Author: WillP -- Date:1999-02-20 10:48:09
Subject: Many weed patches without a garden
Greetings Sudhir:
I can understand Winspear's reluctance to discuss the matter. That
does leave the area ripe for speculation and deduction, however.
Yes, your 20-30% range has a high probability of success. I would
question its accuracy, had you not stated "entire population of
stones".
If I were left with the entire population, and got to chuck them into
bins...clear white, and others...my guess is similar to yours.
On a 'weight' basis, I suspect the percentage is rather
higher...among stones greater than 5 points, say.
I would also concur with the thrust of the comments you have
copied from your Jan. 27 1999 'Resource Indicator'.
At this stage we are left with a host of data, all of it superficial.
Nonetheless, we can make many educated guesses from
it...realizing these guesses may be off significantly.
If one recognizes the potential pitfalls, and notes that a majority of
the pitfalls do not imply an overestimation...one's confidence can
grow.
I tend to ignore 'microdiamond counts' and 'macro:micro ratios', as
much as possible. They are all too frequently the garden path
leading to the weeds. However, they do provide some insight. The
garden path must lead somewhere.
In any evaluation and modeling scheme, one must be cognisant of
interaction with the testing methods and apparatus itself. In that
regard, I'll let 'The Resource Indicator' have the last word, largely
because it is worth repeating:
"It is also important to note that the larger stones of poor quality
were broken."
Sincerely,
WillP
willp_666@yahoo.com |
