# MLCC Results



## Tzoax (Jun 13, 2014)

I collected 130 grams of mixed MLCC and I crashed it with coffee mill to a fine powder and this is a result of precious metal analyze with x-ray fluorescence spectroscopy. I thought that was mistake so I did another test from the another sample of the powder and the results was pretty much the same. Then they explained me that that device can not "see" the non-metal parts such is ceramic, and that these results are only for metals inside the powder. So, my question is, how could I can calculate how much of non-metal is inside the powder or even better-how could I get rid of non-metalic parts and make another test with metals only? Thank You. 
Alexander


----------



## Lou (Jun 13, 2014)

You can use a wavelength dispersive XRF and press a puck, and do it under helium--that will show you the light elements.


----------



## necromancer (Jun 13, 2014)

thank you for the upload, looks promising, Pt, Pd & Au content all looks good to me

i am working on 1.6 pounds of digested in HCL, dried MLCC (originally 3.5 pounds random mlcc)
i have another 3.5 pounds random whole MLCC to process


----------



## etack (Jun 13, 2014)

necromancer said:


> thank you for the upload, looks promising, Pt, Pd & Au content all looks good to me
> 
> i am working on 1.6 pounds of digested in HCL, dried MLCC (originally 3.5 pounds random mlcc)
> i have another 3.5 pounds random whole MLCC to process



remember one mans promising numbers is another's goose chase.

Eric


----------



## joubjonn (Jun 13, 2014)

Another note here is that not all MLCC's are created equal. Some will have PM's, some will have PMG's some won't have anything. If you have a uniform lot of the sample that was tested then it seems you would have a good batch. I found a document from a large MLCC manufacture once, it was 100 pages long of all different types, with all different materials and that was just one company that makes them.


----------



## FrugalRefiner (Jun 13, 2014)

necromancer said:


> thank you for the upload, looks promising, Pt, Pd & Au content all looks good to me


I'm guessing ND means not detected for Au.

Dave


----------



## Tzoax (Jun 13, 2014)

FrugalRefiner said:


> necromancer said:
> 
> 
> > thank you for the upload, looks promising, Pt, Pd & Au content all looks good to me
> ...



Maybe he was thinking about rhodium.


----------



## necromancer (Jun 13, 2014)

FrugalRefiner said:


> necromancer said:
> 
> 
> > thank you for the upload, looks promising, Pt, Pd & Au content all looks good to me
> ...




sorry, meant Ag


----------



## g_axelsson (Jun 16, 2014)

Lou said:


> You can use a wavelength dispersive XRF and press a puck, and do it under helium--that will show you the light elements.


The problem isn't the light elements, the problem is that the XRF isn't programmed for all elements. It's easily seen that there are a few quite powerful spikes in the diagram that isn't mapped to any element. I would guess it belongs to barium and titanium for example.

I would say that this analyze is close to worthless, it tells you some of the contents and the relationship between them, but not any exact numbers. It gives no percentage for the unresolved elements. A sample with 1 gram of gold and 99 grams of quartz would register as 100% gold.

Göran


----------



## Lou (Jun 16, 2014)

Not helping that is that most detectors are made of silicon. 

In any event, the Ba/Ca isn't the trouble resolving--it's the O, C, N, B, etc.


----------



## g_axelsson (Jun 21, 2014)

I was talking about these results, not XRF in general.

As technology progresses better techniques appears but still the problem is the low energy of rays from the lighter elements. It seems the technology today can detect elements down to Mg without placing the specimen in a vacuum.

This is a technology that I'm really interested in. I don't have a lot of experience of it but I have read a lot about it.

Göran


----------



## Tzoax (Feb 26, 2015)

Here is the results of powders that i get... The first result is the residue powder from AR. The second one is powder dropped with Al.


----------



## g_axelsson (Feb 26, 2015)

I still don't trust these results. According to the results the remaining powders from the AR would contain all metals and no oxides, titanium, barium, chlorides. With that much silver it would be possible to melt and run in a silver cell straight away and we all realize that isn't true. The XRF is leaving out a lot from the whole picture.

Göran

edit : spelling


----------



## kurtak (Feb 26, 2015)

Tzoax said:


> Here is the results of powders that i get...



You have already been told in you post about CPUs that you CAN NOT count on the results of an XRF reading done on powders

I hope you are not sending (or taking) your "powders" to a lab or someone that is charging you for the readings --- if so you are WASTING your money

Kurt


----------



## Tzoax (Feb 26, 2015)

Thanks, I know that it is not accurate, it was tests from last year. I was paying 10 euros per test, since it was my first time dealing with mlcc's i wanted to make notes step by step, but now i know it is worthless. Anyway, my final result was about 1.2 grams of black powder from 135g of mlcc's. Now i collected 1 kilogram of mlcc's and i am planning to process it again, and when i finish it, i will melt the Pd/Pt powder to alloy, and then test it with xrf scanner to get familiar with approximately values.


----------

