Search Documents

Continued Discussion of the papers of Van Hise, Emmons, Weed and Lindgren, Bans., xxx., 27, 177, 424, 578. See also the papers of Vogt, Kemp, Rickard, Blake and Lindgren, at pp. 125, 169, 198, 220, 226, and also the final contribution of Prof. Van Hise, p. 284 of the present volume. All the foregoing, together with the discussion here following, are included in the special volume, "The Genesis of Ore-Deposits," issued this year by the Institute. H. Foster Bain, Des Moines, Iowa (communication to the Secretary):* The zinc- and lead-deposits of the Mississippi valley, which it has been my fortune to study, give particularly good examples of many of the principles of ore-deposition formulated by Prof. Van Hise. Perhaps there is nowhere clearer evidence supporting his fundamental tenet., that ore-bodies are to be regarded as a result, and as merely one of the phases, of the work of underground waters. The facts regarding the mines of the upper Mississippi valley have been given in some detail for Wisconsin by Prof. Chamberlint and, more recently, for the mines west. of the Mississippi by the Iowa Geological Survey.‡ Fortunately, also, the processes of underground water-circulation have been studied in some detail in connection with the investigation of artesian waters throughout the region.$ In Missouri and Arkansas the mines and ore-bodies have been much studied ; but the general problems of the circulation of underground waters have been neglected. During the season just closed the writer has been engaged in a re-study for the United States Geological Survey of the zinc- and lead-deposits of the Ozark region, with special reference to those of the . Joplin area; and his full report is now in preparation. It has been interesting to note how fully the statement that the orebodies result from the general action of underground waters is

Jan 1, 1902

By E. C. Robertson

D.G. Wilder I found the suggestion that the amount of displacement of a fault can be numerically related to the thickness of gouge or breccia to be both intuitively satisfying and intriguing. I have long agreed that there is some type of relationship between the amount of gouge and the amount of displacement of faults. I congratulate the author for developing a numerical relationship between them. However, I am concerned that the limits for applying this relationship be fully understood. An underlying assumption in this approach is that there is either a uniform thickness of gouge or breccia along a given fault or the thickness does not vary widely. Since it is not always possible to confirm this, the displacements derived by this method should be viewed with caution unless significant fault extent can be observed. At the Nevada Test Site, in drifts constructed in granite for test emplacement of spent nuclear reactor fuel, we found a fault with 0.3 to 0.4 m (12 to 16 in.) of clay gouge. Within a few meters of this location, the fault had no clay gouge, but rather consisted of a highly fractured zone with significantly altered rock and some slickensides. Based on Fig. 1, the 0.3 to 0.4 m (12 to 16 in.) thickness of gouge would indicate a displacement in excess of 30 m (98 ft). However, no gouge thickness would indicate essentially no displacement. Based on a quartz vein that terminated on the fault, and is not identified nearby, an estimated displacement of more than a few meters was made. This estimate is consistent with that obtained using the regression line proposed in the paper if the 0.3 to 0.4 m (12 to 16 in.) thickness for the gouge is used. However, using the regression curves with zero thickness would not yield results consistent with what was observed in the field. Therefore, it is important to recognize that the suggested procedure would properly yield a range of probable displacements. ? *Work performed under the auspices of the US Department of Energy by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract W-7405-Eng-48. Reply by E.C. Robertson It is certainly true that the t (thickness) of gg-bx (gouge and breccia) on a fault does vary along the fault. My observations have been that near the termination of a fault, the displacement d is small and the t is also small, whereas the maximum d and t will usually be found in the central part of the fault. The information on gg-bx and t of the fault found in granite in the NTS tunnel by Mr. Wilder could be interpreted somewhat differently than he does. He speaks of the fault changing within a few meters from 0.3 to 0.4 m (12 to 16 in.) of clay gg to "a highly fractured zone with significantly altered rock and some slickensides," but no gg. The highly fractured rock may be taken to be bx, rock not so finely ground as gg but still crushed by the fault movement, equivalent to the gg in my usage, and probably occupying about the same t. Mr. Wilder's estimates for the fault in the NTS tunnel for t of 0.3 to 0.4 m (12 to 16 in.) and for d of a quartz vein, in excess of "a few meters," would place the point on the low side of the central trend line in my Fig. 1, at the lower limit. There is, of course, a problem with determining d using displacement of only one planar surface. It would be greater or lesser depending on the rake of the movement. Finally, estimating the d of a fault from its t should be made with awareness of our present uncertainties, as pointed out by Mr. Wilder. Although the central trend line in my Fig. 1 has a ratio of d/t of 100, I have put the limiting ratios at 10 and 1000. Understanding of the values of the ratio will be improved only with collection of more data, for which the discussion of Mr. Wilder is much appreciated. G.C. Waterman E.C. Robertson's paper provides significant information to a geologist attempting to deduce fault offset by noting the products of structural dislocation. However, considerable mapping in underground and open-pit mines, and examination of structures produced in different geological settings, have convinced me that gouge and breccia thickness are controlled by geological conditions and fault movement. The following paragraphs suggest geological variables that control them. 1. Depth of Loading A near-surface fault resulting from tensional stress has more breccia/gouge than is produced by a similar stress at considerable depth. A deep-loaded compressional stress may produce a linear zone of schist, or structural dislocation may occur along an earlier formed belt of schist. Such "shear zones" are common in Canadian mines in precambrian rocks. In neither case can offset be directly deduced by an analysis of the minimal gouge/breccia in the shistose rocks. At greater depth, stress may be partially to wholly relieved by flowage. I vividly recall first noting the regional "Midas Thrust" in the Lark mine, Bingham Mining District, UT (where we called the structure the North Fault). My recorded notes, as I remember them, showed a narrow gouge streak separated the `Jordan" and "Commercial" limestone units from impure, muddy limestone beds of uncertain stratigraphic position. The visible structure did not indicate the great importance of this premineral fault

