# What would you suggest..



## yonderfishin (Jun 1, 2012)

What would you suggest as an additive to try and loosen a melt to a more liquid state , when melting pyrite chunks in a crucible with flux ? The blob of molten slag formed when melting that stuff is pretty thick and I was just wondering what might be a good way to loosen it up some. If my earlier experiment melting it on a charcoal briquette is an accurate indication , then I should have some decent gold content in the pyrite , I just want to have the best chance possible of it coming together and seperating from the host slag. Is there an additive to the flux that can help with this ?

And a related question if you dont mind , should I crush the pyrite before the melt or leave it as is to any gold present stays more intact so it can collect better ?


----------



## MMFJ (Jun 1, 2012)

yonderfishin said:


> What would you suggest as an additive to try and loosen a melt to a more liquid state , when melting pyrite chunks in a crucible with flux ? The blob of molten slag formed when melting that stuff is pretty thick and I was just wondering what might be a good way to loosen it up some. If my earlier experiment melting it on a charcoal briquette is an accurate indication , then I should have some decent gold content in the pyrite , I just want to have the best chance possible of it coming together and seperating from the host slag. Is there an additive to the flux that can help with this ?
> 
> And a related question if you dont mind , should I crush the pyrite before the melt or leave it as is to any gold present stays more intact so it can collect better ?


Congratulations on being a member here for awhile before asking such a question.

However, it is pretty clear that you have not spent much time READING the forum. If you had, you would know that the process you are using is not only not recommended, it is NOT the way to get gold.......

(OK, we can start that broken record again........) Read Hoke, Read Hoke, Read Hoke!

"Melting" things will get you just that - a MELTED mess-o-stuff. To get GOLD, you must first REFINE it. Then, it can be melted, which can then be formed into various shapes, depending on how much you have.

Need more info to get started refining in the right way? Read Hoke, Read Hoke, Read Hoke!

Of course, you can also read a lot on this forum about the steps, though a vast majority of threads will tell you (yes, you guessed it....) Read Hoke, Read Hoke, Read Hoke!


----------



## yonderfishin (Jun 1, 2012)

MMFJ said:


> yonderfishin said:
> 
> 
> > What would you suggest as an additive to try and loosen a melt to a more liquid state , when melting pyrite chunks in a crucible with flux ? The blob of molten slag formed when melting that stuff is pretty thick and I was just wondering what might be a good way to loosen it up some. If my earlier experiment melting it on a charcoal briquette is an accurate indication , then I should have some decent gold content in the pyrite , I just want to have the best chance possible of it coming together and seperating from the host slag. Is there an additive to the flux that can help with this ?
> ...





Ive been reading hoke , however , if what Im speciffically asking about is actually covered then I was to dull to grasp what was said LOL. It has more to do with actually refining it than extracting it from rough ore. I have access to a LOT of this pyrite , enough to probably keep me busy for a lifetime , and Ive already tried melting a small amount of it with a torch and found visible gold in the slag. Aside from melting , and concentrating that way , my only other option is some sort of leeching or acid which may actually be more efficient , and though I want to try that eventually I am not set up for that as a hobby gold prospector. What I am attempting is not so different from assaying , it is smelting gold from sulfides , which if my original melt meant anything there is a pretty high gold content. If I could do it with chemicals right now I would. How is this so different from smelting gold from any other source ? Ive also been reading this forum extensively , as well as others. I think you may have had the wrong idea , Im not just blindly melting any old thing down willy nilly to look for gold , research has led me to where I am at. But thanks for the insight and information.


"Melting" things will get you just that - a MELTED mess-o-stuff. To get GOLD, you must first REFINE it. Then, it can be melted, which can then be formed into various shapes, depending on how much you have. "


You can only refine gold after you get it , first comes the process of digging it out of whatever ground or host material its trapped in. :lol:


----------



## martyn111 (Jun 1, 2012)

As Harold would ask, what does the assay indicate?
With an assay result you don't just get the gold content of the material, you also have a list of other metals and chemicals within the sample material. From this list you can form a plan of action as to which of the contaminants to deal with first, work through the list eliminating each contaminant as you go until you have removed enough to make chemical refining a possibility.


