# Can I mix these?



## bswartzwelder (Jun 27, 2014)

I have several containers with processed gold in them. One container came from foils which I processed using Poorman"s AR. That powder is light brown in color and has been rinsed in distilled water to get rid of the acid. I also have some black sediment from my electrolytic cell which has been rinsed in distilled water.

I am getting close to the point where I want to melt this stuff down. I know that before melting it down, it needs to be as pure as possible. I plan on using HaroldV's method of boiling three times in HCl and then boiling three times in distilled water. My question: can I mix the gold powder from the Poorman's AR with the gold powder from the electrolytic cell and then process it all at one time?

I understand that each time I boil it,(in the HCl and the H2O) I need to boil for approximately 30 minutes. I'm really looking forward to that button.


----------



## necromancer (Jun 27, 2014)

sure you can.

but why not wash and dry the 2 lots, weigh each then melt that way you will have a mental note of each yield


----------



## Anonymous (Jun 27, 2014)

Modify Harold's process. 

Wash in HCl then in water, then HCl again, and so on.

It works.


----------



## Shark (Jun 27, 2014)

I have one container for powders. All from small batch's, but mixed in the final container, all twice refined before being mixed. Some looked better than others so when I am ready to melt I will run the entire lot once more. Then, final washes as per Harold's methods and then on to the melting. These are powders from my first attempts some months ago right up the small lot I will be dropping this evening (hoping for right at 1 gram from this evenings batch). Mix when they are as close to the same purity as reasonably possible, it makes no sense in adding contaminants to your higher purity materials.


----------



## nickvc (Jun 27, 2014)

My advice is to re refine all the materials before melting, If the colour varies you haven't got very pure gold to start, do the rinses as recommended and then just re dissolve your powers and filter and precipitate again, follow the rinsing techniques and see if the colour is all the same, it should look like cinnamon powder when you finish, then melt your powders!


----------



## jeneje (Jun 27, 2014)

When washing your gold powder, *do not* put a time frame on the washes. boil until you don't see a color change in the solution. 30minutes may be good and then again it may take a hour. Don't rush perfection :lol: . Be careful not to boil it dry. Also don't forget the ammonia wash it will remove a lot of contaminates. When you do your ammonia wash keep the solution separate and re-acidify the solution with HCL. 

Ken


----------



## Anonymous (Jun 27, 2014)

Ken my apologies but I cannot agree entirely with your post. I've never ever boiled for anything like 30 minutes. The major colour change usually occurs close to or at initial boiling point. It's weird because even heavily copper contaminated gold changes colour almost as you watch it.

It's never taken more than an hour to wash a batch of gold even if that includes 3 washes of HCl and 3 of water. That's my experience but I'm open to be corrected sir.

Jon


----------



## butcher (Jun 28, 2014)

I normally do not time reactions, but I normally give them plenty of time, with some processes the more time you give them the better the results, example letting silver chloride settle over night will work to prcipitate most of the silver, but a week will work much better...


----------



## jeneje (Jun 28, 2014)

spaceships said:


> Ken my apologies but I cannot agree entirely with your post. I've never ever boiled for anything like 30 minutes. The major colour change usually occurs close to or at initial boiling point. It's weird because even heavily copper contaminated gold changes colour almost as you watch it.
> 
> It's never taken more than an hour to wash a batch of gold even if that includes 3 washes of HCl and 3 of water. That's my experience but I'm open to be corrected sir.
> 
> Jon


Jon, if you are washing your gold in less than an hour from start to finish, please explain to me your technique sir. At the min it takes me two and half hours to do my, but i am in no hurry either. 

What type of dish are you using? Do you use gas or electric to heat the washes with? Do you use Ammonia in your technique? Do you decant or siphon? Do you use a sandbath to heat your wash solutions on? 

I cannot do a complete wash cycle in an hour from start to finish. I apologize sir but, i am at a loss here to see how you can complete a wash cycle in an hour and have high purity clean gold. :shock: 

Ken


----------



## Anonymous (Jun 28, 2014)

Ken

Absolutely no problem at all. Firstly I guess that one of the factors that may or may not differ from some people is that I tend to be washing quantities in excess of 15g per time so I do accept that for tiny quantities I could not use this process because of the potential losses.

I do use lab glass to do all this so please assume it's used throughout Ken. 

First clean is a boil in pure 35% HCl in a 1 litre pyrex beaker. An inch of liquid over the powder as a max. I also use gas because it heats quicker than a electric heat source and the glass isn't as prone to heat shock in the way that larger beakers are. I've never cracked one but it still pays to be careful in the initial heating. The small quantity of acid also lets it heat through faster than using a large volume.

This first hard boil is for a max of 5 minutes, during which the acid discolours to a lesser or greater degree depending upon how dirty the drop was. The glass then goes onto a piece of wood (no thermal shock) for a minute and this allows it to cool pretty quickly. The first boil seems to take the majority of the copper out so that even dirty gold clumps together better rather than floating around in suspension or even on the surface. Then I decant it over into another beaker taking as much of the liquid off as possible before adding a similar amount of water to the original beaker and boiling up again. 

