'thossible use in the removal of oil mists and hydrocarbon vapors. '5*
A controlled flow of oil was injected into a heated n1cke1 reaction

'¥radsorption 1sotherms for this material

;m_ .

L .‘f"flé‘fi. N .
e Lo e e

 
  

OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY
' operated by

umou CARBIDE conponAnon -

u s ATOM!C ENERGY commssuon ',

c:::s::z PRITIS ORNI. TM- 1623

'copvno,i Jffiflf:

| ; RG S 5’ O DATE - Sept 7, 1966

  

TESTS OF VARIOUS PARTICLE FILTERS FOR REMOVAL OF
| OIL MISTS AND HYDROCARBON VAPOR R

"B, F. Hltch R.;G Ross, H. F. McDuffie

ABSTRACT

Various filter and adsorbent materials were examined for

= é—'-—

ivessel to cause vaporization and some cracking of the 011  Helium
,flowing through the reaction vessel carried the 011 mist and hydro—
: Ocarbon vapor through a filter system. Filter effectiveness ‘was
.;Irdetermined by the use of a Perkin-Elmer Hydrocarbon Detector,_
o grav1metric analysis, and ‘gas chromatographic analysis., Good
removal of mists was achieved by the use of a. combination of _
| ;'felted metal fibers and ceramic fibers in a configuration proposed
I;:afor use in the MSRE._ Granulated charcoal removed hydrocarbon
_'7{fvapors (Cs ‘and above) 1n a manner consistent with the established

 

 

 

LEGAL NOTICE

| This report was prepared as an account of Government sponsored work. Neither the United .
- | Btates, nor the Commiasion, nor any person acting on behalf of the Commiasion: :
A. Makes any warranty or representation, expressed or implied, with respect to the accu-
racy, completeness, or usefulness of the information contained in this report, or that the use’
of any information, appantus met.hod, or proceas disclosed In this report may not infringe
R privately owned rights; or .
B T ’ B. Assumes any liabilities wlth respoct to the use of, or tor damages resulting [rom the
o use of any information, apparatus method, or process disclosed in this report. :
AS used in the above, *‘person acting on behalf of the Commisajon® includes amy em--
ployee or contractor of the Commission, or employee of such contractor, to the extent that -
such employee or contractor of the Commisajon, of employee of such contractor prepares,
disseminates, or provides sccess to, any information pursuant o hia employment or eontnct .
with the Commission, or his employment with such dontractor. :

 

' RELEASED FOR ANNOUNCENERT |

 

 

 

 

_ This document contoms mformahcn of a prellmmcry nature and was prepored
' pnmanly for internal use ‘ot the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. It is subject
rto revision or correction cnd therefore does not represent a final report.:_ S

- fihadmvsrr‘Dc_&awuwn},
TIGNS GF PRZENT mmm
Lotuve& G A

T THEARC. M2 RS
- /ck4

 
b i o

 

i
i
¥
i
i

‘
i
i@

 

i
i
{
f
z

 

 

 

 

 

LEGAL NOTICE

This report was prepared as an account of Government sponsored work. Neither the United Stat-as,
nor the Commission, nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission:

A. Makes any warranty or ' representation, expressed or ‘implied, with respect to the accuracy,
completeness, or usefulness of the information contained in this report, or that the use of

ony information, apparotus, method, or process disclosed in ihls report mdy not infringe
privately owned rights; or :

B. Assumes any liebilities with respect to the use of, or for damages resvlting from tho use of .

any informaticn, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this report,
As used in the above, “’person acting on behalf of the Commission®” includes any .mployea or

contractor of the Commission, or employee of such contractor, to the extent that such employse -
or contractor of the Commission, er smployse of such contractor prepares, disseminates, or
provides access to, any information pursuant to his employment or contract with the Commission,

or his smployment with such contractor,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
?

