# Pyrolysis reactor



## kjavanb123

All,

Since I have been manually depopulating boards, and have accumulated lbs of ICs, SMD capacitor and Ta capacitors. I designed the following prototype as a pyrolysis reactor to rid of fumes, then incinerate them following ball mill, and finally smelting.

This design is from NoIdea's post as following, please comment.

The original design by NoIdea,



I have turned a liquid gas tank into the reactor, with objective of handling large quantites of ICs and other components.



It may not be seen in the picture, but the small pipe that gets connected to blower, is actually blowing air to the coals which will be around the reactor as the heat source. The other pipe that is welded to the tank will be carrrying the fumes from the components tonthe blower pipe.

The materials will be fed through the openning on top, with a cap screwed tight.



I am going to stack fire bricks around the tank and fill the gap between them with hot coals. There will be an incinerator which is being assembled tommorow.

Regards,
Kj


----------



## kjavanb123

Update on pyrolysis. Added a handfull of SMD capacitors, Ta capacitors, card slots, and couple of ICs, to test the pyrolysis. It worked great no smoke except for the burner which uses gasoline, toward the end of pyrolysis which is around 30 minutes, there was a tiny fire came out of the top cap, but no smoke or fumes related to burning the plastics.

Let the reactor cool off, and emptied it, everything was crispy when touched by fingers, easily break, here are some photos.

Materials that are being pyrolyzed using my reactor,



Pyrolysis unit at work.



Here are the materials after pyrolysis treament.



Thanks NoIdea and forum for your ideas, it has really helped out.

Regards
Kj


----------



## kjavanb123

Next I put 40 lbs of mixed ICs, to get them ready for incineration, it worked awesome, no smoke, just the gasoline, which I will replace with gas so it is cleaner.

After 2 hrs into the pyrolysis, here is the result, they were crispy and easily broken. 



Tommorow they will be incinerated, ball milled, then smelted.

Regards
Kj


----------



## canedane

I like your idea of Noideas pyrolizer, and i like you do the process in two steps. It is easier to make a nearly smokeless process when you pyrolize the materiel first, and easy and fast to do the incineration in the next process.
If it was my equipment i will connect a scrubber, just to on the safe side with pollution.
Good work Kevin!
Best regarts from Henrik


----------



## patnor1011

What you did with IC is still incomplete incineration, they need to stay there much longer till they are white and break in powder pretty much by itself. Your IC are still black, full of carbon which will pose risk of value loss during AR stage of recovery. Not to mention you will need ball mill to grind them to powder. 
Try to leave them roasting for longer time.


----------



## kurtak

patnor1011 said:


> What you did with IC is still incomplete incineration, they need to stay there much longer till they are white and break in powder pretty much by itself. Your IC are still black, full of carbon which will pose risk of value loss during AR stage of recovery. Not to mention you will need ball mill to grind them to powder.
> Try to leave them roasting for longer time.



Pat

As much as what I underlined above has always been the advice given its just not true - I did a post about this awhile ago which you can read here :arrow: http://goldrefiningforum.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=11827&p=230896&hilit=incineration#p230896

Its only important that the "final" concentrates get "incinerated" to white ash before doing the chem work on them (&/or before smelting them which is what I do)

I just pyrolyzed a 67 lb batch of chips Thursday & milled them Friday & will be sifting & washing them this next week --- I will be posting a thread (with pic's) on the entire process in the near future

pic is "some" of the milled IC powder from my current batch - notice it is "very" black - lots of carbon - this is NOT going to be a problem at this stage of the game - the final "concentrates" will get re-incinerated to white ash - that's when &/or where it is important

Edit to say; --- Pat there is nothing wrong with the advice you are giving (incinerate chips to full white ash) --- I am only saying it is not necessary until it comes to the final ash concentrates that is going to be leached 

Kurt


----------



## kurtak

Kevin 

I would be a bit concerned about gases (from the pyrolysis) building up inside that reactor which could lead to a "potential" explosion

I am using my big smelting furnace to do my chips in (details on the whole process will be coming soon)

Pic 1) Chips are in full blown pyrolysis mode - note the orange flame coming out the top hole - little or no smoke - the gasses are being burnt up inside the furnace due to cyclone action of the flame inside the furnace produced by the furnace burner

pic 2) note there is no longer an orange flame coming out top furnace hole - this indicates that pyrolysis is complete as volatiles have been burnt off

pic 3) finished pyrolyzed chips

Kurt


----------



## patnor1011

I agree with what you said Kurt, but notice that your IC are white and Kevins just charred black. I wanted to say that if he just leave them there a bit longer he will save time at the end of the day. Milling or grinding will be easier and faster with properly incinerated material.


----------



## g_axelsson

kurtak said:


> Kevin
> 
> I would be a bit concerned about gases (from the pyrolysis) building up inside that reactor which could lead to a "potential" explosion.


If you are worried of a gas explosion, add a bit of water first, then the chamber will be filled up with water vapor and the air is pushed out when the steam is formed. No explosion risk as there is no oxygen left.

Göran


----------



## Shark

I may be missing something, but how is the cap held in place? I am not seeing the threads that hold it?


----------



## kuma

patnor1011 said:


> I agree with what you said Kurt, but notice that your IC are white and Kevins just charred black. I wanted to say that if he just leave them there a bit longer he will save time at the end of the day. Milling or grinding will be easier and faster with properly incinerated material.



I agree with this statement, leaving them a while longer would save time and effort in the long run.

When they're white/grey like this:




...they're a piece of cake to grind up with something as simple as a pestle and mortar, like this:






(Note to Mods, I've tried and struggled but couldn't remember/figure out how to add images to posts, my apologies for links to external sites, I'll gladly delete on request.)


----------



## FrugalRefiner

kuma, take a look at the Attaching Images or Files, Working with Attachments post in my Tips thread.

Dave


----------



## kuma

Thank you Dave, all sorted now 

Chris


----------



## kurtak

Ball milling is the way to go (at least for large batch processing)

Harbor Freight cement mixer - the small one (1 & 1/3 yard I think) $150 on sale

Balls - Legend Mining - 20 lb load (has 10 lb 1 inch balls & 10 lb 1-1/4 inch balls) plus 10 lb of 2 inch ball --- about $35 for the balls plus about $35 shipping = $70

Total mill cost = $220 

that's cheap considering I just milled 67 lb of chips in one day with it --- which would have take me a week (or more) with my old mortar/pestle &/or rolling pin method

Kurt


----------



## Anonymous

Never mind the milling method Ive got to say that where you live looks truly beautiful Kurt.


----------



## kjavanb123

Thanks all for your feedback. I pyrolyzed ICs a lot longer 3 hrs, then milled them, and smelted them. From 25.110 kg of mixed ICs, got 30g of gold.

Gold from ICs



Back of it,



And gold button in its sources



Again thanks forum. 

Regards
Kj


----------



## kurtak

kjavanb123 said:


> Thanks all for your feedback. I pyrolyzed ICs a lot longer 3 hrs, then milled them, and smelted them.
> 
> Regards
> Kj



Kevin

Did you go direct from milling to smelting --- or did you do some sort of concentrating before smelting ? (blue bowl, miller table, shaker table etc.) & if so did you re-incinerate the concentrates to turn any carbon to true ash

Also what about the kovar wire legs & copper wire legs - did you use magnet to remove magnetics &/or sifting to remove kovar &/or copper

By the way I should say sorry - I didn't mean to hi-jack your thread 

Kurt


----------



## kjavanb123

Kurtak,

After milling, I just bagged everything including powder, legs and silica, and smelted everything, and that was the result. It is almost 0.6g per lb of ICs.

I have another batch of 20kg ICs this Sat that will be pyrolyzed, milled and directly smelted, along with SMD, Ta caps.

Regards
Kj


----------



## kurtak

Kevin

I for one would like to hear more details about your full process :!: 

1) when you load the pyrolysis reactor - do you load it with the "full" load right out the gate - or do you start with a smaller load & ad to it as epoxy is reduced to carbon/ash

2) how many lbs (or kgs) will the reactor do as a full load - &/or starting load & addition sizes (if you do it that way)

3) what is your milling method (ball mill, rod mill, hammer mill, etc.)

4) being as how you are not concentrating - what is you flux to IC ash ratio in order to slag off such a large volume of ash/carbon

5) I assume you have a lot of carbon after milling - are you re-incinerating to reduce the carbon (powder) to ash - or just going right to smelting

6) what is your flux make up & the amount/ratio of each ingredient/component 

7) how are you treating the smelted metals to part the base metals from the gold (&/or other PMs)

8) any other details you can think of posting would be nice along with more pictures 

Kurt


----------



## kurtak

spaceships said:


> Never mind the milling method Ive got to say that where you live looks truly beautiful Kurt.



Thanks & yes it is a very nice place - 40 acres about 2/3 wooded with a small pond & creek - nice A frame house & the old barn (which is were I have my shop, lab, & storage set up) & it is surrounded by other wooded property &/or farm fields

Dinner (deer & wild turkeys) walks through the yard every day

My closest neighbors are 1/2 mile away (one to the east & one to the west) the rest of the neighbors are a mile or more away

There are a lot of Amish that live in this area (the horse & buggy people)

Its a very good - very rural area - with good neighbors that look out for & help out each other --- & yes I LOVE IT

Kurt


----------



## kjavanb123

Kurt,

I load up 40 lbs of ICs first, this filled 2/3 of the gas tank, screw the cap tight, and fired up the burner, no smoke but the smoke from unburned gasoline was there. Let it cook for 3 hours straight. Checked the chips inside they were like yours in the picture. I was in a hurry to go to smelter I do not have a photo of my complete pyrolysis.

After this step, I load them to my grinder and they pretty much turned into powder including waffers, legs and etc. At the smelting shop, he added 6 shovles of sodium carbonate powder, mixe it well wih my 25 kg pulverized and pyrolzed ICs, the. He added 17kg of what he said PbO compound, it did not look red, more of yellowish chuncks.

He fired up the big cupola furnace, and in order to avoid blowing the powder he mixed the PbO chunck, soda ash and IC with some water. Then drop shovel of each to the furnace, removing the slag as it burned and PbO melting along with ICs powder.

After 6 hours of this process, slag is completely removed, and all seen was a pool of molten lead. Then he added 620g of silver, somehow that collects any gold, PGMs and silver in ICs. Then he oxidzed the Pb and Ag pool, since Ag does not get oxdized he removed the PbO until no more of it was visible.

He turned the heat off, and collected the silver alloy which contains all the heavy metals in the starting load. Dropped it in nitric acid, and after 30 minutes or so, rinsed the silver copper nitrate solution and rinsed the remaining brown powder with hot water till the rinse water becomes clear.

Here are some photos,

This is inside the furnace as silver already added to lead pool, and lead was oxidized and removed, that clear molten is silver alloyed with gold or other heavy metals



This is the silver alloy as it solidified



Silver dore inside the nitric bath. The pot used were stainlese steel.



Here is the auric chloride dried



And finally silver copper nitrate solution rinsed, cementing silver using copper bars.



Hope that helped. He said to stock pile all the slags and run a rotary furnace once they are 1000lbs to collect any traces of precious metals trapped in slag.

Regards
Kj


----------



## nickvc

Hey Kevin well done a process that works for you and is fairly quick.
I would be a little concerned with the lead so I hope you have good extraction and scrubbing to remove them safely, you know what health and safety rules are like these days..


----------



## Anonymous

Kevin again, looks like something you went through from start to end- great stuff, and it looks like a result for you. 

As Nick said, where did the lead go because I'm missing that part of the process - can you help me out?


----------



## kjavanb123

The lead oxide which was used at the begining of the smelt, converts to lead metal, collects all the heavy metals, then silver is added to it, that will alloy with gold, silver or any palladium in the feed in materials, at the end stage of smelt, lead is oxidized then removed from the molt, as can see from picture. So the lead oxide or any lead that added during the process is recycled and re used in next smelt.

As for the fumes, visible mostly during oxidizing lead, gets scrubbed, and filters are recycled once a year to collect the lead fumes trapped in them.

Rrgards
Kj


----------



## Anonymous

Thanks Kevin- appreciate the information.

Looking at the gold, it appears brittle- are you going to re-refine it in AR to get a true weight? Do you think you've got some residual lead there? 

Jon


----------



## kurtak

nickvc said:


> Hey Kevin well done a process that works for you and is fairly quick.



I agree with Nick - I have always followed what you post Kevin & you have put a lot of time & effort into this trying many different things --- It looks like you have finally come up with something that is going to work for you 8) 

By the way .6 gr per lb of "mixed" chip is good recovery & in the ball park of what I have been getting (mine has been .6 gr/lb plus/minus about .05 to .075 depending on the mix of chips)

Thanks for posting & thanks for answering my questions - I may have some more questions if time allows me to post them 

Kurt


----------



## nickvc

Thanks for clarifying the lead question, I'd assumed you would be following good safety measures but it helps to tell others that you are well aware of the dangers not only to yourself but to others and the environment..we don't want people trying this in their kitchen :shock:


----------



## kjavanb123

All,

Thanks for your posts and comments. I have prepared another batch of 21kg of mixed ICs. This time instead of gasoline, I put gas as fuel, and its results were successful. ICs got white in color in half the time of when I was doing pyrolysis with gasoline fuel. No smoke or explosions.

