# DANGER Do NOT Mix Sulfuric acid & Glycerin 4 gold Recov



## Andrew W (May 2, 2008)

> I am finding this very important to inform all people who are mixing sulfuric acid and glycerin for carrier in a gold stripping process for gold recovery. There are several sellers selling a reverse plating kit or instructions for stripping gold off of gold plated jewelry and computer parts. The instructions that are given is a very dangerous mix which could lead to your death and to the death of friends, family and the people who live around you.
> 
> This mixture is only 2 steps from making nitroglycerin and 1 step away from making gun cotton aka nitro cellulose both of which are EXPLOSIVE!!!!!! Please, for God's sake and your safety, DO NOT MIX ANYTHING LIKE THIS. I would hate to know that someone has told you to do so and then you loose your life or killed someone. These sellers have NO clue as what they are telling you. Remember, they do NOT have a chemistry degree which is worst than a back yard brain surgeon. You would be safer jumping off a cliff without wings.
> 
> ...



http://reviews.ebay.com/DANGER-Do-N...cerin-4-gold-Recov_W0QQugidZ10000000004402540

What do yall think about this? :shock:


----------



## Anonymous (May 2, 2008)

if there is no nitrate involve there is no explosive. sounds to me like he is selling something and trying to scare people from buying from others.

No one ever states to put the other ingredient required for explosive formation.

in other words, I don't know


----------



## Lou (May 2, 2008)

I'm calling bull crap on it. James is right: no nitrate means no nitronium means no explosive. 

To top it off, you can't get nitrocellulose from glycerine! You need pure cellulose for that, and it's remarkably not easy to do if you work at room temperature. I won't rule out the glyceryl trinitrate possibility (albeit still a long shot) but the nitrocellulose is ridiculous. 

Apparently this guy doesn't have a chemistry degree either! Just plain wrong.


----------



## Scott2357 (May 3, 2008)

Well ebay folks aren't known to be the brightest people in the world. Wait... I think I just dissed myself... :? 

Thanks AWS316 for bringing it to our attention anyway.


----------



## Andrew W (May 3, 2008)

Adding concentrated nitric to the sulfuric-glycerin mix could be dangerous, couldn't it? Or maybe even adding sodium nitrate could be. Would it be good practice to just keep all nitrates away from your stripping cell area?


----------



## OMG (May 3, 2008)

why would you add nitric in? it calls for sulfuric and glycerine.


----------



## Andrew W (May 3, 2008)

OMG said:


> why would you add nitric in? it calls for sulfuric and glycerine.


I meant that in the context of an accident. Since refiners use nitric acid and have it around they're lab, it could happen that someone might spill some somehow...sorry for the confusion.


----------



## Palladium (May 3, 2008)

Not to say your wrong or anything, but any good refiner caps his chemicals as soon as you finish pouring them, and always keep them seperated.


----------



## Art Corbit (Jun 7, 2008)

Steve over on the Alaska Gold Forum uses Sulfuric and glycerin in his cell. He has a video on his web site that shows exactly how to use it. To 3 cups of sulfuric he puts about 3/8 teaspoon of glycerin in it I believe it is. As far as I know he doesn't market the cells and I would sure as heck trust his information.

Art


----------



## istari9 (Jun 7, 2008)

I built a cell with both and it works fine. No Nitric though.

Ray


----------



## goldsilverpro (Jun 7, 2008)

Whatever! The glycerin is not needed, *PERIOD*. I have probably produced 10 times more gold, in my life, from the sulfuric cell than the total gold produced from the 3596 members of this forum. Forget the glycerin!!!


----------



## Harold_V (Jun 8, 2008)

goldsilverpro said:


> Whatever! The glycerin is not needed, *PERIOD*.


You're wasting your time, Chris. Art likes to kill the messenger when he's told anything negative about things he wants to believe. Doesn't appear to matter that it may be true. 



> I have probably produced 10 times more gold, in my life, from the sulfuric cell than the total gold produced from the 3596 members of this forum. Forget the glycerin!!!


Wow! I processed one hell of a lot of gold in my years. Thousands of ounces. You sure about that?  

I agree------forget the glycerin. It may work with it, but nothing to this point has shown to my satisfaction that it is a necessary ingredient. The original patent certainly doesn't think it's required. 

