# Hoke's Book! (Questions)



## Fabiank94 (Dec 4, 2013)

Hello dear community!

I have some questions about the Hoke book would be glad if you could respond me asap, thanks in advance. 
Question is should i follow these steps in the beginning or should i read through the book and then do the steps?

And i might keep using this thread for questions if it is okay!


----------



## nickvc (Dec 4, 2013)

Personally I'd suggest reading it several time so it makes sense first and then start doing the steps advised when you have more of an idea of the outcome and any reactions that might need care.
Read the safety section here on the forum also it will help to recognise any dangers involved and in refining and recovery there are many.


----------



## Fabiank94 (Dec 4, 2013)

nickvc said:


> Personally I'd suggest reading it several time so it makes sense first and then start doing the steps advised when you have more of an idea of the outcome and any reactions that might need care.
> Read the safety section here on the forum also it will help to recognise any dangers involved and in refining and recovery there are many.



Okay, thank you Nickvc! 
You saved my day!


----------



## rickbb (Dec 4, 2013)

Agreed, read it first, practice a few of the things in it on a small scale.


----------



## Fabiank94 (Dec 4, 2013)

*Another question!*
Did read till page 45 now in the pdf file, and I am wondering is it possible to work outdoors.
I can do almost anything outdoors with out any neighbours getting annoyed, and working indoors is not an option since I am still living at my parents house and I dont want to annoy them by using their garage.


*I hope I make myself clear! *


----------



## butcher (Dec 4, 2013)

Working outdoors is just fine, in fact I prefer it.


----------



## Fabiank94 (Dec 5, 2013)

butcher said:


> Working outdoors is just fine, in fact I prefer it.


That is great!


----------



## sharkhook (Dec 8, 2013)

Until today, outdoors is the only way I had. Cold and rain makes it a poor way, but better than falling out from some chemical mishap.


----------



## FrugalRefiner (Dec 8, 2013)

Just remember that your fumes go _somewhere_. You may not annoy any neighbors, but the fumes can also kill the plants and animals around you and they add to the overall polution of our environment. They may not amount to much compared to natural sources, and industrial and other manmade polution, but it all adds up. 

Working outside is fine and unless you have a dedicated indoor space, it's a much safer option than working in your home or garage. But you should still do as much as you can to control the fumes that are produced. 

Dave


----------



## Fabiank94 (Dec 14, 2013)

FrugalRefiner said:


> Just remember that your fumes go _somewhere_. You may not annoy any neighbors, but the fumes can also kill the plants and animals around you and they add to the overall polution of our environment. They may not amount to much compared to natural sources, and industrial and other manmade polution, but it all adds up.
> 
> Working outside is fine and unless you have a dedicated indoor space, it's a much safer option than working in your home or garage. But you should still do as much as you can to control the fumes that are produced.
> 
> Dave



Well we are doing pretty much for the enviroment at my home, so ya I would prefer to come up with a solution.


----------



## solar_plasma (Jul 24, 2014)

Hoke p.41:


> As you learned in your acquaintance tests, nitric acid works rapidly
> on low-karat gold such as 6-k or under, which soon crumbles
> to pieces. The copper and silver with which it is alloyed go into
> solution, and the particles of gold are left as a brown powder.
> ...



I have about 40 g 8K scrap jewelry. Am I right to understand, that it will not be a mistake just to try, if my 8K scrap will react satisfying with nitric, just a bit slower? And do I understand it correctly, that it nevertheless is possible, that some or all pieces will resist and have to be inquarted anyway? The typical composition of European 333 stamped yellow gold seem to be Au33Ag33Cu33 (wiki).


----------



## FrugalRefiner (Jul 24, 2014)

If you can roll or hammer the items very thin, you'll probably be OK.

Inquartation is 1/4 gold. It's easy to remember and pretty easy to calculate how much metal to add, but other sources I've read have said that ratios of 2 to 2-1/2 parts base metal to 1 part gold will work.

Like most of the procedures recommended here, inquartation to 25% will work reliably every time. It's not the only proportion that will work. If you were a newb, I'd say inquart. Get it thin. You may not get all the base metals, but you'll definitely get the majority. When you digest in AR, if you have any solids remaining, you can wash them in ammonia (remember to reacidify promptly) and rerun them in another batch.