Pyro runs on gas intead of gasoline. Note the black spot was from using gasoline burner.



Result.



For those who are interested in hammer mill, check out my post in this section.

Thanks and regards,
Kj


----------



## patnor1011

I would keep them in heat tad longer.


----------



## kuma

patnor1011 said:


> I would keep them in heat tad longer.



^ This ^


----------



## kurtak

patnor1011 said:


> I would keep them in heat tad longer.



No real need to do that --- not with the way he is milling them & then smelting them --- they just need to be carbonized enough (all volatiles burnt off) for the milling to do its work

Kurt


----------



## kjavanb123

All,

I have modified my last pyro design, and added the gasoline burner in addition to gas burner. As you can see blow, no smoke or smell, and it completed a lot sooner than when it was only gas burner.

And as kurtak mentioned, no further treatment for pyrolyzed ICs, just mill, flux thrm up, smelt, get the gold.



And this is in action,



Regards,
Kj


----------



## patnor1011

That gasoline can may be too close to fire, dont forget vapors may increase with proximity of heat. put a plank of wood or something to reflect heat between can and burner.


----------



## Pantherlikher

Look close and you will see the gas can is behind the stack of bricks.

However...Cloth bags, combustible, and clutter in the area are just waiting for an accident. Like you walking over to adjust something and trip... Then gas can dumps gas.

Nit picky and as careful as you try to be. It only takes a second of distraction of panic to cause a really bad situation.

Get longer hoses and put fuel in it's own spot. And other materials out of the way. And make sure the adjustment valves are very easy to reach in the event of flame up.

B.S.

... Looks like it more then does the job though...


----------



## rickbb

It needs a good firewall of bricks/blocks setup between the heat and the fuel tanks. :shock: 

Tanks could heat up or the hoses melt. Would not be a pretty site if that happens.


----------



## Anonymous

patnor1011 said:


> That gasoline can may be too close to fire, dont forget vapors may increase with proximity of heat. put a plank of wood or something to reflect heat between can and burner.



Pat I was going to say exactly the same thing, along with Panther's comments below but I thought it would be taken out of context.

Kevin get a grip on safety mate. Love what you're beginning to achieve but....

Jon


----------



## Research135

kjavanb123 said:


> All,
> 
> I have modified my last pyro design, and ...
> Regards,
> Kj


Nice design. I believe it would run even better and faster if some fresh air could get inside the "reactor" and pass through the chips. Maybe a very small pipe, with a valve, connected to the blower?.


----------



## 4metals

> Nice design. I believe it would run even better and faster if some fresh air could get inside the "reactor" and pass through the chips. Maybe a very small pipe, with a valve, connected to the blower?.



Maybe after the pyrolysis is complete the introduction of air could eliminate a roasting step down the line but until the pyrolysis is complete air is what we are trying to exclude. 

It would, or maybe I should say could, allow the carbon to be burned off in a clean smoke free way but if the chamber is full, the exposure to air may be limited. That is where roasting in high surface area trays or through an oven with a worm drive would excel.


----------



## Research135

I mentioned it, because the two other setups, in the same thread, one over open charcoals, and one in a crucible gas fired furnace, were showing white and grey ashes for a reason. i.e.: Access to oxygen by the burning chips.

In other words, a little oxygen, not more exposure to heat, is what's needed. In any case I like the setup a lot. Without the gasoline tanks.


----------



## 4metals

The reason pyrolysis is effective is because it has little or no smoke up the stack, it burns the volatiles out of the material and allows them to be combusted in the primary flame, but the carbon is still there. To go to the next step, you need to burn off the carbon. With properly pyrolyzed material this is a smokeless process. 

When someone is burning openly or in an incinerator there is a lot of smoke and airborne pollution. And there are the losses from the smoke carrying values up the stack. (Which can be significant or not) 

Pyrolysis addresses the pollution nicely, it does not address the burning of the carbon, requiring a second step. The addition of air after pyrolysis is complete may do this but likely not completely.


----------



## Research135

4metals said:


> The reason pyrolysis is effective is because it has little or no smoke up the stack, it burns the volatiles out of the material and allows them to be combusted in the primary flame, but the carbon is still there. To go to the next step, you need to burn off the carbon. With properly pyrolyzed material this is a smokeless process.
> 
> When someone is burning openly or in an incinerator there is a lot of smoke and airborne pollution. And there are the losses from the smoke carrying values up the stack. (Which can be significant or not)
> 
> Pyrolysis addresses the pollution nicely, it does not address the burning of the carbon, requiring a second step. The addition of air after pyrolysis is complete may do this but likely not completely.


I thought about it. You are right.


----------



## Research135

> Dinner (deer & wild turkeys) walks through the yard every day...--- & yes I LOVE IT
> 
> Kurt



What State in the USA is that, Kurt?. I'd love that kind of freedom.

Do you hang the game a few days to soften it up a bit?. How long?. Cheers!.


----------



## Research135

kurtak said:


> spaceships said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dinner (deer & wild turkeys) walks through the yard every day. Its a very good - very rural area - with good neighbors that look out for & help out each other --- & yes I LOVE IT
> 
> Kurt
Click to expand...

30-06 for deer, 12" shotgun for turkeys?, and ...what for the neighbors? :lol:


----------



## 924T

kurtak,

Did you make your furnace yourself? It looks like it might be a shortened 55 gallon steel drum.

What kind and size of crucible are you using?

And, I can't figure out what the rectangular sheet metal box is for that the gas pipe appears to run through-----
I'm curious what it's purpose is.

Cheers,

Mike


----------



## kurtak

924T said:


> kurtak,
> 
> Did you make your furnace yourself? It looks like it might be a shortened 55 gallon steel drum.
> 
> What kind and size of crucible are you using?
> 
> And, I can't figure out what the rectangular sheet metal box is for that the gas pipe appears to run through-----
> I'm curious what it's purpose is.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Mike



No I had it built for me - yes its made from a 55 gallon drum

It takes up to a #40 salamander crucible which is what you see in the last pic full of chips

if you are talking about the sheet metal box on the left of the last pic (pic of chips in crucible) that is just some scrap iron laying on the ground next to the furnace

When I had the furnace made I also had a 2 man lifting tongs & 2 man pouring tongs made - furnace & tongs cost me $1200

Kurt


----------



## 924T

Kurt, 

Thanks for the reply!

The $1200 you paid for the furnace sounds like a good deal to me----on ebay, $500 is about the lowest price
for a U.S. made furnace that will only hold an A6 crucible.

When you said yours holds a #40 crucible, is that the same as an A40? If so, that's one big crucible
by my standards, and the 2-man tongs, etc., that you had made make a ton of sense.

Very impressive, indeed.

Out of curiosity, is the refractory cement in your furnace laid over layer(s) of ceramic insulation, or is
it all refractory cement?

And, what is the maximum weight of I.C. chips you can successfully run at one time in your furnace?

Cheers,

Mike


----------



## 924T

kjavanb123,

That is an impressive piece of extrapolation on NoIdea's design that you have built!

I'm curious as to whether you ran any of your pyrolized material on your wave table after ball milling
it, and if so, what kind of results did you get? I am definitely wondering whether or not the Gold bonding wires from pyrolized/incinerated I.C.'s will move up a wave table, or just get carried away by the water flow.


Cheers,

Mike


----------



## kurtak

Yes the $1200 I paid was a very good deal 

Yes an A40 Crucible

Layer of ceramic insulation to the out side (doubled I believe) then brick cemented in to the inside the lid is just poured cement

Not sure of actual weight per crucible load but I can do 60 plus lbs in a day

Kurt


----------



## kurtak

Here are some pics I took the last time I did some smelting

The first one shows the burner hooked up to the furnace (which you asked about earlier) the guy in the pic is my helper

The second one shows my cone mold on a turkey fryer burn for pre-heating & the lifting tongs (leaning against the saw horses) & the pouring tongs (on to the saw horses)

The last one is the metal I poured that day - the smelt was IC ash & SMDs with "low grade) pins used as collector metal

Need to take the metal in to be checked with XRF & I also pulled pin tube samples for umpire assay if I don't get ball park payout when I send it in

Kurt


----------



## 4metals

Kurt,

Do you send out the cone poured metal for refining? I have found that a cone mold is wonderful for collecting all of the metal from a melt with excesses of flux but it is less than ideal for sampling. 

I always take all of my cone bars and re-melt them with a minimum of flux and sample with a pin dip tube. If you are re-melting with gas you have to stir it aggressively just before sampling and pouring, this is not a necessity in an induction melt. 

If you were to use an XRF to read the metal concentrations in the point of a cone and again on the sides and top of the bar, they will differ, sometimes considerably. Any pin sample you have saved for reference as an "umpire" will likely not match reality in a properly sampled remelt. 

Also an umpire sample that is drawn at a refiner is witnessed by both parties and sealed as an umpire. No refiner will accept your sample as an umpire, only as a point of reference.


----------



## Anonymous

Is that because in a cone mold the heavier metals can end up in the bottom therefore skewing a sample?


----------



## Barren Realms 007

spaceships said:


> Is that because in a cone mold the heavier metals can end up in the bottom therefore skewing a sample?



Yes


----------



## 4metals

> Is that because in a cone mold the heavier metals can end up in the bottom therefore skewing a sample?



The short answer is yes, as Barren posted, but it gets more complicated than that. Depending on the difference in the melting points and the solidus points of all of the metals in the mix. If you have a concentration of low melting point metals combined with some high melting point metals they will tend to stratify on cooling. As the metals cool, they will settle to the lowest point in the mold and displace the liquid metals that are sitting there so in reality, the point of the cone can be low in assay if the specific blend is such that favors this particular separation. 

Problems also come from the three magnetic elements, Cobalt, Iron, and Nickel. Excessive quantities of these metals will cause layering and bad sampling. I like to keep the percentage of magnetic elements (total) under 5% if possible by cutting the melt with copper.


----------



## kurtak

4metals said:


> Kurt,
> 
> Do you send out the cone poured metal for refining?



4metals 

Thanks for the reply --- so far (in the past) I have not sent any of my smelts out but have processed them myself

So to be honest I am only "considering" sending this one out - the reason being that I am wanting to get away from processing lower grade material in house to cut down on the dealing with chem waste treatment & therefore deal only (or at least more) with processing higher grade material in house

I am aware of the stratification problem of metal poured to a cone mold - right now the cone mold is the only large mold I have - the next biggest mold I have will only take 1 kg metal which I use for pouring my anodes 

The large cone pours you see on the scale are re-melts of the smaller cones acquired during the smelting - the re-melting of the cones from smelting were given a "good" stirring with my carbon rod before pulling the pin tube samples

So here was/is my plan - I fully intended to have the cones shot (XRF) top, center & bottom for no other reason then to see for my self just how much stratification plays in pouring to a cone mold - then re-melt the pin samples & pour to my small carbon mold (pictured) to get a better surface area for XRF shooting - this (the pin tube metal) should give me though not fully accurate analysis of the cone content - at least a closer "ball park" read of the cone content

The XRF readings will for one thing tell me what metals other then PMs are in the cones - IF - I should decide to send it off for processing this will allow me to tell the receiver what other metals are involved & they can then tell me if there are any metals involved that would result in deductions in their pay out

Also the XRF readings will tell me (1) if I have a "ball park" high enough concentration of PMs to be worth sending out at this time - or - (2) if I should keep it - re-melt - pour to shot & use as my collector metal in my next smelt - or - (3) if the PM content is high enough to process my self (depending on charges & payout with sending it out)

Besides ICs (about 60 lbs to start with before incineration & washing ash off to concentrate) & SMDs (about 17 lbs) & low grade pins as my collector - there was also some "dirty" silver cement, anode slimes, & my incinerated filter papers that went into this smelt

I figure there is something like 2 &1/2 to 3 lbs silver & at the very least 1ozt & more likely closer to 2ozt (plus/minus a bit) of both Pd & Au & possible other PGMs but likely not accountable enough for pay out

In other words - the XRF reading is not intended as a "hold accountable expectation" - but rather for determining which way to proceed - send out - or ???

Does this make sense to you ?

Kurt


----------



## 4metals

Kurt,

Your approach makes perfect sense. You are tailoring it to your operation, and who knows more about your operation than you? 

If the copper concentration goes over 95% as copper, it may be a good candidate for electrolytic copper refining. That is a recovery method that will not generate a lot of waste, give you clean copper and concentrate your PM's for further refining. It would be interesting to hear what terms you are quoted for the material. Especially the accountability for each metal and the minimum deductions.


----------



## alexxx

Maybe some other members not that familiar with smelting are also as curious as I am to know more about this process...



kjavanb123 said:


> The lead oxide which was used at the begining of the smelt, converts to lead metal, collects all the heavy metals, then silver is added to it, that will alloy with gold, silver or any palladium in the feed in materials,


OK, that makes sense...



kjavanb123 said:


> at the end stage of smelt, lead is oxidized then removed from the molt, as can see from picture.


How is the lead oxidized, any other flux added ? any oxygen forced into the furnace ? Or this naturally occurs as the melt goes on ? 
Anymore details about this part ??



kjavanb123 said:


> So the lead oxide or any lead that added during the process is recycled and re used in next smelt.