----------



## MMFJ (Jun 1, 2012)

yonderfishin said:


> You can only refine gold after you get it , first comes the process of digging it out of whatever ground or host material its trapped in. :lol:


Yes, and then comes the process of REFINING it, which first means you have to know what you are dealing with (the assay part, which you have somewhat 1/2 done, but with no report nor intent of one, you are just MELTING-o-mess!), then processing it properly to get to the gold.......

In reading your reply, it seems clear to me that I really don't have a terribly wrong idea of where you are - still several steps (and lots of learning and listening) away from having anything close to 'clean' gold.


----------



## yonderfishin (Jun 1, 2012)

martyn111 said:


> As Harold would ask, what does the assay indicate?
> With an assay result you don't just get the gold content of the material, you also have a list of other metals and chemicals within the sample material. From this list you can form a plan of action as to which of the contaminants to deal with first, work through the list eliminating each contaminant as you go until you have removed enough to make chemical refining a possibility.




I agree a real assay would be the best first step , but I am just a hobby gold prospector on a tight budget so I havent gone that route yet. What I have done is melt 7 BB size pieces of this material in a charcoal briquette with a torch and out of so little material I actually found visible gold in the slag , bigger than the flakes that I find in my creek. Seems to me , without getting an official assay done , the next logical step is to melt a larger sample to determine if more of it equals more gold or if I just got lucky on the first try. Just going on that first melt , if the composition of the rest of this pyrite is all similar then it "could" actually be worth my time. All I am asking is if there is a way improve the viscosity of the melt other than just adding extra flux. I will try and add a pic of some of the pyrite , some of it is coated with iron and some of its not , under the coating is all the same stuff , and heavy , clogging my sluice box up and found in the bottom of the gold pan.......as well as a pic of the slag containing the gold. Just as a point of reference.


----------



## yonderfishin (Jun 1, 2012)

MMFJ said:


> yonderfishin said:
> 
> 
> > You can only refine gold after you get it , first comes the process of digging it out of whatever ground or host material its trapped in. :lol:
> ...




Exactly , once I have the gold then I will further refine it to get the clean gold , but first I must liberate it :lol: 

I dont disagree with you , Im just saying that I have already produced gold with a melt so I know it can be done. Without the abulity to use acids or chemicals right now which may be more efficient in the long run , I am left with smelting , and smelting sulfides is a common practice. Even though I dont know every component of this sulfide I do already know I can smelt a very small sample and see visible gold , which tells me its worth melting a larger sample , even without an assay. But if anybody knows something to improve the viscosity of the melt it would help.


----------



## martyn111 (Jun 1, 2012)

yonderfishin said:


> But if anybody knows something to improve the viscosity of the melt it would help.



Without knowing rather than guessing what is in the sulphide compound then it is almost impossible to know rather than guess what you need in your flux to improve it.


----------



## yonderfishin (Jun 2, 2012)

martyn111 said:


> yonderfishin said:
> 
> 
> > But if anybody knows something to improve the viscosity of the melt it would help.
> ...




Fair enough. I didnt think of it that way. Im thinking in general terms though , not as specific , wondering if there is any tricks to accomplish the imporvement in viscosity "generally". Im thinking the worst that could happen is I ruin a chunk of slag by trying , in which case all I have to do is grind it up and try it over. If there really is not a "general purpose" answer for what Im asking then thats fine , thanks for the help guys.


----------



## MMFJ (Jun 2, 2012)

yonderfishin said:


> If there really is not a "general purpose" answer for what Im asking then thats fine



Then, it seems this thread is done, and you did learn something (which is great!)

