# a bunch of these



## joekbit (Dec 22, 2014)

I got a bunch

Tried AP, cant seem to get foils. Test between 14 and 18k. I want foils for weight reference without having gobs of fluid. Just using small pieces right now trying to find the right solution. They are 12 x 2 telecom boards, 100% on one side, looks like about 30 on the other. Have about 200 more very similar. As an added test I used a few ML of HCL/CL on a small piece and stannous popped real hot got gold. The sheeting peals off like a banana. Boards are very thin.
As I write this I have a few small pieces in HCL with a bubbler running.

Any other ideas for getting foils off these little gems would be great.


----------



## joekbit (Dec 22, 2014)

HOOOO,,,,F Troop! LOL The bubbler did the trick. Got foils out my @#$$ An I used old AP fluid. Took about 30 min. Pieces are stripped clean. Going to cut then up in 1 inch pieces and continue to use the same 100ML of fluid till it gives out


----------



## GotTheBug (Dec 23, 2014)

Lol, answering our own questions is part of the fun. Glad it's going now, can't wait to see the button!


----------



## Shark (Dec 23, 2014)

Even a picture of the foils would nice, :lol:


----------



## joekbit (Dec 23, 2014)

Shark said:


> Even a picture of the foils would nice, :lol:




Did 1 single board for foil weight, drying as I write this. Took about 20 to 30 min to strip it clean. Going to continue 1 at a time using the same 250 ml HCL cold with bubbler till it quits. Pic of foils from 1 board. Still a bit damp but weight at this time is 1.09 grams. So I'm thinking when dry about 1/2 gram.


----------



## necromancer (Dec 23, 2014)

if you want your foils in a smaller area in your filter try this:

get 2 plastic funnels, cut one funnel so there is just the triangle part.
then sandwich the filter paper between the 2 funnels, it will catch all your foils in a very small area of the filter paper.

folding your filter paper helps too.

sorry for the bad drawing :shock:


----------



## g_axelsson (Dec 23, 2014)

Nice flower! :mrgreen: 

I usually keep any foils in the copper chloride vessel, letting it accumulate until there is enough to harvest. Then either wash and dissolve in the same vessel if it's a glass jar or beaker or decant most of the copper chloride off and then pour the bottom sediment gold into a smaller jar and accumulate enough until processing. That way I don't need to mess with gold in my filter.
If you use a smaller beaker with a tip for storage of the gold foils then it's easy to pour back any extra copper chloride when the gold has settled.

It isn't until I'm done with the copper chloride that I filter it to catch any fine gold still left behind. There could be quite a lot of very fine gold flakes floating around, especially if doing a lot of flash plated which is a lot thinner.

Göran


----------



## FrugalRefiner (Dec 23, 2014)

joekbit said:


> Still a bit damp but weight at this time is 1.09 grams. So I'm thinking when dry about 1/2 gram.


Just keep in mind that it's not all gold! There will still be a lot of nickel in your dried weight. You won't know a final weight of _gold_ till you refine it.

Dave


----------



## MarcoP (Dec 23, 2014)

joekbit said:


> Still a bit damp but weight at this time is 1.09 grams. So I'm thinking when dry about 1/2 gram.


Nha, I don't think so. When dry it may weight less then 0.1gr. There it might be some gold content in the black powder, save the filter and keep it separate from different type of filterings, and when you have some to make it worth while refine them all.


----------



## joekbit (Dec 23, 2014)

Thanks guys

Dry weight was just a bit lower .42 but close to my expectations, I do keep all my filters, have a jar I stuff them in. And yes I am waiting till I have about 5 grams or more in foils. At that time I will do AR. Got a little 10ml Jar right now with about 3 grams of powder from my learning process. So far so good, I'm at break even. 
decided to take 5 boards and put them in a crockpot, not on. And turned on the bubbler, foils all over in there right now. I bent the boards like an accordion so the stand on their edges. Allows for good fluid circulation.

Been looking very close at all the IC's and so on, all have gold contacts. Still a lot more to harvest. I'll try to get some photos and post them, but my camera is old.


Oh and have a merry Christmas. I know I am. Meeting with the local salvage yard, he has a crew that does nothing but electronics breakdown for resale so I am hoping we can come to a profitable agreement.


----------



## necromancer (Dec 23, 2014)

0.42 grams of gold from one of these small boards ?


----------



## Shark (Dec 23, 2014)

Very Nice!

It makes a person glad to see all the work and study pay off. Now that you have it working I would follow the advice of leaving the foils until I had them all stripped. Then you have a nice amount to work with.

Edit: spelling


----------



## etack (Dec 23, 2014)

Those are hughesnet L_NB_ boards not telecom.

They can be good I have several pounds of them too.

Eric


----------



## joekbit (Dec 23, 2014)

etack said:


> Those are hughesnet LBN boards not telecom.
> 
> They can be good I have several pounds of them too.
> 
> Eric


I was looking at one and thought I would see just what they were but you answered my question.

Just pulled some out of the Solution and started filtering. A lot is passing right through. Broke up so small the filters don't stop it. Going to let the solution set to settle then use my pip and double up my filter to see if that will catch it. If not then it's off filter hunting. I think a 3 micron should do the trick. Use to use them in aerospace all the time in a vacuum filter for contamination checks.


----------



## goldsilverpro (Dec 24, 2014)

Weighing foils will often give high answers, mainly due to nickel still attached to the back of the foils. If I wanted to weigh those foils, I would make sure no chlorides were present and then boil them in 50/50 nitric, diluted with distilled water, for awhile. Also, if you didn't rinse them well enough, there could be dried salts on them. Also, the gold is not pure. Nickel or cobalt is added to make the gold harder. 

To get .42g of gold from the 2 sides of the board, the gold (I guessed 26.4 in2 total plated area/board) would have to be about 50 micro" thick, almost 70% thicker than that on fingers or pins, both items that are plated thick (30 micro" is thick) to enhance their wear characteristics from multiple insertions. The gold on your boards will never experience wear. The gold's purpose is for anti-corrosion and probably some type of shielding. 

Usually, the gold thickness on those type areas is in the range of 5 micro", about 1/10 of what you're projecting. I'm guessing $1.58 in gold, at a $1177.90 gold spot, for the whole board. If that's all the gold they need to do the job, that's all they would use. I would be interested in your gold numbers after AR.

I hate high answers because I don't like disappointment when I weigh the final gold.

How did you prepare the foils for weighing?

etack suggested that they could be good. How good, Eric? Almost twice as good as fingers, per unit plated area?


----------



## etack (Dec 24, 2014)

goldsilverpro said:


> etack suggested that they could be good. How good, Eric? Almost twice as good as fingers, per unit plated area?



From what I have seen there are several series of the from A-H(I have seen personally). The earlier seem to be thicker. The Au foils came off like crayon shavings.

Eric


----------



## joekbit (Dec 24, 2014)

Goldsilverpro

I can only tell you what it weighed. The first board gave nice flakes very easy to filter with no visible gold floating in my solution and no visible contamination.
I rinsed with hot water and let it dry almost completely, then set the filter on top of my toaster oven and turned it on for a final dry then took the weight. Yes the plating is for shielding as well as corrosion. Any and all microwave type equipment needs the shielding. Except your microwave oven because it could care less about processing clean data.

That being said I still expect another 50% weight loss at final SMB drop. Even at that I will still come out ahead and that's what its about. I don't expect to get rich, no illusions here. But I do my homework, extensive, and make educated offers to sellers. If they don't agree I move on. Not doing this to get rich but on the other hand I'm not going to let my wallet run dry either.


----------



## resabed01 (Dec 24, 2014)

joekbit said:


> Goldsilverpro
> 
> I can only tell you what it weighed.



Nobody is disputing what the foils weigh. The point is, weighing foils at this stage is meaningless. This is no indication of how much gold you have per board. They are full of trash, have other base metals and metal salts are present despite how much rinsing and drying to do. You won't know the gold content until after you refine the foils.



joekbit said:


> That being said I still expect another 50% weight loss at final SMB drop.



Expect more loss than 50%


----------



## Harold_V (Dec 25, 2014)

joekbit said:


> because it could care less about processing clean data.


If it "could care less", then it probably does. 
Don't you mean "it COULDN'T care less"?

The misuse of that term annoys me only marginally less than spelling the contraction of et cetera as ect. 

Pay attention to GSP. He most likely has forgotten more about gold refining than you can hope to learn. 

Harold


----------



## goldsilverpro (Dec 25, 2014)

joekbit,

Check out my post here. Look at Barren Realms' Nov 20 post on the same thread to see a photo of the boards being discussed.
http://goldrefiningforum.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=6026&p=224187#p224187


----------



## Barren Realms 007 (Dec 25, 2014)

goldsilverpro said:


> joekbit,
> 
> Check out my post here. Look at Barren Realms' Nov 20 post on the same thread to see a photo of the boards being discussed.
> http://goldrefiningforum.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=6026&p=224187#p224187




This link will direct you to the boards in the thread so you don't have to scroll through the thread.

http://goldrefiningforum.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=6026&p=224187#p221800


----------



## joekbit (Jan 1, 2015)

Thank you all for the input. The link supplied by goldsilverpro was very useful. I had the wrong name at first.


----------



## joekbit (Jan 1, 2015)

Harold_V said:


> joekbit said:
> 
> 
> > because it could care less about processing clean data.
> ...


Your an interesting man Harold. I'm not real sure if you meant to insult me, or if you were just picking. Underlined and bold. Oh by the way, happy new year to all.


----------



## joekbit (Jan 1, 2015)

71 of these, the plating peals off like a banana. Each board has 9 grams of it. I've been testing different solutions on small pieces and found that 38% HCL works great. The Au flakes off the Cu base very quick. The result is that the Cu is mainly intact, still in the sheet form. The only complication I have been trying to solve is a plastic like substance almost like saran wrap floating around. It will ultimately slow the filtering process.






Getting dark so I will try to get a photo of the plastic stuff when the light is better. I tried a torch on a small piece then put it in solution, made no difference at all still had the plastic looking piece floating around. Other things I tried were, Acetone, MEK, and plain old gasoline.

Edited 1/5/ 2015 photo and comment added.
Material removed from the boards, 560 grams + / - , the scale may not be very accurate.


----------



## necromancer (Jan 1, 2015)

bad idea Joekbit,

Harold has a tough job here on the forum, you should respect that. 
sticking your finger in his eye will do you more harm then good !!

some comments are better left in your head.


----------



## necromancer (Jan 1, 2015)

joekbit said:


> 71 of these, the plating peals off like a banana. Each board has 9 grams of it. I've been testing different solutions on small pieces and found that 38% HCL works great. The Au flakes off the Cu base very quick. The result is that the Cu is mainly intact, still in the sheet form. The only complication I have been trying to solve is a plastic like substance almost like saran wrap floating around. It will ultimately slow the filtering process.
> 
> 
> Getting dark so I will try to get a photo of the plastic stuff when the light is better. I tried a torch on a small piece then put it in solution, made no difference at all still had the plastic looking piece floating around. Other things I tried were, Acetone, MEK, and plain old gasoline.



you can pour off all the liquid, ad water & pull out the plastic & copper then filter


----------



## Barren Realms 007 (Jan 1, 2015)

9g of gold per board, no offense but I highly doubt that. But anything is posible.