How exactly, in what form ? Litharge ? Curious to know more about this step too...

cheers,

Alex


----------



## kurtak

Alex

The one thing to keep in mind with the PbO smelting method that Kevin is using is that it works fine if you are only concerned with the recovery of the PMs (Ag, Au &/or PGMs) as the other metals are oxidized by the PbO & carried off in the slag & also you need to have a fair amount of "additional" silver to add to the smelt to insure complete collection of the PMs in your starting material (circuit board ash) as there wont be enough of the PMs in & off them selves in the ash to make the collection complete 

In other words you lose the copper & have to add silver

The other option is to smelt using more standard fluxes - without the addition of the PbO in which case the copper becomes you collector (so you don't lose it) & you don't need to add silver - you may need to add more copper depending on how much you are able to concentrate the metals from the ash before smelting

The question is how the smelt recovered metals are going to be dealt with after the smelt --- in other words is recovering the copper along with the PMs worth the process to follow - or not ?

Copper collected PMs - you will have to

1) set up an electrolytic copper cell & then treat the anode slimes for the PMs -or ----

2) have a buyer that will pay out on the copper as well as the PMs

Silver collected PMs (copper lost to PbO oxidation) 

1) wet chem &/or silver cell - or ---- 

2) buyer that pays on all the PMs

Kurt


----------



## kjavanb123

924T said:


> kjavanb123,
> 
> That is an impressive piece of extrapolation on NoIdea's design that you have built!
> 
> I'm curious as to whether you ran any of your pyrolized material on your wave table after ball milling
> it, and if so, what kind of results did you get? I am definitely wondering whether or not the Gold bonding wires from pyrolized/incinerated I.C.'s will move up a wave table, or just get carried away by the water flow.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Mike



Hi Mike,

I did not see this, so I will respond accordingly. I never tried running the ashes on shaker table, as in smelting you just mix the pyrolyzed materials with fluxes and smelt to get the precious metals. But if you search youtube, there are numurious videos by MBMMLLC or Mt. Baker Mining and Metals LLC that show running both incinerated and non-incinerated pulverized motherboards on their shaker table and both show based on assay results that over 80% of gold end up in high grade concentrate hole, while only less than 6% of gold ends up in tailing.

Regards
Kj


----------



## kjavanb123

Alex,

I responded to you in email but Kurt nailed it pretty much, but for others interested in smelting, here is a brief information about it, first materials are mixed with soda ash and some water to make them stick together, then lead is added to the furnace and melted, mixed materials are added, until melted and slag is removed periodacly. 
After all materials are melted and slags are removed, the molten lead is oxdizied by cutting thr gasoline and letting the air blow on it, few times. This forms a layer of dark oxid metals on top of lead and is rinsed out, this continues until the volume of lead shrinks to half of its size. Then silver is added either as metal or chloride form, this will collect all the precious metals, oxidization continues at this stage till all lead is converted to lead oxide and removed. Only silver alloy remains.

Hope that helps.


----------



## kjavanb123

kjavanb123 said:


> Alex,
> 
> I responded to you in email but Kurt nailed it pretty much, but for others interested in smelting, here is a brief information about it, first materials are mixed with soda ash and some water to make them stick together, then lead is added to the furnace and melted, mixed materials are added, until melted and slag is removed periodacly.
> After all materials are melted and slags are removed, the molten lead is oxdizied by cutting thr gasoline and letting the air blow on it, few times. This forms a layer of dark oxid metals on top of lead and is rinsed out, this continues until the volume of lead shrinks to half of its size. Then silver is added either as metal or chloride form, this will collect all the precious metals, oxidization continues at this stage till all lead is converted to lead oxide and removed. Only silver alloy remains.
> 
> Also one thing regards post by Kurt, there is a gentelman on this forum who have a system from China that takes in populated boards and using controlled heat, depopulate them, collects the tin, and output the bare boards, and components, then tin is sold as ingot, while bare boards go to series of milling and cyclone and finally separated from bare boards and sold as copper. This will recover tin and copper while depopulate boards.
> Other components can be milled and using dry separator to remove plastics, and smelted to get the gold. He is going to send me a sample of those separated components which went to milling and separation process, so I can smelt for him.
> 
> 
> Hope that helps.


----------



## 4metals

Another option is to use a cupel to separate the precious metals from the base metals and lead. Legend sells 10" cupels that will hold up to 30 pounds of lead leaving the precious metal bead on top of the cupel after firing. I work with a refiner who saves all of his beads from fire assaying, not the clean coronets but the failed beads and dirty silver beads and mixes them with lead and fires them in large cupels to concentrate the metals. It is quick and effective. Not refining but collecting and concentrating. 

These large cupels are quite pricey. Years ago in Ecuador, I set up a large furnace in which we set a "brick" we made of bone ash which was about 18" by 24" and a full 6" thick, it had a valley in the center and we fed in the lead and PM's so as to not overflow the top of the brick. There was a pipe feeding into the top of the furnace which allowed additions without interruption. After a full day of feeding and firing continuously, the furnace cooled and the next day we opened it to find a long round tube, shaped like a pepperoni and about as large, which was a gold doré bar. The lead and base metal saturated bone ash was broken out of its frame that held it together and more fresh bone ash was packed in for the next run. 

Keep in mind that about 10% of the total lead used is volatilized meaning it is up in smoke so to speak. Not a very kind way to treat mother nature. Today I would be scrubbing the air exhaust to collect that lead.


----------



## Platdigger

So, how would you go about setting up such a scrubber, say in a remote area without many modern resources?


----------



## 4metals

A straight pH controlled caustic scrubber would condense and trap the lead but the recirculating water will recirculate the lead hydroxide Pb(OH)2 and it will in short order clog the spray nozzles so I would install an in line filter on the recirculating pump with a gauge to determine when the flow drops off enough to change the filter.


----------



## Platdigger

OK, thanks for that 4metals and Happy New Year!

Would you reuse try and reuse the lead captured?
Or just dispose of the contaminated lead hydroxide?


----------



## 4metals

Re-using the lead would most likely be more of a pain than it is worth. Most refiners generate a waste from treating their acid wastes with caustic. It contains metal hydroxides (if refining karat gold mostly copper and zinc) and a few other base metals depending on the alloy. It usually also contains a payable gold content as well as payable copper. Usually the payables cover the charges but save the refiner having to manifest and treat the hydroxides as a recyclable waste. I would be putting the lead hydroxides in with that waste stream. 

If your hydroxides do not contain any other RCRA metals then do *not* add the lead hydroxides to the waste stream because Lead is a RCRA metal and you will now incur an expense because the waste will fail TCLP testing for Lead. If it already has TCLP metals in the waste as hydroxides it is a hazardous waste already so adding the lead is "free" so to speak.


----------



## 72chevel

Kurtak wondering about a couple things: Do you have all the chips in from the start? Do you stir them up at all? How long do you figure the whole process takes to get the chips that white? 






kurtak said:


> Kevin
> 
> I would be a bit concerned about gases (from the pyrolysis) building up inside that reactor which could lead to a "potential" explosion
> 
> I am using my big smelting furnace to do my chips in (details on the whole process will be coming soon)
> 
> Pic 1) Chips are in full blown pyrolysis mode - note the orange flame coming out the top hole - little or no smoke - the gasses are being burnt up inside the furnace due to cyclone action of the flame inside the furnace produced by the furnace burner
> 
> pic 2) note there is no longer an orange flame coming out top furnace hole - this indicates that pyrolysis is complete as volatiles have been burnt off
> 
> pic 3) finished pyrolyzed chips
> 
> Kurt


----------



## kurtak

72chevel said:


> Kurtak wondering about a couple things: Do you have all the chips in from the start?



No - I start with a couple handfuls then ad a couple handfuls at a time 



> Do you stir them up at all?



This depends somewhat on the chips - if they are thin lite chips they normally don't really need a stir - the heaver thicker ones will need to be stirred to bring the ones at the bottom (of each addition) up to the top so heat & oxygen can get to them



> How long do you figure the whole process takes to get the chips that white?



Again this somewhat depends on the chips - thick heavy chips take longer then thin lite chips --- I can "average" about 60 lbs of chips in an 8 - 9 hour day with my set up --- that includes my time of getting everything set up (which includes bring the furnace up to operating temp) for the days run

I should also mention that I run the furnace at full temp which causes "some" actual melting of the metals during the pyrolysis (incinerating) I don't consider that a problem because I smelt my concentrates anyway so melted ball metal that comes out of the incineration process goes into the smelt process as collector metal --- its mostly the exposed metal on the out side edges of the chips that melts

I am sure I could run the furnace at a cooler temp to prevent the melt down but the trade off would be more time to complete the pyrolysis of each load

I mention this because if you plan to leach your ash (after concentrating) you "do not" want metal to melt during the pyrolysis as that will likely lead to "some" loss of gold due to 'some" bonding wires also melting & collecting in the base metals that melt during the pyrolysis 

Kurt


----------



## g_axelsson

If you let in air to the chips it's actually incineration, not pyrolysis (no oxygen added).

Göran


----------



## kurtak

g_axelsson said:


> If you let in air to the chips it's actually incineration, not pyrolysis (no oxygen added).
> 
> Göran



Ok - I guess it depends on just how "technical" we want to get with the words

Yes oxygen is required to achieve true & "complete" incineration the result ( if enough oxygen is provided) being a "complete" reduction of carbon to ash

with out oxygen pyrolysis occurs driving off the volatiles leaving you with carbon & no reduction to ash

What happens in my furnace the way I am using it is in fact pyrolysis (even though yes I am adding "some" oxygen to my flame fuel mix) because the chips are in a crucible little or no oxygen is getting to them during the heating that drives off the volatiles --- the oxygen in the propane flame fuel mix allows for near complete if not complete combustion of the volatiles as they come out the top of the crucible & get carried "around" the inside of the furnace by the cyclone action of the burner flame

Little or no oxygen is actually making it down into the crucible to provide true incineration to the chip (reduction of carbon to ash)

What happens - is that when you open the lid to the furnace ( the burner flame is first turned "way" down & there for reduced cyclone flame action) air is sucked into the furnace & down into the crucible as well --- due to this sudden influx of oxygen the "surface" only of the "red hot" chip will "flash" incinerate to ash (& primarily only the chips at the top) --- that is why the chips in my pics "look" like they have been incinerated

Its actually kind of interesting to watch - when there is no longer the orange flame coming out the center hole of the furnace lid that tells you the volatiles have been burned off - you can then pull the lid "just a bit" to the side (but not open) so you can look down through the hole from an angle into the chips in the crucible - if they are in fact done the chips will have a nice even orange/red glow "all the way to the center" --- then when you "first" open the lid - the chip "surface" cools just enough to see a black carbon surface - this last for only about 1 - 2 seconds & due to the red hot heat of the chip mass the "surface" carbon "flashes" to white ash as the oxygen from the open furnace hits them

They may look like they have been incinerated (reduced to ash) but in fact that is only a surface appearance --- they are in fact 90 - 95 % carbon - they have been pyrolysized - & in short order at that --- The "thin" chips will reduce to about 50 - 60% ash - but not untill after the furnace lid is opened allowing the influx of the large volume of outside air

Edit to add: - if you look at the pics of my chips "after milling" you will see that the "fine" powder is almost entirely "carbon black" - this is then run over my concentrator table to wash "most" of the carbon off - once it is washed down to the concentrates I then have to do a true incineration to reduce the remaining "all" carbon content of the concentrates to ash 

Kurt


----------



## 72chevel

Thanks for your response, I had trouble adding chips to the crucible as it was running because the vortex of air would make them fly all over, I have a very similar setup like yours maybe I'll have to try to turn the blower down when I need to add chips.


----------



## g_axelsson

kurtak said:


> g_axelsson said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you let in air to the chips it's actually incineration, not pyrolysis (no oxygen added).
> 
> Göran
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok - I guess it depends on just how "technical" we want to get with the words
Click to expand...

We want to get very "technical" with our words so people don't start to melt metals with acids and boil off excess nitric to denox. :mrgreen: 

I know that you probably doesn't care if you have carbon left as you are melting it all to get the gold, using the base metals as collector, and for those who pans the ash a bit of carbon is no big problem either.
The reason I thought you were incinerating was your answer on...


kurtak said:


> Do you stir them up at all?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This depends somewhat on the chips - if they are thin lite chips they normally don't really need a stir - the heaver thicker ones will need to be stirred to bring the ones at the bottom (of each addition) up to the top so heat & oxygen can get to them
Click to expand...


But if all you do is to cook them to remove the volatile part and get them brittle for milling, and any oxygen entering is more of an accident rather than by design then I would also call it pyrolysis (or maybe incomplete incineration).

Göran


----------



## kurtak

72chevel said:


> Thanks for your response, I had trouble adding chips to the crucible as it was running because the vortex of air would make them fly all over, I have a very similar setup like yours maybe I'll have to try to turn the blower down when I need to add chips.



Make a simple loading shoot from some scrap sheet metal - as you can see mine is about as simple as you can get - it has a piece of bar iron clamped on the handle end to stiffen it ( that's because the scrap sheet metal was already cut to the odd shape so wasn't long enough to bend a full length angle piece for stiffness)

I also use it for making additions of concentrates & flux to the crucible when smelting - & yes -turn the burner down (&/or blower) when making additions - I turn it down as far as I can without actually shutting it off so there is little or know cyclone vortex

there is about 2 handful of chips in the shoot - my chip additions are 2 - 3 handful depending on if they are heavy thick chips or lite thin chips 

Kurt


----------



## kjavanb123

All,

In pursuit of a pyrolysis unit to solve the ewaste processing smoke issues, I have used the ideas offered by members of energyforum, and came up with the following, which was absolutely smoke and smell free.

