# How do I proceed?



## zorba (Aug 13, 2011)

Hi there. So know i´m packed with knowledge and have given my first try on recovering and refining some Au. 

I started with soaking 5 CPU:s in some nitric (tech.) do dissolve the base metals. I left it for about 2 days, following the procedures pointed out in Hokes.
During the whole process I only saw the brown fumes, which were said to appear, 1 time (though it may have occurred other times, I left it between long intervals). That was just before the washing treatment (hot water on the gold, rinse) were i added some more nitric to assure that the baste metals were dissolved in the water. Through the time before that the nitric had worked on the CPU:s in a way that made the gold fall to the bottom and giving the solution a greenish color. So after filtering the solution into another beaker and rinsing the gold thoroughly, I dissolved the gold left in the beaker together with the CPU:s (to be sure that all the gold follows) in AR. The AR immediately worked on the gold, dissolving it, but the color changed to greenish indicating that there were base metals left (copper obviously). Stannous test showed that there were gold in the solution. 

The plan was to remove the base metals completely before recovering the gold, as it should be, but now I stand there with a solution containing gold but contaminated with those freakin base metals :x 

So I need your opinion guys, should I proceed with removing excess nitric and then precip with SMB or is there any other method which can purify my solution from the copper? As I have understood the gold will still drop with SMB nevertheless if the solution contains copper, as long as the nitric is out of the way.
Then I can rinse it several times in HCl as planned, or go back to nitric and attack the metals.
Please, enlighten me :idea:


----------



## jimdoc (Aug 13, 2011)

What CPUs were they?
Ceramic or Fiber P-3,P-4s?

Jim


----------



## zorba (Aug 13, 2011)

jimdoc said:


> What CPUs were they?
> Ceramic or Fiber P-3,P-4s?
> 
> Jim



Oh sry, forgot to mention.

Ceramic, pretty old. Can´t recall whether it was AMD or Intel


----------



## butcher (Aug 13, 2011)

I would try de-noxx and SMB, if not a lot of copper, the most of copper would stay in solution, this recovered gold can be refined, something to consider CPU have metals inside ceramic shell, these metals are hard for acids to reach unless CPU is powdered, these metals can cement some of the gold you dissolved into solution, and added base metals to your solution.

If SMB approach fails you can always recover gold using cementation on copper from solution.

Since you have had your nose in Hoke's book I do not have to remind you to use stannous to test your solution to see when it is barren of dissolved gold.

I powdered CPU's and leached them again to get that last little bit.

Some CPU’s have kovar pins, and heat sinks should also be removed.


----------



## zorba (Aug 14, 2011)

butcher said:


> I would try de-noxx and SMB, if not a lot of copper, the most of copper would stay in solution, this recovered gold can be refined, something to consider CPU have metals inside ceramic shell, these metals are hard for acids to reach unless CPU is powdered, these metals can cement some of the gold you dissolved into solution, and added base metals to your solution.
> 
> If SMB approach fails you can always recover gold using cementation on copper from solution.
> 
> ...



Thanks! I appreciate your answer. So I believe that I did not prepare the CPU:s correctly for the nitric to reach all the parts.
What do you mean with "powdered", how do you prepare them before removing the base metals?


----------



## patnor1011 (Aug 14, 2011)

He most likely meant that he crush them to small pieces.


----------



## butcher (Aug 14, 2011)

Yes I grind them to powder to leach them a second time, I have not worked with many CPU's for a while now, I do not run across many anymore.

breaking them to small pieces works good for first leach, as fine powders are a bit more of a challenge to leach.


----------



## zorba (Aug 16, 2011)

butcher said:


> Yes I grind them to powder to leach them a second time, I have not worked with many CPU's for a while now, I do not run across many anymore.
> 
> breaking them to small pieces works good for first leach,



I´ll try that! 



butcher said:


> as fine powders are a bit more of a challenge to leach.



I thought the nitric reached the metals easier in powdered form?


----------



## patnor1011 (Aug 16, 2011)

With fine powder there may be some issues with filtering. Most of people use vacuum set up it is much faster.


----------



## goldenchild (Aug 16, 2011)

Instead of crushing the cpus you are better off getting just the legs off. Samuel's technique is great for that.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hD6mE5-hPWM[/youtube]


----------



## rewalston (Aug 16, 2011)

Excellent video Goldenchild (and Samuel as well). Quick question will a mapp or propane torch work as well? Right now don't have the money for anything else. I assume (hate that word) that once all the pins are removed the rest of the CPU is set aside for a later date to crush and go after anything inside them?