----------



## eastky (Jan 1, 2015)

Think he meant 9 grams of traces.


----------



## necromancer (Jan 1, 2015)

can you tell us the P/N on the board, all i can read is:

*** g53242a-01-0*

* = can't read numbers or letters


----------



## FrugalRefiner (Jan 1, 2015)

necromancer said:


> can you tell us the P/N on the board, all i can read is:
> 
> *** g53242a-01-0*
> 
> * = can't read numbers or letters


Dave, you're the forum bulldog when it comes to part numbers! 

Joe, give him part numbers and he WILL track it down!

Dave


----------



## necromancer (Jan 1, 2015)

p/n = data = facts (sometimes)

if he can have the true plating thickness he can calculate the total yields, or close to it.


----------



## goldsilverpro (Jan 1, 2015)

Barren Realms 007 said:


> 9g of gold per board, no offense but I highly doubt that. But anything is posible.


It sounds like he is peeling off everything, including the copper, and then he dissolves the copper. If that is so and assuming the board has 1 oz copper (per sq.ft.) on it and the gold on the traces is 5-10 micro" thick, the gold content of the peeled traces is, at worst, about 0.05% and, at best, about 0.3%. Therefore, 9g of traces should contain from about .005g - .03g of gold and the lower number is more likely. The variables are: gold thickness; nickel thickness; whether they used 1 or 2oz copper; and how much adhesive is stuck to the back of the copper. Good luck.


----------



## Barren Realms 007 (Jan 2, 2015)

goldsilverpro said:


> Barren Realms 007 said:
> 
> 
> > 9g of gold per board, no offense but I highly doubt that. But anything is posible.
> ...



I think that is more realistic.


----------



## Harold_V (Jan 2, 2015)

joekbit said:


> Your an interesting man Harold. I'm not real sure if you meant to insult me, or if you were just picking.


Not interesting at all.  I just don't suffer fools gladly (not implying you are a fool). 



> Underlined and bold.


By you, not by me. The point is, you can learn from GSP's vast experience. I figured you had enough wisdom to understand my comment. Perhaps I was mistaken. 

One of the problems we see on a regular basis on this board is reports of unreasonable yields. I'm not here to judge why such reports originate, although I suspect that they are often based on hyping content, to increase sale value (not implying that in your case). 

I'll stop at very little when it comes to slowing the dispensation of misinformation, and for good reason. One of the less than acceptable experiences I had when I was actively refining was to have processed a pound of damp and contaminated foils. The owner would have no part of understanding that one can NOT weigh damp or wet foils and have even a rough idea of the gold content. At your admission, your sample was not dry. You also didn't mention if you had considered the weight of the filter. 

Good idea to not prod me too hard. (see above) 

Harold


----------



## AndyWilliams (Jan 2, 2015)

Harold_V said:


> joekbit said:
> 
> 
> > Underlined and bold.
> ...



I hadn't realized that Harold hadn't underlined that part until just now. I think that shows poor form on the part of joekbit. Changing the emphasis within someone else's post should not be acceptable. 

I thought, initially, that he quoted all of the post, maybe not knowing how to single out a line or two for his point. Not only does he have that technical skill, he has much more ability, knowing how to put his own mark on the post. And then only commenting that, "underlined and bold." What did he mean with that, then?

edited to remove quoted material not pertinent to my post.


----------



## joekbit (Jan 2, 2015)

necromancer said:


> can you tell us the P/N on the board, all i can read is:
> 
> *** g53242a-01-0*
> 
> * = can't read numbers or letters


That is the only number on the board and you have it correct. The only other ID is the letters OIT / total ID = OIT G53242A-01-02. My thought is they came from old ATM machines. 5 navigation buttons in the middle, various transaction buttons on the left in the picture and so on. Based on the # on them I assume they were made in January 2002

I did mean trace material of 9 grams. At this time I have all the back sides pealed and about 30 front sides left. The backs came off in about 30 seconds each. The front takes about 5 minutes each. I do a few and take a break. 

One other thing, the piece I heated, "BAD MOVE". It seems my attempt to burn off that plastic has tightened the plating bond. Its the only piece in my 38 % HCL that has not foiled. At this point I'm just stirring the solution to get the foils floating then pouring it through a filter to catch the floating foils. I then put that solution back into the test beaker and repeat.

I'll edit this later and add some photos, right now I have to run. Ok edit time.
Jar on the left has front material in it, with some in front of it. the Jar on the right has the material from the back. 

The board is 1 of 12 that came with the lot. 
On the board is http://WWW.OITKEYPAD.COM, PCB-Q9000C-01-01, some written on with a marker "engineering sample" with some other info. Process Control Boards based on the PCB.


----------



## necromancer (Jan 2, 2015)

no info found.

but would agree there from some type of HID (human interface device)

i have seen similar boards on hand held CAD programmers. (computer aided design)


----------



## jungle_Dave (Jan 2, 2015)

necromancer said:


> if you want your foils in a smaller area in your filter try this:
> 
> get 2 plastic funnels, cut one funnel so there is just the triangle part.
> then sandwich the filter paper between the 2 funnels, it will catch all your foils in a very small area of the filter paper.
> ...