My scrapper had brought me 40kg of laptop boards, we place it in the large barrel, closed the cap air tight. Fired it up. The shot of whole system as following, 

Barrel that has turned black on the outside is where materials are loaded, the big thick reddish pipe is used to increase the flowrate of gasses produced, which is bolted to another smaller in diameter pipe, which is connected to 2 other pieces of pipes and it ends up in a small bucket filled 3/4 in water.



As the temperature inside the barrel increased, so did the bubbling in water and gas production, as can be seen in the following,



The system working until near the end we ran out of fuel, so we are going to optimize it in order to get better results. No smokes or smell at all.



Some locals turned up to see the cool device in action, I collected the thick layer of crudie oil, and gasses which was burned.

More photos and result tommorow, as we will smelt 40kg laptop boards removed from 180 laptops.

Regards
Kj


----------



## butcher

Why not run the small tube of burning gases back into the main fire heating the big tub full of boards, using the gas to supplement your fuel source.


----------



## kjavanb123

Butcher,

I could do that, but the burning gas is not that hot. I am thinking to use a larger barrel to invert over the main reactor, and let the heat to travel to entire reactor body. Plus I am going to switch to gas as fuel instead of diesel.

Best
Kj


----------



## Platdigger

Looks good Kevin!


----------



## butcher

The yellow flame suggests incomplete combustion CARBON MONOXIDE gas as well as other toxins released as un-burnt gases, adding oxygen or air would make it burn to a more complete combustion, and giving you a hotter flame (burning the carbonaceous gases to CO2), this could be done by using a homemade type of torch, which pulls in air with the gases through a venturi effect...

Adding heat to your main flame, conserving fuel, and more completely burning of many of the toxic gases...

I do not believe you could burn all of the toxic gases released from burning electronic scrap, some of which would be dangerous metal oxides, but I do believe you can reduce some more of those pollutants with some adjustments to your design.

Keep up the good work, looking forward to seeing your improvements and results.


----------



## kjavanb123

All,

I have made some changes to the pyro unit above in order to optimize it. 

This is done in smaller scale, so here is an over all photo of the new pyrolysis setup,



Here is some info on different components, the main pyrolysis chamber is steel paint can, an inch pipe is inserted to the cap of steel can, which guide the smoke through the long black and red pipes to the plastic jar.

All smokes are condensed in that jar, while excessive smokes exit through the aluminum pipe you see on the left of jar, and enter the furnace where heat and air enter the furnace.

The pyrolysis chamber sits in this basic melting furnace, and it gets hot, melt the plastic components inside and smoke is condensed in the plastic jar.

Excessive smoke from jar is burned off in the furnace.

Some issues that I noticed doing small batches of plastics was following,

1- Aluminum pipe used to re-burn the smoke got melted in furnace so that can be replaced with copper pipe.

2- There is not enough suction in condenser to pull all smokes from pyrolysis chamber, so at the end of each test, upon openning the cap there was still some smoke trapped in the can. I tested by placing the 1 inch pipe a few cm from the hole on the cap and it seemed to suck the smokes out better, so will improve this and observe.

3- Smokes from plastics were not flamable, so I will try to also improve that. 

Your input will be great. Here is a shot of system while working.


----------



## kurtak

Kevin

Set yourself up with an actual smelting furnace - you can use it for both your pyrolysis/incineration - & for smelt

I posted about this on the first page of this thread 

here :arrow: http://goldrefiningforum.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=22581&hilit=incinerate#p237094

Also 4metals posted about using a smelting furnace & in his design when it is being used for pyrolysis/incineration he is adding a "after burner" chamber to the top of the furnace

The advantage 4metals design (with the after burner chamber) is that you can run the furnace at a cooler temp when doing pyrolysis/incineration --- which means you don't have to worry about metals melting & turning to blobs during the pyrolysis/incineration if you leave the material you are pyrolysis/incineration to long 

4metals design is posted by him in this this post about mid way down in the post :arrow: http://goldrefiningforum.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=23680&p=249793&hilit=incineration#p249793 

The design description starts with this sentence ---


> I made this furnace representation in Paint on my laptop so some of this makes sense.



Kurt


----------



## anachronism

Using copper pipe and light plastic jars around something designed to get extremely hot has always set alarm bells off for me. If you're melting Aluminium then aren't you already too high a temperature for this task? 

Edit- The copper should be alright as long as you're working within limits- please scratch that part of my post.


----------



## snoman701

If insistent on paint can design, just pop a hole in the bottom and use a tight fitting tube to vent gas from inside the can near top of lid to bottom side of can near flame. Positive pressure will force an outward flow. I.e...the vapor lock is not necessary.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## upcyclist

snoman701 said:


> If insistent on paint can design, just pop a hole in the bottom and use a tight fitting tube to vent gas from inside the can near top of lid to bottom side of can near flame. Positive pressure will force an outward flow. I.e...the vapor lock is not necessary.


Didn't someone post a similar design for a cast iron pan pyrolysis sytem? As far as pipe/vent placement, that is--a hole in the bottom, but have the tube inside extend to near the top of the chamber.

I searched around but couldn't find the reference--I can't even remember if it was a drawn diagram or a verbal description.


----------



## anachronism

4metals posted it mate.


----------



## upcyclist

anachronism said:


> 4metals posted it mate.


Well, that narrows it down--it's not like he posts very often :roll: :lol:


----------



## snoman701

upcyclist said:


> snoman701 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If insistent on paint can design, just pop a hole in the bottom and use a tight fitting tube to vent gas from inside the can near top of lid to bottom side of can near flame. Positive pressure will force an outward flow. I.e...the vapor lock is not necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't someone post a similar design for a cast iron pan pyrolysis sytem? As far as pipe/vent placement, that is--a hole in the bottom, but have the tube inside extend to near the top of the chamber.
> 
> I searched around but couldn't find the reference--I can't even remember if it was a drawn diagram or a verbal description.
Click to expand...


That's cool...I wonder if it was an idea I had, or something I just don't remember reading? Life blurrs together.


----------



## anachronism

upcyclist said:


> anachronism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4metals posted it mate.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that narrows it down--it's not like he posts very often :roll: :lol:
Click to expand...


Ha! Fascist :lol: :lol:


----------



## anachronism

Upcyclist this is the post you're looking for mate. 

"If you get one of these;

http://www.agrisupply.com/carolina-cooker-9-qt-preseasoned-dutch-oven/p/90677/ 

and drill a hole in the center you can tap, screw in a piece of 1/2" threaded black iron pipe sticking into the pot but short enough that you can put the lid on and it will still fit tight. This will cause the gasses to pass out the bottom where they will be burned because you are heating on one of these;

http://www.agrisupply.com/carolina-cooker-stand-and-burner/p/49469/

You have to monitor the temperature with one of these:

http://www.harborfreight.com/non-contact-infrared-thermometer-with-laser-targeting-69465.html

it measures up to 950 F so it will work. 

Think of all the stuff you can pyrolyze now!!!!!!!"


----------



## kurtak

Jon

I am (fairly) sure Kevin's current paint can pyrolysis reactor is an experimental prototype in which he is trying to work out better efficiency for recovery of the gases & oils of "larger" systems he has already built (Kevin can correct me if I am wrong)

Edit to add; - if you scroll up about mid way on this page you will see one such larger system (55 gallon drum reactor) with the jug he is collecting the oils in - & a tube that is burning the gases of at the oil collection jug (so I "think he is now wanting re-use those gases at the reactor - rather then just burn them off) 

So the turkey fryer burner is not the answer to his endeavor as its not going to scale up well

If you have been following what he is doing - he has been working on building a pyrolysis reactor that not only pyrolysis the CBs - but also circulates the volatile gases back to the reactor as fuel (re-burning) for the reactor - AND - as well "recovers" the oils produces from the pyrolysis

He has already done this with fair success on a larger scale - so I "think" this current paint can reactor is just an experiment to improve on all that

The thing is (at least the last I know of) after Kevin is done with the pyrolysis of his material - he is then bagging the material up & taking it to a smelter for smelting - because he is not set up for the smelting part

That is why I am suggesting he build a smelting furnace :!: 

With the furnace - he can do it ALL in house :!: 

Pyrolysis - incineration - smelting (using litharge - as lead collector) & cupelling (to recover PMs from lead smelt) all done with the ONE piece of equipment (the furnace)

With not a whole lot of engineering - there is no reason why a furnace (such as mine) couldn't be set up to "also" recirculate the "gases" back to the furnace as fuel for the furnace - AND - recover the oils as well during the pyrolysis stage

It would just be a matter of placing a piping system (similar to what he is already doing) over the center hole of the furnace lid - instead of a "after" burn chamber like 4metals design --- the piping system "may" need some blower assistance (very low pressures) to make it efficient in the oil/gas - recovery/use

other then that - its just a mater of running the furnace at the proper temp depending the task you are wanting it to preform (pyrolysis - incineration - smelting - cupelling)

Kurt


----------



## kurtak

upcyclist said:


> Didn't someone post a similar design for a cast iron pan pyrolysis sytem?



I believe that was NoIdea (Deano) from New Zealand 

:arrow: http://goldrefiningforum.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=16473&p=166282&hilit=pyrolysis#p166228

Kurt


----------



## kjavanb123

Kurt,

Thanks for the post. Yes I was using the paint can seen in my last post to do testing and modifications, so I can do on my large scale pyro unit.

I did some changes and I think it really improved the pyrolysis.

Will post the photos soon.


----------



## patnor1011

I suppose that litharge is being used in smelting as collector but I was wondering if one can use lead instead. I mean it is quite hard to get litharge over here. I do not plan to do any insane amounts, rather few small tests to concentrate values. Few samples of ceramic capacitors and resistors. I was thinking about incinerating them, milling to powder and then using lead as collector. After that, bone ash cupels and xray and processing resulting buttons. Is litharge absolutely necessary or can I use lead? Which one will be more suited - roofing lead sheets or lead from acid car battery?


----------



## snoman701

patnor1011 said:


> I suppose that litharge is being used in smelting as collector but I was wondering if one can use lead instead. I mean it is quite hard to get litharge over here. I do not plan to do any insane amounts, rather few small tests to concentrate values. Few samples of ceramic capacitors and resistors. I was thinking about incinerating them, milling to powder and then using lead as collector. After that, bone ash cupels and xray and processing resulting buttons. Is litharge absolutely necessary or can I use lead? Which one will be more suited - roofing lead sheets or lead from acid car battery?



Roofing lead sheet is nearly pure lead. Lead from a battery is a pain in the butt to get to.
Edit to add:
With that, litharge is a fluxing agent. The lead is a collector of other metallics. If you use lead, without a fluxing agent, your values are more likely to float to the top of the molten pile of lead as dross. If you use litharge, it is during the reduction of lead oxide that the metallic is "collected" with the lead through the fluxing.

Lead will work as a collector, to a certain extent, but I imagine it would be a lot more efficient to use litharge.

Wonder if it's possible to use any of the glass frit's developed for pottery as a litharge replacement in fluxes, in the presence of silver as a collector. Frit 3134 comes to mind.


----------



## kernels

I am very interested in this information too, if anyone knows it will be 4Metals. Litharge is surprisingly difficult to get hold of.


----------



## snoman701

The other thing you have to keep in mind is that litharge is a powder. In order for fusion to occur, you have to have intimate contact between the lead and the PM. That is going to be a lot more difficult in a lead boat, than it will as litharge reduces to metallic lead. 

If I had some litharge, I'd offer to send you some of "Grandma's cornbread biscuit mix".


----------



## kernels

snoman701 said:


> The other thing you have to keep in mind is that litharge is a powder. In order for fusion to occur, you have to have intimate contact between the lead and the PM. That is going to be a lot more difficult in a lead boat, than it will as litharge reduces to metallic lead.
> 
> If I had some litharge, I'd offer to send you some of "Grandma's cornbread biscuit mix".



I don't think it is a controlled substance or anything like that, just not very commonly used. I can buy it by the ton from chemical suppliers, just not a few kg at a time!


----------



## kernels

So, it seems pretty trivial to make Litharge, take lead and heat it to just over 600 Degrees C. The lead oxidizes and you skim the PbO from the surface. Boiling point of Pb is over 1700 Degrees C, so should be a reasonably safe process if done in a well ventilated environment ?


----------



## 4metals

There is an assaying procedure that is effective in some circumstances called scorification. If you assay a high grade material like karat gold, you use lead sheet for cupellation, if you are assaying low grade you use litharge because there are a lot of material in the sample that is not precious which need to be liquefied in the flux or dissolved with the lead when the reduction is complete. 

Then there is scorification, which is done in a shallow dish called a scorifier. Actually a lot of you guys who melt with torches use them as melting dishes. In the dish you put your sample, usually a metal sample with lots of copper which needs to be lowered in concentration to get a good cupellation, but a lot of metals can be oxidized by scorification while the PM's go into the lead pool. Granulated lead is used with a spoon full of borax and the lead melts and forms a pool which collects the PM's, some copper, and a lot of the undesirable metals are oxidized. 