Rusty


----------



## Barren Realms 007 (Aug 16, 2011)

rewalston said:


> Excellent video Goldenchild (and Samuel as well). Quick question will a mapp or propane torch work as well? Right now don't have the money for anything else. I assume (hate that word) that once all the pins are removed the rest of the CPU is set aside for a later date to crush and go after anything inside them?
> 
> Rusty



Yes to each of your questions.


----------



## rewalston (Aug 16, 2011)

Thanks Barren. This might just make it a little easier


----------



## goldenchild (Aug 17, 2011)

I think it was mentioned by lazersteve that he has never found anything inside of ceramic cpus after crushing them. I'm not sure you will get anything more than face value out of ceramics.


----------



## rewalston (Aug 17, 2011)

Thanks goldenchild. I have a couple of chips I pulled off a motherboard the other day that doesn't have any pins whatsoever. They are ceramic on the top with a thin fiberglass pad underneath that was soldered directly to the board..they are marked with a gold arrow on a corner so I pulled them. unless there is gold between the fiberglass and the ceramic I'm not sure where else it would be.

Rusty


----------



## martyn111 (Aug 17, 2011)

rewalston said:


> Thanks goldenchild. I have a couple of chips I pulled off a motherboard the other day that doesn't have any pins whatsoever. They are ceramic on the top with a thin fiberglass pad underneath that was soldered directly to the board..they are marked with a gold arrow on a corner so I pulled them. unless there is gold between the fiberglass and the ceramic I'm not sure where else it would be.
> 
> Rusty


These are commonly referred to as flat packs and do contain gold between the fibreglass and ceramic/plastic parts


----------



## rewalston (Aug 17, 2011)

Thanks martyn


----------



## lmschers (Aug 23, 2011)

i know this is a suuuper old post. but i'm doing my homework. just got 30 CPUs to work on.

for the original question though:
wouldn't electrolysis work to get the copper out of a solution.
would it cement out the gold if you used a copper electrode?


----------



## Harold_V (Aug 23, 2011)

lmschers said:


> for the original question though:
> wouldn't electrolysis work to get the copper out of a solution.
> would it cement out the gold if you used a copper electrode?


It's not that simple. If you introduce electrodes that are made of base metals, they will cement the values. Best one recovers the values by cementing on copper, then refine for purity. Alternately, precipitate as usual, then wash well and re-refine for purity. 

You would be well served to add heat to the digestion of base metals. How ANYONE processes without added heat is a total mystery to me. It leaves too much to guess work. 

Harold


----------



## lmschers (Aug 24, 2011)

ok, that's what i thought.

i would use a copper wire on the negative end.
and then a carbon electrode (pulled from a D size battery or something larger) on the positive end.
and just run the reaction till the solution is no longer greenish.

that should fill up the solution with a lot of black carbon that would need to be filtered out of the remaining solution.
i need to try this to see how much gold would be left in solution.

and then alternately, i would have to re-refine and test the copper wire that i coated.... to see how much gold would be sucked up.
____________________________________________________________________

i was thinking about this because electrolysis seems to be the best way to separate copper and silver.
but that's because there's no cementing going on.
is there some cathode that you could use instead of copper that would still suck up the copper?
i think stainless steel and aluminum both work for silver.


----------



## Harold_V (Aug 24, 2011)

lmschers said:


> i need to try this to see how much gold would be left in solution.


You're' not paying attention. Remember me telling you it doesn't work that way?

 You can NOT introduce base metals to solutions that contain values unless your intention is for the base metal that is introduced to REPLACE the values that are in solution. 

Stainless (300 series) is used (or can be used) as a cathode for processing silver. That's because stainless is NOT dissolved by nitric acid, and does not react with silver nitrate. If you introduce copper in excess, it co-deposits with silver. 

A lesson you will learn, either the easy way by listening, or the hard way, by trying, is that you can not (successfully) refine mixed metals electrolytically. It is pretty well known that cells that are used in refining demand high purity in the anodes, otherwise the electrolyte degrades too quickly to do the job it is intended to do. You are also plagued by slimes that may or may not shed from the anode, preventing extraction of the target metal. That leads to electrolyte depletion. 