Jan 12, 1984

By D. G. Wilder

D.G. Wilder I found the suggestion that the amount of displacement of a fault can be numerically related to the thickness of gouge or breccia to be both intuitively satisfying and intriguing. I have long agreed that there is some type of relationship between the amount of gouge and the amount of displacement of faults. I congratulate the author for developing a numerical relationship between them. However, I am concerned that the limits for applying this relationship be fully understood. An underlying assumption in this approach is that there is either a uniform thickness of gouge or breccia along a given fault or the thickness does not vary widely. Since it is not always possible to confirm this, the displacements derived by this method should be viewed with caution unless significant fault extent can be observed. At the Nevada Test Site, in drifts constructed in granite for test emplacement of spent nuclear reactor fuel, we found a fault with 0.3 to 0.4 m (12 to 16 in.) of clay gouge. Within a few meters of this location, the fault had no clay gouge, but rather consisted of a highly fractured zone with significantly altered rock and some slickensides. Based on Fig. 1, the 0.3 to 0.4 m (12 to 16 in.) thickness of gouge would indicate a displacement in excess of 30 m (98 ft). However, no gouge thickness would indicate essentially no displacement. Based on a quartz vein that terminated on the fault, and is not identified nearby, an estimated displacement of more than a few meters was made. This estimate is consistent with that obtained using the regression line proposed in the paper if the 0.3 to 0.4 m (12 to 16 in.) thickness for the gouge is used. However, using the regression curves with zero thickness would not yield results consistent with what was observed in the field. Therefore, it is important to recognize that the suggested procedure would properly yield a range of probable displacements. ? *Work performed under the auspices of the US Department of Energy by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract W-7405-Eng-48. Reply by E.C. Robertson It is certainly true that the t (thickness) of gg-bx (gouge and breccia) on a fault does vary along the fault. My observations have been that near the termination of a fault, the displacement d is small and the t is also small, whereas the maximum d and t will usually be found in the central part of the fault. The information on gg-bx and t of the fault found in granite in the NTS tunnel by Mr. Wilder could be interpreted somewhat differently than he does. He speaks of the fault changing within a few meters from 0.3 to 0.4 m (12 to 16 in.) of clay gg to "a highly fractured zone with significantly altered rock and some slickensides," but no gg. The highly fractured rock may be taken to be bx, rock not so finely ground as gg but still crushed by the fault movement, equivalent to the gg in my usage, and probably occupying about the same t. Mr. Wilder's estimates for the fault in the NTS tunnel for t of 0.3 to 0.4 m (12 to 16 in.) and for d of a quartz vein, in excess of "a few meters," would place the point on the low side of the central trend line in my Fig. 1, at the lower limit. There is, of course, a problem with determining d using displacement of only one planar surface. It would be greater or lesser depending on the rake of the movement. Finally, estimating the d of a fault from its t should be made with awareness of our present uncertainties, as pointed out by Mr. Wilder. Although the central trend line in my Fig. 1 has a ratio of d/t of 100, I have put the limiting ratios at 10 and 1000. Understanding of the values of the ratio will be improved only with collection of more data, for which the discussion of Mr. Wilder is much appreciated. ? G.C. Waterman E.C. Robertson's paper provides significant information to a geologist attempting to deduce fault offset by noting the products of structural dislocation. However, considerable mapping in underground and open-pit mines, and examination of structures produced in different geological settings, have convinced me that gouge and breccia thickness are controlled by geological conditions and fault movement. The following paragraphs suggest geological variables that control them. 1. Depth of Loading A near-surface fault resulting from tensional stress has more breccia/gouge than is produced by a similar stress at considerable depth. A deep-loaded compressional stress may produce a linear zone of schist, or structural dislocation may occur along an earlier formed belt of schist. Such "shear zones" are common in Canadian mines in precambrian rocks. In neither case can offset be directly deduced by an analysis of the minimal gouge/breccia in the shistose rocks. At greater depth, stress may be partially to wholly relieved by flowage. I vividly recall first noting the regional "Midas Thrust" in the Lark mine, Bingham Mining District, UT (where we called the structure the North Fault). My recorded notes, as I remember them, showed a narrow gouge streak separated the "Jordan" and "Commercial" limestone units from impure, muddy limestone beds of uncertain stratigraphic position. The visible structure did not indicate the great importance of this premineral fault

