# dropping out gold



## geonorts (Sep 4, 2009)

i am new to refining and this forum. I am aware of the many ways to drop gold out of Aqua regia but I need to know if sodium hydrogen sulphate will work as I have instructions that say to use hydrogen sulphate. my only other feasible option is oxalic acid but i know that is a bit more complicated

please help


----------



## Harold_V (Sep 4, 2009)

Why don't you have other options? One of them is dead easy and can be made at home if necessary. You can usually buy ferrous sulfate from garden supply stores, and it's an excellent precipitant. 

Sorry, can't comment on your choice of precipitant----I have no experience in that regard. 

Harold


----------



## geonorts (Sep 4, 2009)

what can be made at home? Would it be possible to make enough SO2 and bubble it through as its made using sulphur or my sodium hydogen sulphate?


----------



## stihl88 (Sep 4, 2009)

Geonorts,

Perhaps you can go down to Kmart tomorrow and get yourself a few small tubs of Sodium Metabisulphite in the homebrew section and use this instead. It must be Metabisulph "i" te and not Metabisulphate. I think their in small 250g or 500g containers with an orange colored label. Dissolve enough, usually 2.5g of the sodium if you expect 2g of gold in say 150-200ml warm water and pour into your gold solution. You must neutralize your AR solution with Urea first though...


----------



## Harold_V (Sep 4, 2009)

geonorts said:


> what can be made at home? Would it be possible to make enough SO2 and bubble it through as its made using sulphur or my sodium hydogen sulphate?


Ferrous sulfate. Dissolve scrap steel in sulfuric acid, then use the (filtered) solution to recover gold, or buy the crystals from a garden supply store, as I said. 

The most convenient method of precipitation is the use of a cylinder of SO2. It is used in the gaseous state, and can be used directly from the bottle without a regulator. I used that method for precipitation for years. I regulated delivery with the valve on the bottle, then in later years I had the bottle plumbed in and used a stainless valve at the fume hood for controlling the delivery. 

It may not be easy to find a source for the bottled SO2, so ferrous sulfate may be your next best choice if you don't want to use SMB, which is virtually the same as using SO2. 

Harold


----------



## geonorts (Sep 4, 2009)

thanks everyone this forum is more helpfull than i was expecting and its good to now there are other aussies using it. I planned to use formic acid to neutralize is that okay?


----------



## Harold_V (Sep 5, 2009)

geonorts said:


> thanks everyone this forum is more helpfull than i was expecting and its good to now there are other aussies using it. I planned to use formic acid to neutralize is that okay?


I was a dyed-in-the-wool user of evaporation. I don't promote other methods, but that's only my personal preference. 

Harold


----------



## butcher (Sep 5, 2009)

I would use Iron not steel to make ferrous sulf-Ate (FeSO4). and as Harold suggests can get at garden center but make sure they are green and not oxidized brown.
-------note ide ate ite ----endings in these names-----
some stump remover (Bonide brand stump remover), called sodium pyrosulfite, which is same as sodium metabisulfite (Na2S2O5),wine making supply, can also look for sodium sulfite Na2SO3, or generate SO2 gas but that would be challenging, can always concentrate your values using copper then refine the concentrates later.
hope this helps a little.


----------



## Harold_V (Sep 6, 2009)

butcher said:


> I would use Iron not steel to make ferrous sulf-Ate (FeSO4).


That's actually not a good choice, unless the source of the iron is from laminations in motors or transformers. Of necessity, they are made of carbon free iron. 

I'm assuming the common guy will use something like angle iron, or other structural shapes that are commonly available. Unless the choice is laminations from transformers or motors, steel is far better in that it contains very little carbon, which will be released as a black powder and should be filtered from the solution. Iron, as we know it (cast iron) has several percentage points of free graphite, so the solution would be quite dirty with carbon. 

I would suggest avoiding objects made of material that has been heat treated. Good chance they will contain various elements used in alloying. 

Harold


----------



## butcher (Sep 6, 2009)

I was speaking of Iron not steel, or cast, and transformer laminate's is the source I use, burning off oil and contaminates helps also, dilute sulfuric seems better than concentrated, good point Harold.