Trying to ask such 'general' questions makes me think of someone asking "Where is gold found in electronics _generally_?

The only answer I can give them is "In EVERY piece of electronics ever made!" - however, there are many, many pieces that are at/near a total waste of time going after it (which is really what they wanted to know).

There is a lot in just how you phrase the question and make sure you DON'T make it too 'general'!


----------



## ericrm (Jun 2, 2012)

MMFJ said:


> The only answer I can give them is "In EVERY piece of electronics ever made!" - however, there are many, many pieces that are at/near a total waste of time going after it (which is really what they wanted to know).



just to add a comment, this is totaly wrong
you have gold in pins.finger,flat pack(including all kind of chip),cpu... done... dont make light comment like the one you made that will make newbie think there is gold everywhere


----------



## butcher (Jun 2, 2012)

yonderfishin,

I feel smelting the ore as a recovery method could get very expensive fast especially with the cost of fuel, you can get books on assaying your ore, smelting for values would be very similar to the assay on a larger scale. Also mining is something that can get you chasing your tail real quick if you’re not careful, so testing is important so you’re not just chasing after something that is not there or that would cost you much more money than you would gain in value.

Action mining sells some fire assay manuals and books and also the chemicals for flux that you may not find in your local grocery store, Legend mining in Nevada (?)(I think is there name) they also seem to have the same type of material, I think there is another in Arizona (cannot think of there name).

You can build your own furnaces, 

But fuel (well that we may just have to drill a new well for,as the source where I get mine, they want my whole wallet and still will not fill the tank).


----------



## MMFJ (Jun 3, 2012)

ericrm said:


> MMFJ said:
> 
> 
> > The only answer I can give them is "In EVERY piece of electronics ever made!" - however, there are many, many pieces that are at/near a total waste of time going after it (which is really what they wanted to know).
> ...


While I agree about being careful of comments for newbie eyes, I also believe that taking things out of context (and certainly where it is surrounded by "this is not what is meant") is a bit unfair. The entire point is missed - somewhat like taking a line, directly out of 'Hoke', where it is clearly stated


> we begin to question seriously the economics of refining


" (page 9, last paragraph, second part of first sentence) and trying to make that, alone, a statement of fact!

Of course, we could just simply change the question that my comment was answering (which, you didn't include...) and make it "Is there any value *at all* in old, unwanted, end-of-life electronics?", to which my answer, then, is absolutely correct (although the values may be small, someone, somewhere is looking to recover something that is in every piece of electronics, if nothing more than scrap metal).

I do understand and appreciate the pointing out, though, and will endeavor to minimize the 'flare' of such statements, even when it is to make a point (and surrounded/supported by directional statements). The last thing I want to do is to provide misinformation - there's plenty of that out there on the web (and very little survives here for long!)


----------



## Harold_V (Jun 3, 2012)

yonderfishin said:


> What would you suggest as an additive to try and loosen a melt to a more liquid state , when melting pyrite chunks in a crucible with flux ? The blob of molten slag formed when melting that stuff is pretty thick and I was just wondering what might be a good way to loosen it up some. If my earlier experiment melting it on a charcoal briquette is an accurate indication , then I should have some decent gold content in the pyrite , I just want to have the best chance possible of it coming together and seperating from the host slag. Is there an additive to the flux that can help with this ?
> 
> And a related question if you dont mind , should I crush the pyrite before the melt or leave it as is to any gold present stays more intact so it can collect better ?


I don't think you're using good sense here. I see no discussion about an assay, and I expect that if there's gold present, it's nowhere near high enough to justify you melting the ore, which shouldn't be melted at the outset. In order to extract potential values without issues, you'd be far better served to roast the ore, eliminating the sulfur.

That being said, how are you liberating the values from the matte? Are you including some scrap steel in the charge? That should combine with the sulfur, leaving behind any values. 

