Jump to content
Nugget Shooter Forums

GeoJack

Nugget Shooter Members
  • Content count

    1,211
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    24

GeoJack last won the day on June 17

GeoJack had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

528 Excellent

About GeoJack

  • Rank
    Platinum Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    NorCal
  • Interests
    Everything

Recent Profile Visitors

7,367 profile views
  1. GeoJack

    TV show Meteorite Men

    Correct if I'm wrong but isn't testing with a spectrometer a destructive test? I've seen where the sample is pulverized then heated for the spectrometer to read the gases.
  2. GeoJack

    Do not use magnet on meteorites

    Bob, totally agree with your suggestions and assessments. Carry on.
  3. GeoJack

    Do not use magnet on meteorites

    From http://asima.seti.org/sm/ How to preserve your meteorite finds The Sutters Mill meteorite is of a kind that is easily contaminated, hampering certain types of scientific studies. To keep your meteorite in the best possible shape, here are some general guidelines: Keep magnets away from them (in order not to destroy any natural magnetism in the rock) Do not touch the meteorites (in case your hands contain moisture, oils, and bacteria). Use aluminum foil to collect the meteorite and to store and handle it. When you show the meteorites to others, minimize exposure to moisture (such as from people talking over it). Keep plastics away from the meteorite. No storing in plastic bags, plastic containers, no touching with gloves. Store the meteorites wrapped in aluminum foil in a clean (no smell) glas jar, covered by a sheet of aluminum foil. Put that jar in a bigger jar with closed lid with some desiccant on the bottom (if no other desiccant is available, one-minute rice will do). Allow the meteorite to dry out in this way to remove all adsorbed water vapor. Once the meteorite is dry, after a day or so, put the whole contraption in the freezer in order to stop bacteria growth in the meteorite. Please check also other sources of information to make sure you are doing your utmost best preserving the meteorite against weathering.
  4. GeoJack

    Do not use magnet on meteorites

    When gathering up some of the Sutter's Mill Meteorites I spent some hours with Peter Jenniskens, lead scientist for SETI. For that fall they didn't want any contact with a magnet.
  5. GeoJack

    Sluicing Question for CA

    Gravity water feed, not running material through the hose but the way the law reads, probably.
  6. GeoJack

    First Dredge

    Political house cleaning is coming in less than 100 days, but probably not the house you want to see cleaned. lol After all, we are the 5th largest economy in the world ran by all the tree hugging liberal jackwads eh? lol How are you surviving the Ferguson fire? Hope all is well with you and yours. MIL is off Indian Peak Rd. so we are watching closely. This sucks after just having the Detwiler last year. Hard to believe that 80k acres fire was started by someone shooting a gun.
  7. GeoJack

    First Dredge

    Most of my claim is shallow seasonal stream so I should be ok. Don't think I will have too much elevation.
  8. GeoJack

    First Dredge

    Yeah, I was just told that when I picked up the nozzle. 5' max lift. Will consider replacing it as it hasn't been run yet.
  9. GeoJack

    First Dredge

    I would have thought F&G would fight tooth and nail to have a word in on this. At least it is down to just the one agency. See this from above? So the CAWB didn’t toe the political line as some expected. What happened is the folks at the CAWB who are scientists and engineers pulled the raw data of all the studies over the past 20 years which were provided to them by WMA (Western Mining Alliance) and decided to see if dredging was in fact harming fish or fish habitat. What they concluded was dredging was de minimus, meaning it doesn’t harm fish or fish habitat. Their Board of Directors voted unanimously it is de minimus (no harm). We attended and presented (on your behalf) at every one of the public hearings with the CAWB when the permitting was being discussed and we produced a pretty compelling video of the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) actively suction dredging in other states to “create fish habitat”. Let that sink in for a minute….other states are dredging to “create” fish habitat. How is it that other states dredge to create fish habitat, but California thinks it kills fish? Well, it is because this is all political and not scientific (like you guys didn’t know that…). So what happened is they didn’t take Craig’s [from WMA] word for what the outcome was on all these studies, they pulled the raw data and then over the next year, AMRA worked with them on a permitting structure and we did this quietly and behind the scenes. If you recall, the DFG created a nightmare proposal on dredging, the one we recommended was nothing like that. It was one that didn’t involve keeping a diary, waiting a year for a permit or costing 5 grand to run a 4” dredge while being limited to a small 20 foot area in a creek they chose. CAWB listened and while ultimately it was their decision on what permitting structure to go with, it is nothing like we feared.
  10. GeoJack

