# stripping gold fingers without chemicals



## blackwolf365 (Jul 19, 2019)

a thought occurred to me earlier today. what if you were to load a bunch of gold fingers into a pressure cooker and cook them under max pressure? would that strip the foils of or would it ruin the fingers? or would it do nothing but water-log the pcb board?

i havent tried it myself. i was wondering if anyone had tried this and if so, how successful it was.


----------



## butcher (Jul 19, 2019)

We could work hard to come up with a whole new box full of magic tricks, and try a few of the thousands of other tricks.

Well, I would rather spend my time learning the tried and verified methods.


----------



## nickvc (Jul 20, 2019)

You have to remember that the gold visible on the fingers is only a very small percentage of the metals that make up the fingers as the first metal used I believe is copper then nickel and finally gold which is plated very thinly in most cases.
We have had members who peeled the metal off, shaved it, filed it but it still is a mix of metals which you either have to remove the base metals from or dissolve the gold and most likely the base metals, why bother when Hcl and an air bubbler gets the same result.


----------



## blackwolf365 (Jul 20, 2019)

i know that gold isnt the only metal in the foils. only a lame-brained goober would think otherwise. gold is to valuable and useful to use in its pure form for these foils.

but that begs the following question: what about the nickel and copper? do they get ignored/forgotten here?

i did a quick search on the web for scrap prices of nickel and copper. copper goes for $1.45 to $2.30 a pound. nickel goes for $0.10 to $0.35 a pound. 

one has to wonder how much money in nickel and copper gets thrown away because they just dont get thought of.


----------



## blackwolf365 (Jul 20, 2019)

out of curiosity if nothing else, is it possible to use an electrorefining cell that has one anode and 3 cathodes to refine out the metals in escrap? or would to much of the other metals combine on each of the cathodes?


----------



## butcher (Jul 20, 2019)

blackwolf365,
If you do just a little bit of research you will soon find all of those questions answered, the forum is full of new members with all of these "new ideas" and seek to find a better way of doing things, before they even learn how the chemistry works, or much at all about the subject.

Before inventing the wheel, how about you doing some study to gain an understanding of the subject, so your questions are at least somewhat intelligent...


----------



## anachronism (Jul 20, 2019)

Butcher words that very well. 

Learn the basics and THEN look at ways to improve things. Once you've nailed the chemistry behind what you do, you can tweak things to your own needs, but mostly you'll find that the most effective ways to do things are already presented here.


----------



## blackwolf365 (Jul 20, 2019)

no worries there. i plan on doing just that: starting with the basics. experiment with what you know, not with what you dont. i was just curious if it was actually possible of if it was just a pipe dream.


----------



## blackwolf365 (Jul 20, 2019)

butcher, i wasnt trying to 'improver' persay. just hoping to find a way to make it easier to extract gold, copper and nickel alike.

even if i cnt do it with 3 cathodes, theres got to be another way to get the nickel and copper.

when i ab able to do this finaly, id be a fool to pass up the chance to make more money by getting the copper and nickel out as well. even if i have to disole the pre-refined block of metal into solution and precipitate them out one at a time.


----------



## blackwolf365 (Jul 20, 2019)

and please dont think i wont do any research into things. many a time, random questions just pop into my head, so i ask them. and, if nothing else, i hope to get pointed in the direction of what data i need to find.


----------



## butcher (Jul 20, 2019)

You can recover some metals through separating them mechanically, copper aluminum ...
but to try to recover or refine these metals on a hobby scale through chemical or electrolysis means is a losing proposition for the home refiner.

You will spend more time energy and money than the metal is worth to get it to a saleable form that a scrap yard would buy.


----------



## jimdoc (Jul 20, 2019)

blackwolf365 said:


> and please dont think i wont do any research into things. many a time, random questions just pop into my head, so i ask them. and, if nothing else, i hope to get pointed in the direction of what data i need to find.



Are you planning on all the proper toxic waste disposal? That is usually puts ideas out of reach.


----------



## kurtak (Jul 20, 2019)

blackwolf365 said:


> i know that gold isnt the only metal in the foils. only a lame-brained goober would think otherwise. gold is to valuable and useful to use in its pure form for these foils.



First off all - that is a total assumption on your part - gold plating used in electronics is VERY NEAR pure if not pure --- it ALL falls with in the specs of 24 karat - which is considered pure

There are 3 "types" of gold plating (used in electronics) depending on the application - such as solderability - resistance to wear - low voltage conductivity - etc.

