Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Last night I read a very interesting (IMO) article by Chris Ralph in the June, 2019 issue of the ICMJ (https://www.icmj.com/) titled "How Long Does It Take to Find and Recover an Ounce of Gold".  There are a lot of caveats Chris lists, which makes it dangerous for me to summarize what was written.  Further, there is a fine line between showing results from a magazine/journal which needs money to stay afloat and requiring interested parties to simply pay for a subscription.  IMO, anyone halfway serious about searching for native gold (and there's more there than just gold) should be a subscriber.  Most importantly, his estimates certainly depend upon the ground you are covering -- this should be obvious to everyone and I hope simply mentioning it will squelch any attempt to quibble at his results. Basically there is a lot of uncertainty around Chris's numbers, which he is well aware of, but it's still interesting to hear from an expert who has used all of these methods countless times.  I was surprised at some of his estimates.  In order longest (least efficient) to shortest:

Panning:  42 hrs,

Metal Detecting:  40 hrs,

Sluicing/Highbanking:  30 hrs,

Dry Washing:  30 hrs,

Dredging:  20 hrs,

Hard Rock Mining:  8 hrs.

I think it's worth emphasizing that this is a time efficiency, not a cost efficiency.  Panning is clearly the least expensive with hard rock mining by far the most.  Chris also points out that the leadup time/research/preparation & cost are vastly different -- hard rock mining being the obvious extreme.

 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly got me thinking GB about how many hours I put into a detector to get an ounce of gold.  I don't keep track of my time to get an ounce, but I do know the other methods are foreign language to this kid.  Only way I have hunted gold is with a detector.  

To me, the location and skill level on detector you own is vital.  Then, making sure you have the right detector for the kind of gold you plan on pursuing, which is part of skill level.

I do remember my last hunt for 2019 at Rye Patch with a GPZ-7000 netted me just over an ounce of nuggets, 34.7 grams.  That was accomplished in 5 days, so I think his 40 hr average was really close.

Then, the last gold hunt of 2018 was Thanksgiving Weekend and I used the Equinox-800 with the 15" coil.  This was a 2 day hunt and the 1st day, 1st hour I scored a 2.67 ozt specimen.  I ended up with 5 pieces in those two days with approx. 4 ounces of specimens and 2 of that was gold.

Not tooting my horn, but I feel I know gold detectors better than most so my hours are probably less to get the 1 ounce.

What I can't understand, is it takes 42 hours to pan an ounce of gold.  Heck, I don't know anyone who has found an ounce of gold with a pan, but I don't hang around those kind of people.  Surely there are folks who can do it or he would not have come up with the averages.

Realize, I do not detect for a living, but do it because I enjoy a challenge.  I feel nugget hunting is harder than Coin/Relic and Jewelry, so that is why  I like it so much.  

 

Ger7Nov2018a.JPG

15b.jpg

15c.jpg

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the times quoted are for when you are on the gold.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Gerry in Idaho said:

What I can't understand, is it takes 42 hours to pan an ounce of gold.

 

4 hours ago, geof_junk said:

I think the times quoted are for when you are on the gold.

Quoting Chris from the article:

When I am sniping along a stream, I am normally spending a lot more time digging out a crevice than performing the actual panning stage of operation.  I've dug out large crevices that repeatedly yielded one to two pennyweight per panful, but that is not normal.  So digging and cleaning out a small but good crevice and panning the material might take twenty minutes.  Let's say that yeilds a quarter of a gram, which amounts to about 0.75 grams of gold per hour, and that gives about 42 hours to get an ounce of gold by panning a typical but decent spot.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Chris did a good job of providing his own rough estimates of the time for him to produce an ounce of gold. I think he wanted to give nubbies some realistic idea of what is involved....

I don’t pan anymore, way to much work, dry washing is too much work...sniping is fun and easy; but, I don’t live near a river anymore.

Metal detecting is my thing! I would not even guess the number of hours it took to get the gold I found. The thing is, if I was doing it just for money working at Walmart would have been a much better choice.

fred

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  I have to agree with Fred that Chris did an excellent job of ranking prospecting/mining methods in time-cost -return. There are so many variables involved that the best use of the article mentioned would be for comparison only ( as Chris alluded to). What is great about Chris's article is that he put a big dark cloud of truth right in the middle of many new prospectors silver lining. I fully intent to blow his 40hrs / ounce of gold completely out of the water.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, fredmason said:

Metal detecting is my thing! I would not even guess the number of hours it took to get the gold I found. The thing is, if I was doing it just for money working at Walmart would have been a much better choice.

fred

Nothing against Wallmart Fred but I think you and I would find our way around Home Depot much easier!

strick

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, klunker said:

  I have to agree with Fred that Chris did an excellent job of ranking prospecting/mining methods in time-cost -return. There are so many variables involved that the best use of the article mentioned would be for comparison only ( as Chris alluded to). What is great about Chris's article is that he put a big dark cloud of truth right in the middle of many new prospectors silver lining. I fully intent to blow his 40hrs / ounce of gold completely out of the water.

Spot on! Every season I get people here intent on making thier fortune with a shiny new detector. Half the detectors just aren't suitable for finding gold and half the people just aren't suitable for living in the scrub.

After a couple of days they soon learn gold doesnt just pop out of the ground, you have to really work for it.

