Clay Diggins

1 hour ago, GhostMiner said:

No use of any mechanized equipment within 300 ft of stream. You are fine.

There is no such law GhostMiner. I believe you are confusing the suction dredge moratorium with other forms of mining. A common confusion in California but not a law.

How about this - a little more nuanced and accurate assessment of the law.

In California you may not extract water from a stream by mechanized means for the purposes of mining bank or streambed material. In California if you wish to use water from a stream to mine non bank or non streambed material your mechanized pump must be at least 300 feet from the stream.

This only applies to mining. Many other forms of mechanized in stream activity and you are good to go. There are a lot of pumps on California waterways and most of them are perfectly legal as long as they aren't used in mining.

10 hours ago, Tom T said:

The rocks were found (I was told) in woods creek in Jamestown Ca. Just west of Sonora…. The graphite photos are interesting… 

I doubt the sample is dolomite marble with that location. I'm with jasong - it's probably diorite.

Considering the location Chromite comes to mind but Chromite is brittle and wouldn't form balls.

The chain flail mill design is kind of a cheap hack with a lot of drawbacks including balling malleable ores. The better choice is a hammer mill but when it comes to budget the chain flail mill is much less expensive for small batches.

If you share information about where it was found, how hard/soft the rock is etc. we would have a better chance of helping you.

Soft but lighter than lead and gray? Graphite comes to mind. Just going by appearance in the photo it looks like you may have dolomite marble with included graphite as the parent rock. It could also be diorite with hornblende but I'm not seeing any biotite in your sample. It might be granite but I'm not seeing any orthoclase. Graphite balls are sometimes found in these metamorphic rocks. Here are some examples:

https://www.mindat.org/photo-275232.html

https://www.mindat.org/photo-279666.html

https://www.mindat.org/photo-279665.html

Graphite in Dolomite:

https://www.mindat.org/photo-1269724.html

That's just going on the appearance in your photo. I guess it could actually be bbs or birdshot or really really tiny rock burrowing rabbit pellets? I like the mill balls idea. Depends on the mill and the ore but balls are not uncommon with a chain mill.

4 hours ago, GotAU? said:

Not only is ChatGPT a good writing tool, it is a pretty serious tool for coding- it writes Python and JavaScript that works.  We are on the cusp of a new development like we faced in the 80’s with consumer personal computers, and it doesn’t take a Zultar to know the future of AI for us- it will be everywhere.

Clay- have you tried it with Arcpy? (I’m assuming you use GIS) It really good at it and just needs minor edits…

Yeah I've been writing code since 1977. Sometimes I need minor edits too. Arcpy is bloated crap. Python works and always has, rewriting it to take it private for profit was a coding sin. Bad ESRI juju.

When they accomplish AI I will be the first on the bandwagon. Until then I'll just sit back and chuckle at people being fooled into believing tuned algorithms with human vetted input = intelligence. I guess eventually they will have to redefine intelligence or hope this fad fades from the public memory.

Whoops! Looks like Chat GPT is yesterday's news. The original AI is fighting back. It's now upgraded and miniaturized so everyone can have their own personal AI at home. 

https://newwavetoys.com/products/zoltar-miniature-fortune-teller-machine

It only works if you believe. Believe harder and it works better. (batteries not included)

The hands and pans thing in the Auburn State Rec area is a bit of a joke.

The Auburn State Rec area is not a State Park or even State land. Almost all the land involved is either private or Federal public lands. The State has less than 40 acres there as I recall.

The Auburn State Rec area is a management contract between the Federal government and the State Parks department. The reason the hands and pans thing is funny is because that management contract specifically states that the State has no control or management duties for the minerals found in the public lands within the Rec area.

Sometimes it's all about perception and voluntary compliance - not law or a duty to control. The Auburn Rec area minerals are still, for the most part, open to prospecting. There are a few areas that have been withdrawn from mineral entry and the private lands are off limits but the "hands and pans" regs are not really legally enforceable. Of course neither is the Adventure Pass but people still keep paying to park on public lands.

1 hour ago, Steve Herschbach said:

Suction dredging?

It's still legal Steve - just as soon as permits are available you can start dredging.

