100 percent recovery sluice!

I see... you are a regular member here and i am not, got it.

Neither stated, implied nor intended. Again you're making
stuff up, then treating it as if it's proven fact just to see if
you can get a rise out of me.

Was a time I enjoyed bandying wits with folks like you who wish
to debate the subtle nuances of their particular viewpoint. I'm older
now, and honestly, I just don't need the frustration... hatethecomputer.gif
 

Neither stated, implied nor intended. Again you're making
stuff up, then treating it as if it's proven fact just to see if
you can get a rise out of me.

Was a time I enjoyed bandying wits with folks like you who wish
to debate the subtle nuances of their particular viewpoint. I'm older
now, and honestly, I just don't need the frustration...View attachment 1836601

:evil6: Peace has returned to the sluice once again... :evil6:
20200525_203321.webp
 

Russau- please look up the smallest particle irradiated for clarkson. Not listed in videos so read the size i think it was -500. If miners moss is catching -500 i would use sections in a box as well as other types.
No thanks ! But thanks for being so thoughtfull !:BangHead:
 

Russau- please look up the smallest particle irradiated for clarkson. Not listed in videos so read the size i think it was -500. If miners moss is catching -500 i would use sections in a box as well as other types.

Worked for placer recovery company and they had copy of a radioactive study of gold. Cant lose gold if its radioactive. All sizes were used and run and recovered 100's of times. Long to short a 40 foot sluice with 1" hungarian riffles over 3m moss caught all the gold. 100percent recovery confirmed by radioactive gold. Not my intention to step on toes but sarcasm sucks when you are trying to be friendly and suggest a new way to look at old problem.


It's on page 20 of the study.............
Only three sizes of gold was used in the Clarkson study. -10 to +14, -20 to +28, and -65 to +100
Also there is NO mention of 100% recovery located anywhere in the report!
The tests were NOT run 100's of times with 100% recovery.
All the tests were conducted on an 8 foot long by 6 inch wide sluice. NOT a 40 foot sluice!
In addition, there are disclaimers stating some of the factors that would diminish the effectiveness of Clarkson's recommendations.

I would suggest that you read the entire Clarkson Analysis at least once getting your facts straight before making any more false claims.
For the Clarkson study click here

I am not new to Clarkson riffles in fact thats what I used in 2011 in my sluice for a 15" trommel that I built. I used them over miners moss(nomad) and then fed that 10" wide x 48" long sluice into another sluice 14" wide by 48" long, with only vortex mat (rough top conveyor belt) to capture losses from the Clarkson sluice. At the time I felt I had the ultimate setup for the fine and flour glacial gold found in Indiana and elsewhere. Worked great in North Carolina and Alabama as well.

avg. 95% recovery of flour gold, 98% recovery of fines & flakes, and 100% of pickers.


sandck.webp


Have a nice day!

GG~

Goodyguy-if one molecule of gold is irradiated it will show up. Had a wristwatch confiscated while working at walter reed hospital cause it set off alarms 3 floors below.
That explains a lot :tongue3:
 

Last edited:
Anyone ever pay for the clarkson study? (Big hint)

Pay for? Its available free.

Old time sluices weren't long for recovery they were long so you could at material at various points of the run.
 

Last edited:
GW , he is talking about buying a VHS copy of the reports. I bought several of their video's before they came out on-line.
 

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom