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 : Maxam Gold Corp. OBB:MXAM -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GlobalMarine who wrote (5233)	8/13/1998 11:51:00 AM
From: go4it	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11603

Rand, As I understand it Hewlett's theory on ionic migration stipulates that there is a direct correlation between the amount of mineralization and the amount of ions at the earth's surface so in theory a person could determine mineralization locations by performing ionic surveys. He told me that the ions migrate up toward the surface. The reasons that I have a problem with this thinking are : ions would be and are subject to the forces of nature just like anything else. The two forces that I would consider in effect here are electrical charge and gravity. If a mineralization source were very charged I can understand a repulsion effect but I don't understand why it would be directional in nature. Also, if the mineralization is layored and if the ionic nature of a mineralized body acts as a repulsion force then in theory any layer above the host layer of the ion would in effect act as a shield to prevent that ion from reaching the surface. Another thing that I do not like about the theory is that it does not take into account depth of mineralization. Ions, betas, positrons etc are not infinitely powered objects. Unlike me, they do run out of energy. If they didn't then there would be no such thing as shielding for radioactivity. I hope this helps a little. Chuck