Great filtration set up! 
I happened to have a few extra funnels so I decided to give it a try on some 10k gold plate I took off some costume jewelery in AP. Now Its a permanent part of my set up. Thanks for the idea Dave!

The last filtration run I did on foils, I used 2 layers of coffee filter. It worked but if you can get 3 micron paper it sounds like a better route. I was catching some gold on the second filtration.


----------



## joekbit (Jan 2, 2015)

jungle_Dave said:


> necromancer said:
> 
> 
> > if you want your foils in a smaller area in your filter try this:
> ...



Thanks, great idea. Still waiting for my Buchner filter. Did I spell that wrong? Nope, just checked. :lol: In any event I will not be processing any of the traces / material until I have it all removed.


----------



## necromancer (Jan 2, 2015)

jungle_Dave said:


> necromancer said:
> 
> 
> > if you want your foils in a smaller area in your filter try this:
> ...



very welcome, i like doing things as safely, simply or cheap as possible, as someone that was a construction worker for a long time & learning my job from "the old boys" they were always doing things to save money & time.

in a way, it's just like the knowledge i get here. so i guess i should say thank you too !!


----------



## necromancer (Jan 2, 2015)

joekbit said:


> jungle_Dave said:
> 
> 
> > necromancer said:
> ...



spell checking is great, gives the people that do not speak english and need a translator the chance to *"read it correctly"*
we spell check here because we do not want anyone doing something dangerous due to bad spelling / grammar / punctuation.

this is not youtube. all contributing members / moderators & administrators are held to the same standards, for good reason.


"let's eat grandpa" is not the same as "let's eat, grandpa" (<-- this has been posted before, it's very funny but gets right to the point)


----------



## joekbit (Jan 2, 2015)

:lol: Sorry the "lets eat grandpa", I had to laugh at first but your point is well received. My Buchner was just delivered via UPS. 8) I can finally filter some solution I've had sitting for almost 2 weeks. Coffey filters were way to course, the gold particles just want right through. Going to use my 3 micron filters with the double funnel idea.


----------



## necromancer (Jan 2, 2015)

joekbit said:


> :lol: Sorry the "lets eat grandpa", I had to laugh at first but your point is well received. My Buchner was just delivered via UPS. 8) I can finally filter some solution I've had sitting for almost 2 weeks. Coffey filters were way to course, the gold particles just want right through. Going to use my 3 micron filters with the double funnel idea.




you should install or turn on the spell check, coffee does not have a "y"


----------



## jason_recliner (Jan 2, 2015)

Not wanting to put the boot in, but even correctly spelled words may not translate well.
The path to the first hole is a way to [the] course. Coffee filters are way too coarse.


----------



## joekbit (Jan 3, 2015)

jason_recliner said:


> Not wanting to put the boot in, but even correctly spelled words may not translate well.
> The path to the first hole is a way to [the] course. Coffee filters are way too coarse.


the word "too" implies quantity while the word "to" implies direction. Examples: (to) we went "to" the store, (direction or location), next is the word (too) There were "too" many people at the store. (implication is to quantity, density or number), you got me on the course  as far as too VS to, well you lost on that one. We're even, good job though, thanks. We all need reminders now and then.


----------



## joekbit (Jan 3, 2015)

necromancer said:


> joekbit said:
> 
> 
> > :lol: Sorry the "lets eat grandpa", I had to laugh at first but your point is well received. My Buchner was just delivered via UPS. 8) I can finally filter some solution I've had sitting for almost 2 weeks. Coffey filters were way to course, the gold particles just want right through. Going to use my 3 micron filters with the double funnel idea.
> ...


Thanks I have spell check on, but like myself, it seems to be lacking in some areas :lol:


----------



## joekbit (Jan 3, 2015)

joekbit said:


> :lol: Sorry the "lets eat grandpa", I had to laugh at first but your point is well received. My Buchner was just delivered via UPS. 8) I can finally filter some solution I've had sitting for almost 2 weeks. Coffey filters were way to course, the gold particles just *want* right through. Going to use my 3 micron filters with the double funnel idea.


 Hey, while we're all picking at grammar, I thought I would throw this one in. Take a look at what we all missed, including spell check. I took the liberty of editing it, now it's bold underlined and red


----------



## Geo (Jan 3, 2015)

Spell check will only alert you to words that are misspelled. Want and wont is very different. If you spell "wont" like this, "won't", it is still correct. "Is not" becomes "isn't"" and "will not" becomes "wont". If you spell isn't like, "isnt", spell check will alert on it. If I is to say I ain't not never learnt right, it may be gibberish but it's all spelled right. I have two move yonder an quibble an other tirade.


----------



## AndyWilliams (Jan 3, 2015)

joekbit said:


> jason_recliner said:
> 
> 
> > Not wanting to put the boot in, but even correctly spelled words may not translate well.
> ...



Man! I missed a ton of fun on here today! I, of course, write a lot for my job and try not to engage in policing grammar. That being said, the word "too" doesn't just imply quantity. It also (or if you prefer, "too") implies gradations, and, as shown even can sit in place of "also." Jason was right on "coarse," and he was right on "too," too!


----------



## g_axelsson (Jan 3, 2015)

Bad spellers of the world, untie!

8) 

Göran


----------



## necromancer (Jan 3, 2015)

:lol: darn english.

its my only language & i get it wrong all the time.


----------



## joekbit (Jan 3, 2015)

This is getting to be "too" much fun. I'm going to post another picture in a new post titled "example of contamination" right here in the general chat area. Take a look.