----------



## Harold_V (Sep 7, 2009)

Ayup! I agree on diluted sulfuric. Information I read early on in regards to processing slimes from silver cells indicates that the slimes were boiled in concentrated sulfuric acid in cast iron kettles, to remove residual silver. It was generally the predominant metal present, but finely divided. I found that to be the case when I processed the slimes from my silver cell. 

As long as the sulfuric remained concentrated, it had little to no effect on iron. Add the least bit of water and that changed drastically. 

Harold


----------



## geonorts (Sep 8, 2009)

thanks stihl88 got the sodium metabisulphite from kmart you suggested and got my other chemicals i needed today now when i've got a weekend free I can dissolve my gold. Still waiting on if formic acid will be okay to neutralize the nitric after dissolving? also without heating how long roughly does the AR take to dissolve about 5 grams of gold plated pins and would it be better to leave it for a week or is it okay to drop the gold out after say a few hours?
thanks


----------



## Platdigger (Sep 8, 2009)

Geonorts,
If you disolve 5 grams of plated pins in AR, you may not have enough gold precip to even see, let alone gather.

Better to do a larger amount, and to first remove the base metals with either hcl and heat, A/P, or dilute nitric.
Then, after rinsing away the disolved base metals with water, proceed to AR or A/C.


----------



## geonorts (Sep 8, 2009)

thanks, i wanted to do a small batch first it was 25 ceramic cpus have done the nitric bath for a week then hcl for a week, 5 grams was a guess it is probably more like 10-20 with still some other metal in them hoping to get rid of this by washing the precipitate from AR with HCL, but if you recommend doing more then I might do the other 175 ish that I have.

any ideas on my other issues?


----------



## Platdigger (Sep 8, 2009)

No Geonorts, I had just read in the above post were you were asking about disolving 5 grams of "plated" pins.
5 grams of nearly pure gold, is another matter entirely.

If you were to disolve this gold in hcl with small aditions of chlorox........you won't need to "kill" or remove nitric before precipitation.....because there won't be any. 

Either way, AR or A/C will work, and it won't take much. And yes, do your rinses first before either.


----------



## geonorts (Sep 13, 2009)

still after an answer on my formic acid question and I put up a new post about my results. i will test my solution to see if the gold has droped out, or where it is but i need to order that. Anyway i have decided to go with the technique that more people use, so I want to ask do i need to order urea in powder form or is it liquid, what conc, how much will i need to use, do i need to heat the AR basically how to use it?
thanks heaps


----------



## makmur mulia (Sep 15, 2009)

Harold, Butcher, friends. I always use SMB, it works great. I never use Ferrous Sulphate (copperas). However I just bought this green pellet, after reading your discussion with GSP on producing high purity Au, promoting the idea to use different precipitants for 1st and 2nd process. 
Then I need practical suggestion from you guys, to use copperas. Hoke mention about using a pound of copperas for each 50 pennyweight (50 times the weight of a penny coin?) to 1 quart water, add a little HCl to this solution, then pour slowly to the yellow Auric Chloride solution.
Is this the practical way to use copperas? Does the same black cloud appear? Concerning rate of precipitation, which one is quicker, SMB or copperas? In SMB, Na ion dissolved fully. curious whether Fe2+ ion goes down together with Au. Tons of thanks. :idea:


----------



## jimdoc (Sep 15, 2009)

20 pennyweight (dwt) is one troy ounce.
Or 1 dwt is 1.56 grams.


----------



## Harold_V (Sep 16, 2009)

makmur mulia said:


> Hoke mention about using a pound of copperas for each 50 pennyweight (50 times the weight of a penny coin?)


No. A pennyweight is an ancient measure, and denotes the amount of 1/20 of a troy ounce. It is displayed as *dwt*. Considering gold and silver are weighed in troy ounces and pounds, a troy ounce contains 480 grains of gold. A troy pound consists of twelve troy ounces, so the troy pound weighs 5,760 grains. A gram contains 15.432 grains. A troy ounce contains 31.10348 grams. 



> to 1 quart water, add a little HCl to this solution, then pour slowly to the yellow Auric Chloride solution.


