Stock Proline Vs Dredge DM comparison introduction.

Mgumby16

Full Member
Jun 26, 2014
205
330
East Coast
Primary Interest:
Prospecting
Been awhile since I posted here but figured this one warranted it since a number of you who are also on FB have encouraged it.

I realize that the test method does have flaws but over time with lots of data collected the overall averages it provides should be pretty accurate. Hence this is a a long term testing plan.

Your thoughts and inputs are welcome and encouraged! The gold in the pics is from my stock proline 4 inch and that is the tip of a safety pin.






Dredge Dreammat vs Stock Proline 4 inch comparison introduction.

The goal is to provide information about the capture rate of dredge Dreammat (DM) in a number of different field conditions and situation’s vs a stock 4 inch proline dredge.

In general I have tried to remain open minded in conversions about DM. But I do have my own inherent bias. In this testing I will try and remain as unbiased as possible and only present observations and quantitative information. I will interject opinions on certain things but I will not let them skew the information. We are conducting this testing as unbiased as possible.

In full disclosure we purchased the Jarvi riffles from prospectors dream, and a fellow prospectors who we can’t thank enough (William Moore) has provided us with the dredge DM. The proline dredge was purchased used back in 2014. We have no affiliation nor ties with Prospectors Dream nor Proline. Those who know me or have interacted with me on social media know that I am not a fanboy and that I believe everything has positives and negatives, no piece of equipment is perfect and the the world is not black and white but more like a 100 different shades of gray. I do not have a horse in this race other then to determine which system has the best capture rate in the most situations as that is the biggest benefit to me and my fellow prospectors.

To test capture rate in a quantitative way we will be using a sump system that attaches to the back of the sluice and catches the -1/4” material exiting the sluice box and reprocesses that material in a secondary sluice system. Using this method will allow us to get % captured in the main sluice vs % that would have been lost. The sump also allows us to do this testing in in situ field conditions.

A few days of testing in a single locations will provide valuable data but will not be the be all end all. We will attempt to use the stock set up and the DM setup for an equal number of days on each trip. That will provide a direct comparison within the same field conditions for each specific location. Daily gold amounts of coarse vary greatly depending on many factors. To mitigate this the final sets of data for each day at each location for each system will be done as %caught vs % lost. That way the data will be independent of the amount of gold. We will also break down the % caught into top mat % and a lower mat %. This will help with determine the effectiveness of things like Jarvie riffles and wave classification screens.

Cleanups will be conducted at the end of each day and timed to see which is faster. After the gold is extracted from the top and lower mats the total amount of cons from each system will also be compared.

The DM system used will start out as the manufacture recommended system with Jarvi riffles and moss at the head of the box and dredge DM for the rest. The DM is 48” long and some people add an extension so that the full length of the mat is used. We will not be adding an extension. Instead the Jarvie riffle and moss will go over top the DM at the head of the sluice. This is to keep the sluice lengths the same for a more even comparison. Also because many dredgers may not be able to add an extension to their dredge and will have to use it in this manner.

The proline system is more or less stock. With the miners moss from proline in both the top mat and lower part of the dredge. The only difference from a stock proline is the addition of ribbed matting beneath the miners moss. This was added before I bought it and must remain in the dredge since its addition stretched out the riffle clasps. So without the matting the riffle no longer locks as tightly as it should. It should be noted that the ribbed matting is not needed in a bone stock proline as the riffles clamp the moss tight enough to prevent any migration.

The sump is one of my design and construction and will utilize a full sized le trap sluice as the secondary recovery system with a 3D printed header box to distribute the material from the sump. The 1/4” screen on the sump is 16” wide by 18” long.