After this it really is a case of "rinse and repeat" and the point at which I stop is when the acid or water is no longer changing colour. The beaker with the pour offs WILL contain some gold. Mostly from the initial acid wash where the gold is at its dirtiest. I allow this to settle overnight and then pour the liquid into a stock pot and add the residual gold to the next batch that I am going to clean.

As far as ammonia is concerned. I have only had to use ammonia once because the vast majority of any silver (of which frankly I've seen very little when doing ceramics or fingers) has already been precipitated out as AgCl during the AR digest. Proper filtering of the AR multiple times at this point has always left me with very little (if any) remaining.

I use Steve and Harold's process here and I'm certainly not going to even try to reinvent a darned good method of cleaning when their system is spot on. All I'm altering is the mechanics of applying said procedure. There are plenty of pictures of gold I've dropped, and buttons I've melted dotted around the forum and I hope you'd agree that it does all appear to be pretty clean.

Hope that helps but please feel free to improve what I'm doing here or to disagree widly - I certainly won't mind 8) 

Jon

Edited for spelling mistakes.


----------



## Anonymous (Jun 28, 2014)

Actually Ken I had best put this in context.

I have access to the facility to refine my gear for only 2 days at a time. When my house is built and I move in during August I can build the lab that I have designed with the help of many forum members but until then I have to literally take raw material and fully process it in 48 hours. Hence necessity has been the mother of invention.

I'm sure that when I have the luxury of being able to leave things in my own lab, I will probably take a more relaxed approach 8)


----------



## bswartzwelder (Jun 28, 2014)

I want to thank everyone for their posts. Some of the gold I will be refining came from the time I first joined the forum several years ago. As you cab see, I am patient and not in any hurry as I do not want to lose any valuables. 

I want to melt once my son comes for a visit. This is usually not too often, but he has a jeweler who is a close friend. I want him to take the finished ingot to his friend for an assay and to hear from him what it's worth.

I was also wondering if it makes any sense to do a final refining using Oxalic Acid and dropping with Copperas? Some time ago, I purchased both of these as well as 2.5 liters of Nitric Acid which I believe is 68%.

I hope to have more than 1 ounce, but less than 2 ounces when finished. I still have a lot of gold plated material to process and haven't even started processing the cell phone circuit boards (five or six 5 gallon buckets). I also haven't pyrolyzed any of the chips which I have accumulated.

Thanks again,
Bert


----------



## Anonymous (Jun 28, 2014)

Bert

Good luck with it.

Jon


----------



## FrugalRefiner (Jun 28, 2014)

bswartzwelder said:


> I was also wondering if it makes any sense to do a final refining using Oxalic Acid and dropping with Copperas? Some time ago, I purchased both of these as well as 2.5 liters of Nitric Acid which I believe is 68%.


Bert,

By the way you've written this part, it's a little confusing. Both oxalic acid and copperas are used to drop (reduce) gold from acid solutions. The oxalic isn't used to dissolve gold, it's used to precipitate it. 

The idea of using two different reducing agents is a sound one. One agent can cause coprecipitation or drag down of unwanted base metals that another may not. They each have advantages and disadvantages. I recall a thread a while back that discussed these.

Regardless of which reducing agent you use, the best way to ensure high quality is following the thorough washing routine recommended by Harold and others.

Dave


----------



## bswartzwelder (Jun 28, 2014)

Sorry for the confusion. You are absolutely right that both of these can be used to precipitate the gold from the solution. When I do reprocess everything, I plan to use some of the Nitric Acid I have with HCl. I have learned my lesson about overusing nitric and will add approximately half of what I calculate I need, then add the remainder a few drops at a time until all the gold is dissolved. Nothing worse than having to kill an overabundance of Nitric.

Thanks to all.


----------



## Anonymous (Jun 28, 2014)

If you have access to Sulfamic Acid then killing extra Nitric is incredibly simple, fast, and easy.


----------



## necromancer (Jun 28, 2014)

spaceships said:


> If you have access to Sulfamic Acid then killing extra Nitric is incredibly simple, fast, and easy.




how much sulfamic acid to kill 5ml nitric acid ??


----------



## 4metals (Jun 28, 2014)

Just a hair over 1.5 grams per milliliter of 70% nitric acid


----------



## justinhcase (Jun 28, 2014)

If you want to impress your jeweler friend I would defiantly. put every thing back into A.R. and drop again.
Then wash.
every Jeweler is a gem in him self and will on his own make your effort's worth while.
Only one local jeweler has given me the time of day but already we have established two way traffic.
One good person makes up for all the rest go for impress.


