# Help with white powder in nitric



## Anonymous (Mar 11, 2009)

I ran a batch of pins in nitric and now I have a lot of white powder in the bottom that I cannot get to go back into solution.Heres my problem.......I don't want to dissolve the gold and filter because I am afraid I will put the powder into solution with the gold.So how do I dissolve the powder without dissolving the gold.Also I had the same problem as another member with the white powder dropping out with the gold from auric chloride,and to this day I never figured out how to fix it.I have probably 15-20 grams of gold in solution that has been sitting for about 6 months because I got too frusterated to continue.


----------



## lazersteve (Mar 11, 2009)

Do you have any photos?

What type(s) of pins did you put in?

Steve


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 11, 2009)

Now Im really upset.Before I posted the first subject I had drained off the saturated nitric and added fresh.My thought was if it was silver then the copper in the pins may have forced it out of solution when the acid became saturated.So I added fresh in hopes that it would go back into solution.Only it looks as though my gold has gone into solution as well.Makes no sense at all.I soaked it in muratic at one point,but cleaned it very well before I put the nitric in,so that I wouldnt make AR.But it looks as though thats what i've done now.This is so freaking frusterating!To answer the pins question steve,they were unused pins from a company that makes boards for the space industry.Mary's friend works there and brings them home to me when they get messed up.I will try to send you a couple of pics via email(I still have that prob of pixel size when I put them on here).Johnny


----------



## ps_jb (Mar 11, 2009)

mariannalice said:


> I ran a batch of pins in nitric and now I have a lot of white powder in the bottom that I cannot get to go back into solution.Heres my problem.......I don't want to dissolve the gold and filter because I am afraid I will put the powder into solution with the gold.So how do I dissolve the powder without dissolving the gold.Also I had the same problem as another member with the white powder dropping out with the gold from auric chloride,and to this day I never figured out how to fix it.I have probably 15-20 grams of gold in solution that has been sitting for about 6 months because I got too frusterated to continue.



Several elements are not dissolved in HNO3. Sn, Sb
Most important is Sn - which produces white precipitate - SnO2*xH2O
It's easly can be dissolved in HCl conc
If you got white precip in HNO3 - it's not a silver.


----------



## Harold_V (Mar 12, 2009)

mariannalice said:


> I soaked it in muratic at one point,but cleaned it very well before I put the nitric in,so that I wouldnt make AR.But it looks as though thats what i've done now.


This is a classic example of why I DO NOT recommend using nitric once your material has been exposed to HCl, or HCl if your material has been exposed to nitric. Incineration is the only way to insure that you can do so safely. Tough way to learn that which has been put in print time and again.

Harold


----------



## butcher (Mar 12, 2009)

powders from an acid and metals, make a salt of acid and metal,
these salts still contain the previous acid,the high heat can drive tem off and oxidize the metal.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 12, 2009)

Thanks harold for being sympathetic to the proplem,instead of throwing mud in someones face.Thankfully I DID EXACTLY WHAT STEVE SUGGESTED and only ran about 10 pins out of several pounds as a test batch just in case this very thing happens!So I am out about a dollar.And while Im on the subject there was about 300ml of nitric,to a maximum of 1 drop of muratic,so before you took the time tp batter me over the potential AR I made,you shouldve taken the time to ask me HOW well I cleaned them first.Well just so you are aware last night while trying to figure out the problem my wife informed me that she had poured 2 containers of muratic together,however one of them was my waste muratic left over from dropping gold and contained bleach and smb.And one last thing,I have read hokes book and I will say there is quite a bit of useful info on just about everything that has to do with metals.But as far as gold goes,I think it is simply a waste of a weeks worth of time.Don't get me wrong,the book is innovative and cutting edge...........FOR ITS TIME! But considering it was written almost 100 years ago most of the processes are just outdated.Again hoke was ahead of the game at the time she wrote the book,but the tips and tricks that we all have learned since then,makes her book a thing of the past.There are at least 30 books that have been published about gold processing in the last 10 years that are so much more useful and speaks on a level that people of today can understand easier.Sorry I am getting off track here,I am just pissed off because instead of trying to help(which is what this forum is here for)you decided to cast stones.That was just rude.Well thanks to the people that did offer to help,it is greatly appreciated.
Johnny
P.S.The fresh nitric did dissolve the powder.


