# Modtheworld44's Reverse AR Variation



## modtheworld44 (Oct 16, 2015)

I have chosen to share a first look at my process.I have been using this and testing it for the past 6-8 months now.Just recently I have passed the process on to 3 of our other forum members also,sorta as a beta testing and to gain better feed back.Two of those members have already given me good feed back so far and waiting to hear from the third.This process was thought of based on Time,chemical usage and cost,types of material that can be used,after wastes,and lot load sizes.

I have run 6+pounds of material start to final melt in under 24hours at a minute for minute basis.That includes a full dissolution of all the metals.This process presents allot of learning curves that I had to come to a understanding with,and this is why I'm not quite ready to release it for public use just yet.When I feel that we have done enough beta testing,I will and am going to give it to the forum.

I want to ask that this thread Not be trashed by our trolls.I know that allot of people disagree with my views and insight on refining,but that's just it "There my views and insights".

All the information used to build and put this process together was found here on this great forum!!!! I just had to learn how to piece it together.Thanks in advance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrkgnYoCSxQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UApF-C9Uqbs



modtheworld44


----------



## kurtak (Oct 16, 2015)

Jerry 

Thanks for sending me those videos by PM this morning - after our talk on the phone the other day the videos helped clarify what you were saying

Can't wait to give it a go - need to get a few things together so it might be a week or so (+/-)

Need to come up with another name though as its not really a "variation" of reverse AR

Kurt


----------



## modtheworld44 (Oct 16, 2015)

kurtak said:


> Jerry
> 
> Thanks for sending me those videos by PM this morning - after our talk on the phone the other day the videos helped clarify what you were saying
> 
> ...



kurtak

How about the TB(The Beast)LOL :mrgreen: 



modtheworld44


----------



## g_axelsson (Oct 16, 2015)

Maybe I'm a troll, but I'm not seeing any sharing with the forum.

A bowl with a bubbling reaction in a dark liquid. Talking about "chemicals" in shot glasses, powder and some catalyst.
What is the gain of using "reverse AR" and still dissolving all the material? As I see it, *the advantage of reverse AR is that you don't have to dissolve all materials.*
There is some truth in Kurt's words, maybe your variant of reverse AR is that it isn't reverse AR at all. Just hitting the scrap with the chemical equality of a 10 pound sledge hammer.

Not once mention in writing or in the video what chemicals you use.

I would call this useless as it is for the forum at large. Nothing to see here folks, move on!

Göran


----------



## Geo (Oct 16, 2015)

Jerry, stay safe.


----------



## etack (Oct 16, 2015)

g_axelsson said:


> Maybe I'm a troll, but I'm not seeing any sharing with the forum.
> 
> A bowl with a bubbling reaction in a dark liquid. Talking about "chemicals" in shot glasses, powder and some catalyst.
> What is the gain of using "reverse AR" and still dissolving all the material? As I see it, *the advantage of reverse AR is that you don't have to dissolve all materials.*
> ...



Goran I had the same thing typed up but thought a moderates should say it. So thank you for saying it this is just forum clutter. 

We should take guesses on the chemistry though for fun. 

Sulfuric acid shot glass
Sodium nitrate powder
H2O2 catalyst


----------



## modtheworld44 (Oct 16, 2015)

g_axelsson said:


> Maybe I'm a troll, but I'm not seeing any sharing with the forum.
> 
> A bowl with a bubbling reaction in a dark liquid. Talking about "chemicals" in shot glasses, powder and some catalyst.
> What is the gain of using "reverse AR" and still dissolving all the material? As I see it, *the advantage of reverse AR is that you don't have to dissolve all materials.*
> ...



g_axelsson

Thanks for the idea we can call it "Sledge Hammer".I really like the sound of that.Well back to the Sledge Hammer to get my gold.Thanks in advance.




Geo said:


> Jerry, stay safe.



