Jump to content

Clay Diggins

Member
  • Posts

    335
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Clay Diggins last won the day on October 24 2017

Clay Diggins had the most liked content!

1 Follower

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location:
    The Great Southwest

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.minerdiggins.com

Recent Profile Visitors

5,203 profile views

Clay Diggins's Achievements

Silver Contributor

Silver Contributor (4/6)

818

Reputation

  1. I don't see anywhere in the CDFW reply you posted where they said highbanking or pumping water from the stream to your highbanker was a problem. In fact they say just the opposite. CDFW said this in their reply (CDFW quotes in red): possession of your highbanker more than 100 yards from a California river, stream, or lake would not be a violation per se of Fish and Game Code section 5653, subdivision (e). As to the use of a motorized pump to pump river water to the highbanker more than 100 yards from the river, the principal issue relevant in the first instance under the two controlling sections of the Fish and Game Code is not use of the pump or the water returning to the river. Here is the CDFW's sticking point. IF you source the materials for processing in your highbanker from the stream or lake that would be a violation of 5653. The relevant issue is the source of the materials you would process in the highbanker and the purpose. If you aren't going to be processing material from the "bed, bank, or channel of the river" you are not subject to the restrictions of 5653. The 5653 dredging law is specifically about dredging in a stream or lake. Not a thing in there about highbanking or processing material sourced from outside of the stream bed. Nothing in there about moving water from the stream bed. Nothing in there about pumping water out of the stream. I've already posted the California laws for highbanking. I've already posted the laws about riparian stream use. There are already laws that govern these activities. There is a basic principle of law that says existing laws are never to be assumed to be repealed by implication. In other words unless a new law spells out that the old law is being replaced the old law is still in effect. In this case since there is already a law about processing minerals out of stream a newer law that doesn't specifically repeal that law and doesn't even mention processing materials out of stream can't have changed the existing law. So now I've given you California State law governing and permitting out of stream placer mining, California State law governing and permitting riparian rights to stream water and you have the CDFW response specifically stating the issue isn't about highbanking or pumping water but about where you get the minerals you are going to run through your highbanker. I'm still puzzled why you would think any of this means highbanking is outlawed?
  2. I'm still looking for the California law that banned "mechanical devices to recover gold". I'm pretty good at finding laws and I'm "confused" how you found a law that I can't find and why you won't point us to where that law can be read.
  3. There is already law in California regarding placer mining with surface water. No placer mining operator shall mine by the placer process on any stream or on the watershed of any stream tributary directly or indirectly to the Sacramento River or the San Joaquin River without taking both of the following precautions to prevent pollution of the stream by the effluent from his or her operations: (a) Constructing a settling pond or ponds of sufficient size to permit the clarification of water used in the mining processes before the water is discharged into the stream. (b) Mixing with the effluent from mining operations aluminum sulphate and lime, or an equivalent clarifying substance which will cause the solid material in the effluent to coagulate and thus avoid rendering the water in the stream unfit for domestic water supply purposes. There is quite a bit more on the well described procedure for placer mining, including how to give proper notice. https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2021/code-prc/division-3-5/chapter-3/ To my mind it would be best to follow the law before approaching any agency for their opinion. Sometimes it's better to have all your ducks in a row before arguing what a duck is.
  4. You would think California would learn. Remember the Big Cut placer gold mine and how the county and state were screaming "illegal mining"? The state and county claimed he had no right to mine his land. He mined it anyway. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna46309739 The mine owner was fined 900,000 dollars (which they never had to pay). The end result of the harassment was a federal judgement for 107 million dollars in favor of the miner. The Sacramento County Supervisor, planning director and aggregate resource manager for the county had more than 2 million dollars in judgements against them for their involvement in suppressing his mining rights. https://verdictsearch.com/verdict/historical-mine-operators-claimed-county-revoked-right-to-mine/ There are many laws in California regarding using surface waters. All of those water laws are based on the constitutional obligation of the state to ensure that the water is used for a beneficial purpose. California State Constitution Section 2 Article 10 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CONS&sectionNum=SEC. 2.&article=X There are no laws prohibiting the use of water for mining because under California law mining is a beneficial use of water. The state water board agrees: The following definitions for beneficial uses are applicable statewide; Uses of water for industrial activities that do not depend primarily on water quality, including, but not limited to, mining, cooling water supply, hydraulic conveyance, gravel washing, fire protection, or oil well repressurization https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/about_us/performance_report_1314/plan_assess/docs/bu_definitions_012114.pdf The water board has no power to make laws or change the meaning of laws. The California constitution would have to be changed to give the water board the power to ban surface water use for mining.
