I ball park the black IC's at <0.001% , gold wise.
Not to beat a dead horse but, to eliminate confusion, 0.1% = 0.001, as Pat said, whereas 0.001% = 0.00001. Therefore, at .001%, they would only contain 454 x .00001 = .0045 g of Au/pound = $0.22/pound, based on a $1545 market. At the actual 0.1%, the value is $22/pound
what i meant to say my ball park numbers are: per 1000 grams of chips, there's less or equal to 1 gram of gold.
That would be 1 part per thousand = 0.1% or, expressed as a decimal, 0.001. To convert the decimal to a percent, you always move the decimal point 2 places to the right (or, multiply by 100). To convert percent to a decimal, move it 2 places to the left (or, divide by 100).
To make math easier, I would highly recommend memorizing as many relevant conversion factors as possible or, keep a list handy and keep adding to it. Of course, this must be done with understanding. Personally, I hate those online plug-in type calculators and rarely use them unless the math is extremely involved and I don't want to take the time to figure it out. Why? Because I don't learn anything by using them. Also, on some of them, it's easy to get a wrong answer if you don't know exactly what values to plug in where. When I grind out the math, I can truly visualize what is really happening. Also, I often try to find at least one other way to do the math to double check my answers, as in the 2 examples immediately below. Also, think about your answer. I've learned that, if the answer doesn't sound right, it usually isn't right. Remember that there are many different ways to approach each problem and still get the same correct answer. Probably, the more correct ways you can think of, the better you understand what you are doing. On this problem alone, we, as a group, have come up with about half a dozen good, workable methods.
One of the convenient conversions I've always remembered is that an avoirdupois pound (a standard US pound) contains 14.583 troy oz. Therefore, 700# @ 0.1% = 700 x 14.583 x .001 = 10.2 tr oz.
Another conversion permanently implanted in my mind is that a 2000 avoirdupois pound ton contains 29,166 tr oz. Therefore, for 700# @ 0.1%, (700/2000) x 29166 x .001 = 10.2 tr oz.
Forgive me, this is off the track of the thread but, the reason I've memorized this last conversion is that, when assaying such things as ores or low grade pulps, a sample size of 29.166 g is commonly used to make the final calculations easier. This weight is called an "assay ton (AT)". When using a 1 assay ton sample weight of 29.166 grams, the final result, in milligrams, is equal to the number of troy oz of gold (or, whatever) per 2000 avoirdupois pound ton of material. For example, with a 29.166 g sample, a final gold weight of 0.003 g is equal to 3 tr oz/ton. I had a set of AT weights that ranged from .05 AT to 1 AT - the smaller weights were used for richer materials. The sample weighings were made on a special small 2 pan swing balance called a "pulp balance." With AT weights and a pulp balance, the weighings went very fast. Probably less than a sample per minute. Probably faster than a modern digital scale, unless you could program it to directly weigh in assay tons.
When you need to know the answer in tr oz/metric ton, the same logic can be used but, in this case, an assay ton sample would weigh about 32.15 grams.
pinwheel said:
700 pounds x 453.44g = 317,408g / 1000 = 317.40g net weight. 317.40 / 31.1 = 10.2 oz troy.
Or more simply put: 700 lb = 10208.333 oz(troy) divided by 1000
Correct answer on both counts. The first method is excellent and very logical. Of course, instead of dividing by 1000, you could have multiplied by .001, the decimal equivalent of 0.1%. Same thing.
I don't think the 2nd example is simpler to the reader, since you didn't explain where you got the 10208.333 and the way you wrote it could be confusing. I know what you're saying, but others may not. To make more mathematical sense, you could have said something like: 700 lb = 10208.333 oz(troy); 10208.33 divided by 1000 = 10.2 tr oz., based on a 0.1% yield.
I hope everyone will excuse me for the long boring math posts. I must admit that, when I see math being done, especially when there are errors made, it draws me like a moth to a flame and I start blathering (as my wife adroitly calls it). To prevent making costly errors in this complex PM field, it is imperative that everyone can somehow do the math (or use the correct internet calculators correctly). I really do try to make the math I present as simple and logical as possible, although I often fail in this. If I say anything that confuses anyone, let me know and I'll try to simplify it. I also can make mistakes, so please correct me when I'm wrong.