----------



## elfixx (Mar 12, 2009)

If you added tap water or HCL or any Chlorine compound to your nitric this white powder that wont disolve is probably silver chloride. In my opinion your only option from now on is to disolve the value in AR and then filter out the chloride. But i'm no pro... Thats just my opinion.


----------



## Harold_V (Mar 12, 2009)

mariannalice said:


> Thanks harold for being sympathetic to the proplem,instead of throwing mud in someones face.


Indeed! And thank you for the snotty comments. 



> you shouldve taken the time to ask me HOW well I cleaned them first.Well just so you are aware last night while trying to figure out the problem my wife informed me that she had poured 2 containers of muratic together,however one of them was my waste muratic left over from dropping gold and contained bleach and smb.


The point you are missing is that incineration would have avoided the problem. I don't give a rats butt what happened, or how. Neither should you. There is a lesson to be learned here, one you feel you don't need. 



> And one last thing,I have read hokes book and I will say there is quite a bit of useful info on just about everything that has to do with metals.But as far as gold goes,I think it is simply a waste of a weeks worth of time. 1Don't get me wrong,the book is innovative and cutting edge...........FOR ITS TIME! But considering it was written almost 100 years ago most of the processes are just outdated.


Yes, of course it is. It's outdated. 

That's why you got in trouble. Clever people that think they can build a better mousetrap often feel that way. What you are conveniently overlooking is that if you follow her advice, you will have good fortune in refining. That isn't outdated, nor will it be in the future. That is utter BS.

Don't you think your objective is what should determine how to process?

I do. 

If you feel you are a research scientist and are looking for methods to improve what works well, certainly you should do all the creative things you feel you must do-----and perhaps you will be fortunate to create a more round wheel. By sharp contrast, I chose to follow her book, and enjoyed more than twenty years of successful and lucrative refining. My objective was to learn to process high quality gold. Her book did exactly that for me. I hardly consider that archaic, especially when I was taking customers from better established refiners, including names you might recognize. 

My comments still stand. Had you followed advice that would have kept you out of trouble, you wouldn't have had the problem you experienced. 

Subconsciously, you will have learned a lesson, but your pride is likely too involved to make the admission. That has to be your problem, it certainly isn't going to become mine. 

Those that are open to learning will have profited by your mistake, and that's what it was, a mistake. You thought you could ignore part of a proven process and got burned as a result. 

Harold


----------



## JustinNH (Mar 12, 2009)

hahaha to the comment about the book being 100 years old...

so what? Doesnt mean it is wrong. the chemistry of it all can't change because 100 years past.

Honestly, if someone read the book fully, twice, and read all the posts on this forum... it would be very hard to think of a question not answered somewhere.


----------



## butcher (Mar 12, 2009)

I wish I could find a book on how to refine gold, by the egyptions during pharoh's time, it may be outdated but bet I sure could learn alot. from them, many times the old ways are lost because people think they are outdated, someday we will wish we knew or kept that hard won knowledge alive. it may be the only thing to keep us alive someday.

must be everybody has been couped up to long this winter?


----------



## jamthe3 (Mar 12, 2009)

There's alot of good stuff on how to deal w/ tin and lead in the book. Pretty basic stuff that's easy to do to fix problems from those elements. Hundred years old or not, seeing as I kinda inexperienced & ignorant so far on most of this stuff, it still reads a tad above my level of expertise on many topics. I like the idea of finding the thousand year old book of the Pharoahs'. Especially if its written in hieroglyphics, it might be more on my level and all. How they say, a picture's worth a thousand words...LOL.

Anyhoots, my enjoyment level went up a thousand fold after reading Hoke's book.

Cheers,
John


----------



## Harold_V (Mar 12, 2009)

I now have more time to address this poorly chosen response to mine. 



mariannalice said:


> There are at least 30 books that have been published about gold processing in the last 10 years that are so much more useful and speaks on a level that people of today can understand easier.


Okay, big mouth-----here's a chance for you to put your money where your not very smart mouth is. 

Name the books. I'll settle for just thirty of them---you claim more. 



> Sorry I am getting off track here,I am just pissed off because instead of trying to help(which is what this forum is here for)you decided to cast stones.


Is that your normal method of operation? Kill the messenger because you don't like the message?

Don't take out on me the fact that you lack knowledge. My response was helping you----you just didn't like hearing it. If you want praise from me, do something praiseworthy. Don't expect me to fawn over you when you refuse to use good practice. Ignoring good information then whining like a spoiled kid doesn't hack it with me. 

Some times you encounter someone that just doesn't set well with you. You're one of them. I don't like you, and I have no intentions of liking you. 

Harold


----------



## koebeef (Mar 13, 2009)

Generally, in most cases in life, the old fashioned way is the best way to do many things. I bought the book read it and already feel way more confident in my abilities. Combined with knowledge from people like Harold and Steve the sky is the limit.


----------



## goldsilverpro (Mar 13, 2009)

For jewelry and dental scrap, the Hoke book is as close to state-of-the-art as any book you'll find. Also, you learn the general basics for dealing with most common chemicals. 

With the exception of Ammen, most every book I've seen is crap. For electronic scrap, there is no book that I'm aware of - this forum is the best source in the world. 

The 30 book thing is about a 10-fold exaggeration. Maybe, when you've been doing this for more than a week, you'll be in a position to make more intelligent observations. Also, too many cooks spoil the the broth.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 13, 2009)

I wrote a very long reply,even though it was accurate,it was immature to respond to such a childish response,so I deleted it.We need to remain adults and TO THE SUBJECT! Thats what this forum is for,so moving on and keeping with the subject............I filtered the solution and I have no choice at this point but to drop it out and start a series of washes like normal.

Also harold,or whoever else may have control of this next question,is there any way to make the picture "allowances" larger?I can make my pictures smaller,but all of the really good pictures that I have are huge and I have no chance of retaking them now.


----------



## qst42know (Mar 13, 2009)

And now an even bigger mistake, Johnny. 

The very people experienced enough and most importantly willing to help you, you continue to insult?

You started down this foolish path.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 13, 2009)

LOL guy starts with a simple problem and ends up crucified by his peers.You guys are too funny.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 13, 2009)

goldsilverpro said:


> Maybe, when you've been doing this for more than a week, you'll be in a position to make more intelligent observations. Also, too many cooks spoil the the broth.


 
Well apparantly I am the only person that can see what anyone else is writing so I figured I would post the comment that I thought was childish since you clearly didnt see it qst.And for your info I DID NOT start this,but I am ending it right now!


----------



## qst42know (Mar 13, 2009)

Cutabove said:


> LOL guy starts with a simple problem and ends up crucified by his peers.You guys are too funny.



I wouldn't consider the helpful giving people on this forum his peers.

Far from it.

He's crucifying himself. And deserves whatever he gets.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 13, 2009)

deserves to be crucified?Not sure I would say that about another person.maybe its just me rooting for the underdog,but it sounds like the guy didnt do anythign wrong here.just looks like crossed wires he used some stuff that someone had mixed?was that a joke or was it a real accident? either way he wanted help for the powder and the other guy harold started in with the thing about how he screwed up cause he didnt read "what was put in print"?how the hell was that guy to know someone mixed his chemicals .and what was mixed? cant that stuff blow up? guess it doenst matter if the guy really is trying to drop it.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 13, 2009)

Guys I am begging you to please drop it.Whatever I did wrong I am sorry.I will try not to let it happen again(whatever that is).


