# COPPER-maybe i am missing something



## wxfreqrs (Nov 15, 2011)

Been reading and looking and the amount of info here is staggerring
let me ask a simple question - maybe i can not see the forest for the trees 
is there a process (CHEMICAL) for taking solid copper, removing the impurities and getting 100% COPPER FOR melting into ingots
that what i want to start with before moving on to the gold, silver and platimum processes
thanks all 
Don (wxfreqrs)


----------



## philddreamer (Nov 15, 2011)

Don, with all due respect, I'm afraid you are missing something.

If you were to do a search on copper refining as a hobby, you'll find that it will cost you a bunch. Melting it into ingots another bunch.
Do a search on melting copper, for staters. You'll find that most recyclers don't accept melted copper, for example.
Now, if you have the money & time, then never mind what I said.
But I would recommend gold & or silver first.

Take care & be safe!

Phil


----------



## Geo (Nov 15, 2011)

from my understanding,you,as an individual working even in a well equipped shop still cant produce a 100% pure copper ingot.pure copper is smelted in an oxygen free environment with certain additives to remove impurities.molten copper absorbs oxygen from the air.in large copper foundries the copper is smelted and either cast or drawn in an inert gas such as argon.if you are looking for experience in melting and pouring melted metal i would suggest aluminum or if you have the safety equipment maybe lead.


----------



## wxfreqrs (Nov 15, 2011)

ok thanks for info..maybe to rethink..then again there page 97 of the fourm hanbook # 1 
need more study on this 
again thanks guys


----------



## Dr. Poe (Nov 17, 2011)

Copper is electroplated from an impure bar (positive) containing precious metals to a pure bar (negative) by 0.5 volts DC in a bath of copper sulfate and sulfuric acid. In this case, it is necessary to have the electrodes the same area and facing each other. The copper sulfate can be either cuprous or cupric, it doesn't matter. Tolerance for voltage is 0.5 minimum and 0.83 maximum. Collect the slime, process for precious metals. Reuse the copper: Cut with a band saw to fit your crucible.
Don't try this with just sulfuric acid, thinking that copper sulfate is made. It is, but will take a too long a time to form.
You'll lose because effective voltages will vary with concentration making it impossible to control voltage/amperage.
If you go over 0.84 at the anode, gold will travel with the copper to the cathode making your efforts worthless. Dr. Poe


----------



## wxfreqrs (Nov 17, 2011)

Thanks appreciate all the responses
I have lots more reading to do, i will be back withmore questions


----------



## samuel-a (Nov 18, 2011)

Dr. Poe said:


> If you go over 0.84 at the anode, gold will travel with the copper to the cathode making your efforts worthless. Dr. Poe



Hello Dr. Poe

Would you be kind enough to further explain this statment?


----------



## Dr. Poe (Nov 18, 2011)

Simple molecules of gold compounds are positively charged and migrate to the negative pole. Complex molecules of gold compounds are negatively charged and migrate to the anode (positive pole). Colloidal gold is also negatively charged as is most all the precious metals except silver. Therefore they migrate to the positive pole. When a DC voltage is applied to a cell with gold in the anode, voltage under 0.84 the gold becomes polarized negative. Above this voltage the gold tends to dissolve and migrates with the copper to the negative pole (Cathode). Colloidal gold isn't ionically charged. It's an electrostatic charge so it won't be affected by any reduction agent. This is probably the most common of mistakes made by refiners trying to separate copper from gold (PGM's, ETC.). That is allowing the voltage to go over 0.8. Any time one electroplates, if you are looking for smooth plates on your subject, the size of the anode makes no difference at all. BUT, when refining, it's the slimes that you are catching, so it's the anode area that must be kept the same or as it shrinks the applied voltage rises. It may read the same on your meter. Decimeter by decimeter is decreased voltage (pressure) is raised at the anode. You can compare water pressure with voltage. The same volume through a smaller pipe has increased pressure. Hope this helps.
Dr. Poe


----------



## samuel-a (Nov 18, 2011)

That is very interesting and very well explained !!

Though, raises some more Q's:

Shouldn't an anode bag catch the Colloidal gold ? or the pores are too big?
2nd, are you saing gold is complexing with SO4 ion to form it's sulfate?