Here's a little better way to approach the use of copperas (ferrous sulfate). An avoirdupois ounce will precipitate a troy ounce of gold. A little extra does no harm, and insures that you precipitate all the gold present, assuming you have eliminated free nitric. Dissolve the measured amount of ferrous sulfate in a volume of water sufficient to dissolve the entire lot. As a guideline, consider using roughly 50 ml of water per ounce. Dissolve the ferrous sulfate, then drip HCl into the solution and stir. When the solution shifts color slightly, and comes very clear, it is ready for use. Simply pour the solution into your gold chloride solution. I'm assuming it contains no solids. If it does, it should be filtered, or they should not be allowed to enter the process when you pour. 



> Does the same black cloud appear?


Instantly! When you precipitate enough (highly concentrated solution) the cloud is brown or tan. 



> Concerning rate of precipitation, which one is quicker, SMB or copperas?


Assuming you pour each of them, each should react about the same time-wise. Using SO2 gas from a cylinder is a different matter. Because it is bubbled to the solution, it doesn't precipitate instantly, and is known, on rare occasion, to absorb the gas without much change, then suddenly the entire solution flashes, looking very much like bronze paint. That is a rather uncommon phenomenon and can't be created at will. I have no explanation for how or why it works, but I have witnessed the reaction several times in my many years in the lab. 



> In SMB, Na ion dissolved fully. curious whether Fe2+ ion goes down together with Au. Tons of thanks. :idea:


Yes, the gold will contain traces of iron, but in solution. They wash out very easily using HCl and water. I recommend you follow the process I outlined long ago when washing your gold. My gold quality left nothing to be desired, and I used that exact process, although I used SO2 instead of ferrous sulfate. That was a decision based on convenience more than anything. By using SO2, I could keep my solutions highly concentrated, which was a space saver for me. 

Harold


----------



## makmur mulia (Sep 16, 2009)

Harold, thank you so much. This is really a great forum.


----------



## patnor1011 (Sep 16, 2009)

nice and shiny...


----------



## EVO-AU (Nov 30, 2009)

Stihl88: I see you are from Australia. I know this has nothing to do with Au hunting, but are you by any chance a Melborne shuffler ? Phill


----------



## stihl88 (Nov 30, 2009)

Hi Phil, By Melbourne Shuffler do you mean "Dance style"? I had to look that one up on google... The only dance i ever did was on my wedding night.


----------



## azdave35 (Dec 1, 2009)

when using s02 gas does the gold drop as actual metal or sludge?


----------



## jimdoc (Dec 1, 2009)

I will be a brown or tan powder as when using SMB. The SMB creates So2 gas.


----------



## Harold_V (Dec 1, 2009)

azdave35 said:


> when using s02 gas does the gold drop as actual metal or sludge?


Gold is precipitated as miniscule crystals. On rare occasion they grow large enough to be recognized as such.

Precipitated gold is not yellow because of the intricate surface, which reflects light in all directions. All that is required to align the gold and cause it to appear yellow is to abrade the surface. Something as simple as rubbing the gold powder with a porcelain spatula will cause it to turn shiny and yellow. That, of course, depends a great deal on the purity of the powder in question. If gold is precipitated from dirty solutions, the drag down tends to darken the powder, often causing it to come down very fine, so it doesn't agglomerate well. 

Make no mistake----when you precipitate gold, it is in the metallic form. It does not readily form compounds, and those that are created can be extremely unstable, some even explosive in nature. It is for that reason that gold is typically found in the elemental state, although it may be alloyed with other elements. 

Now what I need is for one of the chemists to correct my dissertation in areas where I have erred. 

Harold


----------



## Richard36 (Dec 3, 2009)

Harold_V said:


> Make no mistake----when you precipitate gold, it is in the metallic form. It does not readily form compounds,*and those that are created can be extremely unstable, some even explosive in nature*.
> 
> Now what I need is for one of the chemists to correct my dissertation in areas where I have erred.
> 
> Harold




Yeah buddy!

It is a fine line between refining, and creating metallic fulminates.

Fulminates can be created from several metals, Mercury, Gold, and Silver are the ones we need to be extremely carefull with.

For instance, if you have silver in a nitric solution, do not add it to a stock pot in which you have used solutions from platinum group tests containing Alcohol. This will create a metallic fulminate within solution.

If this solution is let evaporate untill dry, you will have a powerfull explosive compound that will explode with the least spark.