Type 1 = minimum purity of 99.7 %

Type 2 = minimum purity of 99 %

Type 3 = minimum purity of 99.9

In the type 1 & type 2 plating cobalt is used as a hardener - but if you look at the numbers - that means even in the type 2 there is ONLY 1 gram cobalt in a 100 gram gold bar ( 100 gram bar = 99 grams gold/1 gram cobalt) = 24 karat gold = pure gold

In other words - high purity of gold is needed/required - first for "low volt" conductivity - as well as durable/reliable solder connections - & in the case of where parts are removable/replaceable a VERY small amount of cobalt is added (for hardener) without effecting conductivity (which runs at such a low DC voltage it is considered a "signal")

You can read about it here

:arrow: http://proplate.com/gold-plating-services.html



> but that begs the following question: what about the nickel and copper? do they get ignored/forgotten here?
> 
> i did a quick search on the web for scrap prices of nickel and copper. copper goes for $1.45 to $2.30 a pound. nickel goes for $0.10 to $0.35 a pound.
> 
> one has to wonder how much money in nickel and copper gets thrown away because they just don't get thought of.



Per the underlined - again - you "assume" these metals get ignored/forgotten --- if you follow "proper" waste treatment procedure those metals are recovered by a process called cementing wherein you use iron to drop (or cement) those metals back out of solution --- those meals can then be smelted & poured into bars & sold as the copper alloy known as nickel brass --- once the copper/nickel is cemented out of the solution - you end up with a solution of dissolved iron - that solution is then treated with sodium hydroxide which drops the iron out (as a hydroxide) which can be filtered out & sent to the dump & the filtered solution dumped down the drain


That's the short story --- to do it "right" you need to do MUCH more research on "proper" waste treatment because if not done right you will be throwing away & dumping down the drain toxic AND corrosive waste 

Did you get what I underlined there - I said --- toxic AND corrosive ---- if you are going to do this - you need to understand the toxic AND corrosive nature of this & how to deal with that FACT so that you don't put your self & OTHERS in harms way

That means you NEED to start doing more reseach --- MUCH more research --- it's ALL here on the forum

Kurt


----------



## niks neims (Jul 20, 2019)

blackwolf365 said:


> many a time, random questions just pop into my head, so i ask them



Bad idea

Maybe refine your questions first:
Filter 1: search button
Filter 2: common sense

It's really the least you could do to pay your respects to this community and you'll find folks becoming much friendlier if you do that...

Totally off topic there was this saying that "someone" could ask more questions than a hundred wise man could answer...


----------



## blackwolf365 (Jul 21, 2019)

ok now. before we go further down this road that leads to unpleasantness...

im not trying to be a smartypants here, guys. i started this thread on the idea that there might just be an easier and cheaper way to refine gold fingers. at least in the initial few stages of the process.

if pressure cooking can actually pop the foils off the boards, then its a simple matter of washing the foils with some nitric or hydrochloric acid.

being as the gold is, as was stated in an earlier post on this thread, a high level of purity already: then this idea just might save one at least a few bucks during the full process. maybe even some time as well. 

as for cementing out the remaining nickel/copper, i haven't before heard of any way to do that. thats why i assumed that not to many people even thought about them. and when it comes to assuming, as i have so 'eloquently' proven here...


----------



## jimdoc (Jul 21, 2019)

You should take the advice that has been given.


----------



## kernels (Jul 21, 2019)

I wouldn't be totally opposed to the idea of trying to dislodge the foils with wet heat like a pressure cooker. The Copper on a PCB is glued to the fiberglass with a glue that is definitely heat sensitive, I have peeled tracks of PCBs while heating the board with a desoldering station. 

I think you would have to somehow mechanically peel the Copper while heating, so not sure how you would do that, but it is an easy enough experiment to do with a handful of trimmed fingers, so please try it and let us know how it goes. 

Other than that, I have to generally agree with the group, asking questions that is a thousand miles ahead of where you are creates the perception that you are very young. The best advice will come when you try something on a small scale, note down what you expect to happen and what actually happened, then ask for advice.