Harold


----------



## goldsilverpro (Jun 8, 2008)

Harold, you know very well that I couldn't include you in that group. Actually, I meant the total gold produced from all the member's *sulfuric cells*. However, the way I originally phrased it is probably true if I exclude you. Sorry about the confusion.


----------



## Art Corbit (Jun 8, 2008)

Harold,

There you go again. I didn't say anything for or against the Glycerin. I just said Steve uses it and I trust his information. I don't know if it's needed or not and could care less. I wasn't the one that jumped on the fellow that posted that.

Some of you people on here need to back up and take a good look at your selves from time to time. So what if you're a pro at this. That doesn't give you the right to pass the snide remarks and put new members down. There is no telling how many new members have gotten off the fourm because of junk like that. I thought the pros on here were here to teach and share their knowledge. Seems it's a lot more fun to try to make others feel like dummies.

Art


----------



## Art Corbit (Jun 8, 2008)

Andrew W,

If I said anything that offended you I am very sorry. I sure didn't mean to. I didn't even i mply that you may be wrong. I simply don't know if you are or not and and it really doesn't matter to me. I was already planning on trying it without the glycerin but I was going to try to speak to Steve and ask him why he used it. At this point I don't know as a fact that it is dangerous or not and I'm not going to make a decision on it untill I am sure. 

If you hang around here you will notice I don't buy into all the crap that is tossed around on here and sometimes the ones that do the tossing become upset because I don't agree with them. They are the ones that could care less if they are right or wrong as long as others agree with them.

I could care less if anyone agrees with me or not. I am going to continue to search for the information I am looking for and if I don't find it here I'll look elsewhere.

Art


----------



## lazersteve (Jun 8, 2008)

All,

When I learned how to use the cell the glycerin was one of the ingredients that I was instructed to use. 

I do not know why the glycerin was included in the process.

As GSP is pointing out, it is absolutely *not* required. I have removed it from my website as an item for sale. If I ever get around to updating my cell videos I will *not* include it in the new versions.

I'm sorry there has been such a heated debate over this subject.

I don't think it is hazardous to use glycerin as Andrew is stating as I used it for many years with no problems.

In my opinion, we should all move on to a more productive topic.


Steve


----------



## Art Corbit (Jun 8, 2008)

Thanks Steve. That answers a question I just asked you on another thread. 

Art


----------



## goldsilverpro (Jun 8, 2008)

Art,

Often, when a knowledgeable person first comes on this forum, they have an air of egotism about them. They think that they know it all and everyone else is an idiot. I must admit that I also went through that stage. However, even though I have 40 years of full time professional experience doing this stuff, I have learned one hell of a lot of the forum. Hang around. You'll eventually get your comeuppance and then you can also start learning something.


----------



## Art Corbit (Jun 8, 2008)

GSP,

Why would you think I have not alread learned a lot on this forum? I am totally convinced that even tho we have come a long way we have only scratched the surface fo gold recovery. We ALL have a lot to learn yet. There is one thing I will not do and that is sit still while someone trys to shove their opinion down my throat. 

I am eager to learn but I don't jump on anyone's coat tail and ride it where ever they go. I am very careful about accepting anything as fact until I am certain it is. If it's something I can go out here and try and verify what I have been tol then I'll accept it as fact. If I can't do that then I just let my little pea brain store it and watch for new information that wil verify it one way or the other. I'm not trying to be hard headed just careful. I have spent many years sifting through junk information searching for the real truth and I'm tired of that.

Art


----------



## Harold_V (Jun 8, 2008)

goldsilverpro said:


> Harold, you know very well that I couldn't include you in that group. Actually, I meant the total gold produced from all the member's *sulfuric cells*. However, the way I originally phrased it is probably true if I exclude you. Sorry about the confusion.


Just having a little fun with you, Chris.  

I think the point that has to be emphasized here is that there is a lot of mis-information being promoted. I'm not privy to the reasons it happens, and likely will never be, but I feel an obligation to help nip it in the bud. It is often the means by which others gloat over their success, hoping to become the exclusive owner of given processes by misinforming others. I'd like to think that we're here to share knowledge---and part of that is to expose BS when it's obvious. If in the process of reading, if I see a post that looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, pretty good chance it is. I'll be the first to step forward and say so. 