Your slag is too viscous? 
Are you familiar with fluorspar? It thins slag quite well, even as thin as water if you so desire. Problem is, it's aggressive as hell and will destroy your crucible and furnace quickly. 

Assuming you're hell bent on pursuing this venture as you've described, do you have a cone mold? You're not going to enjoy trying to find any bits of material that you may recover without one. 

My advice to you is to pay for an assay, to determine what you should expect from the ore in question. Otherwise you can spend a great deal of time and money chasing your tail. I fully expect that what you think was gold in the slag was not---it most likely was copper matte. Could be wrong. 

Harold


----------



## geonorts (Jun 3, 2012)

Is a reliable assay hard to get over there, you see so many people on this website trying to recover gold that just isn't there, in Australia it's easy there are quite a few different reputable labs that can do a simple fire assay down to 0.1 ppm and I usually get 5 samples for under $200 has saved me a few times from running material and trying to treat grade that just wasn't good enough


----------



## yonderfishin (Jun 3, 2012)

Harold_V said:


> yonderfishin said:
> 
> 
> > What would you suggest as an additive to try and loosen a melt to a more liquid state , when melting pyrite chunks in a crucible with flux ? The blob of molten slag formed when melting that stuff is pretty thick and I was just wondering what might be a good way to loosen it up some. If my earlier experiment melting it on a charcoal briquette is an accurate indication , then I should have some decent gold content in the pyrite , I just want to have the best chance possible of it coming together and seperating from the host slag. Is there an additive to the flux that can help with this ?
> ...




I have a charcoal furnace which should work fine for what I need. The pyrite itself is very heavy for its size , comparable to lead , some of it looks just like gold nuggets only more cubic and brittle , and its coming out of some glacial till containing a fairly high amount of actual glacial gold ( by Ohio standards ) , so if it turned out to be copper I would be surprised , the evidence is all there for almost Carlin type gold bearing pyrite.....but thats why Im pursuing it , however "homebrew" my methods are. I can only justify spending a few dollars to do ANY of this , unless I verify as cheaply as possible that my suspicions are correct , then even though it may seem like getting the cart before the horse , if verified then I can justify the expense of a true assay. But I am starting to lean toward grinding , roasting , and removing the iron with a magnet or hydrochloric acid before trying to "melt" whats left. I respect everybodys opinion here , especially since you are experienced , but I am just a guy tinkering in his garage a couple times a week when I have a few extra dollars to spend and its an awesome science experiment to me , I dont have a lab or equipment or much money to spend on it , or a wife who is very happy when I say I have to buy yet another thing for my newfound hobby. This is why I was looking for a general answer , if it dont work I aint out much and I still had fun doing it , if it worked then a shot in the dark paid off and I am farther ahead since I spent less , either way the ultimate goal of learning and having fun with it was achieved.

But as always , thanks for the help guys. Part of learning is dealing with answers you dont particularly like.


----------



## butcher (Jun 3, 2012)

yonderfishin,
this is my opinion (and I am stuck with it).
I think you would find the cost of an assay is much cheaper than what your spending now tinkering and still not knowing, and think of the time you could spend on this and material, you could be putting to good use.

The less money you have to waste the more important the assay would be, without it you are wasting money, working with a hope and a prayer your digging in the right spot, wouldn’t you want to know for sure what your chasing, a dream or a failure?

Then You would know to keep focusing on this material or to move onto something more fun and profitable to work with, in my mind it is cheaper to go to a movie theater and buy tickets to watch the movie, than it is to build your own movie theater, and still have to buy the movie to watch, it could take years to get the theater built, and ever get to see that movie.

If you do not want to give a professional a few dollars for an assay study how to do them and try your own,
it may not come out as accurate but at least this way you have some kind of idea to go by.

At least try the (stannous chloride test for sulfide ore), to see if any gold at all is involved using ammonium nitrate and ammonium chloride fusion.