----------



## blackwolf365 (Jul 21, 2019)

kernels said:


> I wouldn't be totally opposed to the idea of trying to dislodge the foils with wet heat like a pressure cooker. The Copper on a PCB is glued to the fiberglass with a glue that is definitely heat sensitive, I have peeled tracks of PCBs while heating the board with a desoldering station.
> 
> I think you would have to somehow mechanically peel the Copper while heating, so not sure how you would do that, but it is an easy enough experiment to do with a handful of trimmed fingers, so please try it and let us know how it goes.
> 
> Other than that, I have to generally agree with the group, asking questions that is a thousand miles ahead of where you are creates the perception that you are very young. The best advice will come when you try something on a small scale, note down what you expect to happen and what actually happened, then ask for advice.



no need for that. theres a guy that has a vid on youtube where he uses his soldering iron to scrape the foils off. not a bad idea for a small amount of chips, but a royal "B" if you have a large amount to do.


----------



## kernels (Jul 21, 2019)

Yep, a search will show that that has also been dealt with on the forum, conclusion was that it wasn't a good way to go for the amount of time that it takes. I think I even gave a yield on that thread of how much Gold you would get per gram of soldering iron removed foils. I processed some for a guy once upon a time that removed them like that.


----------



## kernels (Jul 21, 2019)

https://goldrefiningforum.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=60&t=26601&p=282464&hilit=soldering+iron+foils#p282464


----------



## blackwolf365 (Jul 23, 2019)

something occured to me recently. i get stripping the gold fingers. i get srtripping out the ic chips attached to the boards. but what about the rest of the board? the part left over once the fingers and the ic chips have been removed. isnt there a worthwhile ammount of gold on that part as well?


----------



## FrugalRefiner (Jul 23, 2019)

In most cases, no.

Dave


----------



## blackwolf365 (Jul 23, 2019)

FrugalRefiner said:


> In most cases, no.
> 
> Dave



it would take a fair amount of chips to make it worthwhile, then. kinda suck in a way. but the risk/reward ratio has to balance out right for profit to be had. thanks for the answer.


----------



## niks neims (Jul 23, 2019)

it's not only gold...

You do realize that if you'd take complete PC (most of other consumer grade WEEE also) as a unit, most of $ would be in the copper? With iron probably coming in close second...

It's not until you are elbow deep in the electronics scrap when you start to see it for what it is - copper scrap, there is a reason that most of it gets industrially recycled in the copper cycle... 

You will always be in the red by just picking off few gold bearing parts of boards and not making any money on the rest of it...


----------



## anachronism (Jul 23, 2019)

I happen to agree with Nik here. Then again Blackwolf you're not giving me the impression that you're interested in experienced information here if I might so blunt.


----------



## Ohiogoldfever (Nov 28, 2020)

Though I believe this site is full of very useful information it’s clear that it’s also full of old timers who assume any idea aside from the norm is useless. Innovation and improvement only happens from thinking outside the box. 

Use solid logic, safe practices and do things how you feel will best satisfy your curiosity’s. In 30 years there will be more efficacy ways of refining, likely without toxic materials simply because someone tried something that the masters scoffed at. I don’t think anyone should be lax with safety or just try any old thing but assuming tried and true is the best way possible is simply narrow thinking. Progress does not happen when you simply rely on tried and true.


----------



## galenrog (Nov 28, 2020)

If you had bothered to study the forum to any significant degree, you would already know that many here have successfully developed innovative methods of recovering precious metal from a wide variety of wastes, including electronic scrap. 

Several innovations in refining has also been explored on this forum. A few successful. Most not so much.

Please study. You might learn something.

Time for more coffee.


----------



## jarlowski1 (Nov 28, 2020)

Ohiogoldfever said:


> Though I believe this site is full of very useful information it’s clear that it’s also full of old timers who assume any idea aside from the norm is useless. Innovation and improvement only happens from thinking outside the box.
> 
> Use solid logic, safe practices and do things how you feel will best satisfy your curiosity’s. In 30 years there will be more efficacy ways of refining, likely without toxic materials simply because someone tried something that the masters scoffed at. I don’t think anyone should be lax with safety or just try any old thing but assuming tried and true is the best way possible is simply narrow thinking. Progress does not happen when you simply rely on tried and true.