Art--------if you'd quit denying information that is known to be true, perhaps I'd have less to say about your comments. I refuse to sit idly by while you promote ideas that may appear to be sound, but are known to be incorrect. It might pay you to get better informed on the behavior of metals as they interact with one another, so you'd understand that when I, or anyone else, suggests a given process won't work as hoped, you'd understand that the purpose was to keep others from delving in an area that is prone to failure and problems that are often beyond their control and/or ability. They should also be well aware of any hazards that possibly exist. I'd be remiss in my duties to allow such things to go unchallenged. 

I'll revisit the point at hand briefly. You want to recover gold from black sands, using molten lead as a collector. I commented that some will dissolve in the lead, at least up to the point of saturation. You insist it isn't true. You're wrong. Your report is less than scientific in nature, and could easily work against you when in the hands of anyone that is capable of performing proper assays. 

I'd like to hear your views of the work done by Sir T.K. Rose, who discovered that when gold and silver are placed in intimate contact, atoms of gold are transferred to the silver. This at ambient temperature. That is the basis of the reason a nickel barrier is plated on copper based alloys before gold is applied. 

I'm at a loss to understand why you'd deny that lead will dissolve gold, particularly with extended exposure. Gold has a strong affinity for lead-----if in the process of picking up gold particles, it has no choice but to dissolve some of them. Otherwise it likely wouldn't work at all. 

That you choose to ignore, or deny the information, doesn't give you license to promote your personal beliefs, leaving readers with mixed signals. As long as you intend to do so, you can expect me to offer a rebuttal. If it makes you look foolish, that's the price you have to pay for turning your back on well documented information. Why would you expect otherwise? I refuse to stand by when you, or anyone----offers misleading information. 

Nothing wrong with using lead as a collector of values. You simply must be able to address the lead once it has been used for the purpose. Cupelling is one of the methods, which is not advised for the home operation due to the hazardous lead fumes created. As low level refiners, all of us are wise to avoid the use of lead, much the same as avoiding the use of mercury. By contrast, perhaps there are occasions where one or the other becomes a necessity. Readers should know and understand the ramifications when such a decision must be made. 

Harold


----------



## Anonymous (Jun 8, 2008)

Hey, what would you think about using molten zinc for a collector? From what I have read at least gold and silver have a much higher affinity for zinc than lead. Also, if you do not want to Vaporize the zinc to get the gold, you could just drop it is some HCL and dissolve the zinc away.

With zinc having a lower density than lead, the gold may actually sink into it faster(not sure if that is the right word for it). Since it most likely will be in solution instead of sinking.


----------



## crazyboy (Jun 8, 2008)

Indeed without nitrate there is no risk of forming nitroglycerin after all simply by mixing water and baking soda and heating it in a pan you are one step from making crack all you need cocaine.


----------



## Anonymous (Jun 8, 2008)

Q, Why would anybody want to use Sulfuric Acid and Glycerine? All the Vids on YouTube show Aqua Regia as the choice for desolving Gold. Thanks, lightspeed.


----------



## Noxx (Jun 8, 2008)

Sulfuric acid is for the deplating cell.


----------



## AKDan (Jun 9, 2008)

Could it be that the glycerine in the cell is meant to address two possible issues? 1> evaporation and/or 2>splattering of the acid.


----------



## Harold_V (Jun 9, 2008)

That's an interesting concept, AKDan. Perhaps those that are running a cell currently could describe what the glycerin does when introduced to the cell. If it were to create a layer on the surface, your idea certainly could be valid. 

Readers?

Harold


----------



## Noxx (Jun 9, 2008)

Maybe it helps the gold to agglomerate and not to stay in suspension in the solution... (while it precipitates)


----------



## ander (Dec 17, 2009)

I am really sorry but I could'n resist: "BEING ALIVE IS JUST ONE STEP FROM BEING DEAD"(best if said by Don Lafontaine) :lol:


----------



## Irons (Dec 17, 2009)

james122964 said:


> Hey, what would you think about using molten zinc for a collector? From what I have read at least gold and silver have a much higher affinity for zinc than lead. Also, if you do not want to Vaporize the zinc to get the gold, you could just drop it is some HCL and dissolve the zinc away.
> 
> With zinc having a lower density than lead, the gold may actually sink into it faster(not sure if that is the right word for it). Since it most likely will be in solution instead of sinking.



One of the folks at Eastern told me they use Zinc as a collector. Perhaps he was just pulling my leg.

