# Processing MLCC's



## 9kuuby9

Hello everyone, I'm going to start a new topic for the sake of processing MLCC's. I've been toying around Since summer with MLCC's and tried a lot of different methods, manly acid based leaching. And with many different acid combinations. Since everyone has a different process and or method in dealing with MLCC's, It would be nice to compile a process from all the members that have Successfully processed them. By "Successfully" I mean The process is done in a reasonable time frame and has good yields. Because many Methods do work but take very long (an month for an instance) or are not very successful in recovering good yields. One has to make a distinction between Nickel based electrodes en Palladium based electrodes. And almost all MLCC's contain Silver combined with other metals as an outer terminal plating. Nickel based electrodes can be easily be separated from the Palladium based ones. Namely with a "rare earth magnet" or a neodymium one, which is simple acquired from a Computer Hard-drive.

Typical yields; (updated) - _Caution! These are only yields for MLCC's that do Contain Pd_ -
Pd 1 - 3%
Ag 3 - 13%
Pt 0.3 - 0.6% (Not all contain Pt, but sometimes they do)


SMD resistors Have a similar yield results as the ones I presented above.
You also have SMD array's which have sometimes more yields, because they have more layers.
However take notice that not All MLCC's contain Pd Sometimes they only contain Ni & Ag
If you have mixed MLCC's the yield may vary for the Pd (one half has 2% yield and other half has 0% yield which results in a total 1%)
So when we speak about "Pd 1.5 - 3%" this is only an average yield number for the MLCC's that DO contain Pd.
When you acquire MLCC's try to get them as per kind and not mixed. So when you assay them per type u have a stable yield.

Let me also enlighten everyone that their are a lot of different types and sometimes with completely different yields, this is said to try prevent unnecessary posts on this topic.

The new method I want to present, Which is still untested and a hypothesis based on some sound thinking. But it still might not work depending on how the material will co-operate.

This method is a physical extraction of the PM's in the MLCC's, mainly for the _clean_ Palladium based ones. ("clean" here refers to the outer terminals not containing any solder, like lead and tin.)

The MLLC's are ground or crushed to a fine powder. Then melted with appropriate fluxes (mainly borax) and poured into a conical mold, so that the metal is easily separated from the slag.
Around 13% of MLCC's is composed of metal, the rest would be Zirconium dioxide (87%) or an other ceramic with similar properties. Their might also contain other materials, depending on the manufacturer, like bonding material. A suitable crucible for this process would be made out of Alumina. The stirring rod must be also a Quartz stirring rod. No graphite materials are used in this process because of the catalytic properties of Palladium, which does tends to complicate things. The conical mold would be composed out of steel. One could either use an induction based furnace or an propane furnace. The molten matter will have to be stirred good when a propane furnace is used. They will have to reach around 1250°C, Because the Silver and Palladium will form an alloy that melts around 1200°C With an average percentage of 81% silver and 19% Palladium by weight.

If this process would be successful, then the next step would be to separate the Palladium from the silver or vise versa with known methods.

This is as far I have gotten with the thought process, Feel free to chime in and discuss this method or present other plausible means.

I hope it's readable, English is not my native language. If it's not then forgive me for the deficiency of my English language.


----------



## chlaurite

9kuuby9 said:


> SMD resistors Have a similar yield results as the ones I presented above.


Can you (or anyone) substantiate that claim?

I've gone out of my way to only remove MLCCs rather than all the SMDs on the boards I've stripped down. If the SM resistors have similar yields, _WOW_ have I wasted some time with that.


----------



## 9kuuby9

chlaurite said:


> 9kuuby9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> SMD resistors Have a similar yield results as the ones I presented above.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you (or anyone) substantiate that claim?
> 
> I've gone out of my way to only remove MLCCs rather than all the SMDs on the boards I've stripped down. If the SM resistors have similar yields, _WOW_ have I wasted some time with that.
Click to expand...


http://www.venkel.com/docs/part-pdfs/resistors-mini-catalog-venkel.pdf

Page 6,-General Purpose Resistors- under "Termination" you have 2 sorts, Namely Tin over Nickel and Silver over Palladium.

Let me make it clear that they have similar yields to MLCC's but still have a general lower yield. Because MLLC's have a capacitance, therefore Electrodes. So the outer termination and Electrodes contain PM's. While Resistors only have the outer termination that contains PM's. Having at it's core a substance that offers resistance and so PM's are not fit for that role, because PM's have a good conductivity with a very small amount of resistance. Which will not act as a resistor given it's primary role.



9kuuby9 said:


> Let me also enlighten everyone that their are a lot of different types and sometimes with completely different yields, this is said to try prevent unnecessary posts on this topic.


----------



## niteliteone

To put it simply, Any or All the PM value of resistors are contained in the metal end caps along with the solder if parts are used and recovered.
So basically any resistors manufactured before ROHS compliance will be junk as the metals will be tin/lead composition compatible.


----------



## 9kuuby9

To be honest it isn't really worth discussing the "possible" materials it contains. As I said many times

RoHS is often referred to (inaccurately) as the 'lead-free directive', but it restricts the use of the following six substances:
Lead (Pb)
Mercury (Hg)
Cadmium (Cd)
Hexavalent chromium (Cr6+)
Polybrominated biphenyls (PBB)
Polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE)

In Europe this started on 2003 and the rest of the world around 2006.

Now Tin (Sn) is not restricted, Thus it is still used a lot alongside with Nickel in the outer termination plating.

So the only difference is Lead here, Since it's only restricted it is still used.

Any mid-grade to high grade components are used in quality products. For instance a Computer Motherboard. Low-grade components (mostly nickel and tin) are used in poor quality products or those that do not need very good quality components, such as a computer power supply. (The main subject -components here are SMT's or SMD's)

To determine the grade of the component is to look at what the particular scrap is used for and what it's purpose is in circuitry.

And again;


9kuuby9 said:


> Let me also enlighten everyone that their are a lot of different types and sometimes with completely different yields, this is said to try prevent unnecessary posts on this topic.


----------



## niteliteone

9kuuby9 said:


> *To be honest it isn't really worth discussing the "possible" materials it contains.* As I said many times
> 
> RoHS is often referred to (inaccurately) as the 'lead-free directive', but it restricts the use of the following six substances:
> Lead (Pb)
> Mercury (Hg)
> Cadmium (Cd)
> Hexavalent chromium (Cr6+)
> Polybrominated biphenyls (PBB)
> Polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE)
> 
> In Europe this started on 2003 and the rest of the world around 2006.
> 
> Now Tin (Sn) is not restricted, Thus it is still used a lot alongside with Nickel in the outer termination plating.
> 
> So the only difference is Lead here, Since it's only restricted it is still used.
> 
> Any mid-grade to high grade components are used in quality products. For instance a Computer Motherboard. Low-grade components (mostly nickel and tin) are used in poor quality products or those that do not need very good quality components, such as a computer power supply. (The main subject -components here are SMT's or SMD's)
> 
> To determine the grade of the component is to look at what the particular scrap is used for and what it's purpose is in circuitry.
> 
> And again;
> 
> 
> 9kuuby9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me also enlighten everyone that their are a lot of different types and sometimes with completely different yields, this is said to try prevent unnecessary posts on this topic.
Click to expand...