Similar to a fusion using litharge, the contents of the molten scorifier are poured into a cone mold, the slag is broken off, and the cone of lead based alloy is hammered into a cube and cupelled. 

So yes lead metal is likely to work, more likely on a metallic sample as a powdered sample with a lot of non metallic ash will likely float on the surface and not have the same intimate contact with the lead and borax as it would if it were mixed with litharge and flux powders.

Another thing to keep in mind is mixing. When smelting in a rotary furnace, the rotation constantly has molten lead raining down through the pool of molten metal and flux and contacting the metallic particles that may be suspended in the flux pool. 

But if I were to pick any metal for a collector it would be silver (can get expensive) or copper. Then a cell cleans up the collector metal and the slimes are holding your values. 

These are the dishes used for scorification assays, appropriately called scorifying dishes. 




edit to add; We should not forget the health implications of lead exposure. Word has it the use of lead plumbing caused the fall of the Roman empire. Just sayin'!


----------



## g_axelsson

patnor1011 said:


> I mean it is quite hard to get litharge over here.


Have you tested places that sells supplies for pottery? Litharge is used as a glaze... or at least used to.
Might have to call them, a quick look showed that there are hundreds of different glazes and many containing lead.

Göran


----------



## kurtak

patnor1011 said:


> I suppose that litharge is being used in smelting as collector but I was wondering if one can use lead instead.



Pat

The reason litharge (PbO/lead oxide) is used in the smelt - instead of just lead - is because the PbO acts not only as a collector for the PMs (as it is reduced to lead in the smelt) but also - the PbO acts as an oxidizer for the base metals thereby allowing the base metal (oxides) to be carried off in the slag leaving you with a PM bearing lead dore/alloy (for the most part) free of base metals

The lead dore can then be fired in a cupel - where the lead is oxidized again & the PbO is absorbed into the cupel leaving your PMs as a bead (or blob on a larger scale) in the cupel

If you use just lead as the collector "in the smelt" - it will collect not only the PMs - but the base metals as well --- so you end up with lead dore that has not only PMs - but base metals as well

That because unlike PbO - lead does not have the oxygen atom to give up to oxidize the base metal so they slag off

The problem with having base metals in the lead dore - is that they can cause gold (&/or other PMs) to go off (be lost) with the PbO & be absorbed in the cupel during the cupelling --- copper & nickel in particular (as well as tin & antimony) - in the lead dore - can cause substantial amounts of PMs going off with the PbO & absorbed in the cupel 

Therefore - if you used just lead as your collector in the original smelt (instead of PbO) you would need to preform the scorification (as mentioned by 4metals) to remove (oxidize) the base metals before cupelling the lead/PM dore

Depending on the amount of base metals in the lead dore - you may have to add more lead to the scorification &/or preform the scorification several times before the lead dore is cleaned up enough to cupel it

Kurt


----------



## 4metals

> Depending on the amount of base metals in the lead dore - you may have to add more lead to the scorification &/or perform the scorification several times before the lead dore is cleaned up enough to cupel it



This is correct. I often used scorification on copper based bullion generated by melting the oversize metallics from incinerated circuit boards, and it was not uncommon for it to require multiple scorifications.


----------



## kjavanb123

Interesting, we combine all these steps, lead oxide smelting, scorification specially when we smelt mobile phone boards to get rid of copper, but instead of cupeling, we just skim off the lead oxide in a furnace which can be reused for next batches.

Our final product is silver dore with all the PMs.


----------



## 4metals

> smelt mobile phone boards to get rid of copper



This is an interesting statement because the one thing smelting and air sparging does not remove from the melt, other than precious metals is copper. For the most part the copper remains which makes it a viable process for producing anodes for copper refining and collecting values in the slimes. 

I would guess if you added enough lead / litharge to a smelt you could put the copper into the lead alloy and drag it into the bone ash by cupellation, but that would take a lot of lead, much much more than the copper you are removing. 

How are you removing copper?


----------



## kjavanb123

4metals,

You are correct, during last stage of smelting when we pull out the silver dore out of furnace, when there is copper, operator adds more lead oxide to the melt, after few minutes, turn the fuel to minimum while keeping the air at the same flow rate, this oxidize the lead mixed copper and skim it off.

Since we do not use cupel, skimmed lead pxide copper is reused over and over.

Operator can separate copper from the lead oxide once we accumlated enough.

Lead oxide without any copper is brittle and dark yellow in color, when it has copper it is mallable and dark in color.

Regards
Kj


----------



## kjavanb123

All,

After modifying my last prototype, I built the following pyrolysis system that on the first test run worked perfectly.

Here is the overall photo, 



So on the right, that rocket looking chamber is my pyrolysis chamber, the cone makes the fumes come out with great speed, entire container that I put plastics materials engulfed in heat, the connecting surface between the cone and container I used heat resistance o-ring seal.

On the left side of photo, you can see 2 glass jars, that condense fumes comes out of pyrolysis chamber, and jars are connected using iron 10mm pipes, and one exit pipe that is connected to the intake of the blower.

There was some smoke coming out of the cap of the big jar which has been temporarly taking care of with tapes, but I will have to seal it using some types of o-ring sealer.

First jar decrease the pressure and velocity of fumes, while second jar condenses the fumes and excessive fumes are sucked in by the blower so they get enough oxygen and burn completely in the furnace.

Until the leakage from first jar, there was no visible smoke around the system nor there was any smell.

I am thinking a bigger jar, maybe even 3 jars in series, would control the flow rate and condensing of fumes.

Your comments as always are welcomed.

Regards
Kj


----------



## anachronism

I'm definitely no expert at this Kevin but I can see what you're trying to achieve.  

Would a non return valve on the pipe where you feed the gases back into the furnace be a good idea to prevent a potential flash back in the system? 

Jon


----------



## snoman701

Why is it necessary to condense the gasses at all? Why not just feed them back in to the combustion stream? 

If condensation is your goal, pass the iron pipes through a water jacket, or force them to bubble through water. As it is now, you don't seem to have enough cooling action. You need an increase in surface area and a decrease in temperature. Best way to do that is going to be passing it through small diameter pipes that are cooled below ambient. Similar to the inside of a boiler.


----------



## kjavanb123

Snoman,

My objective to use those jars was to control the flow rate, and volume of smoke.

I have tested what you suggested to direct smoke to furnace and in my testing it did not work because the flow rate and volume of smoke is too much for my furnace to be able to burn and a lot of smoke would come out of furnace.

Using this condensers helped as the amount of smoke that is being sucked into the blower is very small compare to the flow rate of iron pipe into the first jar.

According to 4metals, smokes need to stay in hot temps for at least 8 seconds in order to completely burned.

Anachronism,
I had never experienced the effect you are talking.


----------



## anachronism

kjavanb123 said:


> Anachronism,
> I had never experienced the effect you are talking.



And I hope you never do Kevin. It's the same theory as a flashback arrester on an Acetylene tank. You don't want a spark going back into the combustible gasses. 

It's food for thought mate, take it or leave it but since you're using plastic piping, a non return valve would be extremely cheap.


----------



## kjavanb123

Anarchronism,

The distance from the in-take and furnace is 50 cm or more, so I had never had it happend.

Ok pyrolysis completed, I just used the same chamber to do incineration without the cone cap, no smoke or smell while incineration and color of materials change from carbon black to white ash.

Here some photos, 

Materials after pyrolysis completed,



Same material after incineration completed,




Materials inside the pyrolysis chamber this time without the cap on,


----------



## anachronism

kjavanb123 said:


> Anarchronism,
> 
> The distance from the in-take and furnace is 50 cm or more, so I had never had it happend.



Just trying to be helpful Kevin. "It's never happened" doesn't cut the mustard when it goes bang. Most people don't get Acetylene flash backs but they still fit arresters. You've got the potential for the ignition to come backwards- a fan failure for example. If you can build something in to prevent if for a couple of bucks.... Well - up to you.


----------



## snoman701

anachronism said:


> kjavanb123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anarchronism,
> 
> The distance from the in-take and furnace is 50 cm or more, so I had never had it happend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just trying to be helpful Kevin. "It's never happened" doesn't cut the mustard when it goes bang. Most people don't get Acetylene flash backs but they still fit arresters. You've got the potential for the ignition to come backwards- a fan failure for example. If you can build something in to prevent if for a couple of bucks.... Well - up to you.
Click to expand...


Kevin,

A much bigger concern is that you are feeding a flammable gas in to the low pressure zone of the blower. Basically, all that has to do is happen is to shut off the blower with flame present at your forward gas nozzle and you could very well could get a small explosion in the blower. This pressure could then push oxygen and fire back in to the glass jar, and then it could get real interesting. 

Now I would ask...couldn't the same thing occur in a power outtage? 

Bubbling your vaporized pyrolysis gas through water will act as a spark arrestor.


----------



## anachronism

snoman701 said:


> anachronism said:
> 
> 
> 
> A much bigger concern is that you are feeding a flammable gas in to the low pressure zone of the blower. Basically, all that has to do is happen is to shut off the blower with flame present at your forward gas nozzle and you could very well could get a small explosion in the blower. This pressure could then push oxygen and fire back in to the glass jar, and then it could get real interesting.
> 
> Now I would ask...couldn't the same thing occur in a power outtage?
> 
> Bubbling your vaporized pyrolysis gas through water will act as a spark arrestor.
Click to expand...


Thanks Snoman that's pretty much where I was coming from. You worded it much better than me.


----------



## autumnwillow

From your previous setup, could the smoke be incomplete combustion? 
Maybe you can lower the fuel supply a bit and rely on the pyro gas as a fuel? 
Or is the smoke like ashes? 
I don't think its the velocity of it being too fast.

I'm trying to build a non-polluting pyro / incineration furnace like your goal. Hope you could show some more info.


----------



## kjavanb123

Autumn,

I prefer the later design. First design shown in photo of 55-gallon barrel as was mentioned by other members flames are yellow which is a sign of incomplete combustion.

In my latest prototype instead of lighting the gray smoke, I let the in-take of blower nix it with forced air and furnace will burn it completely.

I have not tested accurately using equipments and etc to see if fumes come out of furnace, but no smoke or smell could be felt around the system.


----------



## kjavanb123

I changed the gasket between the cone shaped top and chamber with graphite with iron laminated between gasket. It works perfect no leakage at all.

I have also saved the collected oil from 4 kg of boards I have pyrolized using this prototype and once I have enough, will figure out a way to condese it further to recover fuel.

Here is the collected oil 2 batches into the pyrolysis, after 4 kg was finished the amount of oil increased so I had to empty this jar twice,



Here is a shot of cut circuit boards inside the chamber before the process begins,



After 17 minutes into pyrolysis, I let it cool for also another 20 minutes, and pyrolysis completed, you can see how copper is not oxidized,



One thing noticable, later pyrolysis gets done so much quicker than the first one.

Regards
Kj


----------



## tortuga09

Very interesting this topic.
I did not understand after the end of the first pyrolis you made a second one with the same product?

très intéressant ce sujet .
J'ai pas compris après la fin de la première pyrolyse vous en faite une deuxième avec le même produit ?


----------



## kjavanb123

Hi,

The 55-gallon barrel pyrolysis did not have the fumes going back to furnace.

This small one has 2 condensers and fumes go back to furnace to burn off.

Thanks and regards
Kj


----------



## autumnwillow

May I ask why did you move from a 55gal to a smaller one? 
Pyrolysis only needs about 600degC and I think the burner you are using is sufficient enough.


----------



## flyfisherman

nickvc said:


> Hey Kevin well done a process that works for you and is fairly quick.
> I would be a little concerned with the lead so I hope you have good extraction and scrubbing to remove them safely, you know what health and safety rules are like these days..


Well, this process works, but is it "fairly quick"? It looks like the whole deal takes 10-12hrs, expose the worker/s to the harmfull lead and other compounds, heat, etc. Wouldn't it be better to just pyrolize the material till it turn white, when grind it to powder, magnetically remove the legs, and concentrate the gold wires with a gold pen? After this gold laden concentrate can be treated with gold desolving chemicals, gold powder droped, washed,etc,etc. This way alot of time and money can be saved. Just my humble opinion, no intention to criticize other refiners methods.


----------



## kjavanb123

flyfisherman said:


> nickvc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Kevin well done a process that works for you and is fairly quick.
> I would be a little concerned with the lead so I hope you have good extraction and scrubbing to remove them safely, you know what health and safety rules are like these days..
> 
> 
> 
> Well, this process works, but is it "fairly quick"? It looks like the whole deal takes 10-12hrs, expose the worker/s to the harmfull lead and other compounds, heat, etc. Wouldn't it be better to just pyrolize the material till it turn white, when grind it to powder, magnetically remove the legs, and concentrate the gold wires with a gold pen? After this gold laden concentrate can be treated with gold desolving chemicals, gold powder droped, washed,etc,etc. This way alot of time and money can be saved. Just my humble opinion, no intention to criticize other refiners methods.
Click to expand...


Hi

It is not that easy to process the way you describe. There will be losses unless you smelt with copper and part using a copper cell.

