Do Bazookas really catch fine gold?

[GoldpannerDave]

Careful when you say it hasn't been tested or proven!!!!that's not true....Doing measured tests of clean gold with any form of material that IS NOT bank run will NOT give you accurate results.
[snip]
Interesting observation on punchplate as a classifier...There are high speed videos of gold using u.v. light showing fine gold ride the surface tension right around the holes and past the punch plate. Also a certain percentage of holes are ALWAYS going to be blocked by material some with pebbles literally in them. That never happens with a bazooka the grizzly bars do not disturb or lift the stratified material and creates no turbulence.
All of those factors affect recovery...saying an amp can catch 98% considering those built in problems and a bazooka will only get 90% when it is specifically tuned to avoid those issue is a slippery slope I would hold of on the math problems there are too many variables!

Careful saying these things aren't proven!!

I only used numbers (which I made up) to show the take-home with a Bazooka is larger because of what we already know--you move more dirt through a Bazooka because you don't classify. You can give an AMP (or any other sluice) a 100% recovery and the Bazooka less (I even used 67% in one example which is NOT a true number, but only made up to show you still get more gold because you had more throughput) and the time spent classifying is always going to put the other sluice needing classification behind. We know the Bazooka catches much more than that, and I doubt the number is much behind the AMP in % of the -100 gold (I don't know the actual numbers for either) and probably the same for the +100 fraction (again, I don't know the numbers). So the results are intuitive; reinforced by going home with more gold at the end of the day.

Just like having a long skid plate will help recover more gold is intuitive; though you can see the difference in the creek in how fast a 30" Sniper clears a shovelful of material versus a 48" Prospector (both having enough flow to correctly run the sluice).

You all might recall I mentioned some blockage on the AMP punch plate and the desire for a long skid plate. I did not know about the punch research using UV showing tiny gold particles riding the flow around the hole. I would guess that was for very small gold; less than 100 mesh in size, right? Or did the study identify a size above which, this phenomenon no longer occurred?

Anyway, thanks for a good commentary on the entire process.

 

[Goldwasher]

It was one of the Canadian studies I'll try to find it and post a link. It didn't have the videos. Just the explanation and specs it was 100 mesh gold minus. I believe. I'll look it up.

 

[GoldpannerDave]

And, as a side note, I am not putting the AMP down; Kevin and I enjoyed using it. We noted some areas of superiority (price, lightness, saves less black sand in the trap) and some where the Bazooka was superior (not needing classification, though we did use the AMP without classifying and it worked great; easier to set up; longer skid plate, grizzly over punch plate; and heavier construction (which also meant heavier in total weight). As far as we could determine, with bank run material, they both did not lose any gold that we could identify by panning tailings.

Therefore, if you insist on classifying, you will get more gold with a Bazooka. That was my point. And given the fact that we don't think you have to classify, they are close in performance. So, what do this have to do with percentage recovery?

Again, if you slow down, classify, and shovel less, you are going to get less gold...even if you capture more -100 mesh material. Using manufacturer's recommended procedures for use, nothing beats a Bazooka for giving you more gold at the end of the day. Could I improve my percentage catch of the -100 mesh gold? Yes, but to what end? I cannot do that without reducing the amount of gold-bearing dirt going through the sluice...which means less gold at the end of the day.

What if I have only -100 mesh gold or beach sands? Then you need consider that you have a different problem and need (probably) a different solution.

 

[GoldpannerDave]

It was one of the Canadian studies I'll try to find it and post a link. It didn't have the videos. Just the explanation and specs it was 100 mesh gold minus. I believe. I'll look it up.

Thanks.

 

[Reed Lukens]

I've had the video's since the early 90's along with the print out's... That's old news. Punch plate serves a purpose for classification but it is known to allow some gold to go around. But it really depends on the pp style and set up. A simple grizzly works best for simple separation but for -3/16 complete, pp is the best way by far. For -½", woven wire works good but the smaller the opening, the more turbulence is created with it. It was part of the Clarkston set of video's. I still have them all in old VHS format but there has been a ton of research done since then. This wasn't the Clarkston Study, but his fine tuning of different trommel set up's around Canada. I have a ton of old video's... I should convert them and will some day

 

[GoldpannerDave]

Utah - Nice you made the mat change - really helps the A51 play better.

You're right about the fight - Bazooka is a good machine and has a loyal following which I appreciate - You certainly can't go wrong with buying any of the models. But if we get back to the original reason for this thread bakergeol asked about recovery of fine gold and specifically how the bazooka fares.

Yes you'll get a fight but you won't get a test.

GPD - I can run a classified two Gal bucket in the Expedition Model in 42 seconds (see video on my website)

But the time spent getting your material classified means that it really took much longer than 42 seconds...several minutes longer.

- Unclassified would be even faster since material actually going into the machine would be less. That means a 5 gal bucket runs in the AMP in 1 minute 45 seconds or less (42 secs x 2.5 = 105 / 60 = 1.75).

Again, it takes much longer to classify.

But for the argument that's 15 seconds difference (you stated 1.5 minutes) or about 6 buckets more per time period.