Did I mention you need to roll or pound very thin.

Dave


----------



## solar_plasma (Jul 24, 2014)

Thank you, Dave. Now I see, I obviously tried to understand the text passage from Hoke in the way, I would have liked the most. :lol: Yes, yes, no shortcuts....again and as always.

I guess I leave this 8K stuff for later, just like the gold teeth.


----------



## nickvc (Jul 25, 2014)

Solar I'd be suprised to find the silver content that high, many alloys leave the silver out completely on lower karat items. That said the balance will be copper or zinc so hot nitric might well do the job if the items aren't too thick.


----------



## goldsilverpro (Jul 25, 2014)

Solar,

I have run a lot of 10K class rings. I have no remembrance of what the actual karat of these ended up being (probably 8K or 9K) but, in most cases, I was able to totally leach out the silver and base metals with hot 50/50 nitric. It took most of the day to do this. The brown result was often still in the shape of the ring and you could still read the writing on it. Using a glass stir rod, you could crumble it. If, with the stir rod, you could still feel a hard core in the center, more time in the nitric was needed.

I'm thinking I started with pre-mixed 50/50 (cut with distilled water) and then occasionally made small additions of straight nitric as it progressed. It took a lot of heat. If you have it covered, you might even boil it somewhat, although you might lose a little silver. When the reaction slowed down, I likely would have, at some point, poured it off and re-started with fresh. It speeds thinks up, somewhat, to mash the material up occasionally with a still rod.

I doubt if those rings were less than 8K. This process usually worked. If fact, with 10K class rings, I can't remember it not working. One thing to consider is that, when we inquart, it's difficult to get a thorough alloy blend so that it all is 6K. There will usually be some hot spots greater than 6K. However, with enough time, these hot spots will usually leach.


----------



## solar_plasma (Jul 25, 2014)

That's good news! Thank you GSP!

I assumed, that alloying is an art on its own and didn't like to rush into the next art, before I am satisfied with all the subjects I am in progress with. So, only the chance to make it work just with enough time and heat is a great news.


----------



## solar_plasma (Jul 25, 2014)

nickvc said:


> Solar I'd be suprised to find the silver content that high, many alloys leave the silver out completely on lower karat items. That said the balance will be copper or zinc so hot nitric might well do the job if the items aren't too thick.



I don't know the content for sure. I just read the german wiki about yellow 333 gold alloy. Thank you for the input!


----------



## goldsilverpro (Jul 25, 2014)

solar_plasma said:


> That's good news! Thank you GSP!
> 
> I assumed, that alloying is an art on its own and didn't like to rush into the next art, before I am satisfied with all the subjects I am in progress with. So, only the chance to make it work just with enough time and heat is a great news.


I would just jump in and try the nitric. Even if doesn't work, there's no damage and you're no worse off than you were before you started. If it does work, it's a helluva lot easier than inquarting or direct dissolving in AR. When I had 10K, I always tried nitric first. If it worked, it worked. If it didn't, I went to something else - usually direct AR. Except for gold with high silver, inquarting everything always seemed foolish, at least for me, for several reasons.


----------



## Harold_V (Jul 26, 2014)

goldsilverpro said:


> I have run a lot of 10K class rings. I have no remembrance of what the actual karat of these ended up being (probably 8K or 9K)



Chris,
I had occasion to run a few pounds of class rings as a solitary batch, which I tracked as best I could. What I determined was that they were borderline legal (meaning they were 9 karat, but just barely). Speaking for marking regs of old (which would have applied to those I processed), there was a tolerance of ± ½ karat for alloy, and an additional tolerance of ± ½ karat for soldered objects (virtually all class rings were soldered then, although I can not address modern manufacturing methods). 

The manufacturers of class rings made them on massive scales. For them to substitute base metals for gold made all kinds of sense, so they did so, staying marginally within the law. 

Look at it this way. Class ring makers may well have used a ton of gold annually. If they could substitute base metals for gold by lowering the karat to the bottom acceptable level, in effect, they stretched their gold about 10%. 