----------



## Shark (Jun 29, 2014)

Sulfamic will foam up in nitric. Add it in small increments, it does two things this way. One, you won't use more than you need as the nitric is used up in the refining process. Two, it will help it not to foam over if you have a large excess of nitric, just give it a good stir for each addition. I dissolve the sulfamic into distilled water until it is saturated, and drop the saturated sulfamic/H2O into the solution containing nitric a spoon full at a time, give it a good stir and then decide if it needs more. Having plenty of extra space in your container holding the nitric solution helps. I tend to be extra cautious with things that have a tendency to foam up since I have only worked in smaller sized containers. I have kept the saturated sulfamic/H2O in a container for a week and still had success using it on the next project but I don't know how long it can be stored this way.


----------



## necromancer (Jun 29, 2014)

4metals said:


> Just a hair over 1.5 grams per milliliter of 70% nitric acid




thank you, wanted to compare it to urea, big difference !!

math still works best in avoiding free nitric.


----------



## Anonymous (Jun 29, 2014)

Urea? Eww horrid stuff - change to Sulfamic if you can get it. MUCH less hassle.


----------



## 4metals (Jun 29, 2014)

Math works best on the scale you are doing it, when you process large lots, it is more tedious to shuffle back and forth between enough acid and too much. That's why a lot of refiners use urea. It is easy. Personally I prefer sulfamic acid.


----------



## necromancer (Jun 30, 2014)

i have never used sulfamic acid or urea, just math. and for processing $100,000 worth of gold at one time. i'm not there yet

its just that i know more farmers then lab technitions 8)


----------



## justinhcase (Jun 30, 2014)

Only just tried sulfamic acid and very helpful.
I start with math's well basic arithmetic as I am none to bright.
All ways have some left over nitric as it helps to digest the material.
Then use Harold_V's trick of using a button to use up the excess Nitric acid.
After filtering I always have quite a lot of fluid so it is good to evaporate down any way.
Then when I am ready the sulfamic acid was a very nice way to make sure the Gold chloride solution was nitric free and ready for its last filter.
Thanks for the tip chaps it was a winner. :lol:


----------



## bswartzwelder (Jul 10, 2014)

OK, here goes the thinking process for now.

1. Do not mix the powders of different colors. It will only contaminate the more pure stuff with the less pure stuff. Makes sense.

2. Do I wash or boil the black powders from the electrolytic cell in HCL before I re refine them?

3. Re refine everything. Since I am dealing with powders, use either AR or AC. AR may cause problems with excess Nitric but this can be corrected by precipitating with Sulfamic Acid. AC does not introduce Nitric, so it could be dropped with Copperas, SMB, or Oxalic Acid.

4. Do the final washes by boiling three times in HCl and distilled water. HCL then water, then HCL, then water, then HCl, then water works as well as Harold's method.

5. Finally, the big day has arrived.  Melt and pour into the mold of your choice. I hope this sounds like I'm one the right track.

I had a 1 ounce man made gold nugget (22 k) which I have been dissolving in my electrolytic cell. Once it is dissolved, I still have some plated cell phone parts to drop into the cell. The yellow colored powders came from dissolving some foils in poorman's AR, killing excess nitric (there was a lot) then dropping with SMB. 

Over the years I have been reading the forum, I have amassed the chemicals needed. I have H2SO4, HNO3, HCl, Sulfamic Acid, SMB, Oxalic acid, and Copperas. I have many pounds of mercury which I plan to turn in the next time our landfill has an "open chemical" day. Thanks to all.


----------



## solar_plasma (Jul 10, 2014)

> AC does not introduce Nitric, so it could be dropped with Copperas, SMB, or Oxalic Acid.



Also the chlorine has to be driven off. The difference is, chlorine is easily driven off by heating (lower solubility at higher temps) and sunlight (I think it accelerates the conversion from highly reactive Clnasc to less reactive Cl2), if available. Any reducer will have a hard time in an excess of oxidizer.


----------



## jason_recliner (Jul 11, 2014)

> 3. Re refine everything. Since I am dealing with powders, use either AR or AC. AR may cause problems with excess Nitric but this can be corrected by precipitating with Sulfamic Acid. AC does not introduce Nitric, so it could be dropped with Copperas, SMB, or Oxalic Acid.



3.5: Incinerate here, if you've been using AR. Otherwise the HCl will conspire with any remnant nitrate to make a little new AR, which redissolves some of your gold.



> 4. Do the final washes by boiling three times in HCl and distilled water. HCL then water, then HCL, then water, then HCl, then water works as well as Harold's method.


----------



## Harold_V (Jul 12, 2014)

bswartzwelder said:


> 4. Do the final washes by boiling three times in HCl and distilled water. HCL then water, then HCL, then water, then HCl, then water works as well as Harold's method.



Maybe. Maybe not. Depends on what contaminants are present. If you happen to have traces of silver chloride in the gold, overlooking the ammonium hydroxide wash isn't in your best interest, as it may not be eliminated. Even if there is no silver, there's benefit by doing the ammonia wash. 

For the record, silver tends to be the chief contaminant in gold, assuming it comes from jewelry, or has been inquarted. Plated stuff? Probably not. 

