Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: russet who wrote (91700)	12/8/2002 11:40:21 PM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116753

In fact if you know what is being said, the chemistry does indeed correlate very well indeed with economic diamonds. Correlation is a statistical concept. Where they got the idea of good chemistry is from sampling the pyropes from diamond mines, not just doing a geo-bary-thermometric calculation of pressure temperateure curves from some kind of theoretical eutectic that corresponded to a still more theoretical diamond formation curve. So yes, positively good chemistry correlates highly with ECONOMIC diamonds, not just diamonds. The question raised, is WHAT good chemistry? The answer is CERTAIN preponderances (+13% of total pyrope) where SUBCALCIC, HIGH CHROME pyropes represent a certain %age of the total pyrope sample size! If you have a certain percentage of ALL YOUR PYROPES, (be they few or many in toto in the pipe itself), of high chrome pyropes deficient in calcium, then sure as yer borned, yah gots ECONOMIC DIAMONDS. Trust me, Nicholas Rock, Roger Mitchell, Vladimir Sobolev, Nikolai Sobolev, Galina Kaderjavtseva, Victor Tcignov, John Gurney, Ryan, Griffin and Dawson on that. Sobolev tested 100'sof pipes. Mines and non mines That is what he found. He knew it. It is his statistics calibrated over dozens of years. This information is right from the original papers which I hve read the translations of. This is not third hand. And from speaking directly to the people involved and mentioned. Yes I phoned Russia and talked to them. Believe it. And I studied 3000 scientific papers on the subject of diamonds and host rock chemistry. And I did my own diamond indicator mineral picking with a microscope. And I staked diamond claims and picked diamond abundant areas from indicator mineral chemistry wich later proved to have thousands of diamonds in situ. Wawa, Ontario. Does the theory work? You bet your sweet life it does. Remember before you confuse theoretical science with statisics, they were trying to geta handle on what mines had versus NON mines in these tables and correlations. Not presence of absence of diamonds. Wanna find a diamond mine? What is that Correlation? In Russia it's 100%. You cannot get better than that. Got your staking axe sharp? Cause ifyou want to argue, I have mine sharpened too. Not for an axefight, to go staking silly. You stake all the mystery rock you want. I will stake Sobolev criteria pyrope sampled +13% rock. You have all sorts of caveats to argue back with if you want. What about frinstance 1. "the zero pipe", loads of pyrope some -- very high chrome.. no diamonds. 2. ecologitic pipes with practically no pyrope. 3. lamproite with no pyrope. 4. kimberlites with few pyropes so measurement is difficult.. Winter sea, and some NWT pipes. Do all these say the theory is wrong. NO! The positivity of the theory where you find it, is still not hurt at all! You simply have to use other methods to determine how these pipes correlate. What do you use for situations 1 through 4? Answer=. NICKEL THERMOMETRY. Proton Microprobe. How does it correlate? Are you ready for this? 100%. It can even predict the grade of the pipe to perhaps 5% error! True story. And it does that with only sampling 100 garnets. Not pyropes, just ordinary garnets. That is right. Nickel thermometry of ANY garnet tells us EXACTLY when no or low pyropes pipes or completely eclogitic pipes have the right temperature and pressure for diamond formation. And when high pyrope pipes do not make it. ALSO the zero pipe it turns out, that DeBeers neglected to tell us has HIGH calcium and ALUMINUM too! So few of its pyropes are SUBCALCIC, which is the ALL IMPORTANT criteria. Any other caveats or bugbears? Well yes. We could go on with other difficulties. Oxygen fugacity. Well ok. There is a simple olivine ratio test for that. Does it tell you diamond survivability? Yes the Russians who developed it tell us it correlates very well. Does the Diavik have excellent chemistry? Well it sure does, as well as having excellend diamonds! Eira Thomas herself told me that it did. Does Diamet have excellent chemistry? Well SURE it (they do) does man! How do you think they found it? They did not follow a trail of sawdust 1000 miles across the NWT. In fact the NWT is known to have SUPERIOR pyrope chemistry. The loadsof small diamonds you find with flat smooth faces tells you that in general oxygen fugacity is not too bad as well. But go ahead and disagree. Who is to tell. But drink deep. The Pierian spring is as deep as the chromite harzburgite layer. One thing that is true is the statisitical chance thing. Could a kimberlite come up through excellent chemistry in the right depth and temperature etc..and not have many diamonds? Well I guess so. But we are talking correlation not absolutes. I know I said 100% but that is from the positive not the negative side. You can take the 100% as vernacular for high. It is high. Damn high in a positive sense. You will see a curve made by Gurney that is called the diamond stability field. People talk about the earlier Dawson criteria of G10's etc.. This is not scientific. A G10 garnet according to Dawson, could have come from a metamorphic rock. The diamond stability field garnets are not G10's but a special animal called subcalcic high chrome pyrope. It is not a G10 really. However the Gurney curves were not made in the same way as the Sobolev curves or for the same purpose. Gurney's popular charts are only in part useful as a guide. The Sobolev statistics are more what you want to use. And when we get to sodic Garnets wer have to throw Gurney out the window anyway. Here we use the percentage nickel and zinc in the garnet to form a temperature chart and use the chrome to determine the depth the garnet was formed at. And there is lots more. 3000 papers and we could explore Canada too. Lamprophyres seem to have diamonds in Canada. Lots to know. EC<:-}

To: russet who wrote (91700)	12/9/2002 12:05:32 AM
From: E. Charters	Respond to of 116753

"No method tells us how thoroughly did a kimberlite actually samply the diamond layer etc .." In fact the statistics are telling us how thoroughly it did sample it. It happens we have the thoroughness concept taken care of by how many thingamajigs we find in the thingumabob. Now you have implicity signed a CA here, to not reveal that it is not pyrope or diallage, but in fact the thingumajig quotient of the thingumabob co-efficient that determines diamondiferousness. EC<:-}