# Precipitating gold from AR with SMB



## Ruan (Aug 20, 2013)

Hi I'm fairly new to gold refining. I'm concerned about a brown fizzing when i add the SMB to the AR. Could this be a result of too much nitric acid in the AR solution? I have tried to add urea to neutralize it but the brown fizz is still there when i add SMB. If anyone can give me any advise on this, i will be so greatfull. 
I have a lot of other questions too to better my technique. 

Kind regards
Ruan


----------



## niteliteone (Aug 20, 2013)

Where are the details of what process you used to get to this point ???

ie... type of material ???
amount of material supposedly in solution ??? 
if you followed set procedures to remove ALL base metals before starting a refining process
Amount of each chemical added to get to where you realized you don't have a clue what you are doing.

Have you thoroughly read Hoke's book dealing with what you are trying to do ???

Start there and figure what you have done wrong. When You can explain that, then you are ready to understand what we might tell you on fixing your mess.


----------



## rickbb (Aug 21, 2013)

When you add urea did you do so until the fizzing stopped with one or two balls of urea floating around? 
If not then you may not have destroyed all the nitric.

Try dissolving your SMB in warm distilled water first and slowing add to the solution.


----------



## Charles Connor (Aug 21, 2013)

Also there are sometimes when the reaction of the AR with the scrap gets really hot that looks like if you were boiling your solution... if this happened to you, let it cool to room temperature, when the AR solution is hot, when adding SMB, the SO2 gas particles will go out of the solution really fast and will not precipitate gold as wanted... also try the urea process as mentioned in the upper post.


----------



## pattt (Aug 21, 2013)

Hi,

This is something I remember from when I started reading the forum , from one of The most experienced members here and I always have to think about this when I see Urea mentioned somewhere in a new post.

Quote 
"Urea will destroy NOx gas in solution but it will not destroy nitric acid or nitrates dissolved in solution, you will read many places on the internet and in very early posts on the forum suggesting its use to denox or remove excess nitric acid from a solution containing gold, most of the forum has decided urea is not good for this purpose, with PGM's it can form complexes making recovery difficult if not impossible, urea can form ammonium compounds in solution thus has a possibility of forming a possible explosive mix in your treatment or in your waste, it has been reported causing spontaneous combustion in the lab, urea nitrates are not something that should be taken lightly especially with metals and possible ammonium compounds being formed, urea in my opinion is only good to use a prill or to to test the solution, but is useless to just plain dangerous to use otherwise."
Unquote

I would use Hoke's way anyday

Pat


----------



## alvaschein (Aug 22, 2013)

Hi
I had similar problems when I made my very first batch. At the ending I had a soup of ...??? I don't know what. Anyway, I boiled all down and the remaining salts are awaiting further treatment.
I decided for the future batches to follow Hoke's advice of boiling the solution until syrup consistency and to add HCl to remove all excess nitric. Adding SMB is then very easy and within hours you can see a result (deposited brownish gold powder).

Roy


----------



## steyr223 (Aug 22, 2013)

You used the word boil and boiling
Good way to loose values.

Steam it just below a boil to allow evaporation


This can take 24 hours or more , and is the most
Tedious job I have ever done.

Read Holke's ,she tells you exactly what to do
very near the start of the book
Use the search for dnox or d nox

PS I believe she says add sulfuric (concentrated)acid
to rid nitric not hcl
hcl is added to dilute and bring back up to a workable
Level
Hope this helps steyr223 rob


----------



## Charles Connor (Aug 22, 2013)

I have always use the urea in my lab and i haven't had any exlosion, also the Hoke method seems a little bit complicated, so the best way for newbies is the urea, in my opinion...


----------



## butcher (Aug 22, 2013)

I just have to disagree.

The best way for newbies is to study the forum and learn, how to process the gold, making it less difficult to get the gold back out of solution.
Use minimum amount of nitric needed.
Consume nitric acid with gold.
Minimum acid or solutions, gives less acid to evaporate to denoxx.
Evaporation process as taught in Hokes book.
Sulfamic acid.