We have bag filter and scrubber for our lead smelting process as you can see in photo below,


----------



## nickvc

flyfisherman said:


> nickvc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Kevin well done a process that works for you and is fairly quick.
> I would be a little concerned with the lead so I hope you have good extraction and scrubbing to remove them safely, you know what health and safety rules are like these days..
> 
> 
> 
> Well, this process works, but is it "fairly quick"? It looks like the whole deal takes 10-12hrs, expose the worker/s to the harmfull lead and other compounds, heat, etc. Wouldn't it be better to just pyrolize the material till it turn white, when grind it to powder, magnetically remove the legs, and concentrate the gold wires with a gold pen? After this gold laden concentrate can be treated with gold desolving chemicals, gold powder droped, washed,etc,etc. This way alot of time and money can be saved. Just my humble opinion, no intention to criticize other refiners methods.
Click to expand...



No offense taken by me but look logically at the processes you suggested instead, that will take a lot more time and resources than what Kevin is using and if it works for him and his customers are happy then all is good.
I'm not saying he has it perfected and we have questioned some of his results but it's a work in progress and I'm sure he will keep tweaking his processes to improve them.


----------



## rickzeien

nickvc said:


> flyfisherman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nickvc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Kevin well done a process that works for you and is fairly quick.
> I would be a little concerned with the lead so I hope you have good extraction and scrubbing to remove them safely, you know what health and safety rules are like these days..
> 
> 
> 
> Well, this process works, but is it "fairly quick"? It looks like the whole deal takes 10-12hrs, expose the worker/s to the harmfull lead and other compounds, heat, etc. Wouldn't it be better to just pyrolize the material till it turn white, when grind it to powder, magnetically remove the legs, and concentrate the gold wires with a gold pen? After this gold laden concentrate can be treated with gold desolving chemicals, gold powder droped, washed,etc,etc. This way alot of time and money can be saved. Just my humble opinion, no intention to criticize other refiners methods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No offense taken by me but look logically at the processes you suggested instead, that will take a lot more time and resources than what Kevin is using and if it works for him and his customers are happy then all is good.
> I'm not saying he has it perfected and we have questioned some of his results but it's a work in progress and I'm sure he will keep tweaking his processes to improve them.
Click to expand...

"remove the legs, and concentrate the gold wires with a gold pen?"

I am a newbie observer. What is a gold pen and can you point me to a thread explaining it?

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk


----------



## g_axelsson

It should be "gold pan", but who am I to complain about spelling. :lol: 

Göran


----------



## rickzeien

g_axelsson said:


> It should be "gold pan", but who am I to complain about spelling. [emoji38]
> 
> Göran


Thanks. I should have figured it. I appreciate the response.

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk


----------



## flyfisherman

Sorry for wrong spelling  , meant to say "gold pan" same as prospector's pan.


----------



## kernels

Worth adding at this point that bond wires are practically impossible to pan. Pans work well for 'round' shaped alluvial gold, but bond wires are generally long and curly. 

The blue bowl is very effective as long as you screen your material so that everything going into the bowl is similar size.


----------



## archeonist

There is just one thing I don't understand about panning or bleu bowling gold wires. Why would someone take the effort in doing this as you just can put the incinerated powder in AR? The solids can be filtered of and almost all of your gold is in solution in the filtrate.

The one reason I can come up with is that you expect a lot of carbon in your powder, wich can adsorb gold in solution.


----------



## niks neims

archeonist said:


> There is just one thing I don't understand about panning or bleu bowling gold wires. Why would someone take the effort in doing this as you just can put the incinerated powder in AR? The solids can be filtered of and almost all of your gold is in solution in the filtrate.
> 
> The one reason I can come up with is that you expect a lot of carbon in your powder, wich can adsorb gold in solution.



actually I was wondering about the same thing - I know from first-hand expirience that It is a bad idea to put your material straight from incineration in to acid - the extra fine ash is harder to filter than metastannic acid; But after ""washing" the material a few times... maybe?

all I know is that I am having very hard time mastering IC gold recovery, it almost made me consider certain forbidden "moist technique"... this forum did an exellent job scaring me out of it, though, so I never tried it, instead deciding to master the correct way...that said, I am still struggling but what little progress I have made is because of this comment:


kernels said:


> Ball Milling to below 1mm is not anywhere near fine enough, if you look at the material through a microscope you will see many bond wires still caught in the epoxy-carbon at that scale. I find that everything has to go through a 60-mesh sieve before the vast majority of bond wires are freed.
> 
> The problem with not milling the material fine enough is that gravity separation doesn't work well on bond wires with carbon parachutes still attached.
> 
> I also find that if I sieve to 100-mesh I get too many bond wires caught by the sieve, 60-mesh seems to be the sweet spot for pyrolized and ball milled ICs.


http://goldrefiningforum.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=25489

I got myself a SS technical fabric with 0.2*0.2 mm size eyes (~70-80 mesh, yankee size), tried it on small scale and it really made a difference; getting ready for a larger size run right now, so I am very interested In any and all discussions on the subject , of course I know and read patnor1011`s legendary thread on the subject and Tzoax`s thread is pretty good also, but I would really appreciate any and all pointers in the right direction...


----------



## flyfisherman

kernels said:


> Worth adding at this point that bond wires are practically impossible to pan. Pans work well for 'round' shaped alluvial gold, but bond wires are generally long and curly.
> 
> The blue bowl is very effective as long as you screen your material so that everything going into the bowl is similar size.


I think that gold pan would work just fine. It could recover surprisingly small flakes of gold. Close to my place here in Utah we have gold placer where gold is really, realy small and thin (most flakes are under 0.5mm and smaller), but regular round pan would catch specs so small as barely visible with naked eye. Of course blue bowl or even miller table would work too, but they are alot more expensive.


----------



## archeonist

But if bleu bowling is just fine, why would we consider incinerate after pyrolising? Why would we consider pyrolising after all? Why can't we just ball milling non pyrolised/incinerated and bleu bowl the powder??


----------



## FrugalRefiner

archeonist said:


> But if bleu bowling is just fine, why would we consider incinerate after pyrolising? Why would we consider pyrolising after all? Why can't we just ball milling non pyrolised/incinerated and bleu bowl the powder??


Gold is very soft. If you ball mill unincinerated ICs, the milling process will smear the fine gold bond wires all over the bits of epoxy base of the ICs. There will be no separation in a blue bowl or panning because the bond wires will no longer be wires. They'll be a gold coating all over the pieces of IC. Imagine taking a gold ring and rubbing it all over an IC. It's like rubbing it on a touchstone. It will leave a streak of itself. The wires are so fine, there'll be nothing left of them after milling.

Dave


----------



## kurtak

archeonist said:


> But if bleu bowling is just fine, why would we consider incinerate after pyrolising? Why would we consider pyrolising after all? Why can't we just ball milling non pyrolised/incinerated and bleu bowl the powder??



Non pyrolyzed/incinerated ICs will NOT mill to the FINE powder NEEDED to liberate the bonding wires !!!

Epoxy is very hard & though it is hard it is not brittle - consequently trying to run them in a ball mill (without first pyrolyzing &/or incinerating) you will be lucky to break “thin” chips into chunks & with “thick” chips you will be lucky to maybe break off corners & round off edges --- You certainly will not break them down to the fine powder NEEDED to liberate the bonding wires

Even with a hammer mill at best you will only break them down to smaller “chunks” of epoxy – it will not turn them to the “fine” powder needed to liberate the bonding wires

Pyrolyzing (burning off the volatiles to “reduce” the epoxy to carbon) is required so they can be milled to the fine powder needed to liberate the bonding wires

Once the carbon is milled to a “fine” powder (goes through an 80 mesh sifting screen) most of the fine carbon can then be washed off by method of your choice (panning, blue bowl, sluice box, or table) to provide a “concentrate”

The concentrate can then be “incinerated” to reduce any carbon that did not wash off to ash

Once you are sure the carbon is ALL reduced to ash in your concentrates – you can then process the concentrates by ether chemical leaching or by smelting

Even if you could mill the IC chips without first pyrolyzing & incinerating them (which just isn’t going to happen) it would require such extensive “over milling” to break the epoxy down to a powder fine enough to liberate the bonding wires that you would end up with the problem that Dave pointed out

Also – epoxy has a “much” higher density then carbon &/or ash --- so even if you could mill the epoxy to a fine enough powder to liberate the bonding wires – it would NOT concentrate (wash) down to a concentrate for the efficient &/or effective leaching process & smelting would be out of the question unless you “incinerated” the milled epoxy before smelting anyway 

Kurt


----------



## kurtak

archeonist said:


> There is just one thing I don't understand about panning or bleu bowling gold wires. Why would someone take the effort in doing this as you just can put the incinerated powder in AR? The solids can be filtered of and almost all of your gold is in solution in the filtrate.
> 
> The one reason I can come up with is that you expect a lot of carbon in your powder, wich can adsorb gold in solution.



Yes – you can leach your pyrolyzed/incinerated chips (after milling) without first concentrating them

However – (as you pointed out) getting all of the (pyrolyzed) carbon reduced to (incinerated) ash is a problem (& yes carbon will absorb gold from solution) --- that is because in order to reduce the carbon to ash it needs to be exposed to oxygen when heat is applied --- therefore the carbon needs to be spread “very” thin – or the carbon under the surface will not reduce to ash due to the lack of oxygen getting to it – or – you have to “blow” oxygen through the carbon (if it’s not spread thin) so that oxygen contacts ALL the carbon beneath the surface

So – by not first concentrating (washing) off the vast majority of your “fine” milled pyrolyzed carbon – you are going to spend a HUGE amount of time incinerating all the carbon to “insure” all of the carbon has been reduced to ash

Also – if you don’t first concentrate your pyrolyzed/incinerated (pyrolyzed – then incinerated) milled ash it will require MUCH more chemical to do the leaching because you have to “fully” saturate the fully volume of material you are leaching – AND – then you will also need to use a MUCH greater volume of water to “TRY” to wash all the chem out of that LARGE volume of ash

I say “TRY” to wash all the chem out because with each wash you have a “diminishing” return & the more material you have to wash – the harder it is going to be to get all the chem washed out --- in other words – the more material you are trying to wash – the GREATER the amount of wash water needed --- which means MORE waste to deal with in the end

To put it in perspective --- lets say you have one cup of ash to leach (without concentrating it) its going to take a cup (plus/minus a bit) of chem to leach it – then its going to take another 4 – 5 cups of water to wash the chem out (so 5 – 6 cups total to leach & wash)

Now – lets double that to 2 cups – so your starting with double the chem (2 cups) --- BUT – its going to take MORE then double the water to get that chem washed out --- something more like 10 – 12 cups water (due to the “diminishing” returns of trying to wash more chem from more material)

So – you have not just more then doubled the amount chem needed for leaching – but you have also MORE then doubled the wash water needed to insure all the chem is washed out – meaning you have also MORE then doubled your waste --- in other words – the washing out (of the chem) is not simply increased “equal to” the increase in material being washed – rather – it is increased by a rater GREATER then the increase in material

Therefore – the more you can concentrate the material “before” leaching the less chem needed for leaching in the first place AND the amount of wash water will also be reduced “substantially” !!!

And that is because the diminishing returns of each wash is more effective when you are washing the chem from a smaller (concentrated) amount of material

As a final note (on leaching the milled ash of IC chips) --- keep in mind that “ash” is alkaline (basic) so we are not only talking about using enough acid to dissolve the gold in the ash – but you also need enough acid to “overcome” the alkaline nature of the ash so that the acid can dissolve the gold

In other words – ash being basic is going to have a neutralizing effect on the acid & so enough acid needs to be used to overcome the neutralizing effect of the ash --- or you can wash “most” of the ash off to start with so you are not needing a bunch of acid just to overcome the neutralizing effect of the ash

To put this all in perspective – I have processed MANY 50 – 60 pound batches of IC chips --- that is right close to a 5 gallon bucket full of (ball milled) carbon/ash --- can you imagine trying to reduce that much fine carbon to ash - & then trying to leach it without concentrating ---- I can’t – the amount of chem & waste created from washing would be HUGE

I am able to reduce that 5 gallon bucket of carbon/ash to a bit less then half a gallon of concentrates which can then be effectively reduced to ash & then leached with minimal chems & minimal washing out of the chem

Bottom line – is that if you want to be successful at processing IC chips (epoxy) follow the instructions as they have been laid out by Pat, myself & a number of other members of this forum that have put a GREAT deal of time into methods “that work” & then taken the time to post those methods here as the “proper” lead for others to follow --- if there were other – better methods – we would be talking about it here on the forum

Kurt


----------



## kernels

flyfisherman said:


> kernels said:
> 
> 
> 
> Worth adding at this point that bond wires are practically impossible to pan. Pans work well for 'round' shaped alluvial gold, but bond wires are generally long and curly.
> 
> The blue bowl is very effective as long as you screen your material so that everything going into the bowl is similar size.
> 
> 
> 
> I think that gold pan would work just fine. It could recover surprisingly small flakes of gold. Close to my place here in Utah we have gold placer where gold is really, realy small and thin (most flakes are under 0.5mm and smaller), but regular round pan would catch specs so small as barely visible with naked eye. Of course blue bowl or even miller table would work too, but they are alot more expensive.
Click to expand...


Yeah, pans are fine for things that are 0.5mm, average bond wires are 0.015mm and are long and stringy, not rounded like alluvial Gold.