Harold


----------



## Clneal2003 (Jul 28, 2014)

Wash Idea. Hoke mentions that one can wash with sulfuric acid... Add a few drops to cold water. I haven't seen anyone mention this in a good wash cycle. Has anyone tried it? I'm getting decent results without it but I'm wondering if it makes any difference. I know the ammonia wash, when done safely , makes my batch come out shades lighter.


----------



## Geo (Jul 28, 2014)

Clneal2003 said:


> Wash Idea. Hoke mentions that one can wash with sulfuric acid... Add a few drops to cold water. I haven't seen anyone mention this in a good wash cycle. Has anyone tried it? I'm getting decent results without it but I'm wondering if it makes any difference. I know the ammonia wash, when done safely , makes my batch come out shades lighter.



The washes being discussed are of the refined powder. Some do and most should do a sulfuric wash to remove borax from the melted gold.


----------



## butcher (Jul 29, 2014)

With lead a likely possible contaminate of the powders, especially when dealing with electronic scrap, or even the possible solder on some karat gold, or jewelry, my concern would be to the possibility of converting any lead chloride, which would be soluble in Hot water to an insoluble lead sulfate.

In the washing procedure of the gold powders (we normally deal with), I do not see much benefit in adding sulfuric acid to the wash cycle normally suggested ((Harold’s method), and depending what portion of the wash cycle or sequence, if you did add it, it could actually do more harm than good, making it harder to remove the lead portion of contaminant.


----------



## nickvc (Jul 29, 2014)

Bert I fully expect an excellent outcome from this next step.
A point to remember is that with bigger quantities you can get a more concentrated solution which in my experience gives a cleaner and faster precipitation, allows for better control of the chemicals and as a bonus reduces the percentage loss overall.


----------



## richoc (Aug 11, 2014)

Take that 22k man made nugget and crush it out in a smother faced vice.
Then hammer it you as thin as you can get it.
Then it will process in your sulfiric cell way faster, surface area contact to the acid is key.
I do karat gold jewelry in my cell all the time.


----------



## g_axelsson (Aug 11, 2014)

richoc said:


> Take that 22k man made nugget and crush it out in a smother faced vice.
> Then hammer it you as thin as you can get it.
> Then it will process in your sulfuric cell way faster, surface area contact to the acid is key.
> I do karat gold jewelry in my cell all the time.


What good does it make to run carat gold in the sulfuric cell?
If I understand it right, the cell would break it down into a black mud of gold and then the base metal would fall off like the anode slime in a copper plant, mixing with the gold mud. The end result would be a fine mud instead of a solid object. The gold and copper mud would still be mixed with concentrated sulfuric acid.

To me it seems like going straight to AR would be both faster and simpler.

If you don't want to dissolve the gold in AR but just want to wash the mud to get rid of base metals and then melt, in that case inquartation would be my choice.

Göran


----------



## richoc (Aug 11, 2014)

This was a tip to a earlyer poster on this subject.
He stated he keeps putting a 22K man made nugget in his cell.
Thought it would reply with him in mind.

Most do not not even scrape the surface on what can be done in the cell.

All your gold recoverd or refined can be mixed for melting.
I like to keep batches apart so I know recoveries. 
Mix your cake with your mud ,hit it with AR or AC and drop it , do your washes refining it as much as you wish before melt.


----------



## richoc (Aug 11, 2014)

I can take a 14K mans weding shackle in to Goo in like 10 minutes.
Let cool, harvest Goo, mix in 5x distilled water,repeat untill water is clear.
The blue in the water is the copper such will stay in solution until you wish to recover it.
Black Goo now has almost no copper.
Ready to ether refine one more step or dry and melt .

Lowest cost way to process to a broken down state.


----------



## Anonymous (Aug 11, 2014)

richoc said:


> I can take a 14K mans weding shackle in to Goo in like 10 minutes.
> Let cool, harvest Goo, mix in 5x distilled water,repeat untill water is clear.
> The blue in the water is the copper such will stay in solution until you wish to recover it.
> Black Goo now has almost no copper.
> ...



That's really confusing, can you word that in a way that someone as uneducated as me can understand properly because I obviously missed some detail there.

Jon


----------



## richoc (Aug 12, 2014)

Spaceships after years of reading books picking guys brains I think I have found the lest expensive way to do refining of any kind of scrap gold I have found.
There are dangers and issue like all methods.
Once the gold is removed into the blrack Goo,itz is very easy to refine from that point. 
At this point you need very little amounts of chems. to do the jobs to finish the recover or refining of the gold.


----------



## richoc (Aug 12, 2014)

Goran. 

Acid stays in the cell it is a very small amuont that transfers in the mud. 
What acid there is burns up in the exothermic reaction of the first rinse.
Copper comes out in distilled water silver comes out in the fillering and settling.
the next step for the mud uses very little chemicals.
Because you only treat the mud the gold.
Then acid bleach or aquatic regiea process. 
And then drop your gold cake at 3-9'S on the first melt.