Jan 1, 1985

By K. A. Grace

K.A. Grace's article advocates usage of the terms describing resources as defined by the US Bureau of Mines (USBM) and the US Geological Survey (USGS). Originally recommended in 1943, the terms were revised in 1976 and again in 1980. Mr. Grace further recommends that the term reserves should be severely restricted and that it should encompass mining and processing factors. The list of references quoted in the article does not, however, mention the study concerning reserves that was made over a period of almost four years by a joint Committee on Definitions. This committee was sponsored by three societies - the American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers (AIME), the Society of Economic Geologists (SEG), and the American Institute of Professional Geologists (AIPG). Most of the detailed work was done by a working party appointed by the Society of Mining Engineers (SME) of AIME. After studying previous definitions in the US as well as in the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, France, and other European countries, the following definitions were proposed and accepted in 1974 by the SME board of directors. (Ore reserve definitions in Rhodesia, South Africa, or New Zealand were not mentioned as having been reviewed.) Table 1 lists definitions from MINING ENGINEERING, July 1975. Notice in Table 1 it was mentioned, under Resources, that the definitions of reserves were recommended for the purposes of commercial evaluation. It was further stated that the terminology adopted by the USBM and the USGS, as released to the public, covering resources, was recognized as such. Mr. Grace also recommends that reserve calculations should allow for future losses in ore tonnage, ore grade, milling, and smelting. Unfortunately, it might take years to develop a prospect after it has been discovered. Mining methods have to be tested before being finalized in order to know what tonnage of ore is going to be lost, or how much dilution is likely to occur. The same problems are present in concentrating or in smelting. Operating mines usually know how mined grade compares with ore reserve grade. They can usually predict fairly closely what their final metal recoveries are probably going to be. It is, however, expecting too much to have to delay quoting reserves from say a recently drilled prospect. Any responsible mining geologist or mining engineer (or company for that matter) should state several things about an ore reserve calculation: that it is or is not a preliminary estimate only; that estimated grades have not been diluted to allow for a future, as yet unknown, mining method; that metal recoveries are or are not only tentative, based perhaps on drill hole samples only or on no metallurgical testing at all. Reserves of a partially explored prospect are always quoted when it becomes necessary to raise capital. If they are described as preliminary only (really just tonnage and grade estimates and not true "reserves") in addition to being accompanied by some of the items just mentioned, nobody is going to be misled. If, on the other hand, a report by a member of the SME or SEG is intentionally misleading, the individual must be reported and eventually disbarred from his or her society. To summarize, let us stay with the definitions of ore, ore reserves, and related terms as recommended and accepted by SME. I might add that on occasion I have used a fourth category in my ore reserve calculations, namely Geologically Possible Ore. This category is more or less the same as Inferred ore defined by the USBM and USGS. I have never given a grade to this category, which may be based only on geological mapping, geochemical sampling, or geophysical traversing.

Jan 8, 1985

A. Cook K.A. Grace's article advocates usage of the terms describing resources as defined by the US Bureau of Mines (USBM) and the US Geological Survey (USGS). Originally recommended in 1943, the terms were revised in 1976 and again in 1980. Mr. Grace further recommends that the term reserves should be severely restricted and that it should encompass mining and processing factors. The list of references quoted in the article does not, however, mention the study concerning reserves that was made over a period of almost four years by a joint Committee on Definitions. This committee was sponsored by three societies - the American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers (AIME), the Society of Economic Geologists (SEG), and the American Institute of Professional Geologists (AIPG). Most of the detailed work was done by a working party appointed by the Society of Mining Engineers (SME) of AIME. After studying previous definitions in the US as well as in the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, France, and other European countries, the following definitions were proposed and accepted in 1974 by the SME board of directors. (Ore reserve definitions in Rhodesia, South Africa, or New Zealand were not mentioned as having been reviewed. Table 1 lists definitions from MINING ENGINEERING, July 1975. Notice in Table 1 it was mentioned, under Resources, that the definitions of reserves were recommended for the purposes of commercial evaluation. It was further stated that the terminology adopted by the USBM and the USGS, as released to the public, covering resources, was recognized as such. Mr. Grace also recommends that reserve calculations should allow for future losses in ore tonnage, ore grade, milling, and smelting. Unfortunately, it might take years to develop a prospect after it has been discovered. Mining methods have to be tested before being finalized in order to know what tonnage of ore is going to be lost, or how much dilution is likely to occur. The same problems are present in concentrating or in smelting. Operating mines usually know how mined grade compares with ore reserve grade. They can usually predict fairly closely what their final metal recoveries are probably going to be. It is, however, expecting too much to have to delay quoting reserves from say a recently drilled prospect. Any responsible mining geologist or mining engineer (or company for that matter) should state several things about an ore reserve calculation: that it is or is not a preliminary estimate only; that estimated grades have not been diluted to allow for a future, as yet unknown, mining method; that metal recoveries are or are not only tentative, based perhaps on drill hole samples only or on no metallurgical testing at all. [ ] Reserves of a partially explored prospect are always quoted when it becomes necessary to raise capital. If they are described as preliminary only (really just tonnage and grade estimates and not true "reserves") in addition to being accompanied by some of the items just mentioned, nobody is going to be misled. If, on the other hand, a report by a member of the SME or SEG is intentionally misleading, the individual must be reported and eventually disbarred from his or her society. To summarize, let us stay with the definitions of ore, ore reserves, and related terms as recommended and accepted by SME. I might add that on occasion I have used a fourth category in my ore reserve calculations, namely Geologically Possible Ore. This category is more or less the same as Inferred ore defined by the USBM and USGS. I have never given a grade to this category, which may be based only on geological mapping, geochemical sampling, or geophysical traversing. ?