What is clear is that you have absolutely no clue about chemistry, gold refining, or life in general. First it has take literally thousands of years and countless chemist to get to where we are now. Granted in the last 100 years or so we have leapt a great distance with the advancement in technology, however 1 thing will always remain true: When you dissolve metals into solution (especially the metals used in the electronics industry) that solution of metal salts becomes toxic. Secondly don't think for 1 second the "old timers" are not innovating and coming up with new things, as they are. They have a lot more knowledge than you and understand where innovations can be made rather than haphazardly trying something that makes no sense what so ever. Some great innovations have happened by accident, no doubt, however for that advancement to be understood it will take someone with knowledge and experience to study it. Finally you should take a step back sit down and listen and gain experience in what it is you are doing before you go trying to change the world. Eyes and ears open, mouth shut.... that quote in time will eventually make sense to you if you choose to respect people that know more than you.


----------



## nickvc (Nov 29, 2020)

Ohiogoldfever said:


> Though I believe this site is full of very useful information it’s clear that it’s also full of old timers who assume any idea aside from the norm is useless. Innovation and improvement only happens from thinking outside the box.
> 
> I will not take umbrage at been classed by you no doubt an old timer as I have probably refined and recovered more gold than you will ever see or handle however I do take umbrage over the fact you assume in your ignorance that no innovation has occurred or thinking outside the box as that is patently untrue if you take the time to study here on the forum.
> 
> Use solid logic, safe practices and do things how you feel will best satisfy your curiosity’s. In 30 years there will be more efficacy ways of refining, likely without toxic materials simply because someone tried something that the masters scoffed at. I don’t think anyone should be lax with safety or just try any old thing but assuming tried and true is the best way possible is simply narrow thinking. Progress does not happen when you simply rely on tried and true.


I hate to spoil your dream here of non toxic methods to recover and refine precious metals as they are the least reactive group of metals on the planet and only certain chemicals can break the bonds of these metals down, this is called chemistry, and if such non toxic methods existed I’m fairly certain some very clever refining chemist would already have discovered these methods.
Only once you have mastered the tried and true and fully understood the chemistry could you possibly begin to experiment with any chance of success, over the years we have opened up a very secretive world in which we have revealed and discussed trade secrets some of which were over a hundred years old to the extent that many senior members kept very quiet until the cat was out of the bag even though they knew these methods, that is understandable as it’s what kept them in work and in leading positions in the industry.

Bottom line here is if any innovation is likely to occur then it will be most likely an old timer who makes it or has enough knowledge to grasp the significance of a passing comment from another refiner who was experimenting but failed to see the possibilities.


----------



## Shark (Nov 29, 2020)

While many here have came up with a "better mouse trap", most come here to learn how to recover/refine gold from various materials. Some even come here to learn ways to recover and/or refine other metals as well. Few come here to invent new ways of doing it as for many just learning the multitude of ways already available is a long and drawn out process as it is. As I see it, I have two choices. I can learn proven methods and gain a known knowledge and maybe some profit or spend more time and money experimenting and searching for new ways to do this. I let those with the knowledge do the experimenting and when they share their gained knowledge I learn from them. I do often adapt ways from other fields to use in various known refining methods just because I can use materials I have access to to get the job done. Even occasionally there are great threads where a group put various thoughts and ideas together and have some success at coming up with that better "mouse trap". It is great to follow along when those discussions come along and I can often pick up a great deal of new information just from others discussions. So many come along with "new" ideas right off and many times over the years there have been many of those just pop in and they are gone again, often because they didn't hear what they wanted to hear. Even a quick search of the forum can show many of these discussions. or even better take a quick read through the "Library" section. There are many fine posts there showing just how willingly members share their knowledge. Also many fine ideas are developed and passed on in the "Build your own equipment" section. All it takes is an open set of eyes and the time to read and study a bit.


----------



## niks neims (Nov 29, 2020)

Ohiogoldfever said:


> Though I believe this site is full of very useful information it’s clear that it’s also full of old timers who assume any idea aside from the norm is useless. Innovation and improvement only happens from thinking outside the box.
> 
> Use solid logic, safe practices and do things how you feel will best satisfy your curiosity’s. In 30 years there will be more efficacy ways of refining, likely without toxic materials simply because someone tried something that the masters scoffed at. I don’t think anyone should be lax with safety or just try any old thing but assuming tried and true is the best way possible is simply narrow thinking. Progress does not happen when you simply rely on tried and true.



