Replies to post #9593 on Sidney Resources Corp (SDRC)

[surrealistrader]

The key here is the distinction between mass reduction and gold concentration. An 800-fold reduction in mass does not necessarily equate to an 800-fold increase in gold grade or concentration. The gold grade concentration (from the original gold grade to the concentrated gold grade) is what's relevant when estimating the gold content back in the stockpile.

To estimate the gold grade of the original ore, we should use the gold concentration rate, which compares the gold grade of the concentrate to that of the original ore. In your case, this is 40-fold, as calculated from the gold grades (117 oz/ton in the concentrate vs. 2.925 oz/ton in the original ore).

Using the mass reduction factor (800-fold) instead of the gold grade concentration factor (40-fold) for estimating the gold grade in the original ore would lead to a significant underestimation.

While the 800-fold mass reduction rate is correct for the concentration process, it's the 40-fold gold grade concentration rate that should be used to estimate the gold content in the original ore. I assure you man, you need to consult someone on this and realize that you're confused.

[surrealistrader]

Gitreal just defied the laws of material sciences.

Gitreal is manufacturing a discrepancy where none exists and is too thick headed and arrogant to figure it out. He has clearly demonstrated that he doesn't now what (The f) he is talking about and not even his crew of assholes are rising to his aid to help correct (Nor confirm for that matter.) Its no big deal, just take a breather and re-think it. I have thoroughly pointed out your discrepancy, and yes, you missed something here.

It seems we have a classic case of mixing apples and oranges, or in this case, confusing mass concentration with gold concentration. Let's clear this up with some basic principles that should be straightforward, even for those who seem determined to create a discrepancy where none exists.

Firstly, Gitreal is insisting that the rate of mass concentration (800-fold, when reducing an 800-ounce sample to a 1-ounce concentrate) should be directly equated to the rate of gold concentration. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how concentration works. It's like saying that because you've squeezed the juice out of eight oranges into one glass, the juice should somehow be eight times as orangey. That's not how it works, and it's not how concentration in mineral processing works either.

In mineral processing, and particularly in the context of SDRC's gold assay, the concentration rate of interest is the increase in the gold grade, not the sheer reduction in mass. Yes, an 800-fold reduction in mass is significant, but it doesn't magically amplify the gold content by the same factor. The gold grade concentration, which in your case is a 40-fold increase (from 2.925 oz/ton to 117 oz/ton), is the relevant metric for understanding how much more gold-dense the concentrate is compared to the original ore.

Insisting that the mass concentration rate should equal the gold concentration rate defies the basic principles of material science. Gold doesn't multiply during concentration; the process simply separates it from less valuable material. The laws of physics haven't been repealed, much as Gitreal seems to wish they had been.

In summary, let's stick to the physical realities of mineral processing and leave the creation of alternative realities to science fiction. The discrepancy being insisted upon is a figment of misunderstanding, not a revelation of error in the original calculations.