Urea will only cause the newbie problems, can lead to a dangerous situation or lose of valuable metals, if they think they need to use it, then they do not know how use aqua regia to refine their gold.

There is nothing complicated about it, and it does not need to be a complicated or time consuming process, once you understand it.
Education is the key.


----------



## Charles Connor (Aug 23, 2013)

this could be compared with the precipitants, them all work on different way, its the method that best fits you and with wich you feel secure ... if urea were that bad, then why is a method mentioned in other refining books just as good as the CM.HOKE as one alternative, and yes it is excellent if you could learn doing all the process mentioned on the forum that would be awesome, but I am one that says that urea does work despite all the negative things that are said...


----------



## jimdoc (Aug 23, 2013)

Charles Connor said:


> this could be compared with the precipitants, them all work on different way, its the method that best fits you and with wich you feel secure ... if urea were that bad, then why is a method mentioned in other refining books just as good as the CM.HOKE as one alternative, and yes it is excellent if you could learn doing all the process mentioned on the forum that would be awesome, but I am one that says that urea does work despite all the negative things that are said...



What are you a urea salesman?


----------



## FrugalRefiner (Aug 23, 2013)

Charles Connor said:


> this could be compared with the precipitants, them all work on different way, its the method that best fits you and with wich you feel secure ... if urea were that bad, then why is a method mentioned in other refining books just as good as the CM.HOKE as one alternative,


Charles, I also have highly regarded books that endorse the liberal use of mercury. Times have changed. We have learned more. In many cases, we've found better ways.



> and yes it is excellent if you could learn doing all the process mentioned on the forum that would be awesome


Why do you say "if" you could learn? Read.



> I am one that says that urea does work despite all the negative things that are said...


That position will put you in conflict with the Moderators of this forum who do their best to stop the spread of outdated, mis-information.

Dave


----------



## NobleMetalWorks (Aug 23, 2013)

THIS!



butcher said:


> I just have to disagree.
> 
> The best way for newbies is to study the forum and learn, how to process the gold, making it less difficult to get the gold back out of solution.
> Use minimum amount of nitric needed.
> ...



The best way to deal with problems is to be pro-active not re-active. 

I wish that the entire subject of UREA was removed and not allowed on the forum. The only time I believe it's proper to speak of UREA is in regards to scrubbing systems. And even then, only under the proper conditions using the proper equipment. As has been stated, you could be producing dangerous complexes in solution that may be explosive. I personally know a refiner who added UREA to a AR solution that contained gold and PGMs and unknowingly created an explosive complex that did react, and blew his beaker to tiny little pieces. Fortunate for him he was doing this in a 5 gallon plastic bucket in case of a violent reaction that would bubble solution over the sides of the beaker.



Charles Connor said:


> this could be compared with the precipitants, them all work on different way, its the method that best fits you and with wich you feel secure ...
> 
> It's not what method you "feel" secure with, it's which method is "safe" and best if it's the 'safest" method. There is the way you can do it, and there is the right way of doing it. Instead of telling people what they might can do, why not tell them what they should be doing instead?
> 
> ...



It's not "if you could learn" it is more like what you need to learn before you start to process material of any type. The correct way should be learned and advised. The process Butcher laid out is the correct and safe way of processing. If you read a book on refining, the recipe for creating AR usually advises to mix specific amounts of HCl with HNO3. Yet this is not the way we do things, instead of practicing chemistry by recipe, we practice chemistry more often by small additions, and observation. Meaning instead of mixing a traditional solution of AR intended for cleaning lab glass, we instead only add as much HNO3 as needed, making small additions until the desired dissolution of the gold has been achieved. Following Hokes suggestions will easily remove whatever HNO3 might be left, using Butchers suggestion of adding a known quantity of gold into the solution will ensure there is no HNO3 free, or it will use up whatever is left in solution.

I don't feel you are trying to purposefully lead people in the wrong direction, but the simple fact of the matter is that if you are doing things correctly, in the way that has been suggested by others, you will not need UREA, and that is the best possible scenario. 