----------



## Harold_V (Jan 4, 2015)

joekbit said:


> jason_recliner said:
> 
> 
> > Not wanting to put the boot in, but even correctly spelled words may not translate well.
> ...


Uhhhh----no, he didn't. Proper spelling in this case would be too. 

Harold


----------



## Harold_V (Jan 4, 2015)

joekbit said:


> Thanks I have spell check on, but like myself, it seems to be lacking in some areas :lol:



That's because Coffey is a word (generally a proper noun----a name). It just doesn't represent the drink. 

Harold


----------



## necromancer (Jan 4, 2015)

Harold_V said:


> joekbit said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks I have spell check on, but like myself, it seems to be lacking in some areas :lol:
> ...




as a name, it's also spelled Kofi or Koffi


----------



## joekbit (Jan 4, 2015)

Well after numerous micro tests I have decided to just dissolve everything with HCL/CL. Using AP I can see separation issues due to the plastic like sheets mixed in with the traces of gold / foils. The use of dilute HNO3 also has the same result with the added problem of very small gold particles. I feel like it could result in values being lost.

When I tested with the HCL/CL I had total digestion, that will allow me to simply strain out the plastic and proceed to a drop with SMB. I'm going to see how Scotch Brite holds up to the HCL/CL. If all goes well it will allow for a very rapid straining process. I have used it to separate foreign material from AP solutions and it worked very well. The nice part is you can cut it to any size or shape and it rinses off very easy.


----------



## necromancer (Jan 4, 2015)

joekbit said:


> Well after numerous micro tests I have decided to just dissolve everything with HCL/CL. Using AP I can see separation issues due to the plastic like sheets mixed in with the traces of gold / foils. The use of dilute HNO3 also has the same result with the added problem of very small gold particles. I feel like it could result in values being lost.
> 
> When I tested with the HCL/CL I had total digestion, that will allow me to simply strain out the plastic and proceed to a drop with SMB. I'm going to see how Scotch Brite holds up to the HCL/CL. If all goes well it will allow for a very rapid straining process. I have used it to separate foreign material from AP solutions and it worked very well. The nice part is you can cut it to any size or shape and it rinses off very easy.



did you try pouring off all the liquid, adding water & pull out the plastic & copper (if any loose copper) then filter ?
i seen this as a simple solution.


----------



## joekbit (Jan 5, 2015)

necromancer said:


> joekbit said:
> 
> 
> > Well after numerous micro tests I have decided to just dissolve everything with HCL/CL. Using AP I can see separation issues due to the plastic like sheets mixed in with the traces of gold / foils. The use of dilute HNO3 also has the same result with the added problem of very small gold particles. I feel like it could result in values being lost.
> ...


necromancer

Yes I tried that. Some of the copper gets very small due to partial digestion and would be difficult if not impossible to remove. As far as the large pieces, it's easy but gold traces get picked up with them. I have removed the large pieces and put them in water only to see gold drift off them. Then there is still that infernal plastic :evil: :twisted: The large pieces of the plastic like material can be picked out but again gold traces come with them. The use of HCL/CL will keep a fairly translucent (green) color. Like cool aid. AP turns very dark limiting visibility. The weak HNO3 is also translucent / fairly clear (blue) due to the copper but at least you can see into it. However the use of HNO3 can be costly. I get HCL 38% for about $5 USD per gallon.

The reaction from the use of CL is short lived but very effective. So I will have to stick with it, adding a little CL at a time. Much like using AR, best to add small quantities of HNO3 at a time so you don't have excess nitrate to get rid of. 

In any event I'm looking forward to this. It will be my largest volume to date, processed at one time. I have about 30 boards left to strip and only the small button traces on them. Some of the material I have removed is 2 inches wide and up to 3 inches long, very large. I will edit my first post and add a picture of the removed material once I have it all off. right now I have 3 quart canning jars stuffed, and a small bag.


----------



## jason_recliner (Jan 5, 2015)

The strainer bucket, or a sieve, will solve that: Little plastic bucket, with holes. Bigger plastic bucket without holes. Slosh it all around and the gold falls out the holes.
If you're picking pieces out by hand, a squirty water bottle set to half mist/spray is invaluable.


----------



## Geo (Jan 5, 2015)

Why the need to see through the solution? You can trust that if you put it in and it doesn't spill out, you wont lose any gold. Copper(II) chloride will not dissolve the gold but it will dissolve almost all other metals. After a few days in some good AP, you should have only gold foils and solder mask. Any non-metal is inconsequential when you dissolve the foils, it will be filtered out anyway. HCl/Cl will dissolve the foils and a little bit of the copper solids and then (depending of a few variables) the gold will just cement out of solution on whatever copper is left and be a black powder where your foils used to be. As long as that's your goal, then you don't have any problems. If you want to dissolve relatively clean foils, you may have to go another route.


----------



## joekbit (Jan 5, 2015)

Geo said:


> Why the need to see through the solution? You can trust that if you put it in and it doesn't spill out, you wont lose any gold. Copper(II) chloride will not dissolve the gold but it will dissolve almost all other metals. After a few days in some good AP, you should have only gold foils and solder mask. Any non-metal is inconsequential when you dissolve the foils, it will be filtered out anyway. HCl/Cl will dissolve the foils and a little bit of the copper solids and then (depending of a few variables) the gold will just cement out of solution on whatever copper is left and be a black powder where your foils used to be. As long as that's your goal, then you don't have any problems. If you want to dissolve relatively clean foils, you may have to go another route.




