Search Documents

By Z. F. Danes

Combination of gravity data and density logs makes it possible to determine the structural relief. Under a wide class of geologic conditions, the solution is unique, or limited to a single parametric system of solutions. As a useful byproduct, the method yields a new way to construct derivative maps, continue the field up or down, subtract regional anomalies, and perform smoothing. In the past, the problem of interpreting gravity anomalies in terms of structural geology was solved along two main lines: 1) A body of a certain shape and density contrast was assumed and the corresponding gravity anomaly calculated, analytically for simple bodies, graphically and/or numerically for more complex ones; then the computed anomaly was compared with the observed one, and the assumed shape corrected according to the differences between the two. 2) The anomaly is assumed to come from a warped interface between two media of different density; the relief of the warping is assumed small compared to the depth of burial, so that the structure can be approximated by a flat horizontal surface of variable density distribution. The first method is a standard technique, described in every text book on applied geophysics, and is well applicable, for bodies with predominant vertical dimension. The second one, probably first used by Tsuboi and Fuchida,' is mathematically more elegant. It applies to the fashionable field of integral transforms (Bullard and Cooper, 2 Tomoda and Aki, 3 Dean 4) and is useful mainly in cases when the vertical relief of the structures is comparatively small. 30th methods, tacitly or openly, assume a density discontinuity across the boundary of the two media, while within each medium the density is constant. However, the recent invention of the gamma-gamma

Jan 1, 1962

By A. W. Schillinger

Drilling was not entirely satisfactory in the search for native copper in the Osceola amygdaloid footwall, for oreshoots mined were more continuous than drilling indicated. The Geophysics Dept of Michigan Technological University developed a portable induced polarization drill hole probe with a 3-electrode configuration and a sampling radius of 5 ft ±. A 20 ma current of alternately reversed polarity is pulsed at 3.5 sec intervals and readings are taken every 2 ft. Potential is read during the "on" cycle for resistivity determinations. During the "off" cycle, after 10 ms delay, the 1P potential is sampled for 10 ms and recorded. Resistivity (ohm-ft) and "S" values (mv/v) are plotted on semi-log paper. A lithologic log is plotted based on resistivity and anomalous S values noted. The low resistivity amygdaloid contains sills of high resistivity basalt. Verified by core logs, contacts between amygdaloid and basalt could be picked to ± 0.5 ft from resistivity alone. Lithologic logs of long-steel holes, based on resistivity, then replaced sludge logging. An S value of 30 mv/v was established as the lower limit of diagnostic 1P effects in mineralized amygdaloid and 50 mv/v as a threshold value for ore. Of 914 footwall zones drilled, 315 were probed yielding 203 anomalies. Success increased from 34% for drilling to 72% for drilling and probing. As checked by mining, 46 probe results were 78% correct. Failures were due to the instrument not detecting copper or to the misinterpretation of an anomaly. No false anomalies were found. During the past ten years, the Calumet Div. of Calumet &Hecla, Inc has conducted extensive exploration and mining in the footwall of the Osceola amygdaloid lode in the native copper district in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. In an attempt to delineate more clearly the extent and nature of high-grade footwall copper mineralization, 876 diamond drill and long steel holes aggregating slightly more than 47,000 ft have thus far been drilled from the accessible hanging-wall workings in the Osceola No. 6, 13, 14 and 15 shafts. Early in this program it became obvious, through inspection of footwall workings in progress, that due to the erratic and bunchy occurrence of the native copper in the footwall zone, the exploration drilling was failing to outline completely the extent of the oreshoots. Early drilling re-