Scott


----------



## rickbb (Aug 23, 2013)

So I'm guessing from the tone of the posts that urea is out and the forum's perfered method is to triple evaportate or use sulfamic acid.

Adjustments will be made then.


----------



## Charles Connor (Aug 23, 2013)

I had this same situation with other topic of getting the silver out of silver nitrate, when i wrote that adding NaCl to it and then melting the AgCl would be an easiest way, everybody was like *... no that way is dangerous, do not suggest if you dont know the cons or the dangerour part, read HOKE`s book...* its one way that even CM HOKE mentioned on her book, so whats the point of sharing in the forum... im not making anybody change its methods of gold or silver recovery , it`s information based on what i have done or experienced, also i dont know how you people thought the tone im writing was, since writing has no tone unless its expressed to make it seem like one...


----------



## NobleMetalWorks (Aug 23, 2013)

Charles Connor said:


> I had this same situation with other topic of getting the silver out of silver nitrate, when i wrote that adding NaCl to it and then melting the AgCl would be an easiest way, everybody was like *... no that way is dangerous, do not suggest if you dont know the cons or the dangerour part, read HOKE`s book...* its one way that even CM HOKE mentioned on her book, so whats the point of sharing in the forum... im not making anybody change its methods of gold or silver recovery , it`s information based on what i have done or experienced, also i dont know how you people thought the tone im writing was, since writing has no tone unless its expressed to make it seem like one...



Since you posted here, and not in the other thread, I am going to try to answer you here.

You stated:


Charles Connor said:


> It is much better to precipitate the gold with SMB to get it without impurities, from what i know, the copper is used to cement the silver out of solution, but it is much better with NaCl...



If you have learned about the reactivity series, you would also know that all values below copper will cement on copper.







It also sounds as if you are suggesting that silver would be in an AR solution in the form of silver nitrate, which is not true. It would be in the form of insoluble silver chloride. You were corrected directly after. It wasn't a big deal, if you read the correction you might understand where your statement is wrong. Copper is not only used to cement silver, but can also be used to cement all values on the reactivity series below copper.

You also stated it is much better to use SMB. That might be true in some situations, but also might be true that copper is better. If you are washing, incinerating and then digesting all base metals in HNO3 after cementing with copper, then it might be better, specially considering that if you are precipitating out of a dirty solution you are going to have drag down anyway.

You then stated:


Charles Connor said:


> The NaCl is the cheaper way to get the silver, also the purity will be the same if it is nitrate or chloride, as a chloride just by melting it you get your silver, it is not a difficult process, also to waste gas and oxigen to melt this silver, it is better to have a big ammount to be worth



This is confusing, lets clarify it a bit. If you have a solution of silver nitrate and you add NaCl you produce AgCl, which needs further processing. What you are saying is that the method will produce silver of the same purity as cementing on copper, and is cheaper. I would beg to differ with you on this point. If you have a choice of precipitating silver as silver metal directly out of solution by cementing on copper, or precipitating silver chloride which takes more steps to turn into elemental form, and then needing to refine both because they are not of high purity then it would seem cementing on copper would be less expensive. Not only that, but you stated "as a chloride just by melting it you get your silver", this is not true. You don't just melt the silver, you have to reduce the silver chloride to it's metallic form. The better ways do not produce gases that could be dangerous. If you are reducing by the method C. M. Hoke suggests, then you are using a specifically formulated flux to reduce silver chloride to silver metal. According to Hoke you should use a graphite crucible which is not cheap, you cannot fill more than half full, you have to heat it carefully so you don't have a boil over, you have to do this in a gas furnace, then you have to add more chloride/flux mixture, etc etc etc. If you want to know more you can re-read Hoke. But this process is not nearly as safe, it takes equipment that is much more expensive, you are expending more energy, plus you have to be well experienced in pyrometallurgical processes in order to do this successfully. You should not, not ever, directly melt silver chloride or attempt to do so. You were corrected, and rightfully so. Hoke never stated anything about directly melting silver chloride to silver metal, but rather reducing it via a pyrometallurgical process with a correctly formulated flux and process.