Harold


----------



## lmschers (Aug 24, 2011)

well... yes... i'm trying to pay attention.

i know what you meant. 
but this is a solution of AR with dissolved gold and copper in it, right? i guess it would be best to get the nitrogen out first.... but...

i thought that using a carbon anode at the positive end would just disperse some carbon into the solution. (the slime)
but a negative copper cathode would be sucking up electrons so I thought that as long as you kept current running and the carbon dissolving...
the metal would be sucked up on the negative copper end.
the metal should start to dissolve if you didn't keep the current flowing.
doesn't the current protect the cathode from the acid?

i was thinking that the copper would come up first, but it would be amalgamated with some gold anyway.


----------



## qst42know (Aug 25, 2011)

lmschers said:


> well... yes... i'm trying to pay attention.
> 
> i know what you meant.
> but this is a solution of AR with dissolved gold and copper in it, right? i guess it would be best to get the nitrogen out first.... but...
> ...



Do you have a goal in mind?

It is easy to get the gold out first and leave the copper behind. Why make this hard?


----------



## lmschers (Aug 26, 2011)

it's funny that you ask that... but not exactly.... i'm just trying to understand what would happen.
i thought electrolysis would make things simpler.
throwing in some SMB would be the easiest route to gold recovery.
(electrolysis would purify the copper at least... heh heh)
learning is a process... no?


----------



## Harold_V (Aug 26, 2011)

lmschers said:


> it's funny that you ask that... but not exactly.... i'm just trying to understand what would happen.
> i thought electrolysis would make things simpler.
> throwing in some SMB would be the easiest route to gold recovery.
> (electrolysis would purify the copper at least... heh heh)


The problem with any electrolytic process is that the balance is upset easily by contaminants. That applies to your concept----even the copper wouldn't be pure, if for no other reason, what might be considered drag down of other elements. 

Hoke, in her book, addressed the concept of electrolytic parting, and alludes to the less than successful results. That wasn't good enough for me----I had to re-invent the wheel. I went so far as to make a mold to cast a stoneware vat that would function as a copper cell. When that failed, due to cracking, I then built a mold and had a fiberglass cell laid up. It worked beautifully for about an hour, then contamination started rearing its ugly head. In the end, I scrapped the project and started following convention. I never looked back. 

I have no problem with a guy that is creative and hopes to learn things by experimentation, but if your objective is to process precious metals (mine was), you are far better served to follow known processes until you have a firm understanding of how the metals behave. When you are comfortable with processing, and understand each process well, you can then start venturing out, trying variations, even new concepts. To do so when you are not familiar with end results is foolish----for you have no idea when you are winning or losing. That you can get a particular process to work to some degree isn't necessarily an endorsement that it should be used---it may well be horribly inefficient, or even troublesome, but without a basis for comparison, you have no idea if that may be the case. 



> learning is a process... no?


Yes, it is, but tossing yourself in front of a bus isn't a requirement for understanding that it's not a good idea. There are some things you can learn from others, saving yourself from wasting time. 

Again, depends on your objective. If you have an interest in being a research scientist, knock yourself out! However, if, as I suggested, your objective is to refine precious metals, lose the notion that you can improve on the wheel. Leave that idea for the time when you have sufficient experience that you will know if you have, or not. 

Harold


----------



## lmschers (Aug 26, 2011)

thanks Harold


why did you go so far as to make stoneware and fiberglass vats?
what pieces were you refining?
i'm just doing things in glass or plastic containers. 
very small scale though.

i'm actually leaning more to the research side.
making money is cool, but i've got a day job.
maybe this will be profitable later (in like 5 years when i know something)
if i didn't spend money on learning things, the only thing i would spend my cash on is hookers and beer.
literally.
i live in thailand.
for me, screwing up is a part of learning, and this is cheaper than more school.
that's how i rationalize it.
i definitely try to heed your advice, but i would rather fail quickly and learn from my mistakes than get everything perfect the first time.
somewhere along the line, i just admitted to myself that this would be frustrating, and then just tried to get on with it.

my goal is to try to learn how to do these things mostly relying on sun power.
solar panels for electrolysis and fresnel lenses for incinerating.
I just got a little gold computer CPU scrap that I'm trying to refine for the first time.
i'm just too eager to use it all at once.


----------



## Harold_V (Aug 26, 2011)

lmschers said:


> why did you go so far as to make stoneware and fiberglass vats?


