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 : ECHARTERS -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dirtythirty who wrote (3553)	6/21/2011 11:30:43 AM
From: E. Charters	1 Recommendation Respond to of 3744

I don't think looking for diamonds is an easy way to find diamonds. If some things are 20 times more plentiful than diamonds and they stand out, and are somewhat unique, then you look for them first. It is the science of indicator minerals. They are rare in most rocks in their type which congregate with diamonds, so they are the leads. The mistake many naive companies make with drill core is that they analyze the core for diamonds instead of analyzing the more plentiful garnets and diallage for chemistry. If the chemistry, i.e. pressure temperature curve, and oxidation co-efficient is good, and the garnets are formed right, and the right colour, then it follows that the diamonds may be there. This is mature science outlined by Sobolev and Griffin and Ryan. Some kimberlites may be ecologitic and some may have few microdiamonds, so the microdiamond tap dance while positive if the diamonds are there, may lead you astray if they are not. You must be on the lookout for eclogitic garnets, as well as peridotitic. Microdiamonds it seems may have formed in a completely different way than macros. Thus their existence may be partially co-incidental, and their absence may not always be significant. Chemistry however is always significant. Taking an MRI of the earth is a good idea. Of course an MRI or nuclear magnetic resonance imaging machine is just a reading magnetometer which measures the response due to paramagnetism of elements which have are exposed to induced magnetic field. In a small way, electromagnetic surveys to a similar thing for conductors. The electric and magnetic field are created by and electrical or magnetic field induced in the conductor. The difference is it is read rather crudely. EC<:-}

To: Dirtythirty who wrote (3553)	6/25/2011 10:08:19 PM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3744

I have deduced that Resonance coupling technology really should be labeled, "We have teased this out of some third party remote sensing data by using a Hartely transform and it has some odd anomalies, so we are going to call it something mysterious because we don't want you to know how we do it." There is no way the bits of gold in the rock are responding to a natural (AM) frequency excitation unless you pound it into rock at several thousand volts and read with Merlin's wand. Even IP will not do it, at any frequency, unless you touch the nugget of gold with the aerial. (Goldspear) Maybe someday they will come up with a Gold Tricorder (I think Spock had a model), but I prefer to us a vertical derivative mag, some geology, a bit of IP and geochem. Maybe pan the outcrop here and there. Bits of gold in soil are a dead giveaway if you are close enuff to the vein. Modern and Ancient Alchemy. EC<:-}

To: Dirtythirty who wrote (3553)	2/25/2012 2:47:58 AM
From: average joe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3744

Good grief! There is one born every minute. Ask your buddy at leaf and stone to point to mines they have discovered using their flim flam technology. Of course they can't because it would give away proprietary secrets. P. T. Barnum was right - en.wikipedia.org

To: Dirtythirty who wrote (3553)	3/28/2012 10:54:37 AM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3744

To retun to Flim and Flam: "Resonance Coupling technology is a new method of mineral exploration using satellite based data analysis. It is the only technology to the best of our knowledge that locates and analyses mineral deposits directly. For example, if you are searching for diamonds we look for diamonds and not the host kimberlite rock nor the magnetic qualities of the surroundings." Diamonds occur in a mineable rock at a concentration of 20 carats per 100 tonnes in South Africa. They may occur in Canadian style deposits, which only come to surface or near surface in 50% of cases, at a concentration of up to 300 carats per 100 tonnes. A 100 tonnes is 100 million grams. A carat is 1/5 of a gram. So at least a diamond deposit would be 60/100,000,000 or 0.6 ppm and at worst zero, but out of perhaps 200 kimberlites you might get one between.04 ppm and 0.6 ppm if the were were detectable. Assuming in a diamond field so to speak you got one kimberlite every 36 square miles, then you would need to explore 7200 square miles to find our rich-enough rock. Detectability of raw diamonds on the surface of a kimberlite: Assuming a roughly square diamond were 1 carat, it would appear in our putative kimberlite once in every 5 tonnes to once in every 333 kilograms. A carat of diamond is 0.0571 of a cubic centimetre. It's one dimension is the cube root of that, or .000186 centimetres. At that thickness of surface rock one would cover 594 million square centimetres, 59,500 square metres or 6 hectares. (.06 of a sq kilometre) to find one diamond of size. If a diamond were distinguishable from a remote location, say 100 metres away, from other rock or carbon, the chances of finding it on the surface would be the error rate of the system times the area covered, by the chance of exposure of the rock times the chance of finding a mineable kimberlite (on a surface area basis, 1 metre in 10,000 metres is our kimberlite-chance and 1 in 200 is our economic chance in our putative rich field). Micro diamonds may raise the chances a fair bit as they are fairly ubiquitously distributed in some kimberlites. They would be contained in, let's say, 10,000 times the volume or 100 times the area of rock of one whole diamond of the same volume. But at their size they may be buried 99% of the time. So we are back to the same equation it would appear. The resolution necessary to detect these small stones would appear to be prohibitively high, even with a walking speed detector a few feet from the surface. It sounds small. If one sq. metre out of 10,000 were kimberlite, then 1 sq metre out of 2 million is economic. If the burial is 80% in overburden, then there is one chance out of 8 million that any one metre will be detectable as kimberlite. If we cover every metre then the chance is one out of 8 that we will detect the rich enough kimberlite, but only every 0.06 sq kilometres has a chance of a surfacing diamond. So we have one chance in X 60,000 = 2 chances in a million of detecting it, if our system has that resolution to see 0.003 square centimetres from 100 meters away. At one foot focal length, the system sees 929 square metres. So the resolution of our system would have to be 3,096,768,000 to one. This would require 4,637 pixels per centimetre. This would be state of the art detection and I think it would strain the ability of even hyper ganged computers working at high data rates to keep up. At a speed of 15 metres per second there would be 139 gigabytes per second generated. A compression ratio of 3 to one brings that back to 46 billion bytes per second. 500 boards with 8 processors, with 4,000 data cables might keep up at rates of 11 million bytes per second, but hyper spectral systems with 124 channels bring us back to 1.364 billion bytes per data cable per second. A fair bit of data with 4,000 cables/frequencies. 5 terabytes per second. 18,000 terabytes per hour. Compressed. I think we might have to wait for storage capacity and speeds to catch up to our data needs. If a fly by IR method could find minerals and distinguish any compounds which are rock forming or xenocrystic, such as diamond, pyrope, diallage, then it should be useful. My off the top guess is that it would be more useful to look for major minerals that form over 1% of the rock. That might form some sort of whole rock guess system that could use ground follow up. This is the theme of hyperspectral now and it may be useful. Even trying to see pyrope with composition seems out of reach at present. BWTFDIK? Our clue may be in "resonance coupling". Resonant with what? And how does it couple? If you ask me it couples best with the explorer's wallet. EC<:-}