Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
Charts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Gold Prospecting
Metal Detecting for Gold
Gold definitions - "Alluvial", "Eluvial", "Colluvial" etc.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Help Support Prospecting Australia:
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="user 4386" data-source="post: 648010" data-attributes="member: 4386"><p>What you say is quite correct of course, but I don't know how much of a factor it is in practice. The reasons being that with Victorian quartz reefs they are hard and resistant to erosion and tend to control the position of north-south ridges over extended periods of time during erosion. More to the point, the areas suitable for detecting now are modern hillslopes below the current outcrop positions. And very few veins extended laterally for very far because they would commonly be confined to things like one limb of a fold structure, or within a dyke, or within an anticline, and the "package" of quartz veins present would often be close to vertical, with veins in the package repeating at depth vertically below, even though individual veins within the package might dip at a low angle. So even in mines more than a km deep, the effect of dip of the package would rarely be 200 m from top to bottom of the mone - and where you are detecting now is at surface on modern hills anyway. And keep in mind that the total depth of erosion since Cretaceous uplift is only of the order of 1000-2000 m, so the amount removed vertically is only equivalent to the depth still remaining in our deeper mines. All the streams worked for gold, even the deep leads, were only a quarter as old as that uplift.</p><p></p><p></p><p>[ATTACH=full]2724[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p></p><p>[ATTACH=full]2725[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p></p><p>[ATTACH=full]2726[/ATTACH]</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="user 4386, post: 648010, member: 4386"] What you say is quite correct of course, but I don't know how much of a factor it is in practice. The reasons being that with Victorian quartz reefs they are hard and resistant to erosion and tend to control the position of north-south ridges over extended periods of time during erosion. More to the point, the areas suitable for detecting now are modern hillslopes below the current outcrop positions. And very few veins extended laterally for very far because they would commonly be confined to things like one limb of a fold structure, or within a dyke, or within an anticline, and the "package" of quartz veins present would often be close to vertical, with veins in the package repeating at depth vertically below, even though individual veins within the package might dip at a low angle. So even in mines more than a km deep, the effect of dip of the package would rarely be 200 m from top to bottom of the mone - and where you are detecting now is at surface on modern hills anyway. And keep in mind that the total depth of erosion since Cretaceous uplift is only of the order of 1000-2000 m, so the amount removed vertically is only equivalent to the depth still remaining in our deeper mines. All the streams worked for gold, even the deep leads, were only a quarter as old as that uplift. [ATTACH type="full" width="591px" alt="1657410046332.png"]2724[/ATTACH] [ATTACH type="full" width="615px" alt="1657410145193.png"]2725[/ATTACH] [ATTACH type="full" width="596px" alt="1657410277838.png"]2726[/ATTACH] [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Gold Prospecting
Metal Detecting for Gold
Gold definitions - "Alluvial", "Eluvial", "Colluvial" etc.
Top