# Bar competition



## anachronism (Apr 2, 2017)

Nickvc came across to do a job for one of his clients with me recently. 45Kg of jewellers' melt fluxes that were normally sent to a UK refiner. The client's expectation was 1Kg of fine. 

Sadly all we managed to get is what was pictured below. 8) 

The client collected his gold this evening and went away with a big smile on his face, whilst making some not to nice phone calls to his usual refiner.

That aside- here's a pic of the bars as per Lou's request. What do you guys think came out? $70 to the guy with the closest guess via paypal, or donated to the forum if you prefer.

Enjoy  

Feel free to ask anything you like but I'll give you one tip - the bars are all different weights. No WAY were we gonna make it too easy  

Jon and Nick


----------



## Platdigger (Apr 2, 2017)

So, is that 16 bars then?


----------



## anachronism (Apr 2, 2017)

Hi Platdigger - that's 18 bars.


----------



## Lou (Apr 2, 2017)

I'm going to have to teach you how to pour prettier bars


----------



## anachronism (Apr 2, 2017)

Lou said:


> I'm going to have to teach you how to pour prettier bars



We stick 18 bars on the forum and we get questioned on how pretty they are?? Haha

Yes please, but when you're spitting them out like a goose laying golden eggs with a timescale, and you're getting paid on the gold content these will do.


----------



## denim (Apr 2, 2017)

I'll throw my hat in the ring with a guess of 1.9kg. Really nice job!


----------



## Topher_osAUrus (Apr 2, 2017)

2,873g


----------



## Platdigger (Apr 2, 2017)

They look pretty to me. 8) 
1.45kg


----------



## Tndavid (Apr 2, 2017)

3,205 grams :G Nice job removing the blind by the way. Great on yall!!!!


----------



## goldsilverpro (Apr 2, 2017)

2200g


----------



## shmandi (Apr 3, 2017)

1870g


----------



## g_axelsson (Apr 3, 2017)

Looks like 2058g but I will deduct 3% since they are not totally flat.

1997g is my answer.

Jon, you gave me some hints in a PM but I only looked at it after I reached my answer. The weight is based on pure logic and has nothing to do with the hints. But if you feel I'm disqualified I'm happy with just competing for the glory.  

Edit : If i get a prize I donate it to the forum.

Göran


----------



## Yggdrasil (Apr 3, 2017)

Hi!
It has been quite a few years since I indulged in the vice of smoking  
So my scale might be out of tune.
Eyeballing the picture gives me an estimate of 5 by 25 by 50 ish millimeter for each bar
This gives a total volume of 0.1125L and a weight of 2.171 ish Kg
Give and take a bit and I'll guess 2.215Kg :wink: 
BR Per-Ove

Edit to add.
However unlikely, if I win, the price will go to the forum of course.


----------



## richard2013 (Apr 3, 2017)

2017 grams


----------



## kurtak (Apr 3, 2017)

8) 8) 8) 

I will go with 1995 grams  

Donation to the forum if I win  

Kurt


----------



## UncleBenBen (Apr 3, 2017)

2,162g of beautiful :G !!


----------



## ssabovic (Apr 3, 2017)

4665 g


----------



## everydayisalesson (Apr 3, 2017)

2345g


----------



## chuckgambale (Apr 3, 2017)

Hey Jon Lou's correct they could be prettier so you might as well give them all to me. In all seriousness they look great and that's a good way to make someone a repeat customer. Great work as per your usual.
I guess 1977 grams. And if I win give it to the forum. I owe way more than that.


----------



## crbaker41 (Apr 3, 2017)

2158g give money to form


----------



## modtheworld44 (Apr 3, 2017)

My guess is 4,444grams.Those bars look really nice.Thanks for showing us and the contest too.



modtheworld44


----------



## rucito (Apr 3, 2017)

4300gr.
to forum


----------



## scrapman1077 (Apr 3, 2017)

1500 grams


----------



## 4metals (Apr 3, 2017)

Probably a 10 ounce mold poured a bit cool so they average 7.5 ounces. So 7.5 ounces times 18 pieces divided by 32.15 ounces per kilogram makes 4.199 kilograms.

The real question is "Is that a package of cigarettes or a package of rolling papers?" :shock:


----------



## g_axelsson (Apr 3, 2017)

The bar, the natural meeting point for members of GRF. :mrgreen: 

Göran


----------



## nickvc (Apr 3, 2017)

I can say it was 100 gram mold but the bars were deliberately poured inconsistently to make it a bit more fun


----------



## 4metals (Apr 3, 2017)

> Probably a 10 ounce mold





> I can say it was 100 gram mold but the bars were deliberately poured inconsistently to make it a bit more fun





> The real question is "Is that a package of cigarettes or a package of rolling papers?"




