# Gold after 2 SSN processing



## Stowmaster (Jul 26, 2014)

Gold powder after two SSN processing. Weight 2.8 grams. Black fragments - the remnants of burnt filter. How do you think, what weight and fineness must be obtained after the melting?


----------



## goldsilverpro (Jul 26, 2014)

How many angels can you get on a pinhead?

How do you know it's gold?


----------



## Stowmaster (Jul 26, 2014)

goldsilverpro said:


> How do you know it's gold?



This gold can be no doubt. I extracted it by yourself. It is questionable only the purity and fineness.


----------



## jeneje (Jul 26, 2014)

Stowmaster said:


> goldsilverpro said:
> 
> 
> > How do you know it's gold?
> ...


I mean no disrespect here - but, without testing your solution with stannous chloride, you have no idea what you have. As far as purity & fineness goes, you have a lot of work to do. 

The color is a bit dark - it should be a tan color. The black [possibly carbon] needs to be removed by re-refining a second time. After dropping your gold, proper washing is a must for high purity. 

If this is the second refine with SSN you may want to think about using AR and re-refine again. 
Ken


----------



## Geo (Jul 27, 2014)

Why is there burned filters in the refined gold powder? Did you filter the powder by pouring it into a filter and if you did, is there any particular reason you did it? The reason I ask is because gold is heavy and normally clumps together. You can easily pour (decant) solutions from refined gold powder leaving the powder undisturbed. If the gold stayed suspended in the solution and you had to filter because it would would not settle, it usually means its not all that pure or the solution was too acidic. If that's the reason, dilute the solution with water and the gold powder will settle faster.


----------



## Stowmaster (Jul 27, 2014)

Geo said:


> Why is there burned filters in the refined gold powder?



I put a filter and powder on the electric stove. To accelerate the drying process. There filter burned))) Will melt together with the remnants of the filter.


----------



## Geo (Jul 27, 2014)

Nothing you can do about it now except to refine again or melt as is. Next time, dry the powders in the container you drop them in. After your final rinse, decant the water and let the powder dry in ambient temps or warm VERY gently.


----------



## Harold_V (Jul 28, 2014)

Stowmaster said:


> Geo said:
> 
> 
> > Why is there burned filters in the refined gold powder?
> ...


The point of this discussion should revolve around the fact that you generally have no need to filter refined gold. It's a waste of time. 

However, the color of the material you've shown gives me cause to suggest that if you have gold, it isn't very pure. In my worst example, I can't recall ever precipitating gold that dark. Looks like it contains copper to me, or maybe, even iron. I will also state that it's entirely possible I'm wrong. You can determine if I am by following this: 

Have you tested the material with a drop of nitric acid? If it's pure, there will be no reaction, and no harm, as it can be evaporated by heating. If there's a reaction, you'd best reconsider what you're doing.

Harold


----------



## Stowmaster (Jul 28, 2014)

2.2 gramm. Almost clean! Fineness higher 21.6 carats.


----------



## Harold_V (Jul 28, 2014)

Stowmaster said:


> 2.2 gramm. Almost clean!


If your objective is pure gold, "almost clean" isn't acceptable. I'm not being critical of your success, just pointing out that what you're doing isn't working well. A single refining should yield better than 99% purity. If it doesn't, there's something wrong with your procedure. From the perspective of recovery, however, that would be quite good, although requiring further processing. All depends on your purpose, of course. If you're looking to sell to a refiner, that entity may well pay on content, so impurities don't matter. By contrast, if your purpose was to reuse the gold, you'd be taking a considerable risk, as the impurities could well be something that destroys gold's ductility.



> Fineness higher 21.6 carats.


It should be noted that one does not discuss purity by karat, as that's a very broad description of gold content. If I was to assume your numbers are correct, that button has a purity of only 89%. See what I mean?
Note, also, that carat relates to diamonds, while karat relates to gold. If you prefer to misuse karat in place of percentage, it should be spelled with a k, not a c, so those who read will understand your message better. 

Harold


----------



## Stowmaster (Jul 28, 2014)

This is my first high-fineness button, made without the help of friends. Precise fineness I do not know, because I do not have reagents of more than 900 fineness.