----------



## Dr. Poe (Nov 20, 2011)

Yes Au2(SO4)3 does exist although extremely unstable and soon decomposes to Au2S3, Au2(S2O3)3 ---1-H2O, gold metal and unfortunately Au2SO4 (mono-valent) which migrates to the cathode (-). 
Fortunately the first three migrate to the anode (+). Often times people forget that gold also exists in the plus one state.
Electron heat (voltage) is energy, is heat, and most know that gold dissolves in hot concentrated sulfuric. So yes, you won't lose all your gold from overvoltage, but whom wants to lose any. Dr. Poe


----------



## samuel-a (Nov 21, 2011)

Dr. Poe said:


> Yes Au2(SO4)3 does exist although extremely unstable and soon decomposes to Au2S3, Au2(S2O3)3 ---1-H2O, gold metal and unfortunately Au2SO4 (mono-valent) which migrates to the cathode (-).
> Fortunately the first three migrate to the anode (+). Often times people forget that gold also exists in the plus one state.
> Electron heat (voltage) is energy, is heat, and most know that gold dissolves in hot concentrated sulfuric. So yes, you won't lose all your gold from overvoltage, but whom wants to lose any. Dr. Poe



How is it then, that gold doesn't stay in solution in a sulfuric stripping cell? or is it?


----------



## Harold_V (Nov 22, 2011)

samuel-a said:


> How is it then, that gold doesn't stay in solution in a sulfuric stripping cell? or is it?


Only briefly. Amperage at the anode creates per-sulfuric acid, which actually dissolves the gold. As it migrates away from the anode, amperage diminishes and reduces the per-sulfuric back to sulfuric ---which can not support gold in solution, so it precipitates as fine particles, even colloidal. That's why a stripping cell produces black gold. 

Harold


----------



## Geo (Nov 22, 2011)

the last part of this thread,if i understand correctly, is discussing how to get pure copper through electro-chemistry and the PM's discussed is a by-product of that process.does these ranges apply to the sulfuric stripping cells we have already discussed here on the forum or just this one process.i use a lead cathode and a 12 V battery charger.i always run my spent metal through AP when im done because i dont trust the cell to get all the gold.i reclaim the base metal from AP solution that gets too loaded with either tin or nickle to be effective.i now have a 1 gallon paint can full of this dry black powder(very heavy,nearly twenty pounds) and have been pondering making anodes from it to reclaim any PM's and the copper if i can.i melted a couple of ounces to see what it looked like and the clean metal looks like red brass,too red to be bronze and too yellow to be copper.


----------



## samuel-a (Nov 22, 2011)

Thanks Harold

I actually know that explanation, but not sure i truly understand the dynamics.

Say you dunk a gold plated pin inside the electrolyte and apply current.
The electrolyte is 98% H2SO4, where does it get the extra Oxygen to become H2SO5 ? Does it take it from the water? (I know that sulfuric acid dissociation in water is slightly more complex then other mineral acids, but still trying to keep things simple, if possible)
And what is the resulting gold compund from that reaction (never mind how long does it last)?
What are the products of the gold compound decomposition ? Au(s) is known, but what are the others?

edit: spelling


----------



## rusty (Nov 22, 2011)

First cell, plenty to learn, anyhow here is a picture of the copper deposit onto the cathode.

It appears dark near the bottom only because it needs to be washed free of the electrolyte, otherwise the copper is nice and red showing good purity.

Applied voltage 0.75, run time 24 hours nice deposit of slimes on the bottom of the cell. Had a cathode on opposing sides of the anode I suspect they were much to close, this afternoon scraped the cathodes free of loose copper then installed only one cathode with a greater distance of 4 inches between the anode and cathode..

Scrap source came from the silver soldered copper elbows removed from air conditioner condensers and evaporators which I melted then cast into anodes.


----------



## Smack (Nov 22, 2011)

Looks just like what I've been getting. Except you got more over a 24hr period.


----------



## Harold_V (Nov 23, 2011)

samuel-a said:


> The electrolyte is 98% H2SO4, where does it get the extra Oxygen to become H2SO5 ?


I'm not a good person to answer this question, Samuel, but if I had to venture a guess, I would suggest that oxygen is formed via hydrolysis at the anode. Don't know that I'm right, so don't take my comments as gospel. Perhaps others can step in and provide a viable answer. 