No, I can't prove my case---but if you follow the dollars, it sure as hell makes sense. 8) 

Harold


----------



## nickvc (Jul 26, 2014)

I would bet the manufacturers still do exactly the same now if they can get away with it, as I have pointed out before its nearly impossible here in the UK as items have to to the karat marked or above, below and the Assay Offices will destroy the items or mark as the next lower karat.


----------



## kurtak (Jul 26, 2014)

solar - GSP is giving good advice on how to deal with low karat scrap like this - I have had a few 8k/10k rings in the past & have processed them in the same way - I would bring the 50/50 nitric temp up to a low simmer type boil (temp just braking the boiling point) (watch glass on top of the beaker of course)

no need to add the step of inquarting on low karat scrap like this

I have used this same method to leach many pounds of silver from tungsten/silver alloyed contact points which tend to run only 30 - 40% silver - it takes the heat at the low simmer boil for the leaching to be effective

Kurt


----------



## Harold_V (Jul 26, 2014)

goldsilverpro said:


> Except for gold with high silver, inquarting everything always seemed foolish, at least for me, for several reasons.


There's one distinct advantage in inquarting, and it's particularly true when one toll refines, accepting mixed material, where it's highly unlikely that all of the gold would be of a given karat fineness. 

It takes prolonged processing to leach the base metal and silver from low karat gold alloys. That's particularly true here in the US, where it is illegal to mark anything less than 10K, unlike Europe. 

10 K is pretty much the top end of processing without inquartation, and it's a slow process, if it works at all. That means that one will be successful in not inquarting only by prolonged heating. That, in my case, would have created a bottleneck effect, to say nothing of having to process more than one vessel for the same lot of material. Not a big deal unless all of your burners (I used a three burner gas hot plate) were full, and mine almost always were. By that, I mean that while I had three burners, I also used large asbestos pads, so I could get as many as ten beakers on at one time, depending on the size of the beakers. 

My procedure for inquartation was to add 110% of the total weight of the gold alloy to be processed. The only time I varied from that would be if there was an abundance of dental gold included, or if the lot contained an extraordinary amount of 10K. That yielded inquarted material that was easy to dissolve, leaving the gold intact, so it didn't pour off with the solution. Breaking up the gold is yet another thing that slows down processing. I could have my gold dissolved hours sooner than one would by not inquarting. That, to me, was important, as I used to offer VERY rapid turnover for my customers. Some needed their gold as quickly as it could be processed, so that put me in good position to capture their business. 

The last real benefit for me was that I had to process the silver, whether by inquartation, or simply processing purposely. For me, it was a perfect opportunity to process without additional expense, and, surprisingly, silver and gold had a tendency to come in at a rate that made it possible, although there were times when I'd have an over or under supply of silver. 

What one will soon learn is that there may be advantages to either process. The lesson that should be taken away here is don't turn your back on either of these processes. Each has its place. 

Harold


----------



## Grelko (May 26, 2015)

Excuse me for bumping this older thread but I have a question regarding Hokes book.

Chapter XI page 121, paragraph 5,6.


It is now necessary to wash the orange powder, because it is wet
with dissolved gold, dissolved copper, etc. A quick way is to pierce
the bottom of the filter paper with a glass rod and permit the powder
to run through into a clean dish below. Wash it down well, using
the ammonium-chloride-water. If you have time, wash the powder
into a wide flat vessel, cover it with plain water, and heat it gently
on a hot plate or small flame for several hours. Use a large jar so
that the layer of powder will be relatively thin. Let cool before
you filter again. These schemes serve to rinse and clean the orange
powder.
Finally get the powder into a new filter paper, washing it into a
lump as before. The liquid that runs through is of value, so add it to
the aqua regia solution. Spread the paper out on a plate to dry.


In paragraph 6 

"The liquid that runs through is of value, so add it to
the aqua regia solution."

Is this the ammonium-chloride-water rinse water, or the plain water that you heated and let cool? Or possibly another rinse using clean "plain water"?


----------



## Geo (May 26, 2015)

The ammonium chloride rinse will have any silver in it and by adding it to the aqua regia would cause silver chloride to precipitate. This is what you are trying to remove so you wouldn't add it back into the process. I believe she is saying to add the last rinse back into the reaction.