----------



## Geo (Jul 28, 2014)

Stowmaster said:


> This is my first high-fineness button, made without the help of friends. Precise fineness I do not know, because I do not have reagents of more than 900 fineness.



Look at some of the gold I have refined using coffee pots and substitute chemical work-arounds. You need a better attitude and stop doubting yourself. If you truly feel you cant do better, then you probably never will. Stop saying "I cant" and start saying "I will". You will do better because practice makes perfect but this only applies if you do what you are taught by people who know.


----------



## Claudie (Jul 28, 2014)

Remember, this is the internet. We are looking at a photograph through our monitors. Many things come into play when trying to see something in it's original color. Even the Lincoln cent looks a bit off to me. I am sure that the true color of this material is different than what any of us see. It may very well be a higher fineness, the only way to tell is test it, not by looking at a photograph of dust through the eyes of our computer monitors. :|


----------



## Anonymous (Jul 28, 2014)

Geo said:


> Stowmaster said:
> 
> 
> > This is my first high-fineness button, made without the help of friends. Precise fineness I do not know, because I do not have reagents of more than 900 fineness.
> ...



This is a good post, as is Harold's. I'd take both on board and listen because they make a lot of practical sense. To me, that button doesn't look very pure regardless of computer monitors and I'd suggest that it needs re-refining to get to a decent level of purity.


----------



## Harold_V (Jul 29, 2014)

*It was brought to my attention that the use of the word carat, in some parts of the world, applies to gold as well as diamonds.* For that I stand corrected (and for which I thank Dave profusely). I learned something today! 8) 

It should be understood that comments in regards to purity are not intended to be critical. Some folks may not have an understanding of the potential to purify, and may even assume that they are achieving the best possible outcome. We try to dispel such notions on this board. With rudimentary appliances and work-around methods, one can achieve quite good quality. It just requires that one use good procedures (those known to work). In my wildest imagination, I can not see a second refining not yielding at least 9995 purity, and it should be better. 

The appearance of the button in question has little to do with the monitor on which it is viewed. There are characteristics of pure gold that can't be faked. One of them is the surface, which, when pure, is very smooth, even if it has a crystal lattice structure. The slightest contamination and that goes away (a frosty surface, as is shown). Then, consider pipe. Contaminated gold doesn't shrink---it freezes without pulling pipe. Beyond that, however, was his admission that it was just 21 carat (karat). He knows it's not pure, but I can still remember how proud I was of my first attempt, which was likely lower in quality than his button. 

Congratulations are in order. 

Harold


----------



## Claudie (Jul 29, 2014)

spaceships said:


> Geo said:
> 
> 
> > Stowmaster said:
> ...



I don't know how it happened, but I missed the post that showed the picture of the button. I see it now. :roll: I was just looking at the first photo.


----------



## Stowmaster (Jul 29, 2014)

RFA
Au 84%
Sn 5%
Si 5%
Ni 3%
<1% - Ge, Ti, As, Sb
No take into account: O, P, S )))
Ps Reagents sometimes lie...
Recommended: electrolysis in solution K4Fe(CN)6 + K2CO3. Probably it's dangerous.


----------



## Geo (Jul 29, 2014)

Hammer the button flat and redissolve. You can use poor man's AR and it should work nicely. Precipitate with SMB or just sodium sulfite sold as Bonide brand stump remover. You will have much cleaner gold the second time and the button will look better.


----------



## Shark (Jul 29, 2014)

I recently went through the same thing with my first melt. Geo is spot on about the re-refine, it is amazing what it will do along with a good washing. The thing is your learning, and should do a lot better next time around. No one starts at the top successfully, we all have to work at it.


----------



## Anonymous (Jul 29, 2014)

Shark said:


> I recently went through the same thing with my first melt. Geo is spot on about the re-refine, it is amazing what it will do along with a good washing. The thing is your learning, and should do a lot better next time around. No one starts at the top successfully, we all have to work at it.



Darned right Sir!

Onwards and upwards OP - it's a good start and can only get better for you 8)


----------



## Stowmaster (Dec 27, 2014)

I must admit that this experience was not very good. Here I publish the photos more successful experiment.
http://goldrefiningforum.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=61&t=21666


----------

