Barrels in fast water

G1sammons said:
Wher did ya find the barrel cones? Still amazed what a fine machine that is!
Click to expand...

I forget the exact place but here is a link. Look around online and make sure you get the heavy duty uv resistant ones. They come in many different diameters. I used stainless sheet metal screws to attach them to the barrel and it was pretty darn tuff. Order an extra while you are shipping them just in case you totally head-on a boulder. Gltu

http://www.pilingcaps.com/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=1_12
 

I guess it goes with the saying that AMERICANS still have a stronger work ethic then the rest of the world!

P. your half my age and you want to take the easy road. I'm 44 this year and will be taking a 6" dredge down in a sheer walled canyons over class 3 to 5 rapids by my self for the most part. Be a man and not a girly boy and NUT up and build a real dredge, not some half breed morphidite dredge that isn't going to process only 10% more material.

Sorry if anyone is offended with my harsh language. I'm not hating on foreigners also, I'm married to a Pinay. I'm as un racist as you can be.
 

omnicron said:
I guess it goes with the saying that AMERICANS still have a stronger work ethic then the rest of the world! P. your half my age and you want to take the easy road. I'm 44 this year and will be taking a 6" dredge down in a sheer walled canyons over class 3 to 5 rapids by my self for the most part. Be a man and not a girly boy and NUT up and build a real dredge, not some half breed morphidite dredge that isn't going to process only 10% more material. Sorry if anyone is offended with my harsh language. I'm not hating on foreigners also, I'm married to a Pinay. I'm as un racist as you can be.
Click to expand...

Lmao!

They gotta stop adding the gpm from the pump or Venturi with the gpm on the nozzle. This is sooooo simple. Whatever the gpm on the nozzle is, is the same amount of water you're putting in the box.
 

G1sammons said:
I agree ! If you want a smaller box then run a smaller dredge ! Your gona make something that won't do what ya want ! They put 250 gpm pumps on 4" machines because that's what there capable of doing ... Properly anyways !!! Your whole idea is to run. 6" hose on a 4" dredge but when you put those big rocks thru you box you just made it blow more gold out . Do your self a favor if you want a 6" then build one if not stick with a 4 ! What your gona end up with are plugs in your hose and a less. Effective box ! If I turn down my six and run it under half power it's plug city and not enough water to was the box. Now I understand that your gona have a smaller box Like a 4 or a mini 6" but a 250 gpm pump is not quite enough pump for a4" maybe it would be with a better jet. No way it's gona run a6" ! You may make it move water and suck material to some extent but not function as a dredge properly ... I changed my 4" keene to a proline 400 pump because it didn't flow enough to run my box and feed it the way I should be able to .... I'm changeling my jet in my 6" to make it flow more or at least I hope it will ! And your trying to go the other way ! With your rock jams and having to watch you box to get cobble out I be leave I'd move more materal with my 4" than what you will be able to with a under powered 6" ... Because of problem with under powering it.. Look at the smallest mini 6" or 5" they run 2 250 gpm pumps ! And for a reason !
Click to expand...

You are basically reply with out reading right what i say. I said The SAME sluice box and everything of a 6" dredge.

Also if you read the threads that speak about the results you will see it says tripple more efficient.

So why cant i run a proper 6" dredge with half the water and achieve a higher gpm draw and a same total of gpm if a normal jet ? Meaning i wouldnt have to make a smaller box.

A infinity with 250 gpm will make 750 gpm in draw through the suction tube plus the 250 of input is 1000gpm going to the sluice box.

A normal jet log will require 500gpm to draw 500gpm .

The infinity will have more suction and still have the same gpm total output. If that doesnt sound good then i dont know what does.
 

omnicron said:
I guess it goes with the saying that AMERICANS still have a stronger work ethic then the rest of the world! P. your half my age and you want to take the easy road. I'm 44 this year and will be taking a 6" dredge down in a sheer walled canyons over class 3 to 5 rapids by my self for the most part. Be a man and not a girly boy and NUT up and build a real dredge, not some half breed morphidite dredge that isn't going to process only 10% more material. Sorry if anyone is offended with my harsh language. I'm not hating on foreigners also, I'm married to a Pinay. I'm as un racist as you can be.
Click to expand...

Lol you think that dredging is for everyone. There is ton of work involve . The normal people who see the labor that is done in dredging never want to go dredging again with me. Specially if you dont find nothing.

I like it and i have work less in my life then one of those who have worked in the sun and done lot of hard work here.

Ya have larger rivers meaning less carring & probably better ways to access the river and have more machinary to make life easier.

Everything here is straight traditional since to even to cut the grass is with a machete and a stick.
Here to make a fence we have to dig the hoes manuelly.
I dont do none of that labor but some people here do while also just like the easy life.

I was born in the us and lived there and it was most it just living the easy or lazy life.
Here is where i have seen and done things i would have never experience i was still in NY .

I am young but maybe now in days people are just used to doing nothing and it end up effecting your life making them useless. Here a lot of people here pay haitian people to do jobs because they actually do all kind of job at a liwer price . I have taken two to dig in the river a while back and in like the second day one or both didnt want to keep working. Note: people who have been working since maybe age of 10 or younger.