NO, the time is whatever it takes you to get a classified 5 gal bucket of material and run it through. You were using 4 grains in your first proposal. So whatever time for you to actually feed the AMP ((1.75 minutes) added to the time it takes to get the 5 gal bucket filled with CLASSIFED material, walk it to the sluice, set the bucket down, and start feeding the sluice--AND STILL THERE IS MORE--to complete your cycle of classification, you have to take the empty 5 gal bucket back to your dig site, set it down and grab your shovel.

That is the total time required to feed your AMP. Meanwhile, the Bazooka is being fed the entire time. So again, we get to two or three times more material being feed into the Bazooka. No matter how you cut it, even if the Bazooka gets only 2/3 of the gold the AMP gets (NOT A TRUE statement)
it will recover more gold, total, at the end of the day.

First, You are assuming a percentage of recovery for the bazooka of 90-95% which has not been tested or verified, which was the reason for my request above.

Already showed that even if it is 2/3 (67%), which no one doubts the recovery is much better, the miner who classifies with any sluice is way behind the Bazooka user who is NOT classifying.

But using your figures 90 seconds vs. 105 seconds means the AMP runs 85% of the material of a bazooka.

Not after you include classification time.

If the Bazooka is 90% efficient and you get 4 grams in 40 buckets, the AMP runs 34 buckets @ 98% efficiency or 3.67 gr

here's the math:
4 grams / 40 buckets = .1 grams recovered per bucket @ 90% which means there was .11 grams in the bucket to begin with (.1 / .90 = .11)
The AMP sluice being 98% efficient (tested using the methods as I stated above) would recover 3.67 grams in the 34 buckets. (.11 x .98 = .1078 x 34 = 3.67grains )

So a difference of .34 grains isn't much. Certainly not the major differences you stated.

All the above is invalid due to reasons of the huge amount of time added to the cycle for classification.

All I am asking is for Bazooka owners to do a scientific test using a weighed measure of gold, run it through your machines and let everyone know the results.

I have no problem with getting the numbers, but as I said already, when I am getting the most gold for my time on the creek, what do the numbers add to my actual decision to run unclassified material through my Bazooka (or AMP, which is very close in production IF you DON'T CLASSIFY)?

 

[AMP_kbell]

GPD - I stated the AMP (which I never intended to get in this thread) can run a 2 gal bucket of classified material in 42 seconds. Now leave classification out of the equation. If I take a 2 gal bucket of unclassified material and pour it through the machine it will take less than 42 seconds because the amount of material actually going into the machine is less. You stated you could pour a 5 gal bucket of unclassified material into the Bazooka in 90 seconds (1.5 minutes). I stated that I could run the same 5 gal bucket of unclassified material in 105 seconds (1.75 minutes). Yes that means the AMP could only run 85% of the material of the Bazooka in the time period of 40 buckets (The AMP could only do 34). Then I stated if the Bazooka is 90% efficient and you get 4 grams in 40 buckets, the AMP runs 34 buckets @ 98% efficiency or 3.67 gr. This is unclassified material. The difference is .34 grains

Please remember one thing: I have never said anything but good comments about Bazooka products. I met with Todd when I first started my sluice project (verified no patent issues) and he showed me his whole facility, his sluice production, the whole shootin' match. Todd is a class act and he builds good products - That is my standard statement when I am asked at gold shows, events or demonstrations.

I have never said publicly or in these or other posts that I think my machine is better - My machine is different. Do I believe my machine is more efficient? yes. Do I know the Bazooka can process more material? yes. Is the actual gold recovery between the two machines that different? no.

Why? Take the comparison we've been using between us and our two machines - it is based on 40 buckets that only has a difference of .34 grains. A significant percentage of miners do not (and could not) dig and process 40 buckets per day, either unclassified or classified. As the number of buckets decrease and you lose the ability to use the "I'll make it up on volume" strategy, the advantage (and necessity) of efficiency becomes greater.

Miners who shovel into their equipment have the ability (and we assume the material) to shovel 20, 40 or maybe even 60 buckets. Your only limiting factor is daylight or time you can stay in the mining area. The rest of miners have the limiting factor of physical ability regardless of time or daylight. Since they process less buckets overall they rely on maximum efficiency to extract every last speck from their material.

There is certainly need for both machines in the industry - Personally I am glad both are available to miners. They can make the choice which product best fits their needs.

Reed Lukens - you said the Bazooka was a proven product that has been tested many times in the field and in the lab. I have searched the internet and have not found any such documentation or materials. That is why I am asking for folks to test their Bazookas - I am curious and I think it would be interesting to know how things "pan out". Bazookas may be 98% efficient, 75% efficient or somewhere in between. We really don't know. Remember this was the reason bakergeol started this thread.

 

[KevinInColorado]

AMP, I agree with you on your key point: I'm glad both products are out there and yours has a role to play since it works!

I disagree with your idea that time and stamina limitations mean both of your imaginary miners move the same amount of dirt per day. The one classifying has to put in a lot more work to do the classifying. All of us in the field a lot (like Reed) know how much stamina and time is burned up with classifying. This means I typically move 2-3x as much material thru my sluice before I run out of time/stamina if I can avoid classifying. Regardless of which self classifying sluice I use, I'll get more gold running unclassified material as a result...even with a 1-2% loss or whatever exactly it is.

