# Pulverized unpopulated circuit boards with shaker table



## kjavanb123 (Nov 6, 2014)

All,

The result of my pulverized boards just came in this morning, looks very promising, I sent 9kg boards, almost 5kg was smaller than 30 mesh, thanks to the folks at Mt Baker Mining Co. 

They have sent me 4 baggies, containing high concentrate, concentrate, middling and tailing, anyone in the US so I can ship them the result for further testing? What tests to do? ICP for 3 of them but fire assay the high concentrate?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmFUhKoD6Dw

Please advise.
Regards
Kevin


----------



## kurtak (Nov 9, 2014)

Keven 

Awesome video - how where the boards pulverized ? 

Do I understand correct - these where boards that had already been de-populated ?

what type boards ?

Kurt


----------



## kjavanb123 (Nov 9, 2014)

Kurtak,

The boards were not depopulated, I pulverize them as whole in my hammer mill, screen the result into - 30 mesh, -200mesh and +30 mesh.
Sent the Mt Baker Mining equipment, 9 kg (18lbs), of which 5kg (10lbs) were -30 and -200 mesh, which was run in their shaker table.
Boards were mix of digital telephone boards and low grade telecomm as seen in the following photo,



Now I recieved 4 bags containing different discharge ports of their shaker table, I would like to send them to a lab or someone on this forum to find out the amount of gold, and other metals in each bag, also if there is any metals including PMs that stuck in tailing in fiberglass epoxy.

If the loss of precious metals is not that much we can certainly use my hammer mill and their shaker table to separate gold and other metals from boards.

Regards,
Kevin


----------



## kurtak (Nov 10, 2014)

Keven 

Do you have pictures of your hammer mill

Kurt


----------



## kjavanb123 (Nov 11, 2014)

Kurtak,

Sorry for delay, I will take photos tommrow and powt.

Regards
Kevin


----------



## kurtak (Nov 11, 2014)

Thanks Keven

I will be looking forward to the pictures as I am hoping to build something here in the future & I remember you posting something about having one built - from the description I remember it sounded like what I have been thinking about so it will be interesting to see what & how it turned out

Kurt


----------



## kjavanb123 (Nov 12, 2014)

All,

Here are some pictures from my custom made hammer mill that takes circuit boards unpopulated and produces a 30 to 200 mesh pulverized powder.




Inside as you can see in the following pictures blades are attached, but there is a gap of an inch between the end of blades and the body of mill, in order to prevent the boards get stuck there and halt the system,



Also entry port taks the boards in, needs improvment as operator must open the hatch and manually drop the boards in while doing so, powders come out,



In the first photo, the curvy pipe coming out of the mill on the left is attached to a bag to collect the powder coming out.

Also need some works as for the gap in the blades must be minimized so all feed in boards grinded to 200 mesh, as of now only half gets pulverize to 30-200 mesh rest are 10-30 mesh size.

Regards
Kevin


----------



## jdeluisa (Nov 24, 2014)

I have been following this pretty closely. I think it is awesome! Have you assayed the finished concentrates?


----------



## Smack (Nov 24, 2014)

So, the floors are the ceiling in your country Kevin?


----------



## kjavanb123 (Nov 25, 2014)

Smack,

Not quite sure about your post about floor is ceiling.

Jdeluisa,
Thanks for the comment. There will be assayed this week hopefully.

Regards
Kevin


----------



## Smack (Nov 25, 2014)

Try previewing your post prior to posting it. I find it comical but yet strikes me as lazy that you would take the time to take the pictures and then post them and then run out of gas and be like, that's good enough, they can just tilt their head to see the picture. If it's worth doing, it's worth doing correctly. It's not like this is the first time someone's made a comment to you about this same thing. If you can exert the effort to turn the camera to take the picture, feel free to break a sweat editing the picture to rotate it back. It's like punting on 1st and goal at the 5 yard line.


----------



## kjavanb123 (Nov 25, 2014)

If you are refering to the last picture it shows inside the hammer miller where boards are fed, it is wide mouth and narrow neck until it reaches the bottom cyliender where hammer mill and motor are located, all the photos were shot straight and not angeled. So if anything in particullar please let me know.

Regards
Kevin


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 25, 2014)

What about the exterior pic Kevin?


----------



## jdeluisa (Nov 25, 2014)

I have a very similar mill. I tried the same thing with old computer scrap but it seems like I had a lot of +30 mesh. I have been thinking about making a ball mill to process it further. Can't wait to see how much came out of your experiment.


----------



## kjavanb123 (Nov 25, 2014)

spaceships said:


> What about the exterior pic Kevin?



Spaceship,

If you are talking about the exterior picture, it is straight in my computer or when I load this post, is it reversed in your computer?

Jdeluisa,
I doubt ball mill would be functional for this matter. The way I have seen done in China, two-axle shredder to output boards into 2x2 cm pieces, then they go into a hammer mill similar to what I have but thicker blades and lots more of them and close almost 1mm or less to the body of hammer mill. 
Then there is a screen at the output so only a unique size come out of the hammer mill.
I will keep the results here in this post.

Regards
Kevin


----------



## jdeluisa (Nov 25, 2014)

Seems my screen size is a little bigger so I may have to fix it. My mill is for processing hard rock ore which seems to shatter and powder where as the boards seem more flexible and fly around the inside of the mill so I have a bunch of 8th inch peices. I will install a smaller screen and see if it helps.


----------



## kjavanb123 (Nov 25, 2014)

I forgot to mention having a small magnet separator right after output of your shredder would eliminate most of nickel iron before they go to hammer mill which can save on hammer mill life prolonging.

Take a look at mt baker mining and metals site they have a brochure about their hammer mills interior will give you ideas.

Regards
Kevin


----------



## jdeluisa (Dec 8, 2014)

Have you gotten your assay results?


----------



## kjavanb123 (Dec 8, 2014)

Assay result should be complete for around 22nd of Dec. I will share them in this post.

Regards,
Kevin


----------



## jdeluisa (Dec 11, 2014)

Hey Kevin, would like to know your thoughts on this.

I read a few papers lately and one averaged the content of PCB's from various sources. Gold 0.039% by weight, silver 0.156%, copper 18.448%, palladium 0.009%, other metals 9.35%, non-metals 72%. So in one KG there should be 390 mg of gold, etc? The paper discusses the process for removing metals with acids and electrolysis after the boards were pulverized to a consistent particle size of 1.2 mm with a recovery rate of about 80-90 percent. Based on what you have seen how do you feel your process compares?


----------



## kjavanb123 (Dec 11, 2014)

Jid,

I was the one who posted that link if I recall it was a study done by Dubai university, and that has not good reviews here by pro members due to lack of waste solution treatments and lots of acid usage. So it is not feasible.

The standard procedure to process ewaste circuit boards is incineration, magnet separation, ball mill, screen metals and non metals, melt the metals into a bar called refiner bar, sample the ashes passed the screen called "pulp", assay both and sell them to a copper refinery.

The method discussed in this post and video you see has been in my mind for a while, hopefully by the end of this month once the assay of each discharged materials prepared we know how efficent this method has been.

Regards 
Kevin


----------



## kjavanb123 (Dec 14, 2014)

All,

For those of you who have been following my venture in using shaker table to recover metals from PCBs, Steve from Mt Baker Mining and metals have sent me another greqt video, where he is grinding and shaker table on low, medium and high grade boards,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5GBGbcDY6c&google_comment_id=z133ufnyqyqtytrff23ojl3bcoysvna3i&google_view_type#gpluscomments

This company has some excellent shaker table, that has shown lots of hope for recovery. I will post the assay result as soon as I get them.

Regards
Kevin


----------



## kjavanb123 (Dec 20, 2014)

All,

After a long awaiting, the assay results for discharged materials from shaker table manufactured by Mt Baker Mining and Metals, finally arrived. It looks very promising, here is what I gathered from reading the assay results. Please also note since I am out of state, so I don't have the exact weight for each sample bags which was tested, therefore the metal compositions of each bag is yet unknown as I am awaiting to hear those numbers from the American Analytical labs.

View attachment 10lb assay result.xls


Here is my understanding, please leave your comments and take on this results,

-Au
According to the fire assay result, there was total of 250 toz of gold per ton, and bag1 contains 94.4% of all gold that was in the 10lbs sample we ran. Bag2 contains 3.4%, bag3 contains 1.5%, and tailing or bag4 contains 0.6% of all the gold there was in the sample.
Now I do not have the net weight of bag1 or other bags that would tell us how much gold per ton of PCBs I grinded. Again 94% recovery is pretty neat for a process that does not involve incineration and copper electrolysis. 

-Ag
Reading the fire assay results which are more accurate, there was total of 756.6 toz of silver per ton of materials in all 4 bags. Hence, bag1 contains 51.8%, bag2 contains 33.4%, bag3 contains 13.2%, and bag4 (tailing) contains 1.4% of all silver in sample. 
I think bag2 and 3 needs to be re ran on table or maybe concentrator. Blue bowl?
Then again part of this silver unlike gold is alloyed with palladium or tin in components, so maybe running it on gravity separation wont improve the result. 
I am sure there is a good refining for silver which I am sure guys can assist.

-Pd
Since the result for bag is pending cant really calculate the efficency of separation.

-Pt
I am very surprised to see traces of Platinum in my boards. As the first bag result is pending but the other 3 results show most of the Pt got collected in hole#1 and 2.

-Rh
There should be none in modern boards only in telecomm servers mostly manufactored in Israel.

-Ta
Amazing reading there too. Most refineries do not pay for Ta in boards, but we have it here, and I know tantalum is used in boards in its metallic pure form. 
Total tantalum detected in all sample bags is 35,380ppm. So that makes tantalum distribution for bag1 to be 38.15%, for bag2 to be almost 60%, bag3 to have 1.9%, and tailing to have 0.01%. I am surprised to see bag2 contains more tantalum than bag1. But almost 99% tantalum recovery is just so good.

-Cu
Copper which is a major revenue source for refineries, is as following,
Total weight of copper in all bags is 931,380 grams per ton. Bag1 contains 22.76%, bag2 contains 37.36%, bag3 contains 39.08%, and finally the bag4 contains almost 0.8% of the total copper recovered.