Fulminate of mercury is created in a similliar fashion, and is the compound found in Detonators, commonly called blasting caps.

Yeah, ... lets see you try to melt some of either of those two compounds with borax in a melting dish.

I want to be a couple of hundred yards away before you try.

Point being, be carefull, and know what you are doing, as well as why you are doing it, before you do it.
"High Speed Chemistry" can be leathal.

Toxic Fumes are the least of your concerns, if you do not know what the reaction will be, or the product produced.
Many, many, Alchemists met their end by doing such experiments.

Sincerely; Rick. a.k.a. "The Rock Man".


----------



## azdave35 (Dec 8, 2009)

someone on this thread said you can get smb..(sodium meta bisulfite) at kmart...where in kmart is this located?...what brand name is it?..how do i go about finding it?..thanks in advance


----------



## geonorts (Dec 8, 2009)

I was advised by another member to try kmart however this was an Australian member advising me also an Australian member I don't know if kmart stocks it in other countries. It was in the home brew section its used as a sanitizer, its a small container 250gm i think with a bright orange label.


----------



## obbarafun (Dec 17, 2009)

I ussually use smb for precipitate my gold , I read in the Hoke book use1 pound copperas for presipitate 50 dwt of Au , that convertion in grams is 5.8 grams of copperas for drop 1 gram of Au , but what you say in grams is .91 gram of copperas per gram of Au to recuperate , so that mean the quantive of copperas to use is small than if I use sbm , is that right?.
Also when I use smb the gold in black powder stick in the wall of the beaker , happen the same thing when use copperas?.
ALways we learn some new.Thanks.


----------



## Harold_V (Dec 17, 2009)

obbarafun said:


> I ussually use smb for precipitate my gold , I read in the Hoke book use1 pound copperas for presipitate 50 dwt of Au , that convertion in grams is 5.8 grams of copperas for drop 1 gram of Au , but what you say in grams is .91 gram of copperas per gram of Au to recuperate , so that mean the quantive of copperas to use is small than if I use sbm , is that right?.


Copperas (ferrous sulfate) will precipitate gold at a rate of one once for one ounce. A pound of copperas for 50 dwt of gold is way, way, way overkill. Please go back to Hoke and reread what you think you read. She advises a slight overage, which insures that you recover all of your gold, but it isn't required. If you test with stannous chloride immediately after introducing the copperas (solution, not as crystals), you will know if more is required. Assuming you have removed free nitrates, the reaction is instantaneous. 



> Also when I use smb the gold in black powder stick in the wall of the beaker , happen the same thing when use copperas?


What you described is fairly common, and is worse if you use plastic. I used to use a plastic policeman (see a chemical supply catalog) to remove the gold that adhered to the sides of my beakers, which worked quite well. It prevented scratching. 

Avoid using glassware with scratches for precipitation. Gold adheres to the scratches quite readily, and can be difficult to remove. 

Harold


----------



## Richard36 (Dec 17, 2009)

Hello Obbarafun,

I am not certain about the ammount of precipitant to recovered gold ratio,
But as for the question about what the precipitate looks like with Copperas, also known as ferrous sulfate,
The precipitate is brown, and sinks to the bottom of the dish.

Let the solution sit untill it is tottally clear of the brown haze within it created from the addition of ferrous sulfate.
Decant off the bulk of the solution, and filter the rest to recover the brown precipitate. Rinse the filtered material by spritzing the brown material in the filter with a solution consisting of 1prt HCL or 1 prt Nitric acid, and 1prt Water. This will dissolve the iron from within the precipitate, producing a cleaner product, which can be dried, then mixed 1 prt gold precipitate, 3prts Borax, 1 prt Sodium Nitrate, and melted to produce metallic gold.

I hope that this has been helpful.

Sincerely; Rick. "The Rock Man".


----------



## Harold_V (Dec 17, 2009)

Richard36 said:


> Rinse the filtered material by spritzing the brown material in the filter with a solution consisting of 1prt HCL or 1 prt Nitric acid, and 1prt Water. This will dissolve the iron from within the precipitate, producing a cleaner product, which can be dried, then mixed 1 prt gold precipitate, 3prts Borax, 1 prt Sodium Nitrate, and melted to produce metallic gold.