----------



## qst42know (Mar 13, 2009)

Incineration is a *time tested* (dated) technique to recover from mistakes.

He's burning his own bridges to help. He can always retreat to his 30 books on the subject.


----------



## qst42know (Mar 13, 2009)

That's your weak attempt at an apology? Yeah, good luck with that :lol:


----------



## Platdigger (Mar 13, 2009)

Marian, are you male or female?
Just curious.
Randy


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 13, 2009)

Ok I have never heard of "post" incineration(other than melting or smelting the final product).I am very familiar with "pre" incineration(ironically thanks to harold) to prepare the metals for the chemicals.And as usual I can't seem to find any further info about it in hokes book.

I just saw the comment from qst about the apology,I am unsure why you keep needling me about it,but I have long since stopped the conversation and you insist on bringing it up.I am too old for games and I don't have time for the negativity,I want to leave the garbage in the past?And you are absolutely right about the 30 book comment.I see so much paraphenalia on ebay from people trying to sell books and info on how to process that I just threw that number out there without seeing if there was any merit to the number.That was hasty of me,sorry.And a lot of you missunderstood what I said about hokes book.Hell I just read the comment again and I can clearly see why everyone got so upset.I certainly didn't think that it would sound the way it does now...when I wrote it.I let my emotions get the best of me and didnt take the time to correctly write what I wanted to say.And I am very sorry about that too.

Randy I am a male.My wife set the account up for me and used her name thinking I could change it once I got on here.But I never tried to.Also...your name "platdigger",do you really dig for platinum?I have only dug(and dredged)for gold,but didnt get very much.I have some old boards that I believe have platinum plating on them but they are in storage and I have had the time to take them out and test them.Not that they would be worth much,but I think they would be a good conversation piece.Well need to go help the wife.To anyone else that I may have offended,I am sorry,genuinely and sincerely.



Johnny


----------



## goldsilverpro (Mar 13, 2009)

Johnny,

It's a pleasure having you on the forum. Whatever your mistake was, I suppose you shouldn't do it again. I said some things too, but don't worry about them.

Chris


----------



## aflacglobal (Mar 13, 2009)

:? :? :?


----------



## qst42know (Mar 13, 2009)

Very clever edit there Johnny. 

Had you not removed the post I read, a couple of moderators here would be well within their rights to not help you with the time of day.

For those of you that did not get to read his insults now removed, I apologize for the confusing remains of this page.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 13, 2009)

Thank you Chris.Sorry again about all the drama.


----------



## goldsilverpro (Mar 13, 2009)

I didn't see the post before it was edited. I guess I based my post on the amended version.


----------



## jamthe3 (Mar 13, 2009)

WOW, first time in the history of the world there's been a month of full moons in between 2 consecutive Friday the 13th's!! :lol: :lol: 

Look in Hoke's book again. It actually will give you some good ideas on how to deal with what I'm assuming is probably tin and/or lead in your solution.

Also, in "other processes" there's a real good piece on incineration or two. Quite frankly, in my opinion at least, the best and easiest to understand what Harold's written (not knocking anyone else's threads there guys....Friday's over in just a wee bit.)

My understanding is that he eliminated quite a bit of potential hassle by sometimes incinerating again after a first run; and, I believe, he generally processed twice when refining Gold prior to melting (I don't think final products are smelted.) The in between incineration, I would assume, helped rid the powder of impurities and such. I doubt he ran into a whole lot of headaches accidentally producing AR at least.

Cheers,
John


----------



## Harold_V (Mar 13, 2009)

Cutabove said:


> how the hell was that guy to know someone mixed his chemicals .and what was mixed?