It was never outlawed just put away in a bureaucratic jungle. Any more than that is straying into forbidden territory on this forum.

Thanks for providing a place where we are free from politics and religion. It's always about the hunt here. I'm good with that.

Here is a map of the mines in California currently mining with permits and heavy equipment. There are new ones being approved on a regular basis. I have several clients that have permitted major mines in California in the last three years. Some of those are gold mines - both placer and lode operations. No form of mining has been outlawed in California.

https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/mol/index.html

I wouldn't look to flooding to move much gold in the waterways. Mass wasting from heavy rains does replenish gold in the waterways but without mass wasting I wouldn't expect much change in river placer gold availability. Watch for new landslides or major slump movement to bring fresh gold this spring. 🚴‍♂️

So it's neither a rock nor a mineral. It's a man made commercial product. Made in a blast furnace used for processing iron. New Jersey had a lot of production of iron manganese ores in the Piedmont region.  Probably did fall off a truck, it's not like it would be used in farming. 😀

On 4/17/2023 at 12:26 PM, jasong said:

Specific gravity would be test #1. Followed by a streak test on unglazed ceramic/porcelain (streak a lead sinker next to it for color comparison), followed by a hardness test which will require scratching it if the first two tests are inconclusive.

Specific gravity can be found by putting a small container of water on a scale and zeroing the scale out. Dip your sample on a small string into the water (don't touch the sides or bottom of the container, also air bubbles in the crevices can throw things off). That weight in grams is also conveniently equal to your rock volume in cc's since water is 1 gram/cc and you are weighing water displacement by the sample. Weigh your sample dry now. Divide dry weight by wet weight to get a density in grams/cc.

From those tests you should narrow things down, if not ID it. You need a scale that has a precision of at least 0.1 grams, more accuracy is better. 

These tests only work on minerals. It appears you have a rock? Those tests can tell you some important things about a rock but they can not identify the rock type.

If you see actual crystal faces that are consistent in angle from one crystal to another you may have a mineral. I've never seen a mineral like your example but there are a lot of minerals. Since we only have a picture and an estimate of mass I'll have to go with slag. Perhaps a clinker. Is there a rail line nearby?

If it is a mineral the Mindat identification search is very useful in my experience.

https://www.mindat.org/advanced_search.php

21 hours ago, mn90403 said:

All SEO companies will find a way to become a AID companies.  Artificial Intelligence Directing so the technology can be monetized.

How will AI be monetized?  Subscription only?

"AI" is already monetized. When you use one of the "AI" search frameworks your identity is tied to your interests, questions, phrasing and followup. All that info goes into the "AI" database. That is valuable information to business and government. Lot's of money in these new search engines. That's why the biggest marketing companies in the world are the ones pushing this "AI" story. As you can see from my previous post the real scientists involved in this field aren't buying it.

Think of what is being called "AI" as a more advanced search engine. With the huge money Google makes selling your search and click data already everyone else wants a piece of that pie. "AI" is going to be Google on steroids once they convince people they can get better search results from these systems. It will remain "free" with the only price being the corporation looking over your shoulder while you research and then selling your information to other companies and governments.

I'm not against better search engines. What we have now for internet search feels like it should have evolved to something more useful years ago. The Google money/data pipe has prevented that so far. With these new algorithms search has the potential to be greatly improved, I'm all for that. I think it's sad and stupid that the media is trying to pass this off as Artificial Intelligence but I guess that type of fake science hype is all the trend today.

So far the "AI" models released can only do stupid dog tricks poorly but that will change in time. As these algorithms store more information on their users their interfaces will improve and the queries you enter will develop the databases to better align with your expectations. A lot of good could come out of that but I'm not sure the price (your personal data profile and work product being sold) will be worth it. I guess that will be a question for each user to answer, we certainly aren't going to resolve that here in this forum. I'm just hoping the hype over fake "AI" is left behind so individuals can make that decision fully informed about the reality of what's being offered.

We always receive promises of a better future from those who wish to sell us on the latest and greatest "new" thing. Laundry soaps have "improved" every year since I was born. Telephone sound quality really has improved since the Ma Bell days - your connection would be just fine if you just bought the latest phone. Computing power doubles every two years. The government is here to help you.