I always refine as safely as you do,but thanks for the reminder.



modtheworld44


----------



## JHS (Oct 16, 2015)

I am one of the three.I spent 2.5 hours on skype with Mod talking and watching this process.The next day I used the process.
It worked as he described it.I ran ten pounds of pins and got the same yield as I get from my ap tank.The difference is 2.5 hours for this process,3 to 4 weeks for ap.
Mod , all I did was wash the gold powder in hot HCL and water a few times,and melted it.When I tested the gold it passed a 22k test.Thought I would let you know.
In mod's defense.,he did say he would tell the forum when he was ready.
It is not a sulfuric solution.It does not dissolve the gold.you should just wait on mod to post it,and not just guess.
john

P.S.I think you should call it,M44


----------



## modtheworld44 (Oct 16, 2015)

etack said:


> g_axelsson said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe I'm a troll, but I'm not seeing any sharing with the forum.
> ...



etack

Sorry not quite,but that is the best way to make nitric though in my opinion.You should try it,you might like the nitric thats produced from it.Thanks for the guess but this wasn't intended as a guessing game thread.Guess you'll just have to wait for the last of the beta testing to get done to know the chemicals used.Thanks in advance.



modtheworld44


----------



## JHS (Oct 16, 2015)

Sulfuric acid shot glass
Sodium nitrate powder
H2O2 catalyst[/quote said:


> Doesn't this make nitric?


----------



## g_axelsson (Oct 16, 2015)

etack said:


> Goran I had the same thing typed up but thought a moderates should say it. So thank you for saying it this is just forum clutter.
> 
> We should take guesses on the chemistry though for fun.
> 
> ...


That was wholly my own opinion as I haven't spoken with any of the other moderators of it. The reason I spoke up is that I feel an obligation to the forum to point out anything of dubious value, mostly for the newbies that doesn't know what's good or bad.
We always claims that any bad information is quickly caught and exposed here, so let's keep it that way.

I think you might have the chemistry down correct. There's no BFRC, gold is preserved so there can't be nitrate and chloride ions present at the same time.

I just wonder what could be called a catalyst, as a catalyst is a substance that participates in the reaction but comes out in the end in the same way it started.

I have used the expression chemical sledgehammer previously, it describes when someone dissolves everything into a mess and then tries to get it out. It might work but there's no finesse in it.
It's like having a box of biscuits and using a sledgehammer to open it, you can scrape up the crumbs with some extra debris from the ground afterwards and the box is not usable any longer. With the right tool you can pry the box up and get the cookies a lot cleaner and the box can be reused.
I will continue to use the expression for that kind of situations.

Göran


----------



## kurtak (Oct 16, 2015)

Guys - just hang on for a bit 

Jerry has every intent to share the process - here is the thing --- Jerry has had some trouble in the past with being considered "off his rocker" &/or "outlandish" - soooo ----

Until he has had it tested by some other members (he has decided on 3) that can confirm that it in fact works as he says it does he doesn't want to post the details & have it thrown back in his face that he is off his rocker &/or outlandish --- he wants to "first" have it "confirmed" by all three of the members he has chose to share it with

I am that third member & I have just in the last few days talked with Jerry to get & understand the working parameters of the method - I now have to get a few things together to give it a go - that may take a little while but I will get it done - for example I checked around a couple places for the dry chem but could not find it - so I made a phone call & found it but have to buy a 50 lb bag - so I am going to check a couple more places before putting out the money for a 50 lb bag when I don't need that much --- plus I have a few other things I have to take care of before I dive into this --- so give me a week to 9 - 10 days to get what I need to do done to give it my try

If it works as claimed (& I believe it will) it will be worth the wait --- & from what I can see there are no "extreme" dangers to this process to throw up red flags

in other words Jerry is just waiting on me to run it - so I can confirm it - when he does post the details 

So consider it a "preview" of something good to come as I feel fairly confident that I will be able to confirm the process once I run it

And I will say it again --- who would of thought that you could strip silver plate in a cell with nothing but water --- until Jerry posted it here on the forum 

Edit to add; - if it doesn't met the claim I will post that as well 

Kurt


----------



## etack (Oct 16, 2015)

modtheworld44 said:


> etack said:
> 
> 
> > g_axelsson said:
> ...



If you didn't want a guessing game than you shouldn't post cryptic threads that only two other members are clear on.

I don't care what your NEW way is, 'cause its not new its just new to you. Like the "H2O cell" people have been making colloidal silver that way forever. In your H2O cell videos you dont even show the silver plate removed all the way.

https://www.google.com/search?q=how+to+make+colloidal+silver&oq=how+to+make+collo&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l5.10918j0j9&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8

If you want to strip silver plate read this.
This is the patent for it no guessing just facts.

http://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/0f32bf8f1b927e10c230/EP1487646B1.pdf
http://www.google.com/patents/US6783690

Just be safe and have a great day................