Y

 

+

 

CONTENTS
P Page _
ABSTRACT. . + &« v v o v v v e o v v v o 1
INTRODUCTION. . « « o o o v e e e e u . 4
PROCEDURE © + + ¢ ¢ ¢ o o o o o v o o « . 4
OIL MIST FILTERS. . . . . . . e e e T
3.1. General DeseriptiOn R 7
- 3.2, ExperimentallData ¢« o o w » ; . o » 7
- 3.3. Experlmental Data After Alterifig
0il InJectlon ¢ o e s 8 a8 e o o o 9
CHARCOAL TRAP EFFICIENCY. . . . . . . . . 12

4.1. Charcoal Saturation with Hydrocarbons 13

4.2. Temperature Dependence of Hydro-

‘carbon Adsorption on Charcoal . . . 13
TESTING OF MSRE PARTICLE FILTER . . . . . 19
5.1. Pressure Drop Data. . c e e e .. 19
5.2, Pressure Dr0p Data of Felt Metal |

at Elevated‘Temperatures. c s+ e« . 23
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. . . . . . . . e e . 25

 
 

1. INTRODUCTION

c
) u L. ‘

One of the problems encountered during the early stages
of power Operation of the Molten Salt-Reactof»EXperiment wéé
that éome valves and filters in_tfie‘offfgas-syStem becéme‘
plugged. The plugs were analyzed and found to be of organic
COmposition. | - |

One possible éource of-organic material was the oil used
to lqbricate the salt circulating pfimp; If'indeedjthe pump 
were leaking oil inté the pump bowl, the maximum!credible"
Ieakage fiould be in the range of ls‘to 20 cc pérday;'

This experiment was designed to‘simuiate:the consequences
ofjthis maximum expected oil leakage and to test various
filter and adsorbent materials for removal of oil mist and

hydrocarbon vapors under these conditions. o &

2. PROCEDURE
A complete flow diagram of the-appgratus is Shown in’." | -
Fig. 1 and a pictfireas Fig. la. - | . L
Gulfspin-35 oil is used to lubricate thelMoltén Salt |
Reactor pump; this same o0il was used in our expériments. The
' oil was injected by a motor driven sjringe connected byfa
capillary tube to a heated.reaction vessel; .The injection
'rate was 0.67 cc,pef hour. | |
| Simulating MSRE off-gés flow condifions, helium was
passed through the system at 4 liters per minute. The nickel
reaction vessel temperature was about 600°C,

The gas effluent from the filters A, B, C, D, and E
 

   

ORNL DWg. 66-9447

Motor Drwven
SyR\NGE

 

 

| #t] CHARCOAL

l $#2 CORRCOAL

VENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F

S-3

Fig. 1. O0Oil Injection and Filtering Apparatus

a¥® o | ‘ | o of » - . o) &i W+
w -
i

Fig. 1a, 'Picture

 

~N PHOTO 83330

of 0il Injection and Filtering Apparatus

URY B

 

 
 

 

 

-l

»

| passed through two, charcoal traps f111ed with PCB 6X16

’ .

charcoal A Perkln-Elmer 213 Hydrocarbon Detector, prov1ded

by the Analyt1ca1 Chemistry D1v1s1on, was used to measure the

~hydrocarbon levels at_three.p051t10ns (S-l, S—Z, S-3) shown on

the flow diagram. GaS‘samples,were taken periodically at these
same three p051t10ns for subsequent chromatographlc analysis,
Pressure drop measurements were made us1ng Hg and H,O

manometers. Readlngs were taken each half hour.
3. oIL MIST FILTERS

3.1. General Description

lelted t1me necessitated that the 1nvest1gat10n of

filter materlals be conflned to those ea511y obtainable.

Materials tested were coarse nickel wool, Supreme #1 steel

“wool, Supreme #00 steel wool Pyrex glass wool, Fiberfrax

and a M-S—A a1r.11ne Ultra Filter.
| Flberfrax showed an appreclable pressure drop when packed
1nto the glass U- tube traps. This was tfie short fiber varlety

whlch packed very tlghtly when loading the traps._ Because the

pressure drop was in excess of 8 psig, thlS material was not

“ :tested However long f1ber Flberfrax proved to be satlsfactory;t

IB,ZgK_Experimental Data,_

'3.2.1. The first. two experlments were performed us1ng

| coarse nickel wool 1n trap A and Supremet#l steel wool in

traps B and C. The-data summarized iinable 1 show thiS'trap

assembly removedeS%;of the total oil injected into the
 

Tabhle 1, Efficiency of Filter Materials Tested

 

 

 

