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 : International Precious Metals (IPMCF) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bob Jagow who wrote (23258)	10/26/1997 1:04:00 AM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

No not true.. Fire assay is fusion and fusion is fire assay is just about totally true. I suggest you search the net for the terms and you will find it true. Consult any inorganic PhD chemist in North America. Any of the mining schools such as Colorado School of Mines, Royal School of mines, (UK) Imperial College (UK), U of T. (Canada), Queens (Canada), UBC (Canada), Laurentian (Canada), Alaska, can tell you the facts you need to know. The calibration precedure are much more involved than in fusion. Fusion needs correct reagant and furnace temnperatures. IT is only lsighlty crtical in Nickel sulfide button fusions in Pt assays. But generally there is no calibration needed. In AA or ICP you need many straddle standards and careful setting of the aspiration rates and the flame heights and temperatures. It is a comparison method. It just doesn't rate when it comes to accuracy or precision in comparison to fusion. At any rate any analytical chemist will do a fusion first THEN GO TO INSTRUMENTAL METHODS. So why not finish with a scale if you have any amount of gold worth mining? ec<:-}