Search Documents

(The following discussion took place on this screen lecture in the dark.) MR. SHUBART: Would you give us a little .explanation as to the operation of this machine and what you are doing with it? MR. TESCHER: There is a 20- horsepower motor, rheostat, crusher, and a fan mounted on one base plate and operating on one shaft. The fan is overhung on the shaft. The only bearings you have are the bearings on each side of the crusher and the motor hearings. On one side of the ma- chine there is an opening for feeding shale. The machine is operated at 1,200 revolution per minute and as the shale is pulverized, the fan automatically exhausts fine dust from the crusher from an opening in the top of the crusher. The machine pulverizes 3,000 pounds in eight hours, reducing the materid to one hundred mesh. The last ma- chine we put in has been operating continuously fifteen hours a day for the past sixty days, without repairs of any kind. PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: Where is the machine in operation? MR. TESCHER. At the Royal mine. We have used ordinary mining ma- chine cable in local movements of the machines. This has enabled us to have twenty-two locations throughout the mines. The mine is highly gaesous, and the machines had to be placed on intake air. MR. SHUBSRT: What type of crusher do you use? MR. TESCHER. A No. 16 Universal, operating at 1,200 revolution per minute. M. SHURART: What material do you feed to it? MR. TESCHER: We have shale three-quarters of a mile from the mine. In the winter months we have been troubled with moisture. We build a kiln and get this shale and load it into the kiln for drying and then place it into a pit car and take it into the mine. The material must be dry. We have also used slate in the mine and have had good success. The slate at the mine is fairly hard. I presume, however, that the slate will probably carry a high silica content. MR. SHUBART: Mr. Harrington claims that silica does not do the harm, as was formerly supposed. MR. TESCHER: There is still a question as to whether it is harmful or not. PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: Are there any of these machines in operation closer than Aguilar? MR. TESCHER: There is one at the Alamo mine. Mr. Quealy also purchased a couple of them for use at his Wyoming mines. PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: Are there any other questions you would like to ask Mr. Tescher regarding his rock dusting machine while it is on the table for discussion? MR. DALRYMPLE, SR.: How many men does it take to operate it? MR. TESCHER: One man operates the machine. Sometimes we put the

Jan 1, 1925

THE CHAIRMAN.-Thank you. Since the papers are rather closely related, I think rather than taking them one at a time we will entertain discussion on any of these problems at this time. W. A. REICH.*-We, of course, quite a while ago got the yellow light that Mr. Cole spoke of, and like everyone else immediately started to study silicon bronzes and brasses. We were interested in the silicon bronzes and brasses because we felt that in order to replace gun metal which makes up a large part of our use we needed something with an elastic limit at least equal to that of gun metal. That means at least 12,000 lb. per sq. in. This study was aimed only at tin conservation. Then we dropped the study of silicon bronzes because high purity copper which is needed in their manufacture became a scarce item. To make a long story short we have recommended to our designing engineers that they use 85-5-5-5 wherever possible because 85-5-5-5 we understand can be made entirely from scrap with little or no tin addition. 85-5-5-5 has a lower elastic limit than 88-8-4, so we felt that we would need another substitute material, a structural alloy with an elastic limit equal to that of 88-8-4, and we immediately turned to the manganese bronze type of alloy. The poor foundry properties of standard manganese bronzes were mentioned by Mr. Thieme and since we feel that high zinc content is largely responsible for this difficulty, our development is directed along the lines of uncovering a material with a lower zinc content and which gains its elastic strength from the addition of other alloying elements, such as, aluminum, manganese and iron. It must be possible to make this alloy entirely from scrap with no additions of scarce high purity material. I would appreciate an expression of opinion on how low we can go in zinc content with this type of alloy without seriously impairing the availability, and how high we can go in aluminum content without making use of aluminum restricted for that use. We assume that the maximum lead content must be placed at 1 ½ per cent to insure good availability and we feel that about I per cent of tin in the alloy would improve salt water corrosion resistance similar to the effect of tin in Admiralty Metal. Has anyone here had experience with the effect of tin and lead on the weldability of such an alloy? C. S. COLE.-What percentage of lead and tin? W. A. REICH.-About 1 per cent of lead and 1 per cent of tin. We are studying the weldability of the alloy but perhaps someone already has the answer. (Pause, no answer) The claim has been made that 1 per cent of lead can be added to certain silicon bronzes without impairing their properties. A silicon bronze with a low zinc content requires high purity copper in its manufacture but if say the 15 per cent zinc, 44 silicon balance copper alloy could be made, with a I per cent lead content, some quantity could be made from scrap. We do not know whether the aforementioned is

