My Diy Fluid Bed Gold Trap Sluice

[PROSPECTORMIKEL]

Would like to see that in action.
#/;0)

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[Goodyguy]

Then you need an inline valve to reduce the amount of pressure until your drop from "scour" to "fluidize". You should also be classifying far below 1/4 if you are trying to use it to trap fine gold. The water pressure that will kick out a 1/4 rock will blow out a flake in a heartbeat.

If I understand your post correctly, I tend to disagree with your classification theory. When it comes to fluid bed mechanics there are two separate water pressures at work. The one that carries material into the trap and continues to flow across the top of the trap removing the surface material out the overflow, and the pressure from the jets in the trap that keep the trapped material fluidized.

If the two separate pressures are correct then even 1/2" material entering the trap will not cause any trapped gold to be eliminated.

GG~

 

[Goldwasher]

Depending on the DEPTH and length of the trap it will be very difficult to scour out gold. As long as there is a certain amount of larger material and not super high pressure once heavies are in they are not coming out.
If gold doesn't make it into the trap theres a problem. water too fast or feeding to fast with fast laminar flow. With a pump driven pressurized system that may be an issue.
In a stream angle of the box will affect fine golds chance of settling out..if the trap is still holding material that isn't fully sorted from the last load introduced, there is a chance that fine gold will carry over the materials the top lay may be semi stratified, yet not as fluidized as the bottom layer...therefore it may pass right on over the trap. In a stream set up the likelihood of this is low. When you start talking about -100 mesh gold you are dealing with gold that is just plain hard to hold onto by any sort of gravity separation.
That fine gold that doesn't get trapped because it didn't settle into the /a trap is the same gold that won't make it into a regular riffles eddy current...or keeps getting kicked into the flow by above grade riffles. Or scoured by introduced material.or even displaced and moved by introduced material. True fluid beds eliminate most of those issues. That is why getting the gold to the bottom of your run is imperative no matter the type of set up. And if its a fluid bed that is running right get your material into the trap. and make sure you don't over feed. Once gold is in a true fluid bed it is not coming out. Making sure that the bottom layer where the gold will quickly settle to is as fluid as possible and that there is a certain degree of dense material sharing the trap to give the gold a medium to settle through and stabilize the trap is very important. If your bottom layer is packing and not fluid you do not have a fluid bed. If you don't have a fluid bed in your trap you are counting on laminar flow and normal low pressure areas to concentrate exchange and hold dense material. You will eventually get packed material and at some point your recovery area is literally shrinking with every bit of material introduced, and your recovery rate of fine gold will suffer first with overall recovery and feed rate suffering as well. You would be better of with a regular sluice vs. an improperly designed fluid bed.

Sometimes theres this can of worms sitting there minding its own business....and someone just has to come along with a new can opener................

 

[AMP_kbell]

Goldwasher - interesting you use the phrase "If you don't have a fluid bed in your trap you are counting on laminar flow and normal low pressure areas to concentrate exchange and hold dense material..." You are exactly right. Thank you for bringing that to peoples attention.

The Bazooka is only fluidizing the material at the base of the tubes (since holes at near the bottom and angled downward) the only way the material enters the trap box at the end of the material deck is by laminar flow and negative pressure. It drops in a big clump waiting to be "fluidized" by the tubes which are of course spraying downward. The material at the top of the clump is still being affected by the laminar flow passing both through and over it. And yes material that contains gold is being pushed out the rear of the machine because it didn't have time to be "fluidized" before the much stronger laminar flow displaced it.

Contrast that with fluidizing incoming material as it enters the machine. The holes in the plenum cross wash at nearly perpendicular flows to the laminar flow from the material tray. Material is fluidized and agitated by the cross flow and instantly spreads. fluidization, agitation and oscillation (vibration) separate heavy materials including gold and deposit them into the bottom of the box. Remaining light materials are ejected out the rear of the machine.

BTW 100 mesh minus can easily be captured if you process the material properly.

 

[goldog]

Interesting you keep knocking the Bazooka. I don't believe that "clumping" really happens. When running and feeding properly material is drawn into the trap in a fluidized state. You could certainly over feed it and cause a problem. But in normal operation you learn to not over do it.

 

[Goldwasher]

Goldwasher - interesting you use the phrase "If you don't have a fluid bed in your trap you are counting on laminar flow and normal low pressure areas to concentrate exchange and hold dense material..." You are exactly right. Thank you for bringing that to peoples attention.