Jan 1, 1964

By A. A. Brant

In this presentation, concepts of the formation and evolution of the universe, the earth, and the cyclic civilizations of man are broadly outlined. The 5 billion or more years of the universe and the 4% billion years of the earth are contrasted to the 5000 years of modern society and the 100 years of objective scientific breakthrough. THE UNIVERSE Let us start back as far as possible, to the beginnings of this universe, some 5 billion or more years ago. This is a time interval that can be crudely underestimated by the moon-earth tidal friction effects that have increased the length of the day by about 1/1000 second per century — from a 5 to 7 hour day to its present 24 — and have moved the moon away at 5 inches per year to its present 240,000 miles. The oldest stony meteorites from interplanetary space give an age dating of some 4.6 billion years, approximating the time of formation of our earth. Further, certain stars pulsate, the period of pulsation being related to their absolute brightness. Measuring apparent brightness and comparing, gives the distance away. Thus Hubble and Shapley of Harvard, from 1925 on, were able to show that the universe reached as far as our telescopes could scan. The Doppler shift of the hydrogen red lines could only mean that the nebulae, or galaxies, were moving away away at velocities increasing with their distances, by 180 km/sec velocity increase for every million light year's distance. In short, the universe is expanding like an exploded bomb. Comparing the velocity increase per million light year's distance again indicates a zero time of some 5 billion years' Thus it appears that this universe had a finite beginning. Physical measurements and present theories permit some picture of our universe's birth. We know since Einstein that many forms of energy are equivalent, e.g., mass, and electromagnetic radiation, aspects of which are heat and light. Now with expansion, radiation density or equivalent mass decreases as a length factor to the 4th power, while mass as matter decreases at a length factor cubed. The temperature in outer space is now perhaps 100° absolute and the radiation mass equivalent is but 1/1000 the rarefied interstellar gas densities. Decompressing the universe to a starting point, however, raises temperature more rapidly than mass density, and results in a high radiation mass energy fraction, which since it is proportional to temperature to the 4th power suggests a zero point temperature of several billion degrees, brighter than any sun. "Let there be light and there was light," according to Genesis 1-3. Now what further initial conditions must there be to explain the relative abundance of the elements in the universe, which by spectral analyses of the earth's crust, stony meteorites, and the sun and stars is surprisingly uniform throughout. Some 55% of all cosmic matter is hydrogen, some 44% is helium and only 1% is made up of all the heavier elements in much the same proportions as on earth. These latter decrease logarithmically in abundance up to atomic weight 100, then level out. This consistent abundance distribution of elements in the universe may be generally explained by taking at Time Zero a hot neutron gas of density about 10-3 grams per cc, at a temperature of several billion degrees Centigrade, with a high radiation energy fraction. Generally neutrons break down into positrons and electrons within about ten minutes, but at the initial high temperature and radiation pressure would recom-bine. However, with rapid expansion and decrease of temperature and pressure, the neutron disintegration would run uncompensated and aggregation would result from neutrons and protons uniting in different degrees of complexity. The total calculated element aggregation time would be about one hour while the temperature still remained above one billion degrees. The element abundances formed would depend on density of the nuclear gas, simplicity of the atom formed, and the neutron capture cross section. Thus a higher density

Jan 1, 1964

By Harold M. Mooney

The most significant trends appear to be an increased use of electromagnetic and geochemical methods. The most promising instrumental developments are airborne electromagnetic equipment, a magnetometer based on nuclear resonance, and reflection seismic equipment operable to depths less than 100 ft. Work in progress may lead to a one-man magnetometer capable of high precision and continuous recording.

Jan 3, 1955

By Allen Rogers

IT has always seemed to me that there is a certain similarity between the work of the mining engineer and that of the doctor of medicine-each has very often to be governed in his actions by conditions which he cannot. see. It is not necessary to detail the unseen conditions with which the mining engineer or geologist has to deal-the further extension of orebodies; the existence of new ones, the throw of a fault, the probable change in grade or character of the ore with advance of the workings, are a few of the conditions which the mining engineer has to determine as well as he can from the deductions he is able to make from what he can observe. Just so the physician is often confronted with conditions that he can not observe. Probably less than half of human ills make a manifestation at the surface of the body from which definite and certain conclusions can be drawn. The diagnostician must observe various things and, from these observations in combination, conclude what 'his course should be to bring about the cure of the trouble. Both professions would be assisted immensely by any agency that would permit them to look below the surface, something that would make more certain the diagnosis which each is called upon to make. The physician has had such an agency since 1895, when Röntgen discovered the X-ray; which, by making possible shadowgraphs of the osseous portion of the human body, advanced immensely the diagnosis of bone lesions. Later, with improvement in the technique and more understanding in the interpretation of what the photographic plate shows, other portions of the human anatomy could be examined and at the present time there is hardly an instance of internal disorder to which the aid of the X-ray is not called. Some organs are made opaque by administering mineral substances; in, other cases, conclusions are drawn from barely perceptible shadows on the photographic plate. Generally the surgeon's knife is directed with exactitude to the seat of the trouble and so not only is the difficulty revealed but the necessity for an exploratory' operation is averted.

Jan 1, 1928

By C. A. HEILANDG

THERE is a need for men well trained in geo- physical prospecting. Although the number of geophysicists required by the industry in the future cannot be expected to be very great, there will always be a demand for courses on the subject. A number of educational institutions are, therefore, interested in providing instruction in geophysical prospecting. Some institutions will be satisfied with courses in general geophysical prospecting designed to give the geologist fundamental concepts on the comparative merits of the methods and the interpretation of the results. Other institutions will want to give special instructions in theory, field procedure, and interpretation of any or all geophysical methods. In giving such special courses a number of problems will be faced, and it seems to me that such difficulties are easier to overcome in an engineering institution than in a university. A knowledge of basic engineering subjects, such as required of all students in an engineering school, seems to be the best foundation upon