You seem to be quite wrong with this statement.
Tin/lead was the common solder joint used before ROHS and ""ALL Resistors"" used in consumer electronics were worthless as far as PM's were concerned before ROHS removed the lead and replaced it with silver and copper.

Exceptions were on some military and medical electronics that required a solder other than tin/lead prior to 2006

PS. I'm not the one that included "resistors" in your thread, which brought on my correction of misstated information.


----------



## 9kuuby9

Some evidence supporting your claim would be nice. :mrgreen:


----------



## niteliteone

9kuuby9 said:


> Some evidence supporting your claim would be nice. :mrgreen:


I do believe YOU were asked the for same information above :shock: 

YOU are also the one stating a device made of basically carbon and ceramics (ie. resistors) are made with PM's other than what is contained in the solder joint.
I come from the electronics manufacturing industry and have YET to see a "common resistor", whether thru hole or SMD, made with PM's. I left the industry at the same time ROHS became law here in the US but keep active in the industry knowledge.

Here is a link to wiki that describes most resistors available publicly;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistor


> Because the time during which the sputtering is performed can be controlled, the thickness of the thin film can be accurately controlled. The type of material is also usually different consisting of one or more ceramic (cermet) conductors such as tantalum nitride (TaN), ruthenium oxide (RuO2), lead oxide (PbO), bismuth ruthenate (Bi2Ru2O7), nickel chromium (NiCr), or bismuth iridate (Bi2Ir2O7).


----------



## 9kuuby9

They are called SMT resistors.

I'm not talking about internal electrodes or in this case the "thin film".

"You cannot teach a man anything. You can only help him find it for himself." Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) We really have to apply this now in your case. 8) 

Re read what I wrote. And a hint, termination...

again;


9kuuby9 said:


> Let me also enlighten everyone that their are a lot of different types and sometimes with completely different yields, this is said to try prevent unnecessary posts on this topic.



I will not go into further discussion about SMT resistors yields.


----------



## niteliteone

9kuuby9 said:


> They are called SMT resistors.
> 
> I'm not talking about internal electrodes or in this case the "thin film".
> 
> "You cannot teach a man anything. You can only help him find it for himself." Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) We really have to apply this now in your case. 8)
> 
> Re read what I wrote. And a hint, termination...
> 
> again;
> 
> 
> 9kuuby9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me also enlighten everyone that their are a lot of different types and sometimes with completely different yields, this is said to try prevent unnecessary posts on this topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will not go into further discussion about SMT resistors yields.
Click to expand...


The link I posted above was about ALL types of resistors not just *S*urface *M*ounted *D*evices. 
SMT = Surface Mounted Technology.

from above;


> electrodes can be easily be separated from the Palladium based ones. Namely with a "rare earth magnet" or a neodymium one, which is simple acquired from a Computer Hard-drive.
> 
> Typical yields;
> Pd 1.5 - 3%
> Ag 7 - 13%
> Pt 0.3 - 0.6% (Not all contain Pt, but sometimes they do)
> 
> 
> *SMD resistors Have a similar yield results as the ones I presented above*.



If you feel the need to resort to childish games by referring to my quote or any other stupid Bull... instead of accepting a correction on a mistaken representation you made, Then enjoy looking like the fool alone, as I have no desire to stoop to your level on this forum.

I have no more to say on this matter.


----------



## 9kuuby9

Don't take it too personal, let's put some sand over it. :mrgreen:


----------



## Geo

this has the potential to be a very productive thread. please do not destroy it before it starts by nit-picking. resistors are normally black with numbers and are the same shape as a MLCC. this has been discussed before and yields were reported but i dont think the threads went very far. some good solid numbers would be fantastic as most people who deal with electronics may or may not find this information useful. please continue 9kuuby9.


----------



## solar_plasma

Geo said:


> this has the potential to be a very productive thread. please do not destroy it before it starts by nit-picking. resistors are normally black with numbers and are the same shape as a MLCC. this has been discussed before and yields were reported but i dont think the threads went very far. some good solid numbers would be fantastic as most people who deal with electronics may or may not find this information useful. please continue 9kuuby9.




I would like to read more about the ruthenium in resistors. Do they contain an amount of Ru that could make the processing of resistors for Ag and evt. Pd dangerous? Is there a save way to form Ru compounds under the process, so it could be given to a professional in a more stable form like (NH4)2[RuCl6] or Ru(IV)02?


----------



## 9kuuby9

Geo said:


> this has the potential to be a very productive thread. please do not destroy it before it starts by nit-picking. resistors are normally black with numbers and are the same shape as a MLCC. this has been discussed before and yields were reported but i dont think the threads went very far. some good solid numbers would be fantastic as most people who deal with electronics may or may not find this information useful. please continue 9kuuby9.



Don't worry Geo, I've benefited a lot from this forum, from all our respectable users. So some contribution in return would be the least thing I could do. :mrgreen: 

Here is a broader perspective on the structure of a SMT resistor.






solar_plasma said:


> I would like to read more about the ruthenium in resistors. Do they contain an amount of Ru that could make the processing of resistors for Ag and evt. Pd dangerous? Is there a save way to form Ru compounds under the process, so it could be given to a professional in a more stable form like (NH4)2[RuCl6] or Ru(IV)02?





With Hydrolysis you can make (NH4)2[RuCl5(OH)] from (NH4)2[RuCl6]. Since it's in it's Oxide form (RuO) it's easier to form the Ammonium complex salt before the Hydrolysis.

And also never introduce Potassium chlorate when Ru is present, Otherwise you'll be creating fireworks.

Reduction of the salt to elemental metal happens in a 800°C heated hydrogen environment.


----------



## 9kuuby9

Here is a more updated process of the above presented one;

The MLLC's are ground or crushed to a fine powder. Then melted with appropriate fluxes (mainly borax and Cryolite ). Cryolite Decreases the melting temperature of Mineral oxide ceramics and makes it liquefied, So the mixture becomes more easier to stir and for silver to do its job as a collector. It’s then poured into a conical mold, so that the metal is easily separated from the slag.
Around 13% of MLCC's is composed of metal, the rest would be Zirconium dioxide (87%) or another mineral ceramic with similar properties. It might also contain other materials, depending on the manufacturer, like bonding material. A suitable crucible for this process would be made out of Clay Graphite, This is due to the harshness of the Cryolite Flux on Crucibles. The stirring rod could be also a Quartz stirring rod or a borax coated Graphite one. Heat up the graphite rod and give it a borax coating, it will have to be renewed with every use of course. Borax will minimize the interaction of Palladium with Graphite. When using Cryolite, I would advice to use a graphite rod. Since Quartz is also an oxide mineral and might end up molten in the Crucible. The conical mold would be composed out of steel. One could either use an induction based furnace or an propane furnace. The molten matter will have to be stirred good when a propane furnace is used. They will have to reach around 1250°C, Because the Silver and Palladium will form an alloy that melts around 1200°C With an average percentage of 81% silver and 19% Palladium by weight. Silver here acts as a collector and a means of lowering the melting temperature. Depending on the silver content, One could add more silver to make the melt a more feasible process.

