collapse


* User Info

 
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

* Who's Online

oilfieldsafetysuburbanator

Dot Guests: 178 | Dot Users
Dot Hidden: 0

* Board Stats

  • stats Total Members: 12935
  • stats Total Posts: 129703
  • stats Total Topics: 18139
  • stats Total Categories: 5
  • stats Total Boards: 48
  • stats Most Online: 814

* Advertisers

Gear Pan
The lil Gold Spinner
BC GOLD
The lil Gold Spinner
The Pocket Sluice

Author Topic: Micro Flood Gold  (Read 83566 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Blister

  • PPT Invited
  • *****
  • Posts: 152
  • Kudos: 0
Re: Micro Flood Gold
« Reply #30 on: January 03, 2010, 08:35:32 PM »
 Fossicker , I think the reason Clean Gold hasn't caught on here is the lack of information. As you said yourself, it only took you a minute to realize the potential of the system, but this was after seeing it preform. Going to the Clean Gold website, don't add much more than talking points to the equation. It seems the direction the company wanted to take was to introduce a viable alternative in 3rd world countries where mercury is a problem. It appears to be well received in these countries, but yet again only after seeing it in action. Perhaps a video, similar to the  Maverick and Propan videos would help start the ball rolling in this part of the world. I've been interested for sometime now, but the lack of information has held me back.

Offline sluicedog

  • PPT Invited
  • *****
  • Posts: 501
  • Province/State: BC
  • Kudos: 1
Re: Micro Flood Gold
« Reply #31 on: January 03, 2010, 08:48:03 PM »
I feel the same...Blister

A better video in a real life situation would surely help  <-good_>

I just have pictures of a layer of black sand stuck to the magnet...and then how do you get it off  <-thinking-> plus it will be filled with fine and micron gold...

It seems we haven't gotten any further on the gold separation...or have I missed something  <-dont~know->

now we have gold and concentrated black sand......all of us love this combination  ^#!

Oh ya..... lets throw in some garnets for color  :'( :'( :'(

Offline willthedancer

  • PPT Invited
  • *****
  • Posts: 394
  • Province/State: Portland OR, USA
  • Kudos: 6
  • All my hair fell through.
Re: Micro Flood Gold
« Reply #32 on: January 03, 2010, 09:00:39 PM »
Dunno about the patent issues, I have intermittently used mag sign in my sluice during the late eighties into the early nineties until I decided to give up beach mining. Cleangold got his patent over 10 years after I and others were doing this (1999). Hopefully he made sufficient improvements to fix the typical problems I noted then.

Its centrifuge time for me. I have no impulses to go backward to something I have already tried and deemed inefficient. I just finished my spin baby spin tonight.
Naps are wasted on toddlers, only an adult can appreciate them. Looking for mine now.

Offline The Fossicker

  • CGPF Sponsor
  • *******
  • Posts: 280
  • Kudos: 7
Re: Micro Flood Gold
« Reply #33 on: January 03, 2010, 10:32:17 PM »
Howdy Willthedancer,
So you and others failed to make it work, but David Plath didn't. This is why he has a Patent and his system is working all over the world, but you don't. By the way, the Cleangold against the Centrifuge proved more efficient at the Global Mercury Project done at the BC University. Go figure. Cheers.

The Fossicker
Pyramid Pro Pan" width="468" height="60" border="0

Offline Blister

  • PPT Invited
  • *****
  • Posts: 152
  • Kudos: 0
Re: Micro Flood Gold
« Reply #34 on: January 04, 2010, 05:55:41 AM »
 I've searched both the UBC and UNIDO sites, found lots of info on the Global Mercury Project, but nothing including Cleangold. Can you possibly post this study/paper or maybe provide a link ? Sounds like interesting reading.

Offline willthedancer

  • PPT Invited
  • *****
  • Posts: 394
  • Province/State: Portland OR, USA
  • Kudos: 6
  • All my hair fell through.
Re: Micro Flood Gold
« Reply #35 on: January 04, 2010, 07:00:57 AM »
Howdy Willthedancer,
So you and others failed to make it work, but David Plath didn't. This is why he has a Patent and his system is working all over the world, but you don't. By the way, the Cleangold against the Centrifuge proved more efficient at the Global Mercury Project done at the BC University. Go figure. Cheers.