Inquartation is a medevil times way of doing it. 
Works 
But takes forever needs bunch of silver , Costs a lot in fuel.

But we use the way we like and will.not change, human nature.


----------



## Geo (Aug 12, 2014)

Gold can be inquarted with copper just as well but it takes more acid. There is a thread on the forum where someone was using salt water as an electrolyte to dissolve a 14k ring. If it were any better than the methods taught on the forum, everyone would be using it instead of the other methods. So far, you have told us that you can break down a men's wedding band in 10 minutes. I can do the same with AR. You say you break down the metal and then still need to use AR to refine it. Why would anyone go through the extra steps with a dangerous chemical just to have to go down the same chemical road to refine the metal?


----------



## Harold_V (Aug 13, 2014)

richoc said:


> Acid stays in the cell it is a very small amuont that transfers in the mud.
> What acid there is burns up in the exothermic reaction of the first rinse.


That's total nonsense. There's not enough heat generated to "burn up" acid by mixing with water--not even with concentrated sulfuric. I'll agree that what acid may be present is diluted, but nothing else. Do not post misinformation on this board. It is not well received. 



> Then acid bleach or aquatic regiea process.


Aquatic regiea?
Do you mean aqua regia? 
We try to use proper terms on this board, so new readers don't assimilate bad habits. If you do not mean aqua regia, please be more specific with your post, describing the process you mentioned. 



> And then drop your gold cake at 3-9'S on the first melt.


That isn't guaranteed, nor is 3-9's a standard for anyone to shoot for. It's below the industry standard of 9995, so there's no real benefit in that being a target for purity. Beyond that, while precipitating is how gold is recovered, it, alone, isn't adequate to ensure high purity. I see no mention of washing the gold, so without proper washing, depending on how dirty your solution may be when you precipitate, you may well be below the 999 of which you spoke. 



> Inquartation is a medevil times way of doing it.
> Works
> But takes forever needs bunch of silver , Costs a lot in fuel.


Key to inquartation is what you said. It works, and it works very well. And the cost in fuel isn't an issue, as the material processed often would have required melting, anyway. 

Those of us who use (or used) the inquartation process took advantage of the method by using scrap silver for the process, silver that would have required processing whether it was used for inquartation, or not. As an added benefit, the silver becomes a carrier for platinum group metals, concentrating them for convenient recovery when the silver is parted. All in all, inquartation has its own benefits, including lowering the amount of platinum group (important when processing dental gold). To post comments to the effect that it is "medieval" is not acceptable. It is, and will always remain a viable method of processing gold. 

How operations are conducted is not a contest. Don't make it one. Readers will pick and choose those which best meet their needs. State your position in the matter, but do not lead readers such that you contradict processes that have proven to be successful, in particular when they have been well proven by time. We're not against revelations, but we are against anyone trying to undermine the processes that are commonly accepted. That serves no purpose and will get you on the wrong side of certain moderators (like me). 

Harold


----------



## bswartzwelder (Aug 13, 2014)

Just an update.

Since I started reading the forum, I got somewhat anxious to try many of the differing procedures to recover and refine gold. I tried some things where I added too much NaNO3 when making poorman's AR. Finally listening, I evaporated it down to a thick syrupy mass then added more HCl and did it over again. After adding HCl and evaporating 3 times, I dropped the gold with SMB. Got a really nice yellowish to light brown powder which I will re-dissolve in HCl and Chlorox and then drop with Oxalic acid.

The gold nugget has been used several times in various ways to make sure I have used up all the nitric, so there was only about 20 grams (give or take) left. I wrapped it with a very fine wire and put it into H2SO4. Using a lead cathode, I applied a DC current to it. At anything over 2 amps, my H2SO4 started heating up. The process was very slow and took 5 or 6 days only reducing the nugget by 2 or 3 grams on a good day. I now have a graduated cylinder with the black powder in the bottom. I washed with distilled water several times and added HCl. I now have between 20 and 40 ml of black powder in the bottom of the graduated cylinder with 400 to 500 ml of HCl on top. The HCl has turned a pale bluish color which I assume is copper. I will transfer everything to a beaker and after it settles, decant as much of the liquid off as possible. Then I will add HCl and slowly add Chlorox to dissolve the black powder. Then I will drop the gold with oxalic acid.

I weighed the remaining nugget and found it to be between 10 and 11 grams. I then mixed 50 ml HCl with 12 ml HNO3 and dropped it in. The next day, the nugget had disappeared. I found about 0.9 grams of placer gold which I dropped into the beaker as well. Everything seems to have disappeared. I may have a very slight excess of Nitric, so I will add Sulfamic acid to get rid of it. Then I will drop the gold with oxalic acid. 

This should give me 3 beakers with relatively pure gold. I will put them all together and then do the triple boil in HCl and then triple boil in distilled water. Then, before I try to melt everything together, I will boil in either ammonia (household cleaner) or ammonium chloride.