You went further to state:


Charles Connor said:


> I have already done this process before, the silver does not comes pure after all this process is done, if refered to the harmful part is the chlorine gas...



If you did use this process I would like to know exactly how you did so. You seem to think it's easier to use this process than to cement directly on copper, or use another more commonly used process to reduce AgCl to Ag.

Then you stated:


Charles Connor said:


> Im not giving any instructions, what im saying is how i get the silver out of solution based on the question above, im not telling anybody here how to refine, im giving my point of view about these cases... The forum is to share knowlege and experiences when refining gold and other metals, again it is a MUST for the reader to look for the pros and cons and not jumping into the solution and do it... my mistake if i did not wrote the dangerous part of it, but the melting must be done under a good fume...



You incorrectly stated what Hoke wrote, which caused people to feel it necessary to correct you, and rightfully so. Although you are not telling anyone how to refine, you are incorrectly oversimplifying a process that is not commonly used, and is not in fact easy at all. 

All of us have posted information that needed correction or constructive criticism. I myself have been corrected and criticized in threads, specially when I feel passionate about something and have carried my point a too far. As a matter of fact in a very recent post, I had stated volts when I meant amps, and needed to correct it. If I am keeping with the professional flavor of this forum, I have to accept when I am wrong or carried things too far, then correct and conduct myself accordingly. It seems to me that this forum was created for people who can behave as adults who can take and give advice and criticism on the subject of precious metals while keeping a professional attitude. If we cannot, the forum will simply degrade into a medley of incorrect and misleading information. This very well could lead someone to make a serious mistake, harming themselves or others in the process, or worse.

Your own post is a good example of the exact reason why your information should be shared. You stated that Hoke suggests your method, and now that information would seem to have been corrected. Have you considered how many people will read your post, and learn from it?

Even when we are wrong it allows an opportunity to be corrected, and in doing so propagates good information that is correct and usable.

Also, reduction of AgCl via a pyrometallurgical process is not nearly as safe as other methods outlined on this forum. Although what Hoke states can be done, it is not the best, most modern way to process AgCl.

Scott


----------



## JHS (Aug 23, 2013)

Ok,everyone that comes here is told to read hoke.NO one is told that you do not boil.if they read that and do not understand that,that means steam they are reading miss information or at the very least misinterpreting the information.if there are processes that are in hokes book that are dangerous and newcomers read that in hoke and are not for warned,they are being put in harns way.I too have read the info,that Charles spoke of with reguard to silver
i think if someone is directing,they should also warn.
john


----------



## jimdoc (Aug 23, 2013)

JHS said:


> Ok,everyone that comes here is told to read hoke.NO one is told that you do not boil.if they read that and do not understand that,that means steam they are reading miss information or at the very least misinterpreting the information.if there are processes that are in hokes book that are dangerous and newcomers read that in hoke and are not for warned,they are being put in harns way.I too have read the info,that Charles spoke of with reguard to silver
> i think if someone is directing,they should also warn.
> john



All of that has been warned about many, many times here on the forum.
Especially not "using gasoline for incineration", as Ms. Hoke's book suggests.

Jim


----------



## NobleMetalWorks (Aug 23, 2013)

JHS said:


> Ok,everyone that comes here is told to read hoke.NO one is told that you do not boil.if they read that and do not understand that,that means steam they are reading miss information or at the very least misinterpreting the information.if there are processes that are in hokes book that are dangerous and newcomers read that in hoke and are not for warned,they are being put in harns way.I too have read the info,that Charles spoke of with reguard to silver
> i think if someone is directing,they should also warn.
> john



All of the processes that are used to recover and refine metals are dangerous, every single one, even the ones that don't seem very dangerous are.