Fluorspar or Calcium fluoride Could also be added to the flux mixture to ease the process of melting.


----------



## samuel-a

Where/how did you get these numbers? what was being processed exactly?

Metal yield from smelting sounds kinda low...


----------



## 9kuuby9

samuel-a said:


> Where/how did you get these numbers? what was being processed exactly?


 By extensive chemical leeching of MLCC's




samuel-a said:


> Metal yield from smelting sounds kinda low...



What are you referring to Sam?


----------



## samuel-a

9kuuby9 said:


> What are you referring to Sam?



Have you actually smelted MLCC's scrap or are you projecting the numbers you've got from chemical leaching over a theoretical smelting process?
Something is missing. What have you processed exactly?


----------



## 9kuuby9

samuel-a said:


> Have you actually smelted MLCC's scrap or are you projecting the numbers you've got from chemical leaching over a theoretical smelting process?



No, I have not yet smelted MLCC's. But I'm now working on a sound hypothesis and trying to improve the process, So I can try it in the near future. I expect a better yield from smelting over Chemical leeching.
If you read the post fully you'll understand what I mean. It is almost impossible to fully claim PM's from MLCC's by Chemical means. The mineral oxides are the cause here.



samuel-a said:


> Something is missing. What have you processed exactly?



High end MLCC's to be exact. 8)


----------



## patnor1011

I think we need to talk straight preferably with photos or manufacturer marks(names), model numbers instead of things like High end MLCC's, high yield, mil specs, super high yield, and similar constructions. 
What one consider super high yield or high end may not be the case or it is considered as such only by that person and all this only lead others to confusion what we talk about.


----------



## 9kuuby9

patnor1011 said:


> I think we need to talk straight preferably with photos or manufacturer marks(names), model numbers instead of things like High end MLCC's, high yield, mil specs, super high yield, and similar constructions.
> What one consider super high yield or high end may not be the case or it is considered as such only by that person and all this only lead others to confusion what we talk about.




Sam asked me what I'm going to process by melting. And I replied High end MLCC's

The "average yield" that I have presented above are for _common Pd containing MLCC's._

The Yields are discussed my times in the past.


----------



## patnor1011

How do you define common, average and high yield may be clear to you yet not many other people will know what is being discussed here.
Please do not be offended, I talk about it only because the same happens with cpu processing where we do have many types and they do have different yield. The same apply for what you discuss here. 
Can you give us some examples of what you call high end MLCC's?


----------



## 9kuuby9

patnor1011 said:


> How do you define common, average and high yield may be clear to you yet not many other people will know what is being discussed here.
> Please do not be offended, I talk about it only because the same happens with cpu processing where we do have many types and they do have different yield. The same apply for what you discuss here.
> Can you give us some examples of what you call high end MLCC's?



That's True, To quote myself as I did many times; 



9kuuby9 said:


> Any mid-grade to high grade components are used in quality products. For instance a Computer Motherboard. Low-grade components (mostly nickel and tin) are used in poor quality products or those that do not need very good quality components, such as a computer power supply.
> 
> To determine the grade of the component is to look at what the particular scrap is used for and what it's purpose is in circuitry.
> 
> And again;
> 
> 
> 9kuuby9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me also enlighten everyone that their are a lot of different types and sometimes with completely different yields, this is said to try prevent unnecessary posts on this topic.
Click to expand...


What I process are High-end MLLC's, How do I know for sure? Because I have a supplier and has some datasheets on it.

You can not really Compare small components such as MLCC's and SMT's to Processors. Because you can not really look up the MLCC's. Their is no serial number present or anything else.
While CPU's can be assorted by Type, For instance Pentium pro's. In Pentium Pro's itself you have different yields. Because they are produced by different manufacturers. So for very small components, Like MLCC's You will have to take a guess to determine if it's low, mid or high-end. (look at the quotes above)

And by processing or assaying it, you will have a definitive yield. and thus the ability to say if it's low, mid or high-end. How do you know it's low, mid or high-end? You collect the yield data of MLCC's and compare your assay data to it. then you are able to rank it as in low, mid or high-end.



And if you try to chip off MLCC's from boards, as many do to acquire MLCC's. Then you will have a mix of MLCC's that could have many yields. By using a rare earth magnet, you'll have the ability to separate the nickel based ones from the Palladium based ones.

I hope this somehow helps explain it.


----------



## niteliteone

9kuuby9 said:


> chlaurite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9kuuby9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> SMD resistors Have a similar yield results as the ones I presented above.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you (or anyone) substantiate that claim?
> 
> I've gone out of my way to only remove MLCCs rather than all the SMDs on the boards I've stripped down. If the SM resistors have similar yields, _WOW_ have I wasted some time with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> http://www.venkel.com/docs/part-pdfs/resistors-mini-catalog-venkel.pdf
> 
> *Page 6,-General Purpose Resistors- under "Termination" you have 2 sorts, Namely Tin over Nickel and Silver over Palladium.*
> 
> Let me make it clear that they have similar yields to MLCC's but still have a general lower yield. Because MLLC's have a capacitance, therefore Electrodes. So the outer termination and Electrodes contain PM's. While Resistors only have the outer termination that contains PM's. Having at it's core a substance that offers resistance and so PM's are not fit for that role, because PM's have a good conductivity with a very small amount of resistance. Which will not act as a resistor given it's primary role.
> 
> 
> 
> 9kuuby9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me also enlighten everyone that their are a lot of different types and sometimes with completely different yields, this is said to try prevent unnecessary posts on this topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Are you going to use the General Purpose type from page 6 as you have indicated, or are you going to use the specialty ones from page 3 that contain Palladium, unlike the general purpose ones from page 6 :?: 
This is an important question as most of what every one here will ever see will be the common general purpose ones and not the specialty ones. Most of what we do comes from Asia, where every thing is built as cheaply as possible :shock:


----------



## 9kuuby9

I do not know if some of you really read what I write? or just the portions you like?

When I speak about the yield of MLCC's or resistors, I always say "the ones that do contain Pd" Not all MLCC's or Resistors.

for example; 


9kuuby9 said:


> SMD resistors Have a similar yield results as the ones I presented above.
> You also have SMD array's which have sometimes more yields, because they have more layers.
> However take notice that not All MLCC's contain Pd Sometimes they only contain Ni & Ag
> If you have mixed MLCC's the yield may vary for the Pd (one half has 2% yield and other half has 0% yield which results in a total 1%)
> So when we speak about "Pd 1.5 - 3%" this is only an average yield number for the MLCC's that DO contain Pd.
> When you acquire MLCC's try to get them as per kind and not mixed. So when you assay them per type u have a stable yield.