I strongly advise AGAINST the use of nitric. Remember, the gold is being precipitated from a chloride solution, so you risk re-dissolving some of the gold in the process specified. 

There is a lot to be gained by washing precipitated gold _properly_. I have posted on the subject several times, and have an excellent track record of producing gold of outstanding quality. If your objective is gold of high quality, I suggest you explore the forum and read the comments in that regard. 

Harold


----------



## Richard36 (Dec 17, 2009)

True, I got ahead of myself just a little. 
Rinse the material in the filter with Water only first, Then with the acid water rinse second.

That way all traces of HCL will be removed if you should so choose to use Nitric with water to spritz your material in the filter. HCL and water works, but Nitric Acid and Water works better.

Harold is correct though, If using a Nitric/Water rinse, Be sure to rinse the filter material with disstilled water to remove all Chlorides before you do the rinse, lest Aqua Regia be formed, and some of your Gold be dissolved as the AR is formed, causing you to lose it into the filter rinse water.

I hope that this clarifies what I was trying to get said in my previous post.

Sincerely: Rick.


----------



## Harold_V (Dec 18, 2009)

Richard36 said:


> True, I got ahead of myself just a little.
> Rinse the material in the filter with Water only first, Then with the acid water rinse second.


As I said, read the forum and learn how to wash gold _properly_. 
If contaminants could be rinsed out that easily, everyone would be producing 4n's gold.

Harold


----------



## obbarafun (Dec 18, 2009)

That formula that you use 1 pt nitric , 1 pt HCL and 1 pt H2O , look to my a combination of aqua regia and I think that remove Fe , but also have the risk of disolve the gold again , also I think that combination of melting pure gold use too much borax , but that's my opinion.
Thanks


----------



## Harold_V (Dec 18, 2009)

obbarafun said:


> That formula that you use 1 pt nitric , 1 pt HCL and 1 pt H2O , look to my a combination of aqua regia and I think that remove Fe , but also have the risk of disolve the gold again , also I think the combination of melting pure gold use too much borax , but that's my opinion.
> Thanks


He didn't intend for the HCl and nitric to be used together, but one or the other, instead. You are quite correct that mixing those two acids in any proportion will make AR, which will, indeed, dissolve some of your gold. 

I strongly suggest you disregard everything he has said. He obviously has no experience in washing refined gold, otherwise he wouldn't have instructed you to get the precipitated gold into a filter, or to spritz it with either of those solutions. It requires a prolonged boil to remove the contaminants, which do not leave easily. 

I think you'll find that you can precipitate and wash your gold in the same beaker, and dry it there as well. There is absolutely no need to filter the recovered gold, not unless you have a huge volume. The only time I filtered my recovered gold was when I did the second refining, and then only because I had no less than 75 troy ounces to dry. It made more sense to use a Buchner to remove the water than to attempt to evaporate. By the way, gold that has been refined a second time and has been precipitated with SO2 comes down quite heavy, so virtually none of it sticks to the filter paper, very unlike dirty gold that has not been properly washed. 

Assuming you do your work well, there is NO need for adding flux to your gold when melting. It will melt perfectly well in a flux covered dish. If you find it starts getting the least bit sticky, add a few granules of borax glass or anhydrous borax to the dish, on top the the current heat. It will readily clean the surface of the gold and move to the dish sides, creating a free flowing condition for your gold to be poured easily. In order to avoid pouring flux with your gold, never have excess in the dish. It serves no purpose unless you have done a lousy job of refining. 

Harold


----------



## obbarafun (Dec 18, 2009)

> Also when I use smb the gold in black powder stick in the wall of the beaker , happen the same thing when use copperas?


What you described is fairly common, and is worse if you use plastic. I used to use a plastic policeman (see a chemical supply catalog) to remove the gold that adhered to the sides of my beakers, which worked quite well. It prevented scratching. 

Avoid using glassware with scratches for precipitation. Gold adheres to the scratches quite readily, and can be difficult to remove. 