Jan 1, 1930

By H. Landsberg

The curriculum presented here is an outgrowth of discussions by the Committee on Geophysics Courses of the A.I.M.E. in previous years. It had to be a compromise between the desires voiced by employers of geophysicists, professional geophysicists and the possibilities at an average college. There one has to face the questions of the available teaching staff, the inertia of administrators and teachers set in their ways, and the red tape involved in modernizing antiquated curricula. It is, of course, not ideal to have colleges and universities lag Io years behind the times. Rather, instead of being prodded by industry, they should be ahead of industrial needs. There should also be a certain amount of leeway for the student in any college curriculum. All these points had to be considered in drawing up a curriculum, which, instead of being narrowly termed "geology" or "geophysics" was rather called "earth science." It gives the student a chance to specialize in one of the various branches represented by teachers on the faculty of The Pennsylvania State College, giving as options Geology (with subdivisions of Mineralogy and Paleontology), Geophysics, Geography, and Meteorology. Table iA represents the option of geophysics in the curriculum that envisages that a student may want to make his career in any of the fields encompassed by the American Geophysical Union or in geoexploration. This is, of course, only the start of an education that in most cases will have to be followed by graduate work for complete professional training. The outlined curriculum is definitely of an engineering type and is identical for all of the four options mentioned for the first two years. Specialization will start in the junior year but even thereafter the branches are kept as closely allied as feasible in order to permit a student to change from one tO the other (e.g., because of a different aspect in the mployment situation) with a minimum of additional work. Table IB shows the geophysics option according to subject matter, indicating the considerable amount of work in the fundamentals of mathematics, physics and chemistry with a liberal number of geology courses, and some engineering. The courses in the field of geophysics are limited—just two lecture courses as a general introduction and one field course, to permit the student a visualization of the correlation between mathematically analyzed physical data and the geological realities. Thesis work is considered essential to teach the student, while he is still in college, some things S. F. Kelly has mentioned as desirable: (I) following of instructions for somewhat independent work; (2) organizing of material, and (3) producing a readable report. This, together with the personal contact with the advising faculty member, will help in forming a student's personality. The seminar course attempts to get the student into the habit of reading current literature, so that he can keep abreast of the times.

Jan 1, 1946

By H. Landsberg

The curriculum presented here is an outgrowth of discussions by the Committee on Geophysics Courses of the A.I.M.E. in previous years. It had to be a compromise between the desires voiced by employers of geophysicists, professional geophysicists and the possibilities at an average college. There one has to face the questions of the available teaching staff, the inertia of administrators and teachers set in their ways, and the red tape involved in modernizing antiquated curricula. It is, of course, not ideal to have colleges and universities lag Io years behind the times. Rather, instead of being prodded by industry, they should be ahead of industrial needs. There should also be a certain amount of leeway for the student in any college curriculum. All these points had to be considered in drawing up a curriculum, which, instead of being narrowly termed "geology" or "geophysics" was rather called "earth science." It gives the student a chance to specialize in one of the various branches represented by teachers on the faculty of The Pennsylvania State College, giving as options Geology (with subdivisions of Mineralogy and Paleontology), Geophysics, Geography, and Meteorology. Table iA represents the option of geophysics in the curriculum that envisages that a student may want to make his career in any of the fields encompassed by the American Geophysical Union or in geoexploration. This is, of course, only the start of an education that in most cases will have to be followed by graduate work for complete professional training. The outlined curriculum is definitely of an engineering type and is identical for all of the four options mentioned for the first two years. Specialization will start in the junior year but even thereafter the branches are kept as closely allied as feasible in order to permit a student to change from one tO the other (e.g., because of a different aspect in the mployment situation) with a minimum of additional work. Table IB shows the geophysics option according to subject matter, indicating the considerable amount of work in the fundamentals of mathematics, physics and chemistry with a liberal number of geology courses, and some engineering. The courses in the field of geophysics are limited—just two lecture courses as a general introduction and one field course, to permit the student a visualization of the correlation between mathematically analyzed physical data and the geological realities. Thesis work is considered essential to teach the student, while he is still in college, some things S. F. Kelly has mentioned as desirable: (I) following of instructions for somewhat independent work; (2) organizing of material, and (3) producing a readable report. This, together with the personal contact with the advising faculty member, will help in forming a student's personality. The seminar course attempts to get the student into the habit of reading current literature, so that he can keep abreast of the times.

