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 : Global Platinum & Gold (GPGI) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ed Fishbaine who wrote (7645)	9/27/1998 7:40:00 PM
From: JACK R. SMITH JR.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14226

Ed, Actually, in practice, no mathematics are necessarily required. I have some small exposure to the pharmaceutical industry and proper sampling there should be no different from what we have here. There are tables in use today that would serve well. There is even an old military inspection standard Mil-I-(I forget the number), which was the father of many others which would serve well. These are tables which are derived using valid statistical methods which give the number of samples required for a certain sample size and the number required for a given confidence level. Since what we have here is a dynamic process, the frequency, extent, and sampling methods will have to be refined through experience. It is more costly to sample frequently and often. That should be done at first,but as experience is gained, we may find that we need not even begin sampling until a certain period of time or flow through the columns has passed. Most certainly, we need to adopt the best technology that we presently have and make standard procedures from those. Once adopted, those procedures would not be changed without approval from whomever is deemed to make those decisions. Production and process research and development need to be certainly kept separate. Deviations from adopted procedure need to be subject to great review. At this point, I think that they are still developing the procedure, even though they have a valid method. They are learning the hard way that empirical methods may be ok in the lab, but not in production. Each component of the process has a certain capacity. If we link them all, then the throughput will be limited to the smallest capacity in the chain. I understand this as does anyone with even a smidgen of manufacturing experience. If the x tank is too small, then we have a problem. Let me say in the defense of those on the ground at GPGI--this happens to the best of the best, period. It is not unique in any industry. Let me also say that they have limited funds and that has its impact also. I begin to feel a little guilty in demanding progress here when so much has been made already. What would please me most would not be an "im sorry" for failure, but a getting together of the process the attainment of the goal of steady and continued production of precious metals from this unconventional source. I will break out the Dom P. when that production is at a profit!! You need not hit home runs here, guys, just steady singles, Jack!!