-Sn
One of the most troubling metals for refineries. It poses a penalty above certain levels for copper refineries, but at prices of $15/lbs, and its percentage in PCBs can add to revenue. Tin also as in case of silver is used as alloy with lead, silver and even gold on PCBs. But I have recovered tin electryically before so it should be no issue here.
Total tin according to result is 291,000 grams per ton, so that makes the bag1 containing 55.6%, bag2 containing 38.4%, bag3 contains 5%, and bag4 contains 0.22%. This tells me bag3 that contains most of the copper from processing boards contain small amount of tin which is good if one wants to go to refine the copper electrolytically.I think a concentrate or dilute sulfuric acid bath would solve problem with tin and lead in bags 1 and 2.

- Lead
Second most painful metals, and toxic for enviroments. Total of lead recovery was 207,600 grams if sample was 1 metric ton, so bag1 contains 57.32%, bag2 contains 36.65%, bag3 5.29%, and tailing contains 0.78%. Again there are very safe hydrometallurgical methods to resolve the issue with lead.

- Ni and Fe
Both should have been recovered before they get onto the table after the first shredder with a magnet separator.

- Ti
I am guessing Titanium will be removed by rare earth magnet separator. This has to be confirmed, but why most of it end up on hole1 is interesting, as it has a density of 5 almost. So I assume it must have been alloyed with some other elements, but with its high melting point I am curios about alloy of Ti.

-Zn
It can be dissolved using similar methods for tin and lead. Most of it end up in bag2. 

There were some trace amounts of rare earth which I think can be more in cell phone boards. But element La was noticeable in the test results. Once again I have the net weight for each bag, then I have a better understanding of what is metal compositions in each bag.

Thanks and regards,
Kevin


----------



## g_axelsson (Dec 20, 2014)

You have made several mistakes in reading the results...



kjavanb123 said:


> Please also note since I am out of state, so I don't have the exact weight for each sample bags which was tested, therefore the metal compositions of each bag is yet unknown as I am awaiting to hear those numbers from the American Analytical labs.


You need those weights for saying anything at all about the results.



kjavanb123 said:


> -Au
> According to the fire assay result, there was total of 250 toz of gold per ton, and bag1 contains 94.4% of all gold that was in the 10lbs sample we ran. Bag2 contains 3.4%, bag3 contains 1.5%, and tailing or bag4 contains 0.6% of all the gold there was in the sample.
> Now I do not have the net weight of bag1 or other bags that would tell us how much gold per ton of PCBs I grinded. Again 94% recovery is pretty neat for a process that does not involve incineration and copper electrolysis.


Without the relative weights of the fractions you can't say anything about the result. If all the fractions was equal in weight then your conclusion is correct, but if sample1 is a lot smaller than sample 2 then it would be a totally different story. For example if bag 2 would weigh more than 28 times of bag 1 then it would contain more of the original gold than bag 1.

Same goes for Ag, Ta, Cu and so on...



kjavanb123 said:


> But almost 99% tantalum recovery is just so good.


There is a long way to extract a salable tantalum concentrate from the mix you have, many ways to loose part of it on its way.



kjavanb123 said:


> -Cu
> Copper which is a major revenue source for refineries, is as following,
> Total weight of copper in all bags is 931,380 grams per ton. Bag1 contains 22.76%, bag2 contains 37.36%, bag3 contains 39.08%, and finally the bag4 contains almost 0.8% of the total copper recovered.


As you don't know the relative weight of the samples the total is impossible to calculate but it can never be more than what you started with. There is no way general pcb:s contains 93% copper. This is probably an error coming from not knowing the sample weight.



kjavanb123 said:


> -Sn
> One of the most troubling metals for refineries. It poses a penalty above certain levels for copper refineries, but at prices of $15/lbs, and its percentage in PCBs can add to revenue. Tin also as in case of silver is used as alloy with lead, silver and even gold on PCBs. But I have recovered tin electryically before so it should be no issue here.
> Total tin according to result is 291,000 grams per ton, so that makes the bag1 containing 55.6%, bag2 containing 38.4%, bag3 contains 5%, and bag4 contains 0.22%. This tells me bag3 that contains most of the copper from processing boards contain small amount of tin which is good if one wants to go to refine the copper electrolytically.I think a concentrate or dilute sulfuric acid bath would solve problem with tin and lead in bags 1 and 2.


Same as for copper, no way there's 30% tin in general circuit boards.



kjavanb123 said:


> - Lead
> Second most painful metals, and toxic for enviroments. Total of lead recovery was 207,600 grams if sample was 1 metric ton, so bag1 contains 57.32%, bag2 contains 36.65%, bag3 5.29%, and tailing contains 0.78%. Again there are very safe hydrometallurgical methods to resolve the issue with lead.


Same comment as for copper and tin.

Interesting results but you need the sample weights (as dry weights so you don't add water from the shaker table into your calculations). You also need the weights of the magnetic separated fraction to tell anything about general scrap boards.

I'm also missing any gases or carbon so the samples were obviously incinerated before analysis. How much was the loss of weight during incineration, is that included in the ICMP-MS analyse?

Another element missing from the total is silicon, there should be a lot of it in filler SiO2 from plastic IC:s, in silicon dies and most prolific, in the glass fibers of the circuit boards. You don't need the exact number of C, Si and volatile gases, but you need it as a sum of other elements. Maybe it is the left over after adding all the ppm:s together for a bag. For example bag 1 contains 912000 ppm of analysed material, but was that relative to original content, dried content or incinerated material?

Göran


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 20, 2014)

Kevin 

Blunt words but you need to listen to them please. Goran makes a good point politely. I'll make the same point in a cleaner manner. 

Your results are all over the place. They are skewed for a number of reasons, including the fact that you're really not doing this scientifically. You're randomly messing around and picking out something to "recover, melt into a bar, and send for assay." Because you are not doing it scientifically your results are actually in many cases dangerously wrong if people pick up on them and take them as legitimate. 

Your results from the multiple threads serve no purpose apart from providing entertainment value. Either you like wasting money trying to reinvent the wheel, in which case carry on mate that's your dime. Alternatively you're looking to do something commercially and you're wasting your time trying to reinvent the wheel. Same old same old. 

If you have a great source of this product you can make a lot of money trading it if you are getting it at the right price, but everything else you're doing is fun to look at but otherwise pointless. Oh, and a waste of money.

I know you won't listen but I thought I'd put it out there anyway. I do this for a living, as do others on here. 

Jon

Edit for typo


----------



## kjavanb123 (Dec 20, 2014)

All,

Interesting, I mentioned in my post since I do not have the net weight for dry samples I can't calculate the amount of gold and silver etc per bag, but this data provides info about how the shaker table separated pulverized boards, Please advise if this is incorrect.

It showed where most of the aluminum went and gold etc. this is not a game for me, I thought to share this to have conversations and debate, as far as being scientific.

I really was hoping for some advise rather than pointing out the assay is useless unless I know the weight of each bag, which I clearly said I did not know that since I did not handle the bags myslef, but can this assay shed a light on how dhkaer table performed?


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 20, 2014)

I've already suggested to you how a shaker table performs. I've even offered to give you a confidential show round of a facility with one of the largest metal refiners in the world who already utilises this, despite your thinking that it isn't used or done. 

You've chosen to ignore that, just as you do any practical honest advice that you get that conflicts with your own views.

You say you want debate, so I'm debating. Deal with this. You can't just listen to views you like you have to listen to them all in a debate. You're trying to reinvent the wheel. Large corporations have already done what you are trying to do. With a lot more money than you have and with a lot more scientific and chemical backing.

As I said in my previous post if it's a hobby and you have plenty of money to fund it then crack on. However you've said it's meant to be a business so my alternative advice still applies. Don't get all butthurt about it, just take the advice or not. It's your money after all.


----------



## g_axelsson (Dec 20, 2014)

kjavanb123 said:


> All,
> 
> Interesting, I mentioned in my post since I do not have the net weight for dry samples I can't calculate the amount of gold and silver etc per bag, but this data provides info about how the shaker table separated pulverized boards, Please advise if this is incorrect.
> 
> ...


To be scientific is to point out errors when you see them and accept criticism when it is motivated. That way science is evolving. To just ignore criticism is not scientific.

What I said was that you need the individual weight of the bags, until then it is hard to draw any direct conclusions.

I've tried to give you advice before and been totally ignored. I'm not going to waste my time to do it again. The only one I write for in your threads is all the other forum members that follows or finds these threads. I'm not expecting any answers, I just want to add a sober look at the numbers and what they are telling or not telling.
I'm trying to help those that actually listens to my advice even if I don't know who does... actually I do know a couple of people that does. :mrgreen: 

Göran


----------



## kjavanb123 (Dec 21, 2014)

Gentelmen,

I really cant see anything you say that I have not disagreed. Assaying each bag content is something that can not be drawn using these numbers, and I also said it in my post that since I do not have the samples weight I cant say anything about ppm of a ton boards.

All I wanted to see from this number is how efficent the table has been or not, does it need adjustment to table to allow more separation and such. 

As for the visiting the facility in UK, it does not needed as I think if we research this shaker table processing I can customize this to work for myself. I do not re-invent anything, just trying to make existing equipment to work, and assaying the result is the first before any further testing.

From the fire assay result for gold, combining the ppm for each bag, then find percentage of gold for each bag to know where most of the gold ended up in shaker table, based on that 94% of gold is concentrated.

Regards,
Kevin


----------



## solar_plasma (Dec 21, 2014)

> The only one I write for in your threads is all the other forum members that follows or finds these threads.



Only having some skills in soft sciences I love to learn from you hard sciences scientists, - and there is a lot to learn and to soak up.

Soft sciences are soft, because they often have to examine phenomena that are hardly accessible, using indirect methods to draw conclusions that are worth to be examined further. But maybe just this could help making your data less useless:

If we make three assumptions: 
- e-scrap has (to some degree/the margin of failure can be calculated) comparable contents at a given timeframe all over the world 
- your process is correct 
- a second batch of your material would have the same behavior in your shaker table like the first one has had.

Then you should be able to find and calculate all the missing data in order to interpret your observations. Ok, this will not yield hard facts because of the broken chain of evidences, but with some luck and after a plausibility check, it will point you in some direction, like it is typical for soft sciences. And it will not cost anything.