If you want a lifestyle become a prospector, if you want to get rich get a job.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

40 hrs for an ounce detecting in the USA? Maybe 10+ years ago. Most the people I meet in the field are struggling to get 1 ounce a season today if they don't have exclusive land access or insider/oldtimer knowledge to work off.

I don't have a subscription since they run LRL ads (or did when I subbed) and paper hangers and I believe an engineering journal shouldn't support scam artists and pseudoscience, but that's like $60k a year equivalent, more than I make at my job. That isn't greenhorn deterrent, that's the stuff that makes a newbie go out and buy a $2500 metal detector and get extremely frustrated. Hopefully the article clarifies that stuff.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I was going to say the same. $30+/hour would not be a deterrent for the vast majority of people. I'd be very happy to hit half that, and would be happy to recover costs for my hobby.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By PG-Prospecting
      Been messing with this project on and off for a few years now.  Finally got it where it was ready to be tested this past weekend.  
      Was originally a keene 3 inch with 4 hp motor and p160 pump i believe.  I sold off most of the 3 inch parts and started building the components need to turn it into a 4 inch.  From the 3 inch all that remains is the frame, floats and motor and pump combo.  I bought a 4 inch flare from keene, since i have no good way to fabricate a lightweight flare.  Everything else i have been working on fabricating, primarily being the sluice (16x40), riffle trays, and the power jet.  
      The power jet is were i diverged from most of the current designs that are widely used.  I wanted to build a 4 inch as light as possible while still using the 4hp motor and pump combo, as most the streams i work are shallow and dont require huge amounts of suction for dredging at great depth.  The problem was that the 4hp motor and p160 pump struggled in my mind to provide adequate suction to the 3 inch even when near full throttle. Based on this i decided to build a copy of a dahlke tri-jet which should allow a 4 inch to be run off of a smaller motor and pump when compared to a normal 4 inch, due to increased efficiency over a standard style of power-jet.  
      Pictures of the tri-jet in various stages of completion:

      Picture of the sluice and riffle tray, first iteration with woven wire:

       
      Testing day!  Couple of issues were noticed while testing.  There were a few leaks in the power jet, the woven wire was too open and large rocks would get stuck on it, the high pressure hose was way too long and since it was inch and quarter and so is the pump output , it was constricted to less than inch and quarter at the coupling areas, and the long high pressure hose probably caused a loss in pressure due to friction.  The power jet should also be mounted not right at the flare but a few feet from it, so that the hose acts as a longer jet tube and helps increase suction, a 20 ft suction hose also didnt help.  
      But regardless i was able to dredge with moderate suction, with it.  So the test was a success, and with the various refinements it should have greater suction and water flow.  

      Then the next day, the various refinements and fixes from the problems noted during testing.  Replaced the woven wire with 3/8 inch 40% open punch plate, moved the jet so it is mounted about 3 feet from the flare, shortened the high pressure line and increased it to 1.5 inch so there are no restrictions, patched the holes in the power jet, and painted it.  I do have a question or everyone, would increasing the size of the footvalve and intake hose from 2 inch to 2.5 inch help increase the gpm of the pump at all?  The footvalve cage that came with the keene pump seems small to me.  I have some pictures below showing the difference.  

       
      I look forward to hearing from everyone!  It was a fun project!
    • By sjmpainter
      Found this cool magnet while looking for other stuff. Thought I would throw it out there. Cheesy plunge magnets for black sand and what not always drove me nuts. But this is well built and for its size has impressive power 60lb pull and 17lb shear. Turn the switch to release the magnetic pull. Very cool.
      http://www.amazon.com/Magswitch-Keychain-Magnet-Yellow/dp/B00PHKMSPS/ref=pd_sim_469_25?ie=UTF8&dpID=41Z10OaUWPL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR160%2C160_&refRID=18GF9R9E8E5STCPV19CQ
    • By spencer@wy
      Caught some info online today about an inventor named ..............He spoke of a patented a process that treated black sand concentrates with gamma rays. this was said to have greatly increased recoverable gold.
      this ties in to a hypothosis i have abt "growing" gold.
      does anyone know anything about this process?
      Thanks.
    • By vanursepaul
      Steve i tried to load this in the accessories forum but it is archived--- would you mind placing it in the correct place for me,,,thx paul
       
      https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-ouRCXcJJA_MGJrSm5RSmNHelk/view?usp=sharing
       
      https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-ouRCXcJJA_MGJrSm5RSmNHelk/view?usp=sharing
       
       
      One of these is a little better than the other----pretty simple
    • By John-Edmonton
      I figured this forum is busy and a great place to throw this out.
      It sells for $99.00, and the science behind it sounds reasonable.  Screening your material and controlling the water flow should allow the user to tweak it up to a functional level. It's been out for about 5 years, yet has few videos, many good comments, but some not so good ones. I only have lots of flour gold where I live, and am looking for an affordable' simple tool to reduce my concentrates at the end of my season, to then  run them through a second time, then through my miller table. Below is a link to the product:
       
      Any comments would greatly be appreciated.
       
      John-Edmonton
       
    • By Toecutter
      The brand name on this is " His Way Corporation" it has a belt that rotates tords the water outlet, its a self contained unit.. Have any of you old timers seen or used one of these and maybe shed some light on how it works...   



×
×
  • Create New...