# Restricted subjects - hydrazine?



## goldsilverpro (Mar 7, 2015)

Should I include hydrazine on the forbidden subject list?


----------



## Eamonn (Mar 7, 2015)

Why? Is it a bit too lively.


----------



## Geo (Mar 7, 2015)

With a health code 4 : very short exposure could cause death or permanent injury, it does not need to be discussed on the open forum. It would only cause people to become curious about the subject. Any discussion, even this one, needs a warning about just how dangerous this stuff is. This is one chemical that should be restricted to professional laboratory settings only.


----------



## goldsilverpro (Mar 7, 2015)

It's added to the shit list.

BTW, When I wrote this, I used the words, Sh*t list, without the * and, when I looked, it said crap list instead. I didn't realize this was being censored. Shame, shame.


----------



## nickvc (Mar 8, 2015)

GSP never worked with it so this is beyond my experience, if you think it's too much for the home refiner and others with experience agree then yes it should be banned
My view, however much we warn people they just think they know better and when it comes to precious metals then it's gloves off and who cares about the consequences when there's a dollar to be earned or saved, the risk element leaves the equation and is replaced with the greed one where anything goes and who cares if there's another buck to be had, safe or not, we're having it.
There are many risks and dangers in all recovery and refining processes we should ban them all but it won't stop people trying, we can encourage safe and proper care for all but only those that want to listen will. Those bent on finding the cheapest and quickest way will still do their thing and come crying to the forum for help, perhaps banning certain processes will at least slow them down and stop idiots from hurting everything and everybody around them.
This is just my personal opinion and not that of the forum as a whole but if by refusing to discuss the most dangerous processs saves just one life then let's do it. It won't stop the get rich quick crowd but it may help those who want to learn exactly how to recover and refine precious metals there are always other ways that are safer but rarely safe..
The quote a little knowledge is a dangerous thing seems to fit this perfectly.


----------



## g_axelsson (Mar 8, 2015)

I haven't worked with hydrazine and I don't know even how to get it so I have no experience with it and no plans to use it.

But I think it's a bit sad that a subject would be banned just because there is some dangers involved in it. I can understand it if a procedure that isn't used in refining would be banned to keep people trying stupid ideas, but we are starting to ban topics that definitely is used in refining today. As I understand, hydrazine is used by some members in certain procedures.

Instead of banning subjects we should explain the proper usage and the dangers connected to it, or else the curious amateur or professional refiner is left to his own, doing research and mistakes that could have been avoided.

Do we want this forum to be "Refiners helping home refiners" or "Refiners helping refiners"?

I totally agree with banning disruptive topics as religion and politics. Piranha solution and fuming nitric since it's too dangerous and have no use in refining.
Mercury is a hard one, the use of mercury in extraction should be eradicated but is still in use in third world countries. To discuss how to best mitigate the dangers from scrap contaminated with mercury should be allowed, this can save life.
Cyanide is used in refining and anyone that research the topic will find a ton of information on the net and if they want they will experiment with it. Isn't it better to allow it to be discussed here in the open where we can catch mistakes and give proper advice before an accident happens. Maybe even give better alternatives.

This is just my opinion and I will follow the rules on the forum whatever the consensus is.

Göran


----------



## jeneje (Mar 8, 2015)

Just a point here, 99.9% of all the refining done by the average member can be done with AP, AR, HCl/Cl - some of the processes and procedures that GSP has banned - has no place being discussed by members that have no concept of the dangers nor the equipment to preform them. 

As we all know curiosity can be deadly. You are right that these processes are used in the refining industry, but, it is just that and industry that is monitored by employees who have the proper training and equipment. 

I personally don't want one of my neighbors outside processing pins with Sodium Cyanide or incinerating Mother Boards in an open fire. Where do you draw the line, - well that is up to the board owner and those who know the chemistry behind those procedures. 

I have been on this forum for Four years and follow about all the posts GSP has made, and if he says it bad for those of us who have no formal training, then i have to follow his advice.

Just my opinion, 

Ken


----------



## goldsilverpro (Mar 8, 2015)

The idea of a private advanced section is good. Maybe there should be a single sticky covering all these nasties and their dangers that we could refer people to. All but cyanide have a better substitute.


----------



## FrugalRefiner (Mar 8, 2015)

Since you've solicited opinions, I'll say I am not in favor of having a list of forbidden subjects. In creating such a list, the question becomes where you draw the line. As Nick has said, there are risks and dangers in every recovery and refining process. People have damaged their health using nitric acid, HCl/bleach, and ammonium hydroxide. Fuming nitric acid and incineration have now been mentioned in this thread. Do we add them to the list?