----------



## kernels

FrugalRefiner said:


> archeonist said:
> 
> 
> 
> But if bleu bowling is just fine, why would we consider incinerate after pyrolising? Why would we consider pyrolising after all? Why can't we just ball milling non pyrolised/incinerated and bleu bowl the powder??
> 
> 
> 
> Gold is very soft. If you ball mill unincinerated ICs, the milling process will smear the fine gold bond wires all over the bits of epoxy base of the ICs. There will be no separation in a blue bowl or panning because the bond wires will no longer be wires. They'll be a gold coating all over the pieces of IC. Imagine taking a gold ring and rubbing it all over an IC. It's like rubbing it on a touchstone. It will leave a streak of itself. The wires are so fine, there'll be nothing left of them after milling.
> 
> Dave
Click to expand...


This is not quite right, not even close. You certainly can ball mill unincinerated ICs and recover all the Gold, there is a Youtube video showing exactly this- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgmBez-kE7g&t=1s

The problem is time, it takes ages to ball mill hard plastic ICs down to 60-100 mesh, much much faster if you pyrolize the ICs first.


----------



## kernels

kurtak said:


> archeonist said:
> 
> 
> 
> But if bleu bowling is just fine, why would we consider incinerate after pyrolising? Why would we consider pyrolising after all? Why can't we just ball milling non pyrolised/incinerated and bleu bowl the powder??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Non pyrolyzed/incinerated ICs will NOT mill to the FINE powder NEEDED to liberate the bonding wires !!!
> 
> Epoxy is very hard & though it is hard it is not brittle - consequently trying to run them in a ball mill (without first pyrolyzing &/or incinerating) you will be lucky to break “thin” chips into chunks & with “thick” chips you will be lucky to maybe break off corners & round off edges --- You certainly will not break them down to the fine powder NEEDED to liberate the bonding wires
> 
> Even with a hammer mill at best you will only break them down to smaller “chunks” of epoxy – it will not turn them to the “fine” powder needed to liberate the bonding wires
> 
> Pyrolyzing (burning off the volatiles to “reduce” the epoxy to carbon) is required so they can be milled to the fine powder needed to liberate the bonding wires
> 
> Once the carbon is milled to a “fine” powder (goes through an 80 mesh sifting screen) most of the fine carbon can then be washed off by method of your choice (panning, blue bowl, sluice box, or table) to provide a “concentrate”
> 
> The concentrate can then be “incinerated” to reduce any carbon that did not wash off to ash
> 
> Once you are sure the carbon is ALL reduced to ash in your concentrates – you can then process the concentrates by ether chemical leaching or by smelting
> 
> Even if you could mill the IC chips without first pyrolyzing & incinerating them (which just isn’t going to happen) it would require such extensive “over milling” to break the epoxy down to a powder fine enough to liberate the bonding wires that you would end up with the problem that Dave pointed out
> 
> Also – epoxy has a “much” higher density then carbon &/or ash --- so even if you could mill the epoxy to a fine enough powder to liberate the bonding wires – it would NOT concentrate (wash) down to a concentrate for the efficient &/or effective leaching process & smelting would be out of the question unless you “incinerated” the milled epoxy before smelting anyway
> 
> Kurt
Click to expand...


As per the link above, you absolutely can mill without pyrolizing, but your statements regarding time and density of the epoxy are spot on.


----------



## kernels

kurtak said:


> archeonist said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is just one thing I don't understand about panning or bleu bowling gold wires. Why would someone take the effort in doing this as you just can put the incinerated powder in AR? The solids can be filtered of and almost all of your gold is in solution in the filtrate.
> 
> The one reason I can come up with is that you expect a lot of carbon in your powder, wich can adsorb gold in solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes – you can leach your pyrolyzed/incinerated chips (after milling) without first concentrating them
> 
> However – (as you pointed out) getting all of the (pyrolyzed) carbon reduced to (incinerated) ash is a problem (& yes carbon will absorb gold from solution) --- that is because in order to reduce the carbon to ash it needs to be exposed to oxygen when heat is applied --- therefore the carbon needs to be spread “very” thin – or the carbon under the surface will not reduce to ash due to the lack of oxygen getting to it – or – you have to “blow” oxygen through the carbon (if it’s not spread thin) so that oxygen contacts ALL the carbon beneath the surface
> 
> So – by not first concentrating (washing) off the vast majority of your “fine” milled pyrolyzed carbon – you are going to spend a HUGE amount of time incinerating all the carbon to “insure” all of the carbon has been reduced to ash
> 
> Also – if you don’t first concentrate your pyrolyzed/incinerated (pyrolyzed – then incinerated) milled ash it will require MUCH more chemical to do the leaching because you have to “fully” saturate the fully volume of material you are leaching – AND – then you will also need to use a MUCH greater volume of water to “TRY” to wash all the chem out of that LARGE volume of ash
> 
> I say “TRY” to wash all the chem out because with each wash you have a “diminishing” return & the more material you have to wash – the harder it is going to be to get all the chem washed out --- in other words – the more material you are trying to wash – the GREATER the amount of wash water needed --- which means MORE waste to deal with in the end
> 
> To put it in perspective --- lets say you have one cup of ash to leach (without concentrating it) its going to take a cup (plus/minus a bit) of chem to leach it – then its going to take another 4 – 5 cups of water to wash the chem out (so 5 – 6 cups total to leach & wash)
> 
> Now – lets double that to 2 cups – so your starting with double the chem (2 cups) --- BUT – its going to take MORE then double the water to get that chem washed out --- something more like 10 – 12 cups water (due to the “diminishing” returns of trying to wash more chem from more material)
> 
> So – you have not just more then doubled the amount chem needed for leaching – but you have also MORE then doubled the wash water needed to insure all the chem is washed out – meaning you have also MORE then doubled your waste --- in other words – the washing out (of the chem) is not simply increased “equal to” the increase in material being washed – rather – it is increased by a rater GREATER then the increase in material
> 
> Therefore – the more you can concentrate the material “before” leaching the less chem needed for leaching in the first place AND the amount of wash water will also be reduced “substantially” !!!
> 
> And that is because the diminishing returns of each wash is more effective when you are washing the chem from a smaller (concentrated) amount of material
> 
> As a final note (on leaching the milled ash of IC chips) --- keep in mind that “ash” is alkaline (basic) so we are not only talking about using enough acid to dissolve the gold in the ash – but you also need enough acid to “overcome” the alkaline nature of the ash so that the acid can dissolve the gold
> 
> In other words – ash being basic is going to have a neutralizing effect on the acid & so enough acid needs to be used to overcome the neutralizing effect of the ash --- or you can wash “most” of the ash off to start with so you are not needing a bunch of acid just to overcome the neutralizing effect of the ash
> 
> To put this all in perspective – I have processed MANY 50 – 60 pound batches of IC chips --- that is right close to a 5 gallon bucket full of (ball milled) carbon/ash --- can you imagine trying to reduce that much fine carbon to ash - & then trying to leach it without concentrating ---- I can’t – the amount of chem & waste created from washing would be HUGE
> 
> I am able to reduce that 5 gallon bucket of carbon/ash to a bit less then half a gallon of concentrates which can then be effectively reduced to ash & then leached with minimal chems & minimal washing out of the chem
> 
> Bottom line – is that if you want to be successful at processing IC chips (epoxy) follow the instructions as they have been laid out by Pat, myself & a number of other members of this forum that have put a GREAT deal of time into methods “that work” & then taken the time to post those methods here as the “proper” lead for others to follow --- if there were other – better methods – we would be talking about it here on the forum
> 
> Kurt
Click to expand...


This is a great detailed response, new E-waste refiners would do themselves a BIG favor by reading it a few times. I have made the mistake of trying to go straight from incineration to chemicals without concentrating twice, both times it was a disaster. 

I found the key to mastering bond-wire recovery was a decent microscope setup so that I could continuously check all my discard material and figure out where my losses were happening.


----------



## archeonist

Dave and Kurt, thanks so much for this very usefull information. 

A little summery of your information:

No pyrolising/incineration and just ball milling would take too long and the gold would be smeared out (at least a whole lot) on the particles wich would be washed out in the concentrating step.

First pyrolise ("burning" without oxygen), then concentrate and finally incinerate (burning with oxygen) the concentrate due to the fact that oxygen has to oxidize all of the carbon. The more material there is, the less oxygen will be able to reach all of the carbon. 

Concentrating your material will reduce chemicals needed for extracting the gold.

Thanks again!


----------



## g_axelsson

Kurt,

I don't think ash from incinerating IC:s is basic. Wood ash, yes, it's from basic oxides of K, Ca, Na and so on if I remember correctly. The ash from incinerating IC:s consists of the filler which is fine quartz sand and doesn't dissolve in water. This should be easy to check by just testing the wash water with a pH strip, but if it was basic then it would feel soapy when washing incinerated IC:s and I don't recall any such experience.

I have built an electric oven that I do my final incineration in, prior to that I have pyrolyzed the IC:s so there are only carbon left. By setting the temperature so the inside is glowing the incineration works quite well. No fast air currents that transports away dust, no open flame that consumes the oxygen. Just turn it on and check on it now and then to see how far the incineration have gone. When chips are white all through the body they are ready.
The oven was built from bits and pieces that came in as scrap, the only thing I bought was a PID-regulator, a temperature probe working up to 1100 C and two fire bricks.

Göran


----------



## kjavanb123

Greeting everyone,

I finally put together a small scale of 4metals duo pyrolysis/incineration design mentioned in his great "smelting" post.

As expected, worked with the best results I have gotten from any pyro unit that I have built. No smokes and no smell.

Here is the components for this new pyro design,

Pyrolysis chamber
I used a piece of pipe which one end is welded. I used smaller width pipe so heat can get to the components inside.



A cap
To control the flow rate of fumes. There is an half inch hole on top of it to allow chamber to vent.



A container to cover the chamber and cap, also to contain the heat. I used a steel paint can which already been heated.



Afterburner
This is same size paint can as pyrolysis cover, but insulated with kaewool, so once heated it can reach 1000c in 10 minutes.



Here is the whole system during operation, I lit the afterburner first for 15 minutes, then pyrolysis chamber using medium heat from its burner, after about 10 minutes, increased the heat for pyrolysis to max until the flames you see emitting from afterburner changed color to faint clear yellow.



The materials I used for this test was about 200 grams of connectors, SMDs, aluminum capactiors, and pieces of boards and ICs.

As you may note, photos were taken after pyrolysis completed hence the black color components.

Again many thanks to 4metals to share with us this cool design.

Best regards
Kj


----------



## cosmetal

Kj,

Since they are the same size, how did you stabilize the afterburner chamber to the top of the pyrolysis chamber?

I couldn't determine that from your pics - please elaborate.

Thanks!
James


----------



## autumnwillow

kjavanb123 said:


> Greeting everyone,
> 
> I finally put together a small scale of 4metals duo pyrolysis/incineration design mentioned in his great "smelting" post.
> 
> As expected, worked with the best results I have gotten from any pyro unit that I have built. No smokes and no smell.
> 
> Here is the components for this new pyro design,
> 
> Pyrolysis chamber
> I used a piece of pipe which one end is welded. I used smaller width pipe so heat can get to the components inside.
> View attachment 4
> 
> 
> A cap
> To control the flow rate of fumes. There is an half inch hole on top of it to allow chamber to vent.
> View attachment 3
> 
> 
> A container to cover the chamber and cap, also to contain the heat. I used a steel paint can which already been heated.
> View attachment 2
> 
> 
> Afterburner
> This is same size paint can as pyrolysis cover, but insulated with kaewool, so once heated it can reach 1000c in 10 minutes.
> View attachment 1
> 
> 
> Here is the whole system during operation, I lit the afterburner first for 15 minutes, then pyrolysis chamber using medium heat from its burner, after about 10 minutes, increased the heat for pyrolysis to max until the flames you see emitting from afterburner changed color to faint clear yellow.
> 
> 
> The materials I used for this test was about 200 grams of connectors, SMDs, aluminum capactiors, and pieces of boards and ICs.
> 
> As you may note, photos were taken after pyrolysis completed hence the black color components.
> 
> Again many thanks to 4metals to share with us this cool design.
> 
> Best regards
> Kj


Are you using a thermometer? If the chamber goes 1000degC that's no longer pyrolysis. You should control the temperature. It should only be around 600 to 700degc. You will have too many metals melt at 1000degc which will cause problems. 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk


----------



## cosmetal

g_axelsson said:


> Kurt,
> 
> I don't think ash from incinerating IC:s is basic. Wood ash, yes, it's from basic oxides of K, Ca, Na and so on if I remember correctly. The ash from incinerating IC:s consists of the filler which is fine quartz sand and doesn't dissolve in water. This should be easy to check by just testing the wash water with a pH strip, but if it was basic then it would feel soapy when washing incinerated IC:s and I don't recall any such experience.
> 
> I have built an electric oven that I do my final incineration in, prior to that I have pyrolyzed the IC:s so there are only carbon left. By setting the temperature so the inside is glowing the incineration works quite well. No fast air currents that transports away dust, no open flame that consumes the oxygen. Just turn it on and check on it now and then to see how far the incineration have gone. When chips are white all through the body they are ready.
> The oven was built from bits and pieces that came in as scrap, the only thing I bought was a PID-regulator, a temperature probe working up to 1100 C and two fire bricks.
> 
> Göran



Ok, Goran . . . you know someone was going to ask for pics and a further elaboration on it's build.  