I think you're right, but it goes far beyond just e-waste refining, for example, you clearly are using your keyboard, computer and internet connection wrong, you should think outside a box and innovate... Come to think of it, even oxygen is being wasted :/

I miss Jon :/


----------



## Ohiogoldfever (Nov 29, 2020)

We could use a bit of innovation in all things really. I’m still working on bathroom breaks with out removing my pants. So far my findings are less than satisfactory. 

In all seriousness I understand the need for someone to understand the chemistry prior to tweaking it to satisfy their own curiosity’s. It is a shame when something is viewed as already completely figured out though. Surly room to grow in this and many other hobbies or otherwise.


----------



## markscomp (Nov 29, 2020)

Well, It DEPENDS doesnt it?


----------



## FrugalRefiner (Nov 29, 2020)

markscomp said:


> Well, It DEPENDS doesnt it?



:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## nickvc (Nov 30, 2020)

Chemistry has fixed rules and laws and they cannot be changed even with knowledge of the subject which I must admit is huge even on the refining side of it , most reactions within it have been known for centuries and in some case much longer I doubt there is better way to refine than we have already discovered or are using, unfortunately as I pointed out due to the fact that the metals involved are the least reactive they need strong oxidizers or bases to react all of which are highly toxic and in some case such as cyanide deadly and if they will dissolve them then many other metals will also dissolve leaving toxic solutions even after the PMs are removed.
Let’s put it another way the big boys generate billions every year in revenue, they employ some of the best chemists and operators on earth so don’t you think if there was a better cleaner way they would have found it.
The newest refining method now been used was discussed here on the forum but it took a very clever refining chemist to spot its potential but because of the costs it’s simply not of any use to a hobbyist or small time refiner.
If you want to learn this subject and then try to improve on some of it please be my guest and share what you discover that’s what this forum is about but I doubt very much you will discover much.


----------



## Yggdrasil (Nov 30, 2020)

There is much that can be done with money and technology, it still is chemistry and it has its set rules within the envelope we use it.

I once found a sketch on a refining system which used supercritical liquid to dissolve PMs.
It has of course also its set rules within that specific envelope of temperature and pressure.
It is still chemistry, but out of reach for most of us due to cost, complexity and safety.
And it was an academic paper so it may not be feasible to scale up to production level.

There are still areas that may be improved in the future, due to cheaper technology, better understanding and so on, but most likely it will for the most part be tweaking and not total revolution, all though I would love to be wrong in this respect


----------



## butcher (Nov 30, 2020)

Thinking outside the box works best when we have a good understanding of the box and what is inside and outside of that box.

Once you gain an understanding for yourself, maybe you can see how much the forum members have with their understanding of the tried and true methods passed down throughout mans history of working with these metals with every generation before them trying to learn and improve the skills they learned from those before them, and add some of their own improvements or improvisions to the processes, you too may begin to see all of the innovation and improvements the forum members have brought here for you to learn from.

Yes after gaining at least some insight into the subject of recovery and refining of metals and learning of the history and how the chemistry workings of these arts and skills and learn what there is to learn of the tried and true, then maybe you too can add some kind of improvement or improvision, or come up with some new idea, just as many members of this forum have. 

Why is it that those who do not know anything about the box think it needs changing?
And those who have gained an understanding, and have helped to add improvements are considered ole timers, with ole fashion ideas.


----------



## rickbb (Nov 30, 2020)

Innovation almost never occurs in giant leaps and bounds by tinkering. It happens gradually building in small steps built on the small steps from the others before you until one day the eureka moment happens. 

You cannot think outside a box until you are intimately familiar with the inside of the box and how it's constructed. Until then you don't even know you are in a box.

Look at the light bulb. Everyone thinks it was magically invented by Edison tinkering in his shop, it wasn't. He built on the ideas and developments of a dozen others who were almost successful years before him. (Some records show one was.) He assembled a team of people that worked 12 hour shifts 6 days a week for years before they narrowed it down to a carbonized tungsten filament in a vacuum tube. It was that team going step by slow step until an innovation was born, not tinkering by Edison in a backyard shed.

It will be the same with PM recovery from e-scrap, the "old timers" knowledge being used step by slow step at a time until "eureka".


----------



## Ohiogoldfever (Nov 30, 2020)

All great points gentlemen. I surely agree with the lions share of these arguments. 

I’m certainly not saying a novice is likely to stumble upon that one big game changer, or that tried and true methods should be side stepped and disregarded. Most things in life are just as you say a long difficult road. However in science colossal leaps are often made by the man not constrained by the ridged thinking. 

