Preferring to leave history to the historians of science, we will not present here a historical survey, but rather will only cite some examples of priorities during the course of the book. We will just note that separating geophysical fluid dynamics from general fluid dynamics was a risky step to take, since it could well have cut the field off from general science by creating a specialized jargon that was incomprehensible to the uninitiated. Pseudosciences can thrive and flourish on such soil over an area which is vast but which fails to reach any heights. This has occurred, for instance, in meteorology (here we do not include atmospheric physics), in which interest in astrological techniques for weather forecasting periodically rears its head (even now unverifiable forecasting methods 'for the season' are still used), in the agricultural sciences, in pedagogy, etc. However, things are quite different if, in an important sphere of knowledge, there is a solid nugget of seriousness, requiring a special study of the material and the creation of new concepts (the creation of new concepts goes deeper than just the recognition of patterns; it is the very basis of scientific creativity, distinguishing the investigator from the computers of the foreseeable future), and if, basing itself on these concepts, the new science contacts and interacts with other branches of knowledge and becomes generally used. <...>

Numerous articles and a few books have been written about sampling of particulate materials before this third edition. Then, why select Pierre Gy’s theory, Visman and Ingamells’s works? As a Pierre Gy’s Gold Medalist I want to bring my knowledge and experience on the Theory of Sampling (TOS) and contribute to making sure TOS grows in a rational way, in spite of its many detractors. Looking at comments made around the world, it is clear that many statisticians and empiricists promoting “Measurement of Uncertainty” (MU) strongly believe that TOS is something they can live without. Such antagonism is misplaced, unjustified and very unfair. I also strongly believe the MU promoters, who most of the time, are more comfortable with J. Visman’s work, need TOS, and vice versa. In this third edition of my book a special effort is made to integrate J. Visman and C. O. Ingamells’s works into the TOS and create a unified foundation that may help to create better sampling standards. <...>

This paper presents U-Pb-He triple-dating age detenninations for several porphyry Cu±Mo+Au deposits in Chile, Indonesia and Iran in an effort to determine their thermal histories and to explore the effects of cooling/exhumation rates on ore formation and preservation processes. Inverse thermal modelling of measured time-temperature history data from these deposits was conducted to quantitatively constrain the depth of emplacement, duration of ore deposition, exposure ages and cooling/exhumation rates. The duration of hypogene ore formation for the deposits studied generally occurs within timeframes of 105 years, although modelling results for the Grasberg, Batu Hijau and El Teniente super porphyry deposits suggest formation periods of the order of 104 years. Emplacement depths on intrusions associated with porphyry mineralisation range from 800 m to 5500 m from the palaeosurface, with Grasberg and Rio Blanco being respectively the shallowest and deepest super porphyry deposits studied. The thermochronology data indicates a positive correlation between metal grade and cooling rate during hypogene ore formation, but further investigation is warranted. Exhumation rates varying from 0.3 to 1.1 km/m.y. have implications for the preservation potential of hypogene ore deposits, with super porphyry deposits like Sar Cheshmeh potentially losing 3.5 Mt of copper to erosion over the last 5 million years. The potential for supergene ore formation under such conditions is high, as is the potential for the formation of proximal Exotica-type deposits.