So that settles it, they were rolling papers! A 100 gram mold isn't all that big standing next to a pack of cigarettes.


----------



## justinhcase (Apr 3, 2017)

Are you chaps using "King's sized "rib's by any chance?
E.G. instead of 78mm long being 100mm long.
Not that I am taking part or any thing.
But that should give you a simple point of reference for a fairly accurate assessment..


----------



## upcyclist (Apr 3, 2017)

It's both--it's a pack of rolling papers sitting on a pack of cigarettes


----------



## justinhcase (Apr 3, 2017)

upcyclist said:


> It's both--it's a pack of rolling papers sitting on a pack of cigarettes


 A Regular size paper is 70x32mm ,The slims are around 110mm in length and 44mm in width while the Kingsize is shorter at 100mm in length and 53mm.
Length will be more accurate a reference as they are not folded that way.
but yes tens of millimeters count in such equations. :lol:


----------



## 4metals (Apr 3, 2017)

Maybe a package of rolling papers on top of a package of tobacco. But the tobacco package is not the size of a typical package of cigarettes available here in the US. I think they used all of their cunning to set these bars alongside something we would assume was one size to throw off our guesses. Quite the ruse.

See, put 2 Brit's in a lab together and that's what you get! :shock:


----------



## modtheworld44 (Apr 3, 2017)

4metals said:


> Maybe a package of rolling papers on top of a package of tobacco. But the tobacco package is not the size of a typical package of cigarettes available here in the US. I think they used all of their cunning to set these bars alongside something we would assume was one size to throw off our guesses. Quite the ruse.
> 
> See, put 2 Brit's in a lab together and that's what you get! :shock:



My question is why they told us the size of the mold,unless that was another throw off.Which brings me to ask if the mold was a 100gram gold mold or a new 100gram silver mold used to pour the gold in.Thanks in advance.



modtheworld44


----------



## Tndavid (Apr 3, 2017)

I do know from my experience tho a whole lot smaller I could pour 20gs in a 10g mold. It's up in the air bro, that's for sure. May the best guesstimater win. Lol. Or may I say lucky guesstimater. If by big chance I do get the goods. Please donate to this wonderful board.


----------



## etack (Apr 3, 2017)

3750Gr

Eric


----------



## geedigity (Apr 4, 2017)

1800 grams.


----------



## anachronism (Apr 4, 2017)

To confirm. It was a pack of king size smokes and a pack of filter papers merely to hide the pics they put on cigarette packets nowadays. The only intention was to add a commonly known item to provide some scale to the picture without which the bars could have been any size at all. 

We used a 100g gold mold, but as TNdavid pointed out, they are not restricted to just 100g.  

Any more guesses? By the way some people have been very close indeed. 8) 

I'll close it at 9pm UK time today.


----------



## Palladium (Apr 4, 2017)

When i run rolling papers i have found that it's best to follow advice and incarcerate first! :mrgreen: 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2439011/Would-smoke-cigarette-24K-GOLD-The-65-rolling-papers-hot-new-thing-smokers-money-burn.html

Oh wait !!! What was the question again?


----------



## Tndavid (Apr 4, 2017)

Palladium said:


> When i run rolling papers i have found that it's best to follow advice and incarcerate first! :mrgreen:
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2439011/Would-smoke-cigarette-24K-GOLD-The-65-rolling-papers-hot-new-thing-smokers-money-burn.html
> 
> Oh wait !!! What was the question again?


Please don't make a sticky topic of "Excrement Recovery ". :lol: :mrgreen:


----------



## Refining Rick (Apr 4, 2017)

My Guess:
2700 Grams
If I win, donate to it the forum, we need another raffle.


----------



## Auful (Apr 4, 2017)

My guess: 2400 grams. Thanks


----------



## anachronism (Apr 5, 2017)

Here you go chaps. Pretty pleased with this one as a job.