Eric


----------



## modtheworld44 (Oct 16, 2015)

etack said:


> modtheworld44 said:
> 
> 
> > etack said:
> ...



etack

I don't know if you thought I would actually look and read all those link or not,but if not you were wrong.If your going to try and debate against something you should know what your debating about and know what your talking about.This is strictly my opinion and nothing more.It is obvious that you haven't even tried the H2O cell and the links are about stripping silver from circuit boards and for making colloidal silver,which is not what my H2O cell is used for at all so when you can get your facts straight we can continue this debate in a PM.Thanks for bringing the dummy out of me.



modtheworld44


----------



## Anonymous (Oct 17, 2015)

Guys

If it's one thing that we can learn from history it's that innovators are consistently pilloried and reviled and mocked. You can find a list as long as your arm of famous inventors who went through this, and of course equally a list as long as your arm of inventors and innovators who were never successful.

Rather than take the approach of writing off the things that Mod is saying "out of hand" I prefer to take the higher ground until it is proven one way or another. 

Let's see the test data first, at which point we'll see where it stands and who had the right viewpoint. 

Jon


----------



## patnor1011 (Oct 17, 2015)

I will wait to see about all of this, my pile of pins is starting to irritate my wife and I will have to do something with them. My shed is starting to resemble hoarder den and it is becoming harder and harder to find things buried under other things. 8)


----------



## solar_plasma (Oct 17, 2015)

yo-ho-ho... finally a topic in my little battle ground again  H2O cell....

H2O cell or* pure distilled water cell*, as I would call it, will produce colloidal silver.

The cell, we call the* tap water cell* will not produce colloidal silver, and if so only marginal. Tap water mostly contains as a main contaminant Na+ and Cl-. The Na+ is commonly known attracted by the cathode, where it gains an electron. It would form Na metal, but this reacts immediately with H2O, forming NaOH, which provides an alkaline electrolyte (with my tap water it goes to pH 9-10). The Cl- is attracted by the anode silver, which corrodes and gives clouds of AgCl off to the liquid, which finally end up in the other pricipitates and cell slimes. Because of the high overvoltage anodizing occurs. The anode is directly attacked by the produced oxygen and forms brown-black-grey insoluble slimes, while the surface corrodes away. As soon as large areals of basemetal are exposed, the stripping cell gets less and less effective, because we have an increasing anodic protection of the silver by the basemetals, though by far not as much as I have seen it in a CuSO4 cell, where massive material like the inside of a knife handle can be eaten away and silver foils are left.

The silver is oxidized to Ag2O (it is a little more complex system of silver chalcogens, but in the end, there is mainly Ag2O). Ofcourse it is not pure, because the exposed basemetals also form oxides. Most H2 is gassing off. Directly at the cathode some nascending H reacts with oxides around, but I doubt this plays a major role.

This is no guessing and it is not new. I posted a 70 year old scientific document about the processes. But the application and the systematic and targeted usage is new, as far as I know. Nothing else did Mod say.

edit: I deleted my comment about incomplete information, because I just saw, this has been explained already.

Btw. I love this Tennessee way of speeking, - slow enough to understand every single word, a clear pronunciation and a sympathic Forrest-Gump-like intonation of some syllables.


----------



## kurtak (Oct 17, 2015)

etack said:


> If you didn't want a guessing game than you shouldn't post cryptic threads that only two other members are clear on.



