MESH vs MICRONIf one seeks carbon from graphitic deposit
= they'll find grind to liberate carbon
If one seeks to keep graphitics intact
= they'll use a courser grind to preserve larger flake
What exactly does NOU produce and sell to US if the concentrate is called,
= active material ( eludes to, activated carbon ? )
Mason used a 150 micron
Nouveau used a 140 micron
149 micron = 100 mesh
https://www.valvesonline.com.au/references/mesh-sizing-chart/
Mesh - lower the number = larger size
Micron - higher the number = smaller size
GEM's 43 101 report makes metion of, 75 micron.
While GEM's Berkwood MET study focuses on large flake
20 Medh ( 841 micron )
5x larger in size than Nouveau + Mason
due to -----> targeting larger flakes
GEM ( MET ) EXCERPT
The process developed involves coarse grinding to nominal 20 US mesh
(840 microns), classification, rougher-cleaner flotation, and gravity separation polishing.
Flotation reagents conditions were chosen to assure consistent results and simplicity. The
procedure was then tested on a 45 kg sample to produce concentrate
https://greenbatteryminerals.com/wp-content/uploads/2019-02-07-nr-bkr-n5jq3p.pdf
Which begs the question...
If GEM ground ores the same as peers ( 150 micron ) or 100 mesh,
how much more carbon could be amassed using current
3.2 million tonnes
+ 19+ million waste tonnes ?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mason is revered as high grade deposit.
YET.... how are they achieving such high grade percentages ?
#1 Grind
Small grind would certainly assist in measuring accurate values.
#2 Classification Typology
Graphitic carbon vs Feee roam carbon
Free roam = not adhered to anything else ( carbon black )
Graphitic ( as mentioned in former posts ----> it's such a broad term )
My interpretation ( you won't here from others nor research papers )
My best guess -----> it involes carbon already bonded to other minerals.
What minerals ?
Look at Mason's full assay suite ------> these minerals in carbonate form.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53787450498_62fd3aba51_c.jpg
Several of those minerals are ( battery metal ) minerals.
Aluminum
Titanium
Chromium
Vanadium
Magnesium
Iron
If heated in furnace ( assay )
they'd become a carbide and free roam remain loose while some goes up
in CO2 values ( hopefully measured in closed chsmber ) ensuring all carbon %'s.
Which is most likely why... ( an opinion you won't read elsewhere )
Natural graphite is preferred not because it's natural rather,
other metal battery carbon's comprise the graphitic component.
Which is why
fully understanding the silicate with in graphitics is beyond important.
- is it SiO2 nonconductive ?
Is it silicon carbide - highly conductive ?
SUM ?
Would finer grinding Berkwood to 150 micron amass more carbon ?
After all ------> carbon turned to active carbon --------> highest conductivity
Perspective ?
If Berkwoods cutoff was in the 6% range
How many more tonnes of carbon could be amassed if GEM matched NOU's 1.78% cutoff ?
Good question, eh ?
I do have another great idea... like really great.
The kind that would make NOU look like flintstone quarry.
But... could GEM handle it ?