----------



## nickvc (Apr 5, 2017)

The client was more than pleased one has to say.
He is fairly canny and used to split the batch in two and found a 15 percent variation at times in returns, we gave him a near100 percent uplift on expectation :shock:


----------



## kurtak (Apr 5, 2017)

Soooo - it a tie between chuckgamble & my self :?: 

chuckgamble guessed 1977 grams = 9 grams under

I guessed 1995 grams = 9 grams over

BUT --- we both said to make it a donation to the forum if we won 8) 8) 

Soooo - the real winner issss --- Noxx :lol: 8) :mrgreen: :G 

VERY cool :!: 

And GOOD job Nick & Jon :!: 8) :mrgreen: :G 

Kurt


----------



## nickvc (Apr 5, 2017)

We were both happy to share this and for Jon the amounts of gold was shocking at first, it's been a long hard slog of two weeks with me doing 14-18 hours a day and Jon not much less.
We also have the silver to recover which we informed the client about but we were told to keep it, this now falls to Jon to recover.

We do not know how much silver is there so perhaps another guessing game bearing in mind this was all from karat scrap melts :shock:


----------



## anachronism (Apr 5, 2017)

The single biggest eye-opener for me was the simplicity of working with this product over working with e-waste. 

Having recovered and refined Kilos of gold over the last 5 years from a wide variety of e-waste base material and then treating this base product was like taking a breath of fresh air. There were so many things we didn't have to worry about or take into account. Multiple contaminants that just don't exist, and quite a few issues normally experienced in getting to the gold that did not need to be taken into account. 

Anyone going from a sound foundation in e-waste to this will find it relatively simple, but going the other way i.e. From jewellery to e-waste will find it an "interesting" journey.


----------



## g_axelsson (Apr 5, 2017)

1986 g... Kurt and chuckgamble beat me by 2g, only off by 9g. We don't need no stinkin scales here.  

By the way, I used the cigarette package as a reference. As I'm no smoker myself I found an online page saying that a cigarette package is 88x55x22 mm and that gave me the approximate scale of a bar at 21x37 mm and a combined height of 134 mm. Calculating the volume and multiplying by the density ended up at 2058g, then I lowered the amount with 3% to compensate for rounded corners and gaps between the bars... should have used 3.516%, my bad. :mrgreen: 

Thanks for sharing this story, Nick and Jon. Any palladium in the mix? Probably not a lot, I don't think white gold is that common.

Göran


----------



## kurtak (Apr 5, 2017)

g_axelsson said:


> 1986 g... Kurt and chuckgamble beat me by 2g, only off by 9g. We don't need no stinkin scales here.
> 
> Göran



:lol: :lol: :lol: 

Actually when I first typed my guess I typed 1990 grams - but then I thought - odds of it falling on an even 10 gram number are slim - so before posting my guess I decided to add 5 grams  

But with it going to help Noxx with keeping this forum going its all good :!: 8) :mrgreen: :G 

Kurt


----------



## 4metals (Apr 5, 2017)

Since the guessing revolved around the size of the mold, would you please post a photo of that mold along with something for size reference? Molds of the 100 gram class are a new world to me!!!!


----------



## anachronism (Apr 5, 2017)

Sure Ive got a few at home I'll get a pic sorted out for you.


----------



## nickvc (Apr 5, 2017)

There are PGMs showing up in everything we have recovered and refined, not sure of the quantities but positive indications from stannous, it will be some time before we can sort it out.... :shock:


----------



## Lou (Apr 6, 2017)

AA?


----------



## anachronism (Apr 6, 2017)

Lou said:


> AA?



Yeah - just waiting for the shipment of DIBK to land.


----------



## 4metals (Apr 6, 2017)

So are you going to do a solvent extraction on all of your AA samples or just on the CN- based samples?


----------



## anachronism (Apr 6, 2017)

All of them 4metals. That was my plan at least, if you think I can avoid that for the acid based solutions then I'm open to suggestions.


----------



## 4metals (Apr 6, 2017)

I have never been a big fan of running CN- based samples and acid based samples through the same nebulizer. Considering your standards will likely be acid based, unless you are making your own as cyanide based, I would run acid samples diluted in distilled water straight sans extraction. If you run acid samples on acid standards, you can run your CN- extracted samples through the same nebulizer and not worry about clogging. 

The dilution on acid samples is usually sufficient to eliminate the need for background correction but the CN- samples, if run without extraction would usually require a background correction because of the way the CN- burns. So for CN- samples extraction is wise, for acid samples, IMHO, not necessary.

I stand ready for debate!


----------



## chuckgambale (Apr 6, 2017)

Wow a tie, I have no problem splitting the glory with you Kurt. As I said please donate to the forum. And by the way that makes us all winners because like I said I've learned so much here I couldn't put a value on what I probably owe. Thank you John and nick its things like this done by Noxx and members like you two that makes this forum what it is.


----------