Nothing "cryptic" about it

Jerry posted a link to his video showing the method in action (which he made to show me to give me a better understanding of what we talked about on the phone)

He then states that he "is going" to be sharing it with the forum - but - that he first wants to wait till it has been fully tested by those of us he has shared it with privately

Jerry has good reason for doing it this way --- for one thing Jerry does not present/explain him self well (something he & I have also talked about) for one thing he tends to talk in riddles which frustrates &/or confuses people - its not that Jerry intends to present him self this way - rather it is the way he works things out &/or solves problems in his own mind --- so by nature/personality that is how he ends up presenting it

Where this is a problem for some people - it is not a problem for me --- therefore Jerry has decided he is going to share his process with the forum - & all he is saying is "please wait for Kurt to run it" so he can help explain it when I post the details --- meaning Jerry feels I do a better job of explaining details 

This is Jerry's process - he came up with it (not me) therefore I will let Jerry be the one to present it (which he will do once I have an actual "working" experience with it) --- because then I can "help" with explaining it &/or answering questions

In other words - very much the same way that Jerry "presented" the H2O silver plate stripping cell - & then Bjorn picked it up - ran with it & made it all come together in a thread that turned into a 7 page discussion



> Like the "H2O cell" people have been making colloidal silver that way forever



Correct Eric --- but - it was Jerry - that presented it as a way of stripping silver plating that turned into a 7 page discussion --- the "credit" for "presenting" it as a method to strip silver plating --- goes to Jerry - no one else thought of it



> I don't care what your NEW way is, 'cause its not new its just new to you.



That may or may not be true Eric - in other words Eric - whether Jerry found it through research out side the forum - or whether it is something he "put together" on his own does not matter - because it will be new - to this forum ----- just like AP/CuCl2 was not a "new" process in & of its self - but it was certainly "new" as a process for recovering foils from pins & finger --- AFTER Steve (I believe it was) presented it as such here to the forum 

So Eric - I suggest that if you have a such problem (personal) &/or such a problem with the way Jerry is going about presenting his method that you "choose" to shot the messenger before he has delivered the message - that you can then also choose to completely ignore the message by never clicking on this thread & following it as it develops

I have written this post as I have because I have little or no question after extended phone discussion with Jerry that this is a process that will help members of this forum - its just a matter of me now "working" it to get the full comprehension so that I can help with the presentation &/or Q&A part of discussion

Kurt


----------



## solar_plasma (Oct 17, 2015)

> - it was Jerry - that presented it as a way of stripping silver plating that turned into a 7 page discussion --- the "credit" for "presenting" it as a method to strip silver plating --- goes to Jerry - no one else thought of it



Correct. And even it shares some disadvantages with other silver stripping cells, it is the best choice, since it provides the advantage of not producing any waste, being cheap (no costs) and being very safe compared to any other methods that come to mind.

If this thread turns out to be as giving as the H2O thread, we have to admit, Jerry to have a flair for finding promising applications.


----------



## kurtak (Oct 17, 2015)

solar_plasma said:


> If this thread turns out to be as giving as the H2O thread,



I am 95 to 99% confident that it will - the process is really already proven - Jerry is just waiting on me as the third "outside" test of it (for confirmation) so I am the bottle neck in holding up the full details - I just got the full details a couple days ago though (we discussed it before - but details were just laid out the other day) - so give me a bit of time to get it together & run it



> we have to admit, Jerry to have a flair for finding promising applications.



:lol: He actually has a "theory" on another one - we talked about - he ran one test - we talked about again - I pointed out a flaw in the test & what to do to confirm it is actually working as expected - soooo - we will see - it has "potential" but for sure needs more testing :mrgreen: 

This one may have some safety issues that may need to be addressed - if it in fact works

Kurt


----------



## kazamir (Oct 17, 2015)

This is exciting, more exciting than the eclipse, I have 50 lbs. of pins waiting for the Sledge.


----------



## g_axelsson (Oct 17, 2015)

spaceships said:


> Guys
> 
> If it's one thing that we can learn from history it's that innovators are consistently pilloried and reviled and mocked. You can find a list as long as your arm of famous inventors who went through this, and of course equally a list as long as your arm of inventors and innovators who were never successful.
> 
> ...


Out of all the scientists and innovators that work hard on extending our knowledge very few are consistently pilloried and reviled and mocked. Out of the 835 Nobel prize winners since 1901, how many have been? Sure, there have been a few and nothing else is expected, in the few cases when there is a paradigm shift in science there is a hard battle of convincing other scientists of the validity of the new model. But never is the argument used that I'm mocked therefore I'm right.
There is so many more cases of scientists and innovators being mocked and then they turned out to be wrong in the end. How many people have invented perpetual motion machines, been mocked and still being wrong. Cold fusion anyone? Gold from sea water? Fossil bacteria in a Martian meteorite? The Mayans new about the end of the world in 21 December 2012?
Not many believers in that last one any longer. :mrgreen: 

The forum is full of threads where people have promised "I will come back and report" but never did. Maybe they lost the data, never finished the project or so, but few is as cryptic as this post and the videos. If Mod had worked for half a year already, why couldn't he just have waited another week on Kurt to test the "new procedure" and then presented a method?