. Trap A Trap B Trap C Total 0i1 Total Oil
Run Length of  Filter Wt. of 011 TFilter Wt. of 011 Filter Wt. of 0i1 Removed Injected  por cent of
# Run (hrs) Material Removed Material Removed Material Removed () (g) 0il Trapped
1,2 6 Coarse N1 ' 0.690 #1 Supreme (0,878 #1 Supreme 0.501 2,069 3.740 55
wool (1) ste?l)wool steel wool
z »
3 13 Coarse ¥i  1.735 #00 Supreme 3.428 #00 Supreme 0.749 5.912 7.410 80
wool ste?I)wool steel wool - '
3
4 18 Coarse N1 3,749 Pyrex glass 5,440 Pyrex glass 0.000 9,189 10.090 91
' ‘ wool wool wool S ‘
5% 23.5 #00 Supreme 5.341 Pyrex glass 3.792 Pyrex glass 0.278 9.411 13.400 70
‘ steel wool , wool wool ' ~ :
bA* 22.6 #00 Supreme 4.929 Pyrex glass 4.188 Pyrex glass 0.123 9.240 12.882 72
: _ . steel wool wool wool '
6B* 31.6 #00 Supreme 6.892 Pyrex glass 5.374 Pyrex glass 0.001 12.267 18.012 68
i sthel wool wool wool o
T* 88 Trap A, B, and C replaced by MSA Ultra Filter using 47,486 47.486 50,160 95

7930 cartridge

¢

 

*Thase runé were made with oil béing injected into dip-leg.
(1) Surface area of 0.016 square meters per gram,
(2) Surface area of 0.032 square meters per gram.
{(3) Surface area of 0.047 square meters per gram.

~

 
 

at .

- at point P as shown on the flow d1agram in Flg.rl.. This entry
lp01nt was changed to p01nt P so that the oil entered dlrectly

5_t1nto the;stream\of,flowlng helium and downgthe_dlpeleg of the

reactlon vessel However, in the first few runs a portion of
the oil was probably held up on the walls of ex1t lines.
- '3.2.2( .Experiment #S-utilized the same-Coarse nickel

wool in trap A. Trapsz.and_C"were filled with Supreme #00

 steel wool. Eighty percent of the total oil injected was

‘removed with these traps-

3.2.3. Experiment #4 used coarse nickel wool in trap A
and Pyrex glass wool 1n traps B and C.' Although this run was
of_greater duratlon_than prev1ous ones,.no_increase'in weight
Wasrfound‘in trap C. Ninety;one per cent of-the oil injected
was removed by thlS trap assembly.

3.2.4. The follow1ng summary indicates the amount of
oil retained per gram_of_fllter material used in experiments

1 through 4.

Expt. # Trap A ‘Trap B Trap C

1and 2 .020  .066 . 048
3 049 .244 .078

4 r'.106r*;—;[;;754 -0

'77”3.3.; Experimental Data After Alterlng 011 Ingect1on

To obtain better cracklng, the oil entry to the react1on

',stessel was altered. In experiments 1 through 4 the 011 entered

reactlon vessel.
U51ng this method of 1nJect10n, the hydrocarbon level at

 
 

10

the three analysis points S-1, S-2, and S-3 rose to about
ten times previous levels. Obviously, much less cracking
had occurred in experiments 1 through 4. 'The average hydro-

carbon levels are summarized below:
. - \._

Expt. #  Analysis Analysis - Analysis
Point S-1 Point S-2  Point S-3
l - 4 75 ppm ‘ 35 ppm : 22 ppm
5 -7 715 ppm , 360 ppm 285 ppm

; 3.3.1. Traps for experiments 5, 6A, and 6B contained
Supreme #OO steel wool in trap A, and Pyrex glass wool .~in
traps B and C. 0il recovery ranged from 68% to 72%:for.this
trap assembly. More efficient cracking of the oil resulted
in a decreased oil recovery. It should be noted that in each
of these runs only a small portion of the adsorbéble oil migt
reached trap C as shown in Table 1. f

3.3.2. Experiment 7 investigated the efficiency of a
commercial filter assembly. A M-S-A air line Ultra Filter
as shown in Fig. éfwas used. The particulate filter_element
is molded of a cellulose matrix with glass microfibers added
rto present a large capturing surface. The caftfidge holder..
is equipped with é drain plug through which 1iquids can be -
removed periodically. -

The M-S-A filter assembly was‘instélled in our apparatus,
replacing traps A, B, and C. |

This filter assembly was the mbst efficient fiiter

material tested, retaining 95% of the oil injected into the
 

 

 

 

 

s . N .
|- - 5
.
\ !
. - -
<~
- ’ -
3 4
" 7
=
3
~
.
 