My turn to get thrown under the Bus. 8)


----------



## qst42know (Dec 17, 2009)

This thread seems to be going in two different directions, and the zinc collector sounds interesting but vaporized zinc is quite poisonous as well.

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




Anyway while reading up on glycerin I read it is a strong humectant (A humectant is a hygroscopic substance.)

I do understand it is not necessary to do the job. 

So... I'll put this out there in case one of the forum chemists know or can look it up.

1.)Does glycerin have a stronger affinity for water than concentrated sulfuric?

2.)Could the intended purpose for including it in the stripping cell be to bind any remaining water in the concentrated sulfuric or perhaps prevent dilution by absorption of humidity?


----------



## Palladium (Dec 17, 2009)

Irons said:


> My turn to get thrown under the Bus. 8)



Bus 16 is now loading at gate 8. 

Bus 16 at gate 8 !!!!!!!!


Hey Irons where you been ?


----------



## Lou (Dec 21, 2009)

Glycerin does indeed like water--this is because it has 3 hydroxyl functionalities with which it may hydrogen bond (this is also the cause of its other colligative properties, like its viscosity). It does *not *like it more than concentrated sulfuric acid. If it did, would chemists dry compounds over meek and tame glycerin, or would they continue to use sulfuric acid in their dessicators? 

I have no idea why glycerin is present, and if Chris has no idea, then there is probably no chemical reason for it.


----------



## Irons (Dec 21, 2009)

Palladium said:


> Irons said:
> 
> 
> > My turn to get thrown under the Bus. 8)
> ...



The Hackers scared me away. :roll: 

Roll Tide.


----------



## rewalston (Dec 21, 2009)

I've been lurking for a while...still reading, learning and collecting. But I have a really dumb question :lol: What does "Roll Tide" mean...I keep seeing it and I'm clueless.


----------



## Platdigger (Dec 21, 2009)

I think it must be an inside joke. And most likely if they explain it, it will not be funny any more.
Right guys?


----------



## goldsilverpro (Dec 21, 2009)

I'm sure others could answer this better, Since I've never even been in Alabama.

Not funny at all.

The nickname of the Alabama University football team is the "Crimson Tide". They are undefeated this year and, on Jan 7, they will play another undefeated team, Texas, for the national title. Supporters of Alabama say "Roll Tide". Tides do "roll" and I guess it could mean to "roll" on the opposition. If someone else says "Hook em', Horns", you know they are supporters of Texas, whose nickname is the Longhorns.

Hook em, Horns!


----------



## rewalston (Dec 21, 2009)

goldsilverpro said:


> I'm sure others could answer this better, Since I've never even been in Alabama.
> 
> Not funny at all.
> 
> ...


Ahhh that makes perfect sense.


----------



## 2002valkyrie (Jan 7, 2010)

rewalston said:


> goldsilverpro said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure others could answer this better, Since I've never even been in Alabama.
> ...


Very good GSP. You know your football too! Have you heard this one? "Praise be to the football gods, our messiah has come. Pay him what ever it takes and he will lead us back to glory." Or "Sabination! First take back the state then the nation." In the past 2 years they have been real popular at my house. Only in ALABAMA! We are glued to the television waiting to see our Tide Pride hit their stride and finaly whup up some steaks.


----------



## SapunovDmitry (Jan 8, 2010)

I never had problems with glycerin, though it strips OK without it.


----------



## Photobacterium (Dec 31, 2011)

Palladium said:


> Not to say your wrong or anything, but any good refiner caps his chemicals as soon as you finish pouring them, and always keep them seperated.



and if you live in earthquake country ... who gets to clean up my workshop after a big shaker ? I do.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 31, 2011)

Photobacterium said:


> Palladium said:
> 
> 
> > Not to say your wrong or anything, but any good refiner caps his chemicals as soon as you finish pouring them, and always keep them seperated.
> ...


Holy useless thread revival Batman,
This has got to be a record ,for reviving a thread for no reason.Almost 2 years to the day.


----------



## johnny309 (Jan 7, 2012)

Glycerin added to an sulphuric cell is not needed.
The basic idea when you add it is to "suck" water from your acid(this way lowering the chances that will dissolve cooper)....and not from environment....
If you work with 95% H2SO4 and have a lot of material to strip...(meanning a couple of hours of job before the cell is saturated)....YOU DON'T NEED GLYCERIN.

Hope this helps.


