# question about slot processor fingers



## mls26cwru (Dec 19, 2012)

I have been under the assumption that fingers from slot processors would yield about the same as other fingers from pci cards... am I correct in this assumption, or does anyone have any data to indicate otherwise? 

Thanks,
Mike


----------



## mls26cwru (Dec 19, 2012)

i found one thread with 2lbs, 7oz. slot processer fingers yielding ~5.5g... (2.25 gr/lbfingers) anyone else get similar results?


----------



## etack (Dec 20, 2012)

They should have a yield similar to ram. The PCI cards a lot of time have gaps in the finger contacts. the slot processors don't.

Your numbers seem close.

Eric


----------



## NobleMetalWorks (Dec 20, 2012)

I find, so long as they are close cut, slot card fingerboards bear more Au than regular fingerboards, here are some examples to illustrate my point.

A good example of regular fingerboards:

















Notice the gaps between the gold plating, on most fingerboards, this usually equates to about 50% of the board being plated with gold. 

Now look at slot card fingerboards:











If you notice, there is very little space between the gold plating. This equates if it is plated on both sides, to about 90% gold plating.

So lb per lb, slot card fingerboards should have a significant higher yield, almost twice as much, as regular fingerboards.

Scott


----------



## mls26cwru (Dec 21, 2012)

thanks SBrown... until you pointed it out, i didnt realize how close together those contacts really were. Still looking to see if anyone has anymore yield data, but thanks for the help once again!


----------



## johnny309 (Dec 21, 2012)

The data is only a matter of surface...much more area plated versus weight.
Why ?
Because of volume math: 

Width x lenght x height 
Height is ussually 30 micoinches(0.75 micrometters)....width and lenght can be measured.



""1 cubic inch of pure gold weighs 316.598 grams; 10.17886 troy oz; or 11.16767 imperial ounces. 

The above answer is rounded to the nearest milligram or to the 5th decimal position on both imperial and troy ounces. 

These numbers are detailed approximations based upon the following information and formula: 

There are 19.32 grams of gold per cubic centimeter (assuming 99.9+% pure gold) 
One cubic inch = 16.387064 cubic centimeters 
One gram = 
0.0321507466 troy ounce or 
0.0352739619 ounces 

This information reduces this to a matter of mathematics. Depending how detailed we need to get.

16.387064 cubic centimeters x 19.32 grams = 316.59807648 grams 
316.59807648 grams x 0.0321507466 troy ounces = 10.178864530955899968 troy ounces 

316.59807648 grams x 0.0352739619 imperial ounces = 11.167668487368806112 ounces""


Dates extracted from : http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Weight_of_gold_per_one_cubic_inch


----------



## goldsilverpro (Dec 21, 2012)

johnny309,

If I remember my math, the number of significant figures in your answer cannot exceed the lowest number of significant figures in any of the factors used to obtain that answer. For example, you said
16.387064 cubic centimeters x 19.32 grams = 316.59807648 grams 

Since 19.32 has only 4 significant figures, the best answer would be 316.6, which also has 4 significant figures. The other numbers in your answer are meaningless. Think about it. 19.32 may actually be something like 19.317849032, rounded off to 19.32. Or, it might be something like 19.3217639004, rounded off. Both will give different answers in the above equation, but both will round off to 316.6, at best.

No offense intended. I just see this sort of thing done all the time and, since I'm so anal about these things, it drives me nuts. Common 8 or 12 place calculators are definitely the blame for this heresy. In the ancient years, before hand-held calculators (about 1974), those of us who had to use logarithm charts or log log slide rules to make these calculations understood this important premise much better. BTW, I hope we are still friends. :lol: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figures
http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview/bp/ch1/sigfigs.html


----------



## MGH (Dec 21, 2012)

GSP, don't get me started. I mean, you are absolutely correct, and I totally agree and feel the same way, which is why for everyone else's sake I say, don't get me started 8)


----------



## johnny309 (Dec 22, 2012)

Sorry GSP...I did put the "qoute" signs in my answer and below the link from witch was extracted....
I know that the data is not 100% accurate ,but was the fisrt example...so to speak..Close to hand to explain the much more heard question: "HOW much gold for a pound? "...

P.S.:And BTW,still friends....hopefully for a long time...


----------



## NoIdea (Dec 22, 2012)

goldsilverpro said:


> ....... since I'm so anal about these things, it drives me nuts.



Well we all know how to wind you up. :mrgreen: 

Deano


----------



## scrappile (Dec 22, 2012)

The efficiency of the process to process slot fingers could cause results to vary :?:


----------