Jan 1, 1986

By D. F. Ball, P. R. Dawson, J. T. Fitton

Report of discussion at December, 1970, IMM general meeting (Chairman: M. J. Cahalan, President) and contributed remarks on the paper published in Transactions/Section C (Mineral Processing & Extractive Metallurgy), vol. 79, September, 1970, pp. C189-96, plus the authors' replies. Contributors included Cohen E., Hope B., Wasse D.G., Shakespeare A.G., Burwood D.S., Jones H.A., Dartnell J., Carter G.C., Henderson T.A., Relf G. and Clark S.W.

Dec 1, 1971

By S. Y. Ezz

Report of discussion at February, 1971, IMM general meeting (Chairman : M. J. Cahalan, President) of a paper published in Transactions/ Section C (Mineral Processing & Extractive Metallurgy), vol. 79, September, 1970, pp. C226-C233 with contributions by Wild R. and Astier J. on fluidised bed reduction of iron ore fines

Dec 1, 1971

By B. W. Hester

Report of discussion at January, 1971, general meeting (Chairman: M. J. Cahalan, President) of the paper published in Transactions/Section B (Applied Earth Science), vol. 79, May, 1970, pp. B60-B67, and contributed remarks. Comments were made by Taylor J.T.M., James C.H., Lethbridge R.F. and Heath K.C.G.

Dec 1, 1971

By A. W. Fletcher

Report of discussion at February, 1971, IMM general meeting (Chairman: M. J, Cahalan President) of a paper published in Transactions/Section C (Mineral Processing & Extractive Metallurgy), vol. 79, December, 1970, pp. C247-52, and contributed remarks. Contributions are included from: Cahalan M.J., giving figures related to leaching Cu from pyrite at Rio Tinto 1880-1910; Noakes F.D.L.; Embling P.M.K.; Bradshaw A.V.; Le Roux N.W.; Kelly D.P.; and Tuovinen O.H. Questions were raised regarding impurity removal, effects of light and ultraviolet light on the bacteria, the economics of solvent extraction and the possibilities for other organisms or other metals

Dec 1, 1971

By J. R. Hammond, I. C. Herbert

Report of discussion at October, 1970, IMM general meeting (Chairman: M. J. Cahalan, President) and contributed remarks on the paper published in Transactions/Section C (Mineral Processing & Extractive Metallurgy), vol. 79, June, 1970, pp. C128-36 and introduced by I.C. Herbert. Contributors were von Struve G., on the application of balling discs and the use of basic additives; Young P.A., asking for details of the drying, grinding, balling, induration and specification testing equipment and processes; Davison J. on pellet swelling properties and Carter G.C. on disc operation, refractories and green ball properties.

Dec 1, 1971

By S. V. Shiraishi, H. B. Bell

Report of discussion at February, 1971, IMM general meeting (Chairman: M. J. Cahalan, President) of a paper published in Transactions/Section C (Mineral Processing & Extractive Metallurgy), vol. 79, June, 1970, pp. C120-C127, with a contribution by Wright P.A. on the miscibility gap