----------



## FrugalRefiner (May 26, 2015)

Grelko said:


> Is this the ammonium-chloride-water rinse water, or the plain water that you heated and let cool? Or possibly another rinse using clean "plain water"?


In this particular process, it would be any of the rinses you've used. Any of them could contain gold in solution. She recovers all of the gold in a subsequent step.

Dave


----------



## Grelko (May 26, 2015)

Thank you Geo and FrugalRefiner

I figured it would have just been the plain water that you heated instead of any of the rinses, thanks for clearing it up for me. This is why you should always test every solution before disposal. I wanted to make sure I understood as much of Hoke's as I can the first time through. I noticed that she recovered the gold a few pages later.


Off subject

Don't place a coffee pot on a hotplate, on high, with foils and water in it, it'll crack "unless it was just my old coffee pot". I turned it off, unplugged it and, grabbed a turkey baster to siphon it into another container because, the bottom could have fallen out if I would have picked it up with all of the liquid still in it. I should have used the ceramic insert from an old crockpot I had instead.


----------



## Grelko (Jan 5, 2016)

In Hokes "December 2013, PDF" page 202/384 (180 in the book) Paragraph 5

PART V. REPURIFYING IRIDIUM

Suppose your purpose is not to separate the *indium* from the platinum,
but merely to obtain a good-quality *iridio-platinum* alloy.

It continues on to talk about iridium, but nothing about indium. I was wondering if this was a typo?


----------



## UncleBenBen (Jan 5, 2016)

Seems i remember coming across a post a while back by I believe Dave (FrugalRefiner) that mentioned a problem in the software while creating the PDF. It said the program was confusing the spelling on the two metals and he tried to correct all he could find. Must've missed that one.


----------



## Grelko (Jan 5, 2016)

UncleBenBen said:


> Seems i remember coming across a post a while back by I believe Dave (FrugalRefiner) that mentioned a problem in the software while creating the PDF. It said the program was confusing the spelling on the two metals and he tried to correct all he could find. Must've missed that one.



If someone went through the book with a spell checker, it wouldn't show up either, because indium is spelt correctly. There's probably a few more, that might have been missed, but I'm in the process of reading it again.

I remembered seeing this the first time I read it, but didn't worry about it at the time.

Edit - page 65/384 of the PDF (page 43 in the book)

(4) DISSOLVING GOLD IN AQUA REGIA, IF DESIRED
For every Troy ounce of metal in the dish (more or less), mix
up at least
I fluid ounce nitric acid,
4 fluid ounces hydrochloric acid.


I fluid ounce of nitric acid - should be 1 "one", instead of I "eye" (This may have gotten switched around, since there are many Roman numerals in the book also)


----------



## FrugalRefiner (Jan 5, 2016)

Grelko! You are correct on the first error! As Ben said, there were many instances where the OCR software that was used on the original scanned version of the book interpreted an "ri" as an "n", changing "iridium" to "indium". And as you've said, spell checking doesn't catch it because indium is spelled correctly. I corrected many of them, but I missed this one.  

The second example is more of a stylistic thing. If you notice, there are many instances where we would normally use a "1", but when this book was published, it was not uncommon to use a capital "I" as a "one". If you scroll up a couple of pages to page 39 in the book, you'll see that section "one" is "(I) PRELIMINARY TREATMENTS". I struggled with some of these differences when I was proofreading the book.

I appreciate you finding and mentioning the first error. I will correct it when I am able to work on the next edit. Please let me know about any other errors you find!

Dave


----------



## UncleBenBen (Jan 5, 2016)

Oooh. OK. Now I've got it. It was the scanning software that misread the older typeset of the original book, right? With the the older style print putting R and I in iRIdium so close together that it 'looked' to the scanner as an N. 

With the half dozen or so times I've read through it, and at least a dozen more times of different chapters so far, I never noticed it either.

Good eye Grelko!


----------



## FrugalRefiner (Jan 5, 2016)

UncleBenBen said:


> Oooh. OK. Now I've got it. It was the scanning software that misread the older typeset of the original book, right? With the the older style print putting R and I in iRIdium so close together that it 'looked' to the scanner as an N.


