GoldpannerDave
Bronze Member
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2014
- Messages
- 1,076
- Reaction score
- 1,279
- Golden Thread
- 0
- Location
- Colorado Springs, CO
- Detector(s) used
- Bazooka 48" Miner and 30" Sniper, Le Trap, Wolf Trap, A52, 2" dredge, Miller tables, Blue Bowl, wheel, Falcon MD20, old White's detector
- Primary Interest:
- Prospecting
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.