Every generation of young people since the 50's have been promised that in the future we will all be using sleek, quiet personal aircraft for our transportation.  I've been waiting for my Jetsons car a long time. Maybe when that gets delivered next week I'll be a little more susceptible to believing that machines can think.

I think if we can get rid of this nonsense idea that AI actually exists today (it doesn't) we might better understand these ongoing battles to see who will own your personal data and browsing habits in the future.

Google became the king of search, mapping and wanna be coders over the last 20 years. Microsoft has made every effort to break the Google monopoly on personal data. This has been an ongoing battle for many years.

All the largest IT companies in the world (Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon etc.) make their money from assembling your personal information with your browsing habits and selling those profiles to third parties. What... you thought Facebook, Twitter, Google search and maps etc. were provided "free" out of the goodness of their hearts? No their product and profits are your personal information and habits - and the profits are huge. That's why they are the largest companies in the world. YOU are the product - not free maps, mail and searching.

This is where the big bucks are and this is what ChatGP etc are about - breaking the Google data stream monopoly. As long as the Google search engine, maps and mail have no real competition companies like Microsoft have very little penetration in the personal data market. That Google monopoly could be broken IF someone could come up with a whiz bang search engine that would do incredible tricks to lure users away from Google. That's exactly what you are seeing in the current public world of AI. The effort to convince people there is a better pony to ride than Google. That particular idea hasn't been brought to the public's attention but you can bet it will be cropping up soon.

Back to the idea that AI exists and that's what the hype and excitement are about. Here is a list of discussions among AI developers and their take on the potential future of AI realization. I say potential future because there's is not a single developer that thinks that AI already exists - none. It's a fantasy marketing trigger word being used to shape a desire for a product that doesn't exist.

1,700 expert opinions

https://research.aimultiple.com/artificial-general-intelligence-singularity-timing/

No, Artificial Intelligence doesn’t exist (yet)

https://towardsdatascience.com/no-artificial-intelligence-doesnt-exist-yet-3318d83fdfe8

Artificial intelligence really isn’t all that intelligent

https://www.infoworld.com/article/3651357/artificial-intelligence-really-isnt-all-that-intelligent.html

AI Doesn’t Actually Exist Yet

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/ai-doesnt-actually-exist-yet/

Online tools like ChatGPT can possibly be useful in the future. They aren't "intelligent" and aren't designed to be but they do provide a glimpse of an alternative potentially more effective search engine model than what we have been using since the first web search engines in the early 90's. That could be a very good thing for researchers that currently have to wade through 90% sponsored content to find potential nuggets of real information. That will probably be seen as an great advancement until the majority adopt the new system and it's monetized once again.

Barry

27 minutes ago, jasong said:

Sam Altman said in a recent interview that some of the GPT4 beta testers have said that they believe it to be an AGI, which means it's achieved general intelligence and can basically learn anything a human can, or do tasks a human can do. That makes you wonder what GPT5 is, and why Musk, etc have all signed letters trying to restrict it's release.

Have you read the OpenAI model? It's titled "Improving Language Understanding by Generative Pre-Training." (PDF) The title alone should tell you something. If you read the model It's pretty clear there isn't even an attempt to create an intelligence, artificial or otherwise. Personally I'm of the mind that Sam Altman has been a pretty good promoter over time, that is his job.

18 minutes ago, Redz said:

So could you train it on a specific small square of geology where you know gold to be, and have it find similar

Probably eventually.

I've already built a system to do this with the geology maps I've digitized. I used a spatial database with standard queries and it works perfect. It's not intelligent but neither is the current AI. This type of computer analysis has been in use in the mining industry for several decades.

The biggest problem with doing relational geology is the simple fact that there is not , and never has been, a standard geology model to work from. Each geologic unit on each map are defined by the map maker with the symbols and notation they choose. Until geologists agree on a nomenclature and conform their maps to that nomenclature there will be no way to procedurally compare geology mapping across different maps.