Harold[/quote]
What I do to remove down the gold in the wall , in the washing process 50%HCL and 50% H2O , when is warn , I hold the beaker with two hand and move the liquid carefully and slowly around the wall and the gold go down really easy.
Thanks


----------



## Oz (Dec 18, 2009)

First off I will defend Richard slightly as he has made no pretenses as to being a refiner but has claimed expertise in geology and assaying. In this post however he has given refining advice that should be corrected if needed. Proper assaying is very different from refining and I think the two have been confused in this thread a bit from the view of the novice. 

When I first heard Harold advise against the use of nitric in this particular circumstance I was ready to reinforce what he has always said about changing acids (you long timers know what I mean). I waited for him to say it however instead of interrupting. I read what Richard wrote as either/or with nitric or HCl the same as Harold did. Nitric is a bad idea here.

Harold, I was amazed and astounded that you did not say it for the hundredth time, incineration. Richard although you will not have great losses if you wash your gold precipitate very well after being in HCl there will be some losses due to chlorides that are still present if you use nitric without first incinerating as Harold has always preached.

I can not help myself at this point but to give Harold a “oh my” in that he did not continue his preaching of the wisdom of incineration in this case as he has in the past. 

Sure enough, I also understand that one tires of singing the same song when so few hear the music.


----------



## Harold_V (Dec 18, 2009)

Oz said:


> Harold, I was amazed and astounded that you did not say it for the hundredth time, incineration. Richard although you will not have great losses if you wash your gold precipitate very well after being in HCl there will be some losses due to chlorides that are still present if you use nitric without first incinerating as Harold has always preached.


I was trying to shift the emphasis away from nitric, not trying to make it viable, which I refuse to do. It isn't necessary, and solves no problems that can't be solved by alternate methods; methods that remove risk of loss of values. Further, in order to incinerate, the gold would have to be removed from the beaker. That makes no sense. Once gold has been precipitated, there is no good reason to remove it from its container until it is ready to be weighed (and/or melted) as a finished product. 

When I talk of incineration, I'm not suggesting just warming things up---I mean it to the word. I never incinerated precipitated gold unless it was intended to be immediately re-dissolved, such as when wiping up a spill. The connotation "incinerate", in my mind, is to take the material to a dull red heat. That should not be accomplished in anything but metal unless a fused quartz dish is employed. 

I am not lost on the fact that Richard knows a great deal about minerals, and, likely, assaying. I just want to insure that he sticks to that which is his field of expertise, and not lead readers astray. I had even gone so far as to suggest that he was confusing assaying procedures with refining procedures, but I changed my mind, not being sure that I was correct in my assumption. I did not post those comments, not wanting to say anything that would be misleading. 

This I can say with certainty. First refined gold should always be boiled in HCl, rinsed well with water, washed with ammonium hydroxide, rinsed well with water, then boiled once again in HCl, followed by proper rinsing with water. Even that procedure won't yield exceptional quality, but it removes far more in the way of contaminants than a spritzing will remove. 

My point is that readers should ignore the suggestion to wash their recovered gold in a Buchner, or gravity funnel. The only exception would be if they are not the least bit concerned with quality. There are those that have no interest in taking gold to a high state of purity. In that case, his advice is fine. 



> I can not help myself at this point but to give Harold a “oh my” in that he did not continue his preaching of the wisdom of incineration in this case as he has in the past.
> 
> Sure enough, I also understand that one tires of singing the same song when so few hear the music.


Heh! Incineration is one of the things that has been chiefly ignored by the masses. There is so much nonsense being promoted (not on this site) that no one understands the significance, nor do they wish to hear it. The vast majority of readers that have no experience will always take what, to them, is the easy way out. Dissolve your material in AR, precipitate, and, viola! You have gold ingots. 

Well, you and I know that just isn't so, and until each reader experiences the problems that are associated with following foolish advice, there is no helping them. It has been my experience that in many cases, only after an individual has burned to the ground is he willing to listen to sound advice. 

I have said my piece. It's like a horse to water. I can lead, but it is up to readers to absorb that which has been given freely. If they don't mind the problems that come from processing dirty materials when there is a better way, so be it. Maybe that's why I was successful in refining when so many were not. I used good sense. I read Hoke. 

Harold


----------



## 2002valkyrie (Dec 18, 2009)

Harold_V said:


> Well, you and I know that just isn't so, and until each reader experiences the problems that are associated with following foolish advice, there is no helping them. It has been my experience that in many cases, only after an individual has burned to the ground is he willing to listen to sound advice.