    First Dredge

    Setting up as a high banker anyway with the outflow going into a holding area away from the creek.
  11. GeoJack

    First Dredge

    Cost: It is not going to be $2,000 like someone posted on FB, that is incorrect. The permit costs we expect to be around $200 or close to it. They have a calculation where the permit structure needs to be 110% of the cost to do the permits so it shouldn’t be that much. It will be an on-line application process meaning you go to a specific link at the CAWB and fill it out on your computer. It should take no more than 3 or 4 weeks for the permit, but we are going to see if this can be sped up like the Ag permits farmers obtain routinely and rapidly. The permits are good perpetually, meaning that you pay for the permit in 2019, then if you want to dredge next year, you do not have to re-apply, just pay the fee and go dredge. I dredge multiple rivers, do I need a permit for each waterway? No, one permit for the whole state. Do studies have to be done for the creek I want to dredge? No. There will be no site specific studies required for any permits. Will I need to get a DFG permit like we did in 2009 in addition to the CAWB permit? No. Department of Fish and Game, who [we were] required to obtain a permit from, will be eliminated. No permits will be required from DFG for suction dredging. Who enforces this? DFG will be the enforcement arm and will be the agency tasked with checking for permits like we all remember…although in decades of dredging with a permit, I never once got checked. Do we have to keep silly diaries and all the other documentation like what was proposed before? No. There are no after season, nor continual season reporting requirements like DFG proposed in 2012 like keeping a diary and all that nonsense.
  12. GeoJack

    First Dredge

    Source: https://www.icmj.com/magazine/article/california-to-allow-suction-dredging-in-2019-3828/ In a recent Facebook post, Poe stated that suction gold dredging will be returning to California in 2019. I reached out to him to try to get some clarification just prior to our press time, but he responded that he was going to be unavailable and up in the mountains for several days. If this becomes a reality, it could be very welcome news if under the right circumstances. The post was very well read and I’m confidant environmental groups read it as well. First, let’s take a look at a few excerpts from the news he posted: As a part of SB637 (the Suction Dredge Bill) signed into law in January of 2016, it was mandated that the California Water Board (CAWB) study and evaluate whether permitting should be allowed in the state, and if so, the CAWB was tasked with creating a permitting structure. We believe the sponsors of SB637, Izzy Martin and the enviro group The Sierra Fund, along with their Senator who brought the bill forward, Ben Allen, a Democrat from Hollywood, believed the CAWB would toe the political line and just slow walk or deny permits all along. SB 637 morphed into a de facto prohibition on mining as it then labeled all things as suction dredges [including] high bankers, water pumps, track wheel chairs, trucks and even sluice boxes. People were cited, their equipment confiscated and fines were paid. We pointed out that this morphing of language was illegal, immoral and adversely affected 10’s of thousands of people. Kind of hard to say an airplane is a wheelbarrow just because both have wheels and that is precisely what the vague language in SB637 did. They stated “you can still pan”. As we pointed out in testimony at the Senate hearing on SB1222, panning is not, nor has it ever been a mining method. It is a final process, but not a mining method. Therefore, since that was really all they left us with, we made that argument, which was quite compelling that this is a ban and an illegal prohibition on small-scale mining. So the CAWB didn’t toe the political line as some expected. What happened is the folks at the CAWB who are scientists and engineers pulled the raw data of all the studies over the past 20 years which were provided to them by WMA (Western Mining Alliance) and decided to see if dredging was in fact harming fish or fish habitat. What they concluded was dredging was de minimus, meaning it doesn’t harm fish or fish habitat. Their Board of Directors voted unanimously it is de minimus (no harm). We attended and presented (on your behalf) at every one of the public hearings with the CAWB when the permitting was being discussed and we produced a pretty compelling video of the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) actively suction dredging in other states to “create fish habitat”. Let that sink in for a minute….other states are dredging to “create” fish habitat. How is it that other states dredge to create fish habitat, but California thinks it kills fish? Well, it is because this is all political and not scientific (like you guys didn’t know that…). So what happened is they didn’t take Craig’s [from WMA] word for what the outcome was on all these studies, they pulled the raw data and then over the next year, AMRA worked with them on a permitting structure and we did this quietly and behind the scenes. If you recall, the DFG created a nightmare proposal on dredging, the one we recommended was nothing like that. It was one that didn’t involve keeping a diary, waiting a year for a permit or costing 5 grand to run a 4” dredge while being limited to a small 20 foot area in a creek they chose. CAWB listened and while ultimately it was their decision on what permitting structure to go with, it is nothing like we feared. Over the past week we have been in meetings, had calls and emails too numerous to list asking questions we know you’d be asking because hell, they are what we would want to know as we are miners through and through like many of you. Most questions we can answer now, some we cannot answer until late June when we have some formal meetings with the Director of the CAWB and a few Senators, but we are in fact going to be dredging next spring. It will be nearly impossible for the CAWB to pull back this acknowledgment that dredging will be permitted next year. So, here’s the nuts and bolts: Firstly, almost all of the equipment wrapped up in the vague language of SB637 is being reversed and will once again be legal and not considered a suction dredge. High bankers are one piece of equipment we are still actively discussing and may involve a permit of some kind if run in the creek. We believe strongly since this is incidental fallback, like a dredge, it adds nothing and does not cause any adverse impacts on California waterways. Science should prevail, not emotion or how someone feels it might, may, could or potentially impact a waterway. Facts and science. Permitting applications will be available in early Spring and we are shooting for the very first day of Spring which is March 20, 2019.
  13. GeoJack