Jan 1, 1946

By J. B. Macelwane

Geophysics differs from geology and physics in in many respects. In the first place, geophysics is a complex science embracing the fields of seismology, geomagnetism, geoelectricity, geodesy, meteorology, vol-canology, physical oceanography, physical hydrology, tectonophysics and exploration geophysics. Geology is also a complex science and so extensive in its various fields that no one can master them all, and no part of geology deals in any sense with several of these fields of geophysics. In the second place, geophysics makes use of methods and instruments that are derived primarily from the science of physics. Geology, on the other hand, has methods of its own and it draws its borrowed techniques and its instrumental equipment not only from physics but also and perhaps primarily from chemistry and biology. The difference, therefore, between the geophysicist and the geologist lies partly in the phenomena that are observed, partly in the methods and instruments with which each carries on his exploration; but partly also, and perhaps principally, in the habitual attitude of mind and in the background of specialized training with which each approaches the problems presented by this planet of ours. The geologist as such, therefore, is no geophysicist. On the other hand, the physicist is not a geophysicist either. Isolation of each problem in a closed laboratow system under complete control is fundamental to the methods of the physicist. The geophysicist must apply physical instruments and physicomathematical reasoning to the study of physical quantities in their undisturbed natural environment. What, then, is a geophysicist? In the sense that he is a trained expert in all of the geophysical sciences, I do not believe that such a person ever existed. It would be beyond the possibilities of a single lifetime. I think there is confusion in our ideas and in our use of terms. We are not all thinking of the same thing when we say geophysics or geophysicist; yet we seem to talk as though we were. It is as absurd to say that the whole of geophysics belongs to geology because the field of a particular type of geophysicist—the exploration geophysicist —calls for some knowledge of geology as it would be to say that the whole of biology belongs to geology because a particular type of biologist—the paleontologist— needs some knowledge of geology. Development of a Geophysicist Since it is impossible to become an expert in all the fields of geophysics, and since students entering college seldom know the field they will choose as a career, what would we suggest as the best general preparation for work in geophysics, whether as a meteorologist, an oceanographer, a seismologist, a geodesist, a geomagneticist, a volcanologist, a tectonophysicist, a hydro1 ogist, or an exploration geophysicistp we may distinguish five phases in the development of a geophysicist: (I) his mathematical and scientific studies in high school; (2) the general mathematical and scientific

Jan 1, 1946

By J. B. Macelwane

Geophysics differs from geology and physics in in many respects. In the first place, geophysics is a complex science embracing the fields of seismology, geomagnetism, geoelectricity, geodesy, meteorology, vol-canology, physical oceanography, physical hydrology, tectonophysics and exploration geophysics. Geology is also a complex science and so extensive in its various fields that no one can master them all, and no part of geology deals in any sense with several of these fields of geophysics. In the second place, geophysics makes use of methods and instruments that are derived primarily from the science of physics. Geology, on the other hand, has methods of its own and it draws its borrowed techniques and its instrumental equipment not only from physics but also and perhaps primarily from chemistry and biology. The difference, therefore, between the geophysicist and the geologist lies partly in the phenomena that are observed, partly in the methods and instruments with which each carries on his exploration; but partly also, and perhaps principally, in the habitual attitude of mind and in the background of specialized training with which each approaches the problems presented by this planet of ours. The geologist as such, therefore, is no geophysicist. On the other hand, the physicist is not a geophysicist either. Isolation of each problem in a closed laboratow system under complete control is fundamental to the methods of the physicist. The geophysicist must apply physical instruments and physicomathematical reasoning to the study of physical quantities in their undisturbed natural environment. What, then, is a geophysicist? In the sense that he is a trained expert in all of the geophysical sciences, I do not believe that such a person ever existed. It would be beyond the possibilities of a single lifetime. I think there is confusion in our ideas and in our use of terms. We are not all thinking of the same thing when we say geophysics or geophysicist; yet we seem to talk as though we were. It is as absurd to say that the whole of geophysics belongs to geology because the field of a particular type of geophysicist—the exploration geophysicist —calls for some knowledge of geology as it would be to say that the whole of biology belongs to geology because a particular type of biologist—the paleontologist— needs some knowledge of geology. Development of a Geophysicist Since it is impossible to become an expert in all the fields of geophysics, and since students entering college seldom know the field they will choose as a career, what would we suggest as the best general preparation for work in geophysics, whether as a meteorologist, an oceanographer, a seismologist, a geodesist, a geomagneticist, a volcanologist, a tectonophysicist, a hydro1 ogist, or an exploration geophysicistp we may distinguish five phases in the development of a geophysicist: (I) his mathematical and scientific studies in high school; (2) the general mathematical and scientific

