/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>56638699
>Not much sense in discussing it as everything has been said anyway.
true words, but where would be the fun in that?
In other news: I was at pic related last week, and I found nothing. Guess I'll stay poor then.

>>55802223
Fuck, I just wanna paaaaaaaaaaan!
(But water's way to high and I finished my parental leave, so I don't got much time anyways, but damn, that spot is so nice, even if I only got like 0.0001g from it so far)

>>55338906
Guess she's a gold digger, so this is /pmg/ related?
Guess you do you, but
>fat
? Really anon?
Speaking of gold diggers:
I really need to get /out/ and pan some more! Let's see if I can find some pic for pic related coming weekend. I've got a spot that I want to sluice on that river.

>>55126208
>>55126280
>>55126305
Since we're talking detectors now, let's pivot a bit to gold:
I've been posting a bit about my super-sicrit panning spot and pan man's insisting that this ought to have some nuggets and thus would be worth it to creek crawl.
Now, this is glacial melt water (and lots of that, in summer), so there's no way I'm going into that without a dry suit, plus, it's soon gonna have a fairly high turbidity, so I'm not going to see much.
But winter has very low water and this is pretty avalanche safe territory, so I could grab my ice climbing gear and have a go at it.
but do metal detectors penetrate ice (and water) enough to find small stuff? So far, I'm only in the mm range and while I'd love to find some multi-Oz nuggets, I deem that highly unlikely. What kind of resolution can I expect in such a scenario? Don't expect much interference from metal trash, since that stream is coming out of a nature preserve.