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 : A New Age In Gold Refining -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill Jackson who wrote (517)	1/22/1998 7:48:00 PM
From: Chuck Bleakney	Respond to of 672

Yes I agree that close control of the many factors will make the process more efficient, but part of what I'm trying to say is that even with a gross process if you carefully control other parts you can still get the same effect and you might be able to see other things that you wouldn't normally with the other process. Also the costs of the equipment may be much less since it is not trying to control so much... Voltage/current control are all you need for the gross system. Pulsing, specific wave forms, etc are more expensive to control when you are dealing with high current and low voltage. I think that the saturation idea is a very good plan initially to make sure that you are in fact getting 100% of the goodies. It provides a benchmark to use to make sure the better process is as efficient at collection as you believe. It's also easy to use to plot your efficiency based upon the goodies recovered from you first few batches. Chuck (In hyper drive tonight... :-)