Talk:Tutorials/Quarry


 * Indented line

I dont think the math is right on this page. 20X20 = 400 blocks. Asuming a sea level quarry at 61 blocks on average to bedrock, it would yeild 24400 blocks, thats only 381.25 stacks of block in total. no were near the "1500 stacks of cobblestone", not to mention that the ore provided starts reaching the 60-70% efficency range. seems like this could get someone new to waste alot of time over this false info.

math

20x20=400

400x61= volume of 24400 blocks

24400 blocks / 64 = 381.25 stacks of blocks total in the example given in the page.


 * I see the number's changed now, but I think the stacks of coal, iron, diamond etc. are still to big.

150+50+20+5+1 = 226. That would mean more than half the blocks are coal or 'better'. I don't think this is right. Mysticyx
 * It's not at all. The numbers are absolutely ludicrous. So I created a 20x30 quarry myself to get actual numbers. It yielded about 6 stacks of coal, 1-2 stacks of iron, a dozen or so gold ores, 17 diamonds, 1 stack of obsidian, and 5-6 stacks of redstone. My numbers don't even come up to a 1/20th for the stated coal, iron and gold, and my quarry was 1.5 times bigger. Quarry's are extremely inefficient and are really only good for gathering large quantities of cobblestone. --SkyKoli 23:32, 9 December 2010 (CST)

In my experience with a 32x28 quarry 1/2 of the way to bedrock and I had only collected around 14000 blocks which comes out about 216 stacks. that includes dirt and cobble stone, there was about 2 stacks of coal and 1 stack of iron. --ReubenHung 23:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I mined a 20x20 quarry and stopped at elevation 5. It yielded 18442 cobblestone, 1575 sand, 1375 dirt, 742 gravel, 204 redstone dust, 124 coal, 94 iron ore, 86 flint, 20 gold ore, 13 diamonds, for a total of 22675 blocks or 354.296875 stacks. --Mqj 15:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I made a 20x20 quarry because of the information on this page, and I came up with (approximately): 8 stacks of coal, 4 stacks of iron, 2 stacks of redstone, 9 gold ore, and 8 diamonds. That said, I also came out with about 300-400 buckets of lava that I used for another project, and 2 stacks of obsidian. I'm going to go ahead and change the numbers on the page so no one else is fooled into doing this. --Greggor 22:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

While the information is complete seeming, it really needs a cost to benefit analysis. I gave this a shot myself yesterday, and you mow through far more "resource" (time, most of all, but also iron/diamond pickaxes) than you'll ever realistically get back. Even by throwing TNT around liberally to mow through the useless strata to get down to where more gold and diamond are, it still took forever. Frankly, unless you have a fancy for digging big square pits, this is not at all an effective way to generate useful amounts of material. --Biflspud 12:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I made a 80 x 80 quarry down to bedrock (I was determined to find diamond). This was done on a Tundra biome (snow and dirt) And these are the results.

Firstly I collected approximately 40 large chests FULL of cobblestone.

I collected 20 stacks of coal.

I collected 4 stacks of iron.

I collected 2 stacks of redstone dust.

I collected 3 stacks of Lapis Lazuli.

I collected about 40 gold ore.

I collected 15 diamond gems.

I collected approximately 1000 buckets of lava in which I later spammed my quarry with.

I collected one stack of obsidian (without harvesting obsidian down there)

So, quarter this for the average 20x20 quarry and I got:

10 large chests of cobblestone.

5 stacks of coal

1 stack of iron

about 30 pieces of redstone dust

about 50 pieces of Lapis Lazuli

3-4 diamond gems

250 buckets of lava

16 pieces of obsidian

This is a very useless and inefficient way of mining minerals. I found six diamond gems using a cherrypicking method and only took one hour, whilst my 80x80 quarry took about 15 hours (spread over days) and gave me only 15. The only reason this is useful is if you want a shit-big stone castle with a fall damage pit around it down to bedrock. R ocĸetor talk  07:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I made 10x10 with strip mines around the outside, and each tunnel 20 blocks. 64 iron in 1 hour. --stripminer123

Make a quarry, then stop at topmost bedrock and make a branch or strip mine at around 10 blocks above the topmost bedrock. You'll get much more diamonds.

see below. Not always.

Adding content
Is it pertinent to add a mini-technique to dig a quarry faster? I recently found one that allowed me to dig a 53x53x±70 quarry in less than three days. That would be awesome, but the problem is you need a lot of TNT. Like, we were two guys spawning several stack of TNT and we blasted our way down in a perfectly square hole. I guess my question can be resumed as: is it alright to post a technique making heavy use of console spawning here? Or at the very least a massive mob grinder to get all the gunpowder. Kinperor 15:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, you could make one of those ore quarries, and leave giant pillars of stone, gravel, and dirt, which you can bomb later... Skyminer707 20:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Best way
If you want a really wide quarry, use MCedit and delete all the block untill y 20.
 * You know, this method is a. for people which do not want to use mods or editors and b. for those who actually want to get some ressources, rather than just letting them disappear. KazujaXYZ 15:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Lucky one
Today i started with 3x6 quarry (yes, 3x6). I get:

10 stacks of cobble 1 stack of redstone 1 stack of coal 0.5 stack of iron 0 lapis 0 gold AND... diamonds

I like quarry i get 4 diamonds and only like 30 min. of work - I have luck

I have been working on a 20 x20 quarry 5layers down, i got 3 and half stack of coal, about 1 stack of iron, 9 stacks of gravle which i later made in to flint, 15 stacks of cobble, and 12 stacks of dirt.

I must be lucky too. I got: [20x20 quarry in extreme hills for the emerald] 15 stacks of coal 5 stacks of iron 1 stack of redstone. three quarters of a stack of lapus. EIGHT DIAMONDS 15 emeralds. wow.- 24.62.109.70 20:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

"This is inefficient!"
You don't say? Common sense, people.  N i g h t t i m e D r i v e r 5 0 0 0 0  01:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)