 1910

DR. PeRsifor Frazer, Philadelphia, Pa. (communication to the Secretary):* Mr. Campbell's very interesting contribution, after complimentary mention, finally decides against the acceptance of the classification proposed by me in a paper bearing the same title and read at the Wilkes-Barre meeting, May, 1877.2 That paper was written primarily for the Second Geological

Jan 1, 1906

W. L. SaundeRs, New York City (communication to the Secretary*):—Notwithstanding the sweeping statements made by Mr. Clarke in this paper, the friends of compressed air are not dismayed. There is no war between electricity and compressed air. Each one has its field of usefulness, and in that field each is supreme. In spite of commercial interests, in spite of prejudices and the enthusiasm of the inventor, the thing that is best will survive and flourish. At least ten years ago, our engineering papers contained large advertisements and pages of reading-matter about the application of electricity to mines, recording the introduction of numerous rock-drilling plants, and claiming that the problem had been solved, greatly to the advantage of the miner and with promise of large profits to the manufacturers of electrical apparatus. Edison and Thomson labored to apply electricity to mines, and each believed that the probabilities of success were great. This was the period of the solelloid rock-drill, which mas admirably suited, theoretically, to the percussive principle and in the development of which hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent without satisfactory result. I have searched in vain for a standard mining equipment where electric rock-drills are in constant, commercial operation. During a recent trip made from New York to California, I visited most of the important mines of the West and failed to discover a single electric equipment, so far as this class of mining-work is concerned. If any one will inform me where there exists today an electric-drilling equipment in constant service in mines in the United States, I shall be glad to receive the information. Mr. Clarke has been for some years an active and intelligent writer on the subject of electricity for mining. Whenever his

Jan 1, 1904

E. Windsor Richards, London, England:—In reading this paper the most interesting point to me mas the question of the maximum percentage of phosphorus allowable in the steel rail. Mr. Colby said, and we will all agree with him, that the engineer knew, and even a steel-rail maker grants that phosphorus is the most undesirable constituent of steel. We in England have been for a long time considering a specification for the supply of steel rails. This matter has been taken up by the Institution of Civil Engineers, the Mechanical Engineers, the Iron and Steel Institute, the Institute of Naval Architects, and the Electrical Engineers. Committees have been formed,and the whole matter has received most careful attention. They arrived at last at an analysis which I will read: " The carbon is to be from 0.35 to 0.5 per cent.; the manganese from 0.7 to 1.0 per cent.; the silicon, not to exceed 0.10 per cent.; phosphorus, 0.07; and sulphur, 0.07 per cent." As to the phosphorus, which is the most important point of all in the analysis, we have for many years, and indeed until very lately, always agreed to supply steel which would not contain above 0.06 per cent. of phosphorus. Iron-ores are not quite as good now as they were formerly, and the manufacturers at the meetings of the committees referred to, tried to obtain an increase in the allowance of phosphorus. They asked the Sub-committee to agree to 0.08 per cent. of phosphorus. They tried all they possibly could to obtain that; but they failed. English engineers in Great George Street and all over England, representing the important Associa tions I have mentioned, would only agree to 0.07 per cent. and that is the maximum allowance of phosphorus. Mr. Colby is an able advocate, but with all his ability he would not have been able to persuade the English engineers to agree to 0.08 per cent.

Jan 1, 1907

James DouGlas, New York, N. Y. (communication to the Secretary*):—In my paper on the Conservation of Natural Resources, I referred to the slow replacement of bee-hive ovens by the by-product ovens as a most notable instance of waste. And I quoted from Mr. Parker's report for 1906 an explanation given by him in accounting for the small production of by-product coke. It was that the market for the by-products of the coke-ovens was so limited that some of the ovens constructed were out of operation. His report on the manufacture of coke in 1908' does not record an improvement, and attributes the strange fact that we alone, of all the industrial peoples, delay the adoption of this cardinal improvement from the continuance of the same almost inexplicable cause. To quote again from his report, he says (p. 241): "The year 1908 was not marked by any notable gain in the construction of byproduct coking plants, though some new work was done. There was a net increase

Jan 1, 1910

George Smith, Sydney, N. S. Wales (communication to the Secretary): The very interesting paper by Mr. Emmons on " The Secondary Enrichment of Ore-Deposits " has just come under my notice; and its reference to my own paper* on " The OreDeposits of the Australian Broken Hill Consols Mine "† is therefore only noted some two and a half years after its publi-

