Again, if you are becoming tired of my "negative attitude" please consult
the moderator (or lack there of) depending on the group and I will take a
vacation.
In response to recent postings, the following questions regarding the "300
second burn syndrome" found there way back to my email box. Also, I hedged
my position by having a person who is knowledgeable in this arena to join
the forum yesterday. I am hoping that he will assist in developing a path
through this labyrinth.
>Dear Joe -
>I'm just a layman in this, but can you clarify this question:
>Let's say your silver and iridium both appear in a close range of 3513+
>angstroms and that this might compromise claims about iridium, but is there a
>similar problem affecting any or all of the other five elements DH talks
>about as appearing in the 300-second burn?
>Ed Hamerstrom
----------------
To establish a baseline, emission spectroscopy is a science, not an
absolute. There are in excess of 27,000 emission lines recorded. This data
is available from the National Institute of Standards and Technologies.
Misinterpretation of lines from emission spectroscopy by untrained operators
has cost people associated with precious metals Billions of Dollars during
the past thirty years. Hundreds of people have laid claims that their
mineral deposit has 100's of ounces of gold and platinum metals. Yet, only
their analytical laboratory can observe them. This is extremely wide spread
and companies such as ARSCO have had people send tons of rock to their plant
that was totally barren of precious metals. Of course these people thought
that their rock was worth Thousands of Dollars due to the statements of
their assayers.
A direct answer to your question is -- depending on the operator, during a
300 second burn of base metals, you can recognized many elements that are
not present due to two conditions:
1. The blooming effect which occurs as the sample starts to volatize at a
faster rate.
2. Nuclear transmutation, or formation of new elements due to low energy
nuclear reactions.
To substantiate my position, allow me to give a supporting example. Dr.
John Bockris et al. repeated an experiment from Kushi wherein they arced
carbon electrode's in ultra-pure water. Every possible monitoring factor was
in place to insure that no contamination would be introduced into the process.
The end result was they found that there was a formation of iron from this
process. Hence, emission lines of iron will become visible by arcing carbon
under the correct conditions.
Is there deposits of 100's of ounces per ton of earth of platinum metals on
this planet. The probability factor is extremely low. As far as in the
western portion of the United States, the answer is HELL NO!
Can an instrument read 100's of ounces of platinum from mineralized zones?
Definitely, especially if you incorporate an esoteric sample preparation
procedure prior to analysis.
Don't take my word for it, consult the Colorado School of Mines, or the
geoscience group at your nearest university!
_______________________________
Joe Champion discpub@netzone.com
http://www.netzone.com/~discpub