----------



## solarsmith (Jun 3, 2012)

If your going to grind then by all means do a froth float to concentrate befor you roast . dont forget to get a starting assay and an assey at each step of the way so you will be able to tell if the process your using is realy the best one for you, You say you have a pyuritic (sulpide) ore. this is good news because floatation works very well with recovery of pms . I have seen many 90% and higher recovery rates with this method even a few clames of 100% recovery! Once you get your assey grade up to 20 oz per ton a direct smelt with a good flux may give you the results you want. Harold has given you some very good advice. good luck Bryan In denver colorado.


----------



## yonderfishin (Jun 4, 2012)

Just for kicks today I did another experimental melt with a torch inside a piece of leftover refractory cement , this time I added equal parts borax and washing soda and I had around 15 small pieces of the pyrite. I ran out of propane and wasnt able to keep it as hot as I wanted for as long as I wanted but everything was liquified and burnt black. I let the slag cool , crushed it to powder with a hammer and then panned it. Again , Gold :lol: Abunch of super tiny , super thin flakes mostly except for a few , a lot of that may have to do with me smashing it all with a hammer. Its all heavy though and the other garbage washes away from it well , however due to a slight lighter color than the free gold flakes I find in the creek its probably safe to say this is probably alloyed with some other metal. I will have to look into an assay , but for now this is looking like melting is not the worst thing.


----------



## newman (Jun 4, 2012)

How much material did this come from?


----------



## Ocean (Jun 4, 2012)

Could be wrong, but doesn't look like gold.

Have you done the assay yet?


----------



## yonderfishin (Jun 5, 2012)

newman said:


> How much material did this come from?





Around a teaspoonful of bb size and smaller pieces.


----------



## yonderfishin (Jun 5, 2012)

Ocean said:


> Could be wrong, but doesn't look like gold.
> 
> Have you done the assay yet?





Like I said , much of it is a lighter color than the freeform gold flakes I find , but it has the weight and pliability , color and luster. Having melted it down in the presence of other metals its not surprising for it to be conglomeration of a few different metals. Some of the smallest flakes have that buttery yellow color but other ones especially the largest pieces only have a hue of yellow but more silvery. I will just melt stuff like this into a button untill I have the ability to do some actual refining. At this point , I still may never benefit financially from doing this , I will be lucky if I can recover what I spend so while I want to get a true assay done right now its just me a gold pan and a torch and the curiosity to see where it leads. I will be ordering crucibles and a melting dish this week so I can start to climb my way out of the stone age a little bit :lol:


----------



## patnor1011 (Jun 5, 2012)

I am sorry but whatever you already spent on torch, gas, melting dish and crucibles would easily pay for assay. You may be chasing cents while losing dollars.


----------



## Harold_V (Jun 6, 2012)

yonderfishin said:


> But as always , thanks for the help guys. Part of learning is dealing with answers you dont particularly like.


It's all a part of getting an education. You're getting one from the school of hard knocks. You'll come to understand that as you progress. 
I dealt with prospectors (on a limited basis) for years. I know all too well how they will not have their dream taken from them. Instead of trusting information that is useful, and, most often, correct, they seek support from those who share their dreams. Do remember that ten people believing something that is not true will not make it true. You have gold, or you do not. It's that simple. 

I am in hopes that I am wrong, but the odds are highly against it. You may not have ANY gold present. I say that because compounds of copper _can_ have the same appearance as pyrite, and will yield copper matte when melted. The colors you describe fit that to a T. 

There's no guarantee that you do have gold, no more than there's a guarantee that you don't have. That's the reason I suggested an assay, so you'd know if you should continue the course, or not. In my mind, you're far better off to spend a small price to determine if you are chasing your tail, or not, which would then be useful to you in helping you understand how much gold you should expect from a pound of ore, assuming there's any there to extract. As it stands, you're going to spend a hell of a lot more than the cost of an assay, all in the name of exploration and fun. The bad part is, you could be dedicating your time to something that was truly productive. 