I try to frequently remind readers that I am not a chemist and do not understand chemical reactions well. 

Harold


----------



## Harold_V (Nov 23, 2011)

Gill,
Very nice deposition. I trust the nodules are rather firm in nature? Well affixed to the cathode?

Harold


----------



## samuel-a (Nov 23, 2011)

Thanks Harold.




Harold_V said:


> I try to frequently remind readers that I am not a chemist and do not understand chemical reactions well.



My Q's doesn't necessarily directed to you personally, since it's open forum, i thought someone with an answer will chime in... 8) 



rusty, do you have some sort of agitation you could add to the bath? this might help growing a more even deposition on the cathod.


----------



## element47 (Nov 23, 2011)

Another very interesting GRF thread with a serious pile of information contained. Thanks, gentlemen!


----------



## Dr. Poe (Nov 25, 2011)

Sam wrote:
[The electrolyte is 98% H2SO4, where does it get the extra Oxygen to become H2SO5 ? Does it take it from the water? ]

Don't forget Sam, the atmosphere containing oxygen is touching the acid with one atmosphere of pressure.
No one has isolated the gold sulfates as they decompose too readily, and are really known only in solution. Dr. Poe


----------



## rusty (Nov 26, 2011)

If you magnify the picture of this copper anode you can see the formation of gold crystals.


----------



## freechemist (Dec 9, 2011)

Dr. Poe wrote:

_Yes Au2(SO4)3 does exist although extremely unstable and soon decomposes to Au2S3, Au2(S2O3)3 ---1-H2O, gold metal and unfortunately Au2SO4 (mono-valent) which migrates to the cathode (-). 
Fortunately the first three migrate to the anode (+). Often times people forget that gold also exists in the plus one state.
Electron heat (voltage) is energy, is heat, and most know that gold dissolves in hot concentrated sulfuric. So yes, you won't lose all your gold from overvoltage, but whom wants to lose any._

To these statements I want to add a few comments:

1.) If Au(III)sulfate, Au2(SO4)3, really can be formed in (fairly) concentrated sulfuric acid, it will decompose immediately after formation to metallic gold and oxidation products of water and/or probably sulfuric acid, generating mainly elemental oxygen and probably some 
mono-peroxo-sulfuric acid, Caro's acid, H2SO5. Formation of gold-compounds with anions of sulfur in lower oxidation states, like thiosulfate and/or even sulfide, is simply impossible, because there are no strong reductants present to bring about reduction of S(VI) in sulfate to these lower oxidation states.

2.) Decomposition of hypothetical Au(III)sulfate does not lead to Au(I)sulfate, which would be even much more unstable.

3.) Metallic gold does not dissolve in hot concentrated sulfuric acid. It does also not dissolve in hot mixtures of H2O2 with concentrated sulfuric acid. For assayers a well known method to determine the remaining gold content of used up cyanidic gold-baths in electroplating, consists in the mixing of sample volumes of bath with equal volumes of concentrated sulfuric acid, boiling the resulting mixtures until heavy concentrated sulfuric acid fumes evaporate, cooling down, adding a few milliliters of 35% H2O2, and repeating the boiling procedure. This way a nice small globule of spongy metallic gold is obtained, which can be weighed after dilution, filtration, thorough washing and drying.

