Discussions of Papers Published Prior to July 1960 - The Electronic Computer and Statistics for Predicting Ore Recovery; AIME Trans, 1959, vol 214, page 1035

R. Duval (Mining Engineer, Ancien eleve de PEcole Polytechnique, Paris, France) I do not agree with the Eq. 3, reading: m =1/100- [(0.214x30.4) + (0.7B6 x0.00)] =6.5pct CaO If 0.214 and0.786 were proportions by weight, the equation would represent the well known mixtures law of the conventional arithmetics and 6. 5 pct CaO would be the correct average content. But it is not the case as the author states: "In samples consisting of single grains of mineral, those grains must, as already mentioned, be either of dolomite or magnesite. Since 78.6 pct of the deposit consists of magnesite and 21.4 pct of dolomite (excluding for present purpose the presence of other minerals), for any single grains picked at random the probability will be 0.214 that is it dolomite and0.786 that is it magnesite. In 1000 such samples the expected numbers of dolomite and mapesite grains will be 214 and 786 respectively." 0.214 and 0.786 would be proportions by weigbt under the necessary condition that all grains of dole mite and magnesite should have an identical weight. Obviously it is not the case, as the specific gravities are not the same for mapesite and dolomite and the volumes of the grains are different. Furthermore, because of these differences the conditions for a random sampling are not fulfilled and we are not authorized to state that the probabilities are, respectively, 0.214 and 0.786. The author however makes a simple application of Eq. 1: M = 1/n— ? fi x i . n Should we deduce that this relation is wrohg? Not at all, but when applying Eq. 1 you must not overlook what it actually. means. Eq. 1 gives a definition of the arithmetic mean of a total of n observed values Xi and nothing else. But the average conteht of a deposit has not the same significance. It is the ratio between the weight of concerned mineral in the deposit and the total weight of the deposit. As from 1000 particles the 214 of dolomite and the 786 of magnesite have not the same weight, the two definitions do not concur, and when applying Eq. 1 the result is an arithmetic mean of figures which has no connection with what is named average contentof a deposit. The situation is similar to the calculation of an average velocity. If a car travels a first mile over at 30 miles per hr and a second mile over at 60 miles per hr, when applying formula 1 you find as average velocity for the 2 miles: 30+60 ------- - 45 miles per hour. Many people calculate in this way and they do not realize that a mistake is involved. In fact the definition of he average velocity for the 2 miles is the quotient of the distance of 2 miles by the time (in hours) necessary for 2 miles travel, i.e.: 2 ---------- = 40 miles per hr. 1 + 1 30 60 In other words, the average volocity wanted is not the arithmetic but the harmonic average of the two velocities. The above mentioned bias in the calculation of the average contents of deposits is frequent, even in the assessments made by experienced engineers and is independant of what is named the sampling error. In order to supress the bias and to be able to use Eq. 1, you must apply a correction. An example on the subject can be found in an article by Duval et al. in the January 1955 issue of the ''Annales des Mines" (French), page 19. R. F. Schurtz (Author's Reply) Mr. Duval's position is quite correct. The proportions shown for dolomite and magnesite., respectively, of 0.214 and 0.786 are, in fact, proportions by weight uncorrected for specific gravity. In our day to day operation of producing magnesite from these mines at a very substantial rate, we do not normally make corrections for the difference between the specific gravity of dolomite and that of magnesite. If these corrections are made in Eq. 3 as shown in my article, then the numbers of grains turn out to be in proportions of 0.226 dolomite and 0.774 mapesite instead of the values actually shown in the equation. For the purposes of our work, and in view of the inherently low accuracy of the data, this correction was not deemed worthwhile making.