Jan 1, 1946

By H. W. Straley

Some ten years ago the writer1 made a survey of college catalogues to determine what sort of training geologists were receiving in basic sciences. In the light of this compilation and subsequent experience, he made the statement at the 1939 meeting of the Institute that apparently only in schools offering a curriculum in geological engineering or in the geological option of mining engineering curricula could geologists hope to receive the training advocated by Hubbeet.2 In the former study, schools of engineering were excluded because the preparation was known beforehand. The present study aims to consider engineering schools in an effort to determine not only what basic studies are required but what use is made of them in geological courses of the third and fourth years. The present study combined the method of consulting catalogues with a questionnaire. Letters were mailed to officials responsible for supervision of mineral industries curricula requesting information On' (I) the extent to which the engineering preparation of the first two years is actually used in the work of the last two; (2) the extent to which the engineering of the last two years is used in courses in geological engineering or geology; and (3) whether geologists or geological engineers teach descriptively or analytically. Both methods of securing information are open to criticism; the former on the basis of the incomplete information supplied by university catalogues concerning prerequisites and curricula and the latter on the ground that the questions may be phrased poorly or given insufficient consideration by replying officials. Fifty-six questionnaires were mailed and 39 (70 per cent) replies were received. Of the replies, 6 (11.3 per cent) were from colleges of liberal arts unconnected with engineering schools, 11 (20 per cent) were from schools having curricula in geological engineering and 22 (39 per cent) were from departments of mining engineering. The number of replies and their distribution were satisfactory in spite of the receipt of only six from liberal arts colleges. It should be understood that the universities of which the catalogues were examined were not necessarily the same in both compilations. No departments that are admittedly or known to be acting solely as service departments were recorded in the second study. Table I shows that all professional schools require mathematics through calculus, whereas only 7 per cent of the liberal arts curricula expect the same level of preparation; only 73 per cent require trigonometry and 40 per cent college "algebra. The proportion of geological engineering curricula requiring differential equations is higher than mining. All of the engineering schools require general and analytical chemistry, whereas only 77 per cent of liberal arts curricula require general and 18 per cent analytical. Twenty-two per cent of the mining and 40 per cent of the geological engineering

Jan 1, 1946

By H. W. Straley

Some ten years ago the writer1 made a survey of college catalogues to determine what sort of training geologists were receiving in basic sciences. In the light of this compilation and subsequent experience, he made the statement at the 1939 meeting of the Institute that apparently only in schools offering a curriculum in geological engineering or in the geological option of mining engineering curricula could geologists hope to receive the training advocated by Hubbeet.2 In the former study, schools of engineering were excluded because the preparation was known beforehand. The present study aims to consider engineering schools in an effort to determine not only what basic studies are required but what use is made of them in geological courses of the third and fourth years. The present study combined the method of consulting catalogues with a questionnaire. Letters were mailed to officials responsible for supervision of mineral industries curricula requesting information On' (I) the extent to which the engineering preparation of the first two years is actually used in the work of the last two; (2) the extent to which the engineering of the last two years is used in courses in geological engineering or geology; and (3) whether geologists or geological engineers teach descriptively or analytically. Both methods of securing information are open to criticism; the former on the basis of the incomplete information supplied by university catalogues concerning prerequisites and curricula and the latter on the ground that the questions may be phrased poorly or given insufficient consideration by replying officials. Fifty-six questionnaires were mailed and 39 (70 per cent) replies were received. Of the replies, 6 (11.3 per cent) were from colleges of liberal arts unconnected with engineering schools, 11 (20 per cent) were from schools having curricula in geological engineering and 22 (39 per cent) were from departments of mining engineering. The number of replies and their distribution were satisfactory in spite of the receipt of only six from liberal arts colleges. It should be understood that the universities of which the catalogues were examined were not necessarily the same in both compilations. No departments that are admittedly or known to be acting solely as service departments were recorded in the second study. Table I shows that all professional schools require mathematics through calculus, whereas only 7 per cent of the liberal arts curricula expect the same level of preparation; only 73 per cent require trigonometry and 40 per cent college "algebra. The proportion of geological engineering curricula requiring differential equations is higher than mining. All of the engineering schools require general and analytical chemistry, whereas only 77 per cent of liberal arts curricula require general and 18 per cent analytical. Twenty-two per cent of the mining and 40 per cent of the geological engineering