I told the story once before, but suffice it to say that a neighbor of mine spent three months pursuing a venture based on what he wanted to believe, not on what was factual. In that three month interval, his father-in-law died on the location because of a heart attack, and being too remote to get badly needed help. They had the assistance of a third party in their daily work. Bottom line----they labored (hard) for three months, one guy died, and it was all for less than six ounces of gold. Seems to me that's pretty poor pay for the effort, in particular that it cost one guy his life. It all could have been avoided by paying for a couple assays. 

Nuff said! 

You will learn. How you learn (and how expensive it may get) depends on the decisions you make. 

Harold


----------



## MMFJ (Jun 6, 2012)

Harold_V said:


> You will learn. How you learn (and how expensive it may get) depends on the decisions you make.
> 
> Harold



I'm putting this one in my 'keepers' list!


----------



## yonderfishin (Jun 6, 2012)

Harold_V said:


> yonderfishin said:
> 
> 
> > But as always , thanks for the help guys. Part of learning is dealing with answers you dont particularly like.
> ...




I respect your opinion and I am glad you are willing to give it. However we have a different perspective in this instance. I have not and will not spend any more on this venture than I normally would with all the fishing I normally do and since I have temporarily put away the fishing poles I can justify the little I do spend as recreation. The pyrite is a byproduct of the gold panning I do , finding the small gold flakes common in just about every glacial moraine in the state. Its literally in the bottom of the gold pan with the gold and in abundance , so rather than throw it out like I used to , why not do something with it ? If nothing else , its fun to experiment with. And knowing what we do about sulfides and pyrites , there is no reason at all to doubt the presence of gold , in fact since this glacial till has a fair amount of gold flakes spread throughout its likely that much of this till came from a gold rich area making it even more likely that the pyrite originally formed in the presence of gold. While I admit that what I find in the pyrite has other metals mixed with it , the presence of gold is likely so I have no reason to doubt it.

I also understand your points , you would be going at this entirely different. You would have more to gain if you were right and more to lose if you were wrong. You probably have more resources at your disposal. You wouldnt be looking at it as just "fun". And your time would be better served going after something more promising. You are not wrong , its just a different perspective.

Heck , I spend a lot of time panning for gold in Ohio ( definately not one of the better places ), I already know Im probably not gonna find enough gold to even pay my expenses in the long run. Eventually I will get an assay on either the raw material or the metal extracted from it and let you know how it turns out. In the meantime , theres still some tinkering I can do with the process and improvements I can make. If I later find that I was chasing my tail in futility , atleast I had good cheap fun while doing it :lol:


----------



## yonderfishin (Jun 6, 2012)

patnor1011 said:


> I am sorry but whatever you already spent on torch, gas, melting dish and crucibles would easily pay for assay. You may be chasing cents while losing dollars.




I already had the torch gas sitting around for years not being used. I can get a melting dish and/or crucibles for less than $30. As far as I know , any WORTHWHILE assay will cost much more than that. :lol: 

I am not really into this for profit necessarily , I just dont want to be throwing pyrite back in the creek if there are PM's in it. Its an enjoyable leisure time hobby that I can justify as long as I only have to spend a few dollars every now and then on.


----------



## butcher (Jun 8, 2012)

To try an assay with a torch can somewhat give you an idea if there are values in the pyrite, it would be much better to use a furnace, the torch is very hard to get your melt hot enough and keep it hot enough for the length of time needed, for the tiny amount of values in the melt to come together, the flux is hard on the torch and tools, the torch can tend to burn up the crucible faster than the furnace will, also these toxic fumes your exposed to during the melt, can seriously effect your heath, also if your not already familiar with how to perform assay's it will take a lot of homework to be successful, it can be done but it is not as easy as it sounds, another option is to do your own wet assay, but again you will need a lot of study to learn to convert your sulfide ore before dissolving and precipitating the values.