----------



## Photobacterium (Jan 7, 2012)

johnny309 said:


> Glycerin added to an sulphuric cell is not needed.
> The basic idea when you add it is to "suck" water from your acid(this way lowering the chances that will dissolve cooper)....and not from environment....
> If you work with 95% H2SO4 and have a lot of material to strip...(meanning a couple of hours of job before the cell is saturated)....YOU DON'T NEED GLYCERIN.
> 
> Hope this helps.



Thanks for the explananation.

C3H8O3 - glycerin
H2O
H2SO4

is there a chemical formula for the process/ reaction ?


----------



## johnny309 (Jan 7, 2012)

Ideally......it isn't
The stating chemichals for your reaction is not "pure".....or to say laboratory procentace
IN THIS"SOUP" you will add matterial of unknowing composition,your cathode(lead) is full of oxides....and so on.......
In chemestry the key factors also include the enviroment(temperature,humidity,surrounding metals,etc)......
It"s a hobby for most of us.....just keep it SAFE.......read ,read and read.......and do a "search" when you have questions...


----------



## Patrick_R (Feb 14, 2012)

So, I looked through this entire topic and I am still slightly confused. I would like to have one question answered(sorry if someone did and I missed it)

What happens if, by random chance, mistake, employee error, or whatever else Nitric acid is mixed with Sulfuric and Glycerin?

I know you shouldnt mix them and always cap your chemicals, but this is a WHAT IF

I look forward to reading about this. Thanks guys

Comrade


----------



## Geo (Feb 14, 2012)

you just listed the ingredients of nitroglycerin. unless this is your intention, keep glycerin out of your refining.


----------



## Patrick_R (Feb 14, 2012)

Ah, Strictly pouring them together creates such a hazard? I will never try this I am just curious.

Knowledge is power. 

Also. Nothing against you Geo, I do want to hear from others, unless youve more less summed it up.


----------



## Geo (Feb 14, 2012)

from wiki, 

The industrial manufacturing process often uses a nearly 1:1 mixture of concentrated sulfuric acid and concentrated nitric acid. This can be produced by mixing white fuming nitric acid—a quite expensive pure nitric acid in which the oxides of nitrogen have been removed, as opposed to red fuming nitric acid, which contains nitrogen oxides—and concentrated sulfuric acid. More often, this mixture is attained by the cheaper method of mixing fuming sulfuric acid, also known as oleum—sulfuric acid containing excess sulfur trioxide—and azeotropic nitric acid (consisting of about 70 percent nitric acid, with the rest being water).

The sulfuric acid produces protonated nitric acid species, which are attacked by glycerin's nucleophilic oxygen atoms. The nitro group is thus added as an ester C-O-NO2 and water is produced. This is different from an aromatic nitration reaction in which nitronium ions are the active species in an electrophilic attack on the molecule's ring system.

The addition of glycerin results in an exothermic reaction (i.e., heat is produced), as usual for mixed-acid nitrations. However, if the mixture becomes too hot, it results in "runaway", a state of accelerated nitration accompanied by the destructive oxidizing of organic materials of nitric acid and the release of very poisonous brown nitrogen dioxide gas at high risk of an explosion. Thus, the glycerin mixture is added slowly to the reaction vessel containing the mixed acid (not acid to glycerin). The nitrator is cooled with cold water or some other coolant mixture and maintained throughout the glycerin addition at about 22 °C (72 °F), much below which the esterification occurs too slowly to be useful. The nitrator vessel, often constructed of iron or lead and generally stirred with compressed air, has an emergency trap door at its base, which hangs over a large pool of very cold water and into which the whole reaction mixture (called the charge) can be dumped to prevent an explosion, a process referred to as drowning. If the temperature of the charge exceeds about 30 °C (86 °F) (actual value varying by country) or brown fumes are seen in the nitrator's vent, then it is immediately drowned.

i understand that you can hear alot of things from alot of people but you never know the answer unless you ask the question.


----------



## Patrick_R (Feb 14, 2012)

Neat. Thank you very much for this post. Sooooo... I suppose this thread is done. I'll head elsewhere. 

Thanks Geo


----------



## Dr. Poe (Feb 15, 2012)

I agree that glycerin is not necessary. Besides, what if somehow something with a nitrate happened to be added by mistake?
Why take the chance with something that doesn't much improve the reaction anyway. Dr. Poe :|


----------