Jan 1, 1946

The papers discussed in the following pages were presented during two sessions of the Geophysics Education Committee of the Mineral Industry Education Division on Feb. 17 and 18, 1941. At the first meeting, to consider the "Influence of Geophysics upon Geology Curricula," this Committee was joined by the Geophysics and Mining Geology Committees of the A.I.M.E., the Society of Economic Geologists, representatives of the American Geophysical Union, and delegates from the Committees on College Curricula and on Applications of Geology of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Quentin D. Singewald and Sherwin F. Kelly presided. At the ensuing session, especially emphasizing the integration of geology, physics and chemistry for the solution of earth problems, the joint participants with the Geophysics Education Committee were the Geophysics Committee, and representatives of the American Geophysical Union and of the Committee on College Curricula of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Richard M. Field and W. R. Chedsey presided. In the following summary of the discussion at the two meetings, written discussion submitted subsequently is not differentiated from that offered orally at the session. A provisional report of the Geophysics Education Committee was presented at the second session, and some of the following discussion refers to it. This report has not been printed (it is anticipated that a more comprehensive, final one will be rendered at the 1942 annual meeting). A few mimeographed copies of this provisional report were made. Dr. W. P. Haynes presented some notes prepared by Dr. F. H. Lahee, Chairman of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists' Committee on College Curricula. This Com- mittee's inquiries reveal the general opinion that a four-year academic preparation is inadequate, five or six being advisable. The fundamentals, mathematics, physics, chemistry, and English composition, should be stressed in the first three years, with specialization in the last two or three years. Some companies provide an apprenticeship period, and themselves give additional training. During academic years more attention needs to be given to engineering training, to field mapping, and in geology to stratigraphy and sedimentation. The amount of mere memory work should be cut, and men trained to observe and reason. Dr. Lahee emphasized the need of more adequate preparation in English composition, because of the inability of many graduates to compose acceptable reports. Sherwin F. Kelly pointed out that much time in university training, which ought to be devoted to technical subjects, was taken .up with English courses. He emphasized that it is the part of the universities to demand of the high schools that the students they send to the university be properly trained to speak and write English. Prof. W. T. Thom protested against the crowding of high-school material into already overcrowded college curricula. C. E. Dobbin, chairman of the Committee on Applications of Geology of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, described briefly the work of his committee in publicizing geology, and said that it found a widespread popular interest in the subject but a lack of appreciation of its importance. He recommended that attempts to coordinate the works of geologists and geophysicists be expanded somewhat toward the further developing and encouraging of a "species of geopolitician" capable of assisting the progress of geology and geophysics by more vigorous advertising of

Jan 1, 1946

The papers discussed in the following pages were presented during two sessions of the Geophysics Education Committee of the Mineral Industry Education Division on Feb. 17 and 18, 1941. At the first meeting, to consider the "Influence of Geophysics upon Geology Curricula," this Committee was joined by the Geophysics and Mining Geology Committees of the A.I.M.E., the Society of Economic Geologists, representatives of the American Geophysical Union, and delegates from the Committees on College Curricula and on Applications of Geology of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Quentin D. Singewald and Sherwin F. Kelly presided. At the ensuing session, especially emphasizing the integration of geology, physics and chemistry for the solution of earth problems, the joint participants with the Geophysics Education Committee were the Geophysics Committee, and representatives of the American Geophysical Union and of the Committee on College Curricula of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Richard M. Field and W. R. Chedsey presided. In the following summary of the discussion at the two meetings, written discussion submitted subsequently is not differentiated from that offered orally at the session. A provisional report of the Geophysics Education Committee was presented at the second session, and some of the following discussion refers to it. This report has not been printed (it is anticipated that a more comprehensive, final one will be rendered at the 1942 annual meeting). A few mimeographed copies of this provisional report were made. Dr. W. P. Haynes presented some notes prepared by Dr. F. H. Lahee, Chairman of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists' Committee on College Curricula. This Com- mittee's inquiries reveal the general opinion that a four-year academic preparation is inadequate, five or six being advisable. The fundamentals, mathematics, physics, chemistry, and English composition, should be stressed in the first three years, with specialization in the last two or three years. Some companies provide an apprenticeship period, and themselves give additional training. During academic years more attention needs to be given to engineering training, to field mapping, and in geology to stratigraphy and sedimentation. The amount of mere memory work should be cut, and men trained to observe and reason. Dr. Lahee emphasized the need of more adequate preparation in English composition, because of the inability of many graduates to compose acceptable reports. Sherwin F. Kelly pointed out that much time in university training, which ought to be devoted to technical subjects, was taken .up with English courses. He emphasized that it is the part of the universities to demand of the high schools that the students they send to the university be properly trained to speak and write English. Prof. W. T. Thom protested against the crowding of high-school material into already overcrowded college curricula. C. E. Dobbin, chairman of the Committee on Applications of Geology of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, described briefly the work of his committee in publicizing geology, and said that it found a widespread popular interest in the subject but a lack of appreciation of its importance. He recommended that attempts to coordinate the works of geologists and geophysicists be expanded somewhat toward the further developing and encouraging of a "species of geopolitician" capable of assisting the progress of geology and geophysics by more vigorous advertising of