 

 

12

reaction vessel. All of the trapped oil mist was retained
in the filter element, no liquid was present in the cartridge
holder.

3.3.3. The foilowing'summary indicates the grams of oil

mist retained per gram of filter material tested.

‘Expt} # - Trap A Trap B'_ Trap C
5 0.319 gnm 1.365 gm 0.049 gm
64 0.295  1.243 0.023
65 0.412 0.925 no wt. gain
7 1;700 e | - -

4. CHARCOAL TRAP EFFICIENCY

The charcbal traps used‘in'ogr experiments were 1l-in.
I.D. glass Pyrex pipe packed with about 12 inchés of PCB
6X16 charcoal. |

Under reactor conditions, the decay of fission products
is expected to raise the temperature of a charcoal trap’of
the above dimensions to abofit 100°c. Consequently, charcoal
traps were kepf at a\temperature of 100°C during our eiperi-
ments.

| A point of interest was the amount of hydrocarbons

necessary to saturate a known amount of charcbal at 100°cC.
Data for this investigatioh were obtainéd'simultanéously with
the filter material tests previously described. |

Charcoal trap #1 shown in Fig.-l was filled with a known

amount of charcoal. Sample'points S-1, S-2, and S-3 were
 

wi

-~

monitored with the hydrocarbon detector. .Saturation was

13

assuned when the hydrocarbon-level‘at S-2 started approaching

_.the level of S 1.

4.1. Charcoal Saturatlon w1th Hydrocarbons

Figure 3 summarlzesrthe tworexperlments carried out. .

The first experiment madeuse of a packed_bed‘of'about 3 inches

of charcoal in a glass trap;,“The'weight of charcoal was
'approx1mate1y 6.0 grams per inch. The first evidence of satura-

- tion occurred at a total t1me of 30 hours. A second ‘test with

(

about 6 1nches of charcoal reached saturat1on in about 60 hours.

The hydrocarbon_levelratgs-l and S~2 averaged_700 ppm and 425

*ppmi(CH4 eq.) respectiveiy prior'to trap saturatiOn.

The 3-1n. trap was analyzed after it became saturated

. R

"and the results are shown 1n"Tab1e 2. Thls data 1nd1cates

that as the heaVier-hydrocarbons were more strongly adsorbed

in the top of the trap, the 11ghter hydrocarbons were forced

i;t0'the bottom. "Breakthrough" occurred when the C; hydro-
carbons were forced out., Table 3,contains gas samples taken.

| before and after hydrocarbon saturatlon.

/4;2. Temperature Dependence of Hydrocarbon Adsorptlon
o L fm" ‘on Charcoal )

Adsorptlon of hydrocarbons on. the charcoal 1s a functlon

-fof charcoal temperature as shown in Flgs. 4 and 5. Upon
:“?coollng charcoal trap #2 from 100°C to 25°C the he11um efflu-
'.“ent to the trap was lowered to approx1mately 40 per cent of

) the or1g1na1-hydrocarbon.concentratlon. Coollng from 100°C
 

 

ORNL IWG. 66-9448

)

“~
O
o

Y

Hydvecarboms wmeT: Re Anoued by Chavecoar Zree £,

%,
3

_O o o o o S o ‘ o & o
-rl'Ne- ( Rowrs)

Fig. 3. Hydrocarbon Saturation of Charcoal Trap #1l

 

ro

Y1

 
*h

C

(

15

~ Table 2. Hydrocarbons Adsorbed in 3-in, Charcoal Trap

Concentration, Wt. %

 

 

In Taches <% G G G Cuao  >C,  Total
0.0 - 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 2.1  14.3 17.8
0.5 - 1.0 0.3 0.2 0;4 1.6 5.6 9.4 17.5
1.0 - 1.5 0.3 0.3 1.4 4.0 4.5 3.1 13.6
1.5 - 2.0 0.2 0.8 4.2 3.3 0.6 0.3 9.4
2.0 - 2.5 0.3 1.9 2.6 1.0 0.1 0.1 6.0
2.5 - 3.0 0.2 2.3 1.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 3.9
0.4 2.7. 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 3.5

 

 
 

 

16

Table 3. Analysis of Gas Samples Taken Before and

After Hydrocarbon Saturation of Charcoal Trap

(ppm by Volume)

 

 

 

 