I even give examples and explanations, yet some don't seem to understand?

I somehow got tired from continuously pinpointing what I said.


----------



## niteliteone

I (we ? ) understand pretty much every thing you have posted. Just don't understand why questions and feed back are not met very well. :shock: 

What " I " don't understand is, if this test deals with devices we see on a daily basis, this thread could give some good information. But if it will use parts we may see only once or twice in our life times, what real good is it in the scheme of providing actual usable data we can use on a daily basis.

Most here deal with cheap Asian electronics, not NASA's latest toys, so any parts or processes that addresses this common material is beneficial, whereas data from processing "once in a lifetime material" does nothing for the average person processing common scrap.

That is, other than the "smelting" process being tried instead of the wet chemical process. I see this as being of benefit as an alternative method, as well as using common SMD's that we all deal with, would be of benefit too.

I am interested in this project and I see it very beneficial. Especially if is uses devices we all see on a daily basis.


----------



## 9kuuby9

Well I'm glad to see that this thread is somewhat being useful.

Also note that I depicted a computer mother board as mid to high-end and not some NASA or satellite equipment. :lol: 

See for yourself and Just get your hands on an old or new motherboard, Chip and collect all the SMD's. And do a Chemical leach, test with stannous and the brown spot appears which changes into a green spot. :mrgreen: 

Anyway we somehow reached a common ground. 8)


----------



## 9kuuby9

4metals said:


> Considering the high percentage metals...
> 15% Kryolite
> 35% Borax (anhydrous)
> 25% sodium nitrate
> 12 1/2% soda ash
> 12 1/2% slaked lime




This would be a Good flux recipe I guess? The material I'm dealing with is around 10% composed of metal and the rest is a mineral oxide( Alumina, Zicronia, etc...)

So A flux ratio of 1 to 2 (roughly 30% by weight) would be a good ratio for a lower metal percentage yielding ceramics.

Would be a temperature of 1200°C be sufficient to melt this mix? and how many hours does it need for it to have melted the metals and be in a fluid state?

The ceramics are also crushed to a fine powder instead of it's whole form. Would be adding 100g of Silver to this mix serve well as a collector and a means of lowering the overall temperature?

Because I don't really know at what temperature this flux mixture melts, and also the lack of knowledge in this field. Is their any elaborated literature concerning the use of fluxes and metal collectors? 
Would 4metals, GSP or any experienced member in this field chime in on this matter?

Any help is kindly and greatly appreciated! :mrgreen:

Edit* I also forgot to ask if these fluxes release harmful gases when melted? I'm using an induction furnace, like those used in a fire assay but then a bigger version.


----------



## steyr223

Niteliteone said

Most here deal with cheap Asian electronics, not NASA's latest toys, so any parts or processes that addresses this common material is beneficial, whereas data from processing "once in a lifetime material" does nothing for the average person processing common scrap.

I disagree 
10 years from now nasa toys will most likely be our everyday material
(Or sooner depending on how long it takes the collapse of our wonderfull government to finally happen)

Just my 2 cents i will but out now
Steyr223 rob


----------



## 9kuuby9

4metals said:


> Considering the high percentage metals...
> 15% Kryolite
> 35% Borax (anhydrous)
> 25% sodium nitrate
> 12 1/2% soda ash
> 12 1/2% slaked lime





Is it possible to use other chemicals in this flux recipse?

It's main purpose would be the bring the temperature down if I'm not mistaken? and cryolite to get the ceramics fluid?

For instance can Potassium nitrate nitrate be used instead of sodium nitrate?

Thanks in advance!


----------



## Lou

He recommended a flux that is basic and will attack silica/alumina and slag off.

I'm not a huge fan of nitre with copper based melts.

You can use KNO3 in lieu of NaNO3 (although the latter is cheaper).


----------



## 9kuuby9

Thanks Lou! 

I'm using silver here as a collector instead of copper. I have only PGM's and silver in the mix and no base metals. I will play with the ratios and see what's the best ratio. I'll try to add silver until I have a ratio of 1 Pgm to 10 or 12 silver.

I will try both out, and try to compare the results.

The thing is that here In Europe their are things that are regulated or viewed as dangerous. So even if it's in general a cheap material is gets really expensive due to the regulations and it's is sometimes completely not sold anywhere.


I'm soon going to try this out, probably in the middle of next week when I get my supplies in.
Just got my door type furnace Which reaches up to 1300°C 8) 

The crucible used with those harsh flux, is a clay graphite based one called "Salamander"

I hope to see some more communal help so I can try many possibilities, Because you can not deal as an individual with such variety of materials. :mrgreen:

These threads contain a lot of valuble information when it comes to melting ceramics and fluxes.

-- http://www.goldrefiningforum.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=11490#p112545
- http://goldrefiningforum.com/~goldrefi/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=60&t=5871#p50658


----------



## Lou

I'd recommend silicon carbide over clay-bonded graphite for that flux mixture.


----------



## 9kuuby9

Thank you for the advice Lou.

I'll do some research And See if I can get some over here in Europe.


----------



## Palladium

Maybe i missed something here. Why not use chemical extraction here? I've run them things through ar attached to cpu chips and they come out stripped with nothing left but the ceramic substrate. Why ball mill? If not ar because of the silver content then why not nitric to attack any palladium or silver and recover the rest in the residues? Why wouldn't chemical extraction work? If your smelting it anyway all you doing is losing some of the metals in the flux and two you are adding more metals as a collector which has to be refined out anyway so your not saving any steps just adding more waste, chemicals, and hassle to the situation. Maybe i'm wrong. It's not my area of expertize.


----------



## Lou

Might be ok on small quantities, but if you do 1000s of pounds of them, best to grind, sample, smelt, and then electrowin the copper and go after the values as slimes (much less waste).

That, and these are high in ceramics that are pretty hard on most mills.


Lou


----------



## Palladium

True!
He had only gotten to the melting part with a collector. I didn't know who much and on what volume he was trying to process. I wasn't sure if his intentions were to refine the bar by chemical method to recover the precious metals and the other metals become part of the waste solution as a byproduct or if he we recovering the metals from the solution (copper electrolysis) in which case the precious metals would become the waste and be recovered for further refining. Sometimes you go after the precious metals, sometimes you leave them alone.