Jan 1, 1946

By Donald C. Branford

The place of geophysics in the curriculum of a college or an engineering school has been much discussed. There is uncertainty as to whether the graduate may be called a "geological geophysicist" or a "geophysical geologist." Some have used the term "geophysical engineer." The question of the specialized undergraduate curriculum versus a general undergraduate training in the parent sciences with the addition of cultural electives has been and is still being argued. The literature during the past Io years shows that there are two rather definite schools of thought on this subject. The prospective employer, engaged in active geophysical exploration, visualizes the graduate in terms of the routine work he will do in the field. The school administrator, grounded in many years of tradition in the cultural type of education, visualizes the graduate in terms of his position in a political and cultural society as well as in his work as a professional geophysicist. Both are right and both wrong. A third school of thought, that of the student himself, has been almost totally ignored. It would seem best, for the purpose of this paper, to treat these various points and allied material separately, and then to integrate the conclusions as a set of conditions that should be fulfilled as far as possible in the ideal curriculum. At the end the relationship of our findings to the curriculum that has been tentatively adopted at the University of Pittsburgh will be considered. Divisions in Definition or Field of Geophysics Geophysics is that field of science in which geological and earth problems are solved with the use of physical and chemical techniques. Altogether too much attention has been paid to the artificial separation in this science of the commercial applications from the so-called "pure" or academic geophysics. The only real difference in the two types of work is one of scale of operations. In the commercial field the scale is large in terms of fmancial backing, immediate economic importance, and speed of operations. In the academic field the scale is large in terms of breadth of interests, in eventual economic importance, and length of time allowable for theoretical investigations. In exploration work the scale is small in terms of dimensions, since the methods are applicable only to the outer 20,000 ft. or SO of the earth's crust. In academic work, the student is not pressed for results of immediate economic importance, and therefore can afford to spend more time on problems that seem unimportant at the time. In the sense of background knowledge of the parent sciences necessary to the geophysicist, no essential difference can be found. Physics, chemistry, geology, and mathematics together, and in their proper proportionate amounts, form the matrix from which geophysical ideas and methods may spring.

Jan 1, 1946

By Donald C. Branford

The place of geophysics in the curriculum of a college or an engineering school has been much discussed. There is uncertainty as to whether the graduate may be called a "geological geophysicist" or a "geophysical geologist." Some have used the term "geophysical engineer." The question of the specialized undergraduate curriculum versus a general undergraduate training in the parent sciences with the addition of cultural electives has been and is still being argued. The literature during the past Io years shows that there are two rather definite schools of thought on this subject. The prospective employer, engaged in active geophysical exploration, visualizes the graduate in terms of the routine work he will do in the field. The school administrator, grounded in many years of tradition in the cultural type of education, visualizes the graduate in terms of his position in a political and cultural society as well as in his work as a professional geophysicist. Both are right and both wrong. A third school of thought, that of the student himself, has been almost totally ignored. It would seem best, for the purpose of this paper, to treat these various points and allied material separately, and then to integrate the conclusions as a set of conditions that should be fulfilled as far as possible in the ideal curriculum. At the end the relationship of our findings to the curriculum that has been tentatively adopted at the University of Pittsburgh will be considered. Divisions in Definition or Field of Geophysics Geophysics is that field of science in which geological and earth problems are solved with the use of physical and chemical techniques. Altogether too much attention has been paid to the artificial separation in this science of the commercial applications from the so-called "pure" or academic geophysics. The only real difference in the two types of work is one of scale of operations. In the commercial field the scale is large in terms of fmancial backing, immediate economic importance, and speed of operations. In the academic field the scale is large in terms of breadth of interests, in eventual economic importance, and length of time allowable for theoretical investigations. In exploration work the scale is small in terms of dimensions, since the methods are applicable only to the outer 20,000 ft. or SO of the earth's crust. In academic work, the student is not pressed for results of immediate economic importance, and therefore can afford to spend more time on problems that seem unimportant at the time. In the sense of background knowledge of the parent sciences necessary to the geophysicist, no essential difference can be found. Physics, chemistry, geology, and mathematics together, and in their proper proportionate amounts, form the matrix from which geophysical ideas and methods may spring.

