RE:RE:RE:sample size Goldhunter, thanks for clearing that out.
What we must consider especially, is that Bob is talking about 1 cubic metre of rock. Though this seems ridiculously small, all 5 bulk samples combined don't even take that little space.
An earlobe-moving piece of gold of 2cm seems small too, but they move the needle if you ought to find this in these tiny scoops of dirt that have been assessed to date.
I've seen pictures of nuggets that size found across the Pilbara, so they are there. If one would be present in one of these latest bulk samples we would have had a completely different story today, whilst still only a freakin tiny cube would be assessed in total.
The big takeaway should be that though grades found in these samples vary bigtime, in each and every one they did find gold and the average of the five (30g!) isn't that bad because that is almost an ounce.
These goddamn conversions and uses inches, ounces, centimeters, kilometers and grams add to the confusion here.
In January we will see larger samples, so at that time we will see the sellers are wrong.
goldhunter11 wrote: Rroose,
I noted that you were quoting dear Bob M. for the conversion of 167.5 grams of gold into a cube of gold having a 15mm (or 1.5cm, the reason for using cm is that 1 cubic cm is a cc, and 1 cc of water weighs 1g). I beleive Bob got it wrong. He used the sg of 2.6 for the rock as well. This is pure gold 167.5 g of it and he only needed to use 19.3 (sg of Au). The correct conversion should be as follows:
167.5g of Au/19.3 = 8.68cc; take the cubic root of that = 2.05cm = the side of the cube (not 1.5cm). This cube would drag the ear lobs longer on the ground.
Kindly check my math to make sure that my head has not gone bonker (not enough espresso yet).
Note: I have no problem with his humour about the ear lobs. Also, your perspective about the cube of pay dirt is quite relevant in making our decision.
Why not just take large samples (at least 1m3, =2.6 tonnes, = say 1 scoop of a front end loader) rather than playing around with puny samples (like 1/3 of a tonne)?
GH
------------------------------
Rrooze wrote: Or as our dear Bob describes it nicely:
If you can visualize a cubic meter of rock, it contains about 2.5 tons. If you have 67-g/t material, therefore you have about 167.5 grams of gold. If it were in one cubic nugget, it would be about 15 mm or about .6 of an inch. That’s small enough to hide in your ear if you don’t mind your ear lobes dragging the ground.
So what we have to date is 5 bulk samples weighing 1573kgs, delivering 1oz/tonnes.
But remember this isn't even a cubic metre. For clarity 1 cubic metre is a cube with 40inch sides.
Buy Bitcoin! Do it now!
Rrooze wrote:
1 cubic metres of rock weighs 2600kgs, so if you take a sample the size NVO did here (about 350kg) and envision it as a cube (whereas 1m³=edge 1m) then we would have a cube with all edges measuring 0,53cm or 21inches.
Now that's a tiny cube to make your decisions upon.