Find's Treasure Forums
Welcome to Find's Treasure Forums, Guests!
You are viewing this forums as a guest which limits you to read only status.
Only registered members may post stories, questions, classifieds, reply to other posts, contact other members using built in messaging and use many other features found on these forums.
Why not register and join us today? It's free! (We don't share your email addresses with anyone.) We keep email addresses of our users to protect them and others from bad people posting things they shouldn't.
Click here to register!
Need Support Help?
Cannot log in?, click here to have new password emailed to you
Changed email? Forgot to update your account with new email address? Need assistance with something else?, click here to go to Find's Support Form and fill out the form.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
How Much Gold is Left?
- Thread starter au79
- Start date
steve herschbach
New member
Of course there is always gold left after you metal detect. The only way to know if it is worth mining by other methods is to sample it. There is no ratio that matters.
There is Steve's Law of Diminishing Gold Returns. It states that all locations that have gold will eventually be revisited and pounded over and over until nothing remains. The small amount of gold left behind the first time as not enough ends up seeming like plenty at a later date or by later parties.
Steve Herschbach
There is Steve's Law of Diminishing Gold Returns. It states that all locations that have gold will eventually be revisited and pounded over and over until nothing remains. The small amount of gold left behind the first time as not enough ends up seeming like plenty at a later date or by later parties.
Steve Herschbach
Reno Chris
New member
Lots of truth in that, Steve.......
The crumbs we chase after today in many ways would seem a ridiculous waste of time to those prospectors who came long before us and yet will be like amazing riches to those who follow after........
The crumbs we chase after today in many ways would seem a ridiculous waste of time to those prospectors who came long before us and yet will be like amazing riches to those who follow after........
steve herschbach
New member
Hi Chris,
I don't know how many times I have gone back to a patch I gave up on as dead that over time finally drew me back again for another try. And almost always more effort gets more gold.
But you know how that story goes. I liked JPs term for it - "crumbing" for gold. The bulk of the gold tends to get found rather quickly and after that we pick up the crumbs. Luckily the price of gold the last few years seems to have gone up at about the same rate as well known areas are playing out, making it worth continued efforts to get gold we would not bother with at $300/oz.
Steve Herschbach
I don't know how many times I have gone back to a patch I gave up on as dead that over time finally drew me back again for another try. And almost always more effort gets more gold.
But you know how that story goes. I liked JPs term for it - "crumbing" for gold. The bulk of the gold tends to get found rather quickly and after that we pick up the crumbs. Luckily the price of gold the last few years seems to have gone up at about the same rate as well known areas are playing out, making it worth continued efforts to get gold we would not bother with at $300/oz.
Steve Herschbach
Great thread, but it's hard to follow guys like Chris and Steve and still look good. I'll try, though.
****************
A few of you know that for about 30 years I have been collecting data on "dirt", in many forms. All the way from anecdotal reports from metal detectorists, to geological mapping, to electromagnetic analysis of many hundreds of soil and rock samples. My research has included not only iron magnetic loss angle, but also electrical conductivity, informed by an earlier career in arid lands climatology including agronomy and botany.
What's less well known is that at the same time I've been collecting data on the distribution of "gold nugget" sizes as found by metal detectors, and interpreting that data in light of "dirt data" which influences what metal detectors can actually find. FTP-Fisher probably has (by a huge margin) the best data on this kind of stuff of any company in the business.
I'm not in a position to blab everything I know. However I can, based on what I know, coming from a perspective very different from that of Chris and Steve, agree with the proposition that the economics of gold recovery follows a principle of diminishing returns and that no productive zone is ever entirely "cleaned out".
A very clear practical example of this principle is that several decades ago, there were guys swinging BFO's and TR's delighted with what they were finding in goldfields. If you were swinging one of those same units nowadays, you'd be whupped by some kid swinging a BH Junior that cost $60. (Good machine for $60, I designed it.) Swinger of old beep would however be finding nothing, unless he chanced to swing over a previously unbeeped spot wherein lurked a monster nugget close to the surface. Nearly everything in the developed world has already been beeped more than once, that's why diminishing returns.
That last comment deserves elaboration. Here in the American Southwest, there are vast areas reputed to have produced gold in the past, where you can be out there and it seems so remote that you surely must be the first human being to have set foot within a kilometer of here. Rude awakening: the next swing of the beep and you're digging iron or birdshot. You aren't the first one here, you're the last one!
I'm not saying there's no big nuggies to be found in places that have already been pounded. There are. Just damn few, it ain't virgin territory. The good news is that back then they could only find large shallow nuggets, and nowadays you can find smaller and deeper stuff. With the right knowledge and the right stuff.
--Dave J.
****************
A few of you know that for about 30 years I have been collecting data on "dirt", in many forms. All the way from anecdotal reports from metal detectorists, to geological mapping, to electromagnetic analysis of many hundreds of soil and rock samples. My research has included not only iron magnetic loss angle, but also electrical conductivity, informed by an earlier career in arid lands climatology including agronomy and botany.
What's less well known is that at the same time I've been collecting data on the distribution of "gold nugget" sizes as found by metal detectors, and interpreting that data in light of "dirt data" which influences what metal detectors can actually find. FTP-Fisher probably has (by a huge margin) the best data on this kind of stuff of any company in the business.
