Panning with alcohol?

[mr.bean]

This is my first time posting on Treasurenet, so go easy on me! I just remembered that alcohol has a lower specific gravity (.8190) than water. This caused me to wonder if panning with 91% isopropyl alcohol would aid in the ability to pan easier and recover more gold. The additional plus is that the alcohol could eliminate any trace amounts of oil.

Perhaps this a just wacky gold fever induced idea but what are your thoughts on the effectiveness?

Thanks for viewing, heavy pans!

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[bobw53]

Would the less dense liquid also have a harder time moving the light stuff? Would a more dense liquid move the light stuff off easier?

I really don't know... I do know that water comes out of my faucet for pretty close to free, and I have to get alcohol at the beer store or the Wally World...

Salt saturated water has a specific gravity of about 1.2. Possibly a cheaper way to see if a more dense, or less dense fluid would make a difference.

I'm going to vote the difference would be negligible, and not worth the effort and/or cost to go to a more or less dense fluid...

Interesting thought, I'm sure somebody has done the experiment before...

 

[GoldpannerDave]

This is my first time posting on Treasurenet, so go easy on me! I just remembered that alcohol has a lower specific gravity (.8190) than water. This caused me to wonder if panning with 91% isopropyl alcohol would aid in the ability to pan easier and recover more gold. The additional plus is that the alcohol could eliminate any trace amounts of oil.

Perhaps this a just wacky gold fever induced idea but what are your thoughts on the effectiveness?

Thanks for viewing, heavy pans!

I would prefer 91 proof ethyl alcohol, but I am not sure at which point my panning would become less effective, but then again, I might not care.

 

[GoldpannerDave]

I would prefer 91 proof ethyl alcohol, but I am not sure at which point my panning would become less effective, but then again, I might not care.

A more serious answer is that while gold has a lower weight in a less dense liquid, it is not just the specific gravity of the gold, but the also that of the material you are trying to separate it from. As I remember, you are trying to maximize their differences for better separation. I don't remember the physics equations, but someone here probably does.

I would look them up, but have to go get ready for class. Of course, bobw53's suggestion of experimentation is always a good idea!

 

[mr.bean]

I was kind of thinking the same thing, about the difference being negligible but an interesting thought nonetheless. Haha well I am a minor, so the Everclear is out of question!

 

[rodoconnor]

I knew of a couple of Old Timers that would add sugar to their panning water. It changed the S.G./relationship to gold . They claimed it helped a lot on super fines. In the Summer the damn bees might be a hassle.

 

[bobw53]

Haha well I am a minor, so the Everclear is out of question!

There is no law that says Miners can't drink. Underage Miners shouldn't, but that's a different story.

I knew of a couple of Old Timers that would add sugar to their panning water. It changed the S.G./relationship to gold

Thinking about this... And again, and still, I don't know, just tossing it out there... Something to think about...

Was the sugar to increase the density of the water, or to increase the viscosity of the water? A thicker (more viscous) fluid
should be able to move material easier than a thinner (less viscous) fluid.. Quicker panning possibly, pulling off more light
stuff with each wash cycle? Obviously you can go too far, I don't think panning with a milk shake for a fluid would work...

Also, water supposedly is 4 times more viscous at 32(still in liquid form) than it is at 212(still in liquid form), has any body
noticed it is easier to pan with cold water than very warm or hot water

I've got an old bottle of apple juice in the pantry, think its worth an experiment?

 

[benny]

Lower viscosity is going to play a major role. I think you should try it and let us know. I'm guessing that with flower gold, it'd make a big difference.

 

[gollum]

My main concern is that if I brought a bottle of booze out panning, first; I wouldn't have enough left to pan with by the time I got down to it, second, I hope I don't pass out and drown (if Everclear), and third, I hope I thought ahead to bring a driver!