Jan 1, 1903

William Metcalf, Pittsburg, Pa. (communication to the Secretary*): I am greatly pleased that some one has at last reached what I have long regarded as the only rational explanation yet given of the reasons why steel hardens. Mr. Field claims originality; and doubtless he is entitled to it, but not to priority, mhich must be granted to Prof. John W. Langley.' The difference between them is that Langley says " Tension, probably molecular," and Field says " Tension, probably atomic "; in either case the vital thing after solution is tension. Mr. Field's argument carries with it the idea of increase of density with hardness; if he mill study the facts farther he will observe that the case is just the reverse; that is, the greater the hardness the less the specific gravity; it was just this fact that led Langley to his conclusion, in mhich I have always concurred. Field agrees with Langley that the first requisite for perfect hardening is complete solution of the carbon, not combination; and all of the facts agree with this conclusion. The fact that increase of hardness causes reduction of density was first brought to my notice some 40 years ago, when Major William Wade was testing Jones & Laughlin's cold-rolled iron, and I mas his assistant. We found the well-known increase of tenacity, compressive strength, torsional resistance, and hardness. Specific-gravity tests showed that the cold-rolled iron was less dense than the hot-rolled bars. Major Wade was so surprised at this result that he gave me a lot of samples to weigh, saying that he was not satisfied with

Jan 1, 1904

Joseph W. RichaRds, South Bethlehem, Pa. (communication to the Secretary*): The hold experiment of Mr. James Gayley in drying the blast used in the Isabella furnace has attracted the attention of the whole metallurgical world, and has given rise to a wide discussion of the reasons for its great success. Mr. Gayley and the capitalists who backed him in his work deserve congratulations on the success of the venture, not only because it succeeded, but because they have been rewarded far beyond the maximum that could be expected from theory or probability. To state the case in its simplest terms, all that could have been predicted was: (1) that the removal of the moisture from the blaet would result in the saving of the heat required for its decomposition, representing from 3 to 5 per cent. of the heat-value of the coke used; hence about that quantity of fuel might be saved; (2) that the furnace would be somewhat more independent of variations in the weather; (3) that the campaign would be a little hotter; and (4) that the speed of the blowing-eugines would be decreased, at least in amount proportionate to the reduction in temperature of the air led to them. I do not think anyone anticipated a much larger output per day. The results actually attained were: (1) the furnace made an increase of 24.86 per cent. in the output of pig-iron per day; (2) it consumed 19.6 per cent. less coke per ton of pig-iron made; (3) the blowing-engines were run 15.8 per cent. slower; and (4) the saving in power made up for the power required to run the refrigerating-plant. In addition, the blast was hotter; the waste-gases cooler, because of their smaller volume; and there was a greater proportion of carbon dioxide to carbon

Jan 1, 1906

A Discussion of the papers of James Gayley, on "The Application of Dry-Air Blast to the Manufacture of Iron" (see Trans., XXXV., 746, 1022, also pp. 315 and 745 of the present volume, and of J. E. Johnson, Jr., on "The Physical Action of the Blast-Furnace," p. 454. Chas. B. Dudley, Altoona, Pa.:—I am not a blast-furnace man, and this always puts me at a disadvantage because I cannot go into the details of the making of iron and steel. I have not the experience, and have to take the statements of other people, so what I say regarding the subject of this paper is not in the sense of an expert. When I first heard of Mr. Gayley's experiments, I said to myself, a I fear they will result in failure, since, apparently, Mr. Gayley has forgotten one chemical fact, namely, that carbon does not combine with oxygen in the absence of mater-vapor." This fact which was so astonishing when it was first brought out some years ago, and which those who are interested may find in the Journal of the Chemical Society of London, for 1885, page 349, and 1894, page 611, led me to think that the drying of the air would be a mistake. The general subject of the influence of water-vapor on chemical action is a large one; but the special point in which we are, for the moment, interested, namely, the influence of water-vapor on the combustion of carbon, was especially treated by Mr. H. B. Baker, in the papers referred to. Apparently, however, as the result of Mr. Gayley's experiments, we are to learn that the amount of moisture still left in the desiccated air is sufficient to secure perfectly satisfactory combustion. In thinking over Mr. Gayley's paper, it occurred to me that there were two alternatives, either of which might be chosen, namely, we might dry the air as Mr. Gayley does, or possibly we might, in a very much easier way, simply saturate the air at a constant temperature, and thus get uniform working and