Jan 1, 1946

By W. C. Krumbein

Geological problems are approached from a geometrical (space relations) viewpoint, a kinematical (time sequence) viewpoint, or a dynamical viewpoint. The first two require sound training in conventional geology and in field methods. The third approach requires a solid foundation of chemistry, physics, and mathematics. Modern training for geologists should include close integrltion of basic sciences with geological principles. Introduction Our knowledge of the earth has increased tremendously during the last half century. We know more about its surface configuration, the distribution of its natural resources, the proccssion of living forms that inhabited it in the past, the chemical composition of its oceans, the areal distribution of its surface rocks, the movements of its atmosphere, and so on. Not only do we know more facts about the earth, but we have a better understanding of the processes that take place on and within it, such as the nature of earthquakes, the thermodynamics of the atmosphere, the chemical equilibria involved in the formation of igneous rocks, the mechanics of stream flow, the dynamics of the earth's origin, and so on. Many sciences contributed to the sum total of this knowledge, including such established disciplines as geology, geography, physics, chemistry, astronomy, biology. Out of this accumulation of new knowledge grew also a group of new sciences, such as seismology, oceanography, meteorology, volcanology, hydrology. Collectively these latter are known as the geophysical and geochemical sciences, and to a large extent they began as branches of geology. Until the turn of the century, for example, the study of earthquakes (seismology) was a part of geology, although as early as 1846 Mallet, a physicist, had suggested that the subject could be investigated by elastic-wave theory. Comparatively little progress was made along these lines until the seismograph was developed near the turn of the century; since then, additional earthquake data have accurnul~ted rapidly, but more important, the interpretation of these data essentially has kept pace with their accumulation. In similar fashion, meteorology was generally considered a branch of geology as recently as one or two decades ago. Considerable progress had been made in such aspects as weather forecasting, but the science dates its recent rapid rise from the year 1911, when Bjerknes first applied the principles of dynamics to the analysis of air masses. The rapid development of such disciplines as oceanography, volcanology and hydrology was due in part to the application of principles of chemical equilibrium, of dynamics, and of thermodynamics to earth problems, by men who were essentially physicists or chemists by training. The last half century, therefore, and particularly the last two decades, saw the influx of numerous chemists and physicists into the realm of the earth sciences. In the meantime the main body of geology itself showed a marked growth, and

Jan 1, 1946

By W. C. Krumbein

Geological problems are approached from a geometrical (space relations) viewpoint, a kinematical (time sequence) viewpoint, or a dynamical viewpoint. The first two require sound training in conventional geology and in field methods. The third approach requires a solid foundation of chemistry, physics, and mathematics. Modern training for geologists should include close integrltion of basic sciences with geological principles. Introduction Our knowledge of the earth has increased tremendously during the last half century. We know more about its surface configuration, the distribution of its natural resources, the proccssion of living forms that inhabited it in the past, the chemical composition of its oceans, the areal distribution of its surface rocks, the movements of its atmosphere, and so on. Not only do we know more facts about the earth, but we have a better understanding of the processes that take place on and within it, such as the nature of earthquakes, the thermodynamics of the atmosphere, the chemical equilibria involved in the formation of igneous rocks, the mechanics of stream flow, the dynamics of the earth's origin, and so on. Many sciences contributed to the sum total of this knowledge, including such established disciplines as geology, geography, physics, chemistry, astronomy, biology. Out of this accumulation of new knowledge grew also a group of new sciences, such as seismology, oceanography, meteorology, volcanology, hydrology. Collectively these latter are known as the geophysical and geochemical sciences, and to a large extent they began as branches of geology. Until the turn of the century, for example, the study of earthquakes (seismology) was a part of geology, although as early as 1846 Mallet, a physicist, had suggested that the subject could be investigated by elastic-wave theory. Comparatively little progress was made along these lines until the seismograph was developed near the turn of the century; since then, additional earthquake data have accurnul~ted rapidly, but more important, the interpretation of these data essentially has kept pace with their accumulation. In similar fashion, meteorology was generally considered a branch of geology as recently as one or two decades ago. Considerable progress had been made in such aspects as weather forecasting, but the science dates its recent rapid rise from the year 1911, when Bjerknes first applied the principles of dynamics to the analysis of air masses. The rapid development of such disciplines as oceanography, volcanology and hydrology was due in part to the application of principles of chemical equilibrium, of dynamics, and of thermodynamics to earth problems, by men who were essentially physicists or chemists by training. The last half century, therefore, and particularly the last two decades, saw the influx of numerous chemists and physicists into the realm of the earth sciences. In the meantime the main body of geology itself showed a marked growth, and

Jan 1, 1946

The papers that appear on pages 326 through 367 were presented at two joint meetings of the Mineral Industry Education Division, Geophysics Committee, the American Geophysical Union and the Committee on College Curricula of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, at the A.I.M.E. meeting in New York on Feb. 17 and 18, 1941. At the first meeting, the Mining Geology Committee, the Society of Economic Geologists and the Committee on Applications of Geology of the ilmerican Association of Petroleum Geologists also took part.

Jan 1, 1946

The papers that appear on pages 326 through 367 were presented at two joint meetings of the Mineral Industry Education Division, Geophysics Committee, the American Geophysical Union and the Committee on College Curricula of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, at the A.I.M.E. meeting in New York on Feb. 17 and 18, 1941. At the first meeting, the Mining Geology Committee, the Society of Economic Geologists and the Committee on Applications of Geology of the ilmerican Association of Petroleum Geologists also took part.

Jan 1, 1946