----------



## mls26cwru (Dec 21, 2014)

Interesting to follow. If it is indeed 90+% efficient, that seems pretty good. Obviously you need original weights of the bags, but in addition, you need to know the repeat-ability... the most efficient separation process possible is useless if you cant replicate it time and time again. also, if you have the money, it would probably be really helpful to see this process in use... If i were in the situation, i would take spaceships up on his offer to see the process first hand.

just my thoughts....


----------



## kjavanb123 (Dec 21, 2014)

Mls,

I posted a link video of Mt Baker Mining and Metals person ran 20lbs of their own mix of PCBs, and as I am communicating with them, they are using different mesh size materials and run them on shaker table, and will send result for assay.

I think if PCBs are pulverized to mesh 100 or less, then there will be more recovery. This result are from just one trial on shaker table, Steve from that company is sure re-running each cut from the table on the shaker table would separate even more.

This is progressing as we run multiple tests.

Regards,
Kevin


----------



## kjavanb123 (Dec 29, 2014)

All who are following this threat, I just recieved the weight of each sample bags which was sent to the lab for assayX, as following, so now we can know the ppm of each metals per ton of board,


Bag 1 - 53.4 g
Bag 2 - 252.7 g
Bag 3 - 211.9 g
Bag 4 - 95.8 g

Regards and happy new year in advance,
Kevin

I recalculated the ppm for gold for one ton of this mixture of boards and came up with 130g per ton of mixed boards, based on the following calculation, please advise or comment,

Bag #1 according to fire assay contains 236 toz/ton, that is 7,340 g/ton of gold. Since bag #1 weighs 53.4g, then actual gold in bag 1, will be 53.4 x 7,340 divided by 1,000,000, which is 0.391g of gold. Also using the formula of 30% recovery of minus 30 mesh that my grinder produces, I sent Steve 20lbs of minus and plus mesh 30, and with 30% of it become minus 30 mesh which he ran on table, then the weight of material he ran becomes 6lbs. Since 6lbs produced 53.4g of concentrate that has 0.391g gold, then 1000kg of the same materials would have 1000 x 0.391 divided by 6lbs (3kg) which comes to 130.65g per ton of mixture of boards that Steve ran 3kg of it on his shaker table.

Regards
Kevin


----------



## g_axelsson (Dec 29, 2014)

What you need is the total dry weight of each fraction, not the weight of the sample bags. I assume you tested more than 600g of crushed circuit boards.

Göran


----------



## eastky (Dec 29, 2014)

Kevin
I like reading the post you do here of the forum. You think out of the box and go at it your own way. Nothing wrong with that I do it to. I don't post much and I do enjoy reading and learning new things. 

Everyone looks at away that the little guy can get in on something and make ago at it. Time and time again here on the forum it has been said to high grade and sell the rest. I honestly think that is the best thing to do. Remove the goodies from the parts and sell the rest to a bigger company that recovers everything that can be recovered.

You honestly need to set down and think about how you go about doing things. Sometimes we have to step back and look at the BIG picture. Ive read all the replies to this post and wasn't even going to post. Being a part of this little community
I felt that I should post something. 

I didnt want people to see the numbers you have posted in this post and get dollar signs in there eyes that aren't there.

Everyone knows that there are loses in refining and recover precious metals from circuit boards. How much nobody really will know. You send a ton to a refiner all he can do is what he does. He will not recover 94% of the gold in any case. He can turn the heat up and send a quanity of your gold up the stack to be collected later at a reward to him. 

I think Palladium said in one of his post he doesn't give an estimate of gold that could be recovered. He tells them it is what it is. Whatever is recovered is what is recovered. He doesn't give false hopes or expected yields. That is being honest.

Kevin if you were to do some math you would see where your assay numbers come from and how to really get a grip on them. If you were to work with the numbers you would see that you are reading them the wrong way. 

I have found that doing some numbers is the best way to see the whole picture and not what one wants to see. Math doesn't lie unless you want it to.

The numbers I am going to post are your numbers you posted in this thread. I just worked them with math and did some figuring with them. 

You started with 9kg of boards = 9000 grams of material

They ran 5kgs on the shaker table = 5000 grams of material

They ended up with 618 grams of material and this is what the assay was performed on.

Seeing the assay from this 618 grams is where the eyes get big and people start thinking they can get rich of circuit boards.

This is where the math come into play.

All you did was concentrate 9000 grams of material into 618 grams. Which will give you false numbers if you dont do the math with an open mind.

These are your numbers not mine.

Gold 250toz per ton =7775 grams

Silver 756.6toz per ton = 23,530 grams

Copper 931,300 grams per ton

Tin 291,000 grams per ton

Lead 207,600 grams per ton

One metric ton is 1,000,000 grams 

All your numbers added together equals 1,461,205 grams

The value for your gold $283,012.00 USD silver about $11,458.00USD I figured copper at 70 cents a pound for $1539.00USD


----------



## eastky (Dec 29, 2014)

Kevin 
Just wanted to finish what I was going to post. Misplaced some figures earlier and couldn't find them. Found them and just wanted to add those. To much math to many scribble sheets and things get fuzzy. I didn't want to post anything until I had things figured out.

Hope you understand and the folks that read this can understand it also. 

Just by the picture of the boards you posted and stated they were the type up processed. In my opinion those are low to mid grade boards. They looked to be sparsely populated and had quite a few aluminum capacitors on them. Low grade boards mean low yield and disappointment.

I just worked with the numbers from the first sample. I guess you can add all your totals from your samples and see the yield. You started with a certain amount of material and you ended up with different size material and lots. It all goes back to with you started with.

Sample 1 had 53.4 grams. You started with 9 kg = 9000 grams
A metric ton is 1,000,000 grams

1,000,000 grams divided by 53.4 grams = 18,726 lots of 9000 grams each 9 kg = 9000 grams

You started with 9 kg = 9000 grams X 18,726 lots = 168 metric tons

That's a lot of circuit boards. The amount of gold per ton may seem huge but the amount of material to get it is huge.

Now the dollar signs fly out the window. Just wanted to give you a perspective on what you are trying.

You broke down weight and concentrated the material down and got good results just looking at the numbers. 

I had an assay done on some contact points. 1 gram came back 3% gold. So if I collected a metric ton of contact points there would be close to 1000 troy oz per ton. That was just the contact being cut off the connector as much of the metal removed as possible. 

Well good luck

Just wanted to add if you take the total grams of each bag at 618 grams. That away your numbers aren't all spread out.

1,000,000 grams divided by 618 gives 1618 lots of 9000 grams.

1618 X9000 grams = 14.56 metric tons. Calms the number down and doesn't look so daunting of a task.


----------



## necromancer (Dec 29, 2014)

eastky said:


> (snip) if I collected a metric ton of contact points (snip)



:idea: the hard math. 

how long would it take to collect a ton of the same type of contact points :?:


----------



## eastky (Dec 29, 2014)

necromancer said:


> eastky said:
> 
> 
> > (snip) if I collected a metric ton of contact points (snip)
> ...



If you could come up with enough to recover a ton of those contacts. I would say it would take awhile. You would need about 138 million contact points.


----------



## patnor1011 (Dec 30, 2014)

What about tiny tiny particles of gold which end up smeared on other metal in "pulverizing boards" phase? 
What if there are many of them?

That mean everything need to be processed, even waste water.


----------



## kjavanb123 (Dec 30, 2014)

At 3000 rpm I doubt any gold bonding wires would have the time to smear to blades. I am going to send another 10lbs of mixed boards I have to be run on a 2x4 ft shaker table by Steve from Mt Baker mining and metals, this table has only 3 holes and this time weigh the discharge materials and send them again to a lab before I make the purchase.

Regards
Kevin


----------



## solar_plasma (Dec 30, 2014)

> At 3000 rpm I doubt any gold bonding wires would have the time to smear to blades.



Can you explain, why you doubt this? Can you make powder of butter when you are just fast enough?


----------



## patnor1011 (Dec 30, 2014)

Kevin I do not talk about speed. Force when applied in crushing is factor which make gold smear on other material. You may see it in a church where gold is smeared on wooden sculptures.


----------



## kjavanb123 (Dec 30, 2014)

Based on the assay result, 95% of gold was concentrated in hole 1. Here is what my mill looks like inside, the rectangular opening at the bottom is sealed while running and open during emptying the content. I am going to make some changes to this mill, increase the number of blades, close the discharge opening permanently, have a small hole at the end of mill to discharge minus 30 mesh, and feed from other end of mill via a cyclone.




And these are some of the boards which were already cyanide leached, pulverized them screen to minus mesh 30.






Minus mesh 30,



And these are top of screen, in current mill, there is an inch gap between the mill body and end of the bades to avoid boards get stuck in between, in moy future mill upgrades, boards are shredded first, then fed to this new mill to make sure a minus 30is discharged from the mill,



As far as the blades by just visual inspection there is no gold or yellow on them even with lope. Analysis shows most of the gold is discharging from hole 1 of shaker table.

Regards,
Kevin


----------



## patnor1011 (Dec 30, 2014)

I am not talking about your blades. Gold will be smeared everywhere on metal in your material. It is obvious you will not find any on the blade, it will be abraded from blade by smashing to another material. Your gold from bonding wires will be smeared on everything else from metal to hard plastic to fiberglass. 
Gold is very soft and male-able.


----------



## kjavanb123 (Dec 30, 2014)

Patnor,

But assay result shows very small percentage of gold recovered are in hole 2, 3 and 4 of shaker table, can this be concluded that most of the gold recovered in hole 1?

Regards
Kevin


----------



## patnor1011 (Dec 30, 2014)

I was able to smear gold from bonding wires to copper pins by just mashing material with ss spoon. That is how I know about how soft it is. 
If you want to know about what portion of values goes where you need to get identical sample of material. Divide it to 8 same size lots. Have 2 or 4 processed with old reliable methods just to find out what values are there. Take average from this samples. Then run next 4 on your table and you will see if you are catching everything and where. It is hard to conclude something if you do not see it or better said if you do not know for sure.

