collapse


* User Info

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

* Who's Online

Hardpan82

Dot Guests: 294 | Dot Users
Dot Hidden: 0

* Board Stats

  • stats Total Members: 13068
  • stats Total Posts: 131919
  • stats Total Topics: 18428
  • stats Total Categories: 5
  • stats Total Boards: 48
  • stats Most Online: 814

* Advertisers

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

Author Topic: Micro Flood Gold  (Read 87750 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline willthedancer

  • PPT Invited
  • *****
  • Posts: 394
  • Province/State: Portland OR, USA
  • Kudos: 6
  • All my hair fell through.
Re: Micro Flood Gold
« Reply #120 on: January 15, 2010, 06:43:20 PM »
I'll let the judges determine if video is to be acceptable evidence for the contest, and if so, whether it is adequate. I have said my piece about it. I want it to be fair, and am willing to pay an entry fee to play.
Naps are wasted on toddlers, only an adult can appreciate them. Looking for mine now.

Offline NickMarch

  • PPT Invited
  • *****
  • Posts: 332
  • Kudos: 7
Re: Micro Flood Gold
« Reply #121 on: January 15, 2010, 06:50:48 PM »
There are people here from all over the world who may want to show their stuff.  Personally I don't want anyone to be shut out for any reason.  Anything goes!  Make rules for video submissions.  Continuous, show pre-measured amounts being weighed and dumped, ect.  If you are classifying, then classify on video.  Whatever the process is from beginning to end, the whole ball of wax on continuous video. 

I'll use a bag of rocks, a bag of pebbles, a bag of quick dry cement, a bucket full of dirt dug from the yard and a gram of gold weighed and dumped all on continuous video.  Then see how much I can recover and how quickly I can recover it. 

Offline willthedancer

  • PPT Invited
  • *****
  • Posts: 394
  • Province/State: Portland OR, USA
  • Kudos: 6
  • All my hair fell through.
Re: Micro Flood Gold
« Reply #122 on: January 15, 2010, 06:57:27 PM »
There are people here from all over the world who may want to show their stuff.  Personally I don't want anyone to be shut out for any reason.  Anything goes!  Make rules for video submissions.  Continuous, show pre-measured amounts being weighed and dumped, ect.  If you are classifying, then classify on video.  Whatever the process is from beginning to end, the whole ball of wax on continuous video. 

I'll use a bag of rocks, a bag of pebbles, a bag of quick dry cement, a bucket full of dirt dug from the yard and a gram of gold weighed and dumped all on continuous video.  Then see how much I can recover and how quickly I can recover it. 

The quality of the aggregate is a tough thing to reproduce. I would guess that the material in your neck of the woods is likely continental stuff, and pretty light, whereas the stuff there in BC is varied, and likely detritus from lots of places, many of them ultramafic, and hence very heavy. You would have an advantage. The other part of this is the (yet not agreed apon) 2 hour run as the test. Can you come up with 2 hours worth of agg to run, and have it be consistent with the stuff being run out west?
Naps are wasted on toddlers, only an adult can appreciate them. Looking for mine now.

Offline NickMarch

  • PPT Invited
  • *****
  • Posts: 332
  • Kudos: 7
Re: Micro Flood Gold
« Reply #123 on: January 15, 2010, 07:05:50 PM »
What I have right here is mostly clay and loam. 

I've been testing at 30 gallons a minute and plan on getting a larger pump as I think I can run at about 100 gallons a minute with the current setup but until I get the pump I won't know for sure.  I'm sucking unclassified right out of a large container.  There is a classifying screen at the intake so I do not need to pre-classify. 

Figure 100 gallons a minute 50/50 water/unclassified material.  How much material would I need?  A whole lot to run for 2 hours.

I do live on a muddy creek.  I can dump a gram of gold into the muck but that would still not take much time to get it back.  I'd have to leave the thing running for the remainder of the two hours for nothing. 

Offline willthedancer

  • PPT Invited
  • *****
  • Posts: 394
  • Province/State: Portland OR, USA
  • Kudos: 6
  • All my hair fell through.
Re: Micro Flood Gold
« Reply #124 on: January 15, 2010, 07:05:58 PM »
Let me add please, that I want to see everybody's  best effort, and do not want to miss any. The more, the better for all. Tricks to be learned and shared, that we all will profit by.
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 #125 on: January 15, 2010, 07:08:38 PM »
This is going to degenerate into an impossible task. Getting the same material, the same gold sizes and purity and weight, getting the same percentages of black sand, the same efficiency of final recovery etc etc.
I have done quite a few of these tests and while I can offer some suggestions its gonna get tough to do with far flung and highly variable equipment and operating conditions.
Each inventor or innovator will want to ensure that their equipment is optimized for a test and run under optimal conditions.
Black sands HAVE to be part of the test as we cannot all run clean silica sand with placer gold when in the field.
More arm waving still I am afraid but I hope that it helps give us some direction.
What the heck - lets just keep mixin' stuff together till it blows up or smells REALLY bad!

