Barrels in fast water

The point is that you can achieve the same suction using less jet volume and PSI hence the term efficiency. In building a design from the ground up you can get the performance characteristics of a larger dredge/motor/box by using a efficient jet, smaller motor and sluicebox if desired. OR you can get more throughput from your existing dredge/motor/box by swapping out the jet. It's how you look at it when designing a system.


The direct apples to apples for the same motor etc.. was covered under this part of the statement below.
Another view
If the orifice sizes are the same then equal volume delivery from the jets is the same and total volume would increase to the box due to the increased suction from the more efficient jet. Sound good?
 

Last edited:
G1sammons said:
You can do all the same with a standard jet. also no need to make a more efficient jet . The efficiency will do the same for less or do more with the same ... The way p was making it look you would be worse off to make a more efficient jet .... Just don't understand why he was wanting to look at it for something it wasn't ? I dont understand where he was coming from? Why that angle ?
Click to expand...

Probably a engineer. Lmao

I've kept track of this debate over jet efficiency for at least the last 2 weeks. I've found it funny that for some reason some people think more suction + lower rpm pump out put + more efficient jet pressure= a lesser volume of water in your sluice. WTH! Or comparing air with water. They are two completely different things. If I put more air in a container I get more pressure. If I want more water pressure I can't put more water in the container because IT'S FULL. I would instead move the water, and the faster I move the water the more suction I would create (standard jet log). If I move a greater amount of water at that same speed I would get even more suction (infinity jet). Suction = more water passing through the hose per second, minute, whatever. The greater the suction the more water I am pushing through my sluice box.
 

Thanks Jack and G1. I've been beating my head against the wall with trying to explain it. Some people just cant grasp the concept. I know that sometimes I was wrong in trying to get my point across but I do get the concept and have a understanding...
 

Last edited:
I like infinity jets except for the plugging problems. I have built many of them.

Panningjack, if I remember correctly you have a GD jet which is adjustable. The point I was trying to make is that if you had a log jet with a 4" dredge you would require a pump capable of around 300gpm to get 300gpm of suction for a total of 600gpm to the box. If you use your GD jet and adjusted the orifice size smaller you could achieve 300gpm of suction while only using 150gpm or less from the pump for a total of 450gpm to the box. This would allow for a smaller pump and the box should be made narrower to maintain the depth needed to keep material moving through.
 

G1sammons said:
no problem What p was saying wasn't wrong really but no one sets there dredge up by suction . Rather we bring up the rpm's push it as hard as we can without blowing gold out! ,!! It kinda like the horse power vs torque argument.. But worse I guess this argument is easy to solve thou most get it wrong!
Click to expand...

I think of it like if it was a highbanker the more water the more washing can be done .

I have never said that two pumps running alike at the same hp and rpm the infinity jet will have a less water TOTAL output. If it seemed that way sorry then.

I want to make a point across & that is that we CANT guide ourself by the gpm draw on a infinity meaning because it draws the same suction (measured with any device) as a log jet doesnt mean it could handle the same amount of material through the sluice box.
That is because it uses 1/3 of water LESS to achieve the same suction. So if you sum the suction draw plus the water going through the jet you will have less output coming out the flare to the sluice.
**Reminder** im talking about a infinity running UnderPowered meaning running in less hp/rpm to reach the same suction draw.

What i believe is the total output of both jet and suction of water output is what counts when washing rocks; not JUST suction draw. You need that extra water from the pump to help clean Rocks and maintain proper vortex of the riffles. So the only way is making up for that extra water through a infinity is pushing it higher then the normal suction draw for you can make up for the 1/3 less water used for that more efficient jet.
 

I agree P that the material/water ratio will change. The difference while using wont be that noticeable though if the box/flare is built to match to get everything working ok. What will be noticeable is the size and weight of the dredge itself that is still capable of moving larger material with less size/cost.
 

Timberdoodle said:
I agree P that the material/water ratio will change. The difference while using wont be that noticeable though if the box/flare is built to match to get everything working ok. What will be noticeable is the size and weight of the dredge itself that is still capable of moving larger material with less size/cost.
Click to expand...
So you think if the sluice box being smaller it will act more aggresive and help to deal with the lower water . Ps. In a under power situation!!
 

Not a problem moving material through and stripping out the gold when designed for the right depth of water and flow in the sluice to keep the larger material in motion. I wouldn't call it underpowered if the flare/box is built to match the needs. I would say that the extra wash water is unnecessary it you stay in the recommended 10% or less material to water volume that is recommended by most manufacturers.
 

With 250gpm can i achieve good results on a 6" dredge . Hoping to achieve 1000gpm total output. That you would need 500 gpm inlet on a normal jet to have the same results.

If it needed more power i will buy a bigger pump.
I want to scale up instead of later wanting to cut weight . Just like i want to do to my 4" of putting instead a p180 pump with a 6.5 instead if the 8hp ke201.

I believe i dont have nothing to lose to start off first with that setup and testing my results.
 

Timberdoodle said:
Not a problem moving material through and stripping out the gold when designed for the right depth of water and flow in the sluice to keep the larger material in motion. I wouldn't call it underpowered if the flare/box is built to match the needs. I would say that the extra wash water is unnecessary it you stay in the recommended 10% or less material to water volume that is recommended by most manufacturers.
Click to expand...
True but i get alway with more material and the extra water help doesnt it. Underpower by meaning using less motor and hp OR less water from a pump.
 

I think of it as dredging thick muddyyy water but when it meets the fresh water it will delute it .

The less of water the heavier it will be and slower for the deposite of gold. Isnt this why maybe a lot of highbanker have long toms.
 

I'm sorry but that just seems stupid. I mean, the whole reason is to process more material, not less. To spend serious money to build up a larger dredge so you can process 3-6 times more material but in reality your only process 2-4 times more material doesn't make economical sense.
I'll use my recent exposure to a 6" dredge with a quad-jet. In about 15 minutes the nozzle dug a hole 4' deep by 24'ish wide. It would of taken my 4 " a hour or more to do the same thing. That's a big difference. But to spend that money to build a 6 that can only dig that same hole in 30 minutes...that just goes against logic.
 

omnicron said:
I'm sorry but that just seems stupid. I mean, the whole reason is to process more material, not less. To spend serious money to build up a larger dredge so you can process 3-6 times more material but in reality your only process 2-4 times more material doesn't make economical sense. I'll use my recent exposure to a 6" dredge with a quad-jet. In about 15 minutes the nozzle dug a hole 4' deep by 24'ish wide. It would of taken my 4 " a hour or more to do the same thing. That's a big difference. But to spend that money to build a 6 that can only dig that same hole in 30 minutes...that just goes against logic.
Click to expand...
Thats then what a normal 6" will do . 3 times more of what a 4" will do. A 6" 15 minutes and a 4" 45 minutes. And im looking to get the same results of normal 6" dredge but with just a smaller motor. But same sluice and all . Here rivers a very shallow and have lots of obstacles rocks etc.
 

Last edited:
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: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
High Plains Prospectors

Latest Discussions

Back
Top