I was in love with an idea. I had read about stoneware vats being used early on, so that's what I wanted to do. It's part of the reason I suggested that if your objective is to refine (you've made it clear you have interests beyond that, so I now understand), you're far better served to stick to convention. I'd like to say more---lots more, for I have plenty about which to crow, but this is not the appropriate place. 



> what pieces were you refining?


This entire thing was in my very early years of refining, actually before I had started inquartation. I had read the process (inquartation) which seemed way too involved (I was VERY new to refining, and was intimidated by almost everything at that point in time). Logic told me that parting gold alloy (scrap jewelry) was the logical thing to do, driven by many of the things you've already stated. What I didn't understand is that the balance is easily screwed up, and that's precisely what happened. I had wasted a couple months and more than enough money, so the lesson came with considerable expense. 



> i'm just doing things in glass or plastic containers.
> very small scale though.


Based on that, you'd likely learn a great deal trying what you'd like to do. You have little to lose. Just don't expect exceptional results, and don't assume that because you achieve success in the short term that your idea will work in the long term. It likely won't, although with enough monitoring and changing of electrolyte that may not be the case. Keeping the proper balance is critical---and it can be labor intensive. 



> i'm actually leaning more to the research side.


Which I acknowledged, above. It does help to understand your objective, even if I don't agree with the concept. You may discover something I missed, although I expect that won't be the case. Others have tried and failed, too. 



> making money is cool, but i've got a day job.


As did I! However, to me, processing gold was of upper importance. I was fiercely driven to succeed. Success came, for me, when I reigned in my curiosity and concentrated on Hoke and her guidance. Without her book, I would not have succeeded. There was no one for me to talk with, aside from one person that was already refining. When I approached him for guidance, he laughed in my face and told me that I'd never succeed. It might interest you to know that in the end, I had captured many of his customers. 



> maybe this will be profitable later (in like 5 years when i know something)





> if i didn't spend money on learning things, the only thing i would spend my cash on is hookers and beer.
> literally.
> i live in thailand.


I think I understand, although having been happily married for over 34 years now (second marriage), it's been a long time since my crazy single years. 
If you'd like to share more, I'm curious about your location. Are you native to Thailand? If not, what took you there?



> for me, screwing up is a part of learning, and this is cheaper than more school.
> that's how i rationalize it.


I'm much the same way (which helps explain the stupid cells I built---fiberglass and stoneware. I learned, though, and I'll never forget. 



> i definitely try to heed your advice, but i would rather fail quickly and learn from my mistakes than get everything perfect the first time.
> somewhere along the line, i just admitted to myself that this would be frustrating, and then just tried to get on with it.


You've most likely to meet with failure, but who knows? So long as you're doing it for a learning experience, not trying to refine directly, what harm can come? As I said, your objective is key. Those that have followed my advice are now very successful in refining. Those that hope to come up with something new may or may not do so, ever. 



> my goal is to try to learn how to do these things mostly relying on sun power.
> solar panels for electrolysis and fresnel lenses for incinerating.
> I just got a little gold computer CPU scrap that I'm trying to refine for the first time.
> i'm just too eager to use it all at once.


Again, in order to understand what is and isn't successful, you'd be best served to start refining, following procedures that are known to work. That gives you a basis for comparison. When you have refining down, you can then measure changes with some degree of reliability. As I said, you may achieve some degree of success but not understand that it isn't an acceptable result, in spite of working to some degree. You may not recognize that without some experience. 

Harold


----------



## callicom (Sep 18, 2011)

goldenchild said:


> Instead of crushing the cpus you are better off getting just the legs off. Samuel's technique is great for that.
> 
> [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hD6mE5-hPWM[/youtube]


the video mentions to weigh the pins and add respective amount of hcl, and then boil, what is the respective amount of hcl :?:is respective of a formula or 1 to 1 ratio


----------



## Claudie (Sep 18, 2011)

It's all on the Gold N Scrap website.

http://www.goldnscrap.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=78:scrap-gold-recovery-from-fiber-cpu&catid=36:scrap-cpu-a-chips&Itemid=2

There is a link to it.


----------



## lmschers (Sep 19, 2011)

hahaha holy $#^!
that looks so much easier than what i did.

i went at them with two pairs of vice grips and cracked them in half to get off the metal plate on the back. 
i was working with virtually the same chips as in the video.
didn't have a torch though, but that would have been so much easier and cleaner.


----------