Ha! Thank goodness that's where I become associated with Harold. 




Oz said:


> I can not help myself at this point but to give Harold a “oh my” in that he did not continue his preaching of the wisdom of incineration in this case as he has in the past.


 Oz, I have much respect for you and value your advise in many things but I can't help but get a little chuckle from this post.




Harold_V said:


> I have said my piece. It's like a horse to water. I can lead, but it is up to readers to absorb that which has been given freely. If they don't mind the problems that come from processing dirty materials when there is a better way, so be it. Maybe that's why I was successful in refining when so many were not. I used good sense. I read Hoke.
> 
> Harold


 Harold is one of those people... You know the type... You have to take many rare qualities and combine them in a certain way... Like many years of experiance coupled with good knowledge of the subject material, then add a well mannered I.Q. coupled with the age and wear from the same experiance, top that with a no nonesence personality. Then you have a great person to teach and advise. Thus making him almost imposible to correct.

I do not mean to offend anyone with my post. It is just an observation to an observation of this post. I hope that is the way it is recieved by fellow readers. 

On a finnishing note: If Harold V. takes the time to type it... It can be accepted as truth and taken to the bank, because it's as good as money.


----------



## patnor1011 (Dec 18, 2009)

2002valkyrie said:


> ..................It can be accepted as truth and taken to the bank, because it's as good as money.



I doubt that money has that value in these times.


----------



## 2002valkyrie (Dec 18, 2009)

patnor1011 said:


> > I doubt that money has that value in these times.



It does if it's comming out of your pocket for education. I have my oldest son in his second year at the University of Alabama and my youngest in a private school last thing I need is to pay for information that Harold V. is kind enough to give away.


----------



## Oz (Dec 18, 2009)

Harold, I agree that every time you move solutions or precipitates from one container to the next it provides an opportunity for losses. I also agree that a nitric wash is the wrong way to go here. If I felt for some reason that a nitric wash after HCl was needed the only safe way would be after incinerating to a dull red heat to eliminate all acids first. I did not intend to muddy the waters.

I mentioned incineration because even though he preaches it I know Harold must tire of repeating himself, but it is a valuable tool that should show up in more threads so new members do not miss it. I am glad I gave valkyrie a chuckle with my “oh my” it was meant to be lighthearted as in person I am the polar opposite of the little old lady that would utter such words.

Valkyrie, you are relatively new to refining and the pictures you have posted of your first buttons speak for themselves with the crystals forming in them attesting to their quality. In other threads you are very humble in giving Harold full credit for helping you with washing procedures so you could achieve such success so rapidly.

Richard, I hope I did not offend you. You have helped many with what you have shared on geology and natural minerals. It would be nice if we could get some more detailed pictures of ores and minerals for you to comment on. Others would benifit.

I have been corrected by Harold in the past, surely will be in the future, and find great value in his thoughts. I try to close with thanking him for correcting me, as more often than not it was something that I had overlooked or needed to hear.


----------



## 2002valkyrie (Dec 19, 2009)

Oz said:


> Valkyrie, you are relatively new to refining and the pictures you have posted of your first buttons speak for themselves with the crystals forming in them attesting to their quality. In other threads you are very humble in giving Harold full credit for helping you with washing procedures so you could achieve such success so rapidly.


Thank you. My success is due to my ignorance and Harold's persistance... I had my copy of Hoke, I had scaned it quickly but read the forum a little better. But in my haste to make fine gold I could not wait so my first ounce of gold was a disaster and though many people offered to help and any of them would have been satisfactory at aiding me Harold took it to the level of not only helping me with my blounder but convinced me that Hoke was the way, the truth and the light. Thus setting me on the straight and narrow. That's right even though we are not allowed to talk religion, Harold V. is a fine precher of Hoke and without him I may never have saw the light. As I told him, I have read many books but a good teacher is hard to forget.





Oz said:


> I have been corrected by Harold in the past, surely will be in the future, and find great value in his thoughts. I try to close with thanking him for correcting me, as more often than not it was something that I had overlooked or needed to hear.


[
[/list]
Oz, you are a good guy and I follow your post regularly, I was just picking at you because I found humor in your post.


----------