Dec 1, 1971

C. W. MERRILL*—Mr. Hughes' paper not only is very well presented but is most timely in that it covers a subject of vital interest to the United States. Tin is one of the strategic metals which has not been found here in appreciable quantities. The total United States tin output since the first recorded production over 100 years ago would not supply current consumption for a fortnight. On the consumption side, tin is extremely important in national defense because of its use in tin plate which, in the form of tin cans, makes it possible to feed properly the armies that the United States recruits from its civilian population in emergencies. Moreover, the internal combustion engines so important in powering tanks, planes, and other war machines, require large quantities of tin alloys for bearings and for soldering. These considerations, along with the fact that Malaya, historically, has been the leading source of tin to the United States, make the kind of information that Mr. Hughes has presented so ably. a matter of vital interest. Your Chairman, Mr. Romanowitz, in his introduction, referred to the fact that I had been a member of the United States delegations to the three meetings of the International Tin Study Group. Some comments on the Group's objectives and deliberations may be of interest. When it appeared that the International Tin Committee, the prewar producer's cartel, might soon revive its operations and extend its control agreement beyond the expiration date of Dec. 31, 1946, the United States Government became interested in some kind of an international trade organization concerned with tin which would give the consumers' interest equal representation with the producers' interests. An international meeting was called in London in October 1946 to consider this problem. I did not attend that meeting hut the result of the meeting was the organization of the International 'Tin Study Group which

Jan 1, 1950

R. B. BRINSMADE, Ixmiquilpan, Hgo, Mexico* (written discussion). As the discussion of Mr. Graton's paper by Messrs. Norris, Patterson, and Crane has been from the standpoint of the mineral land-value owners, a few remarks in the interest of the "under dog"-the average taxpayer and citizen-may prove timely. In my discussion of Doctor Raymond's Paper1 and of the papers of Messrs. Gibson2 and Godson, 3 have endeavored to demonstrate, from both political economy and history, that our existing system of unrestricted private ownership of land is incompatible with equality of economic opportunity and, therefore, subversive of our democratic political institutions. In Mr. Graton's paper, the same land problem is important, though camouflaged by the failure of the Federal income tax laws to distinguish between land and capital, in the requirements for valuation, or between earned and unearned incomes in the levying of taxes. I disagree with Mr. Graton's statement, on p. 2967, as follows: The immense majority of mining ventures are failures. A multitude of disappointments is relieved by occasional success. Were it not for the chance of great rewards, all the vitally necessary but mainly unremunerative work of exploration would not be undertaken. In contrast with nearly all other fields of endeavor, it is altogether unlikely that, on the whole, the gains in the successful mining ventures suffice to offset the losses in the unsuccessful.

Jan 3, 1920

Lake Superior Meeting . PAGE Gathmann, Emil.-Casting and Molding Steel Ingots. Discussed by J. W. Richards.. 2 McCaffery, R. S.-The Acid Bessemer Process. Discussed by Bradley Stoughton, J. W. Richards 3 Elliott, S. R.-Athens System of Mining. Discussed by F. W. Sperr, Lucien Eaton 4 Mercer, H. T. and Paulson, A. C.-Handling and Treatment of Rock-drill Steel at Copper Range Mines. Discussed by Harrison Souder, H. T. Mercer, W. H. Schacht, C. M. Haight 5 Hayden, J. E. and Eaton, Lucien.-Building Reinforced-concrete Shaft Houses. Discussed by William Kelly, T. L. Condron, Lucien Eaton 7 Eaton, Lucien.-Mechanical Ventilation at Lake Mine. Discussed by C. A. Mitke 8 Schacht, W. H.-Steam Regenerators Reduce Coal Consumption. Discussed by 0. P. Hood, W. H. Schacht ? 9 Linton, Robert.-Standardizing at North Butte Mining Co. Discussed by Grant H. Tod, C. A. Mitke 10 Smith, H. DeWitt and Sirdevan, W. H.-Mining Methods and Costs at United Verde Mine. Discussed by C. A. Mitke 12 Davy, Myron A.-Reflecting Microscope for the Mining Engineer. Discussed by C. P. Berkey, W. A. Rukeyser 14 , Norden, J. A. and Willson, A. R.-Hoisting Equipment at Utah-Apex Mining Co. Discussed by E. M. Norris 17 Aldrich, H. R.-The Dip Needle in Stratigraphy. Discussed by H. R. Aldrich, W. 0. Hotchkiss, Carl Zapffe, E. A. Kronquist 18

Jan 1, 1921

NEW YORK MEETING PAGE Winchell, H. V.-Geology of Pachuca and El Oro, Mexico. Discussed by Frederick MacCoy, Robert Hawxhurst, Jr 2 WILKES-BARRE MEETING Kynor, Herbert D.-Mechanical Mining of Anthracite. Discussed by C. Evans, Jr., S. J. Jennings, W. J. Richards, Geo. S. Rice, and the author 3 Stein, C. H.-Ashley Planes for Handling Freight Traffic. Discussed by Graham Bright, Douglas Bunting, S. J. Jennings, R. V. Norris, C. H. Strange, Edwin Ludlow, W. J. Richards, and the author 3 Markle, Donald.-Anthracoal: A New Domestic and Metallurgical Fuel. Discussed by William Griffith, Edwin Ludlow, E. M. Chance, Charles Dorrance, E. W. Parker, G. H. Ashley, C. A. Burdick, Geo. S. Rice, and the author :.. 7 Griffen, John.-Slush Problem in Anthracite Preparation. Discussed by Henry Flood, Jr 11 Eavenson, H. N.-Lynch Plant of United States Coal and Coke Co. Discussed by E. V. d'Invilliers, C. Evans, Jr., Graham Bright, Geo. S. Rice, Geo. Otis Smith, A. M. Rodgers, C. T. Starr, C. A. Burdick, and the author 15 Bunting, Douglas.-Mine Fires Extinguished by Sealing. Discussed by Geo. S. Rice, J. B. Warriner, H. H. Otto, Edwin Ludlow, E. M. Chance, F. B. Nold, H. M. Chance, W. L. Jacobus, J. A. S. Ritson, R. D. Hall, Geo. S. Rice, and the author 18 Bright, Graham.-Determination of Electrical Equipment for a Mine Hoist. Discussed by F. L. Stone, Geo. S. Rice, L. F. Mitten, and the author 34