Your table method may be of good use for thoroughly incinerated IC to wash wires but for whole boards I do not see any practical use apart from that it can be considered as compacting tool and somehow for some crude basic separation. Too many different material and alloys in the mix.


----------



## eastky (Dec 30, 2014)

How long does it take to run 10 pounds to the size you are wanting it to be?

The first trial run you started with 9000 grams and recovered 618 grams on the shaker table for the assays. What do you do with the remaining trash? 

Your assay for the gold is quite high. Taking in to consideration that you would need to run roughly 15 metric ton to recover that amount. That's still a high percentage of gold per ton 250 divided by 15 = 16.6 troy oz per ton of material.

Most research on the recovery of gold from circuit boards are 9 to 14 troy oz per ton. I have seen studies with numbers all over the place. Low and high but not 16.6.

Have you performed any test on the magnetics that were separated from the boards?

I agree with patnor on the smearing of the gold wires. Friction causes heat and heat can smear the gold so thin that you wont be able to see it. Remember that gold can be so thin that you can see through it.


----------



## kjavanb123 (Dec 30, 2014)

Eastky,

Thanks for your comments. It took around 6 minutes from start to turning off the mill to collect the materials, then another 5 minutes to screen minus and plus 30.

On 9000g to 618g, Steve from mbmmllc who ran the dry the mateirals believe since they did not weigh the material before running them and after separation, therefore it may not be accurate, plus the volume of tailing was large and heavy, so this new batch they will weigh everything.

I agree with mallablity of gold and can be all over the map, but shaker table at least the ones designed by mbmmllc show. They can separate and concentrate most of gold into their high grade concentrate shoot, and it is visible fine gold as you can see in their videos. My new batch which I will send them which they will run on their 2x4 ft shaker table, and return the discharged for assaying.

Those numbers are very high and seems unreal yield for circuit boards. If you type PCB yield in the search box here in forum, and read through them you will see cell phone boards yield around 311g of gold and others 5.5 toz.

Pattnor,
I think gravity separation of different metals and alloy used in circuit boards would help to lower their volune and concentrate them based on their specific gravity. I have seen many table designs that only had 2 discharge ports, which can only separate metals from resin and fiberglass, but you are still left with complex metal mix to deal with.

I am going to try this one more time and post my finding again.

Regards
Kevin


----------



## eastky (Dec 30, 2014)

kjavanb123 said:


> On 9000g to 618g, Steve from mbmmllc who ran the dry the mateirals believe since they did not weigh the material before running them and after separation, therefore it may not be accurate, plus the volume of tailing was large and heavy, so this new batch they will weigh everything.



Kevin it doesn't matter if they only ran 2 pounds on the shaker table. The weight you started out with is what matters the most. That away you can determine the total weight of material to concentrate it down to 250 troy oz gold a metric ton.
Keeping in mind that you need at least the same grade of boards. How long would it take you to process 14 metric tons of material and run it on a shaker table? 





kjavanb123 said:


> Those numbers are very high and seems unreal yield for circuit boards. If you type PCB yield in the search box here in forum, and read through them you will see cell phone boards yield around 311g of gold and others 5.5 toz.
> Regards
> Kevin



Kevin you think 250 troy oz per ton high? That's what the assay said. You need to process 14 to 15 metric ton of circuit boards. Concentrate that down to 1 metric ton and refine that for the metal content. Per your assay.

If you think that its high then your assay is wrong.


----------



## g_axelsson (Dec 30, 2014)

eastky said:


> kjavanb123 said:
> 
> 
> > On 9000g to 618g, Steve from mbmmllc who ran the dry the mateirals believe since they did not weigh the material before running them and after separation, therefore it may not be accurate, plus the volume of tailing was large and heavy, so this new batch they will weigh everything.
> ...


eastky, something in your math is wrong, if you can take 15 tons down to 1 ton at 250 troy oz then the starting material need to have at least 250/(1/15) = 16.7 troy oz to begin with and no losses... yes, that's a high number = 550 g/ton. Something you might reach with cell phone boards stripped of display and plastics.
As a comparison, whole mobile phones without batteries yielded 311 g/ton in this lot.
http://goldrefiningforum.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=20851#p214401

I'm not going back to check the calculations, I'm just making a reality check on the numbers presented. It might be in your calculations (I have a lot problems following your logic and math) or it might be in the weight numbers from Kevin.

Göran


----------



## eastky (Dec 30, 2014)

> eastky, something in your math is wrong, if you can take 15 tons down to 1 ton at 250 troy oz then the starting material need to have at least 250/(1/15) = 16.7 troy oz to begin with and no losses... yes, that's a high number = 550 g/ton. Something you might reach with cell phone boards stripped of display and plastics.
> As a comparison, whole mobile phones without batteries yielded 311 g/ton in this lot.
> http://goldrefiningforum.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=20851#p214401
> 
> ...



That's why I said that it might be hard to understand. I just did some rough figures to give him a sense of what is involved.
To get to an actual figure with figures in research estimates. Recovery from new boards are low so he might need to process 30 tons to get an assay that high.

It would have been better if they would have gave the percent in gold in the samples instead of oz per ton. There is a .002 
above the oz/per ton. Maybe that is the percentage of gold in the 618 grams.

I still think it is a waste of time going in the direction he is going.


----------



## g_axelsson (Dec 30, 2014)

eastky said:


> > eastky, something in your math is wrong, if you can take 15 tons down to 1 ton at 250 troy oz then the starting material need to have at least 250/(1/15) = 16.7 troy oz to begin with and no losses... yes, that's a high number = 550 g/ton. Something you might reach with cell phone boards stripped of display and plastics.
> > As a comparison, whole mobile phones without batteries yielded 311 g/ton in this lot.
> > http://goldrefiningforum.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=20851#p214401
> >
> ...


Percent, troy oz per ton, ppm it's all the same, just different scales. There are 32154 troy ounce per ton so there are 321.54 troy ounce per percent.
The 0.002 and other numbers on that line is too regular and if you compare it to line 100 and other places it looks like the detection limit of the measurement.

Göran


----------



## kjavanb123 (Dec 31, 2014)

Eastky,

I think your number of 9000 is now right, as Steve processed 10lbs which is roughly 5000g of my materials, and that produced 54g concentrates with gold at 234 toz per ton.

Regards,
Kevin


----------



## Barren Realms 007 (Dec 31, 2014)

kjavanb123 said:


> Eastky,
> 
> I think your number of 9000 is now right, as Steve processed 10lbs which is roughly 5000g of my materials, and that produced 54g concentrates with gold at 234 toz per ton.
> 
> ...



Kevin,

Since what you are running would be considered mid grade boards I think you are going to find that your figures are way off as to what would be reocovered.


----------



## kjavanb123 (Dec 31, 2014)

Barren,

Please kindly elaborate on which number is off? We are certain about the weight of materials Steve ran, and weight of concentrate discharged from hole 1 of shaker table, so either our numbers are wrong or American analytical made a mistake somewhere about bag 1 containing 236 toz of gold per ton.

Regards
Kevin


----------



## Barren Realms 007 (Dec 31, 2014)

kjavanb123 said:


> Barren,
> 
> Please kindly elaborate on which number is off? We are certain about the weight of materials Steve ran, and weight of concentrate discharged from hole 1 of shaker table, so either our numbers are wrong or American analytical made a mistake somewhere about bag 1 containing 236 toz of gold per ton.
> 
> ...



You can use this as a reference.

Small socket MB 3,790 lbs.
Gold 4.4 Toz
Silver 9.4 Toz
Palladium 2.5 Toz
Platinum 1.3 Toz
Copper 523 Lbs.


----------



## nickvc (Dec 31, 2014)

Kevin most people are reading your results totally wrong..
If bag one was the best using your figures as from 9 kilos then to actually get that result you need 168.5 tons of material to recreate that result for a ton of material.... That is really a poor result it represents a return of 1.12 ozs a ton, not even worth processing!


----------



## necromancer (Dec 31, 2014)

Barren Realms 007 said:


> You can use this as a reference.
> 
> Small socket MB 3,790 lbs.
> Gold 4.4 Toz
> ...



were these Pentium 4 (socket 478) boards ?

i have seen 18,000 lbs of mixed hi grade computer boards & cards go to the smelter many times & was told they have zero platinum content.

included in load:
telecom boards
server boards & back panes
medical & scientific PCB
all types of computer mother boards from 1980's, 1990's, 2000's and 2010 ++
and all types of ad-ons for above boards


----------



## eastky (Dec 31, 2014)

nickvc said:


> Kevin most people are reading your results totally wrong..
> If bag one was the best using your figures as from 9 kilos then to actually get that result you need 168.5 tons of material to recreate that result for a ton of material.... That is really a poor result it represents a return of 1.12 ozs a ton, not even worth processing!



I posted on the second page that he needed 165 metric ton.


----------



## nickvc (Dec 31, 2014)

eastky said:


> nickvc said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin most people are reading your results totally wrong..
> ...



I'm glad to see my figures aren't too far off, but I hesitate to see any change of attitude from Kevin, there is no simple cheap way to refine this material to get all the values, if there was the big boys would be using it. I love to see people try new ways but accept defeat when it s totally obvious.
Eastky we have these discussions often on Kevin's posts but we are wasting our time as he seems blind to the reality of the situation and just keeps going until he can't go any further, I wish he could find a way to profit from this stuff but trying to do it yourself is a total waste of time and money.


----------



## Barren Realms 007 (Dec 31, 2014)

necromancer said:


> Barren Realms 007 said:
> 
> 
> > You can use this as a reference.
> ...



They were all green small socket mother boards.


----------



## eastky (Dec 31, 2014)

nickvc said:


> eastky said:
> 
> 
> > nickvc said:
> ...



Believe me I have read all Kevin's post. He runs wide open then hits a wall and goes on to something else. I posted a lot of numbers in my post and may have got some of them jumbled up and hard to understand. 

I used numbers he posted from the assay and worked with what he posted. Math doesn't lie unless you want it to.


----------



## Platdigger (Dec 31, 2014)

"They were all green small socket mother boards."

Barren, that seems low. I recently sold small socket boards for either 2.40 or 2.60 per pound.
I am pretty sure they, (the buyers) are not in it just to break even or worse.