----------



## DuckTheQucker

9kuuby9 said:


> patnor1011 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you define common, average and high yield may be clear to you yet not many other people will know what is being discussed here.
> Please do not be offended, I talk about it only because the same happens with cpu processing where we do have many types and they do have different yield. The same apply for what you discuss here.
> Can you give us some examples of what you call high end MLCC's?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's True, To quote myself as I did many times;
> 
> 
> 
> 9kuuby9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any mid-grade to high grade components are used in quality products. For instance a Computer Motherboard. Low-grade components (mostly nickel and tin) are used in poor quality products or those that do not need very good quality components, such as a computer power supply.
> 
> To determine the grade of the component is to look at what the particular scrap is used for and what it's purpose is in circuitry.
> 
> And again;
> 
> 
> 9kuuby9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me also enlighten everyone that their are a lot of different types and sometimes with completely different yields, this is said to try prevent unnecessary posts on this topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I process are High-end MLLC's, How do I know for sure? Because I have a supplier and has some datasheets on it.
> 
> You can not really Compare small components such as MLCC's and SMT's to Processors. Because you can not really look up the MLCC's. Their is no serial number present or anything else.
> While CPU's can be assorted by Type, For instance Pentium pro's. In Pentium Pro's itself you have different yields. Because they are produced by different manufacturers. So for very small components, Like MLCC's You will have to take a guess to determine if it's low, mid or high-end. (look at the quotes above)
> 
> And by processing or assaying it, you will have a definitive yield. and thus the ability to say if it's low, mid or high-end. How do you know it's low, mid or high-end? You collect the yield data of MLCC's and compare your assay data to it. then you are able to rank it as in low, mid or high-end.
> 
> 
> 
> And if you try to chip off MLCC's from boards, as many do to acquire MLCC's. Then you will have a mix of MLCC's that could have many yields. By using a rare earth magnet, you'll have the ability to separate the nickel based ones from the Palladium based ones.
> 
> I hope this somehow helps explain it.
Click to expand...


My brown MLCC's are magnetic to earth magnet, but not strongly. They come from low yield mainboards with fiber cpu's on it. Do they contain palladium? 
Black ones very magnetic.


----------



## goldsilverpro

Lou said:


> I'd recommend silicon carbide over clay-bonded graphite for that flux mixture.


I agree with Lou. The SiC is more expensive but it lasts longer and you can put about anything in it. Clay/graphite seems a tad cleaner to work with.

The only thing I preferred clay/graphite for was when I was melting silver crystal with no flux and pouring 10/100oz bars. At first, I melted about 300-400 oz. The same amount each time. After a few melts, I noticed that a fairly deep grooved ring was being cut into the crucible at the melt surface. I then started varying the amount of silver per melt and the crucible eroded more evenly. Melts, as acid solutions, are most corrosive at their top surfaces. There's more oxygen there.


----------



## Sancho_n_Pedro

Sorry to revive an old post, but I was interested here. 

MLCC's are commonplace on most boards and you get both magnetic and non magnetic ones. If I were mainly going for the silver in these, and as a by-product the Pt and Pd, would it matter if I mixed them both together?

I'm sourcing the MLCC from Hard Drive boards, satellite/router boards (well any boards to be fair).

I was really hoping to get to some kind of average ratio where we could say you can expect about x% of each material, as this gives a better idea on what will be retrieved.

Also, as pointed out, is the wet method the better method that the OP mentioned, for instance if you have less than 1Kg of MLCC?


Palladium said:


> Maybe i missed something here. Why not use chemical extraction here? I've run them things through ar attached to cpu chips and they come out stripped with nothing left but the ceramic substrate. Why ball mill? If not ar because of the silver content then why not nitric to attack any palladium or silver and recover the rest in the residues? Why wouldn't chemical extraction work? If your smelting it anyway all you doing is losing some of the metals in the flux and two you are adding more metals as a collector which has to be refined out anyway so your not saving any steps just adding more waste, chemicals, and hassle to the situation. Maybe i'm wrong. It's not my area of expertize.


----------



## MicheleM

@Sancho_n_Pedro I would say to process them separately, I only tried a test on 80 g of magnetic ones (magnetic : they stick to non strong magnets even if you try to shake them off), they gave only a little amount of silver and almost zero Pd (positive to the stannous test but not worth the effort to proceed further) but I got a lot of waste liquid because the water washing. I still have 20 g of non magnetic/slightly magnetic (to HDD magnet) , I decide to keep them for future experiments 
Edit.: Mlcc from 2003-2013 devices


----------



## orvi

To the best of my knowledge smelting tend to squeeze more values from the MLCC powder. 
But smelting need to be high temp or very aggresive to dissolve the stubborn ceramics used. I mostly know about old THT MLCCs (USSR, Bulgarian etc.), not modern type SMD MLCCs. 
Old ones are often titanate ceramics, which are pain to process, and very high temperatures are needed to properly liquify the substrate - with addition of sand as flux for high temp eutectics (above 1500°C) in induction furnance.
Cryolite/fluorspar basic fluxes could work on lower temperatures. Just soda ash or borax do not melt all the ceramic, and just coat the grains of it. 
However, with old ones. Maybe these "new" SMD could be dissolved more easily.


----------



## Geo

MLCC's Are problematic. Even the highly magnetic ones will still contain some value, mostly silver, and very little Pd. If I were smelting, I would run them together as the nickel will not pose problems in refining the precious metal later. But, if I am leaching in acid, I would simple keep the magnetic portion for the next smelt. Leach the MLCC's in nitric acid only. In my experience, the alumina will break down into powder. There will be values available in the material until all of the alumina has been broken down. Crushing or milling will speed the process but is not necessary when acid leaching. Heat speeds the reaction but be prepared for the mess on your glassware when finished. High heat will fuse some of the alumina tightly to the glass. I found that adding a little ammonia to the wash will help bring it off the glass easier.


----------



## Geo

Personally, I developed a process of using CuCl2 on whole boards and collecting the components that doesn't dissolve. Careful screening provides me with all of the SMD's at the end of the process. Be warned, CuCl2 can and will dissolve Pd. PH should be as high as possible but still acidic enough to dissolve the copper. At the end of the CuCl2 leach, if the CuCl2 is bright emerald green, test the solution with stannous chloride. Leave the test overnight to ensure complete reaction. I use 25 gallons of solution per batch. Even a light positive could be a substantial amount. If there is a positive with the stannous test, add some copper metal without air added for several days. Remove the solution from the top down and collect any black powder accumulated on the bottom of the container. 
To answer a couple of questions before hand, the higher reactive metals, such as tin in solder which creates stannous chloride in situ, the tin eventually oxidizes in solution (if you are adding air) and will make a white powder of tin oxide. Some plastic will break down into a gooey, jelly like substance. A trick I learned is to take a sample of each type of connector or other type of plastic common on circuit boards and soak them in HCl just to see which holds up and which dissolves. Plasticized PVC will dissolve in HCl. A simple mechanical test is to twist the plastic being tested. If it snaps before twisting, it will be safe in CuCl2. If it twisted all the way around without snapping, it will dissolve in CuCl2.


----------



## dpgold

Hi, I want to start a batch of MLCC processing, to get rid of the solder ends. My thinking is to put them in HCL diluted with some distilled water, maybe 50-50. Than I will use that used HCL to dissolve solder on other RAM boards. I was thinking to process them all together what would be your advice?