Jan 12, 1921

By U. N. Bhrany, N. Arbiter

F. C. Bond (Consulting Engineer, Processing Machin-Dept., AllisChalmers Manufacturing Co., Milwaukee) This is a very comprehensive paper. It deals with 1) size distribution functions, 2) energy-particle size relationships, and 3) criteria for grinding efficiency. The method of analysis used consists of tracing the increase and decrease of successive Tyler scale screen fractions as grinding progresses. The treatment is based upon the assumption that the work done in grinding is concentrated entirely upon the coarse size fractions in the mill. It is postulated that when a feed consisting entirely of particles of one size fraction is batch ground that finer fractions increase at a constant rate as grinding progresses, until finally each in turn begins to be ground and to decrease in amount. It is shown that under these conditions the empirical Gates-Gaudin-Schuhmann log-log size distribution plot can be logically explained. It is difficult to imagine any condition of ball mill operation, or any probability analysis, which would result in no grinding contacts on the finer particles present. However, the authors' postulate must be accepted if their conclusions are to be sustained. They conclude that the equation expressing the for mation rate of each size fraction can be resolved into the G.-G.-S. size distribution equation, and that the curvilinear portion of the log-logsize distribution line represents the only particle sizes which are being ground as well as produced. The author's statement that the G.-G.-S. Eq. 4 applies only to the finer portion of the size distribution while the Rosin-Rammler Eq. 6 applies over the whole size distribution range certainly supports the view that an exponential equation of the Rosin-Rammler type corresponds more closely to actual size distribution than does the power law G.-G.-S. equation. However, the G.-G.-S. equation is used to derive Eq. 8 and Eq. 9, which state that the energy required to grind a ton through a particular mesh varies inversely as the particle size to the exponent -a , whic h is the slope of the extended G.-G.-S straight line. This is stated to apply to both batch and continuous grinding. The G.-G.-S. slope exponent thus becomes very important in all crushing and grinding analyses by this method. The authors include some data which can be used to test their conclusions, as described below: We will consider grinding a feed composed of 14 mesh (1190u) to -200 mesh (74u). The average of 17 Allis-Chalmers grindability tests on quartz gives a work index (Wi) of 12.77. The -200 mesh product should have 80 pct passing 41.6u or P = 41.6. The equivalent 80 pct passing size of the 14 mesh feed particles is considered to be the particle diameter, as is true for spherical particles. Thus F is 1190u. In the work index equation 10 wi 10 wi 127.7 127.7 P f 41.6 1190 = 16.1 kw-hrperton. In Table I the ball mill exponent for quartz is 1.0 and from Eqs. 9 and 10: w=kw-hr/ton =Constan/(do/di) = 16.1 ton so that (1190) Constant/ Constant and the Constant equals 259. The tons per horsepower-hour value is 0.0464, in agreement with Table IV. The exponents for other minerals are listed in Tabl e 11. In Table IIA, the kilowatt hours per ton required to grind these minerals between the same sizes as the quartz, both by the authors' method and the work index equation, are listed. According to the authors kw-hrperton = 259/(16.1)".