----------



## Barren Realms 007 (Dec 31, 2014)

Platdigger said:


> "They were all green small socket mother boards."
> 
> Barren, that seems low. I recently sold small socket boards for either 2.40 or 2.60 per pound.
> I am pretty sure they, (the buyers) are not in it just to break even or worse.



It was a load a friend of mine had processed by someone.


----------



## necromancer (Dec 31, 2014)

Barren Realms 007 said:


> Platdigger said:
> 
> 
> > "They were all green small socket mother boards."
> ...



was the "someone" one of the large smelters ? was that a assay before sending it out ?


----------



## Barren Realms 007 (Jan 1, 2015)

necromancer said:


> Barren Realms 007 said:
> 
> 
> > Platdigger said:
> ...



As far as I know it was not one of the large smelters. That was not the assay numbers that was the actual return of what was recovered.


----------



## necromancer (Jan 1, 2015)

thank you.


----------



## kjavanb123 (Jan 1, 2015)

All,

Let me make myself clear, I randomly selected boards as you see from photos, pulverized them, screen the materials to minus mesh 30. Sent that to Steve in MBMMlLC, they ran it on their shaker table video taped it, send me the link and in order to find out how well or efficent their table has been we sent out the discharged materials to an assay lab, and according to th assay results most of metals are concentrated specially for gold 95% of it went to hole 1. In no way we had plan to use this test to assay the metal contents per ton of circuit boards, as again our objection was how well or worse a table can be used to concentrate gold and separate junk from metals.

So I guess this whole discussion about what boards have how much gold is irrelavent to my post here.

Thanks
Kj


----------



## necromancer (Jan 1, 2015)

if you plan on using the shaker table at your shop will you remove the ""aluminum electrolytic capacitors"" first (before milling)

there is lots of nasty stuff in them & will help you with lower waste costs, seeing that it will all be mixed in with the water.

great post, to bad it went sideways for a bit. 95% recovery rate is very good if it can be done "in house"


----------



## nickvc (Jan 1, 2015)

Kevin no disrespect but you recovered 95% of the gold only from the sample material in hole one but what is is left in the rest of the boards? The only way to confirm your recovery rate by the table is to get an assay on the remaining balance, the 8 kilos plus that was discarded.
I like your determination but you need to focus on the details to get to the right results.


----------



## kjavanb123 (Jan 1, 2015)

Necromancer,

If I was going to remove the aluminum electrolyt capacitors from large lot of boards, it would not be feasible, the reason I chose to try shaker table was to avoid manual labor and increase the production. The new modification to my mill would eliminate any particles to be airborne, as the feeder will be a closed cyclone, and the discharge will be connected to a bag to contain all the minus 30 mesh size materials.
Plus shaker table has the recirculating pump that the same water can be recycled and used for shaker table. But I will test the water later for any contaminations later try runs.

Nickvc,
The operator of table was not sure about the weight of materials they ran, they estimate to be 10lbs, hole 4 or content of bag 4 is what was the majority of plastic, resins, fiberglass, hole 1 or bag 1 contained all the concentrates with highest specific density materials, I just calculated the numbers of gold for each bag to get the recovery percentage of 95%.
The volume of tailing was a lot, so shaker table operator sampled small amount from it, that was fire assayed by lab, and shows almost 1% of gold went there.

Regards
Kevin


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 1, 2015)

Kevin how can you quantify anything at all when your operators are even guessing? I really don't see the commercial sense in any of this. It's an utter waste of time and money and as others have pointed out (and you've ignored) it gives out confusing messages about yields.

Answer me a question please. How do you see yourself making more money by adding all these steps into a process over trading on the raw product? 

Jon


----------



## alexxx (Jan 1, 2015)

Kevin,

I love your posts, and your determination too.

But as for this test to be conclusive, you need to start over I believe... Too many numbers missing. This whole thing can't make sense, you need your exact weights & exact assays.

You will need to :

1- Get your dry weight before shredding
2- Dry weight after shredding 
3- Assay your pulverized material before running it on the table
4- Weight all your 3 dried cuts after running the material into the table
5- Assay the 3 separate cuts

Only then, you will be able to have a clear picture of the recovery ratio and the material value.

Make sure your sampling is homogeneous, otherwise your assays are going to be wrong as well.

I also believe this material must be incinerated prior to running it on the table, as lots of PMs are still trapped into your coarse & fine fractions. 
Size reduction is a must. Everything bigger than 120 mesh is a waste of time with shaking tables processing electronic scrap. This is not alluvial gold that you are running.
What you are after really is the micro gold, 200-400 mesh (this table is suppost to be able to get the fine particles up to 400 mesh).

best of luck.

Alex


----------



## solar_plasma (Jan 1, 2015)

> http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/Namias_Thesis_07-08-13.pdf



This is from 2013. Read from p.32 to the end.



> _Shredding and grinding can result in the loss of up to 40% of precious metals._



On the other side you could get some good hints there. Why reinventing processes that are known to have great disadvantages and have been changed by everyone but the three big copper smelters, which also seems to be a question of time, - at least for material with over 200 ppm gold. 

Desoldering and separation is the way to go for high grade material in medium and big style. If you want to stay small, there is no shortcut to the methods described in the forum.

I always loved to read your experiments and I understand you're a hands-on type fellow, but you could save yourself a lot of time reading the existing studies. And maybe then you could find a method that works for you, instead of only seeing what you want to see.


----------



## solar_plasma (Jan 1, 2015)

By the way, even Umicore is not shredding before processing by smelting. Why?


----------



## kjavanb123 (Jan 1, 2015)

Jon,

I know the weight of pulverized boards that passed mesh 30, before I sent it out to Steve, so that is known, and he said they ran the -30 mesh materials. As for economics of this project, the primary testing shows a good recovery rate for metals of interest, the purpose of this test was not to determine the gold per ton of pulverized boards, but how well the shaker table worked. 
There are two main reasons for me not trading the raw materials, first, I am a contractor for municple office here locally which according to our contract trading raw materials (boards) are not permitted, secondly, with the prices of boards that are being traded or exported to overseas smelters leave almost 0 dollars as margin for any profit.
I will send them second batch of 20lbs of boards to run on their smaller table, this time with a lot more accuracy.

Alex,

Thanks for your encouragement. Well noted on your steps, as this time those are steps Steve from MBMMLLC and I will be taking with this batch. As far as size reduction, I screened the materials from the mill, into materails passing mesh 30 but stay on top of mesh 200, and materials that pass mesh 200, on this trial, I am going to record the percentage of each partion. Sampling was done in lab on bags containing all materials. If not mistaken gold bonding wires are 50 mesh size, so anything pass mesh 30 should contain gold bonding wires as it can be seen at the end of video.
Incineration route is not for me, as the equipments, filter are costly, plus after incinerqtion, everything is melted, then elecrolysis with lots of contamination, is just a haunting task for me, using shaker table, decreases the volume of metals to deal with, hence less chemical needed to separate metals on concentrates rather than the entire load of boards, plus this method has very small enviromental impact.

Regards,
Kevin


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 1, 2015)

Kevin thanks for the information I appreciate that.

Hopefully now we can help! So you get the raw product, what exactly are you allowed to do with it, and what is currently done with it?


----------



## goldsilverpro (Jan 1, 2015)

I read the whole thing and watched the videos. It looks and sounds feasible to me. Good luck on the next results.


----------



## necromancer (Jan 1, 2015)

goldsilverpro said:


> I read the whole thing and watched the videos. It looks and sounds feasible to me. Good luck on the next results.



me too, i have enjoyed this thread.

i truly have concerns towards the aluminum electrolytic capacitors being crushed & put through the shaker table.

how are the costs toward removing them & possibly selling them as scrap, against the costs of disposing 1,000 litres of toxic sludge ?

not saying removing them for reuse, just pop them off.

+ i would think grinding the gold and aluminum together would ad to some losses.

EDIT: grammar and last sentence.


----------



## patnor1011 (Jan 2, 2015)

necromancer said:


> goldsilverpro said:
> 
> 
> > I read the whole thing and watched the videos. It looks and sounds feasible to me. Good luck on the next results.
> ...



I would not see it that way. Aluminium electrolytic capacitors do not contain anything horrible. In fact I would see grinding and shaker table as a superb way to separate aluminium from paper/plastic and rubber, much better than incinerating. I once had 5 buckets full of them and was racking my brain how to separate metal from junk fastest way.

Quote from wiki:

Electrolyte[edit]
The electrolyte is usually boric acid or sodium borate in aqueous solution, together with various sugars or ethylene glycol which are added to slow down evaporation. Getting a suitable balance between chemical stability and low internal electrical resistance is not a simple matter; the exact compositions of high-performance electrolytes are closely guarded trade secrets. It took years of research before reliable devices were developed. The electrolytic solvent has to have high dielectric constant, high dielectric strength, and low resistivity; a solute of ionic conductivity facilitators is mixed within.[27]

Electrolytes may be toxic or corrosive. Working with the electrolyte requires safe working practice and appropriate protective equipment such as gloves and safety glasses. Some very old tantalum electrolytics, often called "Wet-slug", contain corrosive sulfuric acid; however, most of these are no longer in service due to corrosion.

There are three major types of water-based electrolytes for aluminium electrolytic capacitors: standard water-based (with 40-70% water), and those containing ethylene glycol or dipropyl ketone (both with less than 25% water). The water content helps lowering the equivalent series resistance, but can make the capacitor prone to generating gas, especially if the electrolyte formulation is faulty; this is a leading cause of capacitor plague, to which the high water content electrolytes are more susceptible. The lower voltage ratings (thinner oxide layer) and lower operating voltage (slower regeneration of oxide layer) are further aggravating factors.[28]

There are a number of non-aqueous electrolytes, which use only a small amount of water. The electrolytes are generally composed of a weak acid, a salt of weak acid, and a solvent, and optional thickening agent and other additives. The electrolyte is usually soaked into an electrode separator. The weak acids are usually organic acid (glacial acetic acid, lactic acid, propionic acid, butyric acid, crotonic acid, acrylic acid, phenol, cresol, etc.) or boric acid. The salts employed are often ammonium or metal salts of organic acids (ammonium acetate, ammonium citrate, aluminium acetate, calcium lactate, ammonium oxalate, etc.) or weak inorganic acids (sodium perborate, trisodium phosphate, etc.). Solvent-based electrolytes may be based on alkanolamines (monoethanolamine, diethanolamine, triethanolamine,...) or polyols (diethylene glycol, glycerol, etc.).[29]


----------



## Smack (Jan 2, 2015)

If your going to use a shaker table to recover values from pcb's, I don't see it working as well without incineration first. But if your going to incinerate before or after shredding you may as well make refiner bars and sell to a copper refiner after an assay. I don't understand what all this screwing around is about. Sooner or later your going to come to the same conclusion all the other refineries have if you want to process large amounts of pcb's. Unless your end goal is the variable and if that's the case, I suspect maybe your looking at running this stuff on the table, collecting the sweets and sending the rest out to a refinery.