The information about reducing AgCl by a pyrometallurgical process is dangerous, but it can be done if the correct precautions are used. But that is IF you have the proper equipment, IF you are using the correct flux, IF you are using the correct crucible, IF you are using the correct gas furnace, IF you are following the instructions properly and you understand the metallurgical process, and have experience in pyrometallurgical processes. Charles oversimplified these instructions and incorrectly stated "melting" when he meant to say "reducing", he suggested that precipitating AgCl and then MELTING it was an easier process, which is not in fact true. You should never MELT AgCl, you should REDUCE AgCl. Hoke states very clearly a flux recipe, and that it's a process of REDUCTION, not directly melting AgCl into metallic form.

So Hoke was right, Charles was wrong. You have now stated that Hoke has suggested something dangerous, and yet everything that has anything to do with recovering or refining metals is dangerous. But I want to make this clear, Hoke is not wrong on this point, it can be done in the way she describes but Charles misrepresented the material, and correction was rightfully posted. Also, there are other alternative methods Hoke suggests before giving instruction on the pyrometallurgical process of reducing AgCl to Ag.

People harp and harp about reading Hoke, and also rightfully so. If you read, and understand the language Hoke uses you can more effectively talk about these processes. It's stated over and over and over again, I am not sure how anyone that spends anytime reading this forum can miss this point. If you read and understand Hoke, you will also understand the difference between melting and reduction. They might seem like the same thing, but their differences become apparent when issues like this arise. Understanding the terms, and how to use them properly is important. Specially if you want to effectively communicate with other people on this forum, in an effective way.

Scott


----------



## Harold_V (Aug 24, 2013)

rickbb said:


> So I'm guessing from the tone of the posts that urea is out and the forum's perfered method is to triple evaportate or use sulfamic acid.
> 
> Adjustments will be made then.


I'd like to make a couple comments, one on the notion of "triple evaporate". That simply isn't good advice. There is no guarantee that three evaporations will expel all free nitric, no more than there is a guarantee that washing one's gold for a given period of time will remove all contaminants that are contained within. I'll address the washing procedure first. 

The washing procedure that is recommended on this board is the one I proposed, used and perfected years ago. It isn't a timed process, but one of making observations. One washes until there is no change---not for a prescribed period of time--as that may be as little as a couple minutes---or as long as an hour. How dirty your gold is, and how it precipitates dictates the outcome, not the clock. 

The prudent refiner evaporates until there are no familiar brown fumes emitted when HCl is added to a well evaporated gold chloride solution. My experience dictates that the solution will be very dark red, and will have thickened to some degree, before the addition of HCl does any good. With that in mind, one time may be adequate, and four may not be enough. You can not set a hard and fast rule, as it is highly unlikely that you will experience identical solutions time and again. Learn to judge the condition of your evaporation by observing the expected reactions, or lack thereof, not by counting. 

If you have doubts about having evaporated properly, introduce a small button of gold of known weight, which will consume any free nitric. That, of course, depends on if you have fee HCl present. Add a little to ensure you do. It does no harm, unlike free nitric. 

Harold


----------



## JHS (Aug 24, 2013)

Scott,
I was not suggesting that it was not dangerous,however there are processes that have less danger than others.
ie. stripping with H2O seems a bit less dangerous than boiling sulphuric acid.

perhaps, IF YOU ARE NEW HERE,read the safety section,read hoke,before you start or continue,
USE THE SEARCH to see if there is a more up to date process.if then you need help, ask.


----------



## NobleMetalWorks (Aug 24, 2013)

JHS said:


> Scott,
> I was not suggesting that it was not dangerous,however there are processes that have less danger than others.
> ie. stripping with H2O seems a bit less dangerous than boiling sulphuric acid.
> 
> ...



If you use the search function, and simply use for search terms what you have stated above, you will find hundreds of examples of exactly what you have stated.

It's not that it hasn't been said over and over, it's that many people just simply do not bother to look.

Scott


----------



## JHS (Aug 24, 2013)

it's that many people just simply do not bother to look.

is it possible that they do not look,because they do not understand how the forum works?
would it not be better to tell them up front.
if we tell them that hoke is the bible of refining,then if they read it and then are not instructed to then use the search,they may go ahead,thinking they know what they should because of the simple advice they were given.
i am only saying give complete advice.
read,search,then ask, before you start or continue
john


----------



## NobleMetalWorks (Aug 24, 2013)

JHS said:


> it's that many people just simply do not bother to look.
> 
> is it possible that they do not look,because they do not understand how the forum works?
> would it not be better to tell them up front.
> ...