- Isomeric Hexenes

Before: | After
Components Sample Sample Sample Sample
Pt. S-1 Ptf S-2 Pt. S-1 Pt. S-2
Methane 25 30 16 28
Ethane 4 6 3 7
'Ethylene 70 95 41 80
Propylene 33 40 20 41
Butene-1 7 12 7 12
Isobutylene 3 3 4 4
- Cis-Butene-2 4 8 5 8
2-Me Butene-1 4 - 8 10
Pentene-2 1 - 2 2
rBranched Hexenes 5 - 1 3
Hexene-i 3 - 4 37
1 - 1 6

 

"
5%

PPM . {"Y?’*#Cfl'-'*ffi'('é Hy 2g-) I -‘—""?"r“i T#24p, “

 

 

 

S . - ' ORNL ING. 66-9449

 

{0

"'\';.:uu, L Hvo)

'“ Fig. 4. Hydrocarbon Adsorption on Charcoal at 25°C and 160°C |

LT
P/Q/L/’ /lyJVOD"FAW (;F’q ‘1') W ENT ’TJ’ffiM
AN

&oo

~3
9
.

o,

o0

At

 

@

Time CHvs)

Fig. 5. Hydrocarbon Adsorption on Charcoal at
25°c, 75°C, and 100°C.

. 66-94

 

ST

 
 

(7. ] 2

ne

 

_19

to 75°C lowered the concentration to 70%. When the trap was

returned to 100°C :after each cooling dycle the hydrocarbon
content rose sharply thenreturned to its original.level.
5. TESTING or MSRE PARTICLE FILTER
-Traps-A,-B,.and C mere“repiaced with a prototype of the

MSRE particle filter shown in Fig. 6. This filter was prepared

by personnel of the Reactor'Division. The filter consisted

of two‘Huyck_stainless'steel felt metal filters and a chamber

filled with long fiber:Fiberfrax. Pressure drop measurements

were made to determlne the maxXimum AP after the felt metal

filters were saturated w1th 0il mist. Measurements were made

using Hzo-and Hg manometers,

A further test was performed in which the felt metal
filters_were welded inside,a stainless steel pipe as shown
in Fig. 7. This assembly was placed inside a tube furnace
and tests were conducted at various temperatures.

L ,5.1.77Pressure Drop Data

Flgure 8 shows the pressure drop data obtalned from the

- MSRE partlcle f11ter test., After ‘24 hours the pressure

'g»remalned constant at 2 7 psig.' Attempts to blow the oil off

the felt metal fllters, by suddenly 1ncreas1ng the flow rate

.'of he11um to 8 liters/mln, were not successful The AP ‘would

-drop sl1ght1y, ‘when the flow rate was returned to 4 11ters/m1n,

but returned to its former level in less than 5 m1nutes.
The felt metal fllters were removed from the system and a

pressure drop across the Fiberfrax alone was determined. The

 
 

 

20

ORNL IMG. 66-9451

- ‘ — ! quax Girss
-7 4 -
To. . K

 

 

/ ~ Pire to
N\fiNOMfl.‘\ev n ‘; L s b Anvene e
. . l - e o —
“e\'\“"« i "’g e . .;._ v_— w..;.mz-__ ————
Eaotrane b s 2 o e

 

 

 

“;A..\-p_!( . “v..,c( .
-T‘\p'— 215 (Convie) ] TyPe 0¥ (,FUJ&)‘
Fer\ v Mervol Filldes Cer= Metal Filtev

FJ.g 6. Sketch of MSRE Particle Filter Prototype

w1y
 

 

 

ol

o

9

 

- | ' | ORNL DWG. 66-9452
‘ S : ' i'L@flG

' 1 : o o b . .
‘ .7 y oo e
Eno fFares [§ Tik, » : ‘!' | _,/ -
- ! | |

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4 A . ,‘e
/
2% _4aE"ID - ;;\\
s 5 . 9 4" seh 40
- Felt Memar Dises I,—, r/ Fire
1y ' '
4- A
7 1 /
7 ?~N~\/MDD xm:f”vme
l e wELL |

 

 

Fig. 7. Felt Metal Fllter Assembly Used At
| Elevated Temperatures

 
ORNL, DWG. 66-9453

3

.

24

22

FPessare Prop (P’I)
: *

 

   

Lo

1o ]
| e (Hv)

Fig. 8. AP Across Prototype at MSRE Particle Filter

 
23

pressure dropiwas'0.0IZ psig'and»remained constant over a

20-hr period.