What we are left debating is not which sluice is better (both are excellent choices with their own advantages) but whether classifying is worth the time/effort. This is a well worn debate...you can go back years in this forum and others to see threads chewing on this topic! I vote we drop it after you have one last "say".

 

[Goldwasher]

BAZOOKAS ARE CLASSIFYING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
should I say that again?

BAZOOKA....is a sluice that classifies for YOU.....that is why YOU don't need to CLASSIFY!
Therefore the efficiency argument is out the window. I can run a bucket with about 4 gal. of bank run in less than a minute. If samples shoe significant fine gold I might slow my feed. if the material is dry I will mud it up in the bucket and pour slurry. You can see how loose the material is before it stratifies....as it stratifies you can see it separate by density...you can watch the lights run off first and see gold last...as it runs down the top deck it hits what are those things called again....grizzly bars what do they do?....
Canadian establishment that serves drinks to fuzzy bears...oh, no that's right they classify....so lets get our heads around that!

Todd may not have made videos of his testing but, rest assured he tested until he got yelled at by his old man. For holding up release of the sluice box that made everyone pretty much stop talking about regular sluices. Now, we have hours and hours to the tune of years of field observation that has created a stupendous reputation....considering the premium of our boxes over other sluices...the market and reputation speaks for itself.

I kindly ask that people stop throwing around low recovery numbers based on the fact that no one shot a video ten years ago!!

the funny thing is the type of gold lost when totaled at the end of the day equates to less than $2.00 and I'm being generous with that figure it's probably half that.

It is also not fair to base our comments and faith in these sluices on "loyalty" it implies we may have been duped at some point and haven't seen the light. If there is loyalty it is based on results.

As soon as you get to the sniper level you are talking about a production sluice. I can run twice the material through a 30" sniper vs a regular 36" stream sluice. I will run more material the recovery is EXCELLENT to 50 mesh and as good as it needs to be for -50 including the fact that it will catch gold down to 150 mesh. You can catch gold like that in other sluices but, you will spend time PRE-CLASSIFYING. Therefore less gold will even have a chance to get run through recovery...Soooooooooooo you will get less gold than a full day running a bazooka.


again the o.p. asked do bazookas really catch fine gold....the answers are obvious....getting into a discussion that pits a bazooka against any sluice there is....

I'M YOUR HUCKLEBERRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[AMP_kbell]

My post above was based on unclassified material and I never stated both imaginary miners would move the same amount of dirt. And yes I agree that classifying is more work.

And yes we should stop trying to ride the dead horse - Prepare to dismount!

 

[Duckwalk]

Ugh, this thread.... talk about veering away from the initial post....

 

[GoldpannerDave]

Ugh, this thread.... talk about veering away from the initial post....

Sorry; short answer is yes, the Bazooka does catch fine gold.

 

[triple d]

Yes and every one has to make up there own mind. Which sluice they want to own. And use the facts. They are all here in this post.

 

[utah mason]

Though it did go off track a little it was most helpful for me. I'm going to go with the sniper as suggested by duckwalk. Along with the shoveling more material through over the mini I think the longer sluice length will help the material break better and fines settle down.
Thanks again for advice and pics on this bazooka thread and others you all have posted on

 

[goldog]

Good choice it will catch what you put in it.

 

[utah mason]

Well you guys convinced me. Ended up ordering the prospector today. Debated between it or sniper. But figured a lot of times my business partner comes with us.I thought the sniper might not handle material from 2 guys. Can't wait to get in the water. Been really pouring over all the other threads on set up. Hope it helps the learning curve.

 

[Hemisteve]

Good choice
I have a 30" prospector that eats everything thing I throw at it.

 

[KevinInColorado]

Yes, excellent choice! The larger fluid bed in the Prospector makes it more mistake-proof (than the Sniper or riffles sluices)too so better for a newbie as long as you have the water flow to run it.

 

[utah mason]

I have been watching some videos on calculating flow rates. What does the flow rate need to be on the prospector? Do you guys calculate that, or do you watch the fluid bed to see if its exchanging properly. Darn excited for it to come. Thinking back I should have paid more for the quicker shipping : ) if it comes in the middle of the week i might have some disappointed customers, because I might not be able to wait for weekend to take it out. after reading everybody eles reviews I have a feeling I'll order the mini also so my son can have one just for himself. He's only 7 so I don't think he could feed it to fast.

 

[Goldwasher]

You'll get instructions/technical description with your box. I tell people to set it up so the grizzly does its job. Meaning if your adding material and oversize gravel and cobble are clearing with the occasional help...then start feeding. I threw away my flowgaugeamometer a long time ago!
With a prospector set barely clearing the grizzly its still working. With Rajun Cajun its still working.So, if you have tunable flow go for as level as you can get still clearing the grizz. You'll figure out how to fine tune based on field variables after a few trips...first and foremost don't let recovery worries slow your digging fantasies