Pretty much. When this book was originally published, there was no such thing as computers, page layout software, desktop publishing, etc. The type would have been set by hand, so some lines are stretched out, and others are packed tightly together, so a tightly packed "ri" can look like an "n". The scanning software made things a little fuzzier when the book was scanned, and the OCR software turned iridium to indium.



> Good eye Grelko!


I agree!

Dave


----------



## Grelko (Jan 5, 2016)

FrugalRefiner said:


> The second example is more of a stylistic thing.
> 
> I appreciate you finding and mentioning the first error. I will correct it when I am able to work on the next edit. Please let me know about any other errors you find!
> 
> Dave



I figured it might have been that, I just wondered since it tells you how many ounces to use, and the "regular" number 4 below it.

No problem at all, if I come across anything else, I'll be sure to let you know.



UncleBenBen said:


> Oooh. OK. Now I've got it. It was the scanning software that misread the older typeset of the original book, right? With the the older style print putting R and I in iRIdium so close together that it 'looked' to the scanner as an N.
> 
> With the half dozen or so times I've read through it, and at least a dozen more times of different chapters so far, I never noticed it either.
> 
> Good eye Grelko!



When I read Hokes the first time, I thought it looked a bit odd, or squashed together, but when I zoomed in on it, that's when I noticed it.

Thank you. :lol: It was probably my right eye, cause the left one has been through alot.


Edit - PDF 78/384 (Page 56) Third paragraph under "Sulphur Dioxide Gas"

When bubbled slowly through your *regia aqua* solution

it's just backwards.


----------



## Grelko (Jan 8, 2016)

Page 126/384 (104 in the book)

*oftimes* with the addition of base metals.

Ofttimes should have two t's.


----------



## FrugalRefiner (Jan 8, 2016)

Another good catch Grelko! Keep them coming!

Dave


----------



## Grelko (Jan 30, 2016)

Page 152 (130 in the book) top of the page.

of precious metals and considerable dirt. He will reduce this to a
button, as described in Chapter XVIII on Low Grade Wastes, *which
button* should be refined according to the procedure shortly to be
described.

Possibly switch this to "in which the button should" or "which then the button should"?

It just sounded odd to me when I read it.


----------



## jason_recliner (Jan 30, 2016)

It's merely an archaic form of expression.

It may sound odd in modern "US English". But to describe a button, which button should be refined, is perfectly acceptable. Especially as English before the most recent hundred years of de-evolution, an' all dat.


----------



## Grelko (Jan 30, 2016)

jason_recliner said:


> But to describe a button, which button should be refined, is perfectly acceptable.



That's what I thought at first, it just sounded like she was trying to describe a second button. I was seeing if there were any missed words that went with it, because of how it was written. 

There are certain things that just seem odd, like the US and UK versions of the color grey/gray etc. I do still use many of the older terms though, especially if I'm writing poetry, like thee, thou, alas etc. I've always liked the "Old English" terms more.



> de-evolution, an' all dat.



:lol: It's pretty bad around my town, with all of the "slang" terms.


----------



## Grelko (Jan 31, 2016)

Page 165 (143 in book) Chapter XIII Stock Pot

"If you filtered properly there will be no *silver chloride* and no lead sulphate"

Nothing in the entire chapter tells you how to remove silver chloride from the stock pot, by the off chance you did get any in there.

All that it tells you, is the above sentence about silver chloride and this.

Page 166 (144) (The Stock Pot should contain only such solutions as are definitely
described as suitable to be added to it. In particular, never let any
cyanide get into the Stock Pot, nor the silver nitrate solutions that
belong in the Silver Jar, nor any of the other solutions you were
told explicitly to throw away.)

On a side note, Page 174 (152) the "unexpected effect" on paper, from the copper-ammonia compound, besides weakening the paper, is very interesting. There is a free E-book called Workshop Receipts by C. G. Warnford Lock from back in 1889, that has more information about it.


----------



## upcyclist (Feb 1, 2016)

Grelko said:


> Page 165 (143 in book) Chapter XIII Stock Pot
> 
> "If you filtered properly there will be no *silver chloride* and no lead sulphate"
> 
> Nothing in the entire chapter tells you how to remove silver chloride from the stock pot, by the off chance you did get any in there.