freechemist


----------



## Dr. Poe (Dec 10, 2011)

freechemist wrote:" Metallic gold does not dissolve in hot concentrated sulfuric acid. It does also not dissolve in hot mixtures of H2O2 with concentrated sulfuric acid. For assayers a well known method to determine the remaining gold content of used up cyanidic gold-baths in electroplating, consists in the mixing of sample volumes of bath with equal volumes of concentrated sulfuric acid, boiling the resulting mixtures until heavy concentrated sulfuric acid fumes evaporate, cooling down, adding a few milliliters of 35% H2O2, and repeating the boiling procedure. This way a nice small globule of spongy metallic gold is obtained, which can be weighed after dilution, filtration, thorough washing and drying.
Sir, go back to your school and tell your professor that I said he needs to go back to school.
Here is some of the slower, but sure ways to dissolve metallic gold when finely divided:
Hot selenic acid, the one that needs no other to help it.
Hot 98% sulfuric acid, especially when any other oxidizer is present. Boiling to SO2 fumes returns the gold to metallic.
Hot dilute sulfuric (between 69% and 98% @ 69C) with nitric acid.
Bromine and water.
Chlorine and water.
Iodine and Potassium iodide with water.
HCl alone with DC voltage.
HCl , HBr, or acid and any oxidizer including lead oxide (litharge).
Concentrated Nitric acid alone when under high heat and several atmosphere's of pressure.
You seem to think that gold isn't oxidized by atmosphere alone, but you are wrong. It does, but instantly rejects the oxygen unless a second agent is introduced. You know that gold needs oxygen to dissolve in alkali cyanides. The reason that gold dissolves in cyanides is that the gold cyanides are more stable. Whenever a compound of gold is more stable than gold itself, it dissolves. Finely divided gold also dissolves in plain salt (NaCl), subliming around 260C.(229C-265C)
18 Karat gold is actually more resistant to corrosion than pure gold as the base metals partially protect it from attack.
The thiomercaptan (British Anti-Lewisite) dissolves gold directly out of the human body.
All of these facts are available from the Library of Congress under "The chemistry of Gold".
Most of these are not desirable methods, but ways of losing gold when done inadvertently.
Dr. Poe :|
I decided to extend this post with some facts involving the alkaline side of gold enigmas:
Gold doesn't corrode under normal temperatures and pressures by any single acid or caustic. At room temperature, chlorine, bromine, iodine, fluorine, have no effect on gold. Add water to any of them and they hydrolyze into Hx and HxO.
All of these halogens when wet dissolve gold. Iodine needs a little more help from potassium iodide. 
You can boil sulfur off of gold. You can boil Na-OH in a gold vessel. But add them together, and the gold dissolves.
Try smelting a pyritical ore of gold with caustic and the gold will seem to disappear. Not carbonates or borates but hydroxides and oxides and peroxides and members of the oxygen family like tellurium, selenium and sulfur. When these are mixed they corrode gold. Heavy spar, aka barium sulfate, when roasted produces barium peroxide. Barium peroxide and the caustic in your smelt will turn your finely divided gold into a yellow glass. If it happens to you, don't despair. Adding iron nails to the smelt on the latter side of the process, will drop the gold.
If you want to keep up this debate, send me an e-mail.
Dr. Poe (PhD Geochemical Research) :|


----------



## freechemist (Dec 11, 2011)

Dear Dr. Poe,

Thanks for your very informative reply on my post. Principally, on the base of what has been said until now, I am not interested to continue our discourse. But I have one simple question to ask you, and I prefer to do it here, in the forum, instead of sending you an e-mail.
Why, in your reply do you not loose one single word about the facts I mentioned in my post, but focus now on my person and the person(s) of my teacher(s), wanting to send all of us back to school again?

freechemist


----------



## Dr. Poe (Dec 11, 2011)

98% sulfuric acid didn't exist many decades ago. Only 66% sulfuric acid could be made. If a professor teaches what he has learned that 66% H2SO4 is considered concentrated, then He and his text books should be revised. I have old text books where the opinion was that only aqua regia can dissolve gold. If not for their antiquity, I would throw them out.
If you are going to continually contradict me on this forum, be prepared to be rebuked. I worked for years finding out why other refiners failed to extract their precious metals. I recovered their metals lost in slag, sols, and complexed solutions for them. Re-educating them to avoid future pitfalls was part of my job. There were hundreds of refiners that did not understand why their gold, etc. redissolved into the solutions or slags. This was because the general education of their time didn't cover these unusual facts. When I informed them, I always was greeted with skepticism, shock and disbelief.
When Magellan or Columbus was critiqued by their peers (Map makers) , the map makers declared them insane, stupid and ridiculous. Map makers with forty years of experience would swear that the world was flat! After all, How could they make the same mistake for forty years or more? Even now, there are some stubborn people that declare a flat world. These things that I post are real and true. I don't mind answering in greater detail or with proofs from other researchers. I do mind someone directly contradicting my statements unless like with the "shotting issue", they are right. Try rephrasing like "how can this be true, I thought or I was taught differently. No one likes being called or inferred as a lier. The second best school of gold mining and refining of all time is the Colorado School of Mining in Golden, Colorado. The best School, Trans-ore Research, no longer exists. Almost everyone has died or is very, very old. 
Be grateful that those like me are willing to teach for free here on the Forum.
My goal is to serve God, by helping others to prosper and not get killed in the process.
I am Doctor Poe! :mrgreen:


----------



## qst42know (Dec 11, 2011)

> 98% sulfuric acid didn't exist many decades ago. Only 66% sulfuric acid could be made.