So my point is that even if you see those who have work harder then me, but dont want to do nothing with gold prospecting.
 

A dredge uses much greater volumes of water to wash what is already prewashed material as compared to any other type of recovery system (highbanker, washplant etc..) So the "need" of this extra water is misunderstood and not necessary. If Keene came out with a better jetting system tomorrow with the idea to make a smaller lighter system for say a 4" dredge they would ensure the suction is the same as their current model of 4" dredge and they would match up the motor and box/flare for proper operation. It would not be underpowered and thereby plug the hose or cause problems in the box. It would process the same volumes as their current model just as effectively while being smaller and lighter. I think this idea is being lost in the translation.

I'm with Ya P.
Doing more with less is the goal in everything when looking at design improvements/efficiency. I have swung a hammer for years, but giving me a nail gun is not to be viewed as not "MANNING UP".
 

Last edited:
G-1 your psn n the wind as a waste a time man. Remember that pontification that a 45 degree angle inlet was perfect and we don't know squat. 60 day wonder now resident expert. To try and insert knowledge into a vacuum does not work. Know when to hold'm and when to fold'm and walk away. John
 

Timberdoodle said:
A dredge uses much greater volumes of water to wash what is already prewashed material as compared to any other type of recovery system (highbanker, washplant etc..) So the "need" of this extra water is misunderstood and not necessary. If Keene came out with a better jetting system tomorrow with the idea to make a smaller lighter system for say a 4" dredge they would ensure the suction is the same as their current model of 4" dredge and they would match up the motor and box/flare for proper operation. It would not be underpowered and thereby plug the hose or cause problems in the box. It would process the same volumes as their current model just as effectively while being smaller and lighter. I think this idea is being lost in the translation.
Click to expand...
Is this cause of the clasification and not have to push larger rocks. But ill take your word for it and im going to try in theory to try the same thing you just explained but with a 6". I will have nothing to lose ill just built the jet then test it with my 4" dredge pump. Ill get a 6" hose from a friend of mine . before i go ahead and invest i will know what im dealing with. If i have to step up to a 400 or 500-600 pump then ill do so but ill do things by step. Thats how i think of doing it and mantaining low possible losses before investing totally.
 

Last edited:
That's the idea P. There is nothing lost in trying it out, I think you will be surprised at what is achievable.

John, personal attacks are not the way to address designs that do not agree with yours. I hope someday to get the nozzle time and experience in the field like you have, but I have put massive time into designing and testing systems over the past 4 years and I can talk shop with anyone on the subject of jets.
 

Timber, I think back to running a sluice in the creek. I had a Keene 52a. Now I would set this up with 1" per foot drop and about 1" of water over the riffle, Then I would slowly feed in material till my 3rd riffle had the slurry. I would stop and wait a second then repeat. So you saying that being we would feed less water across this sluice we would shrink the sluice size down to accommodate less water. Now I may be stupid, but that same scoop I just added for a 10" sluice wont process the same in a smaller sluice. It would overload the riffles. I would have to slow my feed rate of material down.

I understand that there is a excess of water in a dredge, I'm sure it by design. It's prob due to lack of classification, When your sucking up a 5" rock, you need a certain amount of water to push it down the sluice.
But you guys are talking numbers that are smaller, instead of 500gpm from the jet, 250gpm then instead of 1000gpm from the flare to the sluice your saying 750. Your saying the sluice would shrink to match the flow. I don't see how your having the same amount of material processing across your sluice more efficiently. I see less material being fed because of the smaller sluice due to less water.

This goes back to what I am tryi8ing to get at is that water doesn't expand or contract under dredging conditions, Water coming out of the jet is flowing from a high pressure to a low pressure, causeing water in the hose to start moving toward a higher pressure zone ( called suction) If a hose (don't know any numbers, just pulling this out of my ass) will hold 1/2 cubic foot of water for a 6"x1' section of hose, you apply a force to cause a flow (venture) that hose will still only hold that volume of water. The hose doesn't expand nor contract and neither does the water.

Am I right so far? Tell me if I'm not!

Once flow is started the only thing that can change is the velocity, water doesn't expand/contract, neither does the hose. If you jet is only supplying 250gpm of flow lets say in 1 second that's 2 cups of water. Lets break the 1/2 cubic foot of water down to cups. That's 59.85 rounded. So being water cant compress under these conditions, we are adding 2 cups of water so we much take away 2 cups of water. Do we still not end up with 59.85 cups? We're talking in a ideal condition the system is airtight or underwater and only sucking in minute quantities of water to fill in air gaps. So the only variable here is velocity. You cant cram 1.2 gallons of water into a 1 gallon can. See where I'm going with this>? Your velocity will (increase???) due to more efficient push? (1 hand vrs 2 hands) Or is it going to decrease being you have a fixed volume of water and your adding and taking away. This is the part that I am unsure of, but logic tells me it will increase due to more efficient push. My point is I do not see how you are going to have less unless the velocity decreases because your volume can't change unless you create a "void"

I'm no scientist, hell I can only count to 21 (10 fingers/toes plus little me)(LOL) I just cant wrap my head around how you would end up with less water unless your velocity changed (slowed) and in that case you would have less suction and less material being sucked and that doesn't equal more efficiently

Once again, tell me if I'm wrong here.
 