I for one hope the geology model is not normalized. Some of the most brilliant and detailed geology mapping over time has used conventions that are not repeatable across other mapping systems. Conformation of a set of symbolism would create a very limiting system. Several groups are working to inject these geology principles into the universities. We are seeing the results of that effort now in the mining industry.

I was speaking to one of the most successful exploration geologists in history the other day and we discussed this very same issue. He's crying because he can't hire Masters or Phd level graduates that can read and understand a geology map that isn't normalized. At this point the mining companies are rejecting applications from recent graduates of particular mining schools because of their knowledge and education don't fit the actual working environment.

9 minutes ago, jasong said:

ME: What specific spot in Arizona would be the best place to look for gold nuggets with a metal detector?

GPT3: One of the best places to look for gold nuggets with a metal detector in Arizona is the Superstition Mountains near Phoenix. This area is known for its rich gold deposits, and it is a popular spot for metal detector enthusiasts.

 

Yep, everybody knows the Superstitions are loaded with gold nuggets. 🤣

What I see is a quick way to be just as "educated" as the bulk of people browsing the internet. I'm sure the Superstitions came up because there are tons of bogus gold treasure tales about the Superstitions on the internet. No gold but lots of internet hits created this obviously false answer. Now we can be just as smart as the internet. Oh boy.

I find it interesting that the AI promoters have re-designated computer programming as "learning". None of the current AI systems have the capability to "learn" anything. "Training" is more about training the user to form queries that conform to the current ChatGPT programming model.

With AI large databases of all the junk piled on the internet are perused for similar phrases and keys contained in your question. Other than the rules of phrasing included in the AI response model nothing that wasn't already available on the internet or your computer is used to create the AI "answer". There is no thinking or intelligence in the current AI implementations. So far no one has developed a working intelligence much less one you can interact with.

With a key value pair system like the current AI systems are using the only way to get targeted, detailed information on a subject is to tailor your query to specific and narrow definitions. Try doing the same query with google and you will get the same results plus all the junk google promotes. In that sense ChatGPT might be a better search engine but I doubt the owners will avoid monetizing your participation for long. Then we will be right back to search engines that force feed paid junk into every query.

8 hours ago, jasong said:

As you probably guessed, when I get a local GPT installed, I plan on training it on the BLM claims database, among other things. 🙂

GIGO 😊

I'm assuming you haven't yet tried to use the MLRS extracts?

Hey that's pretty cool. It's like a six year old repeating the ads on television. Clever.

Somethings fishy though. I tried ChatGPZ 7002.1 (newest version) and it came up with the same stuff - different theme.

 ME: what are the keys to being a successful fly fisherman?

GPZ7: The keys to being a successful fly fisherman include having the right equipment, researching the area you are going to fish in, understanding the signals given by your fish, and having patience. It is also important to be aware of the laws and regulations in the area you are fishing in, and to be respectful of the environment. Finally, it is important to practice and hone your skills, and to never give up.

ME: What is the best advice you could give to a new person starting to learn fly fishing?

GPZ7: The best advice for a new person starting to learn fly fishing is to start small and simple. Begin by researching the basics of fly fishing and the different types of rods available. Then, practice with a basic rod in an area with plenty of room. As you become more experienced, you can upgrade to a more advanced rod and search in more challenging areas. Finally, be patient and never give up.

ME: What is currently the best fly rod available?

GPZ7: Currently, the best fly rod available is the Fish Master GPZ 7001. This rod is designed for serious fly fishermen and is capable of fishing at distances of up to 12 kilometers. It features advanced technology such as ZWT (Zero Weed Transmission) and Multi-IQ, which allow it to fish in a variety of weather conditions.

Darn thing sounds pretty smart.  It's almost exactly like the LUTs we used to build in the old days to create the illusion of interaction in machine controller input. It always amazed me that a large percentage of the users actually believed the controller was responding to their input on a sentient basis. Heck most shops taped a name on the controller interface. HAL was popular, so was Robbie (the robot?).

Personally I think HAL or even Robbie is more iconic and recognizable than ChatGPT. I'm wondering why the creators didn't ask ChatGPT what name it would like to have? Maybe they did but didn't like the name or pronouns the program chose. Maybe ChatGPT wanted to be called Chelsea Weasel Clown and instead the creators named it ChatGPT to punish it. ChatGPT is a pretty lousy name.