I also agree with Göran that an absolute ban on the discussion of certain subjects, like mercury, leaves members without any guidance on how to deal with it safely when it is a component of the scrap they may choose to refine. 

I created a thread suggesting a new category where some of these subjects could be discussed because of this list. One of the objections to the idea is that readers might feel that the methods discussed there must be the best kept secrets of refining, so they would want to learn more about them, even if they have to go to YouTube or other internet sites. It seems to me that having a list of forbidden subjects can have the same effect.

New members will continue to come here looking for more information on subjects they've seen on the internet. The experienced members here understand the hazards of these processes. I am of the opinion that it would be better if those members were allowed to discuss the extraordinary hazards involved, and guide readers to safer methods. 

Dave


----------



## Lou (Mar 8, 2015)

Hydrazine is something that requires great care in its use but it is far less acutely toxic than hydrogen cyanide. It is a known human carcinogen and fumes in air in higher concentration; if you can smell it you are being over exposed. As it is a strong reducing agent, it must be kept away from strong oxidizes at all costs. Some of the hydrate put upon a paper towel (kin wipe) and set in the draft of the fume hood will spontaneously combust. 

The material is unstable and (thermodynamically) prefers to be nitrogen/ammonia so great hygiene must be observed to prevent any thing (like platinum for instance) catalytic getting in the bulk container. That would be a bad situation.


----------



## 4metals (Mar 8, 2015)

I have a lot of small refining clients who process jewelers sweeps in aqua regia and they often contain platinum as well. The way I teach them to reduce the salts is with hydrazine. It is a valuable method for small quantities which would lost easily if calcined in an oven. Most Pt recoveries are under an ounce of metal from sweeps and the hydrazine handles that well. 

In reality, proper handling is a prerequisite for all chemicals. Not talking about it probably makes it more dangerous. A proper discussion where the precautions are stressed will lead to safer use IMHO.


----------



## goldsilverpro (Mar 8, 2015)

Alright. I'm sold. I removed the list.


----------



## jeneje (Mar 8, 2015)

4metals said:


> I have a lot of small refining clients who process jewelers sweeps in aqua regia and they often contain platinum as well. The way I teach them to reduce the salts is with hydrazine. It is a valuable method for small quantities which would lost easily if calcined in an oven. Most Pt recoveries are under an ounce of metal from sweeps and the hydrazine handles that well.
> 
> In reality, proper handling is a prerequisite for all chemicals. Not talking about it probably makes it more dangerous. A proper discussion where the precautions are stressed will lead to safer use IMHO.


You make a good point here. I would like to point out though, you have clients paying you for your knowledge, and you are taking the time to teach them the correct way to use this procedure. Also, if you helped setup the lab it has been setup to handle this type of procedure with all the safety in place. 

The average member is not going to have this, - this brings me to my question, would you recommend someone who has just read about this on a forum, attempt this without proper training, equipment and safety for this process?

Ken
edited for spelling


----------



## artart47 (Mar 8, 2015)

Hi!
It seems to me that there should be no banned topics that have to do with refining. In my opinion, it's doing the same thing the government does. Everyone is going to scream when they decide that all our refining chemicals are too dangerous and could be used make explosives and they need to protect us from ourselves. You're doing the same thing.
There are people using the banned methods, there are others, me, who want to understand and learn about them and will probably never use them. I think it better to be able to discuss them and voice our objection to their use than to be doing our own book burning!
Sorry gentilmen! I can't agree!

artart47


----------



## Long Shot (Mar 8, 2015)

It is a difficult dilemma GSP. I have viewed this post several times as people have added to it. I am sure that no one here wants to be responsible for advising someone to do this or that with this or that chemical or process and then finding out that that person or worse yet, some innocent party, was injured or killed or thus negatively affected by doing so. On the other hand, and has been pointed out, people get some wild and crazy inspiration from watching some of the quacks on yougonnakillsomebodytube and come here citing that (mis)information and get corrected. That is the good part, they come here and announce they want to or have tried something and get headed off at the pass before it gets worse (if they will listen). If dangerous subjects are banned I feel this will leave no expert opinion available to the "wanna get rich quick" people. A suggestion I have is similar to what Harold has done at the beginning of every subject category where he headlines what you need to look at and be aware of before you proceed. This may be difficult or not possible to do on this forum but I suggest that instead of banning the topics the following could be applied:

Similar to many online subjects or courses one has to successfully read and pass tests for a series of modules that make the participant well aware of the dangers/precautions/procedures, etc. in relation to the subject material. Advancement to the next module is only possible when the current module has been completed to satisfaction.

