Search Documents

By S. F. Radtke, J. A. Snyder, R. M. Scriver

DISCUSSION, J. R. Long presiding R. I. Jaffee (Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, Ohio)—The authors have written a fine and important paper, and are to be congratulated. I do not entirely follow their discussion of the relationship between the ductility of titanium and its crystal structure. Since high purity titanium is extremely ductile, being capable of cold reductions of ovei- 99 pct, its ductility cannot be unduly restricted by its hexagonal crystal structure. It is true that interstitial solid solutions of nitrogen and oxygen do have a restricting effect on ductility, but this would appear to be an alloying effect rather than a crystal structure effect. The point made by the authors concerning the relative ductility between forged and rolled titanium does not appear to be conclusive, either. It would appear that in the same condition forged material would have equivalent or better ductility than sheet material. The difference between the ductility reported for forged bar and annealed sheet in Table I may be the result of a greater degree of cold work in the as-forged condition. S. F. Radtke, R. M. Scriver, and J. A. Snyder (authors' reply)—We appreciate the discussion by Dr. Jaffee. His point is well taken that the hexagonal structure of titanium does not, in itself, restrict the ductility of iodide material and, therefore, should not be limiting in this case. It is true, however, that the ductility of different grades of titanium is not necessarily related to their hexagonal structure but more likely to their orientation and composition. It is also true that the presence of small amounts of foreign elements in hexagonal metals may have more pronounced influence on ductility than a corresponding quantity in cubic metals. Average values from a large number of tests might show relatively better ductility for forged titanium than is recorded in Table I. The forged bars used in this work were tested in the annealed condition; little is known concerning the effect of forging practice on ductility in titanium metal.

Jan 1, 1952

By Walter J. Karplus, Otto J. M. Smith

The transient response of earth formations may be tlcter.171ined by means of four electrodes mounted coli-rienrly on n sonde. Exponentially decaying current pules are applied to one pair of electrodes and the re.rrrlting voltage transient at the other pair is recorded. It is shown by theoreticol analysis and verified by laboratory experiments that this arrangement readily yields the direct resistivity of the formation and provides valrrable additional information as well. INTRODUCTION Although electrical transients have been employed with moderate success in geophysical prospecting, their application to well logging has received virtually no attention in technical literature. In the conventional direct resistivity logging methods only the zero frequency impedance of the formation under study is measured, and no information is obtained regarding its reactive characteristics. Since the use of certain transients appears to offer some advantages in this respect, experiments were performed on a laboratory scale to investigate this possibility. This investigation was limited to a study of a four-electrode array where both the receiving and transmitting electrode pairs are mounted on a logging sonde, and decaying exponential pulses are applied to the transmitting electrodes. THEORY Given an electrode configuration as shown in Fig. I, located in a homogenous medium of resistivity p, if each electrode has an effective radius, r, which is small compared to the spacing, s and a, it is easy to show by integrating the volume resistivity that the input resistance, Rrw, of the transmitting electrodes is Rxw=p/2pr If a capacitor of capacity C, charged to a voltage Em, is suddenly connected to these electrodes, the resulting current, I(t), will then be The voltage transient, E(t), at the receiving electrodes may then be found by substracting the resulting potential at electrode Y from that appearing at electrode Z. and by inserting Eqs. 1 and 2 Integrating Eq. 4 with respect to tim

Jan 1, 1957

By Clemens Jones

The peculiar property of the lode-stone has been known for many centuries. It was very early observed that, by contact with it, iron is magnetized; and it is needless to dwell here upon the history allied to this discovery, now constituting the wonderful science of magnetism. Deposits of magnetic ore are distributed all over the world. The ore is sometimes very rich and comparatively free from gangue, sometimes sparsely disseminated in the native rock. These bodies of lean ore often cover large areas. Modern ingenuity has utilized the principle of the magrtet, originally derived from the ore itself, and really belonging to the time of Plato and Theophrastus, to separate the magnetic ore-particles from the rock which has previously been crushed. This process recovers the ore in the state of a concentrate very rich in iron and, in some cases, desirable for Bessemer purposes. The magnetic separator is no longer a novelty. It was only at the last meeting of the Institute in New York, that Messrs. Birkinbine and Edison (Trans., xvii., 728) and Mr. Robert Cook (Ib., 599) described some of' the principal designs of apparatus in use. E. S. Dana classifies the natural magnetic minerals in the following order: magnetite, pyrrhotite, franklinite, almandite and minerals " containing considerable FeO." Of these, ferroso-ferric oxide, or magnetite, is the type. The proportionate amount of ferrous oxide essential to magnetize the compound, is not established. Ferrous oxide appears to be the only magnetic oxide of iron. Tissandier (Compt. Rend., lxxiv., 531) produced ferrous oxide in the anhydrous state, by the action of carbon dioxide on pure iron at a red heat, according to the equation : Fe + CO2 = FeO + CO. This is black, crystalline and magnetic. Heated to redness in the air, it is converted into Fe3O4. Sidot (Compt. Rend., lxvii., 175) has also produced an oxide exhibiting magnetic polarity, by heating ferric oxide to a temperature

Jan 1, 1891

By J. M. Armstrong

Jan 1, 1934

Jan 1, 1949

Jan 1, 1965

Jan 1, 1930

Jan 1, 1949

Jan 1, 1936

Jan 1, 1947

Jan 1, 1947

Jan 1, 1950

Jan 1, 1945

Jan 1, 1933

Jan 1, 1937

Jan 1, 1935

Jan 1, 1929

Jan 1, 1946

Jan 1, 1920

Jan 1, 1934