Dr. Poe

I'll be blunt. I find this statement quite frankly ridiculous.

Not being a chemist myself I did a quick google search and found several references to the use of sulfuric acid at a specific gravity of 1.84-1.85. 

This is highly concentrated isn't it. Well In excess of 66%.

The oldest text from a quick search was from 1831. 

It may not have been available to you but it certianly exhisted.


----------



## Dr. Poe (Dec 12, 2011)

98% sulfuric acid:
A variation of the potassium/sodium sulfate promoted vanadium catalyst, developed in the late
1940’s and early 1950’s, substituted some cesium sulfate for a portion of the potassium sulfate
in the vanadium catalyst. The resulting mixed salts melted at a lower temperature reducing the
ignition temperature of the vanadium catalyst by about 100 F. There was little use of the low
ignition catalyst (also called “cesium” catalyst) until the 1970’s when a South African company
offered low ignition catalyst, marketed in North America by Canada Colors. There were a few
installations, mostly as a topping layer for the first bed in metallurgical and regeneration type
plants. In the late 1980’s, Topsoe introduced its low ignition catalyst, and its use has increased
over the last 25 years for topping layers in first catalyst beds with very low or high SO2 gas
concentrations, and for entire 4th and 5th catalyst beds for increased conversion to meet more
stringent SO2 emission regulations. Both Topsoe and Monsanto currently market low ignition
ring catalyst.
Converter design has been improved with more stages and better temperature control.
Conversion efficiency has improved from 90%-95% to 98% for single absorption plants, and
to more than 99.7% by the reintroduction of the double absorption process, (that first appeared
in 1899). Stack gas SO2 emissions are also reduced by tail gas scrubbing of SO2 with sodium
of ammonium salts, and recycle of the recovered SO2 to the acid plant.
Small samples existed, but it wasn't readily commercially available until almost 1988.
"Take note of the dates." Dr. Poe :mrgreen:


----------



## qst42know (Dec 12, 2011)

Clipped from the wiki "contact process" 



> The contact process is the current method of producing sulphuric acid in the high concentrations needed for industrial processes. Platinum was formerly employed as a catalyst for the reaction, but as it is susceptible to poisoning by arsenic impurities in the sulfur feedstock, vanadium(V) oxide (V2O5) is now preferred.[1]
> 
> This process was patented in 1831[citation needed] by the British vinegar merchant Peregrine Phillips.[2] In addition to being a far more economical process for producing concentrated sulfuric acid than the previous lead chamber process, the contact process also produces sulfur trioxide and oleum.



These processes existed long before they were employed as pollution controls in smoke stacks. [Note the patent date].

As a by-product of pollution controls it certainly made it more plentiful, inexpensive, and available. It's availability to you doesn't mean it didn't exist.

A more thorough history of sulfuric production can be found in the wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfuric_acid


----------



## Dr. Poe (Dec 12, 2011)

You are right, I concede. I shouldn't have said "didn't exist" . It's like aluminum, existed for some time, but wasn't available to average people until the modern times. Never-the-less, lower percentage sulfuric acid was called "concentrated" and wouldn't attack gold without an additive.
Dr. Poe :|


----------



## butcher (Dec 13, 2011)

Many times in modern books you will see 68% nitric acid referred to as concentrated nitric acid. And in other sources they refer to fuming nitric as concentrated acid, neither book or author is wrong, this term is just used to refer to the subject they are discussing.

I think as long as man has been burning sulfur (or sulfide rock) and bubbling the gases into water they have probably have made oleum and diluted it to concentrated sulfuric acid. a much easier process than making aluminum (before electrolytic refining).


Many theory’s even the ones we use today are very similar to the old time belief that the world is flat, back then the world was flat no doubt about that. This theory was no more wrong in its day, than is our modern theories are today in chemistry, science, physics, electronics, and so on. The world is flat until this theory is proven different, and then we adjust our theory.

