|
cubsqueal 22:13:52 Sat Nov 6 2010 |
http://www.goldprospectors.org/newforum/forum_posts.asp?TID=16467 |
|
dungbeetle 22:43:38 Sun Nov 7 2010 |
This is the link to the manufacturer. http://www.goldcube.net/#/g-force-seperator/4545154881 To me it looks like a stacked sluice? I don't understand the gforce s-bend concept? |
|
Zooka 15:58:20 Wed Nov 10 2010 |
I have chatted with one of the creators about his testing methods in coming up with the final design, and I am impressed enough with his methods and results that I am on the list, and am going to pony up the considerable tariff for the 4-stacker. This one requires screened to 8 mesh sands, and can process pretty fast but not as fast as a man can shovel. Stand by for a shovel-in model, down the line. -Z |
|
Lonetree 15:14:40 Sun Nov 14 2010 |
I am on the list also. I am looking forward to gold Friday. |
|
cubsqueal 01:20:09 Thu Apr 28 2011 |
When I was at the Salem GPAA Gold Show a few weeks ago I spent quite a bit of time at the Gold Cube exhibit. The inventor, Mike Pung was a very pleasant person to speak to. He mentioned he had received a report of a miner in Alaska who ran 2 5-gallon buckets of mine tailings through a Gold Cube and got 4 1/2 oz. of gold and 1/2 cup of mercury. (I think my memory is correct here.) Also, he had a large photo of the results of a New Zealander's Gold Cube project: 1.6 oz. Mr. Pung also stated a person can set the Gold Cube up on a tailgate in Stanton, grab a handful of sand off the ground and run it, and find gold in the unit. I asked if he had heard how one of our members has done with his unit--he said he hadn't yet heard, but was very anxious to find out. |
|
JOE_S_INDY 02:24:34 Thu Apr 28 2011 |
Of course, I am like most - hard pressed to plunk down 'hard earned' retirement money - but from all indications it is certainly a 'slam dunk' decision. From what I see and hear, Mike has done a first rate job here! There is one in my future. Joe |
|
peluk 19:18:01 Thu Apr 28 2011 |
I'll be interested to see how it does with flake and flat specimen material. |
|
colo_nuggets 21:46:48 Thu Apr 28 2011 |
|
|
RUSTY_HAPPY_CAM 22:12:40 Thu Apr 28 2011 |
|
|
Seden 00:09:59 Fri Apr 29 2011 |
Randy Seden Reagan Country,CA. |
|
peluk 05:22:28 Sat Apr 30 2011 |
After having done so,I still want to see one operate first hand. From all comments,this is,for me,the most outstanding point.It deals with the mat used in the Cube.It is referred to as a vortex mat and it is quite popular by itself.When asked if the manufacturer would sell it seperately,he stated he needs what he has for his manufacturing so he woun't be caught short.That makes sense.The fact remains,the mat is available elsewhere in about the same design...that point seems to be accepted...but I don't know who carries it.I want to see it and test it.I'll buy some now if I can get a source. The purchase price of the Cube is heavy.Shipping by P.O. to Nome is another $85 according to the manufacturer.I like the concept,the compact design,the capability for easy indoor recycling use...but the price is a bear. At this point nobody has been able to give a good review because it is too early in the season.If someone has one(a CUBE),I could send them a box of material right off the beach that I have tested for gold.Similar material sits on the lip of a small ledge to seaward of a shallow, depression on the beach.As the surf rolled back,this depression which parallels the beach,gathered red&black sand and gold.Since it was the heaviest content in the retreating surf,it hung up on that shallow ledge. I need a quick unbiased test and review of this Cube. I talked at length today with a miner who used the Keene ribbed mat in his Keene Beachbox last Summer.He gave me the missing information I needed for its optimal operation.That information I coupled with comments from miners at Cripple Creek GPAA Camp.I need to know if this Cube,though smaller,retains gold as well. |
|
cubsqueal 06:02:19 Sat Apr 30 2011 |
Peluk, Vortex matting: http://www.goldprospectors.org/newforum/forum_posts.asp?TID=18615&title=vortex-matting There is also another thread (or more) about the Gold Cube on the GPAA Forum. Additionally, a Gold Cube thread on the Canadian Gold Forum: http://gpex.ca/smf/index.php?topic=4832.0 |
|
peluk 18:13:45 Sat Apr 30 2011 |
|
|
dredger 18:19:10 Sat Apr 30 2011 |
dredger. |
|
JOE_S_INDY 20:14:36 Sat Apr 30 2011 |