The Bazooka is only fluidizing the material at the base of the tubes (since holes at near the bottom and angled downward) the only way the material enters the trap box at the end of the material deck is by laminar flow and negative pressure. It drops in a big clump waiting to be "fluidized" by the tubes which are of course spraying downward. The material at the top of the clump is still being affected by the laminar flow passing both through and over it. And yes material that contains gold is being pushed out the rear of the machine because it didn't have time to be "fluidized" before the much stronger laminar flow displaced it.

Contrast that with fluidizing incoming material as it enters the machine. The holes in the plenum cross wash at nearly perpendicular flows to the laminar flow from the material tray. Material is fluidized and agitated by the cross flow and instantly spreads. fluidization, agitation and oscillation (vibration) separate heavy materials including gold and deposit them into the bottom of the box. Remaining light materials are ejected out the rear of the machine.

BTW 100 mesh minus can easily be captured if you process the material properly.

Here's the thing Kevin. I build Bazooka's, I know how they work very,very well. I also use them and other types of gold recovery equipment. For a stream sluice when a Bazooka is running properly there is no comparison for production and fine gold recovery. The entire trap is fluidized. Unlike the Amp the sluice YOU build and ADVERTISE for FREE here!!?? I do in fact know how your sluice works I've seen it in person. I have not Knocked it or criticized it. I am qualified to make observations. I only speak up when our product is misrepresented. The Bazooka and pretty much any sluice STRATIFIES the material introduced to it before it goes through a recovery stage. In a Bazooka Gold Trap, Any gold that enters stays...even very fine gold. The trap is very active..very much at the bottom..and hydraulically porous at the top it is basically a jig...Jigs are designed for fine gold recovery. The fact that most Bazooka owners stop using their old sluices and have a hard time selling them at a discount speaks volumes. For stream sluices it is the most productive and efficient. We have several models to fit the needs of all situations. Our smallest model will run with such low flow a 36" flared sluice would be useless. We are actually more versatile then we get credit for sometimes.

 

[PROSPECTORMIKEL]

No worries, mates.
Your passion and loyalty to your product line, speaks volumes...

#/;0): -

 

[Goldwasher]

I too only commented on this blog because of the concerns about layering. Because I sell the product I don't want to leave questions/comments unanswered that might stick in the minds of TNetters or other blog readers and become an unwarranted issue/concern down the line. If people ask questions I answer them as honestly as possible. As stated before I would NEVER misrepresent your product either here or at gold shows.

Kevin you have mentioned the Bazooka by name several times comparing its efficiency to your sluice. Stating if you want production get a Bazooka...if you want efficiency get an amp.....and several other comments where you speak of aspects of the working dynamics....That the trap is "only fluidized at the bottom of the tubes....that lump that would be pushed through and out the end by laminar flow...out of the "machine".. (Bazooka is not a "Machine" please stop referring to it as such) So, I have to say that you are "Misrepresenting " it. And it makes it impossible for me to not comment....for the sake of those consumers down the road and new readers. I can't have them have a misunderstanding of the Bazookas operation.
I have never once spoken of an Amps operation comparing anything about it to Bazookas. or any sluice for that matter...I could I have things to say but, I won't. I'm not here to dis anything by name. It would be unprofessional for me to do so. Just as it is for you to tell anyone anything about the Bazooka in comparison to your sluice.. Whats worse we are a paying sponsor as a vendor on this forum, and you are not so I would tread lightly until you pony up and pay to advertise your product here like we do... Then you can make all the claims you want. and if you don't mention it against the Bazooka I won't say a thing at all. When things pop up on this thread I chime in because I know the virtues of fluid beds and their characteristics using different designs and set ups. I hope I am helping the DIY guys on their builds.

If you do the right thing and pay your sponsorship and you want to compare our sluices I will be more than happy to compare our sluices in all realms of what sluice do...Feed ability...recovery...craftsmanship whatever you want....we have a loyal customer base due to the virtues of our sluice and customers first hand experience...We have sold to every continent besides Antarctica....have numerous second purchases to deal with field variables. I obviously stand behind the product as a builder and user....I know it seemed veiled when I mentioned that can of worms....keep in mind how obvious my comment actually was.... I have no problem backing my words about the product in the field. maybe I'm coming off to readers as a little much but, I think anyone in my position would do the same. So, Kevin I hope you understand where i'm coming from I realize your not gonna like some of the things I've said. I am not trying to squash info on your sluiced box....this forum has rules and I hope you decide to follow them. It's up to you...But, I am asking that you as a sluice builder and person selling them, Please stop commenting and making claims on the Bazookas operation and abilities. Unless you want me to do the same in regards to the AMP.

Now lets let this thread get back on subject sorry guys.

