Properties of punch plate (or Jarvine Riffle) for improving gold capture

[Geowizard]

NO GOLD!

We will never know how much hard earned GOLD was ran through a new, whiz-bang gimmick and went out the other end. Possibly tonnes of GOLD and too many hours of toil spent on WHAT?

Don't take NO for an answer!

Smart prospectors save their tails and pan the tails! Was it just me? Was it the whiz-bang sluice? Yes, it takes time to do the extra testing on the user end unfortunately to learn what works and what doesn't.

- Geowizard

[Joe S (AK)]

Just as GWiz has many, many years of experience doing these old things using his rewarding, traditional, ways, many of us only see those old ways as just OLD, inefficiently developed things that came about from the random efforts of desperate and usually unskilled novices. Nowadays we evaluate those old things and techniques with our own eyes and only if they work for us in our operations do they remain in use.

The fact of the matter is that civilizations all improve on past discoveries by creating newer and "better" things to replace the older, less efficient ways. To sum it up, if it works here and now for my operation then I use it and don't much care how we got to the new and successful aspect. We all should be doing that.

The raw fact is that we don't use hand dipped candles (or that barely more efficient kerosene contraption) as our every day primary lighting and we don't saddle up our Daily Rider (using a couple hands full of oats) to go places at a blinding cruise rate of 2 or maybe 3 MPH.

It's interesting to look at those old things but only to read about, understand and not just use just because they are "traditional". If you want to hold on to primitive techniques then that is your option but for me I ride the crest of better technology that does work better for me.

Consider the Old Way of dealing with flower gold which was held by all miners long ago (except for those skillful Chinese miners) --- "Throw the Little Stuff Back, It's Worthless and Just Wastes Your Time!" Of course, you could just roll a puddle of mercury over your Nome concentrates or just the beach sands (or use an "Amalgamator") to catch that tiny Gold. Those were "traditional" and very proven techniques just last century ("burning off cheap Mercury"125 years ago on the beaches of Nome was proven to recover micro Gold but Mercury fumes killed a lot of miners, too.

In retrospect, Poling and Hamilton (and one or two others) forced the mining industry to take a long, hard look at their recovery rates and set their sights for better and better techniques.

The bottom line is if something works for you then use it. If using steel pans produces the best recovery for you then great, use them! I, on the other hand prefer to use those newfangled plastic pans with them-there ridges carved in them.
*************
Oh, one of the more substantive rebuttals to Poling and Hamilton's experimentation in the Yukon was that they used previously recovered placer Gold as well as hand panning to seed and recover the Gold they used over and over. Both skewed their results towards recovery percentages in a certain medium (Moss & Expanded) compared to a variety of different mediums which were initially evaluated.

[Joe S (AK)]

Pickaxe,
One other aspect of the punch plate is that it shears off almost all the down stream force of the water/slurry and redirects only some of the flow downward to slowly wash the undersized material from around the denser Gold.

[PickaxeCA]

Very true Joe, carefully panning out all tailings remains one of the best ways to test capture rates in a given system. And it's seldom, if ever, practical.

[Geowizard]

Hyperbole;

From the above discussion, everyone agrees that the Jarvine Riffle wiz-bang gadget is an improvement over the OLD traditional recovery methods! Yay!

Nobody on this forum has shown evidence of having made the quantum leap into buying this mat nor has anyone shown any comparative study that demonstrates improved recovery! I watch the Jarvine sales pitch and read derogatory comments above about the...

"OLD, inefficiently developed things that came about from the random efforts of desperate and usually unskilled novices"

Where is the evidence?

Without any back up in the form of supporting evidence, the statement falls under the category of "dishonest and deceptive".

Without any GOLD show in the sales pitch and WITHOUT numbers to support the hyperbole - it's just hyperbole!

- Geowizard

[Geowizard]

Out with the old, and in with the new;

Gold prospectors are always looking for "NEW" ways to capture more fine GOLD. It places us in a precarious position where we may be exploited by new marketing gimmicks having no real value. Marketing of new products has no limit. Placer gold miners and prospectors need substantiated, improved methods of fine GOLD recovery. The world is replete with examples of "new" methods without "tangible proof" of any improvement.

Jarvine Riffle Update at the Dream Mat Cave

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7V5y_1z7MU

When we search for the latest, greatest whiz-bang gadgets, we should ask a few, simple, very relevant questions. The first question is; "What evidence is there to show any improvement over a previous method?" The evidence needs to be in the form of an uncut, side-by-side demonstration with very well defined parameters including the size of GOLD with flow rates, angles, using REAL fine GOLD. Without that, there's no way to repeat the setup and demonstration or verify anything. That's the reason they avoid discussion of the facts. It can't be proven to be misleading or inaccurate because there is NO data.

Jarvine Riffle Upgrade! Mini Monster into a Mini Beast !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbRSWkKzCCw&t=214s

The example above shows NO GOLD. No side-by-side comparison of recoveries. No data. Gold prospectors and miners should beware! Don't become a victim of empty, incomplete marketing tactics.

Is it really an "upgrade"? What's the next upgrade?

- Geowizard

[Joe S (AK)]

So ............ Which comes first - the chicken ( with "documented evidence and proof" beyond reproach) or the egg (something new that the inventor makes certain claims as to recovery improvements)?

Ever use extruded or cast rubber mats? Who decided to try them, found them to be VERY good at recovery for certain conditions, started using them and then wrote up personal findings which confirmed the inventor's claims?

Me - I did.

First with my first DIY sluice, then later a Keene 61 and 62, then later yet a Le Trap, followed by Joel Farmer's G-1 vacuum formed drop riffle design and then again with Gold Hog's extruded riffle segments. Each time an incremental improvement in my personal recovery over previous systems through design innovations. Those improvements in my recovery came from my own tests and then use. I listened to the claims of others and then I used the new products to see if they worked better for me in my operation, with my own dirt. Waiting for many sources to validate them BEFORE I tried 'em out just wasn't in the cards for me.

I think of that as just waiting for someone else to do my work for me and then waiting for someone else's further findings to be posted on the internet and then having everything "confirmed" by who knows how many others before I even tried the product was, at the least, wasting my life.

If your criteria for a product is to have testing and presentations made to your satisfaction then that's your choice - not mine. For me "The Proof Is In the Pudding".