Mike

 

[GoldpannerDave]

I was kind of thinking the same thing, about the difference being negligible but an interesting thought nonetheless. Haha well I am a minor, so the Everclear is out of question!

Everclear! Wow; just some good Kentucky bourbon or Tennessee sippin' whiskey was more like what I had in mind.

I have to admit, on the creek, I don't bring booze. However, around the camp fire later, I do admit I might partake some. After a hard day's work, aspirin, motrin or bourbon helps. Aspirin is cheaper, but bourbon sure wins in the taste area.

 

[GoldpannerDave]

I knew of a couple of Old Timers that would add sugar to their panning water. It changed the S.G./relationship to gold . They claimed it helped a lot on super fines. In the Summer the damn bees might be a hassle.

Adding salt would be cheaper; you can get salt up to a sp. gr. of 1.2 by the time it is saturated.

bobw53, you could be right in that maybe it was the viscosity; in that case, sugar would make it more viscous than salt. You are right, sounds like an experiment.

No one has come up the with equations yet; it's too late to do that tonight.

 

[AugustMoose87]

Good thought, but you are going the wrong direction. I'm going to have to look through my literature to find the details, but you want the fluid to have a high specific gravity, not a low one. If you were going for a low specific gravity, we would just pan dry dirt in the air (kinda like dry washing). It can be done, but something about being suspended in a fluid with a high specific gravity make it easier to separate the gold out.

 

[AugustMoose87]

Ok, found my book, here is the break down... just for this though experiment, lets say air has a specific gravity (sg) of 0, water is 1, sand is 2, rocks are 10 and gold is 20.

In air, you would look at the values minus the value of the air. So... Sand (2-0=2), rocks (10-0=10), and gold (20-0=20). So when you pan in air, gold would be 10 times heavier as sand (20/2=10) and 2 times heavier than rocks (20/10=2)

On to water... Using the SG of 1 for water instead of 0 for air. Sand (2-1=1), rocks (10-1=9), and gold (20-1=19). So when you pan in air, gold would be 19 times heavier as sand (19/1=19) and 2.11 times heavier than rocks (19/9=2.11)

Clear as mud right?!?!

 

[KevinInColorado]

So that means making the liquid more dense by adding stuff is a bad idea...using a lighter liquid like alcohol would be good and still gain the other benefits of liquid over air. Cool! Panning with alcohol wouldn't be cost effective but would likely be slightly easier. Still, I think I'll stick to drinking it while panning with good ole h2o

 

[mr.bean]

First off, thank you everyone for the input! I just tested it out, using the same mixture of gold and sand and the same amount of water and 91% iso alcohol. I didn't have enough iso alcohol to actually do a full pan, so I just used a backwash and swirl motion to see how the material reacted. The water floated a lot of very fine sand, and it was easier to move the material around in the pan, however the small flat flakes of gold also moved more. There was no noticeable floating sand in the alcohol pan, and the material took more effort to move, but the smaller flakes stayed put. This leads me to believe that when working with floating sized gold it may be easier to clean up with the 91% isopropyl alcohol because there is more room to "dial" in the correct speed.

The science might say it won't work that way, but that it was I saw but who knows maybe some of the fumes got to me!

 

[hvacker]

Soap makes water wetter. Decreases surface tension of hard water allowing flour gold to sink according to Tom Massy and others. I'd think based on this that the slippery effect of soap might act as a lubricant and benefit in removing lighter material.

I'm not thinking about a detergent. Just soap like ivory or maybe Dawn as it is very soapy and seems to be good at many things. Another soap that's even more soapy is Castile. I know it's very bubbly and used to find leaks in oxygen piping as it doesn't have oils like most soaps. Pure oxygen can explode when contacting oils.
Maybe try a couple of drops and compare the results. I would want to rough up my pan first so everything doesn't go south.

 

[Jim in Idaho]

Ok, found my book, here is the break down... just for this though experiment, lets say air has a specific gravity (sg) of 0, water is 1, sand is 2, rocks are 10 and gold is 20.