Geo

I think your getting my current material mixed up with my initial post. That's my fault, I should have started another post. The material I'm working right now has nothing on it. The images are on page 2 of this post. http://goldrefiningforum.com/phpBB3/download/file.php?id=27754&mode=view They are clean PCBs', noting but copper and gold. I just added a photo of what I have to process, it is the sheeting or traces removed from the boards, approximately 560 grams.

edited to correct page number


----------



## FrugalRefiner (Jan 5, 2015)

joekbit said:


> The images are on page 2 of this post. I'm not sure how to add a link to take you to it.


Joe, take a look through Including Links with Reader Friendly Titles.

Dave


----------



## joekbit (Jan 5, 2015)

FrugalRefiner said:


> joekbit said:
> 
> 
> > The images are on page 2 of this post. I'm not sure how to add a link to take you to it.
> ...



We crossed in the mail so to speak :roll: I will look at your link, thanks


----------



## Geo (Jan 5, 2015)

Okay, sorry about that. You should know that the substrate on printed circuit boards is mostly copper but also have a nickel layer between the copper and the gold. There can also be other metals added as hardeners. There will never be just copper and gold plating.


----------



## joekbit (Jan 5, 2015)

Geo said:


> Okay, sorry about that. You should know that the substrate on printed circuit boards is mostly copper but also have a nickel layer between the copper and the gold. There can also be other metals added as hardeners. There will never be just copper and gold plating.


 Yes I know. No need for you to apologize, really, I should have started a new post to keep out any confusion. Wish we had a smiley with a guy banging a hammer on his head because it was really dumb of me.

I took my test solutions today and put them together, about 100ml total, ran them through the Scotch Brite, all the plastic is now out, clean solution, sprinkled a bit of SMB in, very small amount and the powder dropped out very quick. Solution still cool aid greenish color, very little if any color change at all. This tells me most of the Copper stayed in the solution. I will likely start to process the full 560 grams tomorrow.

Still waiting on my crucibles and sodium silicate to get here so I can build my furnace :?: should be here this week


----------



## necromancer (Jan 5, 2015)

you can make your own sodium silicate

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Mx1-o1_MWo[/youtube]

this guy has some great videos


----------



## joekbit (Jan 6, 2015)

Yes he does, I've seen that one. That being said here is the really good news. I was using the 9 grams of material from one board to do all my testing (small quantities). Used HCL / CL to complete the 9 grams of material and added my test solutions to it. Filtered it through the scotch brite and dropped with SMB. Picture is wet powder. Dry weight .1. If it's consistent, I will double my investment. Just to add a bit more, I bought the material off EBay.


----------



## FrugalRefiner (Jan 6, 2015)

Gloves please! Especially when you're taking a picture you're going to post on the forum. 

Dave


----------



## joekbit (Jan 6, 2015)

FrugalRefiner said:


> Gloves please! Especially when you're taking a picture you're going to post on the forum.
> 
> Dave


sorry, that was sitting over 3 hours. Gloves were long taken off before the photo. Next time I will be sure to have them on.


----------



## goldsilverpro (Jan 6, 2015)

joekbit said:


> FrugalRefiner said:
> 
> 
> > Gloves please! Especially when you're taking a picture you're going to post on the forum.
> ...



You're excused. I wouldn't have had gloves on at that point, either


----------



## denim (Jan 6, 2015)

Is there a reason why you filtered your gold powder versus letting it drop in the beaker, or what ever container you added the smb to? I have never filtered mine and have no worries about letting it settle overnight if I have to. Just sayin 8)


----------



## joekbit (Jan 8, 2015)

denim said:


> Is there a reason why you filtered your gold powder versus letting it drop in the beaker, or what ever container you added the smb to? I have never filtered mine and have no worries about letting it settle overnight if I have to. Just sayin 8)



I just wanted to see how well my new Buchner Filter and the papers would work out. Edited to add comment I did let it settle, the other reason for the filter was to get an accurate weight of recovered powder.

So here is the update. The image is the foils from 150 + / - grams, the fine traces from the backs of the boards. A lot of that plastic stuff in there. I actually filtered the solution 4 times. Each time I saw a lot of foils floating around on the top, I filtered it, then poured the solution back onto the material. total solution 1400 ml to keep the reaction / digestion going. I still have 2 more batches to do totaling 400 more grams + / - from the front of the boards. Going to test the solution that I have from the first batch for gold get it all finished up then start the last 2 batches.


----------



## goldsilverpro (Jan 8, 2015)

Lots of air leakage using coffee filters in a buchner. I can see that from the dark color of the filter paper. It was never really rinsed out.

To be efficient when using a buchner you need filter paper circles that are large enough to cover the holes but don't come up the sides. A circle that lays flat and seals all the holes, in other words.


----------



## joekbit (Jan 8, 2015)

goldsilverpro said:


> Lots of air leakage using coffee filters in a buchner. I can see that from the dark color of the filter paper. It was never really rinsed out.
> 
> To be efficient when using a buchner you need filter paper circles that are large enough to cover the holes but doesn't come up the sides. A circle that lays flat and seals all the holes, in other words.



Should have mentioned, I had a 3 micron round, plus 2 coffee filters. 3 filters in that funnel. No, I had not rinsed it when the photo was taken. The round filter is on the bottom. One question, after the first filtration I put the solution in a temporary jar, (antique milk jar), the solution was black and there was a bit of water in the bottom of the temporary jar, as soon as the solution hit the water pure white precipitate hit the bottom. It is not crystalline at all. Input would be nice. I'm going to test it but just not ready to now. It dose not dissolve / mix so I would think it has to be metallic in nature.

edited to add dissolve, and one other question. Question; Do you think I can continue to use the 1400 ml of solution, or would it be better to start a new solution? I have another 400 grams or so to process.