This could even be narrowed down to a precursory exam in regards to the subject where the individual has to display a certain level of knowledge to be permitted to view the subject material (could serve to keep unqualified people from viewing the subject). The problem with this is that someone could "Google" the answers. Maybe a solution to that is limiting the time to take the exam and limiting the attempts at the same (similar to logging in to your online banking) and in conjunction, not issue the same series of questions twice and not allowing the participant to exit the page until complete or else they start again. If you can't pass it then you can't view the subject.

And finally, a iron clad waiver would need to be acknowledged before one has access to the topic. I know someone will say that a waiver is only as good as the next clever lawyer to pick it apart but it would at least be an attempt to cover thy ass, so to speak.

I bring this all forward because (in agreement with others) I don't know where you draw the line. For example, I found a link (on this forum) to a series of books, one of which describes the manufacture of explosives. It doesn't describe the "exact" procedure but close enough that someone might try it. Restricting information is wise, forbidding it only causes one who really wants to get the information to look elsewhere and I am afraid that those sources may not be to the degree of excellence found here.

Just my 2.99 cent contribution (adjusted for inflation)


----------



## 4metals (Mar 8, 2015)

Jeneje,

This thread has already touched on the dangers of hydrazine, and this forum has beat the fact to death that all should be working with proper ventilation and proper safety equipment. Truth be told the members that take the time to learn the precautions and the requisite safety procedures for any and all refining will find benefit in this process. 

I have posted a lot of procedures on this forum that is given without the benefit (or expense) of my oversight and I would like to think some have benefitted from the educational posts that so many of our members post here. I know this to be true because we have a good number of members who do know what they are doing and it is apparent from their postings. 

Reducing platinum salts with hydrazine is not complicated, I have posted the method below. Read it and you will see it is pretty simple. So picture yourself, standing in front of your hood with good exhaust, all of your gloves and safety glasses properly positioned and see if this sounds any more dangerous than pouring concentrated nitric acid. 

Reduction of Ammonium Chloroplatinate to Platinum metal using Hydrazine hydrate

Add water to the Platinum salts to yield 1 gram of platinum (which equals 2.3 grams of ammonium chloroplatinate) per 20 ml of water.
example 100 grams of ammonium chloroplatinate divided by 2.3 = 43.478 grams x 20 ml/g Pt equals 869.5 ml 

Heat the water salt suspension to 45 degrees C and stir (about 120 F)

Prepare s solution of Hydrazine Hydrate by adding 4.1 ml of Hydrazine Hydrate (85%) to 50 ml of DI water.

Every 50 ml of the Hydrazine Hydrate solution will reduce 10 grams of platinum metal.

Allow the metal to settle and decant the solution, wash and dry the metallic platinum. 

The alternative, which could include calcining the salt, often result in dense white ammonium chloride fume and if you get it too hot too fast, loss of values. Losing values also involves volatilized platinum salt. That could lead to platinosis, something we should all be wary of. So in essence you can choose your poison.

I for one do not see problems with members following a procedure and enjoying the results. What I do not like is when I read about members who think "well if this stuff reduces the metal so nice what will happen if I dump some in here?" That is where problems come from, and if you are inclined to think that way, sooner or later you are in for some explosive results in your refining exploits. 

Fortunately we do have a majority of sensible members who do things as intended, and thankfully you, Ken, are included in that group. For those members I am grateful as they are the members that keep me motivated to post.


----------



## jeneje (Mar 8, 2015)

4metals thank you for the process. It is one i was use after more research on the hazards. I have learned a lot here on GRF and a lot about what not to do too. Also, i know my limits, and that i guess is what it all comes down too, is the member using the procedure (does not mean only this procedure, but all procedures posted here.) know his/her limits.

The member who is reading and preforming procedure will only know that.

Ken


----------



## MarcoP (Mar 8, 2015)

But if we properly calcinate with heat using an alumina our a quartz dish we won't lose any value nor produce hazard fumes. If that is correct that's one less chemical to handle. Is there any difference in the purity of the reduced metal?

That will off course all done under a fume hood and wearing all safety gears.

I also believe education is the true key, then we can choose the proper way weighting the choice on surroundings, availability and experience. For example, learning to calcinate with a torch would be an important step in case the chemical won't be available for any reason.

Another example about education would be to learn as much as possible about mercury, not for recovery but rather isolation and handing. Same for other toxic metals.