----------



## kjavanb123 (Jan 2, 2015)

Jon,

Thanks for your understanding. So far we had labors manually depopulate high grade boards, such as the ones telecomm boards which I posted here. But that just left me with the gold, and some tin lead solder. Plus the lot of materials we did manually were around 200lbs or less.

GoldSilverPro,
Sir, your words are like the final for me, confirming what I have been doing so far coming from you is like recieving a thumbs up from your mentor. I owe a lot of success in my refining to you sir, and I have the most respect since you share your wealth of knowledge with all of us here.

Necromancer,
Glad my post has helped you. For loads exceeding 1000lbs manually removing aluminum capacitors eat any profits, plus I have tried this once for few kg and it does not produce all that much Al caps weight wise. Result of this test shows most of the Al are in hooe 3 and 4 along with tailing and resins etc.
As for the water contamination, since I will be recirculating the water on shaker table, no way it reaches that volume of 1000s liter, but to be safe whenever I have to dispose the water circulating on table, I will send a sample of that water for a testing.

At the end I like to thanks guys at MBMMLLC for great help on this project, their table designs is different from what I have seen in other comapnies, and it showed in reality it can effective. My 20lbs of minus mesh 30 materials should be ready over the weekend, and will send it out to Steve on Monday, will keep you posted.

Regards,
Kevin


----------



## Smack (Jan 2, 2015)

Water? Evaporate it off and collect what's left.


----------



## kjavanb123 (Jan 2, 2015)

Smack,

The whole purpose of this experiment was to avoid incineration. So far it looks it could get most of the gold, and separate most of metals from plastics. I am sure there is a liberation size that everything will be free from epoxy or resin, this table can separate 400 mesh sizes for gold ore, no gold bonding wire is that thin.

Regards,
Kevin


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 2, 2015)

Kevin please confirm something for me. 

You are allowed to remove the gold bearing products from the boards - effectively concentrating the value and sell those on but not sell the boards in their virgin state? What happens to the remainder of the boards currently?


----------



## kjavanb123 (Jan 2, 2015)

Jon,

That is correct I can recover anything I can from boards and sell or keep it, so far all boards after depopulation are stored in jumbo bags to be processed for copper and other metals by shaker table.

Regards
Kevin


----------



## g_axelsson (Jan 2, 2015)

goldsilverpro said:


> I read the whole thing and watched the videos. It looks and sounds feasible to me. Good luck on the next results.


I hope you realize that Kevins results so far doesn't mean much as we don't know how big the different fractions were. His constant claim on 95% recovery is only true if the four fractions from the shaker table were the same size. All we know is the starting weight of 9 kg and the weight of the four sample bags he sent for analysis, a total of 614g. Where the remaining 8386 g went we don't know so there is really hard to draw any conclusions.
Looking at the video it's clear that the heavy fraction is a lot smaller than the other three fractions so the recovery should be a lot less than the 95% he constantly boasts. In a worst case scenario the heavy fraction was only 53g and it represents 0.6% of the total mass. If it was larger I would question the sampling methodology to get a representative sample of that fraction since nothing else has been done correct.

The worst case scenario would be if the first fraction was only 53g and the second fraction maximized then the first fraction would contain 14.5% of the total gold.
The best case scenario would be if the first fraction was maximized then the first fraction would contain 99.8% of the total gold.

In the first case the original material would contain 9.8 toz/ton and the last case 222 toz/ton. The lowest amount of gold possible would be if the last fraction was maximized and that would give 3.2 toz/ton. As Barren Realms wrote, small socket motherboards yielded 4.4 toz/ton so that definitely has relevance because it shows what to be expected and gives a reality check of his numbers and how to interpret them.

Just for an experiment, I calculated the numbers for a hypothetical situation of the four fractions at 2%, 3%, 40% and 55% and came up with the relative gold content of 64%, 3,5%, 20,5 and 12% with a total amount of gold in the starting material at 7.4 toz/ton. What we see is that the gold is found in all the fractions and that the total amount of gold seems to be too high based on the initial boards. This casts doubts on how the samples were taken after passing through the shaker table.

GSP, I have the highest respect for your experience so this post isn't directed towards what you wrote, it's a explanation on why we are a couple of posters here that criticizes Kevins result and interpretation.
The reason I post here is to help those that might believe his statements and make bad decisions based on it.

Göran


----------



## solar_plasma (Jan 2, 2015)

http://goldrefiningforum.com/~goldrefi/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=3913#p33454



> _One ton (2000 lbs) of "average" circuit board from modern computers and electronics generally yields (in a very good system) between 8 and 11 troy ounces of 24k gold._



Though this is only hearsay, it sounds plausible and would point strongly to the lower end of Göran's conclusion, since they were talking about PCBs from 2003. This would be about over 0,1866g/board or over 7€/kg. Plausibility check....


----------



## Smack (Jan 2, 2015)

kjavanb123 said:


> Jon,
> 
> That is correct I can recover anything I can from boards and sell or keep it, so far all boards after depopulation are stored in jumbo bags to be processed for copper and other metals by shaker table.
> 
> ...



I do remember you had stated this condition before but forgot about it, my apologies. Isn't the view/rule over there that no gold leaves the country? That could make it tough on a guy and a forum.


----------



## goldsilverpro (Jan 2, 2015)

Any way to eliminate or, at least, reduce incineration is worth pursuing. Same with chemical usage.

Bag #1, the finest fraction, was the richest but it still was only .8% gold, if I remember right from calculating it the other day. Needs incinerating and some chemical work done on it.

Sometimes, you *can't afford* to get it all. Think about that. If I could get 80% - 90% using a hammer mill and a table, I might be satisfied. All depends on the profits.

That is the most complex table I have ever seen, but that is good. It has many ways of adjusting the outputs. The shaker guy should set up for fire assay. He could have answers in 2 or 3 hours and it would be more reliable, faster, and cheaper than sending them to an assayer. Costs about $5000 and he could run about 20 samples per 8 hour day. Fire assay for gold and/or silver can be learned in a day or two. Any changes made will generate samples. Start with your best bet and then fine tune it. Never change more than 1 thing at a time. This could be a very big deal if you can make it profitable.

The only thing I don't like but could live with is getting everything wet. When you get it wet, you then have to get it dry. Shaker tables aren't the only specific gravity separation devices one could use.
_________________________________________________

In the '70s and '80s, there were several patents for using various specific gravity methods to recover the PGMs in catalytic convertors. If I remember right, some claimed success in the 90% range. I would sure like to see about 10 pounds of pulverized cat material run across that table - accompanied by a number of pertinent assays, of course. Assaying the PGMs is much more difficult than assaying gold and silver.


----------



## kjavanb123 (Jan 2, 2015)

All,

Please note this is how I got to the 95% recovery rate, bag 1 contains 236 toz/ton of gold, bag 2 has 8.62 toz/ton, bag 3 has 3.78 toz/ton, and finally bag 4 contains 1.60 toz/ton. Added them all together divide, then divide the bag 1 content by the total, times 100, which gives 94.7% gold recovered at hole 1, and so forth with the others, so I concluded 95% of existing gold in running materials on table ended up in hole 1. Please advise.

Regards
Kevin


----------



## CBentre (Jan 3, 2015)

Sounds like a language barrier.......what some want to hear and what some want to say. Kevin if that's all you wanted to know you have your answer. I never double checked your math but if 95% of your gold was concentrated in slot one I think you know where most of your gold is going to be. You still have to repeat the process a few times to come to that conclusion though. From the sounds of things you have a few members here that can really help you get some hard evidence regarding scientific data to further develop your process. 
Cheers


----------



## solar_plasma (Jan 3, 2015)

kjavanb123 said:


> All,
> 
> Please note this is how I got to the 95% recovery rate, bag 1 contains 236 toz/ton of gold, bag 2 has 8.62 toz/ton, bag 3 has 3.78 toz/ton, and finally bag 4 contains 1.60 toz/ton. Added them all together divide, then divide the bag 1 content by the total, times 100, which gives 94.7% gold recovered at hole 1, and so forth with the others, so I concluded 95% of existing gold in running materials on table ended up in hole 1. Please advise.
> 
> ...



Now, what was the gold content in the material before concentrating? If it was much lower and there hasn't been an losses, your result is fantastic. Maybe it is the language barrier and I just didn't understand correctly.


----------



## kjavanb123 (Jan 3, 2015)

All,

Please refer to pdf file containing the latest assay result under the fa-au, for my calculation. I am preparing another batch of minus 30 mesh to send to Steve.

Here are some data regarding my pulverizing machine, which needs some modifcation.
Load 1 net weight: 5.950kg (13.13lbs)
Net weight passing mesh 30: 1.760kg (3.88lbs)
Net weight top of screen mesh 30: 4.120kg (9.09lbs)
Percentage of minus mesh 30: 29.57%
Percentage of plus mesh 30: 69.24%
Percentage of losses: 1.19%

Load 2 net weight: 5.760 (12.71 lbs)
Net weight of minus 30 mesh: 1.66 kg (3.66 lbs)
Net weight of plus 30 mesh: 3.62 kg (7.99 lbs)
Percentage of minus 30 mesh: 28.81%
Percentage of plus 30 mesh: 62.84%
Percentage of losses: 8.35%

It is due to the gap between the end of blades and body of mill which in latest version will be fixed. Also in all calculation in this post, I only screened mesh 30 materials and as you can see from the statistic above, it is not complete boards.