It should be noted that no testing plan is perfect and there are a number of inherent flaws within the testing method.
- [ ] The primary one being the unknown loss rate of gold that could get past the 1/4 screen of the sump and not end up on the secondary sluice.
- [ ] Another one being the possible loss rate of secondary sluice
- [ ] Nuggets can skew percentages. Though their location within the sluice will be noted. It’s yet to be determined if their weight should be part of the %.
- [ ] There is a potential loss of gold within the connections of sump system. Care will be taken to collect any material caught within the system upon disassembly.
- [ ] On proline dredges gold is sometimes caught at the coupling between the ode and powerjet. This gold will not be counted with the % as neither sluice system caught it.

These test will be conducted in field conditions. And realize there will be a learning curve to getting the DM running right. But once it is set and appear to running as it should be it will not be babied. When I say running as it should be that mean good flow, clearing oversized rocks and not clogging up. At times we will be clearing oversized rocks from both systems by hand. This is just something that on occasions has to be done.

I’m sure I will be lambasted from people on both sides about various parts of this whole test. But the whole reason for running it is because there are currently no well done quantitative tests done with DM vs a stock dredge. One day doesn’t count, a singular location doesnt count, comparisons of running side by side are not a test, pool tests don’t represent what you actually encounter in the field. While 4 days of dredging over Memorial Day week (2 days on each system) will provide a lot of good data it is not comprehensive. That is one location, and that location has not a lot of black sand, lots of flat angular rocks and super fine gold up to nuggets but they are generally crystalline and coarse. So that is one set of circumstances. As we go I will try and point out the various conditions at each location that could cause problems and issues for the various setups.

The next time will be on a river with tons of black sand, more rounded cobble and flatter flakier gold. And still won’t be a comprehensive test. Percentages and averages all do better when there is more data and that is what we are going to strive for. So the conclusion of this testing won’t be for a year or two. But data points will be provided along the way and what individuals do with that info is up to them.

There will be more to elaborate on in the future as I get the DM and jarvie riffles so stay tuned.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_7920.jpeg
    IMG_7920.jpeg
    343.6 KB · Views: 16
  • IMG_7919.jpeg
    IMG_7919.jpeg
    370.7 KB · Views: 16
Been awhile since I posted here but figured this one warranted it since a number of you who are also on FB have encouraged it.

I realize that the test method does have flaws but over time with lots of data collected the overall averages it provides should be pretty accurate. Hence this is a a long term testing plan.

Your thoughts and inputs are welcome and encouraged! The gold in the pics is from my stock proline 4 inch and that is the tip of a safety pin.






Dredge Dreammat vs Stock Proline 4 inch comparison introduction.

The goal is to provide information about the capture rate of dredge Dreammat (DM) in a number of different field conditions and situation’s vs a stock 4 inch proline dredge.

In general I have tried to remain open minded in conversions about DM. But I do have my own inherent bias. In this testing I will try and remain as unbiased as possible and only present observations and quantitative information. I will interject opinions on certain things but I will not let them skew the information. We are conducting this testing as unbiased as possible.

In full disclosure we purchased the Jarvi riffles from prospectors dream, and a fellow prospectors who we can’t thank enough (William Moore) has provided us with the dredge DM. The proline dredge was purchased used back in 2014. We have no affiliation nor ties with Prospectors Dream nor Proline. Those who know me or have interacted with me on social media know that I am not a fanboy and that I believe everything has positives and negatives, no piece of equipment is perfect and the the world is not black and white but more like a 100 different shades of gray. I do not have a horse in this race other then to determine which system has the best capture rate in the most situations as that is the biggest benefit to me and my fellow prospectors.

To test capture rate in a quantitative way we will be using a sump system that attaches to the back of the sluice and catches the -1/4” material exiting the sluice box and reprocesses that material in a secondary sluice system. Using this method will allow us to get % captured in the main sluice vs % that would have been lost. The sump also allows us to do this testing in in situ field conditions.