As to a comparison between a Cube and a Le' Trap - well .... A Le' Trap is an in stream sluice which works better (as with any in stream sluice) if you pre classify the input material. It can (of course) be used for concentrating high volumes of concentrates to "super concentrates" as any in stream sluice could. If you push a 'trap' with too high a feed rate - it will hemmorage profits downstream. A Cube is, specifically, a higher speed concentrator, and not a primary recovery unit. It's shining feature is to quickly reduce high volumes of concentrates to a very small volume using recirculated (and not in-stream) water --- (although well regulated pressure and volume of water is certainly not dependent on recirculation). The Cube is not a High Banker or a sluice - although some owners have to tried to ask it to do just that work through minus #8 classifying and feeding those bank run materials through it. Mike and Red have used on site classified bank run to demonstrate the unit on UTube - possibly creating that illusion. Can it be done - yes - but not as efficiently as running sluice or dredge concentrates. Now, owning a number of Le' Traps and having studied every word and pixle of video about the Cube on the net - I guess I would say: Very different type tools, Different max or normal feed rates, Very different water requirements, Same general end result but with a vast disparity in processing rates (= time needed to work down concentrates). The only thing I can't comment on just yet are specific recovery loss rates for the Cube. Based on others the losses should be the same or a little less than I observed with slow and very careful use of the Le' Trap. If you 'ramp up' a 'Trap' to even a fraction of 'Cube' feed rates (and I have seen that done) then everything blows through the 'Trap'. Joe |
|
peluk 20:39:28 Sat Apr 30 2011 |
The source for similar matting has been noted also.Thanks again.I am really a 'Johny come lately' on this discussion but I'm up to speed now. |
|
cubsqueal 22:05:04 Sat Apr 30 2011 |
I forgot to mention that while demonstrating his unit, Mr. Pung emphasized that when the scooped concentrates were placed on the device, the lighter material was blown through first and landed near the back of the next tray. The heavier concentrates then went through and landed in the front area of the (next) tray. So he described kind of 2-phases-per-feed situation. I was sort of curious how continuous feed would impact the procedure. The 1.6 oz. of gold shown in the exhibited photo appeared as a sheet of gold that looked to cover about a 3-4" tray-wide stretch on the front section of the 2nd tray. |
|
peluk 22:43:24 Sat Apr 30 2011 |
The speed of the column of water shooting up out of the boilbox area needs watching/adjustment.It could be that at some speeds it will dump it's contents on the upslope end letting the trailing gold coast over it to settle further downslope.I'm putting this together from user comments.This is where the designer added a comment about pump capacity limitations. One user stated that scoops dropped in a clump could overwhelm the Cube.This was observed when flake would pause,move slowly forward then spring ahead riding over collected material.This was remedied by feeding with a spoon more slowly.That could probably be translated to a trowel which would allow material to be sprinkled as opposed to being "clumped" on the surface. A video showed a woman feeding it more gradually at one point.Another video showed water squirting out the seams when fed what looked like a silt laden mix.Precautions were also given for clay rich material. |
|
cubsqueal 23:23:04 Sat Apr 30 2011 |
Peluk, I probably shouldn't have used the terms "front" and "back". (I'm not too bright mechanically.) I was trying to emphasize the 2-phase result when feeding the unit. I should let the Gold Cube website describe the landing places of the different components in the concentrates. The diagram on the upper right: http://www.goldcube.net/#/how-it-works/4545153185 Anyway, running the device really looked like fun! Kind of like a form of mental therapy.... |
|
baub 03:06:54 Sun May 1 2011 |
b |
|
JOE_S_INDY 03:49:00 Sun May 1 2011 |
"Objects in the mirror may be closer than they appear". "Results may vary". "Closed highway with professional drivers". My thinking - at even 50% of that - 500:1 in an hour - that's mighty fine performance. :smile: :smile: :smile: Joe |
|
baub 14:55:46 Sun May 1 2011 |
b |
|
peluk 19:50:55 Mon May 2 2011 |
Looking at the material I had intended to feed the Cube,I don't see much similarity between it and what came from the creek bottom.Nobody has offered to run any of this material in their own Cube so I am doubtful this is going to be an improvement on beach material....cons or raw. I watched a boilbox setup on the beach here and it did not work.It was running raw sand however. |
|
peluk 20:02:37 Mon May 2 2011 |
I'd like to see this Cube fed cons with the predominant gold size already established from panning and the cons screened down to that size or nearly.The next step down would be raw sand screened to a much smaller size closer to the size of the predominant gold expected. That might improve its performance and the performance of this roughtop conveyor material. |