We need to keep our facts, and theories as accurate as possible, and as understandable as possible, so we all can get a better understanding and work together, keeping safety in mind, we all have different experiences, have learned different things, and through sharing can help each other, or bicker over minute details, what we share we will always not know all the details and may or may not understand all of the details, we should be willing to say we don't when we don't, we should also use terms like: "I believe this", "I have read this", "I have seen this", or this is the fact until I am proven wrong, I see the world is flat show me why you think it is round, and be ready to back up facts, just look out over the ocean see you will fall off if you go to far, just like the sun falls off the end of the world every evening, and I need to give up my pride when someone wishes to challenge's me on my belief the world is flat. So until I see for myself or you convince me with proof my world is still flat, and friend I would like for you to teach me better if I am wrong, or I will teach you your wrong in this matter (this does not make either of us less intelligent, as maybe you just have had a different experience than I have, (been to the moon and seen it for your self) and your world is round, but my THEORY is it is flat until I see or learn different.

Basically lets try to keep our facts as accurate as possible, say when we believe or know, when we read or seen, and try to help all of our friends here on the forum, so we improve all of our education and all of us adjust our theories as needed.

Lets stop this game of tit for tat that leads nowhere and helps no one.


----------



## maynman1751 (Dec 13, 2011)

butcher said:


> .
> Lets stop this game of tit for tat that leads nowhere and helps no one.



Well said ! Too many egos involved here. Just my opinion. :roll:


----------



## philddreamer (Dec 13, 2011)

Well said INDEED!!!

Phil


----------



## Dr. Poe (Dec 14, 2011)

My apologies, Butcher. I obviously was being overly defensive. I intend to ignore intentional attacks on my competency in the future. If someone wants to debate with me, let him invite me to the debate section of this forum. :!: 
A little bit of trivia: Sulfuric acid was originally called "Oil of Vitriol" because it was distilled from vitriol, a moss that grows on pyritical deposits. 8)


----------



## butcher (Dec 14, 2011)

Dr. Poe

I think many times your just missunderstood, in what your saying.
You are an asset to help us.
and all of us are subjects (or slaves of) our pride, the fall of man, it makes you a big man to see it.
keep up the good work, but try and make it more simple for us to understand.


----------



## philddreamer (Dec 14, 2011)

I agree Butcher.

Dr. Poe, here's an example:
"Re: nitric turned a dark rust color
I remember having this problem myself when I was a newbie (32 years ago). In that respect, I'd like to take a shot at this: Try first more 50/50 nitric acid/distilled water. Heat it to 68C for an hour. Let it cool and settle to room temperature. Carefully decant the solution and save it for silver recovery. Repeat this process with concentrated nitric acid. Save the solution for possible palladium. To what's left, heat with aqua regia. Process this AR solution for gold and the platinum group metals (PGM's). The next time, start with a sulfuric stripping cell instead. You should know that copper consumes twice the nitric acid as the first molecule oxidizes the copper (releasing NO gases) and the second dissolves the copper oxide forming copper nitrate. It's just less profitable to start with nitric. The stripping cell will reduce the mass to a smaller volume. Then You might actually make a profit. Dr. Poe"

Now, you explained it so even I understood! 
I have no chemistry back ground, but yet, I learned to recover & refine gold & silver thru this great forum. I'm greatful to ALL the experts that have taken, from the precious time, to share their knowledge & expertice with great patient; Butcher in particular, when I started, guided me & explained the "WHY" of the processes & so on.

So, I agree, the debates should be in the "Debates & Discussions", & done in a peaceful & friendly manner...

Let's continue, patiently, teaching & helping each other.

Kindly, 
Phil


----------



## g_axelsson (Sep 14, 2013)

Beware of the teachings of Dr Poe!

In my quest of reading every post on the forum I came down to this post where Dr Poe made a big fool out of him self.



Dr. Poe said:


> 98% sulfuric acid didn't exist many decades ago. Only 66% sulfuric acid could be made....
> 
> I am Doctor Poe! :mrgreen:


My oldest bottle of sulphuric acid 98% was bought around 1984, I still have a teeny bit of it left. I bought it from a paint store. I'm quite sure that the alchemists of the 16'th century that made sulfuric acid in iron retorts from iron sulphate also knew that they could make concentrated (98%) sulfuric acid by boiling weaker acid. If the acid produced would have been as weak as 65% the iron retorts used would have been dissolved by the acid.


