videos on using jig for heavy metal

[Jim in Idaho]

I posted 3 videos last night, on youtube, about using my jig for heavy metals. Do a Youtube search under "Jigging for Gold".
Video links:



Jim

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[arizau]

There are a couple of fine points in the following publication that you may not know about located on pages 16 to 20 that stood out for me (http://www.consrv.ca.gov/cgs/geologic_resources/gold/documents/sp87.pdf). One concerns increasing the depth of ragging to decrease the volume of concentrate collection and the other is to form your box in a trapezoidal shape (the box shape widens from back to exit and forms a flare) which increases surface area and slows the flow over the ragging allowing a better chance for the gold to settle. Another is feed material size control but probably is not an issue with pure sand feed. I don't know but...... some points may improve your gem collection efforts too?

Good luck.

PS: Here is a link to make it easier to find your videos. https://www.google.com/webhp?source...=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=jigging for gold youtube

 

[Jim in Idaho]

Thanks! The problem I have with increasing ragging depth is twofold. The first is as the ragging gets deeper, the weight goes up, The idea of this unit is portability. The second is motor size. Using two springs on the diaphragm, I'm about maxed out on this motor. If the ragging depth is increased, I'd need 4 springs to get the lift on the shot....that would mean a bigger motor, and more current draw. That would also mean less operating time per battery charge. I also don't know, without more testing time, how much gold I might lose with a reduction in cons. My feeling right now is that I'd rather do a "roughing run" until I have about 5 gallons of cons. Then re-run the cons reducing them to about what I ended up with in the last video. That should give me about a 70:1 reduction...or about 3/4 gallon from 50 gallons of material.
On the gems....the jig works great as is. If I classify so the largest material I run is only twice as large as the smallest material, the jig catches 100%. That's using self-ragging....the ragging is just the gravel I'm running. Usually, I run two sizes...1/8" to 1/4", and 1/4" to 1/2". If I run 1/8" to 1/2" all at once, the recovery drops to about 70%. I also run clean material....nothing under 1/8", and no dirt. That helps alot, though you can't do that for gold...LOL I have read the covers off that publication on Placer Methods...LOL
I appreciate the input, and the link.
Jim

 

[Jim in Idaho]

Another way to reduce the cons just occurred to me. Just increase the water flow over the jig bed. That educes the time the material has to settle, thus reducing the cons. Again though, you have to be careful you don't start washing the fine gold out with the tails.
Jim

 

[bakergeol]

Cool videos Jim!! A sluice box has a hard time trapping 100 mesh gold much less
300 mesh. Yes the ultimate challenge of a 50:1 ratio for concentrates from a jig is a tough
nut to crack.

George

 

[Jim in Idaho]

Cool videos Jim!! A sluice box has a hard time trapping 100 mesh gold much less
300 mesh. Yes the ultimate challenge of a 50:1 ratio for concentrates from a jig is a tough
nut to crack.
George

The more I read, George, the more I'm convinced that the ratios I'm getting are the norm. Usually the first jig is a "rougher". Then the cons are run through 1 or more "finisher" jigs. If I were out working a stream, I'd use mine first as a rougher, and after getting 5 or 10 gallons of cons, I'd rerun them using it as a finisher. The total reduction would probably end up at 40 or 50:1, or maybe more. The good thing is the finished product would probably contain most of the very small gold.
As you saw, I need to re-design the way the screenbox goes on the jig.....too much water wasted...and messy. I already know how I'm going to do it. Probably won't gety done until winter.
Jim