----------



## FrugalRefiner (Jan 9, 2015)

joekbit said:


> One question, after the first filtration I put the solution in a temporary jar, (antique milk jar), the solution was black and there was a bit of water in the bottom of the temporary jar, as soon as the solution hit the water pure white precipitate hit the bottom. It is not crystalline at all. Input would be nice. I'm going to test it but just not ready to now. It dose not dissolve / mix so I would think it has to be metallic in nature.
> 
> edited to add dissolve, and one other question. Question; Do you think I can continue to use the 1400 ml of solution, or would it be better to start a new solution? I have another 400 grams or so to process.


When you add water to a CuCl2 solution, some of the soluble CuCl2 is converted to a much less soluble CuCl, which forms a white precipitate. The CuCl is soluble in HCl.

Put a bubbler in the solution. If it turns emerald green again, you can probably reuse it. 

Dave


----------



## Geo (Jan 9, 2015)

What Dave said. Too, you can collect the white crystals and store wet, covered with water, until you need fresh CuCl2. Use the white crystals and add some HCl and you have instant copper(II) chloride.


----------



## joekbit (Jan 11, 2015)

Geo said:


> What Dave said. Too, you can collect the white crystals and store wet, covered with water, until you need fresh CuCl2. Use the white crystals and add some HCl and you have instant copper(II) chloride.


Thanks you very much. I will put them in a bottle for future use. I will see what I can find as far as a formula, % of each. 

Edited

I started the second batch last night, when I checked it this morning the AP had not done a thing to it. May be due to the colder temperatures. Starting some of Steves cold nitric. I have been studying that because my sulfuric is only 35%. The box showed a specific gravity of 1.265. I put 150 ml on the hot plate to evaporate it off. Not sure how concentrated I can get it.

Well I evaporated 750 ml of H2SO4 to 250 ml, white fuming at completion. Please _correct me if I'm wrong _but that should be about 70% concentration now. 
Making nitric tomorrow for the first time, going to try to adjust Steves recipe to compensate for the slightly low concentration of H2SO4. Should be able to do this with slightly less H2O and get similar results. _correct me if I'm wrong _ Nitirc seems to be the best given the only thing I have is gold trace and copper, maybe some nickel. Second batch about 80% digested with Nitric.


----------



## butcher (Jan 11, 2015)

If the sulfuric was fuming white fumes it is probably more concentrated than 70%, more likely in the 90 percent range or more.


I would prefer to make the nitric with the more dilute sulfuric acid.

For copper, silver, and base metal you want the acid diluted anyway, in the 40% range, or even more dilute when heating the reaction, if the acid is too strong it does not work as well and wastes most of your nitric acid as NOx gases.

If you were using it for aqua regia it can be heated during that process to drive off water.

If you need 68% nitric, the dilute nitric acid can be concentrated by evaporation.

Without the water your likely to have more problems getting the nitrate to dissolve well enough for the conversion when making the nitric, especially for the cold nitric acid recipe.


----------



## joekbit (Jan 11, 2015)

butcher said:


> If the sulfuric was fuming white fumes it is probably more concentrated than 70%, more likely in the 90 percent range or more.
> 
> 
> I would prefer to make the nitric with the more dilute sulfuric acid.
> ...



I have been using it at 50% and it's doing a great job. I have a large glass container from the local craft shop. It holds about 2500 ml, straight sides, so I put a 8 inch looking glass on top and it seals but not tightly. This seems to lengthen the digestion / it digests more. My thought is the evaporating H20 is capturing some of the gas and recirculating as nitric. As the drops run down the side and hit the material they react digesting more of the copper. So it seems to be taking less to get the job done. Almost 200 more grams digested with less than 250 ml 50 % plus 50 % H20. 

Only have about 500 ml HNO3 left and another 200 grams to process, so I have to make some or buy some. Making it is cheaper and I have what I need. So make it, that's what I say. Still have another 10 lbs. of similar material to process.


----------



## joekbit (Jan 12, 2015)

Well this is the story. I dissolved the second batch. Gathered up all the foils from both batches. Used AR to dissolve it all. Could not get the gold to drop so I added my 3.5 grams of gold to it, it all dissolved. Diluted it 50%, still no drop.

Boiled it down from 700ml to 300ml. The gold still is not dropping. 

My thought is that the trash in the foils carried a lot of nitric with it and added to the problem.

Before I used the AR everything was rinsed thoroughly with distilled water until the filters and contaminates were clean of the blue color. So here I am with an estimated 5 grams of gold in 300ml of solution and it's not coming out. 2 evaporations and a total boil off and no luck. Even added H2SO4 as per Hokes instructions. H2SO4 over 70% concentration, about 10ml added.

Help,

Edited, The 700 ml was a result of using H20 to rinse the filter pulp until all visible traces of AR were gone.


----------



## jason_recliner (Jan 12, 2015)

joekbit said:


> Well this is the story. I dissolved the second batch. Gathered up all the foils from both batches. Used AR to dissolve it all. Could not get the gold to drop so I added my 3.5 grams of gold to it, it all dissolved. Diluted it 50%, still no drop.
> 
> Boiled it down from 700ml to 300ml. The gold still is not dropping.
> 
> ...


