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: CLK who wrote (2439)	3/19/1998 12:05:00 AM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3744

Neutron Activation analysis is routinely done. But it takes careful standards and hours and hours and the samples are hot for days. I would like to see this method described. A lot of those atomic methods are not as asccurate as the fusion-gravity procedure of melting the ore and weighing the gold. Nothing is as specific and positive or more fundamentally precise and accurate. Atomic methods are comparative and really depend on duplication of all sorts of conditions of the sample and the check samples which is really semi-quantative and subject to all kinds of problems. Emission work is potentially more accurate but one should really test it against all sort of extractive methods before trusting it. Again, it was used for years as a semi-quantitative technique. (Russians) The cheapest fastest best gold assays is still and always will be Fire assay. I can do it in one hour with simple tools to 10 parts per Billion and so accurate that God would not argue for about 10 bucks an assay (cost) I can do it routinely for about 2 bucks to 200 parts per billion. In free gold I can use a household cakepan and detect gold accurately and precisely to one part in 15 million. I am not kidding. And I will bet big money on it with doubting PhD's. All methods of analysis depend on "atomic" reactions. So all are about equal. If you want really great sensitivity just increase your sample size and use tweezers. :) The real problem is what method do we use to get the stuff out in the plant. And what agrees with that recovery? If your supra atomico-gee whizbang Tom Swiftian neutro blaster routinely says you have too much peanut butter in your ginger beer but the kids still love it, it is time to go back to the taste test.

To: CLK who wrote (2439)	3/19/1998 8:26:00 AM
From: Bill Jackson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3744

Yes, that process allows for portable neutron making boxes to be shipped around safely. By choosing the box raw materials you minimize any lingering induced radiation, and you can use them for grade control. One problem is they are still not good enough for gold deposits, say 1 ounce or less per tone takes a long time to read and has a noisy signal. For copper(at 1% copper you have 320 ounces per ton) and other base metals it is very good. They have had heavy truck mounted boxes with shielded neutron sources inside for years now to do the same thing. Tres expensive and heavy. With pure metals you need only a tiny exposure and you can do it in real time while processing. Bill