Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi All, I have a 2" Keene dredge and a 3" Keene HighBaker, I use the 2" 90% of the time cause the 3" high banker about to much for me to get to the small creek I go to. I get very small gold at this creek but a lot of it. Do you think if I fit the 3" sluice box on my 2" floats I can get better gold recovery?  I never run my Honda full blast anyway. I was just thinking the bigger sluice will keep more small gold. What do you all think?  Thanks   Dean

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Hi Swamp, do you think the 2" floats will float the 3" sluice and use the 3" hose? I have boath set ups, It is just the 3" hose and high banker is just so much heavier than the 2". I prospect in OHIO, and the gold is very small, I got to go about 6 times last year and ended with  1.10 OZ. of gold. Going to try and do better this year.  thanks  Dean

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've answered your own question.. I know I would not do it..

An ozT+ is most excellent for an OH season, much less 6 days..
Sounds like you've come across a really nice glacial Au spot..
Keep it quiet, as they don't tend to replenish themselves..

Swamp
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Dean Stone said:

Hi All, I have a 2" Keene dredge and a 3" Keene HighBaker, I use the 2" 90% of the time cause the 3" high banker about to much for me to get to the small creek I go to. I get very small gold at this creek but a lot of it. Do you think if I fit the 3" sluice box on my 2" floats I can get better gold recovery?  I never run my Honda full blast anyway. I was just thinking the bigger sluice will keep more small gold. What do you all think?  Thanks   Dean

Absolutely, if you are recovering fine gold you can't have enough sluice, also you need the best mat the full length of your box..Actually the triple sluices worked very well as the fine gold was transferred to these side boxes where the water slowed giving the fines a better chance to drop out..taken out of the crashing mainstream gives you a better fines  recovery rate. You will read about undercurrents the old timers constructed to recover more fines, this is the same process slow the water down .....If you read about the old time dredges some of them had an awful lot of sluice box in them.. Another thing you can do is experiment with sluice plates with different size holes you can make these yourself......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, kiwijw said:

I agree totally with alaskaseeker. If dealing with fine gold you can never have too much box. The more gentle the water flow & the further it has to travel & settle out the better for fine gold recovery. Classification & gentle flow is the key for fine gold, most definitely. Not volume & water pressure to move on the bigger rocks & stones or you blow the fines right on thru.

Good luck out there. 

JW :smile:

 

13 hours ago, alaskaseeker said:

Absolutely, if you are recovering fine gold you can't have enough sluice, also you need the best mat the full length of your box..Actually the triple sluices worked very well as the fine gold was transferred to these side boxes where the water slowed giving the fines a better chance to drop out..taken out of the crashing mainstream gives you a better fines  recovery rate. You will read about undercurrents the old timers constructed to recover more fines, this is the same process slow the water down .....If you read about the old time dredges some of them had an awful lot of sluice box in them.. Another thing you can do is experiment with sluice plates with different size holes you can make these yourself......

These are a couple good examples of why I don't generally respond to questions, especially questions of this nature: Because in order to give a proper answer one needs to write a friggin' book examining and explaining the pros and cons of just about everything having to do with the recovery of fine gold..

First off let me say I know of and respect both these gentlemen.. But..!

Yes, it's true: One can never have too much sluice box when it comes to recovering every bit of Au running through it's length..

And therein lay the first rub: Length.. This post is about width.. It's also about addressing if it's alright to upset the balance of a well designed and well operating machine and a couple other truths and assumptions that will be addressed forthcoming..

Sure, we can go onto the net right now and find video of a person chasing Lake Superior gold who's running a four-stack Gold Cube, another approx. 20' of Gold Hog sluice and their mixed matting and he's still not capturing every bit of those fines.. Cut to home cleanup of cons and halfway through an 1/3rd full 2 gal bucket he's recovered 2 grams.. Dean states he's doing that well in, what, 3' of sluice, maybe 4'..?

Which brings us to rub #2: The Law of Diminishing Returns.. 'Nuf sed about that, yes..?

And a couple of assumptions: I was assuming Dean Stone is backpacking and carrying everything in in one trip & really doesn't want to make a second trip and further assuming he is already running Gold Hog matting.. I'd already be running Gold Hog matting in this situation; wouldn't all of you as well..?

This is far as I'm going to go.. I was responding both written and inferred to specific points in regard to a specific circumstance.. I was not responding to how to capture every last drop of fine gold using a triple stage or a permanent / semi-permanent sluice run consisting of three stages..

Swamp
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

swamp, it’s about offering opinions and advice, and not everyone need agree with you. You offer your options, others offer theirs, let the viewer decide. There is no need to get attached to our advice or comments and then have to defend them. I gave that all up personally (edit - still working on that!). I just offer whatever I have to offer, but I am not going to defend or argue.

You are right, it’s a deep subject and one I may dive into as this thread progresses. It’s actually a balancing act for reasons you just described. Since the poster is doing well already it seems to me an opportunity to tweak the operation perhaps. Or not. But either way it’s no big deal.

Just me dropping by sharing chill pills... I got a 55 gallon drum of them and happy to share! :smile: I appreciate your contributions ?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Steve Herschbach said:

swamp, it’s about offering opinions and advice, and not everyone need agree with you. You offer your options, others offer theirs, let the viewer decide.

There is no need to get attached to our advice or comments and then have to defend them. I gave that all up personally. I just offer whatever I have to offer, but I am not going to defend or argue.

You are right, it’s a deep subject and one I may dive into as this thread progresses. It’s actually a balancing act for reasons you just described. Since the poster is doing well already it seems to me an opportunity to tweak the operation perhaps. Or not. But either way it’s no big deal.

Just me dropping by sharing chill pills... I got a 55 gallon drum of them and happy to share! :smile: I appreciate your contributions ?

You're correct, of course.. The above was typed at 5AM when I got up to, welll, not type the above..

Looking at it now I'm fairly sure alaskaseeker saw "fine gold" and set about describing best recovery practices without considering the entire setup whereas I saw it as him telling another it was ok to interchange a part onto floats not designed to support it -- a prelude to disaster..

Also, when I said move more material I did not mean through the existing setup; I meant larger dredge.. But that didn't mean get a larger dredge either since I believe smaller nozzles do better in fines -- less disruption in sluice = better recovery moving less material, a net positive as long as one can get back for the remainder..

Anyhowww, thanks for reaching in and awarding reality checks.. Much appreciated..!

Swamp
 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks All, Don't want to get into a big fuss over this. This is just something I have been working on over the cold weather here. I test  my tailing and lose very little with the 2" Keens, but run slow so not to blow any out. I was thinking that use the same motor as the 2" and run faster would let me move more dirt. The 3" has a 5 horse motor, and that is load by itself. I think I will try the 3" sluice on the 2" frame and that motor, and run faster. I do get good gold from where I go, there was a mine back in the 1800's on top  of the hill where I go. Every spring there is more gold in the same spots I did the year before. Biggest piece is about a 10th of a gram. I sometimes go and just pan when it is to cold to get in the water and get 6 or 7 pieces in a pan. Going to try and make it out more this year. With a broken back and a plate in my neck, some days when it is cold I just can't make it.  If anyone has more info, put it to me. I am 67 years old and try to do what I can till my time comes.  Thanks for all the help.   Dean

  • Like 1
  • Oh my! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I say try it, if it works great, if not, go back to what is proven to work, good luck and stay safe.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
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
×
×
  • Create New...