Thanks to all those who have helped me. I still have a long way to go. I have several kg of computer chips to incinerate and a lot of cell phone circuit boards to process as well as several hundred SIM card chips with gold plated contacts. In no hurry, but feel the guidance of those here on the forum has been the difference between being happily surprised and greatly disappointed. 

Bert


----------



## richoc (Aug 14, 2014)

Midevil times are when inquarting gold for refining was invented, maybe well before that.

Electro winning is currently the way to go.

I only need eye droppings to do the A R or A C desolve, less chemicals less fumes.
I am no way giving away the steps here because there are dangers.
Yes there are washes in the process steps.
But no melting and remelting

Working with a few good men , We can do ore to karat jewlery in our cells.

Like I stated others will stick with what they know it is human nature not to changes what works for them.

The incandescent light bulb is now outlawed in the USA will you continue to use them, I stopped over 12 years back.


----------



## richoc (Aug 14, 2014)

Harold.
You know you stuff for the meathods you use, no doubt there.
I respect that knowledge you help a lot of people.

Please have a open mind for the new methods that are developing.

The old ways poluted our earth in ways that may never recover.
I have seen open pits of mercury with onlyba rusted out old fenise tell you to keep out.
This company had to give up the claim and pay millions for fish restocking but the fish are poisonous to eat and the hazard after 20 years is still sitting there.


I telling you that they are not set in stone.
Diamonds are the hardest surface nature gave us.
My buddy makes them break down to a spherical NanoDiaond coating.
I made a solar powered cell for processing direct gold ore.
Works great working on maybe selling aftervpapervwork is all in order.
A no acid black sands processing system using electro winning to collect the PM groups.

Working on patent applications for some, so I can not open up to much.
But one of the biggest things is we do not need acids to break down what.we are harvesting.
Just very small amounts in a final refining step.
But if you near pure gold when you do the first drop it is of a very high purity.


----------



## Harold_V (Aug 14, 2014)

richoc said:


> Please have a open mind for the new methods that are developing.


Did you not pay attention to what I said?

I have no issues with things that are developing (although what you're doing is NOT new). What I have an issue with is your speaking poorly about systems that work very well, and may be a better choice than what you're doing, depending on circumstances that we may not understand. You come across as being the savior of all who refine. I don't think you are :!: 

So then, if you can't discuss your method of working without saying something negative about other methods, don't discuss them here. I made it clear that you should discuss what you're doing, and how it works, pointing out advantages. That is acceptable. Discussing a process that is commonly accepted as not being so, as you've done, is not. That's your opinion, and it may not be shared by others, including myself. Don't put thoughts in the heads of those who may not benefit by what you're doing. Let them draw their own conclusions. 



> The old ways poluted our earth in ways that may never recover.


Please tell me how parting gold and silver is polluting the world in ways from which it may never recover, yet the electrolytic parting you choose to use is perfectly benign. I may be wrong, but I'm of the opinion that you're somewhat misinformed. 



> I have seen open pits of mercury with onlyba rusted out old fenise tell you to keep out
> This company had to give up the claim and pay millions for fish restocking but the fish are poisonous to eat and the hazard after 20 years is still sitting there.


And I've seen dead deer at the side of the road, but I fail to understand how either of these example relate to the process of inquartation. Please stick to the topic at hand, and resist from making this topic a contest. I'm not going to respond to that kindly. 

We're finished with this conversation, if you get my drift. 

Harold


----------



## g_axelsson (Aug 14, 2014)

richoc said:


> Midevil times are when inquarting gold for refining was invented, maybe well before that.
> 
> Electro winning is currently the way to go.
> 
> ...


I can't see anywhere that what you are using electrowinning in your procedures.

Electrowinning is the procedure to recover dissolved metals from a solution by plating it out with electricity.

Göran


----------



## Harold_V (Aug 15, 2014)

g_axelsson said:


> I can't see anywhere that what you are using electrowinning in your procedures.
> 
> Electrowinning is the procedure to recover dissolved metals from a solution by plating it out with electricity.
> 
> Göran


An excellent observation. 
This dude is guilty of endlessly posting misinformation, as GSP alluded in a post today. My patience with him is running thin, as I'm beginning to get the idea that he will eventually try scamming readers by way of selling his "invention" (which most likely differs little from other systems that are also not well accepted). What other possible reason could anyone have for an endless barrage of less than credible statements being made, especially after having been on this board for so long. By now he certainly must understand that he's digging a deep hole for himself. 

Richoc, if you have nothing of worth to add to conversations, it will be in your best interest to remain silent. Do not continue to clutter threads with posts, as if you have the solution to everyone's problems. You don't have---and you're poorly informed, at least that's how it looks to me. The next bit of misinformation you post will be your last. Be warned. 

I hope you recall reading on this board that I do not suffer fools gladly. 

I don't.

I have to say, I got quite a chuckle from the comment of having abandoned the use of incandescent light bulbs 12 years ago. Maybe the fumes (coal oil) are getting to his head. 
On that subject----twelve years ago, the options were switching to fluorescent lighting----which contains what? Seems to me it's mercury. Now there's a bold step forward. 