Regards
Kevin


----------



## kjavanb123 (Jan 6, 2015)

Hi,

I recalculated the ppm for gold for one ton of this mixture of boards and came up with 130g per ton of mixed boards, based on the following calculation, please advise or comment,

Bag #1 according to fire assay contains 236 toz/ton, that is 7,340 g/ton of gold. Since bag #1 weighs 53.4g, then actual gold in bag 1, will be 53.4 x 7,340 divided by 1,000,000, which is 0.391g of gold. Also using the formula of 30% recovery of minus 30 mesh that my grinder produces, I sent Steve 20lbs of minus and plus mesh 30, and with 30% of it become minus 30 mesh which he ran on table, then the weight of material he ran becomes 6lbs. Since 6lbs produced 53.4g of concentrate that has 0.391g gold, then 1000kg of the same materials would have 1000 x 0.391 divided by 6lbs (3kg) which comes to 130.65g per ton of mixture of boards that Steve ran 3kg of it on his shaker table.

Regards,
Kj


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 6, 2015)

Excuse my candour however do you believe that sample size is large enough upon which to base a commercial decision?


----------



## kjavanb123 (Jan 7, 2015)

Jon,

I have not evaluated this project for being feasible for commercial yet, but based on my analysis above, and the price I purchased these boards it seems very feasible.

I have selected most of the boards exist in my load so it is very close to actual yield.

Regards
Kevin


----------



## kjavanb123 (Feb 18, 2015)

Hi all,

The assay result for second batch of minus 30 mesh pulverized boards are in, this time Steve from MBMMLLC ran them on their smaller shaker table 2x4, and shipped the wet discharged from 3 ports directly to AA lab and they dried it and included dry weight for each bags in the assay result.

I can't attach it here while on my iphone, so I am going to put it up while I get on my desktop. But numbers read for bag 1 which is concentrate from hole number 1, where the heavy materials go, to be 345g. Bag 2 weighs 1700g, and bag 3 or tailing discharge weighs 3790g. So total of 5,835g (5.835 kg) pulverized boards were ran on the table which matches what I had sent out to Steve.

Here is the assay reading for gold,
Bag 1: 45.2 toz / ton
Bag 2: 4.13 toz / ton
Bag 3: 1.03 toz / ton

Here is my calculation based on the given numbers, to find recovery rate of 2x4 shaker table with 3 discharge ports, and also an estimate about gold content per one metric ton of pulverized boards.

Gold content of bag 1 can be calculated by first converting toz to grams as following,
45.2 x 31.1 = 1405.2g, so one metric ton of concentrates at discharge port 1 would have that much gold, therefore 345g of concentrates should contain 1405.2 x 345 divided by 1,000,000 which is 0.48g. 

Gold content of bag 2 is 4.13 toz per metric ton, so just plugging the bag 2 dry weight and assay results would be as following,
4.13 toz x 31.1 = 128.44g, so the 1700g concentrate at port 2 should contain 1700 x 128.44 divided by 1,000,000 which is 0.21g of gold, I am suspecting this should be plated gold, since it can not be seen as a line of free gold.

Bag 3 or tailing contains 1.03 toz x 31.1 = 32.03g, therefore based on similar calculation different variables, port 3 or tailing should hold 3790g x 32.03g divided by 1,000,000g which is 0.12g.

Now by adding the gold content of each bags, there should be total of 0.81g of gold assuming 100% from each bags. Bag 1 which contained 0.48g has 0.48g x 100 divided by 0.81g or 59.25% of total gold in 5.8kg pulverized boards, bag 2 has 25.92% recovery rate and finally tailing or discharge port 3 has 14.81% recovery rate.

Based on above numbers and total net weight of materials ran on shaker table of 5.835kg, has total of 0.81g of gold discharged from 3 ports, therefore a metric ton of such boards would have 1000kg x 0.81g divided by 5.835kg, is 138.81g (4.46 toz), which is very similar to what I got from first batch of pulverized similar boards, but on 4x8 shaker table, plus most of the first batch boards were already cleaned from any gold plating using cyanide.

I am going to order their hammer mill and 2x4 shaker table as it seems to do the job of separating most of gold, and this smaller table has advantage of less materials to deal with. I like to thank Steve and all his partners at MBMMLLC for making my idea into a reality. Their hammer mill also does an excellent job to pulverize the entire boards to minus 35 mesh which is the size of my pulverized boards.

Please advise.

Regards
Kj


----------



## FrugalRefiner (Feb 18, 2015)

kjavanb123 said:


> Now by adding the gold content of each bags, there should be total of 0.81g of gold assuming 100% from each bags. Bag 1 which contained 0.48g has 0.48g x 100 divided by 0.81g or 59.25% of total gold in 5.8kg pulverized boards, bag 2 has 25.92% recovery rate and finally tailing or discharge port 3 has 14.81% recovery rate.


Based on your math (which I haven't checked) I'm not sure I see a great advantage to using the shaker table. You'll still need to process ALL the material to get your gold. I can see that the table gives you a much higher percentage of gold per unit weight in the first hole, and that the material from hole 2 is richer than hole 3, but unless you process the material from hole 3, you're going to walk away from 14.81% of your gold. Maybe, in your particular circumstances, that works for you.

Now, if you'd said that the hole 3 material only contained, say, 5% of the gold, I would be much more impressed. 

It's been interesting to follow this thread and see what you're trying to do, but, at 1.03 toz per ton, the material from hole 3 is richer than most commercially processed ores. What do you plan to do with this toxic waste if you don't process it?

Dave


----------



## Barren Realms 007 (Feb 18, 2015)

FrugalRefiner said:


> kjavanb123 said:
> 
> 
> > Now by adding the gold content of each bags, there should be total of 0.81g of gold assuming 100% from each bags. Bag 1 which contained 0.48g has 0.48g x 100 divided by 0.81g or 59.25% of total gold in 5.8kg pulverized boards, bag 2 has 25.92% recovery rate and finally tailing or discharge port 3 has 14.81% recovery rate.
> ...



I have a feeling that by fine tuning the table and re running the material a 2nd time he might have better results.


----------



## kjavanb123 (Feb 19, 2015)

FrugalRefiner said:


> kjavanb123 said:
> 
> 
> > Now by adding the gold content of each bags, there should be total of 0.81g of gold assuming 100% from each bags. Bag 1 which contained 0.48g has 0.48g x 100 divided by 0.81g or 59.25% of total gold in 5.8kg pulverized boards, bag 2 has 25.92% recovery rate and finally tailing or discharge port 3 has 14.81% recovery rate.
> ...




Hi Dave,

By processing the comcentrate from hole 1, I can get most of gold which is going to be sold to purchase next lot of boards, then sell the concentrate in port 2 to copper refiner, and hole 3 which accounts for a large volume to oversea sweep refineries.

So nothing wasted, plus the volume of concentrate from port 1 is the smallest of all the other ones that can be done chemically or re run on the table to get the gold without the chemicals.

Regards
Kj


----------



## kjavanb123 (Feb 19, 2015)

Barren,

Yes indeed some fine tuning the table would make much better recovery rate, but with my purchase price of boards I am pleased with this result.

Regards
Kj


----------



## kurtak (Feb 19, 2015)

kjavanb123 said:


> By processing the comcentrate from hole 1, I can get most of gold which is going to be sold to purchase next lot of boards,
> 
> Regards
> Kj



Kevin 

Like Dave I have been following this with interest - so if I understand right concentrates from hole #1 you are going to process?



> then sell the concentrate in port 2 to copper refiner



Is that being done as an out right sale with a per pound price (like selling a ton of say brown boards) & if so what is price per pound?

or is it getting processed where in you pay a processing fee & then get paid out a percentage on the metals? (copper/silver/gold/palladium/etc.)



> and hole 3 which accounts for a large volume to oversea sweep refineries.



This I assume would be done by getting processed where in you pay a processing fee & then get paid out a percentage on the metals?

If so what would the processing fees be & what metals do you get paid out on & what percentage do you get paid?

I ask because I think hole #3 is going to cost you more money just in the processing fees then the value in it (in other words you are going to get a bill from the company not a check)& there will be other cost besides the processing fee like drying, packaging, labor to do that, & shipping

Hole #2 (if its being processed rather then sold out right) is more then likely going to be the same (cost more then the value) lucky to brake even - or at best "small" profit - that may or may not cover cost to get it to the smelter (drying, packaging, labor to do that, & shipping)

My point is that if hole #3 &/or hole #2 cost you money to send out & have processed - that cost will need to be taken out of hole #1 thereby reducing the actual profit of hole #1

So you may be better off "selling" hole #3 & hole #2 (combined) out right if you can find a buyer that will pay out right based on low grade brown board price

I mention this because when I talked with 3 different smelters I was told that in order to get paid out on gold - they had to run 6 - 6.5 ozt Au/ton (depending on company) & holes #3 & #2 don't ad up to that much --- also you had to have 5 - 10 ton (depending on company) to be processed

Kurt


----------



## kurtak (Feb 19, 2015)

kjavanb123 said:


> Barren,
> 
> Yes indeed some fine tuning the table would make much better recovery rate,
> 
> ...



I wanted to comment on this as well but forgot in my earlier post

Kevin - I think what you will find here is that by fine tuning the table you "may" get some improvement in recovery to hole #1 - don't expect much improvement not at 30 minus mesh

I suspect that a lot of the gold going to holes #2 & #3 are being carried there because they are still tied up in the over size (larger) pieces of material (between 30 - 80 mesh)

in order to get a "much improved recovery" going to hole #1 you are going to need to get the material ground much finer - at least 60 - 80 minus

Kurt


----------



## FrugalRefiner (Feb 19, 2015)

kjavanb123 said:


> By processing the comcentrate from hole 1, I can get most of gold which is going to be sold to purchase next lot of boards, then sell the concentrate in port 2 to copper refiner, and hole 3 which accounts for a large volume to oversea sweep refineries.


Wait. What? Now I'm truly confused. Throughout all your discussion of processing these boards, I thought you've said you were not allowed to send this material out for processing. That's the reason you've been trying to find a way to process this yourself. Now, you say you're going to send the hole 2 and 3 material overseas? If you can ship this stuff off, why are you messing around with grinding and shaker tables? Ship it all off, as others have suggested all along, and collect a check.

