Search Documents

By Carmel Bofinger, Maureen E. Hassall, David Cliff, Eric Stemn

e Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

By I. WILKOMIRSKY, J. BECKER, F. Parada

CORRECTION

Jan 18, 2023

By E. Yiğit, M. N. Saridede

Correction to: Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03402385 The original online article has been revised to correct the author names. Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. The online version of the original article can be found at https://doi.org/ 10.1007/BF03402385 * M. N. Saridede theng@smenet.org 1 Metallurgical and Materials Engineering, Yildiz Technical University, Istanbul,

Dec 23, 2021

By Society of Mining Engineers of AIME

An error has been noticed in one of the figures in the 1974 Jackling Lecture "The Henderson Ore Body-Elements of Discovery, Reflections" by Stewart R. Wallace, published in SME Transactions, Vol. 256, No. 3, September 1974, pp. 216-227. The horizontal scale shown on Fig. 5 of this article is incorrect. The horizontal and vertical scales should be equal, i.e., the horizontal distance shown as 1000 ft should be 2000 ft.

Jan 1, 1976

By SME

"Comparison of Secondary Fe-Mn Oxides in Fracture Coating and Heavy-Mineral Concentrates as Sampling Media, Silver City Mining Region, New Mexico," a technical paper, appeared in the Aug. 1983 issue of the magazine. In Table 1, page 1182, the correct sequence of the first five metals in column 1 (Elements) should read: Zn, Pb, Cu, Fe, and Mn under "Central District" and Zn, Fe, Pb, Cu, and Mn under "Pinos Altos District." The published table shows the sequences transposed under the opposite districts. All other columns and sequences read correctly.

Jan 1, 1984

Jan 1, 1960

This investigation was supported by a grant from the American Iron and Steel Institute and a fellowship given by the Armco Steel Corp. We are indebted to J. F. Butler of the Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. for a portion of the alloys used in this investigation and to R. L. LeRoy of the Armco Steel Corp. for chemical analyses.

Jan 1, 1962

By D. C. Shelton

Eq. 4 and 5 on page 5 of the March 1965 issue of Transactions, and Eq. 12 on page 8 of the same issue should read respectively:

Jan 1, 1965

By R. L. Stone, T. D. Tiemann

Jan 1, 1964

By R. L. Mauger, P. E. Damon, B. J. Giletti

On page 85 of the March 1965 issue of Transactions the heading of the third data column of Table II should read Ar40 Atmos %, and the first decay constant at the bottom of the Table should read ?ß.

Jan 1, 1965

By L. D. Clark

Jan 1, 1964

By T. S. Lovering

Jan 1, 1965

By A. Weiss, W. A. Coster

Jan 1, 1964

By J. A. Herbst, G. E. Agar

Beginning with the second paragraph in the second column of page 148, this paper should read: The Reynolds number in Fig. 6 was calculated from the inlet diam and it is evident from the graph that above NR = 5000 the value of K2 is as it should be, a constant. The data10 shown in Fig. 7 was obtained for fluids flowing in pipes of diam D with sharp edged orifices of diam d. To be consistent with the representation in Fig. 6 the Reynolds number was calculated with the orifice diam d. These two sets of data show similar patterns and the variation in the orifice coefficient C is believed to account for the variability of the cyclone coefficient K2. The values of C given in Table IV are derived from K2 by conversion of units. C more nearly represents an equivalent orifice coefficient for a cyclone. Armstrong1' showed that data reported by Chaston 12 and Elcox13 yielded values for C of 0.24 and 0.27, re- spectively, Dahlstrom's4 data gives a value of 0.22. As a consequence of the variability of the cyclone coefficient some caution must be exercised in substituting for Q in the split size equation.

Jan 1, 1967

By K. F. Veit, R. L. Marovelli, T. S. Chen

There is an error at the bottom of the right-hand column of p. 11, and the top left-hand column of p. 12. The first paragraph of the section EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS should read: "Thermal shock tests were conducted on circular discs of basalt, quartzite, and taconite. Average grain sizes ranged between 0.10 and 0.25 mm. Individual discs were tested only once, either in a cooling or heating shock. Several discs of the same rock type were shocked at a temperature, and the temperature level then was increased for another test by 10° to 20°F until complete fracture occurred when a specimen was quenched. The minimum temperature difference required to initiate cracking, TmiN was observed and used, together with other property values, to compute the dimensionless stress o*max . The observed ?Tmin for cooling shock in different media is tabulated in Table I. The property values E, St, a, and K are shown in Figs. 6, 8, 10, and 11, respectively. Discs of various rocks shocked in different isothermal baths gave o*max values for a wide range of Biot numbers. These o*max values were then compared with the theoretically predicted values."

Jan 1, 1968

By Frank C. Canney

The word "other" in paragraph 4, line 11, column 1, page 205, should read "over;" the correct version of reason 2, this paragraph, is: 'L. . . 2) to evaluate the usefulness of certain geo-chemical techniques, V. C. Kennedy and S. W. Hobbs of the USGS had already studied the distribution of copper, lead, and zinc in the soils (both in background areas and over veins) and in the water and plants, providing a criterion for measuring the magnitude and effect of soil contamination; ...9 On page 206, in the top left hand corner of Fig. 1 (in the area bounded by 47°35' and 116°10), the reference to Fig. 3 is incorrect. The area of Pine Creek, South Fork Coeur d'Alene River, and portion of Big Creek (the area which includes, from left to right, Kingston, Pinehurst, Smelterville, and Kellogg) should be identified as that of Fig. 2A. The headings for columns 1, 3, and 4, Tables I and 11, page 209, column 2, were reversed when the paper was printed. The corrected tables are:

Jan 1, 1961

By O. A. E. Jackson

In all three principal dunite dikes, minute disseminated grains of pyrrhotite are to be seen in the fresh rock in amounts less than 1 pct. Traces of nickel have been reported from many such specimens. Nickeliferous pyrrhotite is the principal nickel-bearing mineral, although olivine contains very minor amounts of nickel in solid solution, substituting for magnesium and iron. Such occurences are of no economic significance. Nickel analyses of possible economic significance (up to 3 pct Ni) have been returned from samples taken near the margins of the two large western dunite dikes. These samples were from schistose zones along and within the dike walls. The mineralized shear zones, up to 30 ft wide, strike N 30 W and dip from 65" to 90" west. They consist of layers of hard, fresh, green-gray dunite, mineralized with finely disseminated pyrrhotite. These layers alternate with layers of soft, black, oxidized schistose dunite up to 1 ft wide, well mineralized with pyrrhotite and tabular-fractured pentlandite in crystals up to 1/4-in. diam. Sulfides identified in polished sections were chiefly pyrrhotite and pentlandite, with much smaller amounts of chalcopyrite. There are two varieties of pyrrhotite. One develops a fine polish and conforms to published descriptions. The other is slightly darker and browner, does not polish as well, and displays flamelike growth or intergrowth structure when etched with nitric acid fumes. Pyrrhotite and pentlandite crystallized contemporaneously in the form of veins in the olivine and as fillings of the interstices of euhedral olivine crystals. Chalcopyrite replaces the other sulfides. The most striking feature of the deposits is their occurrence in intimately fractured and schistose zones in the dunite where faulting has been localized along the contacts of the sediments and the dunite dikes. Though far too little detailed work has been done to be certain, there appears to be a higher concentration of sulfides in the shear zones along the margins of dike apophyses, sediment reentrants, and strike and dip irregularities. Much more study would be required in order to submit a plausible theory of formation of the nickel deposits, supported by laboratory and field evidence. Results of the present study, especially localization of the metals by fracturing, certainly indicate that the nickel concentrations were brought about by precipitation of nickel sulfides from fluids that used the fractures as a means of ingress. Studies of nickel sulfide deposits throughout the world have demonstrated that such sulfides were deposited at considerable depths and at temperatures of several hundred degrees. This would rule out the possibility of groundwater as the transporting medium. The two possible sources of hot nickel-bearing fluids are quartz diorite and gabbro. The first possibility is that large volumes of fluids, expelled from the quartz diorite magma during its crystallization, obtained a supply of nickel by altering the nickeliferous olivine of the dunites. The likelihood of this process is lessened by the recognition that, although the dunites show some alteration to serpentine, talc, and trem-olite, they are for the most part remarkably fresh outside the schistose zones. The worldwide association of nickel with basic rocks, together with the presence of pyrrhotite in thin films on joint planes of the gabbro on Jumbro Mountain, favors the gabbro source. The writer extends thanks to C. Phillips Purdy, Jr., project chief of American Metal Climax Inc., for giving him the opportunity to study these deposits. He is also indebted to the officers of American Metal Climax Inc. and Discovery Mines Inc. for permission to publish this article.

Jan 1, 1961

By D. W. Fuerstenau

On page 1243, column 1, the first line of the author's reply should read "D. W. Fuerstenau (author's reply)---," rather than D. E., as printed. In the sentence immediately preceding the first equation (page 1243, column 2)' the word "none" was omitted. The sentence should read: "However, if enough ore is put into the mill [so] that none of the energy put into the mill is wasted on metal-to-metal impact, then the product should have size modulus determined by the relation: ..."

Jan 1, 1961

By J. L. Gillson

The word "other" in paragraph 4, line 11, column 1, page 205, should read "over;" the correct version of reason 2, this paragraph, is: 'L. . . 2) to evaluate the usefulness of certain geo-chemical techniques, V. C. Kennedy and S. W. Hobbs of the USGS had already studied the distribution of copper, lead, and zinc in the soils (both in background areas and over veins) and in the water and plants, providing a criterion for measuring the magnitude and effect of soil contamination; ...9 On page 206, in the top left hand corner of Fig. 1 (in the area bounded by 47°35' and 116°10), the reference to Fig. 3 is incorrect. The area of Pine Creek, South Fork Coeur d'Alene River, and portion of Big Creek (the area which includes, from left to right, Kingston, Pinehurst, Smelterville, and Kellogg) should be identified as that of Fig. 2A. The headings for columns 1, 3, and 4, Tables I and 11, page 209, column 2, were reversed when the paper was printed. The corrected tables are:

Jan 1, 1961

By A. T. Miesch, L. B. Riley

An error occurred in the preparation of Fig. 3, p. 249, of Basic Statistical Measures Used in Geo-chemical Investigations of Colorado Plateau Uranium Deposits. This figure shows the relation of the arithmetic mean: geometric mean ratio to the geometric deviation. Curves for the cases where n, the number of samples, is 100, 10, and 5 are too high with respect to the ordinate. The error is negligible at low geometric deviations, but becomes increasingly greater wi,th higher values of geometric deviation. Arithmetric mean values in Table I1 are not effected by the errors in Fig. 3. The authors will endeavor to supply copies of the revised curves on request; write to: A. T. Miesch, Geologist, Branch of Radioactive Materials, U.S. Geological Survey, Bldg. 25, Federal Center, Denver 25, Colo.

Jan 1, 1962