Harold


----------



## Claudie (Aug 15, 2014)

We in the USA _are _being forced to switch to the more toxic Mercury containing light bulbs. They have banned the manufacture of incandescent light bulbs here and continually promote the use of the fluorescent bulbs. 
As I understand it, when one burns out, and they do burn out, you are supposed to take it in to a hazardous waste disposal facility instead of throwing them in the trash. I seriously doubt that people go through the bother of doing that. :| 
I really don't believe switching to fluorescent bulbs has anything to do with saving energy or the environment. If we really wanted to save energy and the environment, why not use LED lighting? It's cheaper, lasts much longer, and gives off whatever light we design it to. 
The new fluorescent bulbs smell terrible when they do burn out, that has to be healthy to breathe in our lungs. :shock: 

Okay, I'm finished ranting now. :|


----------



## bswartzwelder (Aug 16, 2014)

I have been switching to LED light bulbs. I have replaced 500 watts in my upstairs hallway with about 100 watts of LED's, over 560 watts on my front porch with 110 watts of LED's and two 500 watt floodlights with 100 watt floodlights. I have noticed quite a difference in my electric bills, but the LED lights are not cheap. I saw a 10 pack of 60 watt equivalent compact fluorescent lamps for $4.00 at Walmart.

Having said that, I have also stocked up on certain incandescent lamps. The ones used around bathroom mirrors are color enhancing and have a nice large globe shape. We have enough of them to last my lifetime.


----------



## Harold_V (Aug 16, 2014)

Our new house has the lighting system installed that I purchased for the castle. The buyers had no need for the system, so I kept it as it offers some very nice features, such as control of any or all lights from multiple locations, plus dimming with memory, all by the simple push of a button. 

That being said, it's a low voltage controlled solid state lighting system, which uses triacs for dimming and switching, and that's the problem. 

I am not an electronics genius, nor do I play one on TV. Why this happens I can not say, but if I use LED lights with any of those circuits (not all are triacs---some are nothing more than relays), they don't turn off, even when the module is commanded to turn off. Really made me unhappy, as I had a pair of LED bulbs I wanted to use in the stairway leading to the top floor of the house. Had to switch to incandescent. 

Harold


----------



## butcher (Aug 16, 2014)

Fluorescent lighting needs some type of ballast, the older type used inductive coils, but many today have switched to electronic ballasts, LEDs also need some type of current resistor, (or a enough LEDs in series to drop voltage and current for the string of LEDs), or they need a ballast to drop voltage and current required for the LEDs, the standard electronic ballast will not be compatible with many types of lighting dimmers, the ballast and the dimmers need to be designed to do the job, and to work with each other.
To dim fluorescent (or LED lighting) you may have to have a dimmer circuit made for the light you are using, and dimming ballast made for the fluorescent lights or LED lights, to be able to dim the lights you are using.
Not all dimmers or ballasts are made the same.

I see where incandescent have their place, and benefits, and cannot be replaced by any other type of lighting, I also see where other types of lights would be a better choice.

What gets my dander up is government thinks they are better suited to make the choice, or decision of what we can or cannot use. or where and when we can use them. and with something as basic of lighting I feel they go too far, I can and should be able to decide which type of light bulb is best for my application at hand, and I know I can make a more wiser decision than the government as to which light is best where and when, and where I can save energy or money by doing so.
It also aggravates me with the government making laws before the technology has been developed that would support the laws they make, take GFCI breakers for example, the government made the laws and changes to the national electrical code before the GFCI breakers were made that could do what the law said we had to do, the manufactures rushed for years to develop a product to do what they were supposed to be able to do to comply with the new laws, many electricians were putting in GFCI circuit breakers in homes across the country (as the manufactures were still trying to learn to develop them to work as intended) and then all over the country the manufactures were recalling these circuit breakers when it was found they did not work as intended, this cost home owners and consumers millions of dollars.

This has been done with many things, we are wasting more energy (and resources) in this country trying to become more energy efficient and to fulfill the new laws made by lawmakers who do not have a clue, lawmakers making the law before the technology can do what the lawmakers want us to do.

These lawmakers are some times driven by those who wish to make money or to control a market,(lobbyists), (R22 freon comes to mind here, when Dupont was about to loose the patient for R22 freon, it all of a sudden became so much more dangerous for our environment then the other types of freon that was almost the same type of chemical makeup).
Lawmakers think it is their job to constantly make up new laws; doing this day in and day out, they soon begin making many more new stupid laws.
I feel many of these lawmakers have less common sense than my neighbors pet dog.

Incandescent lighting will always have a use, and will still be used in many applications, other types of lighting also will have a use and purpose better suited for the applications at hand, new technology and old technology both can be used to our advantage, and be used to save energy.

But with lawmakers making these decisions for us of what we can or should use, we will all be disadvantaged from some of their stupid decisions.

It is also interesting how sales of incandecent lighting has increased in this country since these new laws have been passed.