  5. Rob rents his forum software just like the other forums. Rob can't fix the software if something is wrong with his forum, only the company he's renting from can do that. I doubt his software has any problem. If it did all the other renter's sites would have the same warning. The forum url subdomain is redirected on the provider's servers correctly. Rob has no control over that, it's strictly a function of the providers software service. Usually these PUP warnings are more about the quality of the antivirus software than they are about potentially(?) unwanted programs. Security software makers benefit directly from false warnings and the fear they create, very few are straight up about that aspect of their industry. I won't have any McAfee products on my computers but that's an informed personal choice based on experience and not a subject for a detecting forum. The web is a big, scary and sometimes dangerous place. You should always be aware of what links you are clicking on and what content you are downloading. Most of all remember there is no such thing as a free lunch. That is 99.9% of web security in a nutshell. Almost all security problems from the web are created directly by user actions, no security software can save you from that.
  6. Rob's forum does not have a virus. I just reviewed his code. There is no virus and no indication there ever was one. The warning you received is about a malicious url - not a virus. Big difference. The way uBlock works the warning may not even be about the site you are trying to visit. It's a 24 hour filter block that will be lifted after the issue is resolved. If you didn't install and use the free third party software that put a warning notice on the site you wouldn't see any block or any problems. A lot of times these warnings are more about poorly coded "free" antivirus and "security" software than about any real threat to users. Mike I'm surprised you would post something like this. Rob is a good guy that has worked hard for years to build his business, serve this community and his family. Spreading this kind of disinformation can cause real damage to Rob, his customers and his family. Saying these things about an internet business is really no different than painting slurs on a shop owners window. I doubt you intended harm here Mike but please think twice about raising panic and fear about someone's business. Maybe choose your words more carefully next time? Barry
  7. Interesting... California is without a doubt the hardest of the mining states to jump through the hoops. I work with several mining companies who have permitted large operations in California in the past two years. The fact is if you know what you are doing and have the funding to carry through your plan even a major operation in California can be permitted, built and operating in under two years. The same type operation in another mining state would be mining in less than a year. That's my experience. I realize others have different experiences but I'm not buying into the "impossible" narrative. If you have mineral rights on federal lands you have the right to mine those minerals.
  8. As phrunt pointed out that video is not that far from the reality. With enough AA Alkaline batteries these electric cars would run fine - until the batteries run down. Other than the battery chemistry the video pretty much reflects the reality of electric cars today. Neither Tesla nor Toyota manufacture batteries. Tesla has a partnership with Panasonic who manufactured the 18650 batteries previously used in Teslas and the current 2170 they are now using. It takes 4,680 2170 batteries to make the battery pack in a Tesla model Y. The 18650 battery requires 8,256 cells. The 2170 battery pack is about 300 pounds lighter than the equivalent 1860 battery pack. The 2170 is nearly twice the mass and more than twice the output of the old 18650 battery. Panasonic is also manufacturing the replacement 4680 batteries Tesla is now incorporating into their manufacturing. The new (much larger) 4680 battery supplies 5 times as much power as the 2170 and are quite a bit more efficient. The Panasonic 4680 is not just a bigger lithium battery it has a tabless design which is an actual concrete improvement in Lithium battery design. It's how they managed to finally make a bigger lithium battery instead of using all those flashlight batteries everyone else is still stuck with. Toyota sources most of their EV batteries from Panasonic and LG. Toyota uses both Lithium and NIMH batteries in their cars and don't generally reveal which you are purchasing. Toyota has had plans to manufacture a new solid state lithium battery in a partnership with LG (South Korea) since 2018. Two months ago Toyota pledged more than 5 billion dollars towards that or possibly another partnership or two. At present neither the money nor the batteries exist but the plan is to be in production by 2025. I think Chevy got the jump on everyone. Their Bolt uses a pouch battery (like in your cellphone) that has a runaway problem (fire) that caused them to recall all 141,000 of their Bolts and stop manufacturing new Bolts. Unlike Tesla and Toyota, Chevy for the time being, is no longer bleeding money by selling electric Bolt cars at a financial loss. In my book that's a win with the bonus being there are now fewer electric cars catching fire and burning to the ground, with toxic fumes, in our public places. Chevy Bolts are now being offered for sale with a new battery pack and a $6,000 lower price. You can order one now but there is no plan to deliver Bolts until "sometime" in 2023. Chevy is offering current Bolt owners $6,000 cash to promise not to sue Chevy for any battery issues they might encounter. Solid state batteries aren't new technology. "Solid state" when referring to battery technology is simply a solid electrolyte battery as opposed to the liquid or gel type electrolytes used in lithium batteries now. Solid state batteries have been in common use since the 1950s. The first solid state lithium battery was manufactured in the 1990s. There are a lot of problems to solve before a solid state lithium battery can be considered as a real candidate for replacing the current lithium batteries in autos. Being that 18650 batteries cost about $5 retail and less than $3 wholesale I doubt the cost of Minelab battery packs has much to do with what batteries are being used in cars. Does anyone know how many 18650 batteries Minelab is using in their battery pack?
  9. Those kangaroos will need shearing in a month or two. I hear the dingos used to do that until the natives took over. Maybe next time get them to stand on their hind legs Steve. Folks in the States get confused when they are just standing around like a bunch of Rambouillet.