Dr. Poe said:


> Conversion efficiency has improved from 90%-95% to 98% for single absorption plants, and to more than 99.7% by the reintroduction of the double absorption process, (that first appeared in 1899). Stack gas SO2 emissions are also reduced by tail gas scrubbing of SO2 with sodium of ammonium salts, and recycle of the recovered SO2 to the acid plant.
> Small samples existed, but it wasn't readily commercially available until almost 1988.
> "Take note of the dates." Dr. Poe :mrgreen:


This is unbeliavable, to not see the difference in conversion efficiency of an SO2 scrubber system and in acid concentration of the acid produced is beyond incompetence. Apparently google had a bad day and let Poe astray.


Dr. Poe said:


> A little bit of trivia: Sulfuric acid was originally called "Oil of Vitriol" because it was distilled from vitriol, a moss that grows on pyritical deposits. 8)


Vitriol isn't a moss, it is green iron sulphate that was roasted in an iron retort!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitriol#History

If nothing else would have convinced me that the so called Dr Poe is a quack, this would have.

I suggest that if possible an addition is made in Dr Poe's profile, adding a disclaimer and a warning to his signature that not all that he has written stands up to scrutiny. He has almost 300 posts on the forum and many are treated as respectable from a lot of our members. This could give a false impression that he knew what he was talking about. I'm suspecting that it was a lot of googleing and not a lot of experience behind his writing.

... only two more months to read through with threads contaminated by Dr Poe ... :twisted: 

Göran


----------



## Geo (Sep 14, 2013)

no need to worry about the good doctor. he was banned quite awhile back. he was a mystery to many here and a headache to others. he was very condescending and talked down to almost everyone he replied to. he had a few followers here on the forum that soon followed him out the door trying to defend his absurd theories. dont get me wrong, Dr.Poe was an intelligent man for sure and taught many here about colloids among other things but he was harsh and abrasive. he was not a good fit for the forum. as a matter of fact, it is recommended that no one cite Dr. Poe's information here unless it is about colloids because everything else is considered mis-information.


----------



## g_axelsson (Sep 14, 2013)

I wouldn't call him good and I'm quite sure that he never doctored in any subject except trolling either. :twisted: 

I know he was finally banned and that was a good day, but with almost 300 posts many of his statements have gone without proper scrutiny and new members don't know the history of the forum so well.

Time after time I run into his post and I don't feel to drag up old threads to refute something said in page 2 of five that didn't concerned the topic anyhow. But these small pieces of misinformation spread all around the forum aught to be marked with a warning at least.

Just as an example, while discussing copper electrolyte in the beginning of this thread he said


Dr. Poe said:


> The copper sulfate can be either cuprous or cupric, it doesn't matter.


I got curious as I thought there were only one copper sulphate used for the electrolyte. It turns out that there are the normal copper(II) sulphate, cupric sulphate = CuSO4, and copper(I) sulphate, cuprous sulphate = Cu2SO4. So far so god, but if you add Cu2SO4 to water it instantly transform into CuSO4 + Cu and releases heat. It would not only make the electrolyte cloudy from the metallic copper, it might also produce a boil over from the heat released.
Now the probability that anyone would find any Cu2SO4 to make electrolyte is small but it adds complexity to a process that doesn't need it. The only reason I can find for adding something like that is to sound smarter than he is. He surely didn't speak from experience as this example shows.

I still think a disclaimer in his signature would be good.

Göran


----------



## Harold_V (Sep 15, 2013)

g_axelsson said:


> I still think a disclaimer in his signature would be good.
> 
> Göran


Unless our leader, Noxx, decides to grant a moderator (or more) administrative permissions, that can't happen unless he chooses to make the addition. Moderators do not have the permissions to access the software in order to make such an adjustment. 

Good idea, though. Poe was nothing short of a fraud---and provided one hell of a lot of misinformation. Anyone reading his posts should be so advised. By adding such a comment to his sig line would serve perfectly well. 

Harold


----------