I'll bite . . . pics and info, please! :?:  :?: 

Thanks!
James


----------



## im1badpup1

Im sure you realise what your doing with this method of pyrolysis is 'cracking' plastic. The same method applies when cracking crude oils and recovering various fractions. The fractions are for example fuel for vehicles, oils for lubrication, base chemicals for pharmaceutical synthesis and industrial chemicals like acetone.
If you control the heat and contact time at a given temperature you can be more selective to the hydrocarbons? Type youll recover. Add a reactor and metal catalyst and you will be able to produce fractions what dominate in yield in the recovered material.

Whether you can get it economically viable or nots another thing


You could also use supercritical steam to finish off the pyrolysis or as part of the process. Whether its useful or not to do so i dont know. Just thought id toss that one out

Its all very simple engineering design builds youve basically got it with that reactor and feed system for the gas produced.

When pyrolysis and incinerations complete as far as i know part of the remaining residue when separated from the precious metals, is really toxic. Definately dont be handling ir breathing it in.


----------



## g_axelsson

cosmetal said:


> g_axelsson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kurt,
> 
> I don't think ash from incinerating IC:s is basic. Wood ash, yes, it's from basic oxides of K, Ca, Na and so on if I remember correctly. The ash from incinerating IC:s consists of the filler which is fine quartz sand and doesn't dissolve in water. This should be easy to check by just testing the wash water with a pH strip, but if it was basic then it would feel soapy when washing incinerated IC:s and I don't recall any such experience.
> 
> I have built an electric oven that I do my final incineration in, prior to that I have pyrolyzed the IC:s so there are only carbon left. By setting the temperature so the inside is glowing the incineration works quite well. No fast air currents that transports away dust, no open flame that consumes the oxygen. Just turn it on and check on it now and then to see how far the incineration have gone. When chips are white all through the body they are ready.
> The oven was built from bits and pieces that came in as scrap, the only thing I bought was a PID-regulator, a temperature probe working up to 1100 C and two fire bricks.
> 
> Göran
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, Goran . . . you know someone was going to ask for pics and a further elaboration on it's build.
> 
> I'll bite . . . pics and info, please! :?:  :?:
> 
> Thanks!
> James
Click to expand...

Sure, it took some time to dig out the pictures but here are some...

Built from a small 19" steel cabinet and the heating element from a smoke machine, added insulation and a PID-regulator with temperature sensor.


Here is the final insulation, rockwool. The box holding the heater is removed to do some modifications. The outside wasn't even warm when the inside was on red heat. I still got the plastic handles on the sides.


I had to add three firebricks to add mechanical strength, the rockwool just collapsed when hot and under load.


The heat is on... the discoloration shows where the heat goes. As a front door I'm just using a sheet of rockwool held in place by some iron wires. At the back corner you can see the temperature sensor.


Incinerated material, this was a beaker with gold powder that I had to sweep up from the floor. The ash is from dirt, debris and papers I collected in the process. Aqua regia dissolved the gold and it was easy to filter and easy to drop.
I've used this oven for IC:s and some other material too.



I'm only running material that has been pyrolysed first so there is no smoke, just carbon dioxide coming out. A couple of hours at a suitable temperature (just barely glowing) removes all the carbon easily. But I still only run it outside until I can get a suitable ventilation

Göran


----------



## kjavanb123

cosmetal said:


> Kj,
> 
> Since they are the same size, how did you stabilize the afterburner chamber to the top of the pyrolysis chamber?
> 
> I couldn't determine that from your pics - please elaborate.
> 
> Thanks!
> James



James

Since both chambers are the same size, they fit on top of each other, only the burner is leaning on 2 bricks on the side and pointing to afterburner.

Regards
Kj


----------



## kjavanb123

autumnwillow said:


> kjavanb123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Greeting everyone,
> 
> I finally put together a small scale of 4metals duo pyrolysis/incineration design mentioned in his great "smelting" post.
> 
> As expected, worked with the best results I have gotten from any pyro unit that I have built. No smokes and no smell.
> 
> Here is the components for this new pyro design,
> 
> Pyrolysis chamber
> I used a piece of pipe which one end is welded. I used smaller width pipe so heat can get to the components inside.
> image.jpg
> 
> A cap
> To control the flow rate of fumes. There is an half inch hole on top of it to allow chamber to vent.
> image.jpg
> 
> A container to cover the chamber and cap, also to contain the heat. I used a steel paint can which already been heated.
> image.jpg
> 
> Afterburner
> This is same size paint can as pyrolysis cover, but insulated with kaewool, so once heated it can reach 1000c in 10 minutes.
> image.jpg
> 
> Here is the whole system during operation, I lit the afterburner first for 15 minutes, then pyrolysis chamber using medium heat from its burner, after about 10 minutes, increased the heat for pyrolysis to max until the flames you see emitting from afterburner changed color to faint clear yellow.
> image.jpg
> 
> The materials I used for this test was about 200 grams of connectors, SMDs, aluminum capactiors, and pieces of boards and ICs.
> 
> As you may note, photos were taken after pyrolysis completed hence the black color components.
> 
> Again many thanks to 4metals to share with us this cool design.
> 
> Best regards
> Kj
> 
> 
> 
> Are you using a thermometer? If the chamber goes 1000degC that's no longer pyrolysis. You should control the temperature. It should only be around 600 to 700degc. You will have too many metals melt at 1000degc which will cause problems.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Hi

I meant the afterburner chamber to reach 1000c first and I usualy test it with a piece of copper wire stick it to afterburner chamber once it softened it must be 1000c plus.

For pyrolysis chamber (bottom) I lit up burner to medium heat.

Ran different types of boards and components it works great. Again thanks 4metals for the idea.

I am going bigger on this design as we have close to 4 tons of bare boards to be pyrolyze then incinerated using large scale design.

Best
Kj


----------



## cosmetal

g_axelsson said:


> cosmetal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g_axelsson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kurt,
> 
> I don't think ash from incinerating IC:s is basic. Wood ash, yes, it's from basic oxides of K, Ca, Na and so on if I remember correctly. The ash from incinerating IC:s consists of the filler which is fine quartz sand and doesn't dissolve in water. This should be easy to check by just testing the wash water with a pH strip, but if it was basic then it would feel soapy when washing incinerated IC:s and I don't recall any such experience.
> 
> I have built an electric oven that I do my final incineration in, prior to that I have pyrolyzed the IC:s so there are only carbon left. By setting the temperature so the inside is glowing the incineration works quite well. No fast air currents that transports away dust, no open flame that consumes the oxygen. Just turn it on and check on it now and then to see how far the incineration have gone. When chips are white all through the body they are ready.
> The oven was built from bits and pieces that came in as scrap, the only thing I bought was a PID-regulator, a temperature probe working up to 1100 C and two fire bricks.
> 
> Göran
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, Goran . . . you know someone was going to ask for pics and a further elaboration on it's build.
> 
> I'll bite . . . pics and info, please! :?:  :?:
> 
> Thanks!
> James
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, it took some time to dig out the pictures but here are some...
> 
> Built from a small 19" steel cabinet and the heating element from a smoke machine, added insulation and a PID-regulator with temperature sensor.
> DSC_6504.jpg
> Here is the final insulation, rockwool. The box holding the heater is removed to do some modifications. The outside wasn't even warm when the inside was on red heat. I still got the plastic handles on the sides.
> DSC_6510.jpg
> I had to add three firebricks to add mechanical strength, the rockwool just collapsed when hot and under load.
> DSC_6518.jpg
> The heat is on... the discoloration shows where the heat goes. As a front door I'm just using a sheet of rockwool held in place by some iron wires. At the back corner you can see the temperature sensor.
> DSC_6527.jpg
> Incinerated material, this was a beaker with gold powder that I had to sweep up from the floor. The ash is from dirt, debris and papers I collected in the process. Aqua regia dissolved the gold and it was easy to filter and easy to drop.
> I've used this oven for IC:s and some other material too.
> DSC_6530.jpg
> 
> I'm only running material that has been pyrolysed first so there is no smoke, just carbon dioxide coming out. A couple of hours at a suitable temperature (just barely glowing) removes all the carbon easily. But I still only run it outside until I can get a suitable ventilation
> 
> Göran
Click to expand...


Goran,

Thank you for the pics and the design. Like it - very simple and straightforward. Therefore, very elegant!  

Sigh . . . ! :roll: 

Now I have Kj's/4Metals burner and your chamber to build! :shock: 

When will it end . . .  

James


----------



## snoman701

I cannot seem to find rockwool around here. It's too industrial for Home Depot or the like, and not rated high enough for the refractory guys.

I've wanted to get some panels for quite some time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Yggdrasil

Here in the Nordic countries its common for insulating our houses. ;-)
Countrary to glass insulation, it is more heat resistant and will not hold on to moisture if it get wet.
We can find it at any shop for building materials.
BR Per-Ove


----------



## kjavanb123

snoman701 said:


> I cannot seem to find rockwool around here. It's too industrial for Home Depot or the like, and not rated high enough for the refractory guys.
> 
> I've wanted to get some panels for quite some time.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Try kaewool blanket instead.


----------



## geedigity

Definitely use Kaowool verses either fiberglass insulation (easily melts) or rockwool (disintegrates after being subjected to high heat).


----------



## g_axelsson

I haven't been able to find a local supply of kaowool here in Sweden, though I haven't looked too hard.
Rockwool was what was cheap and easy to pick up in town. I probably just spent a few dollars on the insulation.
I'm also looking for these light weight fire bricks you can cut with a saw. The ones I have access to here in town is only the heavy dense type shown in the pictures.

If I can get a close temperature control I can probably use the oven for PGM salt conversions and a silver chloride conversion that GSP or Lou talked about. But that is experiments for the future.

Göran


----------



## im1badpup1

Goran, try asking a gas engineer for the old firebricks from the back of gas fires or collect them from scrapyard. They do stack together well the back of them making a good 'face' Some pizza oven types have a huge vermiculite firebrick type board what if upto standard would come in very useful.

How are people sealing the lid, or the opening where they transfer material in and out to Make it gas tight?

Surely just bolting tight isnt sufficient. Do they use something like a copper gasket .. my concern is itd mistakenly melt if temperature momentarily spiked. Would glass wool when compacted as a gasket bolted tight make a sufficient seal?

Id of liked a rotating pyrolysis chamber for the benefits of much faster and efficiency in completion of pyrolysis but the complexity or cost makes it less viable unless having a heavy workload.

But i did come up with the idea to use a calor gas bottle as reactor on its side sat on roller bars what can be manually rotated at intervals from the outside
The produced gas outlet pipe would need to be temporay disconnected from feeding back into the furnace while doing so.

Been able to rotate and agitate your materials would really help ensure complete pyrolysis and only need to be done a couple of times late on when the reaction is dying down.
Apart from been faster itd solve some of the problems people are having in this thread.
One is heat wasnt getting sufficiently to the centre of the reactor to pyrolise materials there.
Another was densley packed materials had colder spots and incomplete pyrolysis.
You could heat for longer but the carbon been produced is insulating and protecting the material it may be no amount of time will complete the reaction.
Its a lot of work to find out after cooling and examining your material you need to mix it up and do it all again

In fact ive just thought of a simple design concept to allow the rotation of the reactor and the gas produced going out can be fed through a watertrap back into the reactor without any complex fitting needed. It just is bubbled into the trap the hose off the pipe is turning but free in the water. The gas bubbles up into a trap what pushes it back down another pipe back to the reactor to be burned. Il draw what i mean its dead simple.


----------



## Grelko

This may be a little off subject but...

After dissolving material in AP, I'm going to have a lot of leftover chips, plastic and other trash.

Is it possible to make a small pyrolysis container, using a welded together, steel box with a hinged door, then setting it on a hotplate? Basically it would be like a small pot belly stove.

If the hotplate doesn't get hot enough, I can always use coal underneath, but I'm afraid that I would melt the steel if I introduced a breeze from a heatgun, hairdryer or fan. I don't want to melt the material into a glob, I just want to have ash and metal at the end.

There's no open burning allowed in town "burning leaves etc." but if I can do this without leaving much smoke or smell, it should be ok.

Then afterwards, filter the ash "or use a goldpan", and re-dissolve what's left.


Edit - After re-reading this entire post, I would have to say, the setup I would be making is a bit similar to Goran's (heating element) design on page 5. Except that the heat I would be using, is coming from under the container on the outside.


----------



## kjavanb123

Hi all,

I like to update this old post with the latest pyrolysis system.



Here are the ICs from memory RAM sticks after completely pyrolyzed, note few chips on the top turned into ash.



In this system, smokes from the white container on the left is sucked into the torch and mixed with air and burned.

There was no smells or smokes while system was working.

Hope this helps out members here.


----------



## kjavanb123

Hi

Just came across this design using two barrels to make charcoals. I wonder if this can be used to pyrolyse circuit boards.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=COPqvVH7jiw


----------



## kjavanb123

Hi

Here is an update on using the same 2 barrel system for pyrolysis of boards. It ran for 40 minutes no smoke or smell at all. I will check the boards tommorow with pictures.


----------



## texnojnik

My version of the reactor. There is no air boost yet, I have adapted a gasoline lamp for testing. It was planned to supply air horizontally, and from below a gas burner for ignition and maintenance of gorenje.


----------