In air, you would look at the values minus the value of the air. So... Sand (2-0=2), rocks (10-0=10), and gold (20-0=20). So when you pan in air, gold would be 10 times heavier as sand (20/2=10) and 2 times heavier than rocks (20/10=2)

On to water... Using the SG of 1 for water instead of 0 for air. Sand (2-1=1), rocks (10-1=9), and gold (20-1=19). So when you pan in air, gold would be 19 times heavier as sand (19/1=19) and 2.11 times heavier than rocks (19/9=2.11)

Clear as mud right?!?! [/QUOTE Your original premise is correct, but you got fouled-up on the "weights". Sand, and rocks both have the same specific gravity...and the SG is what matters, not the weight. On average, sand and gravel have specific gravity about 2.5. Gold is about 19. (Usually alloyed with other stuff.)
So, the difference, in air, is about 7.5:1+/-. The difference in water is calculated by subtracting the water's SG, which is 1. Now the ratio is 18 (gold/1.5(gravel), which comes out to 12:1 Now, if you add a material with a higher SG to the water, so it is absorbed....the SG of the water might get to 1.5. That changes the ratio again....you get 1 for the gravel, and 17.5 for the gold. The ratio has become 17.5:1. The greater the ratio, the easier it is to separate the gold from the gravel. The reason this isn't used, is that there very few liquids heavier than water.
Jim

 

[GoldpannerDave]

Good thought, but you are going the wrong direction. I'm going to have to look through my literature to find the details, but you want the fluid to have a high specific gravity, not a low one. If you were going for a low specific gravity, we would just pan dry dirt in the air (kinda like dry washing). It can be done, but something about being suspended in a fluid with a high specific gravity make it easier to separate the gold out.

You know, that is what I thought I remembered, but the physics of buoyancy are not my area, so until I could find the equations, I wasn't sure. Thanks, AugustMoose87 for explaining it in the next post. And you had a logical illustration--if lower density fluids are better, try air. But we all know dry panning is harder than with water. Good point.

I thought you wanted to increase the difference in SG, so I guess a salt water solution would help. However, Jet Dry probably helps just as much by cutting the surface tension for flat specks of gold.

And glory be, that means the 91 proof ethyl alcohol can be saved from being used in panning and will now be available later in the evening!

 

[KevinInColorado]

You know, that is what I thought I remembered, but the physics of buoyancy are not my area, so until I could find the equations, I wasn't sure. Thanks, AugustMoose87 for explaining it in the next post. And you had a logical illustration--if lower density fluids are better, try air. But we all know dry panning is harder than with water. Good point.

I thought you wanted to increase the difference in SG, so I guess a salt water solution would help. However, Jet Dry probably helps just as much by cutting the surface tension for flat specks of gold.

And glory be, that means the 91 proof ethyl alcohol can be saved from being used in panning and will now be available later in the evening!

So glad I got it backwards and I can keep the moonshine in my glass not in my pan!

 

[AugustMoose87]

Your original premise is correct, but you got fouled-up on the "weights". Sand, and rocks both have the same specific gravity...and the SG is what matters, not the weight. On average, sand and gravel have specific gravity about 2.5. Gold is about 19. (Usually alloyed with other stuff.)
Jim

I knew all that, I just must not have stated it clearly - I was just using randomly assigned numbers to illustrate the math, and I misused the term weight instead of SG.

I thought you wanted to increase the difference in SG, so I guess a salt water solution would help. However, Jet Dry probably helps just as much by cutting the surface tension for flat specks of gold.

My quick internet research shows that for most of us recreational prospectors, sugar water is your best bet - fully saturated, you can get a specific gravity around 1.4 g/cm3. There are a ton of other chemical options for "heavy fluids", but due to cost/health hazards, not really practical for hobby prospecting. And the jet dry/surface tension is a whole other bucket of physics worms