A least we know it's not reverse AR at all, so much Kurt already told us and that should be stated clearly to not confuse anyone that research the reverse AR procedure.

Still waiting on a clarification of what all this is about.

Göran


----------



## modtheworld44 (Oct 17, 2015)

kazamir said:


> This is exciting, more exciting than the eclipse, I have 50 lbs. of pins waiting for the Sledge.



kazamir

I have decided to rename it the "M44 Process".I like it way better.What type of base metal,a mix,well it doesn't even apply to this process.I have run ceramic cpus,gold filled,pins of all sorts,gold plated coaxial's connectors,brass,aluminium,even stainless that want dissolve but will free the gold.

Here's a question for all who want to contribute some real calculated data.
Please some one who is good with equations check my math.

If kazamir wanted to fully dissolve all fifty pounds of pins and do it quickly and say with nitric and in five pound batches.I'll figure it as if the pins were all copper based.

3.8-3.9ml per gram of copper
50lbs x 454=22,700grams
22,700 x 3.8=86,260ml of nitric
86,260ml /1000=86.26 lt
86.26lt / 3.78541=22gallons of nitric

Price of refine for small time refiner like me for 22gallons of nitric 300-1000 dollars minimum.Let's not forget to at least add time it would take to run it on one heat source(because most of us only have one)=maybe a week just a guess.

My process I could get it down to 300 dollars or below, and time about the same week maybe less.

This is just an example and my measurements might be wrong or off,so please just correct it with a scientific perspective.

If some one would like to do the equation for doing the same 50lbs in say AR,AP or any non cyanide process(another words processes that almost all members would have access to the chemicals used)then feel free.Keep in mind these parameters,one heat source,container availability,cost of chemicals to small refiners to little or no connection,time it actually takes to completely dissolve lbs of material,time it takes to get from start to melt.

To all yall guys who are actually willing to hear me out and give me the time of day.Thank you for your effort and support on this,it really means the World to me.Thank You Forum for the Knowledge yall have provided me.



modtheworld44


----------



## danieldavies (Oct 17, 2015)

Im looking forward to the results. Keep it up.


----------



## FrugalRefiner (Oct 17, 2015)

Speaking, not as a moderator, but just as a forum member, I'm willing to wait till Kurt has a chance to test this and hear what Mod is doing.

We all carry baggage through life, and Mod has a bit that's been created here and on RoPM. I don't know him, so I don't understand his style, or his motivation for claiming to be a dummy, or why he released these videos before being willing to describe the chemistry or process behind them. So it's no surprise that there are opinions on both sides of the fence.

Many advertising campaigns have been launched in similar fashion to create some buzz / hype / interest before a product is released. Maybe that's what he's doing here. 

He has said he will share the process, so I, for one, intend to be patient and wait for him to do so. If he follows through, we can all evaluate the process and decide if it meets our individual needs. If he doesn't, we will react to that if it happens.

Until then, I hope we'll all try to keep things positive.

Dave


----------



## maynman1751 (Oct 17, 2015)

Wisely spoken Dave!!!!


----------



## Geo (Oct 17, 2015)

This is not meant to demean or criticize. 

Jerry, I really understand what you feel. The one and only problem that I had and still have with your processes is that this is the way you want to present them. Very cryptic and sketchy. I have never felt that you were "dumb" or unintelligent and don't believe anyone else does. You have a tendency to want to rush into something and then post about before you are ready. It's a good idea to let other members try and recreate what you are doing and as a matter of fact, I'm the one that suggested it a long time ago. Instead of a preview, why not wait until these members have been able to recreate your work. No one is going to claim your work. You have time to wait. That way you can post the process in full with the blessings of other members to stand behind you. Posting bits and pieces tends to get on peoples nerves. It's this, that has caused people to act the way they do. If you have figured out a short cut or have perfected a process, wait until it can be reproduced by other members and then post the entire process for everyone to try. Don't be hurt if someone tries to debunk your ideas but instead, just refer to other members who has successfully tried the process. All this cryptic stuff alluding to a better way just puts people off is all I'm trying to say.