 

[goldog]

Thanks. Goldwasher I fully concur with your statement. The fact that you're here on the DIY thread has amazed me to begin with. Your well thought replies to claims about your product go to show what a class act you and the company truly are.

 

[KevinInColorado]

Kevin you have mentioned the Bazooka by name several times comparing its efficiency to your sluice. Stating if you want production get a Bazooka...if you want efficiency get an amp.....and several other comments where you speak of aspects of the working dynamics....That the trap is "only fluidized at the bottom of the tubes....that lump that would be pushed through and out the end by laminar flow...out of the "machine".. (Bazooka is not a "Machine" please stop referring to it as such) So, I have to say that you are "Misrepresenting " it. And it makes it impossible for me to not comment....for the sake of those consumers down the road and new readers. I can't have them have a misunderstanding of the Bazookas operation.
I have never once spoken of an Amps operation comparing anything about it to Bazookas. or any sluice for that matter...I could I have things to say but, I won't. I'm not hear to dis anything by name. It would be unprofessional for me to do so. Just as it is for you to tell anyone anything about the Bazooka in comparison to your sluice.. Whats worse we are a paying sponsor as a vendor on this forum, and you are not so I would tread lightly until you pony up and pay to advertise your product here like we do... Then you can make all the claims you want. and if you don't mention it against the Bazooka I won't say a thing at all. When things pop up on this thread I chime in because I know the virtues of fluid beds and their characteristics using different designs and set ups. I hope I am helping the DIY guys on their builds.

If you do the right thing and pay your sponsorship and you want to compare our sluices I will be more than happy to compare our sluices in all realms of what sluice do...Feed ability...recovery...craftsmanship whatever you want....we have a loyal customer base due to the virtues of our sluice and customers first hand experience...We have sold to every continent besides Antarctica....have numerous second purchases to deal with field variables. I obviously stand behind the product as a builder and user....I know it seemed veiled when I mentioned that can of worms....keep in mind how obvious my comment actually was.... I have no problem backing my words about the product in the field. maybe I'm coming off to readers as a little much but, I think anyone in my position would do the same. So, Kevin I hope you understand where i'm coming from I realize your not gonna like some of the things I've said. I am not trying to squash info on your sluiced box....this forum has rules and I hope you decide to follow them. It's up to you...But, I am asking that you as a sluice builder and person selling them, Please stop commenting and making claims on the Bazookas operation and abilities. Unless you want me to do the same in regards to the AMP.

Now lets let this thread get back on subject sorry guys.

Well Said Goldwasher!

There's no doubt which sluice will get you the most gold per hour of operation in a typical waterway - the Bazooka!

 

[goldog]

This is the DIY Fluidbed Thread. Anybody else want to see and hear about those? How's your luck with some of those?

 

[AUT_Fraggle]

Hi everyone!
I've been reading tons of your threads and came up building a fluid bed on my own because a Bazooka is not affordable here
As our local home store got bankrupt I took the opportunity buying some stuff.
I use a big conduit box and 1-1/4" tubes powered by a 1100GPH Bilge pump.
I drilled 2 rows of holes (1/8) into the tubes (about 1 finger distance) and at ~30° (15° on each side from down).
I forgot to take a picture of the down side.

Attached you find the link to my cobbled video.
It was the first time I tried it (proof of concept).
As you can see, the ends of the bed is not fluidized, so I think I have to drill some holes into the end.
Feeding it with 1/8 classified material (quick'n dirty classifying, had no time) you can see, that the most of the bed is fluidized, but the performance is quite bad in my mind.
At least compared to others using a 800GPH pump for an even bigger fluid bed.

[video]https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwGi4wDZnJURbWxPN3B2eFI4ZFk[/video]

As you can see it works (slowly) with fine classified material, but not at all with 1/2" gravel, which i expected to cope with because of the 1100gph pump
My son helped greatly scratching off the upper layer, but he is way too costly (chocolate!)

After reading this and other threads I came to following conclusions/improvements:

• cut out an outlet to get a slope of ~5-6°, helping the water wash the upper layer off and prevent the water flooding the sides of the bed
• check the depth of the fluid bed to be <3" (i think mine is ~ 4")
• additional (smaller) holes at ~120°?
• additional (smaller) holes at 0°?

Improvements for next stage:

• diverter baffle
• punch plate or similar
• attach some "feeding zone" like a flare + additional pump to provide a horizontal water flow like a bazooka?