Jan 1, 1961

By S. R. B. Cooke, Iwao Iwasaki, Hyung Sup Choi

John Dasher (Materials and Processes Engineer, Crucible Steel Co. of America, Pittsburgh, Pa.) The authors are to be congratulated for their excellent work, dramatic results, and persuasive explanation on the neglected subject of the temperature variable in soap flotation. The explanation includes why heat is helpful in conditioning and why heat is helpful in flotation. This is a fine start, but I hope the work will be continued to show which is the major effect. In the work of Noman and Dash er(1) it was found that substantially all the benefit of heat came from the conditioning step, and that results were much better if a thick pulp was conditioned hot and then diluted with unheated (or less heated) water for flotation (or agglomerate tabling) than if the same quantity of heat was used to condition and float at some intermediate temperature. In other words, heat for conditioning gives a Rood return, but additional heat for dilution water is near or beyond the point of diminishing return. Strathmore R. B. Cooke, lwao lawsaki, and Hyung Su0p Choi (Authors' Reply) Mr. Dasher'skind comments on our paper are appreciated. In view of the relative simplicity of empirical investigationsof the temperature variable upon conditioning and flotation, it ispuzzling why the subject is so neglected. Our work, being sub sidiary to the main investigation of the effect of structure of fatty acid collectorsupon iron ore flotation, was quite restricted, but we intend to return to the subject as soon as possible. Mr. Dasher's point, that given a certain number of calories it is better to invest them for conditioning in a thick pulp rather than to spread them out for both conditioning and flotation operations, is well taken and cannot be argued. On the other hand there is no question that high temperature during the flotation of iron ores induces superior frothing characteristics, and, in particular, greatly augments the rate of flotation and markedly decreases the time required for "difficult" particles to float.

Jan 1, 1961

By R. Schuhmann

D. W. Fuerstenau (Associate Professor of Metallurgy, Dept. of Mineral Technology, University of California, Berkeley, Calif.) In his excellent paper, Dr. Schuhmann has proposed a mechanism for conlrninution which can be utilized to explain a number of phenomena which have been observed in the size reduction of solids. The difference between the product obtained from a ball mill and from a rod mill can readily be explained by Dr. Schuhmann's hypothesis. Consider that the size distribution of the product from each comminution event is given by y; - 100 (x/ki) (1) where Yi is the cumulative percent finer than size x, ki is the size modulus, and is the distribution modulus for the single comminution event. The total product from a cornminution operation will be the summation of the products from all of the individual cornrninution events. If the size moduli from the various comminution events range from kl to kn , the size distribution of the total product will be a straight line on a log-log plot only to a particle size equal to k ,. Considering 100 volurnes of feed, the value of y for x equal to kl is Riven by where y is the cumulative percent finer than size kj, z is the number of comminution events of kind i, and vi is the volume of each particle crushed. y=z1 qv1+z2 qv2 (k1/k2) +.............zn qvn (k1/kn) (3) F or particle sizes greater than k1 7 e. 6. x = k3, the value of y will be given by k3 A y = z1 qv1 + z2bv2 + Z3uV3 + zn zn qvn (k3/kn)(4) Only when x is equal to k, will y equal 100. 'Thus, the total product from a comminution operation will be a straight line on a log-log plot strictly up to a particle size equal to kl and above that size the line will curve so that y will equal 100 for the coarsest particle or k, (see Fig. 1). The actual shape of the size of distribution curve will depend upon the relative number of conmninution events of different kinds. In the case of ball milling, the ratio kn/kl may be pite large and there will be considerable deviation at the coarse sizes in a Schuhmann plot. kIowever, the grinding action in a rod mill is such that fine particles are protected from the rods by the coarse particles. Consequently, kn/kl will be quite small and the product from a rod mill will give a straight line Schuhmann plot almost to y equal 100%. In his paper, Dr. Schuhmann also has presented a very straightforward definition of grindability derived from the basic energy equation E = Ak-a (5) where E is the energy required to comminute a material to a size modulus of k and A is a constant. According to Dr. Schuhmann, the grindability of a material is the volume of material comminuted finer than unit size per unit of energy expended, this being 1/A. For comparison of grindabilities at any size two numbers are required, both = and 1/A, and anyone tabulating grindabilities should give both of these numbers. Concerning the experimental determination of grindabilities, if the material being comminuted possesses distinct cleavage, the energy re quired for comminution is given by E = Ak-(a-y) (6) where y is small number less than = . Because of cleavage, less energy will be required for comminution. To be certain that cleavage does not affect the gindability of the material being tested, it is suggested that the method used by Dr. Charles for determining grindability be used to ascertain if the deviation exponent y is zero or finite. R. Schuhmann, Jr. (Author's Reply) Dr. Fuerstenau's interesting comparison of rod milling and ball milling