Jan 1, 1943

By W. A. Koehler, W. L. Eaton, Reynold Q. Shotts, M. E. Hinkle, M. R. Geer, Ralph M. Hunter, H. F. Yancey, Andrew B. Crichton, E. Zimmerman, S. H. Ash

R. Maize and H. P. Greenwald presiding) E. T. POWELL*-I would like to ask either Mr. Ash or Mr. Eaton if they know of any place where the Mine Inspectors' for¬mula has been used that water has flowed from one colliery to the other. W. L. EATON (authors' reply)-We have made considerable study but we have not gotten around to very many of the barrier pillars. I would not say that any or all of them have been designed to the strict figures of this formula. Most of those ex¬amined will not hold back the water that they are supposed to hold back. E. T. POWELL-If the pillar remains ac¬cording to the Mine Inspectors' formula? W. L. EATON-We have not found very many where the provisions were followed. E. T. POWELL-Where the Mine Inspec¬tors' formula has been fully complied with, have there been failures or not? W. L. EATON-I cannot say. Most of these barrier pillars probably were designed in accordance with this formula, but most of them, if they were so designed, are not in that shape now because a large number of them will not hold back the water; they have been reinforced, and they are punc¬tured in various places. Holes have been driven through them to relieve the hydro¬static pressure to avoid a failure. They do not dare to have a failure. In many instances, the barrier is punc¬tured to avoid a failure. In order to mine their coal safely, many companies must pump water from mines that were aban¬doned many years ago. R. MAIZE-That is true, Mr. Eaton, but do you know of any case where a barrier pillar actually failed and flooded an ad¬joining mine when the pillar had been left in accordance with the Mine Inspectors formula?

Jan 1, 1948

[Contents AH-Metal Mining and Industrial Minerals Pipeline Transportation of Phosphate. (Paper by I. S. Tillotson, R. B. Burt, and J. A. Barr, Transactions AIME, 193, 273; Mining Engineering. March 1952. Discussion by Howard Howie.) 1066 B-Minerals Beneficiation The Effect of Zinc Deleading Operations on Lead-Zinc Selectivity at the Parral and Santa Barbara Mines. (Paper by C. L. Boeke an G. C. Gunther, Transactions AIME, 193, 495; Mining Engineering. May 1952. Discussion by I. M. Symonds, L. H. Lange, Norman Weiss, H. S. Wildman, C. F. Zeuch, E. H. Crabtree.) 1067 Jaw Crusher Capacities, Blake and Single-Toggle or Overhead Eccentric Types. (Paper by D. H. Gieskieng, Transactions AIME, 190, 971; Mining Engineering. November 1951. Author s supplement.) 1069 Screened Ore Use for Fine Grinding at Lake Shore Mines. (Paper by Bunting S. Crocker, Transactions AIME, 193, 499; Mining Engineering. May 1952. Discussion by Fred C. Bond, J. Myers, Norman Weiss, Harlowe Hardinge, Oscar Johnson, L. E. Djingheuzian.) 1069 The Third Theory of Comminution. (Paper by Fred C. Bond, Transactions AIME, 193, 484; Mining Engineering. May 1952. Discussion by Milton C. Shaw and Donald R. Walker; R. J. Russell.)1071 Flotation Rates and Flotation Efficiency.t (Paper by Nathaniel Arbiter, Transactions AIME, 190, 791; Mining Engineering. September 1951. Discussion by Gregoire Gutzeit and Porter Clements.) 1074]

Jan 1, 1952

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

PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: Gentlemen, you have heard Mr. Dyer's paper. The meeting is now open for discussion. MR. NORMAN: I would like to ask the gentleman what is the distance between your crosscuts for the ventilation of rooms and entries in the state of Utah?

Jan 1, 1925

MR. STROUP: As soon as the mine workers realize that machine loading is going to be with us permanently, they will gradually accept the view that they, as well as the Mine Operators, will be in the end better off. Don't you find that to be true? MR. BUTLER: I do find that the antagonistic feeling that prevailed at the start is getting less and less and that the miners are co-operating with us. The machine is going to stay with us and I believe it is going to be better for them because instead of having the hard work of heaving coal, they will merely run the machinery that heaves the coal for them. I believe they all feel that way about the matter. MR. McAULIFFE: Mr. Farnham, out of his professional diplomacy, was very careful not to even mention his own machine by name. I would like to say a word about salesmen and about the men who develop the machines. They are perhaps doing more for the industry than we are doing ourselves. This applies also to the railroad business that I put a great part of my life in. If it were not for the energy, courage, and ingenuity of the men who manufacture machines, we would not occupy the advanced position we do today in the mining world.