The Fossicker

I would not say that I failed to make it work, but I will say that it was not worth my time. I certainly am not the originator of this device, but saw it used here by many, and thought I would give it the try it deserved, and was ultimately disappointed. Catching micron gold at one gravity is not easy, and in ALL of the literature I have at my disposal, there are only 2 efficient ways to do it. jigs and Centrifuges. I did not choose to try making a jig, because it looked like voodoo mining to me back at the point when I started my current project. I have gotten more info since then, but jigging is not as efficient as spinning, and my folks down here want new centrifuges to replace their ageing ones.

 Anytime I see someone make the claim that their single gravity solution is more effective for extracting gold from sand than the multi gravity methods, I say the same 2 things. 1) Show me the study- it needs to be an independent one with fire assays on the tails from a licensed assayer, and 2) no one gets to disobey the laws of physics here.

Personally, I do not like your tone.
Naps are wasted on toddlers, only an adult can appreciate them. Looking for mine now.

Offline GollyMrScience

  • PPT Invited
  • *****
  • Posts: 2951
  • Province/State: Near Edmonton Alberta
  • Kudos: 160
Re: Micro Flood Gold
« Reply #36 on: January 04, 2010, 10:29:45 AM »
Ok to stir the pot a little:
A bit of a foundation to work from in the consideration of the relative merits of various systems and some thoughts on how to evaluate their "efficiency".

Great care must be taken to truly determine the true recoverable gold in a sample and that is not as easy as some would think.
The first consideration is recoverable to what method?
A classic error is to fire assay black sand cons.
Yes it can be done to advantage but the results cannot be considered as definative without first determining how much of the gold in the assay actually came from free gold particles versus gold still locked into the black sand and/or other minerals and then comparing that to the system to be used to get the gold from the con to the pouring mold.
I have spent literally days at an electron microscope examining placer gold and gold locked into mineral grains found in placer deposits.
To simplify the conclusions the gold in a placer deposit will reflect the the origins of that gold.
That may sound obvious but lets examine that.
The majority of gold found in hardrock deposits is less than 40 microns! That means that those particles START OUT at between 300 and 400 mesh and they don't get any bigger than that - only finer. Placer recovery methods are already hampered by that.
It means that from the get go a placer plant is chasing what in nature are anomalous gold particles. The 100 mesh stuff is NUGGETS compared to general hardrock gold.

Now compound the issue by adding in unliberated gold. That is gold still locked into host mineral grains. We already know about gold trapped in sulphides and black sands as many placer people have discovered this by assaying their black sands. However - a whole whack of gold never got caught - firstly because the equipment was not up to recovering gold of that size and secondly because the gold was still locked into mineral grains that - for the most part - were not recoverable by specific gravity methods. This would be the gold that was still locked into the host quartz for instance. The combination of a little bit of gold still locked to a chunk of quartz is a combined specific gravity profile that will not report as a heavier specific gravity.