Good luck.


----------



## Palladium (Oct 17, 2015)

I believe in open source projects. Like Geo said no one is going to scam the credit for your work on here. If that was the case then this board would not have had the contributions to knowledge it has over the years. You will find that a project can move along at a much greater rate of development as well as have a higher correction factor for innovation and improvements if that project is worked on by many individuals instead of one. I could care less about the chemical process side of what your doing because to me you are not going to beat me at nitric. I can run that lot with 22 gallons of nitric for less than $75 and i to can do it in less than a day. You need very little heat do the whole 50 lbs at once verses small lots like you mention. The size of the lot and the solution itself will generate all the heat you need until the end where you MIGHT need a little. I also don't like catchy code words for the process. This ain't ebay, and this ain't T-6, give it a more scientific name if you want to be taken more seriously. I am interested in the fact that you're trying to find new ground and that even though it may not be the scientific break though of the year it may still have its applications for the small refiner who can't access cheap plentiful nitric like you mentioned. Time will tell the tell. His accent is just as country as mine! :mrgreen: I'm watching with interest.


----------



## JHS (Oct 17, 2015)

I just wonder if any other member has taken as much ridicule as Jerry has,and still thinks about sharing .Personally I would not go through this to share anything.I used to tell my kids,if you want a piece of candy,ask, please may I have a piece of candy.
Jerry is not looking for anyone to ask please,but he is still willing to share.I,myself might have made a video and sold it on ebay for $50.00 a shot and said if you want my hard work,pay for my time in developing the process.
JHS


----------



## Palladium (Oct 17, 2015)

The man deserves to be heard. I'll give him credit for trying! The outcome is a different story, but he should have the chance to plead his theory.


----------



## solar_plasma (Oct 17, 2015)

I've never seen the posts, where Jerry had taken any ridicule, but that depends on the definition of ridicule of course. I think half of, what we have written here, would better have been written in bar&grill :lol: 

I am very interested in the method, but I do quite not mind if it is shared or not. I already know 2 types of "sledge hammer" and plenty of variations, most I already tried. If anyone shares something, he doesn't do it for free, he gains something - maybe it makes him feel to be part of a fellowship (true in my case), or someone might gain respect and credits (not needed, but cool anyways), others can't take that their valuable knowledge disappears together with their own lives. I am sure there are a lot of other motivations, but one thing for sure, nobody, not even mother Theresa does anything without having any advantage. Well, this is one view to look at human behaviour, but it is the most scientific one.



> The man deserves to be heard. I'll give him credit for trying! The outcome is a different story, but he should have the chance to plead his theory.



Yap! I love those developing stories of trial, error and success.


----------



## Geo (Oct 17, 2015)

Ridicule is kind of strong. I would say constructive criticism at the most.


----------



## Anonymous (Oct 17, 2015)

Geo said:


> Ridicule is kind of strong. I would say constructive criticism at the most.



Humour me Geo and point out the constructive criticism in the two comments below please? It's a genuine question because I'm honestly struggling to see it. 

Firstly "I would call this useless as it is for the forum at large. Nothing to see here folks, move on!"

Then "Goran I had the same thing typed up but thought a moderates should say it. So thank you for saying it this is just forum clutter. 

We should take guesses on the chemistry though for fun."


----------



## JHS (Oct 17, 2015)

spaceships said:


> Geo said:
> 
> 
> > Ridicule is kind of strong. I would say constructive criticism at the most.
> ...



Yes Geo,please do
JHS


----------



## solar_plasma (Oct 17, 2015)

> I would call this useless as it is for the forum at large. Nothing to see here folks, move on!



Well, as the 4th post in this thread, this had been correct so far. First later it was explained, what lies behind this topic.

Come on, brothers! Try not to lay every single word said on the gold weight. This is hard when somebody feels personally involved, nobody does know this better than tender me :mrgreen: But everyone should try not to take anyone, especially himself, too serious.