. 5.2, Pressure Drop Data of Felt Metal at
o ' - Elevated Temperatures

‘A filter assembly with the coarse and fine felt metal
filters welded in a stalnless steel pipe was fabricated as
shown in Fig._9. -The assembly was placed in a 5-in. tube
furnace. It was desirable to measure the AP of the felt
metal filters atfelevated temperatures, since during reactor
operations, the decay of fission products would possibly
raise the temperature of the fllter assembly. |

| Measurements at various temperatures were reproducible
as shown in Fig.p9, However, the maximum AP at 25 ¢ was
0.45 p51g compared w1th 2.7 ps1g measured in the previous
experiment. |

DOP measurements conducted by the Reactor Division on

the prototype-of'the MSRE particle filter showed'it‘to be

99. 98%:efficient. The welded filter assembly, when tested,
was only about 95%>efficient. Although there was no visible
ev1dence, cracks may,have been present in the welds of the
Welded.filterdassembly./

_ Thirty hours at 25°C were required before the felt metal
filters became saturated with oil mist. The transition'to the
maximum AP required oniy about one or two minutes. Upon
reaching maximum AP at room temperature, heat was applied to

the filter assembly. At a temperature of 150°C the AP

 

 

 
 

2:35«.@ bVOF (p‘s--zj

 

Las

-

-

1o

 

o
T ime  ( Houre)

24

ORNIL, DWG. 66-9454

Fig. 9. AP of Felt Metal Filter

 
25

decreased sharply, returningaalmost to the minimum. When the

temperature was raised to 400°C and 600°C the AP rose slightly

in each Case but gave no indication of plugging. The rise in

AP associated with a rise in temperature can probably be attrib-

uted to an increase in the viscosity of helium. The viscosity

of helium at 25°C 1s_180 micropoises,’and at 600 C is 405

'micropoises. <

A total of 230 grams of Gulfspin-35 oil was inJected into

the heated reaction vessel during the prev1ous1y described

experiments. Upon termination of the experlments the reaction
vessel was cut apartforyvisual inSpection. The vessel con-
tained 0.5 grams of dry Carbon; no evidence of any liquid
hydrocarbons Was found., | |

The welded felt metal filter assembly was also cut apart;

again no liquid hydrocarbons were found

6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

6.1. Excellent coOperation and much assistance ‘was

received from Messrs.-A S Meyer, C. M. Boyd and A.
'eHorton, of the Analytlcal Chemistry Division ‘who supplied

.and installed the hydrocarbon gas analyzer, assisted us with
cflthe 1nterpretation of the results, and analyzed many samples

_of gas and charcoal by the gas chromatographic procedure.

6 2. Continuous operation of the apparatus over the

.period of many days was made possible by the MSRE Operations
 section through their assignment of personnel for-taklng

data during the:evening'and night shifts.

 
 

 

26

| 6.3. The close cooperation and frequent discussions
with D. Scott,'Jr;, were ihvaluable in guiding the investi-
gation in directions which were useful for the application

‘of filters to the MSRE off-gas system.
g

4

>

/

1.

3.
4.
5.

6.

7.

9.

10.
11.

12.

- 19.

205

- 21.
- 22.
23,
24.
25.

27.

28.

29,
30,
- 31.
s
33,
34-35.

- 36.

"37;39{

40,

41,

27

 DISTRIBUTION

G. M. Adamson
C. F. Baes, Jr.

'S. E. Beall
E. S. Bettis

F. F. Blankenship

E. G. Bohlmann

R. B.‘Briggs-
W. H. Cook

W. R. Grimes

A. G. Grindell
P. N. Haubenreich'
B. F. Hitch

‘A. D. Horton
P. R. Kasten

S. S. Kirslis

'R;;B.'Lindauer
H. G. MacPherson

H. F. McDuffie

‘A. S. Meyer, Jr.
'R;,L.»Moore
.R;~J,*Ross

 D. Scott, Jr.

~A. N, Smith
P. G. Smith
uflf_R;eTallackson

RAIE;Thoma

M. E. Whatley |

fCentral Research L1brary
‘Document Reference Sectlon,‘
'Laboratory Records |

Laboratory Records, ORNL R. C.

ORNL Patent Office

 
 

 

28

EXTERNAL
DISTRIBUTION

42. Research and Development Div., OR

- k3-57. DTIE, OR

c\h
. e
’[: )4‘ | ’

For