When I first started prospecting, I used to put a lot of effort into saving every last speck I could. My reasoning was that if I could see it in the pan, I'd save it. So I'd double pan, and save concentrates to go through at home later.
This is probably a good strategy when you are learning to pan, as it focusses you on effective technique, but obviously it can be at the expense of efficiency, in that a lot of effort goes into saving those tiny fly specks, which weight wise don't amount to much.
As you get better at panning, then obviously the second run through will contain less gold, and few larger specks and flakes.
I thought about this when working through some bags of Digger Tom's concentrates while getting over my recent surgery. The first bag had plenty of fine stuff, but also some chunkier specks and one almost picker. I was pleased to see that the second time I panned the concentrates there was not much to be found, and what there was was very, very fine - the kind of gold that shoots up to the surface of the water, and scoots around supported by surface tension.
Obviously you can help with this by putting some detergent or surfacant into your panning water.
The second bag of concentrates had a preponderance of very, very fine gold, and it was quite a job to successively go through the concentrates and recover all the specks I could. While this is a satisfying exercise in one sense, it also raised the question of how efficient it is to be so fastidious about recovery of the really fine stuff.
Dealing with the El Dorado cons certainly underlined in my mind the attraction of Mercury to the old boys who were after all looking to make a living out of alluvial prospecting and mining, and were thus interested in the most efficient and effective ways to maximise their returns.
The other side of the equation is the set up of the high banker. Jembaicumbene commented in the thread about Highbanking Simply Stated that " You Only Get Back From What You Put Through." Obviously it is a balancing act to set up the HB so that you are able to process a good deal of material in the day, while maintaining a water flow and bottom sluice angle that gives you acceptable values in the concentrates.
Obviously, a lot depends on the nature of the gravels you are processing and the average size of the gold therein. However, I've been thinking that it may be better to err on the side of slightly steeper sluice angle and/or water flow, to ensure the sluice clears in a timely manner, and you can keep the material going through at a good rate. In any properly designed sluice, you should be retaining any relatively larger pieces, the question being how much of the micro gold are you prepared to lose in order to be able to process the maximum amount of wash in the period you have. It makes sense to pan off a shovelfull of your tailings every once and a while to check that all is well, though.
I'm just throwing this out there to see what people's views are on firstly being an obsessive panner, and second, maximising throughput of your highbanker perhaps at the expense of not saving all the ultra fine gold.
This is probably a good strategy when you are learning to pan, as it focusses you on effective technique, but obviously it can be at the expense of efficiency, in that a lot of effort goes into saving those tiny fly specks, which weight wise don't amount to much.
As you get better at panning, then obviously the second run through will contain less gold, and few larger specks and flakes.
I thought about this when working through some bags of Digger Tom's concentrates while getting over my recent surgery. The first bag had plenty of fine stuff, but also some chunkier specks and one almost picker. I was pleased to see that the second time I panned the concentrates there was not much to be found, and what there was was very, very fine - the kind of gold that shoots up to the surface of the water, and scoots around supported by surface tension.
Obviously you can help with this by putting some detergent or surfacant into your panning water.
The second bag of concentrates had a preponderance of very, very fine gold, and it was quite a job to successively go through the concentrates and recover all the specks I could. While this is a satisfying exercise in one sense, it also raised the question of how efficient it is to be so fastidious about recovery of the really fine stuff.
Dealing with the El Dorado cons certainly underlined in my mind the attraction of Mercury to the old boys who were after all looking to make a living out of alluvial prospecting and mining, and were thus interested in the most efficient and effective ways to maximise their returns.
The other side of the equation is the set up of the high banker. Jembaicumbene commented in the thread about Highbanking Simply Stated that " You Only Get Back From What You Put Through." Obviously it is a balancing act to set up the HB so that you are able to process a good deal of material in the day, while maintaining a water flow and bottom sluice angle that gives you acceptable values in the concentrates.
Obviously, a lot depends on the nature of the gravels you are processing and the average size of the gold therein. However, I've been thinking that it may be better to err on the side of slightly steeper sluice angle and/or water flow, to ensure the sluice clears in a timely manner, and you can keep the material going through at a good rate. In any properly designed sluice, you should be retaining any relatively larger pieces, the question being how much of the micro gold are you prepared to lose in order to be able to process the maximum amount of wash in the period you have. It makes sense to pan off a shovelfull of your tailings every once and a while to check that all is well, though.
I'm just throwing this out there to see what people's views are on firstly being an obsessive panner, and second, maximising throughput of your highbanker perhaps at the expense of not saving all the ultra fine gold.