Dave


----------



## kjavanb123 (Feb 19, 2015)

FrugalRefiner said:


> kjavanb123 said:
> 
> 
> > By processing the comcentrate from hole 1, I can get most of gold which is going to be sold to purchase next lot of boards, then sell the concentrate in port 2 to copper refiner, and hole 3 which accounts for a large volume to oversea sweep refineries.
> ...



Dave,

According to Basel convesion, and agreement terms with local authorities I am not permitted to sell boards, not the recovered products from processing them. So whatever discharged from ports in table can be sold in the market.

Kevin


----------



## kjavanb123 (Feb 19, 2015)

> Like Dave I have been following this with interest - so if I understand right concentrates from hole #1 you are going to process?



Yes, since the volume is small I believe it can be processed in house using chemicals.



> then sell the concentrate in port 2 to copper refiner



Is that being done as an out right sale with a per pound price (like selling a ton of say brown boards) & if so what is price per pound?

As far as I know, there are a copper mine that produces copper concentrates using flotation, and they sell their concentrates to copper refinery based on gold, silver and copper values in concentrate, so I was thinking to propose similar action to the refinery, and see what they respond. 
Due to its amountnof tin solders in discharged port 2, prior to smelting it, somehow I need to elimiate tin lead and zinc from it.

Or,

Consult with a company called electrometal, that designs the electrolysis cells for Xtrasa mining, they might be able to set up small scale system, that can dissolve, extract copper and collect slimes using electrolysis.



> and hole 3 which accounts for a large volume to oversea sweep refineries.



This I assume would be done by getting processed where in you pay a processing fee & then get paid out a percentage on the metals?

If so what would the processing fees be & what metals do you get paid out on & what percentage do you get paid?

This is also another unknown for me, there are a lot of sweep refiners around the globe, and there are companies that process low grade gold tailings, so having 1 toz of gold per ton, plus other precious metals and copper, maybe heap leaching? Or tank cyanide leaching? 

Again there is a gold mine in close proximity in Saudi Arabia, now that I have the analysis for tailing I need to send them a letter and find out how we can agree.

I ask because I think hole #3 is going to cost you more money just in the processing fees then the value in it (in other words you are going to get a bill from the company not a check)& there will be other cost besides the processing fee like drying, packaging, labor to do that, & shipping

Hole #2 (if its being processed rather then sold out right) is more then likely going to be the same (cost more then the value) lucky to brake even - or at best "small" profit - that may or may not cover cost to get it to the smelter (drying, packaging, labor to do that, & shipping)

My point is that if hole #3 &/or hole #2 cost you money to send out & have processed - that cost will need to be taken out of hole #1 thereby reducing the actual profit of hole #1

So you may be better off "selling" hole #3 & hole #2 (combined) out right if you can find a buyer that will pay out right based on low grade brown board price

I mention this because when I talked with 3 different smelters I was told that in order to get paid out on gold - they had to run 6 - 6.5 ozt Au/ton (depending on company) & holes #3 & #2 don't ad up to that much --- also you had to have 5 - 10 ton (depending on company) to be processed

Kurt[/quote]

If I can get the gold from discharged concentrate from hole #1, and sell it I can purchase same volume of boards, and any silver, palladium, tin, lead, and tantalum or copper that can be recovered will be added value. I personally think there is a way of doing this, since we get rid of most of fiberglass and plastics on shaker table, then based on the assay result, there has to be optimum methods of recovery the most of metals. 

I have recovered tin solders from board (telecomm boards post), cyanide leaching the plated gold before grindimg them, would actually recover some of the gold that would end up in hole 2, 

Or recover gold chemically from hole 1 concentrate, collect and smelt hole 2 materials until they reach a large volume, then sell that base on assay, meanwhile gold recovery from hole 1 pays for next load of boards.

This is just a start, and I am trying to take next steps.

Regards
Kevin


----------



## kjavanb123 (Feb 19, 2015)

kurtak said:


> kjavanb123 said:
> 
> 
> > Barren,
> ...



Kurt,

I thought bout this, and I read a post that indicted a 4.4 toz of gold for this type of boards which I sent two batches, Nd assay for both batches show very similar to that number of gold, so it seems t minus mesh 30 most of the gold are at port 1 and 2 of shaker table. 

My pulverized boards pass mesh 30 and very small amount of that actually pass mesh 200, so that result is less than mesh 30 and greater than mesh 200, I have to find out how much of it as you said between mesh 60 or 80.

It is obvious the smaller the pulverizing the more gold bonding wires liberate, I have not found anything else to do the job except a zm200 model by a German company named Retch, it can grind boards to minus mesh 100.

Regards
Kj


----------



## kjavanb123 (Feb 21, 2015)

All,

I finally had a chance to get on desktop computer and can post the complete assay result for second batch of pulverized boards which Steve ran on their 2x4 shaker table. Also included a link to video of him while running the materials on their shaker table, with assay results and ppm recovery percentage he talks about at the end of video.

I am consulting with another company called "Electrometals Group Co", in regards to recovery of tin, lead, copper, and possibly palladium using their electrowinning technology. I will post that results and conclusion in another post. Here is their links for further studying.
www.electrometals.com

Here is the assay results on discharged materials from running the boards on shaker table, as Steve explains it in the video, KJ bag 1 contains the high grade concentrates, KJ bag 2 middling, and KJ bag 3 tailing.
View attachment 2nd ewaste batch assay result.PDF


Here is the video of Steve running the materials on shaker table, and their detail analysis of assay results.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReOQ1uFvsZs&google_comment_id=z13wf1hbdvvzhb2an04ccvybnz2qt5qbxow0k&google_view_type#gpluscomments

Your comments and advise have been really helpful as always, please do leave comments.

Regards
Kevin


----------



## 72chevel (Jan 20, 2016)

I think the shaker table should have a better spot to add concentrates like that. I would want to dilute it with more water before introducing it on the table. One other thing I can't picture is how gold plated fingers would work on the table? They are so light from newer boards hard to imagine that they would stay in any of the groves.


----------



## kjavanb123 (Jan 20, 2016)

79chevel,

Thanks for your comment. This post snd shaker table design have been improved drastically since the date of this post. Steve from Mt. Baker mining and metals llc have designed a complete system that takes in the populated boards in their hammer mill, it get pulverized to 5mm sizes, while being mixed with water, then onto their shaker table, metallics pieces move to ports 1,2 and 3, while oversized tailing are pumped back to a hydrocyclone where the finer pieces go back to tailing bucket while coarse pieces back to the hammer mill for further reduction.

I smelted a sample of materials from port 1,2 and 3 which was sent by Steve and from 4kg of them got 3.3g of pure gold button. That turns out to be 240g per metric ton of boards, so it means the shaker table 3 ports have recovered almost 95% of gold.

Regards
Kj


----------



## Bendig (Jan 14, 2017)

Hi All
Sorry to revive an old post. 

kjavanb123 are you still pursuing this method? Have you had any further success with it? Is there anyone else on this forum that has had any success using this method of extraction?
Cheers
Tim


----------



## snoman701 (Jan 14, 2017)

Shaker tables are OLD technology. One thing you need to remember is that the person operating it, and the operating parameters are going to be determining what ends up in what spot. 

One of my friends ran one for a long time, and HATED it. You are always chasing a variable, and you usually don't know what that variable is. 

What I don't understand is why not just run all of the metals, flux off the wastes, and just assay representative samples of the non-metal.


----------



## kjavanb123 (Jan 14, 2017)

Hi Tim,

I did not pursue this project as I went to smelting path and it is great.

I believe their shaker table does an excellent job in separation, and it is best suited if you smelt the cons and produce a copper dore.

Regards
Kj


----------



## lunker (Jan 30, 2017)

Kevin,
Did you ever Persue the electro metal recovery technology that you posted the thread too?
Were you able to get any type of cost for a set up? Recovery rates, etc?
Love your posts!


----------



## justinhcase (Jan 30, 2017)

Did you come to any conclusions such as minimum channel length's or designee.
I am looking at tables and the choice and guff people put out about each unit is staggering.
Any insight as to characteristics suited to pulverised e-waste would be very helpful.


----------



## kjavanb123 (Jan 31, 2017)

lunker said:


> Kevin,
> Did you ever Persue the electro metal recovery technology that you posted the thread too?
> Were you able to get any type of cost for a set up? Recovery rates, etc?
> Love your posts!



Hi,

I only focused on shaker table function and recovery rate so did not have time to deal with electrolysis.

There is a series of videos in MBMMLLC youtube channel that they show how they use electrolysis to recover copper and precious metals from ore, the similar steps can be used for copper dore produced by melting concentrates from table and electrolysis.

There are some post by Deano, where he explains the electrolysis and electrowinning in great detail.

Regards
Kj


----------



## kjavanb123 (Jan 31, 2017)

justinhcase said:


> Did you come to any conclusions such as minimum channel length's or designee.
> I am looking at tables and the choice and guff people put out about each unit is staggering.
> Any insight as to characteristics suited to pulverised e-waste would be very helpful.



I do not know thay information. However, the company that we had tested their shaker tables have been modifying their tables for e-waste so much more than when I sent them very first sample of pulverized e-waste. So I assume their table is more tunned.

Regards
Kj


----------



## justinhcase (Jan 31, 2017)

kjavanb123 said:


> justinhcase said:
> 
> 
> > Did you come to any conclusions such as minimum channel length's or designee.
> ...


The table tuning will be an ongoing process throughout processing.having to alter reciprocation and harmonics with water flow to best suit the variations in material.This can be achieved by experimentation as no material is lost so test's can be run again and again.
But planing a table must start with the channel designee and table length.They are too expensive to experiment with and none have mechanism to alter the table architecture.
To short a channel length and the process will be ineffective too long and you waste space and energy,to shallow or too deep and you will not affect a separation.
It is very much a "Goldy Locks" equation.
very hard to get right for your material until you have a good pulverizing plant that will produce uniformed particles,then just the right table designee for that particle.
If you could ask your operator for some details on his observation's and channel choices it would be very useful.
Thanks
J


----------