You'd do well to keep your mouth closed in this matter, Cutabove, otherwise your stage name is inappropriate. You, right now, are not a cut above. 

Until you understand what was said, and why, you are not in the position to chime in, and you're asking for one hell of a lot of negative responses if you persist. 

When you understand refining the way I understand refining, my comments concerning incineration will make sense. It is for that reason he got the response from me that he did. It was an attempt to have him understand that incineration is one of the processes that can be used to nullify what has been done to material, along with eliminating many unwanted constituents. * Had he incinerated, he would not have experienced the problem he did, regardless of what had been done with the solution.* 

Now, in order for me to keep from ripping off your lips, read the above and come to understand the meaning, and why it is important, and stop stirring the pot of furor. 

How much of my time do you expect me to waste on this subject? I have harped on it steadily as long as I've been on the board---more than two years now. It's time readers start paying attention to one of the magic bullets of refining. 



> cant that stuff blow up?


You can drop the drama. Do you think I'd have advised something that would have been dangerous? If you do, I'm highly insulted, and if you don't, you need, in the worst way, to start reading and stop talking. 

Harold


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 13, 2009)

> How about a comment from a relativity new member that posts a few, but reads a lot.


Your comment is not welcome. 

If you'd like to remain a member of this forum, I highly recommend you stop posting your insults. They serve no purpose aside from inflaming people like me-----the one you are targeting. Knock it off, or find some other place to spend your time. You will quickly wear out your welcome here. 

Harold


----------



## Harold_V (Mar 14, 2009)

jamthe3 said:


> My understanding is that he eliminated quite a bit of potential hassle by sometimes incinerating again after a first run;


That's correct. When you process material that has a lot of "dirt' included, the end result can be, and often is, a solution that refuses to filter. I got baptism by fire in that regard, although my learning came not from dirty material, but material contaminated with dissolved tin. A liter of gold chloride took well over a day to filter, time that I could ill afford. From that I learned that I had to do something to eliminate contaminants that were troublesome. In this case, I don't recall that I read it in Hoke. It was something I tried on my own. Secure in the knowledge that anything I had already processed with nitric (which was pretty much my routine) would cause some of my gold to dissolve if I tried a wash with HCl, I tried incinerating the material a second time. The results were very acceptable. 

The second incineration was also very revealing. What I learned is that in spite of my material being bone dry, it still contained a considerable amount of nitric, witnessed by the brown cloud coming off as the material was heated. It is for that reason I recommend all materials be incinerated if you wish to make a change of acids mid stream. 

I continued to heat until the material no longer liberated signs of acid, then cooled and screened to insure there were no clumps. I followed that with a boil in HCl and tap water, resulting in a much improved material. Rinsing and decanting until the rinse water was free of color, I than dissolved the values, which filtered readily. That process became my routine, and saved far more time than it wasted, plus yielded a better quality product in the bargain. I recommend the process highly. 

I then tried the same thing with floor sweeps and polishing wastes from a jeweler. I had previously boiled in nitric, in an attempt to recover traces of silver. By now, it was obvious to me that I was far better served to leave the traces behind, and pursue the material with HCl instead. Again, the end result was worth the effort. Filtration problems came to an abrupt end. Any silver that was left behind was recovered later, when the waste material was processed in an agitation tank with cyanide. By then, having been boiled in HCl, a great deal of it had been converted to silver chloride, making recovery very easy. In short, my routine became one of boiling in HCl only, never nitric, for floor sweeps and polishing wastes. 

So then, if you are working with material that is troublesome, perhaps having particulate matter that may be of concern, try incinerating a second time, after the nitric digest (or the acceptable alternate method), then boil the material in HCl and water. Rinse, then pursue the values. I think you will be pleasantly surprised that the added effort will reduce handling time and reward you with an even better product. 