I'm not in a position to blab everything I know. However I can, based on what I know, coming from a perspective very different from that of Chris and Steve, agree with the proposition that the economics of gold recovery follows a principle of diminishing returns and that no productive zone is ever entirely "cleaned out".
A very clear practical example of this principle is that several decades ago, there were guys swinging BFO's and TR's delighted with what they were finding in goldfields. If you were swinging one of those same units nowadays, you'd be whupped by some kid swinging a BH Junior that cost $60. (Good machine for $60, I designed it.) Swinger of old beep would however be finding nothing, unless he chanced to swing over a previously unbeeped spot wherein lurked a monster nugget close to the surface. Nearly everything in the developed world has already been beeped more than once, that's why diminishing returns.
That last comment deserves elaboration. Here in the American Southwest, there are vast areas reputed to have produced gold in the past, where you can be out there and it seems so remote that you surely must be the first human being to have set foot within a kilometer of here. Rude awakening: the next swing of the beep and you're digging iron or birdshot. You aren't the first one here, you're the last one!
I'm not saying there's no big nuggies to be found in places that have already been pounded. There are. Just damn few, it ain't virgin territory. The good news is that back then they could only find large shallow nuggets, and nowadays you can find smaller and deeper stuff. With the right knowledge and the right stuff.
--Dave J.
Reno Chris
New member
Although the well known placer mines of the developed world have all been beeped at one time or another, I think there are still a fair number of hillside patches remaining to be found. The old time prospectors worked with pans and dry washers. They would sample drainages and where sufficient gold was found, they would follow the drainage upward and prospect further. if only a few colors were found, they might look around a bit, but if nothing better was located, they moved on. Some of those spots where the drainage did not yield enough gold to be worth pursuing will have small patches up above that can be found with a detector because we can sample huge hillside areas quickly with a detector in a way that the old timers simply could not do. In some areas where they did find enough to work in a small part of the ravine, there remains hillside sources above these old tailings that could be worked with a detector. Many detector operators do not seek these hill side residual patches because they are hard to find and you can do a lot of looking without finding one.
I recently returned from a trip to Arizona where, among a lot of activities, I visited with Pieter Heydelaar - a long time prospector that Dave also knows. Pieter's 2012 trip to Western Australia bears on this discussion. In revisiting an old patch he thought he had finished, further out on the perimeter than he had previously explored (beyond the boundary of where he thought that patch ended), he found a 14 ounce nugget. The other part is the use of detectors in conjunction with other equipment. Pete and some friends had obtained permits to dig with heavy equipment on two old patches he had worked years ago. One yielded only a little more gold, but the other he did pretty well on. While I've never dug out old patches with heavy equipment, I have used drywashers, sluices and high bankers to process the ground in and around patches that I found which yielded multiple nuggets in a small area.
I have also done OK working some areas that are little known and have not seen lots of activity - but have seen some. I have found nice gold at places where there were some dig holes, but it appeared they were only finding the largest and loudest near surface targets. Listening for fainter targets, even targets that are not wispers but are not screamers, has found me some decent gold in the past.
Anyway, not all prospecting has to be crumbing pounded patches, and not every obscure spot has already been found and pounded, but there are fewer and fewer little known patches and other spots off the beaten path that have not already seen a lot of detector activity. Still, they are worth hunting for and thats part of the quest of prospecting.
I recently returned from a trip to Arizona where, among a lot of activities, I visited with Pieter Heydelaar - a long time prospector that Dave also knows. Pieter's 2012 trip to Western Australia bears on this discussion. In revisiting an old patch he thought he had finished, further out on the perimeter than he had previously explored (beyond the boundary of where he thought that patch ended), he found a 14 ounce nugget. The other part is the use of detectors in conjunction with other equipment. Pete and some friends had obtained permits to dig with heavy equipment on two old patches he had worked years ago. One yielded only a little more gold, but the other he did pretty well on. While I've never dug out old patches with heavy equipment, I have used drywashers, sluices and high bankers to process the ground in and around patches that I found which yielded multiple nuggets in a small area.
I have also done OK working some areas that are little known and have not seen lots of activity - but have seen some. I have found nice gold at places where there were some dig holes, but it appeared they were only finding the largest and loudest near surface targets. Listening for fainter targets, even targets that are not wispers but are not screamers, has found me some decent gold in the past.
Anyway, not all prospecting has to be crumbing pounded patches, and not every obscure spot has already been found and pounded, but there are fewer and fewer little known patches and other spots off the beaten path that have not already seen a lot of detector activity. Still, they are worth hunting for and thats part of the quest of prospecting.
Hahaha - I'm a "crumber" I knew I was onto something here! :0) It took a while but I have finally found my niche! After spending 3 months in Az. searching the pounded grounds, with no success, I came to realize the crumbs would be my reward. Throughout my searches swinging the coil I have broken up the monotony by digging and sifting. Altho this has not had huge reward I do know that I am learning where the crumbs are and getting the crumbs has made it possible for me to go home with a slight smile on my face instead of a skunk on my back. I will start giving more attention to the areas where I have had the most success. I have dug pounds of lead, pounds of brass and who knows how much junk iron but what I did not realize is, I have learned where the crumbs are! Sometimes we don't recognize success when it's starring us in the face! Thanks all for your input! An eye opener for me!
Steve in Idaho
New member
I have often said that it takes 10K pieces of trash for each good piece of gold.