A few days of testing in a single locations will provide valuable data but will not be the be all end all. We will attempt to use the stock set up and the DM setup for an equal number of days on each trip. That will provide a direct comparison within the same field conditions for each specific location. Daily gold amounts of coarse vary greatly depending on many factors. To mitigate this the final sets of data for each day at each location for each system will be done as %caught vs % lost. That way the data will be independent of the amount of gold. We will also break down the % caught into top mat % and a lower mat %. This will help with determine the effectiveness of things like Jarvie riffles and wave classification screens.

Cleanups will be conducted at the end of each day and timed to see which is faster. After the gold is extracted from the top and lower mats the total amount of cons from each system will also be compared.

The DM system used will start out as the manufacture recommended system with Jarvi riffles and moss at the head of the box and dredge DM for the rest. The DM is 48” long and some people add an extension so that the full length of the mat is used. We will not be adding an extension. Instead the Jarvie riffle and moss will go over top the DM at the head of the sluice. This is to keep the sluice lengths the same for a more even comparison. Also because many dredgers may not be able to add an extension to their dredge and will have to use it in this manner.

The proline system is more or less stock. With the miners moss from proline in both the top mat and lower part of the dredge. The only difference from a stock proline is the addition of ribbed matting beneath the miners moss. This was added before I bought it and must remain in the dredge since its addition stretched out the riffle clasps. So without the matting the riffle no longer locks as tightly as it should. It should be noted that the ribbed matting is not needed in a bone stock proline as the riffles clamp the moss tight enough to prevent any migration.

The sump is one of my design and construction and will utilize a full sized le trap sluice as the secondary recovery system with a 3D printed header box to distribute the material from the sump. The 1/4” screen on the sump is 16” wide by 18” long.

It should be noted that no testing plan is perfect and there are a number of inherent flaws within the testing method.
- [ ] The primary one being the unknown loss rate of gold that could get past the 1/4 screen of the sump and not end up on the secondary sluice.
- [ ] Another one being the possible loss rate of secondary sluice
- [ ] Nuggets can skew percentages. Though their location within the sluice will be noted. It’s yet to be determined if their weight should be part of the %.
- [ ] There is a potential loss of gold within the connections of sump system. Care will be taken to collect any material caught within the system upon disassembly.
- [ ] On proline dredges gold is sometimes caught at the coupling between the ode and powerjet. This gold will not be counted with the % as neither sluice system caught it.

These test will be conducted in field conditions. And realize there will be a learning curve to getting the DM running right. But once it is set and appear to running as it should be it will not be babied. When I say running as it should be that mean good flow, clearing oversized rocks and not clogging up. At times we will be clearing oversized rocks from both systems by hand. This is just something that on occasions has to be done.

I’m sure I will be lambasted from people on both sides about various parts of this whole test. But the whole reason for running it is because there are currently no well done quantitative tests done with DM vs a stock dredge. One day doesn’t count, a singular location doesnt count, comparisons of running side by side are not a test, pool tests don’t represent what you actually encounter in the field. While 4 days of dredging over Memorial Day week (2 days on each system) will provide a lot of good data it is not comprehensive. That is one location, and that location has not a lot of black sand, lots of flat angular rocks and super fine gold up to nuggets but they are generally crystalline and coarse. So that is one set of circumstances. As we go I will try and point out the various conditions at each location that could cause problems and issues for the various setups.

The next time will be on a river with tons of black sand, more rounded cobble and flatter flakier gold. And still won’t be a comprehensive test. Percentages and averages all do better when there is more data and that is what we are going to strive for. So the conclusion of this testing won’t be for a year or two. But data points will be provided along the way and what individuals do with that info is up to them.