----------



## Anonymous (Oct 17, 2015)

Hehe Bjorn that's a good perspective to take. I like it. 8) 8) 

I will bow to your better judgement mate. :lol:


----------



## JHS (Oct 17, 2015)

spaceships said:


> Hehe Bjorn that's a good perspective to take. I like it. 8) 8)
> 
> I will bow to your better judgement mate. :lol:



OK me too,but i still think everything past Kurtak's first post is just clutter and should be moved to bar & grill so when the process is posted we don't have all this junk in the way.
john


----------



## solar_plasma (Oct 17, 2015)

:lol: Until now whole of the thread is just goss and coffee klatsch. It could be moved to bar&grill already now and Jerry should post his discovery straightly and complete in a new thread.


----------



## g_axelsson (Oct 17, 2015)

spaceships said:


> Geo said:
> 
> 
> > Ridicule is kind of strong. I would say constructive criticism at the most.
> ...


I stand by my comments, but you only cited the last line where I summed up my feelings. To be fair I think you should read all I wrote as something that belongs together.



g_axelsson said:


> Maybe I'm a troll, but I'm not seeing any sharing with the forum.
> 
> A bowl with a bubbling reaction in a dark liquid. Talking about "chemicals" in shot glasses, powder and some catalyst.
> What is the gain of using "reverse AR" and still dissolving all the material? As I see it, *the advantage of reverse AR is that you don't have to dissolve all materials.*
> ...


What I was telling is that as it was presented it doesn't share anything unless you have prior knowledge of what the process consists of.

Spaceships, can you point out what in these two videos are useful for someone that hasn't prior knowledge?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrkgnYoCSxQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UApF-C9Uqbs

I still stand by my words that nothing of value has been shared so far. It's three chemicals, one in shot glasses, one is a powder and one is a catalyst, oh I almost forgot, "it's nice".
Remember that it's not only seasoned refiners that read these threads, clueless newbies does so too and need guidance.

This does only reflect my own views, I haven't discussed this thread with any other of the moderators. Whenever I speak as a moderator I will tell you so, until then I'm just an ordinary member of this forum.

Göran


----------



## Smack (Oct 17, 2015)

You doubters need to chill for a few. The results will be self evident soon enough. Y'all should be more concerned about the fact that if it is a good and viable process, he chose to share it with anyone at all. If it's not as billed it should serve as a big boost to your ego, either way you win.


----------



## 4metals (Oct 17, 2015)

One thing that this forum has reinforced in my education as a refiner is that the more people look at a problem from many different perspectives, the more variations they produce. This has in the past resulted in some better methods than the "experts" ever thought of. The one thing about learning is that once you think you can't learn any more, you're done, you won't learn any more. So I, for one, am open to trying any method a member posts if it meets certain criteria related to the scientific process. 

Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your perspective) this requires complete disclosure, and no misstatement of facts. 

This thread has yet to disclose any detail and it has misstated some key facts.

The thread title is misleading. What this forum has dubbed reverse AR, is a process involving the use of a blend of low percentages of hydrochloric acid and large percentages of nitric acid. But reverse AR does dissolve the gold, Mod's process does not, and reverse AR passivates the stainless steel it was configured to work in a way that results in no dissolution of the substrate material. Mod's process completely dissolves the base material. For the record, this process is *not* a variation of reverse AR.

I have to agree with Goran, without specific detail, this thread is little more than a tease. However in defense of Mod's stated intentions I think we should all wait for details. With details, more members can try this process and give it a thorough evaluation. And if it stands up to that test, it will be placed in the library and become another tool that refiners have in dealing with the many variations of scrap presented for recovery. But it all starts with disclosure.


----------



## kurtak (Oct 18, 2015)

4metals said:


> But it all starts with disclosure.



That should be forth coming before the end of this week

One thing holding it up is me getting the dry chem so I can run the process - found it late in the day yesterday with a phone call - going to get it today

Tomorrow I "absolutely" have to run my big furnace to do some smelting - tomorrow is the "only" day in the extended forecast that is going to be warm enough for me to do this 

I already had other things planed for Tue & Wed but am going to see how I can juggle those plans a bit in order to fit running the process on one or the other of those two days

I will shoot for Tue - other wise Wed

Kurt


----------



## solar_plasma (Oct 18, 2015)

Since the speculations already started, I will unsolicitedly add my 2 cents :mrgreen: :

The bubbles and the way the liquid is bubbling remembers a lot to* H2O2*. No brown gasses, so probably but not necessarily there is not HNO3 or a nitrate involved. The reaction looks a lot like sulfuric acid - the vapors look like water rather then hydrochloric, but since it has been disclosed no sulfuric has been used, I would assume it is some kind of sulfate or *persulfate*. The third ingredient can only be *a dilluted acid*, in my simple mind's ignorant realms.