Congratulations!

I'm confused, what was the prize for winning? Are the two dogs in the picture the prize? Did they teach you the secret nugget handshake?

Some of my best friends leave their holes unfilled.

In fact it's endemic in the mining industry. Basically standard practice for thousands of years.

You would think they would invent a giant boot to scrape their diggings back into their holes.

53 minutes ago, GeoBill said:

And then if you know a claimant name you can still search and find all claims ever registered under that name. Run a Customer Info Report using MASSIE and you'll still see practically every claim in the history of the GPAA. Like Clay pointed out, using Land Matters in conjunction with the crippled BLM still gives you almost all the info you'd need.

Cheers

Bill

You can do the same search on Land Matters maps and get a report with the claimant names included.

Try out the Binocular search tool - you can search by any of the basic claim information including filtering out by location dates, assessment dates, claim names, claimants etc. You can zoom to any particular claim in the information returned by clicking on the little magnifying glass to the left of the claim name.

Good question Bill and and an accurate assessment. 😊

We do use the previously available public files to insert customer names when we update the databases. This does leave out any new claimants names. (New claimants being those who have never had a case entry in the BLM database before they began the redactions).

When a new claimant owns a mining claim on Land Matters maps you will see the phrase "REMOVED BY BLM" in place of the name. Often these will be mixed with other claimant names that are not "new" claimants. There aren't a lot of them yet but I'm sure they will grow over time.

Land Matters has never published contact information for the claimants. This is a practical matter, not about hiding public records, if we published contact information with the names data harvesters would pound the Land Matters website into oblivion.

The links to the BLM Serial Register pages have always been there on Land Matters for further research but now those links have not only claimant names redacted but previous claimants as well. That makes it a lot tougher to track down the claim location records from the County. Most County Recorder's are going to need a name and a date at least to find the location notice you want to view.

They are back up but they have removed 91% of the claimant names and addresses and all of the case files.

A definite hit on the usefulness of their system.

Land Matters maps do still display claimant names to help your searches.

Seems this is where people are getting the idea that highbankers are restricted to within 100 yards.

California Code, Fish and Game Code - FGC § 5653

(e) It is unlawful to possess a vacuum or suction dredge in areas, or in or within 100 yards of waters, that are closed to the use of vacuum or suction dredges.

Rather curious reading of a law that begins by stating:

(a) The use of vacuum or suction dredge equipment by a person in a river, stream, or lake of this state is prohibited, except as authorized under a permit issued to that person by the department in compliance with the regulations.

No mention of highbanking anywhere in there. Or any other law for that matter. FGC 5653 is all about in stream work.

I know California has a lot of big head agency types that think whatever they say is the law. They can be scary. Sadly to this date no one has been able to point to a law against highbanking, a ticket for highbanking or a court conviction for highbanking. Nor is there a permit available or required under the law.

Yet the belief continues to spread. Sometimes I think small miners are their own worst enemies.

Highbank or don't highbank - it's your choice. I'm only sharing what I know, I have no intent to encourage people to do anything they are uncomfortable with. I no longer mine in California but I know several miners that are openly highbanking there and have had no problems.

Thanks for sharing.

Barry

An insurance appraiser is your best bet if you have finds with gems. They are trained and have no financial interest in buying your finds. Jewelers sometimes know enough to give a reasonable appraisal but unless you have a working relationship with a jeweler you don't know their level of experience or honesty.

GIA does not do appraisals - they never have and never will. GIA will do gem grading for a price but they will not appraise the value.

A GIA certified gemologist (GG) can be a good choice but make sure they have the certificates/training for the type of gems you have. There are separate certifications for diamonds and colored gems.

If a jeweler or appraiser doesn't have a gem lab give them a pass. Just looking at stones or using a diamond testing pen is not adequate. There are insurance appraisers that have GIA GG gemological training. These are known as Certified Insurance Appraisers - they take special insurance appraisal courses after they receive their Graduate Gemologist certificate from GIA.

Nice work Tom. Very well made chart. Thanks for sharing!