700ml of AR for 5 grams of gold? Hoke says that 4 fluid ounces of HCl and 1 fluid ounce of Nitric will dissolve an ounce of gold.
What exactly are you expecting the sulphuric acid to do?

Edit: By "boiling", I sure hope you don't mean "boiling". Heating to BELOW BOILING ONLY.


----------



## joekbit (Jan 12, 2015)

jason_recliner said:


> joekbit said:
> 
> 
> > Well this is the story. I dissolved the second batch. Gathered up all the foils from both batches. Used AR to dissolve it all. Could not get the gold to drop so I added my 3.5 grams of gold to it, it all dissolved. Diluted it 50%, still no drop.
> ...



No it's not 700ml of AR. AR was about 100 ml, the rest is H20 in an attempt to dilute the AR to get the gold to drop with SMB. From there I evaporated 2 times added H2O each time (diluted 50%) bringing the solution back up to about 300ml. Diluted again with H20 50% and then boiled it down to the starting quantity. At this time I have it diluted again with H20. 300 ml total solution, added a bit of SMB gold starts to drop and then dissolves. I'm just going to let it sit eventually the nitric will degrade and I can get a drop.


----------



## martyn111 (Jan 12, 2015)

joekbit said:


> No it's not 700ml of AR. AR was about 100 ml, the rest is H20 in an attempt to dilute the AR to get the gold to drop with SMB. From there I evaporated 2 times added H2O each time (diluted 50%) bringing the solution back up to about 300ml. Diluted again with H20 50% and then boiled it down to the starting quantity. At this time I have it diluted again with H20. 300 ml total solution, added a bit of SMB gold starts to drop and then dissolves. I'm just going to let it sit eventually the nitric will degrade and I can get a drop.



By diluting to 700ml and then evaporating down twice, each time re diluting with water you have accomplished nothing apart from creating water vapour. the re dilution of the solution should be achieved by using hydrochloric acid otherwise you are wasting your time and heat diluting and concentrating your AR.
Read up on de noxing a solution, there are several ways to 'skin' this cat (no offence Palladium).


----------



## Harold_V (Jan 12, 2015)

joekbit said:


> No it's not 700ml of AR. AR was about 100 ml, the rest is H20 in an attempt to dilute the AR to get the gold to drop with SMB. From there I evaporated 2 times added H2O each time (diluted 50%) bringing the solution back up to about 300ml.


Go back to Hoke's book and learn how to properly evaporate. 



> Diluted again with H20 50% and then boiled it down to the starting quantity.


I am not tolerant of the use of "boiling" when one is evaporating. In doing so, you undo all the hard work we've done here in trying to teach those who are trying to learn proper procedures. Boiling can lead to losses. It is not recommended when evaporating, not unless one is using sophisticated equipment, not typically found in the home lab. 



> At this time I have it diluted again with H20. 300 ml total solution, added a bit of SMB gold starts to drop and then dissolves. I'm just going to let it sit eventually the nitric will degrade and I can get a drop.


Why do you suggest the nitric will "degrade"?
You need to read Hoke's book. If you have read it, read it again. Read it until you know better than to make statements like you have made in this thread.

Harold


----------



## jason_recliner (Jan 13, 2015)

joekbit said:


> No it's not 700ml of AR. AR was about 100 ml...


... which according to "The Hoke Ratio" is enough aqua regia to consume roughly 21g of gold, probably more, but in which you've put in an estimated 5g.

Proper evaporation WILL work, for I once made a similar overzealous mistake to yours. You need only follow it properly and be patient.


----------



## Palladium (Jan 13, 2015)

Cement on copper, start over.


----------



## joekbit (Jan 13, 2015)

Harold_V said:


> joekbit said:
> 
> 
> > No it's not 700ml of AR. AR was about 100 ml, the rest is H20 in an attempt to dilute the AR to get the gold to drop with SMB. From there I evaporated 2 times added H2O each time (diluted 50%) bringing the solution back up to about 300ml.
> ...



Sorry Harold, I will refrain from using "boiled". In any event the problem is solved. Hokes page 55. I added the SMB, gold is dropping, waiting 24 hours before decanting.


----------



## joekbit (Jan 13, 2015)

jason_recliner said:


> joekbit said:
> 
> 
> > No it's not 700ml of AR. AR was about 100 ml...
> ...



Thanks Jason. The reason for the 100ml was to cover the filters that were full gold. I was not about to try and remove it from the filters. The gold could be easily seen but it was very small. I would best define it as gold dust.


----------



## necromancer (Jan 13, 2015)

then test with stannous !!


----------



## joekbit (Jan 13, 2015)

necromancer said:


> then test with stannous !!



I will. Oh and the 700ml I mentioned was from the H20 used to rinse out the filter pulp. I also added that statement to the original post to eliminate confusion.


----------



## Geo (Jan 14, 2015)

It's all a learning experience. Even if it fails, you still learn from doing it. Eventually, you wont even have to think about it.


----------



## jason_recliner (Jan 14, 2015)

joekbit said:


> In any event the problem is solved. Hokes page 55.


Without even looking, I know that's not the right section. Try in the 40's.


----------



## joekbit (Jan 15, 2015)

jason_recliner said:


> joekbit said:
> 
> 
> > In any event the problem is solved. Hokes page 55.
> ...


That depends on what page number you look at. The PDF page number is not in line with the actual book page. Chapter number is 5, section 5. I have both the PDF reader version and the printable version.

Oh and the cold nitric came out great. The picture came out pretty nice to.


----------