Marco


----------



## Geo (Mar 8, 2015)

My problem with any of it is this, any person with an internet connection can access this information regardless of experience or background training. We have people that English is not their first language and they rely on translating software. How do we convey the dangers of a chemical that can kill you with just one casual exposure. We tend to equate other people with our own level of understanding over a particular subject when in actuality, nothing is farther from the truth. The codes used in the MSDS ranges from 0 to 5 with 0 being something inert like wood and 5 being something like hydrogen cyanide. A rating of 4 should mean that something is beyond the capacity of the common person to handle safely. As long as there is a safer alternative, is it really necessary to promote such a deadly chemical? If someone comes to this chemical through study and would wish to use it, let them come to the forum and ask about it. They can be given information through the PM system. By promoting it's use by making post or starting topics about it, people will learn about it through casual reading instead of study leading to misuse through ignorance. If a topic is is made, is should be a complete, start to finish, with instructions on proper handling, storage and disposal of the waste. I'm afraid that anything less would be endangering someone's life.


----------



## FrugalRefiner (Mar 8, 2015)

Long Shot said:


> Similar to many online subjects or courses one has to successfully read and pass tests for a series of modules that make the participant well aware of the dangers/precautions/procedures, etc. in relation to the subject material. Advancement to the next module is only possible when the current module has been completed to satisfaction.
> 
> This could even be narrowed down to a precursory exam in regards to the subject where the individual has to display a certain level of knowledge to be permitted to view the subject material (could serve to keep unqualified people from viewing the subject). The problem with this is that someone could "Google" the answers. Maybe a solution to that is limiting the time to take the exam and limiting the attempts at the same (similar to logging in to your online banking) and in conjunction, not issue the same series of questions twice and not allowing the participant to exit the page until complete or else they start again. If you can't pass it then you can't view the subject.


Long Shot, I like the idea of a test to access certain information. A couple of years ago, I suggested creating a test that new members would have to pass before they could post questions. If the test was well crafted, it wouldn't matter if people just tried to Google the answers, as in doing so, they would be learning something. As was pointed out in that thread, different people learn in different ways, and I agree that some might have difficulty passing such a test because they may not learn well from reading and memorizing information from books, so a test isn't necessarily the magic bullet. Extending Geo's point, a test could be difficult for those who do not speak English as their first language. For such members, perhaps the Moderators could authorize access based on the proficiency a member demonstrates on the forum. 

Since this thread has touched on the idea of an advanced area, and since some members who have posted here may not have seen my thread, I invite further comments in the New Category for "Advanced Methods" thread.

It _could_ work hand in hand with some of the ideas expressed in this thread. As newbs come here with unbridled enthusiasm from the latest YouTube video they've seen, experienced members can explain the extreme hazards involved in whatever method they're interested in, and provide some guidance as to less dangerous methods where appropriate. It's not intended to be a way of promoting such methods, but a place where those with experience can provide appropriate guidance on safety. I read a lot of the old refining books from the early 1900s because they can provide a wealth of information, but as with Hoke, the authors at that time were not aware of the safety concerns of the methods they describe. The experienced members of this forum could fill that void.

As I said in that thread, the last thing I would want to do is divide the forum, so I'm not trying to "push" my ideas if the members of this forum feel it's not in the best interest of the community, but since there were so few comments in that thread, I wonder if many may have missed it since it's in a category that many may not visit. If the members and administration feel it's a bad idea, I'll be happy to let it go, but since none of the Moderators made any comment, I'd still like to know how some of them feel.

Dave


----------



## Harold_V (Mar 8, 2015)

FrugalRefiner said:


> but since none of the Moderators made any comment, I'd still like to know how some of them feel.


My personal opinion?
Not a good idea. It's too complicated, as classifying readers would be a huge problem, and would require a volume of time be dedicated, time that precious few have at their disposal. Beyond that, I know that I would not be capable of making a decision about who would qualify. Some folks know a great deal in certain areas, but may not know much in other areas. Would they qualify? A tough call. Frankly, I'm in that position. Because I realized, early on, that processing escrap would not be profitable (for me), I learned very little in that regard. I became quite proficient in handling high grade wastes, however. Would I qualify? Maybe not. 

The worst scenario is the divide it would provide for the board. The upper class, for lack of better description, the "elite". It has the potential to create a huge divide in the readers, which is something we've worked hard to avoid. 

From my position, it's far better to cause readers to try to learn, so they bring themselves up to an acceptable level. That's one of the reasons I put my foot down some time ago and told new readers to stop asking "stupid" questions--questions that are answered easily by simply reading Hoke's book and gaining an understanding of what she teaches. Once that knowledge is firmly embedded, most of those "stupid" questions seem to evaporate. 