My father has been a master machine tech most his life. Hired and flown around the world because of his ability to repair problems with multimillion dollar machines others couldn’t manage to whip. I respect his understanding of electricity and mechanicals above anyone else. More than one time he has assured me that something wouldn’t work because it fell outside of lens law, or the bounds of thermo dynamics when in truth it was his belief structure was to ridged and new methods are proving to stretch our ability’s or understanding of these “laws” To many years of hard fought rules and ridged circumstances have served him well but also narrowed his path. 

All in all guys I’m not saying any of you are wrong. Only saying that the box of known methods just may be shadowing something just outside the realm of standard thinking. No I don’t think the big money science would have figured it already. Two dudes won a Nobel prize for ripping scotch tape off a pencil lead!  

I love the forum and am learning a ton reading what you all have accomplished. I’m very grateful for that. Just saying it’s not always in that box. Then again.... it just might be.


----------



## g_axelsson (Dec 1, 2020)

As the resident physicist I'll have to step in and give some context. The guys who used scotch tape on pencils and received a Nobel price discovered graphene. They were well versed in how the box worked, realized they could find something interesting that way and had the tools and knowledge to interpret the results.
The theory that graphene existed were a theory for decades before Andre Geim and Konstantin Novoselov were at the right place with the right tools and a novel idea. At the outset they wanted to create thin pieces of graphite to study, the goal was to polish graphite down to 10-100 atoms thick but they only managed to get down to 1000 atoms thick pieces. Then they got the brilliant idea to stick this thin sheet of graphite between two pieces of tape, pull them apart, dissolve the tape and if lucky to find a thin enough piece. After a lot of trials they managed to extract graphene and make a number of experiments on it with the tools they had in the lab. The experiments proved that what they had was not only thin, it was a single sheet of graphite, the theoretical material graphene.
So, it wasn't a pencil lead and they didn't get their their Nobel prize for just ripping off tape off graphite.

If I wanted to build a better engine I would first study engineering, physics and chemistry to understand how an engine works. If you study physics and chemistry you will understand why some rules can't be broken. For example we can't create energy from nothing, momentum is conserved, there are a physical limit on how effective an engine can be built, ... and so on.

Maybe you don't agree with the last one and just thinks that I'm trapped inside the box, but that is a real thing. It has to do with the temperature of the gases inside the cylinder and it is a function of the temperature difference between the outside and the fuel burning. 'knowing that the engineers can go on and see what actually is possible to improve, for example to increase the temperature of the burning fuel by adding ceramic protection to the inside of the cylinder. See Carnot cycle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot_cycle

What we are all trying to tell you is that there is nothing wrong with thinking outside of the box but it's a lot easier if you know where the box is. Also, asking for help to think outside of the box when you don't want to learn where the box is will just make people ignore you. We have better things to do than trying to explain why a certain idea is bad.

Göran


----------



## Ohiogoldfever (Dec 7, 2020)

A wonderful response Groan, understood and noted. Yes of course the Graphene response was a bit simplified yet only intended to highlight that at times breakthroughs can be made with the simplest of tools and and willingness to simply try a thing. I have grown to really enjoy reading the information on this forum and I am thankful to all who have contributed.


----------



## Martijn (Dec 9, 2020)

Old timers hardly ever assume, they know it makes an ASS out of U and ME....
They rather follow tried and proven methods that may possibly be refined themselves, but sticking to whats known is not that bad.
Especially for new inexperienced members who read a lot, get lost in the fine differences between these processes and the reasons why things are done a certain way. 

If you want to develop a new method, and you are knowledgeable and experienced enough to recognize all variables and risks, feel free to experiment and share your results here. 
They will be duplicated, tested, tried and reported back on or get debunked. 
Thats how consensus is reached in science. Try to have some respect in your expressions and comments. Wisdom comes with age. 
If the 'old timers' say it probably won't work or even that is has passed the revu, please don't continue bothering them, if you don't want to take the advice of the most experienced, go try it yourself and find out. 

If you actauly find out the old timers are correct, have the decency to admit to that and write off your own theory in your own thread to stop confusing more new members.. It saves us soooo much time. 
Most test balloons fall back to earth.
Disinformation can be dangerous and is a waste of time. 

No disrespect intended.

Martijn


----------