    First Dredge

    With the dredging laws being lifted next year I'm getting a jump on having the right equipment ready. Found nozzle made locally, https://hbminingsupply.com/product/2-dry-lander-nozzle/, 2" Drylander Nozzle. Minimum 55 g.p.m. My whole claim is slate bedrock so I'm thinking this size would be the best for cleaning out the crevasses. I don't have any background on setting up the sluice boxes (48" & 36") which I plan on using in-line with each other. What criteria am I looking at for getting them set up. I'll need some legs as I plan on working it as a high banker. Mats? Angles? I have a new 158 gpm trash pump. to move the water with a 2" connector. I wanted to use my Gold Cube but was told the water flow would be too great. Any tips?
  14. Non-gravitational speed increase. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0254-4 Abstract ‘Oumuamua (1I/2017 U1) is the first known object of interstellar origin to have entered the Solar System on an unbound and hyperbolic trajectory with respect to the Sun1. Various physical observations collected during its visit to the Solar System showed that it has an unusually elongated shape and a tumbling rotation state1,2,3,4 and that the physical properties of its surface resemble those of cometary nuclei5,6, even though it showed no evidence of cometary activity1,5,7. The motion of all celestial bodies is governed mostly by gravity, but the trajectories of comets can also be affected by non-gravitational forces due to cometary outgassing8. Because non-gravitational accelerations are at least three to four orders of magnitude weaker than gravitational acceleration, the detection of any deviation from a purely gravity-driven trajectory requires high-quality astrometry over a long arc. As a result, non-gravitational effects have been measured on only a limited subset of the small-body population9. Here we report the detection, at 30σsignificance, of non-gravitational acceleration in the motion of ‘Oumuamua. We analyse imaging data from extensive observations by ground-based and orbiting facilities. This analysis rules out systematic biases and shows that all astrometric data can be described once a non-gravitational component representing a heliocentric radial acceleration proportional to r−2 or r−1 (where r is the heliocentric distance) is included in the model. After ruling out solar-radiation pressure, drag- and friction-like forces, interaction with solar wind for a highly magnetized object, and geometric effects originating from ‘Oumuamua potentially being composed of several spatially separated bodies or having a pronounced offset between its photocentre and centre of mass, we find comet-like outgassing to be a physically viable explanation, provided that ‘Oumuamua has thermal properties similar to comets. Latest reports before it got too far away to follow, it accelerated for unknown reasons.
  15. GeoJack

    New video of my Sweep Jig....

    I've worked slate here in California that had the same situation as a section of the ledge responded to my Gold Bug. I've read / heard about graphite enrichment zones in slate. Heavily populated with pyrites as well.
×