----------



## Geo

Be sure to roast the material before going from HCl to nitric acid unless you intend to make aqua regia. You can not rinse acid off with just water. As the nitric acid encounters the silver it contains, it will form silver chloride which will mix with the alumina powder from the MLCC's and will be impossible to separate without costing more than it's worth.


----------



## dpgold

After I get rid of the solder I incinerate them, then wash and then I would use AR. But how then it comes to the separate precipitation of silver and other PM, what would be the process at that point?


----------



## Geo

Do not use AR. Leach MLCC;s in nitric acid only. Then you drop the silver as silver chloride with HCl and that leaves a relatively pure palladium solution to work with. If you can't source nitric acid, use poor man's nitric acid.


----------



## dpgold

Geo said:


> Do not use AR. Leach MLCC;s in nitric acid only. Then you drop the silver as silver chloride with HCl and that leaves a relatively pure palladium solution to work with. If you can't source nitric acid, use poor man's nitric acid.


Thank you so much, I am feeling more and more confident with stuff. I had made small experiments, I had dissolved a few gold fingers in AR and then (after testing with stannous-pozitive) I added some other pins and stuff which contains gold to use all the nitric. 
At some point something happened that the gold came out of solution (probably cementation) or nitric finished its strength so that when I tested again there was no more gold in solution. There was very little nitric to begin with. I added the test batch to a bigger AP batch. Did I mess up?


----------



## Geo

dpgold said:


> Thank you so much, I am feeling more and more confident with stuff. I had made small experiments, I had dissolved a few gold fingers in AR and then (after testing with stannous-pozitive) I added some other pins and stuff which contains gold to use all the nitric.
> At some point something happened that the gold came out of solution (probably cementation) or nitric finished its strength so that when I tested again there was no more gold in solution. There was very little nitric to begin with. I added the test batch to a bigger AP batch. Did I mess up?


Well, as long as it wasn't a lot. You never want to add nitric acid in any form to copper(II) chloride. Been there, done that. Went to dump a bucket of waste solution in a waste drum and huge slug of NO2 came up and hit me in the face. I would have sworn all the nitric had been neutralized. 
The electromotive series of metals tells us that when you add an acid to a mixed metals batch, and the acid attacks more than one metal present, the acid will attack the more reactive metal first. In other words, if you had silver and copper metal and added nitric acid to the mix, the copper will dissolve first before the silver begins to dissolve. That's the reason we can use copper to cement precious metal. Copper will only cement metal that is less reactive than itself.


----------



## Rreyes097

Geo said:


> Do not use AR. Leach MLCC;s in nitric acid only. Then you drop the silver as silver chloride with HCl and that leaves a relatively pure palladium solution to work with. If you can't source nitric acid, use poor man's nitric acid.


But doesn't that form aqua regia,?


----------



## Yggdrasil

Rreyes097 said:


> But doesn't that form aqua regia,?


No that is poor mans AR. If you mix Nitrates and HCl you get poor mans AR.
Just drop the HCl.
I have not used it so search the forum for poor mans Nitric.

Edited for clarity


----------



## kurtak

Geo Posted


Geo said:


> Do not use AR. Leach MLCC;s in nitric acid only. Then you drop the silver as silver chloride with HCl and that leaves a relatively pure palladium solution to work with. If you can't source nitric acid, use poor man's nitric acid.


Then Rreyes097 asked


Rreyes097 said:


> But doesn't that form aqua regia,?


Rreyes097 --- I think you miss understand what Geo is saying here - so to clarify

*IF (the BIG IF) you are going to leach MLCCs* - do NOT use AR to leach the MLCCs --- that is because the AR will create silver chloride which will then end up being tied up in *& lost *in the ceramic mud during the leach process

So - you need to use nitric ONLY for the leaching part of the process as the nitric ONLY will dissolve both the Ag & the Pd

Then you wash/filter the nitric leach out of the ceramic mud

Then - once you have the nitric ONLY Ag/Pd solution washed out of ceramic mud you add HCl (or salt water) to the solution in order to drop the Ag as AgCl

Then - after you have dropped the Ag out of the solution as AgCl - the Pd is still dissolved in the solution

So - you then wash/filter the still dissolved Pd out of the AgCl

You can then drop the (still dissolved) Pd you just washed out of the AgCl by using ether the cementing process - or the sodium carbonate/formic acid process - or precipitation with DMG --- &/or other (more complicated) processes that recover Pd from solution

I said -----

*IF (the BIG IF) you are going to leach MLCCs*

The reason I posted that in bold print is that IMO (In My Opinion) leaching MLCCs - even in small batches is one of the worst ways to go about recovering the Ag & Pd from MLCCs for a number of reasons

1) during the leaching - the ceramic breaks down into an ULTRA fine mud - like clay *which is impossible to filter* --- so you have to let the ceramic mud settle then decant the leach - then wash with water - let settle & decant again AND you have to do that *multiple times* AND it is next to impossible to get all the Ag/Pd washed out - at the very best at least traces of Ag/Pd will stay tied up in the ceramic mud

2) So you will end up with a LOT of VERY diluted Ag/Pd solution which you will then want to evaporate back down - otherwise when you go to drop the Ag as AgCl - the AgCl will come down ULTRA fine - so fine it will likely cause washing/filtering problems when you go to wash the still dissolved Pd out of the AgCl

3) washing the Pd out of the AgCl presents the same problem as washing the Ag/Pd out of the ceramic mud - it takes a LOT of washing to get all the Pd washed out resulting in a VERY diluted solution again (if you are not set up to vacuum filter --- vacuum filtering does NOT work on the ceramic mud - but will on the AgCl)

4) then you still need to deal with the chem waste in the end of the above

5) then - you still need to convert AgCl to actual silver - a whole other process in & of its self

IMO - its a long & tedious process that creates chem waste that needs to be dealt with for safe disposal

I am not saying it can't be done - just not the best way

IMO - smelting is the best way to go for processing MLCCs - even in small batches

Kurt


----------



## Yggdrasil

kurtak said:


> Geo Posted
> 
> Then Rreyes097 asked
> 
> Rreyes097 --- I think you miss understand what Geo is saying here - so to clarify
> 
> *IF (the BIG IF) you are going to leach MLCCs* - do NOT use AR to leach the MLCCs --- that is because the AR will create silver chloride which will then end up being tied up in *& lost *in the ceramic mud during the leach process
> 
> So - you need to use nitric ONLY for the leaching part of the process as the nitric ONLY will dissolve both the Ag & the Pd
> 
> Then you wash/filter the nitric leach out of the ceramic mud
> 
> Then - once you have the nitric ONLY Ag/Pd solution washed out of ceramic mud you add HCl (or salt water) to the solution in order to drop the Ag as AgCl
> 
> Then - after you have dropped the Ag out of the solution as AgCl - the Pd is still dissolved in the solution
> 
> So - you then wash/filter the still dissolved Pd out of the AgCl
> 
> You can then drop the (still dissolved) Pd you just washed out of the AgCl by using ether the cementing process - or the sodium carbonate/formic acid process - or precipitation with DMG --- &/or other (more complicated) processes that recover Pd from solution
> 
> I said -----
> 
> *IF (the BIG IF) you are going to leach MLCCs*
> 
> The reason I posted that in bold print is that IMO (In My Opinion) leaching MLCCs - even in small batches is one of the worst ways to go about recovering the Ag & Pd from MLCCs for a number of reasons
> 
> 1) during the leaching - the ceramic breaks down into an ULTRA fine mud - like clay *which is impossible to filter* --- so you have to let the ceramic mud settle then decant the leach - then wash with water - let settle & decant again AND you have to do that *multiple times* AND it is next to impossible to get all the Ag/Pd washed out - at the very best at least traces of Ag/Pd will stay tied up in the ceramic mud
> 
> 2) So you will end up with a LOT of VERY diluted Ag/Pd solution which you will then want to evaporate back down - otherwise when you go to drop the Ag as AgCl - the AgCl will come down ULTRA fine - so fine it will likely cause washing/filtering problems when you go to wash the still dissolved Pd out of the AgCl
> 
> 3) washing the Pd out of the AgCl presents the same problem as washing the Ag/Pd out of the ceramic mud - it takes a LOT of washing to get all the Pd washed out resulting in a VERY diluted solution again (if you are not set up to vacuum filter --- vacuum filtering does NOT work on the ceramic mud - but will on the AgCl)
> 
> 4) then you still need to deal with the chem waste in the end of the above
> 
> 5) then - you still need to convert AgCl to actual silver - a whole other process in & of its self
> 
> IMO - its a long & tedious process that creates chem waste that needs to be dealt with for safe disposal
> 
> I am not saying it can't be done - just not the best way
> 
> IMO - smelting is the best way to go for processing MLCCs - even in small batches
> 
> Kurt


I think he refers to mixing Nitrates with HCl.
But poor mans Nitric, is Nitrates alone is it not?


----------



## kurtak

Yggdrasil said:


> I think he refers to mixing Nitrates with HCl.
> *But poor mans Nitric, is Nitrates alone is it not?*


Per the bold print -------

Poor mans nitric is made with nitrates (sodium or potassium nitrate) plus sulfuric acid

Poor mans AR is made with nitrates (sodium or potassium nitrate) plus HCl

Kurt


----------



## orvi

kurtak said:


> Per the bold print -------
> 
> Poor mans nitric is made with nitrates (sodium or potassium nitrate) plus sulfuric acid
> 
> Poor mans AR is made with nitrates (sodium or potassium nitrate) plus HCl
> 
> Kurt


And if you can source calcium nitrate fertilizer, you can make relatively sulfate free nitric. Calcium sulfate formed is fairly insoluble in nitric acid solutions, and can be filtered out - and remaining solution used.


----------



## Geo

orvi said:


> And if you can source calcium nitrate fertilizer, you can make relatively sulfate free nitric. Calcium sulfate formed is fairly insoluble in nitric acid solutions, and can be filtered out - and remaining solution used.


Except for using the solid nitrate salt. Dissolved calcium will come down with the addition of any kind of sulfate or sulfuric acid as calcium sulfate. Dropping gold from a solution with dissolved calcium is nearly impossible with SMB. The calcium will rob the solution of the SO2 while forming calcium sulfate.


----------



## Yggdrasil

Geo said:


> Except for using the solid nitrate salt. Dissolved calcium will come down with the addition of any kind of sulfate or sulfuric acid as calcium sulfate. Dropping gold from a solution with dissolved calcium is nearly impossible with SMB. The calcium will rob the solution of the SO2 while forming calcium sulfate.


There should not be much Calcium left after the addition of Sulfuric should there?
Just test by adding a bit more Sulfuric I guess.


----------



## Geo

Yggdrasil said:


> There should not be much Calcium left after the addition of Sulfuric should there?
> Just test by adding a bit more Sulfuric I guess.


That is one way to remove it. It will precipitate as a white pearlescent powder. Surprisingly, the fluffy white powder is very porous and filters with little problem.


----------



## Yggdrasil

Geo said:


> That is one way to remove it. It will precipitate as a white pearlescent powder. Surprisingly, the fluffy white powder is very porous and filters with little problem.


If you reread Orvis post you will see that, that was his point.


----------



## orvi

Geo said:


> Except for using the solid nitrate salt. Dissolved calcium will come down with the addition of any kind of sulfate or sulfuric acid as calcium sulfate. Dropping gold from a solution with dissolved calcium is nearly impossible with SMB. The calcium will rob the solution of the SO2 while forming calcium sulfate.


I am aware of this fact, but we talked the use of aforementioned preparation of kinda "nitric acid" for leaching MLCCs. There is no gold, no need for SMB to be used, and when nitrosulfuric acid was used instead - there would be all the sulfates used. 

My point was just an "maybe" opportunity - if you can source calcium nitrate, you can get rid of bulk sulfate beforehand and you do not need to unnecessarilly pass it from stage to stage in solution. To end up in different waste bucket, because of that sulfate content.

With calcium in solution, I rather prefer to pre-concentrate gold by cementation on copper. To be honest, I am completely turning to this route with every material that I process. De-noxing and dropping the gold quantitatively from low Au AR solutions. Easy, quick, gold cemented is readily coagulated upon few dozen minutes on hotplate (solution after AR dissolution is already hot), no noxious SO2 in the early stage and no excess SO2 transferred to the waste bucket  In exchange for additional 20-50g of copper eaten to waste for batch. Doesn´t add much trouble, easen the work.


----------



## Geo

Yggdrasil said:


> If you reread Orvis post you will see that, that was his point.


Some people makes AR using a solid nitrate. It's different than distilling nitric acid. It does work well for distilling nitric acid, while using the solid salt for AR can cause issues with the calcium. It's the nature of how it's used whether it poses an issue or not.


----------



## kurtak

When using garden fertilizers (like 15-0-0 or 20-0-0 etc.) to make PMN (Poor Mans Nitric) there is a (good) "potential" for PMN to have chlorides in the resulting nitric

That is because chlorides can be part of what makes up the rest of the fertilizer - fillers &/or ingredients used to "time release" the nitrogen into the soil

That is why in the MANY discussions on this forum PMN is not recommended for dissolving silver

As we know --- HNO3 + Ag + Cl = AgCl --- (& therefore PMN is not a good choice for leaching MLCCs) 

Also as we know --- HNO3 + Cl = AR

Therefore using PMN to dissolve base metals & there is also gold present (like gold plated fingers/pins) there is the potential for the PMN to also dissolve gold

Here are a couple threads where this has been discussed before









costs of chemicals


I was just thinking today when I was out looking for some hydrocloric acids and I noticed a pretty nice range of pricing and was wondering roughly how much and where is everyone getting thier chemical or supplies. for sulfuric acid I paid $12.99 + tax for a gallon of rooto at the local ace...




goldrefiningforum.com













Gold Disolving in Nitric


Today I put some flattened pieces of fairly pure gold in some of Steve's homemade nitric acid recipe "to clean it up a little" before an AR process. What happened is the solution turned yellow and tested positive for gold. I made the nitric acid with boiled off NAPA sulphuric acid and...




goldrefiningforum.com





Quotes from those threads 



Irons said:


> Depending on the quality of the fertilizer grade Sodium Nitrate, it will contain a small amount of Sodium Chloride.
> NaCL+HNO3=AR.
> 
> I quit using it as the Gold around here is so fine it goes into solution in poor man's Nitric.
> 
> Bummer.





