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: Scott Wheeler who wrote (9585)	2/28/1999 5:29:00 PM
From: Chuca Marsh	Respond to of 14226

Of course, now, Scott have you been using the SURPAC2000 V 3.2 - Drill Pad software? ( For the graphs ?) Nice, the acres envolved out there are over 3,000 so the varibles are in the acres at WC and OGM, IMHO. Chuca

To: Scott Wheeler who wrote (9585)	2/28/1999 10:03:00 PM
From: Scott Wheeler	Respond to of 14226

After thinking a bit more about MM's sentence: << The results listed above are from various ores, ore pre-treatments and furnace practices. >> it occurred to me that the sixteen additional tests and the twelve must all be of one piece(12 + 16 = 28). If these three variables had two types each (two ores x two pre-treatments x two furnace practices), one would need at least eight samples to represent one permutation at least once. To do decent analyses, you really need at least some redundancy for confirmation - just one example of one cell isn't enough. That there were twelve plus the fact that MM used the words << evaluations have been extended to include Weaver Creek and Oro Grande ores >> suggests Hassy also was assayed. Besides, to analyze WC and OG without H would have diminished the importance of the information and missed a valuable opportunity to achieve a broad perspective over all mineral assets, IMO. So why 28 tests and not 36? My guess is that this was designed as a two-part examination in order to maximize experimental efficiency. Rather than fulfill all possible permutations in one grand pass, study the most likely useful factors first, then narrow down on the best. Thus, take the best 2/3 (8 of 12) of the results and reevaluate them either as repetitions or introduce an additional experimental level (e.g., a third furnace practice), more likely the former. Caveat: all the above is just my uninformed supposition...... SW