Jan 1, 1924

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

MR. GIBSON (continuing): In connection with the coal from this mine, I will say that it is not a very dirty coal. The vein where most of the coal comes from is about eight feet thick, and two feet from the bottom there is a small boney band about two inches thick. The breaking shot has to be placed over the, band, therefore breaking the boney into fine particles which goes off with the slack. This coal is a very good domestic coal and the slack is in great demand for various power, plants, such as sugar plants, smelters and other industries, but where this, boney is broken up and goes into the slack, it is very injurious in effect and retards the sale of the slack. Therefore the Spring Canyon Coal Company went to the expense of' building this plant, costing over $250,000, just in order to get that, two inches of boney coal out of the rest of the vein. The market in, Utah is very critical, and in order to sell coal, the product must be thoroughly clean in every way and, as Mr. Murphy says, I believe they have succeeded in making a very good commercial product. In any event the Spring Canyon Coal Company put out more coal than any other one mine during the last year, 1924, they had the largest production. I thank, you. (Applause). PRESIDENT MARKS: With the assistance of Mr. Robinson and Mr. Miller, I am sorry you could not get the pictures a little better synchronized with the story. MR. F. C. MILLER (Chief Chemist The Colorado Fuel & Iron Company, Pueblo) : We had seven slides to show eighteen different views on the screen and we did remarkably well. (Laughter.) PRESIDENT MARKS: Is there : any further discussion on this paper? MR. G. B. JONES (Mining Inspector, Victor-American Fuel Co.) : I would like to ask a question on the

Jan 1, 1926

By Fred C. Bond

This article is interesting because it deals with the fundamentals of grinding in a novel manner. However, it is somewhat reminiscent of Mark Twain's famous evaluation of science as the production of pounds of conjecture from ounces of fact. Extrapolations abound, and some cases they are treated with a seriousness that is undeserved. Tests should undoubtedly be made of wet grinding at supercritical speeds, using smooth mill lining and mill charges of large grinding balls as well as pebbles. However, the performance predicted in the article needs more qualification than it has received.

Jan 5, 1958

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

By J. D. Patsey, G. T. Lineberry

A.E. Hall The authors are to be commended for their attempt to provide a convenient piece of software for preliminary drum hoist specification. This field has received little attention in recent years and is eminently suited to calculation by computer. Unfortunately, there appears to be an error in the calculation of the required rope diameter. The 66-mm (2 5/8-in.) rope selected is oversized for this application. Wire rope weight and breaking strength are related to the rope diameter. For a round strand rope

Jan 8, 1987

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 J. Hanna, H. R. Gonzalez

Discussion by N.L. Hargett Dear Dr. Hanna: As discussed in our phone conversation, we are enclosing a suggested revision to the paper, "Application of Bentonitic Clays in Suspension Fertilizer Formulations," published in MINERAL & METALLURGICAL PROCESSING, May 1990. The revision will replace the second paragraph in the article. The reason for the revision is that suspensions have decreased in market share since 1984 and at present comprise an estimated 25% to 30% of fluid mixtures. This represents 6% to 7% of all fluids and only 2% to 3% percent of all fertilizers. Based on national surveys conducted by the Association of American Plant Food Control Officials (AAPFCO), suspensions comprised an estimated 25% of all fluid mixtures in 1974, 33% in 1976, 35% in 1980, 40% in 1984, and 36% in 1988. Revision to "Application of Bentonitic Clays in Suspension Fertilizer Formulations." Suspension fertilizers are an important segment of the fertilizer industry in the United States. Suspensions allow higher concentrations of nutrients (N, P2O5, K2O) than clear liquid solution fertilizers. K20 content of solutions is limited to about 10%, while suspensions can contain more than 30% K2O. Suspensions can tolerate greater variations in temperature than solutions. In suspensions, if crystallization occurs, the crystals can remain suspended in a clay jell instead of settling as they would in solutions. Solubility is not a limiting factor in suspensions, since complete solubility of phosphate is not required. This allows a wider range of phosphate materials to be used. Also, materials commonly used in formulating suspensions are less expensive and more widely available than those for clear liquids (Getsiner et al., 1984).

Jan 1, 1992

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