Bottom line---I don't endorse an elite club, but would be supportive if it is the will of the majority. It's not about me---it's about the future success of this board. 

Harold


----------



## FrugalRefiner (Mar 8, 2015)

Thank you for weighing in Harold. I appreciate it. Unless others disagree, I can now let the idea fade away.

Dave


----------



## nickvc (Mar 8, 2015)

Dave I can sense your frustration and can fully understand it but the forum needs to be consistent and upto what it stands for, the processes and chemicals in question have been discussed fully,many times, yes newbies will ask daft questions about using deadly chemicals mixed in their kitchen with the family pets around and the kids helping, the byword here is help but how much help can we actually give?
The question is do we help them or ignore them?
Left alone they will comtinue their quests without help.
If we help them does the forum or advising members become liable?
It's a tough decision and with health and safety ruling virtually everything we hit a wall!
Yes a percentage will listen but I reckon most won't, the lure of untold riches beckons..
Where do we say no?
How do we as a forum proceed with so much disinformation around that is against all we stand for?
We can post all the world needs to know about how to process just about anything with values included in them.
Ban nothing but always stress safety and the need to understand the whole process and hope we have done the right thing.


----------



## Long Shot (Mar 8, 2015)

Dave - thanks for a reasonable response. The first thing I would have to say is in regards to "a language other than English". I frequently have to refer to a language "other than English" to get information needed to proceed with issues I have during my working hours- I deal with it and make the best go I can. It is a global society these days and language barriers are just a fact of life. Questions usually solve that, and sometimes, many questions. That said, some level of qualification is a good idea.

Nick - I agree wholeheart.

Harold - as usual, a wise input. It was not my intention to create a divide or an "elite" club, rather, it was was my intention to propose a solution to the banning of discussion on topics that apply to what this forum is about. Dangerous or not, I really think people should be advised on what it is they are proposing to do, ignorance is not bliss and in this case can lead to very tragic circumstances as you and all others involved in this topic are aware. That said, I am with you in your opinion that it is what the majority of the membership wants. I know what I propose is time consuming and, in general, a giant pain in the ass for the admins, however, I don't see it as dividing - simply keeps people who don't understand the consequences of burying themselves or others. You might note that I have been a member for over a year and I have stated before that I still do not have the confidence in my ability or understanding to "jump right in" even though I have been studying this for much longer than I have been a member here. The same cannot be said for others and to that end there should be some "qualification". I know we can't control what people will do but we can control the quality and quantity of information that is portrayed here. I hope these remarks are received as constructive and not defensive.

Jeff B


----------



## FrugalRefiner (Mar 8, 2015)

Nick, I appreciate you comments, views, and concerns. Actually I'm very much at peace. I'm sorry if my last post didn't sound that way.

My reason for starting the idea of a new category was prompted by having certain processes put off limits. As stated there, I saw a member who chose not to provide information on one of the subjects because it was forbidden. My concern was especially in regard to subjects like mercury. It's in a number of the types of scrap some members process, and I worried that by not being able to discuss the safe handling of such materials, readers would be left to guess at what to do. I have used a couple of the processes of concern in the past. I find others interesting, but have no plans to try them, as I have no need for them.

I was, indeed, frustrated that the other thread had so few responses, especially from any of the Moderators. I can understand that they may have chosen not to respond prematurely, as their views might have influenced other members. As this thread developed, we saw a bit more feedback related to the other thread.

It was never my intention to divide the forum, or to create different classes here. I was simply trying to provide an alternate venue to discuss subjects members were afraid to post about. Since GSP has lifted his ban on those subjects, my thread has become somewhat moot. Members can again discuss them with the appropriate cautions and warnings of their dangers.

As you said, "Ban nothing but always stress safety and the need to understand the whole process and hope we have done the right thing."

Dave


----------



## artart47 (Mar 8, 2015)

Hi!
Dave. It just shows you care about our forum and those that visit us. I think if ,say an interested noob is all fired up about wet ashing. I would like to help him realize that it is far too advanced for him and help him learn alternative methods that are safe. the info and discusions of wet ashing are still here for him to read about the dangers. He may down the road, have the skills and the equipment to work at that level. the info is there.
I think that it's better for him if we keep him in our fold rather than him persisting and trying what he finds on youtube.
artart47


----------



## FrugalRefiner (Mar 8, 2015)

Thank you Art. I think we all want the same thing. We all want to help others in developing their refining knowledge and techniques, without unnecessarily putting anyone in harms way. We may have different ideas about how best to accomplish that goal, but with an open discussion, at the end of the day, we can come to a compromise that everyone can agree to. 

Dave


----------