How does this reflect in the testing of recovery efficiency?
Simply put - assaying a con without breaking out the free gold can lead to major errors.
Also not taking into account the high grade con versus the total recovered gold and the reporting error that can occur.
Consider this as a concentration ratio issue.
One piece of equipment produces a concentration ratio of 1000 to one while another produces a concentration ratio of 100 to one.
Lets assume that both operators run 1000 tonnes. The one operator will have one tonne of con - the other will have 10 tonnes.
If a straight assay of the cons were done the 1000 to one con would come up as a higher value per ton of that con even if - and this is important -the 100 to one system actually recovered more real gold!
Its just that the 100 to one system diluted the value in the con.
In practice (and advertizing hype) the high grade con operator says "I am recovering 200 ounces per tonne of concentrate" - his recovery ratio would represent 1/5 ounce of gold per tonne of bank run. The lower concentration ratio operator says "I am recovering 25 ounces of gold per tonne of concentrate" - his recovery ratio would represent 1/4 of an ounce per tonne of bank run. He is recovering more of the gold from the deposit BUT he has ten times as much concentrate to deal with to get the recovered gold out and that is a BIG factor in economics.
Since the name of the game is actual recovered gold from the primary deposit the 100 to one system might be the system of choice IF and only if the extra recovery was economically viable to recover downstream of the primary system. That would mean investigating how to best get to actual poured gold and if the infrastructure and time and energy needed to recover the gold is worth it.
This is why sluices are still the norm.
They produce a high concentration ratio of gold that is recoverable for the level of enterprise and technology and investment that the operator has. What good to recover 600 mesh gold if the downstream system to actually get that gold cannot reccover finer than 400 mesh? Is there enough gold recovered in the minus 400 mesh sizes to justify the cost and effort to recover it? Was there enough minus 150 mesh gold in the deposit to justify something other than a sluice and if not why blow your brains out chasing something that is just an illusion of value?
In the simplest terms would a hand shovel operator be better to spend $8000 on a system to recover every bit of gold down to 600 mesh and then another 10,000 on a system to take that gold out of the cons when the gold represented by the sizes below the efficiency of his hand shovel sluice might only represent 10% of the value of the deposit? At the hand shovel or small scale mining levels the operator can offset that economic loss by simply throwing in another shovel full of dirt! That would be one extra shovelful for every 10 shovelfuls to basically cover the losses and not change the system.
If you are dealing with a project running 100's of tonnes per hour it becomes a factor to consider but at 20 tonnes or less - not so much.
Guys its not just the best technolgy it is the best APPROPRIATE technology that will win in the end. If not by design then by default as operators come to the same conclusions by trial and error or hard economics.
What you catch has to be weighed against what went in versus what it cost to get it.
Fundamental to the process is an understanding of the deposit and what needs to be done to recover the most gold economically. We would all like to recover every atom of gold but folks it just aint possible and an operator has to determine where the economics are most favourable.
Showing up with a big expensive system to work a deposit that by virtue of the nature of its emplacement has no benefit to recovering gold any finer than 120 mesh is a waste of time, effort and energy.
Thats where trying to find the best jack of all trades kinds of equipment and getting a clear understanding of the limitations of various systems can be a project saver.
Having said all that I will come back at the micro gold recovery systems in my next post.
What the heck - lets just keep mixin' stuff together till it blows up or smells REALLY bad!

Offline sluicedog

  • PPT Invited
  • *****
  • Posts: 501
  • Province/State: BC
  • Kudos: 1
Re: Micro Flood Gold
« Reply #37 on: January 04, 2010, 10:44:07 AM »
GollyMr Science....good post  <-good_>

For most of the forum members I suppose we have to let go of the idea of recovering that last ATOM of gold out of our heads. <-yes_>

But I suppose we see so little of it (gold)... that we are paranoid to waste any...but as you say throw in another shovel full.

Or develop better recovery methods...I look forward to your next post  <-good_>

sluicedog
 :)

Offline Guest

  • New user
  • Posts: 0
  • Province/State: bc
  • Kudos: 1
Re: Micro Flood Gold
« Reply #38 on: January 04, 2010, 10:49:31 AM »
I think I'm waiting for the Paul Harvey thing, The Rest Of The Story,  <-yes_>....if you can't pan it out, it's to small to catch economically through gravity separation, ...Guest

Offline garyww

  • PPT Invited
  • *****
  • Posts: 370
  • Province/State: Napa, California
  • Kudos: 14
    • Gold Country Outfitters
Re: Micro Flood Gold
« Reply #39 on: January 04, 2010, 08:32:07 PM »
One of the problems with capturing extremely fine gold is that you really can't see it without magnification until you've collected it into small groups or piles of particles. I was amazed at really how much ultra fine stuff is caught in a regular old sluice when I was doing my riffle tests but most of it is wasted away during the secondary processing. I took some pictures that are in my Miller Table article of particles that are typically lost if you're not specifically looking for it. For this reason it's my opinion that initially finding and capturing the micro material with conventional gear is fairly easy but finding a fast way to process it is a big problem. Fast is the keyword since you've got to work a trememdous amount of material to make this type of mining cost effective.

 


Gear Pan
Gold Rat