There will be more to elaborate on in the future as I get the DM and jarvie riffles so stay tuned.
I'm interested in what you have to show as almost no one is showing tests like this. Even if some don't agree with the data does not mean it is useful depending on location and mix of minerals.
Thank you Mgumby16 for taking a lot of extra effort to post and describe the data. :hello: :icon_salut:
 

I like your approach to finding out how your system works in different conditions ! I did the same types of testing on my dredge's and found that every stream/creek in different states / area's have the need for different setup's for the different types of material / size of gold. When I traveled to different states I brought my 18 foot cargo trailer with ALL of my equipment. I usually brought 2 dredges. My 4 in and a 2 inch proline and various styles of mats and rifle setups. I do my Due Diligence at home to get my basis of what I can expect in the way of gold size and what kind of "other things " I can expect to capture. While this may seem to be a lot of unnecessary work to haul all of this supplies / equipment ,It sure beats not having it when you need it after driving many miles to different states to do this ! You can be at 1 creek working and move to another creek and find you need a completely different ( fine tuning )setup ! I have never used to Jarvie screen but I like it ! Keep your notes and take lot's of them while your doing this project ! You'll be happy you did ! I look forward to reading your results and seeing pictures of what you came up with ! I can't do this anymore ! I'm 77 and to beat up to count! I sold all of my equipment a couple of years back and hated to do so BUT!!!!!!!!!!!! That's life ! :coffee2: :icon_thumleft:!!
 

And I almost forgot ....the over under setup is very important to use ! and I read that you had this option ! :icon_thumleft::coffee2: :occasion14: capturing fine gold is hard enough to do BUT with out a over under setup you'd be a sure lose of fine gold and at gold being over 2K per Troy OZ. it would be a shame to lose it !:coffee2:
 

I like your approach to finding out how your system works in different conditions ! I did the same types of testing on my dredge's and found that every stream/creek in different states / area's have the need for different setup's for the different types of material / size of gold. When I traveled to different states I brought my 18 foot cargo trailer with ALL of my equipment. I usually brought 2 dredges. My 4 in and a 2 inch proline and various styles of mats and rifle setups. I do my Due Diligence at home to get my basis of what I can expect in the way of gold size and what kind of "other things " I can expect to capture. While this may seem to be a lot of unnecessary work to haul all of this supplies / equipment ,It sure beats not having it when you need it after driving many miles to different states to do this ! You can be at 1 creek working and move to another creek and find you need a completely different ( fine tuning )setup ! I have never used to Jarvie screen but I like it ! Keep your notes and take lot's of them while your doing this project ! You'll be happy you did ! I look forward to reading your results and seeing pictures of what you came up with ! I can't do this anymore ! I'm 77 and to beat up to count! I sold all of my equipment a couple of years back and hated to do so BUT!!!!!!!!!!!! That's life ! :coffee2: :icon_thumleft:!!
Wow I love the approach you had.
 

And I almost forgot ....the over under setup is very important to use ! and I read that you had this option ! :icon_thumleft::coffee2: :occasion14: capturing fine gold is hard enough to do BUT with out a over under setup you'd be a sure lose of fine gold and at gold being over 2K per Troy OZ. it would be a shame to lose it !:coffee2:
If nothing else is done with the over and under setup there is some classifying taking place.
 

I too am very interested in your result. I bought a used 4 in proline a few months ago, cam with standard miners moss, expanded metal and metal riffles which I have not used yet. It also came with dream mat which I prefer the ease of use over moss. I have added jarvine riffle with rubber mat underneath and sluice extension. I have over a hundred hours on this set up. A lot of time was spent testing the angle and I found that at 3/4-full throttle and angle of 3/4 inch per foot seems to be ideal with my material. I trying to reduce the heavies under the JR, getting about 1-1/2 full cup and heaped up in places. I use to test each of the 4 sections on the dm and test the tailings but now that performance has improved I now only occasionally test of what's in the last 1/4 of the mat. For a 1 to 2 gram cleanout I get less than 10 colors in the last section. Two of the three +1g nuggets made it to the 7th and 5th cell from the bottom, maby due to tailings pilled up and causing a backlog. I have 15-20 pickers of .5 to .75 but I have found no gold on top of the JR. My wright up are on the dream mat facebook group under the name terry harrell. Anxious to se your results. When you getting started?
 

Last edited:

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top