If you've only been putting filtered solutions in your stock pot, then you shouldn't have any solids, much less silver chloride & lead sulfate, in your stock pot. Note that this is only true if you're purely using Hoke's methods (in which case, you've probably also killed your dog and generally made Mother Nature cry). 

The stock pot is one of those places where many modern refiners stray from Hoke's methods. My stock pot is continuously processing, with a bubbler and scrap copper in it, so I always have some solids in there, as it's also the first step of my acid waste processing. 

My stock pot/waste process (based on what 4metals posted in this thread): 

Almost all acid waste goes in the stockpot, except: leaching solutions (which I haven't done yet, just collecting scrap atm), cyanide solutions, and unused acids (e.g., the last few drops of HCl I didn't use after pouring some in a beaker for ease of pouring). In other words, stuff I know I don't want in acid or stuff I know is devoid of PMs. The bucket also has an aquarium stone hooked to a bubbler, and some copper in it--sometimes pipe, sometimes a large wad of heavy guage wire (=<12g). The preferred source is bus bar, but I've never seen one in person 
When the pot is full "enough", I turn off or remove the bubbler and let it settle. Then I decant the liquid into a second bucket, which has essentially the same setup but has wrought iron instead of copper in it. With the iron, I occasionally rap it on the bottom of the bucket to knock the copper off of it (it tends to stick to the iron instead of falling to the bottom).
I can then filter off the solids from the bottom of the stock pot and process them. Since I used copper to cement metals out of solution, I'm primarily only left with silver, gold, and PGM solids. I say "primarily" because potentially mercury and tungsten could cement out here. I avoid it, but it's possible. If I had used zinc as Hoke suggests, I'd also have all the metals that end up at the bottom of my second bucket (see below) as well as iron.
Same with the "iron" bucket--it will cement out the copper and many other base metals. If you're lucky, you can find a buyer for it, probably by convincing them it's essentially dirty brass.
My last processing bucket has a piece of limestone in it for neutralizing the acids, whereupon they'll drop most of the other metals. I also occasionally throw hydrated lime in there for good measure if the pH is high.

Perhaps too much detail, but it's where I diverge from Hoke.

_Edited to add_: I am in no way denigrating Hoke's methods--it's just that what is considered "safe to discard" has greatly changed in the intervening 70 years. In fact, since I'm not currently refining e-scrap, this is my only major divergence from Hoke's methods.


----------



## Grelko (Feb 2, 2016)

upcyclist said:


> If you've only been putting filtered solutions in your stock pot, then you shouldn't have any solids, much less silver chloride & lead sulfate, in your stock pot. Note that this is only true if you're purely using Hoke's methods (in which case, you've probably also killed your dog and generally made Mother Nature cry).
> 
> The stock pot is one of those places where many modern refiners stray from Hoke's methods. My stock pot is continuously processing, with a bubbler and scrap copper in it, so I always have some solids in there, as it's also the first step of my acid waste processing.



I don't even have a stock pot yet  I barely get to work on my material.

I was just looking for different things in the book that were misspelt, or out of place etc, while I'm reading it again.



> My stock pot/waste process (based on what 4metals posted in this thread):
> 
> _Edited to add_: I am in no way denigrating Hoke's methods--it's just that what is considered "safe to discard" has greatly changed in the intervening 70 years. In fact, since I'm not currently refining e-scrap, this is my only major divergence from Hoke's methods.



That definately sounds like a good way to run your stock pot. It really has changed alot from what's in the book compared to now. I wouldn't go as far as adding a new chapter to the book, because of its significance to the ways it used to be done (which are probably still used for certain items), but maybe a seperate small booklet especially for E-scrap that goes with it. Then again, Lazersteves DVDs, or others, most likely have an updated version already.


----------



## jason_recliner (Feb 2, 2016)

Grelko said:


> I was just looking for different things in the book that were misspelt, or out of place etc, while I'm reading it again.


Just your last post here has at least five. Pot / Kettle. Just saying.


----------



## Grelko (Feb 2, 2016)

jason_recliner said:


> Just your last post here has at least five. Pot / Kettle. Just saying.



Yeah, I tend to ramble on or get side tracked if I'm tired. I should just read the book.


----------