Irons said:


> 15-0-0 has less Nitrogen, meaning less Nitrate. The rest is probably chlorides or sufates. If you're just making poor mans' AR for a first digestion, it's no big deal. If you want to dissolve Silver with Nitric Acid, then the chloride content is a big deal because its' going to cause the Silver to passivate with AgCl or precipitate out as AgCl.
> 
> Use some common sense when deciding what reagents to use.



For what it is worth

Kurt


----------



## kurtak

Here is another interesting quote from the "cost of chemicals" thread (link) in my last post


Irons said:


> I use Ammonium Nitrate as a starting chemical because it is made from natural gas and is very pure compared with other tecncal grade sources. I use it to generate Ammonia and the resulting calcium Nitrate reacts with Sulfuric Acid with Calcium Sulfate precipitating out.
> As lasersteve pointed out on another thread, the mash will have to be distilled to get all the Nitric but it is very concentrated and pure, so if you're needing a chloride free Nitric, it's a reasonable way to go, otherwise you have to shell out good money for reagent grade acid.
> 
> Ammonium Nitrate is cheap and avalable around the World, even in fairly remote areas. I had to special order mine and did get some raised eyebrows, but as long as you're not breaking any laws, there's no reason you can't get it.



Kurt


----------



## orvi

kurtak said:


> When using garden fertilizers (like 15-0-0 or 20-0-0 etc.) to make PMN (Poor Mans Nitric) there is a (good) "potential" for PMN to have chlorides in the resulting nitric
> 
> That is because chlorides can be part of what makes up the rest of the fertilizer - fillers &/or ingredients used to "time release" the nitrogen into the soil
> 
> That is why in the MANY discussions on this forum PMN is not recommended for dissolving silver
> 
> As we know --- HNO3 + Ag + Cl = AgCl --- (& therefore PMN is not a good choice for leaching MLCCs)
> 
> Also as we know --- HNO3 + Cl = AR
> 
> Therefore using PMN to dissolve base metals & there is also gold present (like gold plated fingers/pins) there is the potential for the PMN to also dissolve gold
> 
> Here are a couple threads where this has been discussed before
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> costs of chemicals
> 
> 
> I was just thinking today when I was out looking for some hydrocloric acids and I noticed a pretty nice range of pricing and was wondering roughly how much and where is everyone getting thier chemical or supplies. for sulfuric acid I paid $12.99 + tax for a gallon of rooto at the local ace...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> goldrefiningforum.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gold Disolving in Nitric
> 
> 
> Today I put some flattened pieces of fairly pure gold in some of Steve's homemade nitric acid recipe "to clean it up a little" before an AR process. What happened is the solution turned yellow and tested positive for gold. I made the nitric acid with boiled off NAPA sulphuric acid and...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> goldrefiningforum.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quotes from those threads
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For what it is worth
> 
> Kurt


With ordinary fertilizers, you can be practically sure that they contain chlorides. Salts used are practically speaking tech grade, without any specs, only for heavy metals and dangerous stuff. I do not recommend these.

But despite the fact that there can be countries, where selling ammonium nitrate is somehow prohibited due to concerns about making explosives... It is fairly easy to source and get in bulk for cheap. Here lowest ammount in gardening store is 5kg bag for like 5-10 euros, depending on brand. However, most of the times, it is mixed with something to deter it´s use in clandestine chemistry. Here, most common additive is dolomite, around several %, which also help to granulate the material, which is then less prone to caking.

Easy treatment is to dissolve the stuff in minimal water, filter the dolomite and evaporate down the water, leaving practically pure salt. Conveniently done in oven at like 150-200°C. This will remove practically all water, without any significant decomposition. If you have any doubts about purity, you can always let the solution crystallize and harvest the crystals.

As a teenager, I used it for making smoke bombs, regularly drying it in our kitchen oven... Not wise, now I won´t do it this way on any circumstances. But I was 15 yo, and heavily into pyrotechnics  Nobody got injured or anything vaporized or messed with it (oven). So some old kitchen oven (not gas one) would be ideal.


kurtak said:


> Here is another interesting quote from the "cost of chemicals" thread (link) in my last post
> 
> 
> Kurt


To the Irons quotation, yes. Obtaining the nitric from the "mash" is sometimes tedious, when distilling. Letting the cake in the flask cool, adding little additional water, breaking the lump in fewer smaller pieces and repeating the distillation can help to squeeze some extra nitric as diluted solution. Most of the times, you will dilute it anyway... Without water addition at the start, distillation is producing very strong nitric acid (over 90% usually), which is very dangerous and nasty oxidizing agent. Also, much more decomposition to NOxes occur.


----------



## Rreyes097

So I'm doing a test batch of magnetic mlccs. 20 grams. From the videos I've watched I always seen them using HCL first then rinse *1000! Then nitric. And distilled water. Then drops silver chloride with HCL. But I'm not sure I'm ready to mess with and Pd (although it hurts a little to just pass up any precious metals). Since I'm not worried about the Pd, for not at least, shouldn't I just nitric leech and be done? Second reason being I'm almost certain that my 1kg or 2kg of mlccs will be(90%+/-) predominantly magnetic which from my research holds very little if, any Pd within them. So maybe just do nitric leech on all my magnetic and then research and educate myself on Pd recovery and one day hopefully I can recover it?


----------



## Yggdrasil

Rreyes097 said:


> So I'm doing a test batch of magnetic mlccs. 20 grams. From the videos I've watched I always seen them using HCL first then rinse *1000! Then nitric. And distilled water. Then drops silver chloride with HCL. But I'm not sure I'm ready to mess with and Pd (although it hurts a little to just pass up any precious metals). Since I'm not worried about the Pd, for not at least, shouldn't I just nitric leech and be done? Second reason being I'm almost certain that my 1kg or 2kg of mlccs will be(90%+/-) predominantly magnetic which from my research holds very little if, any Pd within them. So maybe just do nitric leech on all my magnetic and then research and educate myself on Pd recovery and one day hopefully I can recover it?


The magnetic ones will most likely be Nickel only.
On the other hand it is probably best to process by smelting not chemically.
Orvi had a nice post a few days ago, read that before you make up your mind.


----------



## Rreyes097

Wow the ceramic from these mlccs are really no joke. For it's a real problem. So much rinsing. Smelting I suppose is the way in this one but where do I even start on researching it? For I know even less then I did with the chemistry portion of this work.


----------