Go here:
http://goldrefiningforum.com/phpBB3/index.php

Then here:
http://goldrefiningforum.com/phpBB3/viewforum.php?f=70

And here:
http://goldrefiningforum.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=70&t=4646

And finally here:
http://goldrefiningforum.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=6873#6873

If you look on the index page, at the bottom, you will see this message:


> In total there are 22 users online :: 6 registered, 2 hidden and 14 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)



How many of those people are new, and how many of those people have experience enough to hold their hand and teach them how this forum works? Further more, how many of those people have experience enough to teach all those people who are new, what they need to know in order to be successful in what they intend to accomplish by being here?

There seems to be a sense of entitlement with some people, as if those that come before them hold the responsibility to educate them in all that interests them, instead of taking responsibility for their own education.

I believe that a lot of time, effort and energy has been spent on attempting to guide and help new people. I cannot even imagine how frustrating it must be for those people, to see posted over and over again what should be done to help new people when that information not only exists, but is so easy to access.

Scott


----------



## JHS (Aug 24, 2013)

Scott,
i have a very specific question about a very specific problem with a process that i have preformed sucessfully countless times.
i am very sure there is someone on the forum that could give me a very simple yes or no,but because of the entitlement attitude i will never ask.i have searched posts for two months with no good results.i will just let the beaker sit until i can find the answer myself or die trying.
john


----------



## solar_plasma (Aug 24, 2013)

> Scott,
> i have a very specific question about a very specific problem with a process that i have preformed sucessfully countless times.
> i am very sure there is someone on the forum that could give me a very simple yes or no,but because of the entitlement attitude i will never ask.i have searched posts for two months with no good results.i will just let the beaker sit until i can find the answer myself or die trying.
> john



But exactly those are the questions, which are interesting for many. Those are the questions, some of us didn't know, we had. 

Btw. I like some good beginners questions too, because the less experienced of us are able to answer and one way to learn, is to explain to others. What you are able to explain, you have mastered to some degree. Maybe the explaination is partly incorrect, then others will join in and correct, what somebody believed to know, but what he had misunderstood.

Asking is ok, as long as people are listening to the answers.


----------



## NobleMetalWorks (Aug 24, 2013)

JHS said:


> Scott,
> i have a very specific question about a very specific problem with a process that i have preformed sucessfully countless times.
> i am very sure there is someone on the forum that could give me a very simple yes or no,but because of the entitlement attitude i will never ask.i have searched posts for two months with no good results.i will just let the beaker sit until i can find the answer myself or die trying.
> john



This is frustrating because you took what I said, totally outside how it was meant in response to what you said before.

You stated this:


JHS said:


> is it possible that they do not look,because they do not understand how the forum works? would it not be better to tell them up front.



I was just simply showing that what you have suggested, has already been done, and to exhaustion. I gave you the links, I said nothing about NOT asking questions, I simply showed you that with very little effort information on how the forum works has already been posted.

If you thought I was saying not to ask questions, you took what I said wrong. I ask questions, all of us do, that is what this forum exists for.

I hope this clears up the confusion over my intent.

Scott


----------



## solar_plasma (Aug 24, 2013)

Scott,
I hope you don't feel, that I intended to criticize you. I just couldn't let John's last statement pass without comment.


----------



## NobleMetalWorks (Aug 24, 2013)

solar_plasma said:


> Scott,
> I hope you don't feel, that I intended to criticize you. I just couldn't let John's last statement pass without comment.



No worries, I knew what you intended, I appreciate it. I was just responding to John's comment. 

Scott


----------



## JHS (Aug 24, 2013)

scott I do not ask questions because of your entitlement attitude.
the only thing i am entitled to is the search box,and that is good enough.
if you think i would post a question then be belittled as i was the first time,
you sir are sadly mistaken.i am done so have the last word.


