Jump to content

Jp’s Gold Thread


Recommended Posts

In any case, an absolute ripper! Could there be more of it around? It might not be a loner 🤑

Link to comment
Share on other sites


He knows they are there so ... the mind set and read on your task was excellent JP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back of napkin calculation from a formula I just derived which I can explain later if this weight isn't totally off in left field in the end. 🙂 I have no idea if this works or not.

(19g/cc * x)+(3g/cc * y)=125.8 g----> x = 25.5 - y

So, (19g/cc * (25.5cc -y))+(3g/cc * y)=125.8 g

Solve for y (volume of quartz or other material) = 358.7/16 = 22.42cc

Now x (volume of gold) = 25.5-22.42 = 3.08 cc

Gold weight --->3.08cc *19 g/cc = 58.52 grams

Quartz weight ----> 22.42cc*3g/cc = 67.26 grams

Rounding error due to me being lazy.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Gold Catcher said:

Whoever is the closest should get the nugget 😁😁

This. 😄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, jasong said:

Back of napkin calculation from a formula I just derived which I can explain later if this weight isn't totally off in left field in the end. 🙂 I have no idea if this works or not.

(19g/cc * x)+(3g/cc * y)=125.8 g----> x = 25.5 - y

So, (19g/cc * (25.5cc -y))+(3g/cc * y)=125.8 g

Solve for y (volume of quartz or other material) = 358.7/16 = 22.42cc

Now x (volume of gold) = 25.5-22.42 = 3.08 cc

Gold weight --->3.08cc *19 g/cc = 58.52 grams

Quartz weight ----> 22.42cc*3g/cc = 67.26 grams

Rounding error due to me being lazy.

 

 

I just saw the same method on the internet: the volume of the specie is the dry weight minus the submerged weight, which equals 25.5 grams per cubic centimeter. If the specie was made entirely of quartz, it would weigh 25.5x2.65=67.575 grams. Subtracting this from the weight of the specie, 125.8-65.57, leaves us with the weight of the gold...58.2 grams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How long from time of find until you have the button?  haha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Lunk said:

I just saw the same method on the internet: 

It also must be the same method as whatever you used to calculate. Because if you use actual numbers for gold density purity and actual quartz density (say 18.5 and 2.65) instead of the nice round numbers (19 and 3) I lazily threw into my equation, and plug it into that equation I derived, it gives a total gold weight of 67.9 which is pretty close to your number, MN's number, and the actual gold weight.

It shows how important it is to get as accurate as possible both the density of the host material as well as the density of the gold when using these formulas or calculators!

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...