Offline willthedancer

  • PPT Invited
  • *****
  • Posts: 394
  • Province/State: Portland OR, USA
  • Kudos: 6
  • All my hair fell through.
Re: Micro Flood Gold
« Reply #126 on: January 15, 2010, 07:18:50 PM »
A local test will fix this, as the material from the same bar will be similar enough. Part of what I proposed back there a while was that the material is classed into buckets from the same location, sitting in a central location, run what you can and put the cons on the judges table in 2 hours. This would require that you can get your equipment to the location. That would probably wash out folks with 100 ton/hour washplants...
Naps are wasted on toddlers, only an adult can appreciate them. Looking for mine now.

Offline NickMarch

  • PPT Invited
  • *****
  • Posts: 332
  • Kudos: 7
Re: Micro Flood Gold
« Reply #127 on: January 15, 2010, 07:23:04 PM »
This is going to degenerate into an impossible task. Getting the same material, the same gold sizes and purity and weight, getting the same percentages of black sand, the same efficiency of final recovery etc etc.
I have done quite a few of these tests and while I can offer some suggestions its gonna get tough to do with far flung and highly variable equipment and operating conditions.
Each inventor or innovator will want to ensure that their equipment is optimized for a test and run under optimal conditions.
Black sands HAVE to be part of the test as we cannot all run clean silica sand with placer gold when in the field.
More arm waving still I am afraid but I hope that it helps give us some direction.

I agree with this is going to degenerate into an impossible task.  That is the reason I say anything goes.   

(my opinion)  Your whole process from beginning to end. Any one piece of equipment or any method can be used in any location under any conditions by anyone.  If you need to classify then that is part of your process and you have to do it.  What I will use needs classified materials as does a centrifuge but my equipment classifies at the nozzel.  It's part of the equipment.  I don't need to pre-classify manually.  If you want to compare equipment, methods, efficiency, recovery, easy of use, cost, ect. your whole process from beginning to end is what counts along with all other considerations. 

You should not work by a standard that does not cover all possibilities that can be encountered or suits a method or piece of equipment.  One method may work with sand.  One with gravels.  One with clay, ect, ect, ect. 

  Someone else please make the rules and then I'll decide if or what I will use to compete.  It's really not right for competitors in a competition to make the rules. Those of you who will not compete you should make the rules.     

100 gallons per minute 50/50 water/material = 12,000 gallons in two hours...  50% material = 6,000 gallons of materials divided by 5 = 1200 5 gallon buckets of material in two hours

Offline The Fossicker

  • CGPF Sponsor
  • *******
  • Posts: 280
  • Kudos: 7
Re: Micro Flood Gold
« Reply #128 on: January 15, 2010, 08:17:35 PM »
 lol!!!@* lol!!!@* lol!!!@* With all due respect - YOU'RE ALL INSANE!!  lol!!!@* lol!!!@* lol!!!@* This contest idea, though plausible, would just be too complicated to be run on a Forum situation. Just to qualify the perimeters is a chore. Keep in mind that just to qualify the action of Sluice Boxes was quite an undertaking for Randy Clarkson who discussed this problem in his extensive reports. I must give sympathy to him, as just to develop my Pyramid Pro Pan, the control factor I needed to do in the testing phase of development was a considerable problem. (It took 5 years and 6 proto-types to nail it.) Keep in mind now that we're talking about just 1 device, not several others. And to make it worse, we're are talking about judging different devices that have different approaches. All systems have a  + or - to some degree. (Except mine of course.)  ;D ;D Seriously, we can nit-pick this forever so it would probably make more sense if we can make up a chart much like the one used when you want to buy a Metal Detector. List out the preferred features wanted in a piece of equipment for the area of interest, use, ease, efficiency, cost and so on....... One perimeter that would have to be addressed is are we talking recreational or commercial endeavours or both? Anyway I think I'll lay down and take a few Aspirins. Before I do, here are some reachable reports that can be read or downloaded without having to pay a high fee for a Science Paper on the Cleangold subject from Peers in the field:

artminers.org/artminers/peru_cleangold report.html

global mercury project: equipment specificationsfor the demonstration units in sudan

Sluice Mat

Marcello M. Veiga, Associate Professor of University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, Reducing/Replacing Mercury in ASM Operations

www.globalmercuryproject.org/countries/venezuela-from%20dynamics%20hg%20pollution.pdf

As I said, these are the ones that don't cost money to review. In some of these reports there are some very informative pieces of information if you know what you're looking at.  Another interesting piece of information is that much of the research is from the BC University - Marcello Veiga, Global Mercury Report. There are also other Peer reports from other places as well, but they cost money to look at these reports. Bottom line is that for the money and ease of handling fine and micro gold, Clean gold Systems are right up there with most systems that are available and is right now being used successfully all over the world. Do the homework. Cheers.

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

Offline Guest

  • New user
  • Posts: 0
  • Province/State: bc
  • Kudos: 1
Re: Micro Flood Gold
« Reply #129 on: January 15, 2010, 08:49:57 PM »
Yes we know we're insane, keeps things interesting wouldn't you say, still a while to spring gotta do somethin <-laugh-> <-laugh-> ;D.....Guest

 


Gear Pan
Gold Rat