  10. AZO forum died quite a while ago. I noticed the ICMJ forum flew away recently also.
  11. I know a little about COMEX. I was hedging metals there for several years after they opened their gold futures exchange in 1974. It has changed since then but it's only become more expensive and restrictive for small manufacturers and investors since that time. No one can buy gold on COMEX. Gold is not for sale but futures contracts can be had. COMEX is a place to exchange futures contracts - not gold. The individual futures contract seller is responsible for delivery - not COMEX and not your Broker. The person taking delivery is responsible for transportation, warehousing, insurance and security. A futures contract for gold can sometimes be taken to physical delivery but the conversion losses are so large that it's almost always less expensive to buy physical gold from one of the big metals dealers even with their higher prices. Neither you nor I can buy or take delivery on a COMEX contract unless we are pre qualified as an Executing Trading Firm. (Usually that's your broker if they are one of the big boys.) The vast majority of gold futures contracts on COMEX are "rolled over" at the end of contract with an EFRP (Exchange for Related Position) - no gold exchanges hands. That is exactly what your selected Executing Trading Firm will strongly encourage you to do. Many are tempted by the COMEX gold mini contracts of 50 oz. Unfortunately those are cash settlement only contracts - no gold is delivered or promised in the contract. Physical delivery means gold in hand and is obviously distinct from someone else promising you they have your gold. One important thing I learned hedging metal on the COMEX was if the metal isn't in your hands you don't own it. COMEX futures contracts are not gold in hand. I don't see a logical or price connection between gold you might pay for in the future and might take delivery of even further in the future to local dealer prices for immediately available recognized gold coins in hand. The market clearly doesn't see a connection between COMEX and physical gold anymore. It's been a few years since physical gold dealers have been paying more than COMEX spot for physical gold and selling at a 20 - 50% markup over COMEX spot. . For anyone who has traded in gold for nearly 50 years that is an obvious, historically unique, and big disconnect in COMEX futures vs physical pricing.
  12. It's pretty cheap for a live instructor for two hours if they are any good. If you don't feel you need a live instructor you can learn this stuff fairly easily and for free. Just download QGIS and follow the extensive documentation and instructions. Here's their simple tutorial on using LIDAR data to create a 3D map. https://docs.qgis.org/3.22/en/docs/training_manual/forestry/basic_lidar.html?highlight=lidar
  13. I think as soon as phones become as powerful as many already believe they are the tools to do real time local 3D comparative scanning already exists. https://www.opentopography.org/blog/iphone-lidar-applications-geosciences Now all we have to do is figure out how to strap a $1000 iPhone to our coils along with a cooling tower for the coprocessor and a case for the extra batteries and data storage.
  14. Welcome to the forum Ben. I'm a fellow programmer and can probably show the basics of where the road blocks exist in the current technology. I am not a detector expert but there are a few on this forum, hopefully they will chime in. Please don't take offense at my comments. They are directed to all readers and aren't meant to denigrate the programming work you are doing today or the current state of "AI'. First off a pet peeve- AI since 2015? Nothing like changing the definition to achieve the goal. You certainly mean neural network Weak AI? Alan Turing is rolling over in his grave. Real Artificial Intelligence doesn't exist - it's only hypothetical at this point. Real Artificial Intelligence wouldn't require humans feeding training data to a program. What the public is led to believe is that intelligent Strong AI exists then they are offered Weak AI as proof of concept. We were employing Weak AI back in the late 1970's at TI - nothing new but the name. To answer your question the "AI" you are referring to is used in several metal detectors today. You can start with automatic ground balance. Signal acquisition and processing is where most of the development is centered today. GiGo applies to metal detectors just like every other real world system and there is a huge amount of garbage in these signals. As already mentioned humans perform this sorting function with the currently available detecting technology based on individual experience. Also noted is that even the best detectorists either dig every target or admit to missing gold if they don't dig every target. In other words human sorting of the data received by the detector is still very poorly developed even among the best operators. If there were true artificial intelligence the best we could expect is the same level of data sorting. I have doubts about the usefulness of an "AI" system that has no more capability than the existing human operators. Metal detecting isn't a button pushing job at a factory. With the current BFO, VLF and Pulse detecting systems it is not possible to directly correlate signals received with the substance being detected. Not enough of the right kind of data. The use of slot filters can eliminate unwanted signals but those will also miss many of the target metal signals as well. As you can see from previous comments some believe a processor enabled slot filter amounts to AI. Thus my previous comments. A different physical data collection device is needed to distinguish individual metallic signals. At present no such system is available to the detecting public but you can bet some smart folks are working very hard on that goal. Of course once a system is designed that can discriminate among metal types there will be no need for AI to parse those signals for the operator. I understand where you are coming from. My first thought when I picked up a BFO back in 1973 was that these machines need more intelligent processing to make sense of the signals created. I too misunderstood what was meant by a "metal detector". A lot of work has been done already towards the goal of cleaning up the signals from the existing systems. The best we can do now as programmers now is sit back and let the engineers discover a working physical system to get the data that will allow true metallic discrimination.
×
×
  • Create New...