----------



## kazamir (Oct 18, 2015)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqo6aIk8cgU

Above is a link to Mods third video.


----------



## Geo (Oct 18, 2015)

Cool to watch. I can get gold foils from pins in a day and night using copper chloride and my oxygen concentrator. No boiling, no heat. Just AP and pure oxygen. If you want to remove base metal and leave the gold foils faster, ferric chloride will react just like that when heated. An oxidizer will drive the reaction forward without ever dissolving any gold. I will be interested in how Jerry's process is going to be better.


----------



## butcher (Oct 18, 2015)

Looks very similar to what I do with concentrated hot concentrated copper chloride and or iron chloride.
I didn't really want to comment on this thread until some detail was given, at this point all is just speculation.


----------



## Shark (Oct 19, 2015)

kazamir said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqo6aIk8cgU
> 
> Above is a link to Mods third video.



I think that was the first video.


----------



## NobleMetalWorks (Oct 19, 2015)

modtheworld44 said:


> etack said:
> 
> 
> > modtheworld44 said:
> ...



Mod, if you refuse to watch videos that a member in good standing is suggesting might clarify what is being discussed, then what does that say about you? Regardless how I feel about a discussion, if material is presented that might clarify something that was stated, I am going to check it out so that I have a better understanding of at least what is being explained.

If you are going to accuse etack of not understanding what he's talking about, you might do well to go back and read his posts. He has never in my estimation or experience in reading his posts, had any problem ever admitting that he is not clear about knowing something, as well it has also been my pleasure to read posts where he has explained something or presented information that clarified something. You might do well yourself to know who it is you are talking about, before you make assumptions about their ability to understand the subject matter.

You seem to NOT understand that the same way an H2O cell functions is the same way that silver could be stripped from circuit boards, and the same way colloidal silver can be made. How do I know this? Well I have done all these things using the same equipment, in the same way as an H2O cell. So prior to making a grand stand by refusing to look into information that was presented to you as a way to help you understand what it is that is being discussed you might do yourself a favor and look into it. Honestly, it only takes up a small portion of your time, and will save you countless hours of speculation or engaging people in forum threads with the sole purpose of defending your position, which honestly is not really defensible. In this day and age, when information is so incredibly, readily available, there is literally no reason for you to post in ignorance when it can be resolved so easily.

I am not sure why you feel the need to be so secretive when you have already stated you are going to eventually disclose your process. Whatever it is you are doing, regardless of what your solution consists of, has already been done. As has been stated by other members, you might serve your intent far better by seeking advice and help, rather than pretending you have some super secret recipe you have concocted and only shared with a few "secret squirrel" ring holders. The only thing all this advertising does is build expectation, either for failure or unreal success. Once you have divulged the actual process, after such a climatic build up, it will most likely be a huge let down.

You should be given the opportunity, as all members should be, to prove your process without being accused of certain things, unless you play games as it seems you are in this thread. I am not sure if you are just attempting to drive youtube views, or if you enjoy dragging all this out for attention, or if you are just simply very different. I can say this, the way you are going about this will cause people to create an opinion about you prior to you ever disclosing anything, which may or may not be favorable or correct. In the future you might want to consider this prior to posting.

Scott


----------



## kazamir (Oct 19, 2015)

Mod is a down to earth guy. Before throwing out his idea for every newbie to try he wisely sought the help of other GRF refiners to study the process. I hope the three that he chose take as much time as required. What Mod has done was to give GRF a considerate Heads Up.


----------



## 4metals (Oct 19, 2015)

A thread like this can do nothing more than divide members of the forum. When Mod decides to present his findings he can start a new thread as I am locking this one. 

I hope Mod is true to his word and posts the process whether or not it works to his liking. Anything less would be disingenuous.


----------