> and, I believe, he generally processed twice when refining Gold prior to melting (I don't think final products are smelted.) The in between incineration, I would assume, helped rid the powder of impurities and such. I doubt he ran into a whole lot of headaches accidentally producing AR at least.


To clear any confusion, I did not incinerate my precipitated gold. I incinerated only materials that were in process prior to dissolving the values for eventual recovery. I did this to enhance their ability to filter, and to rid them of unwanted substances that did not get eliminated in the preliminary digest. It worked both ways. I incinerated materials that had come from nitric, so they could be further processed with HCl before recovering values, but I also incinerated materials that had been exposed to HCl, when I wanted to do a second digest with nitric. 

In both instances you can rinse well enough to reduce, or eliminate the risk of prematurely dissolving values, but it's a crap shoot. How many times is enough is not known, and is sure to vary, depending on the nature of the material in question. By sharp contrast, if you incinerate until the material has been well heated, you are assured of success with no regard to having values dissolved by the succeeding wash. The call is yours. I looked at incineration as my insurance. I have tried to help others understand the value of the process. 

Harold


----------



## Oz (Mar 14, 2009)

This thread has so bugged me, mainly because there have been so many other threads of the same kind of late. There is indeed a theme beyond the cycle of the moon here at play as others have alluded to. The people that have felt slighted are typically new members that in their world prior to meeting this forum were godlike in their knowledge of PM recovery and refining. They land here thinking they have a great mastery of refining and proceed in that way before taking the time to read the forum in any great detail to find out how little they know. 

I wish I saw a way for new members to be eased into the forum as many of them indeed have contributions to make but they need to know they are no longer the definitive source of information. It is a learning curve.

The moderators do their best to keep people on topic and in a non confrontational way where all views can be expressed. We have 4 or 5 moderators on this forum and 2 (my opinion only) are the most prolific in their posting, advice, and moderating of others. These 2 also have the greatest amount of experience under their belts in full time refining experience that I am aware of on this forum. I may be a little bit off here but I believe Harold has 30 years plus and GSP has 40 years plus of full time refining experience. The great books that are discussed here are Hoke and Amend’s(sp) yet these 2 gentlemen have practical experience in refining that rivals both of these authors. 

If someone asked if it was true that what they heard was that rainwater would dissolve gold and spit would precipitate it as .9999 fine one of them would reply. Perhaps chastising them first, but then they would walk them through what was required to do what they wished to accomplish.

I should note here that we have chemists as well as innovative individuals that do not have degrees but do tend to have full time jobs in this field that add to and compliment the long timers with their technical expertise, but because of their job commitments can not post and answer as often. I do not mean to slight anyone here but based on quality and quantity Harold and GSP stand apart. Anyone that has been here for awhile take a minute and just imagine what this forum would look like if you removed all of their posts and contributions. 

Everyone here has the amazing opportunity to have 1 on 1 interactive question and answer sessions with them that money just can not buy. Then you have the humility of statements like GSP saying “I now must grudgingly admit that I have learned 100s (maybe 1000s) of things, that I didn't know before, from this forum”. This is from a man that worked full time in refining, how much do you think you know?

Everyone should take a deep breath and ask themselves why two people like this waste their time giving people information that is not available at any price elsewhere for free, and this is while they are criticized for telling the facts as they see them. They do not gain a damn thing by talking to you, they bother (in my humble opinion) because they have a love of the craft they have spent their life on and do not wish to see this knowledge lost with them.

Cheer up people, and respect your elders!

Ps; 
Noxx,

I am not a computer geek so I do not know how to implement it (maybe Steve does) but this or something like it might be a good thing to force people to read before they were allowed to post to the forum. Maybe they would be a bit slower to be argumentative.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 14, 2009)

> "Harold_V
> Secure in the knowledge that anything I had already processed with nitric (which was pretty much my routine) would cause some of my gold to dissolve if I tried a wash with HCl, I tried incinerating the material a second time. The results were very acceptable.
> 
> The second incineration was also very revealing. What I learned is that in spite of my material being bone dry, it still contained a considerable amount of nitric, witnessed by the brown cloud coming off as the material was heated.