I don't take our discussion on this personal, Thanks. I would say look back at my advise on building a tri-jet and build 2 of them. Build a normal design using straight restriction tubes and one that uses conical shape. Try both and see which performs better. I do not speak of these things without having built and tested them. I am not talking about theory but practice. If you want to believe there are not improvements that can be made, I can't argue with you and we can leave it at that. Please don't defend John on this, this has been my experience with him in the past on other topics and he likes to run around on this forum and others with a heavy hand which often causes people to not post anymore. Bad practice for such a knowledgeable guy I'd say. What I offer for advise is that some things are possible and have been tested.
 

omnicron said:
Timber, I think back to running a sluice in the creek. I had a Keene 52a. Now I would set this up with 1" per foot drop and about 1" of water over the riffle, Then I would slowly feed in material till my 3rd riffle had the slurry. I would stop and wait a second then repeat. So you saying that being we would feed less water across this sluice we would shrink the sluice size down to accommodate less water. Now I may be stupid, but that same scoop I just added for a 10" sluice wont process the same in a smaller sluice. It would overload the riffles. I would have to slow my feed rate of material down.

I understand that there is a excess of water in a dredge, I'm sure it by design. It's prob due to lack of classification, When your sucking up a 5" rock, you need a certain amount of water to push it down the sluice.
But you guys are talking numbers that are smaller, instead of 500gpm from the jet, 250gpm then instead of 1000gpm from the flare to the sluice your saying 750. Your saying the sluice would shrink to match the flow. I don't see how your having the same amount of material processing across your sluice more efficiently. I see less material being fed because of the smaller sluice due to less water.

This goes back to what I am tryi8ing to get at is that water doesn't expand or contract under dredging conditions, Water coming out of the jet is flowing from a high pressure to a low pressure, causeing water in the hose to start moving toward a higher pressure zone ( called suction) If a hose (don't know any numbers, just pulling this out of my ass) will hold 1/2 cubic foot of water for a 6"x1' section of hose, you apply a force to cause a flow (venture) that hose will still only hold that volume of water. The hose doesn't expand nor contract and neither does the water.

Am I right so far? Tell me if I'm not!

Once flow is started the only thing that can change is the velocity, water doesn't expand/contract, neither does the hose. If you jet is only supplying 250gpm of flow lets say in 1 second that's 2 cups of water. Lets break the 1/2 cubic foot of water down to cups. That's 59.85 rounded. So being water cant compress under these conditions, we are adding 2 cups of water so we much take away 2 cups of water. Do we still not end up with 59.85 cups? We're talking in a ideal condition the system is airtight or underwater and only sucking in minute quantities of water to fill in air gaps. So the only variable here is velocity. You cant cram 1.2 gallons of water into a 1 gallon can. See where I'm going with this>? Your velocity will (increase???) due to more efficient push? (1 hand vrs 2 hands) Or is it going to decrease being you have a fixed volume of water and your adding and taking away. This is the part that I am unsure of, but logic tells me it will increase due to more efficient push. My point is I do not see how you are going to have less unless the velocity decreases because your volume can't change unless you create a "void"

I'm no scientist, hell I can only count to 21 (10 fingers/toes plus little me)(LOL) I just cant wrap my head around how you would end up with less water unless your velocity changed (slowed) and in that case you would have less suction and less material being sucked and that doesn't equal more efficiently

Once again, tell me if I'm wrong here.
Click to expand...

Omni, I think I understand where your coming from on this. The ability to process material properly in a sluice is dependent on the slurry ratio and the velocity of the water through the sluice in conjunction with the riffle design. So if we look at a standard dredge, we have much more water than slurry under normal operating conditions than we truly need to process the material properly, therefore the box is designed for a width that provides the flow velocity and depth to run properly and move large material through.

If you use a more efficient jet which can produce the same suction as another Jet while being made or adjusted with a smaller orifice, the results will provide the same suction you need with less water being added though the jet. So the overall volume of water being delivered to the sluice is reduced by the amount of less water required to create the desired suction level.

What we do with this is how I differ in view from existing designs. Since the slurry/water ratio is already enough to process the material properly, I would build the flare and sluicebox sized appropriately to maintain the velocity of flow and depth to keep the material moving through. We must understand that the water supplied by the jet is not really needed to process the material properly since the slurry ratio is determined at the suction hose. The box size on a log jet design is larger than it needs to be to incorporate the added water from the jet and maintain flow velocity and depth.

This is being practiced already by anyone who is using a more efficient jet than a log jet. You have more water from suction than from the jet and you set the motor for sluice operation/depth. You don't run your motor at the same speed that you ran a log jet because it would result in overloading the box and increasing the flow velocity beyond recommended rates. In this case you would want to install a larger box to handle more water/material if you wanted to crank it up.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Dredging a lake bed

⬅️ Previous Thread

Gold King pump needed

Next Thread ➡️

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
High Plains Prospectors

Latest Discussions

Back
Top