I agree You may be chasing cents while losing dollars, as patnor1011, so well stated, which is something very easy to do if your not careful.

An assay may cost 25dollars or more, but just the fuel from torch and other material could cost you much more. 

You can try the (stannous chloride field test for sulfide ore), to see if any gold at all is involved using ammonium nitrate and ammonium chloride fusion.


----------



## Dr. Poe (Jun 10, 2012)

The book that you need to read is "DE RE METALLICA"


----------



## qst42know (Jun 10, 2012)

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/38015

This is a bit easier to read.

http://archive.org/details/amanualfireassa01fultgoog


----------



## goldsilverpro (Jun 10, 2012)

For many years, I owned a copy of De Re Metallica. It was published by Dover Publications. I read it several times. Historically, it's an interesting book, but I never found it that valuable, at all, in practical matters. I certainly wouldn't buy another copy. For fire assaying, the free Fulton book linked above by qst42know is far better. I own a lot of assay books and, in my opinion, the best are the 1st two in this list. Cheap, too.

http://www.lmine.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=LMS&Category_Code=assaying


----------



## trashmaster (Jun 10, 2012)

I would suggest that you look for post from Richard36 He is a highly respected member in his field..

He does assys for members very cheap and does a good job at it ,he will also help in your next step.


----------



## yonderfishin (Jun 10, 2012)

Thanks for all the info. I have some more reading to do.


----------



## butcher (Jun 10, 2012)

Sounds like your on the right track now.


----------



## galenrog (Jun 15, 2012)

If you want to learn how to extract values from any ore, you are likely on the wrong forum. Get on the gold mining forums and ask the same questions. In my not so humble opinion, most pyrites are not worth messing with unless you are willing to use a lengthy multi-step process with smelting as the final step before refining. In any smelting situation, a proper assay will tell you more than anything else. The results will tell the experienced smelter what his flux formula should be (yes, Virginia, there are many formulas for smelting flux). After smelting, when you have a button of values (mix of AU, AG, PT, etc) then the refining process begins. Please read Hoke for refining. For smelting, contact the Mackay School of Mines in Reno. They can send you in the right direction. They even offer classes in what you may need to learn.


----------



## dtectr (Jun 17, 2012)

trashmaster said:


> I would suggest that you look for post from Richard36 He is a highly respected member in his field..
> 
> He does assys for members very cheap and does a good job at it ,he will also help in your next step.


or, you could do what trashmaster suggests, contact Richard36, via his "Rockman" thread. The terms that we who nibble at the edges of prospecting (yes, I mean ME) are really understood by Rick. He understands that there are MANY profitable results of prospecting, gold being just one (and believe it or not, not necessarily the most) profitable of those. 
Many of the pyrite/gold associations, at least in the desert SW in the US, were from secondary enrichments, or gold filling the casts of decomposed pyrite crystals in quartz or other host rock. a guy in the know can help guide you through your analysis.
The extra money? Try this - I'll use beer as an example. I like it, IPA to be exact. But, it costs $8/sixpack and I'm trying to save for an assay. If I can come up with $100 (I know I can, sense that's what the extra equipment I was considering would cost), I only need another $50-100 for a complete assay. (Maybe less - check Rick's site). So I get out my planner, and figure how long I can stand drinking cheap beer, esp. if I can save $10 or more per week by doing so.
I save the money, get the assay, and celebrate THE KNOWING with a fresh Boulevard Single Wide IPA. No more money than usual spent, and the knowledge to direct your blows wisely.
Just my dos centavos.
dtectr
P.S. We really do wish you success in this, 'cause we ALL love a good success story, esp. one that involves gold. We just want it to have a happy ending


----------



## prospect88 (Jun 17, 2012)

When I assay sulphides I use lots of borax to thin the slag, I have also used sodium hydroxide which works very well but too much will eat your crucible. I would drop it in a pellet at a time (NaOH) once it was already molten until I was happy with the results.

P88


----------