That makes sense.Any gold that swam in a base metal saturated acid bath would have residues that would not under any normal circumstance easily come off.This is the first time I have heard of the "second" incineration.I guess my largest fault here is not taking more time to read more posts about people having problems and the solutions that were suggested before I asked for help.



> Had he incinerated, he would not have experienced the problem he did, regardless of what had been done with the solution.



Unfortunately it was irrelevant whether I had incinerated the material or not.I have discovered that the intitial problem of "white powder" was simply salt.The solution had bolied down a few times and naturally I continued to add fresh acid to keep the level up.Since salt does not evaporate off,the salt content grew higher until the solution became more saturated with it until eventually it dropped out as white powder in the bottom.I proved this by simply taking some of the dried powder and mixing it with a little tap water and it dissolved instantly.

The second problem of the gold going into solution may have been caused by the lack of a second incineration prior to adding the muratic,however had I incinerated it would not have mattered seeing as the muratic I added had bleach in it.


Now a question about pins.Pins are the main material that I process.But I had an idea that I wanted to run by you guys and see if anyone sees a fault or problem that I may arise.If I pounded the pins(prior to any processing) as flat as I could get them,then obviously the surface to mass ratio would greatly increase.The result should be a much faster process time.Am I right,or am I missing something?(And I did search for an answer on here first but did not find any thread that discussed it)

And can someone tell me if they prefer a rosebud oxy/acet tip over a brazing tip or vice versa?I use a a brazing tip and thanks to gsp Im pretty good at getting the gold to melt without ending up with a gold plated driveway,but if you guys feel a rosebud would make the process easier than I am willing to invest the money.

Johnny


----------



## butcher (Mar 14, 2009)

Increasing surface area of pins may help , and exposing copper more,but it is still metal your acids will need to dissolve, if lating thin I dont see much benifit.unless they very heavily plated items, then cutting them has helped me.and smashing would be similar,heavy plated pins can be hard for the acid to reach the copper.
in my opinion a rosebud in welding torch is not what Harold refers as a rosebud(in his setup, they may call them rosebuds), the soldering tip would be closer, I use the smallest tip ( usually brazing tips) very low setting at first,for size of metal batch. mainly just heating to drive of acid, keeping flame way back maybe just flickering end of fire, and oxidize with out much heat and force from flame of torch till it begins to liquifie then can get torch tip in closer and more heat to melt,as it melts then can get hotter blue of flame in there and raise torch setting.to heat and stir the metal, can use alcohol to wet to keep powder from blowing away so easily if you are having trouble, some use tissue paper also, I only use paper for the junky stuff.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 14, 2009)

Thanks for the advice butcher.I agree with you about the tips,thats what I use now,and havent had too much trouble.I was just wanting to know if I could learn something new from the more experienced.As far as flattening the pins,I think I will do a test batch and just compare results.Who knows I may stumble onto something awesome.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 15, 2009)

> Your comment is not welcome.
> 
> If you'd like to remain a member of this forum, I highly recommend you stop posting your insults. They serve no purpose aside from inflaming people like me-----the one you are targeting. Knock it off, or find some other place to spend your time. You will quickly wear out your welcome here.
> 
> Harold



Sorry Harold if you can not face the truth. Every fact and statement is true and your very response proves it. As I see it there was no insults in the post, but your childish actions by deleting the post before the forum members could read it and judge proves you are an egotistic ass. (that was an insult so you know).

I do have other places to spend my time. 

I do not live on this forum like you do

I do not post an average of 3 or more posts a day like you do 

And last but not least, I do not give a sh** about what you think of me.

*Your opinion of me matters not. Your attitude matters a great deal. I will request you be banned from the forum. We don't have room for ill-mannered, childish people here.*


----------