Jan 1, 1906

AlfreD H. Cowles, Cleveland, Ohio (commuaication to the Secretary*):—Mr.Gillette's paper and his deductions seem to me of the very greatest importance, if the validity of his conclusions and figures can be confirmed. His work seems to solve an unfinished problem that I attempted to solve on the same lines about two years ago, at a time when I was preparing a paper' on another subject for the American Electrochemical Society. The following paragraph is quoted from the paper referred to: "I feel convinced that a further study of the heats of combination now known for so many compounds, which merely express in other terms their voltages of disruption, will show us the allowance that must be made as a departure from unity in the case of each element, for the intrinsic charge of its elementary molecule, and thereby render possible the creation of a table of apparent relative atomic capacities for electricity, similar to the table of atomic weights. With the numerals of this table known, thermal reaction or energy-transformations will be read with the same ease that we now read and trace the shifting of mass

Jan 1, 1904

Frank Firmstone, Easton, Pa. (communication to the Secretary*) : It may not be amiss to point out that the top-pressure in iron blast-furnaces is largely affected by variations in the temperature of the gas. I find in my note-books, cases in which the pressure was from 9.25 to 9.5 in. of water when the material in the furnace was low (after dinner-hour), which fell to from 8 to 8.5 in., when the furnace was again full, and the gas consequently cooled. The chief cause for this effect is, that, at the higher temperature, there is a decrease in the weight of the gas in the descending-leg of the siphon formed by the down-comer and the chimneys. It does not seem probable that there is any direct relation between top-pressure and quantity of flue-dirt. Top-pressure, at any given moment, measures the " head " necessary to discharge the gas then passing, against the resistances of pipes, valves, etc., in the gas-conduits between the top of the furnace and the mouths of the chimneys, and can be increased at will by closing, more or less, the valves, or dampers, at the stoves and the boilers. The question of relation between top-pressure and flue-dirt can be settled very easily by direct experiment, working alternately with gas-valves open, and partly closed, and noting the top-pressures and the respective quantities of fluedirt collected. The quantities of fine ore blown away, as shown by Mr. Grammer's tables, are astonishing to one who has had no actual experience with Mesabi ore and hard driving. Flue-dirt, in the sense in which he uses the term, was unknown at anthracite furnaces so long as the working was normal; when it did occur, it was always an incident of scaffolding and bad work, and was no doubt caused by an increase in the velocity

Jan 1, 1904

Thomas Haight Leggett, London, Eng. (communication to the Secretary): Mr. Hammond has given us a concise yet complete description of the Witwatersrand gold-fields, and the character of the operations which have resulted in their remarkable development.

Jan 1, 1902

Prof. J. C. BRanner, Stanford University, Cal. (communication to the Secretary): On p. 398, Mr. Hedburg mentions Marionite and Brannerite as ores of zinc. Neither of these has been authoritatively recognized as a distinct mineral species. Marionite, originally described by Elderhorst, was subsequently determined to be nothing else than hydrozincite. Analyses of the so-called Brannerite were sent by me to Prof. Penfield, who says it is a mixture of Smithsonite with some other mineral. On p. 398, Mr. Hedburg says the zinc-bearing formation of North Arkansas " is recognized as the Upper Silurian." So far as my observation goes, the ores occur both in Lower Carboniferous and in Ordovician or Lower Silurian rocks, but nowhere in rocks known to be of Upper Silurian age. If Mr. Hedburg has any paleontological evidence of the Upper Silurian age of these rocks, or of any of them, he will confer a favor upon geologists by making it known. On the same page is another statement in which I cannot concur. He says that in this region, " it can easily be seen that the largest fissure-deposits have been eroded and washed away, leaving here and there a few patches adhering to the hillsides." I am compelled to say that in many years' study of the geology of the region in question, I have never been able to recognize such a state of affairs as Mr. Hedburg here describes. The patches which he regards as remnants of fissure-veins, " adhering to the hillsides," I have found to be either the edges of bedded deposits, or portions of the zinc-bearing breccias, formed along old drainage-lines, and laid bare by the ordinary processes of erosion. That fissure-deposits have been partly removed by the same agency, goes without saying; but it is, in ,my judgment, no more true of North Arkansas than of any other mining-region that erosion has selected and washed away " the largest " deposits. My own views of the region in question are given in detail

Jan 1, 1902

JamEs F. Kemp, New York, N. Y.:—Mr. Hewett's paper is one of exceptional interest, because it not only adds an important contribution regarding one of the rarer, valuable elements, but also because it introduces compounds hitherto unknown and in associations no less novel. While we have occasionally discovered and recorded asphaltite in metalliferous deposits, for example in the Joplin and Granby districts, we have not seen a metallic ore in a deposit eesentially asphaltite. The source and method of introduction afford a subject well worth serious reflection.

Jan 1, 1910

Jan 1, 1910