PeterM said:
I have done esoteric chemistry for about 40 years now on complex ores.
This sounds more like "alchemy" to me. As a matter of fact, if we were only to consider the meaning of esoteric, it seems that whatever beliefs you hold true about chemistry in regards to it being esoteric, are not widely accepted nor considered nor practiced.
Are you suggesting that you have been conducting chemistry that is not widely accepted, known nor practiced, and have been doing so for about 40 years? I would be curious to know if you hold a degree in Chemistry, and what proof, after 40 years, you have that your occult form of chemistry actually works. Surely after 40 years in this field, you should possess volumes of hard core evidence that you can produce, so that those of us who practice normal, regular, proven chemistry might then recognize the value of your "esoteric chemistry".
When a search on Amazon is done on "esoteric chemistry" is done on Amazon, these are the books that search produces:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias=stripbooks&field-keywords=Esoteric+Chemistry
I prefer hard core evidence, empirical data and proof, not a willy-nilly concept that is touted by those who have an interest in the occult, or alchemy or magic, all which are related to "esoteric chemistry". Just the fact that you use this as the label you choose to promote your post sends red flags flying up the flagpole.
PeterM said:
There are many things you can do that will improve your TRUE assay of your ore.
In some ores, not all, and not in most but rather very few. This is not something that would be suitable for almost all ore bodies. If you read about UV Ozone, it becomes evident that in most cases there is only a slight increase in the yield, which could be because of numerous reasons outside UV Ozone treatment. From what I have read, it's not cost effective to improve yield using this method on a large scale. Considering that on a small scale the return would not be dramatic at all, this seems like a novel, yet not cost effective way of extracting gold and palladium from complex ore bodies.
PeterM said:
One of them is the utilization of tube type generated UV Ozone. If one would actually be patient and follow a US Patent, it's possible you could do as I have, and get far better results. Go to: http://www.google.com/patents/US4642134 and download this PDF
What exactly have you done? You have provided no proof, only a link to a document that is questionable at best. Since you claim you have done this, I would imagine under normal circumstances that you would probably have taken many pictures, as proof considering the dubious nature of your claim. Not only that, but if you truly have been conducting "esoteric chemistry" for 40 years, specially in regards to precious metals and using methods like UV Ozone, you would also have had complex ores assayed using traditional methods pre-treatment as well as your claimed method of pre-treatment, so you can prove side by side comparisons. If not, what would lead you to believe you get any better results using UV Ozone as opposed to other methods? If you have not done side by side comparisons, all your claims, whatever they might be, should be rigorously tested until you have accumulated enough hard data, empirical proof that your claims are real, and true. So please, if you would, provide the data I am suggesting you should possess for us to review.
PeterM said:
Unfortunately, so many of you out there are looking for a Silver Bullet to make your fortune from your ore.
It seems you are offering this information as if it was a "silver bullet". If not, then what specific types of complex ores have you personally used this technology on, and produced the "far better results" from? And again, since you claim "far better results" I would like to see the side by side comparison that would be required in order to make a claim such as this. Unless you have done side by side tests, there is no way you could claim "far better results".
PeterM said:
It has been my experience that gold is all around us but most commonly overlooked.
Of course gold is all around us, it's used in electronics, in your cell phone, in jewelry, medicine, gold leaf, plating, etc etc etc. But I don't think that is what you are eluding to or suggesting. If we were to talk about gold in sea water, sure, there is an estimated 70 million tons in sea water, but it's not feasible using today's technology to extract it in a cost effective manor. Since you have claimed it's your experience that gold is all around us, can you provide that information here for our review? How is it your experience has exposed to you, all this gold that is all around us, that everyone else misses? To make a claim like this, specially in regards to your personal experience, you must have proof of this. What kind of experience do you have that would lead you to believe that gold is all around us, that we are missing?
PeterM said:
Extracting gold from green ores is an art, extracting gold from vanilla ore is a no brainer. If you truly seek it, it will come to you.
I am not sure what exactly you mean by "green ores". I would assume you mean copper ores, but if not please explain what it is you mean by "green ores". Extracting gold from copper ores is not difficult, and certainly does not take any artistic ability. The definition of art is thus:
the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
So what creative skill and/or imagination does it take to extract gold from green ores using UV Ozone? When extracted, does a painting or sculpture magically appear that you had some part in creating on purpose? Are you producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power? I personally believe that the extraction of gold from complex ores is a science rather than art. I might be led to believe that smelting is a craft, or applying chemistry and doing so in a way that exceeds most peoples abilities might be called a craft. But certainly not art. I do create art from some of the metals I extract/recover and refine, but I certainly would not call extracting gold an art, perhaps craft but certainly not an art form. Maybe the different colors created by different solutions could be called art, or maybe when you expose certain metals to gases produced by dissolving metals in acids, as I do with some metals to give them a patina, could be called art. But not gold recovery or refining.
You have made several claims yet provided no proof, no evidence only your dubious statements. If this is something you believe rather than have actually done yourself, then I would expect no proof, however if you have done what you have claimed you should be able to provide proof of this, and whatever information related so that we might understand better, be able to reproduce your results and know what you state is true. Extracting gold is not a belief, no matter how fervently you might believe something it's only a belief until you can provide proof. If by "esoteric chemistry" you mean something based in alchemy or the occult, then you have posted on a forum where it's members do not put up with that type of nonsense, and you might serve your purpose better and receive a positive response from a site that deals with the belief in the occult, or magic or alchemy.
You also claim in your posts title to have improved your assay numbers by 15-20 times over fire assay. Since UV Ozone is a pre-treatment, and not an assay, I would like to know how you improved your assay. What technique are you using, since you suggest your technique is different than fire assay. And if you truly have discovered or developed some assay method that proves values in order of magnitude of 15-20 times over fire assay, then please, again, provide proof of this by producing side by side examples of the same complex ore. In order to make this claim, you would have to have done side by side comparisons. I would be thrilled if you could prove just a 2 time increase over fire assay, as that would mean double the amount of reported gold than a fire assay. But claiming 15-20 times more seems utterly outside the realm of what is real. If a fire assay reported nothing, and a pre-treatment and whatever method you used to extract the gold for a novel assay proved any values, that would still only be a 1 time improvement. Are you suggesting that if a fire assay proved out 1 gram per ton of gold, then your method would prove 15 or 20 grams? Or if the ore proved 2 grams, that your method would prove out 30-40 grams? I assume when you state "15-20 times" you actually mean 1 x 15/20. If not, can you rephrase your subject title to reflect what you truly mean? Your claim seems utterly outside the realm of what every other method might be able to claim. That seems very unlikely to me.
If you do have proof, and are able to post in here, specifically on your own experience, data you have collected, equipment you have built then please provide proof and evidence. I would be more than happy to apologize for my skepticism in this thread if you can do so. If not, I expect you will not respond.
I await your response.
Scott