I am keen on your thoughts to improve the throughput of that creepy build ,
Michael

 

[PROSPECTORMIKEL]

A nice 1/4 to1/8 inch grizzle could save you time and labor. IMHO

I use a similar setup with three inches of the bottom of a five gallon bucket and a circular current, similar to a Blue bowl, but now I'm thinking about a circular coil and downward flow.

That may be a good winter project.
Thanks.

#/;0): -

 

[AUT_Fraggle]

A nice 1/4 to1/8 inch grizzle could save you time and labor. IMHO

I use a similar setup with three inches of the bottom of a five gallon bucket and a circular current, similar to a Blue bowl, but now I'm thinking about a circular coil and downward flow.

That may be a good winter project.
Thanks.

#/;0): -

Thanks for your tip!

The first load i tested was screened to 1/8 inch already (quick and as you can see in the vid, not accurate).
Yed still the performance is not comparable with the Bazooka
The second load consisted of 1/2 inch material, but that test did not work as I thought.
I just read, that the Bazooka is sold with an 1/8 inch grizzly (big one), so that seems to be the limit.
But Goodyguy stated above, that 1/2 inch material should be feasible...soooo


From just viewing the vid, would you say "just drill more holes" or something?
Some case modification are obvious giving the dirt a chance to move down towards the bed, but the pebbles won't be kicked out I fear.

Next weekend can come!

 

[PROSPECTORMIKEL]

I would keep fewer holes.
You look to have good liquidation.
Too many holes lessen the pressure and compensating for the pressure by adding a higher flow could push small gold flakes.

I think you are onto something good.
Reduce the screen a little more and see what happens.

If you can capture your waste and panning out just once that high show you what not to change.

#/;0): -

 

[AUT_Fraggle]

Thanks for your reply.
I will try the following: put tape over each second hole and drill new (smaller) holes on positions 8 and 4 of the clock. Currently all are facing 15° to the side only. As i have 1 1/4" pipes the sides don't get hit by the jets.

One major design question:
Put the pipes parallel to the flow like the bazooka, or perpendicular?
2nd option could solve the issue of clogging the end, but I'm not sure about that.

Finer screening would lead to a slick plate with kind of grizzly.

 

[triple d]

Seems to me sluices seem to get blamed for losing gold. Which is true. But there are a lot of other reasons. That there are loses. Even thought all the material goes thought the sluice. Thats not really all the sluices fault. Every time gold is handled there a chance of losing some. Its part of the game. Lets put some of the blame on something else. Thanks. And I can"t blame my sluice for anything.

 

[Goodyguy]

Thanks for your tip!


I just read, that the Bazooka is sold with an 1/8 inch grizzly (big one), so that seems to be the limit.
But Goodyguy stated above, that 1/2 inch material should be feasible...soooo

1/8" is the diameter of the heavy duty grizzly bars themselves not the space between each bar. I believe the bars are spaced 1/2" on center which allows 3/8" and longer material to fit into the trap.

The regular duty 3/32" diameter grizzly bars are set on 3/8" centers.

* I was not recommending 1/2" material to be allowed into the trap, just making a point that even 1/2" material introduced into the trap would not cause any trapped gold to be dislodged and lost.


GG~

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Goldwasher - first thank you for your candor. As stated I respect both Todd and your products. I don't mind at all answering peoples questions or responding to comments. Respectfully, I must apologize for our exchange. Having to defend negative comments by TNetters who have never seen or used the product including the worm reference culminated in you being the lightning rod of my frustration. Apologies to all.

BTW I hope to be a sponsor in November which coordinates with other marketing we are doing.

Until you become a supporting vendor you can not discuss your products.

Posts that violates rules will disappear until your a supporting vendor..

 

[AUT_Fraggle]

1/8" is the diameter of the heavy duty grizzly bars themselves not the space between each bar. I believe the bars are spaced 1/2" on center which allows 3/8" and longer material to fit into the trap.

The regular duty 3/32" diameter grizzly bars are set on 3/8" centers.

* I was not recommending 1/2" material to be allowed into the trap, just making a point that even 1/2" material introduced into the trap would not cause any trapped gold to be dislodged and lost.


GG~

Thank you for the clarification!
Clears ups things a bit.
That explains, why my fluid bed worked even though I had SOME pebbles inside.
That does obviously not mean, that I can fill the trap up with them.

So as a conclusion, if I don't want to screen my material down to 1/8 all the time (veeeery time consuming and boring), I will have to attach a slick plate and a grizzly.
Additionally powered by my second pump, which I wanted to avoid.
But perhaps I can tune the efficiency of the trap so that I can use only one 1100 pump splitting the flow rate to about 700 (trap) and 400 (feeding).