Jan 1, 1961

By J. L. Gillson

Joseph H. Birman (Chairman, Dept. of Geolcgy, Occidental College, Los Angeles, Calif.) Many thanks to J. L. Gillson for so comprehensive a survey of the titanium sand deposits of the world. Over the past two years, the writer studied rather carefully some of the Cretaceous ilmenite deposits in New Mexico and Colorado, including the Sanostee deposit shown in Gillson' s map, Fig. 6. The deposits were geologically mapped and sampled, surveyed by magnetometer, and the Sanostee deposit was drilled. Moat of the genetic interpretations made by Gillson concerning the recent sedimentary ilmenites can be clearly read in the Cre-taceous deposits in New Mexico. The deposits are in marine regressive members of the Mesaverde group. The deposits trend within a few degrees of N 55° W and persistence of this trend through both distance and time (the deposits are in different members of the Mesaverde group) implies that the deposits are offshore bar accumulations. Heavy mineral content ranges from about 10 pct to more than 50 pet. Thicknesses are from 4 ft to as much as 20 ft, widths range from 150 to 600 ft, and lengths range from a few thousand feet to a few miles. All are locally or completely overlain by carbonaceous shale and thin coal. The deposits are strongly altered, and from X-ray diffraction the principal titanium alteration product appears to be anatase. Drilling of the Sanostee deposit shows that the alteration is not related to the present erosion surface but took place at the site of deposition and before burial by the overlying sediments. Iron oxide derived from the alteration cements the grains and is the chief coloring agent in the immediately overlying shales. In the Sanostee deposit, there is virtually no feldspar, the gangue mineral being almost exclusively quartz. Sorting is excellent, but the quartz grains are subangular to angular. Petrographic examination reveals that the angularity is not due to overgrowths. Therefore, short distance transport is implied. The mineralogical composition suggests a low relief granitic terrane as the source area. Feldspar may have been decomposed by weathering at the source, but an alternative preferred by the writer is that each of the deposits represents a long-term concentration site (for example a large sand bar) which was continually being deprived of light minerals by wave action and selective transport. Feldspar may have been mechanically reduced in size more quickly than the quartz, and thus its rate of removal may have exceeded that of quartz. Concentration of heavy minerals would thus occur until the marine regression removed the zone of maximum wave energy from the site. Chemical alteration would then become the most important process until burial by encroaching swamp deposits.

Jan 1, 1961

By R. F. Shurtz

R. Duval (Mining Engineer, Ancien eleve de PEcole Polytechnique, Paris, France) I do not agree with the Eq. 3, reading: m =1/100- [(0.214x30.4) + (0.7B6 x0.00)] =6.5pct CaO If 0.214 and0.786 were proportions by weight, the equation would represent the well known mixtures law of the conventional arithmetics and 6. 5 pct CaO would be the correct average content. But it is not the case as the author states: "In samples consisting of single grains of mineral, those grains must, as already mentioned, be either of dolomite or magnesite. Since 78.6 pct of the deposit consists of magnesite and 21.4 pct of dolomite (excluding for present purpose the presence of other minerals), for any single grains picked at random the probability will be 0.214 that is it dolomite and0.786 that is it magnesite. In 1000 such samples the expected numbers of dolomite and mapesite grains will be 214 and 786 respectively." 0.214 and 0.786 would be proportions by weigbt under the necessary condition that all grains of dole mite and magnesite should have an identical weight. Obviously it is not the case, as the specific gravities are not the same for mapesite and dolomite and the volumes of the grains are different. Furthermore, because of these differences the conditions for a random sampling are not fulfilled and we are not authorized to state that the probabilities are, respectively, 0.214 and 0.786. The author however makes a simple application of Eq. 1: M = 1/n— ? fi x i . n Should we deduce that this relation is wrohg? Not at all, but when applying Eq. 1 you must not overlook what it actually. means. Eq. 1 gives a definition of the arithmetic mean of a total of n observed values Xi and nothing else. But the average conteht of a deposit has not the same significance. It is the ratio between the weight of concerned mineral in the deposit and the total weight of the deposit. As from 1000 particles the 214 of dolomite and the 786 of magnesite have not the same weight, the two definitions do not concur, and when applying Eq. 1 the result is an arithmetic mean of figures which has no connection with what is named average contentof a deposit. The situation is similar to the calculation of an average velocity. If a car travels a first mile over at 30 miles per hr and a second mile over at 60 miles per hr, when applying formula 1 you find as average velocity for the 2 miles: 30+60 ------- - 45 miles per hour. Many people calculate in this way and they do not realize that a mistake is involved. In fact the definition of he average velocity for the 2 miles is the quotient of the distance of 2 miles by the time (in hours) necessary for 2 miles travel, i.e.: 2 ---------- = 40 miles per hr. 1 + 1 30 60 In other words, the average volocity wanted is not the arithmetic but the harmonic average of the two velocities. The above mentioned bias in the calculation of the average contents of deposits is frequent, even in the assessments made by experienced engineers and is independant of what is named the sampling error. In order to supress the bias and to be able to use Eq. 1, you must apply a correction. An example on the subject can be found in an article by Duval et al. in the January 1955 issue of the ''Annales des Mines" (French), page 19. R. F. Schurtz (Author's Reply) Mr. Duval's position is quite correct. The proportions shown for dolomite and magnesite., respectively, of 0.214 and 0.786 are, in fact, proportions by weight uncorrected for specific gravity. In our day to day operation of producing magnesite from these mines at a very substantial rate, we do not normally make corrections for the difference between the specific gravity of dolomite and that of magnesite. If these corrections are made in Eq. 3 as shown in my article, then the numbers of grains turn out to be in proportions of 0.226 dolomite and 0.774 mapesite instead of the values actually shown in the equation. For the purposes of our work, and in view of the inherently low accuracy of the data, this correction was not deemed worthwhile making.

Jan 1, 1961