----------



## NobleMetalWorks (Aug 24, 2013)

JHS said:


> scott I do not ask questions because of your entitlement attitude.
> the only thing i am entitled to is the search box,and that is good enough.
> if you think i would post a question then be belittled as i was the first time,
> you sir are sadly mistaken.i am done so have the last word.



John,

I feel bad that you feel this way, I went back over your posts in order to try and figure out what it is I said or responded to that made you react this way, and couldn't figure it out. If you want, I would be open to you messaging me privately and expressing what it was I did to upset you, and I will be more than happy if I am in the wrong, or if I have said anything to belittle you, to apologize publicly, then maybe you will feel better about whatever it is that is bothering you. I know I am blunt, and maybe a little more honest than what propriety might dictate, but I also expect to be treated in kind, and don't easily get my feelings hurt. I certainly don't want to make you feel like my intent was to belittle you, because it wasn't. I don't want to apologize for something unless I know what it is, so that my apology is meaningful.

Scott


----------



## Harold_V (Aug 25, 2013)

I'd like to clarify the issue of asking questions. 

If any reader who has been on the board for a period of time doesn't understand our posture where this issue is concerned, it certainly warrants being addressed. 

Questions are never discouraged. What is discouraged is asking questions that make it obvious the reader has done exactly NOTHING to better his/her understanding of the refining process. We ask readers to do that by reading Hoke. She, alone, has provided the fundamentals of refining, and presented them in such a way that even a complete fool can gain an understanding. Why must a person at the other end of the board relate the very information that has been made available to the reader through her book? Beyond that, once a reader understands the terminology we tend to use, questions that may not be answered in reading can be phrased such that others understand what is being asked. 

This forum is about refiners helping refiners. PLEASE PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THE LAST TWO WORDS. We are not here to educate those who refuse to help themselves, _*nor do we wish to try*_. In fact, if a reader presses that issue, I'll ban him immediately. That's the entitlement attitude that does not stand well with me. If it's not important enough for the new guy to read and study so he gains much needed knowledge, why in hell should it be important for those of us who try to help to spend our precious time, time and again, explaining the very thing that the reader would find in Hoke's book----therefore avoiding asking questions? 

Are you following me? What this boils down to is a test---a test which reveals that the reader is interested enough to exert some of his own energy, not just asking for a handout. 

By the way, just saying you're reading, or have read, isn't enough. Most questions will reveal, almost instantly, that you have, or have not, read her book. Many of the questions being asked show that to be true. 

JHS----I would like for you to ask your question. If you've done your homework and are being productive, you are certainly entitled to be heard, and deserve to learn what you seek. Remember, none of us were born with this knowledge---we learned by applying ourselves. I'm sure those who have the answer will gladly share their knowledge with you. You need not fear a negative response unless your question betrays you by disclosing that you haven't done your part in trying to learn. If that be the case, yeah, you're wise to not ask. 

Harold


----------



## Palladium (Aug 25, 2013)

JHS said:


> Scott,
> i have a very specific question about a very specific problem with a process that i have preformed successfully countless times.
> i am very sure there is someone on the forum that could give me a very simple yes or no,but because of the entitlement attitude i will never ask.i have searched posts for two months with no good results.i will just let the beaker sit until i can find the answer myself or die trying.
> john



The first thing i would look at is the amount of time you have been here on the forum and the number of posts you have made. If i looked at that and seen you have been here awhile and studying as well as participating then if you have a question i would assume you were just stuck and needed help as any student would ask of a teacher, not that you had an entitlement attitude and just wanted answers. 
If you have a question and are truly stuck by all means do ask for help! We ask people to seek their own answers because on your way to finding those answers you are going to run across little jewels that will make you a rich man in knowledge.


----------



## JHS (Aug 25, 2013)

Palladium,
I have sent my question to Harold in a pm.if he deems it invalid then i told him to feel free to ban me.
Harold is only my senior by a couple of years,so i do not have to have an answer, as i do not have to do this.
I just want to.
thanks john


----------

