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 : Winspear Diaminds (Bulls Board) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: .Trev who wrote (787)	4/5/1999 10:24:00 PM
From: WillP	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1172

Referring back to Dave's post, in a way he's right you know. If I read him right he was talking about the Hypotenuse of a different triangle. If we forget about dike thickness for the moment and consider down dip length the the actual length is itself the hypotenuse, where the base is the projection of that length on to the horizontal plane. Yes...in a way I follow you. That particular triangle has nothing to do with dyke thickness...only length. The implication of that second triangle would be to actually increases the length of the dyke in reality. So...the math says it's the same thing...the cosine of the downdip times the horizontal length of the downdip on surface. That would cancel out the other one...and allow you to use the drill indicated thickness as the true thickness. In other words...over a 1000 metre run...the actual length of the dyke would be 1030 metres, approximately. The drill indicated thickness is, say, 3 metres. True thickness would be about 2.9 metres roughly. However, multiplying 2.9 x 1030 should give the exact same number as 3.0 x 1000...ignoring my rounding errors, of course. Once again...the drill intersections are good enough. Regards, WillP