I think Edison a man with common sense would turn over in his grave knowing what we are doing with lighting today, his light bulb will be continued to be advanced, but also his basic light bulb will always have a use, and will still be around for a long time to come.


----------



## Geo (Aug 16, 2014)

Harold_V said:


> Our new house has the lighting system installed that I purchased for the castle. The buyers had no need for the system, so I kept it as it offers some very nice features, such as control of any or all lights from multiple locations, plus dimming with memory, all by the simple push of a button.
> 
> That being said, it's a low voltage controlled solid state lighting system, which uses triacs for dimming and switching, and that's the problem.
> 
> ...



Harold, that could be a dangerous symptom. It sounds like what I was taught to call "bleed through". The circuit is receiving current from another circuit. If that one circuit is on a breaker by itself, turn off the breaker and test the circuit with a volt meter. Start with the lowest current setting. If you get a reading, go up until you find out how much is bleeding through. If it is bleeding over, your common is "hot" which can be very dangerous even at low amperage. It could be bleeding over from any of the other circuits. Check your common (white) against the ground (bare). There should be no measurable voltage. If it is, you may need an electrician to straighten it out.


----------



## bswartzwelder (Aug 20, 2014)

Decided to start precipitating some gold a couple of days ago. Took the beaker with the AR in it and started to add Sulfamic acid to neutralize the excess nitric. There couldn't have been much excess nitric, but after 3 small spoonful of sulfamic acid, it was still fizzing. I was pretty sure I HAD to have eliminated all excess nitric. Calculated I would need about 12 grams of Oxalic acid and that would require about 100 ml of water to dissolve it into. Added 15 grams of oxalic to about 130 ml water and put it on the hotplate. Also added about 1/2 teaspoon ammonium chloride to it as well. When the temperature hit 190F, I added it to the AR. Nothing. No fizzing, no boiling, nothing. Set it aside until yesterday.

Yesterday I added a pinch of sulfamic acid and got no reaction. Turned on the hot plate and let it get pretty warm. Added another pinch of sulfamic with the same response. Then, without thinking, I added a teaspoon of the oxalic acid crystals. Forgot to mix them in hot water, but even so, nothing happened. Will it just take some more time for the gold to drop? I tested the AR solution with stannous and got a very strong positive for gold. 

The second beaker had the black powder from my electrolytic cell in it. Added about 400 ml HCL to the beaker. Then without knowing how much Chlorox I needed, I added about 20 ml with constant stirring. The black powder did not go into solution like I thought it would. Added another 20 ml Chlorox and again there was no visible reaction. Tested a drop of this solution with stannous and got a positive response as well. Maybe I need to add more Chlorox, or maybe it will just take a while longer to react. Any ideas?


----------



## Geo (Aug 21, 2014)

Try diluting the solution with water, tap water will be ok for this. Even if you have to split it into two containers. Warm the solution again. When you dissolve the sulfamic crystals, do it in ambient temperature water. It will chill on it's own as it creates an endothermic reaction. Add the sulfamic solution slowly. If this does't work, you can always evaporate the solution back down. It sounds to me like the solution is too acidic. I may be wrong, that's just what I would start with first.


----------



## bswartzwelder (Aug 22, 2014)

Geo,
Thanks for the reply. I don't want to make a mistake and lose any values, but I'm not completely sure I understand what you have said.

I understand diluting the solution using tap water.

Next, you say to dissolve the sulfamic acid crystals at ambient temperature.

In the next step, you say to add the sulfamic solution slowly. You don't say to heat it up, so I assume it isn't necessary to heat it up. It was in another post where one of the forum members said the sulfamic solution works best if heated to just below the boiling point. It was also mentioned that the sulfamic solution works best when a little ammonium chloride has been added to it. I added almost 1/2 teaspoon ammonium chloride to the sulfamic acid solution.

I look forward to trying your ideas this weekend (weather permitting). If all this fails, it will be back to evaporating everything back down and starting again from that point. A huge THANK YOU to everyone who has helped with these problems.


----------



## butcher (Aug 22, 2014)

You do not need ammonium chloride to deNOx aqua regia with sulfamic acid, in fact if this is all you were doing I would say it would be a mistake to add it, because of the dangers involved.
If you were working with dental gold it would try to precipitate the platinum, possibly with the little bit of silver chloride as solution was diluted cooled, and settled...
Or if you were trying to precipitate a platinum compound...

I am unsure if you are missing something or getting some things mixed up, or if it is I who may be missing things, and getting something mixed up...

I have not used oxalic acid to precipitate gold. it has been a long time since I studied it, at one time I thought I might like to try it, but the more studied and I learned, I seen no real reason why I should (beside maybe as an experiment) because for what I have done I seen no real benefit, over a double refining using different precipitants each time.

If memory serves me ( I have the memory of a new born elephant) they did use ammonia, or ammonium hydroxide or even ammonium chloride with oxalic acid (I believe to adjust pH) and perhaps for some reason the ammonium or ammonia would work better with the chemistry involved, I do not know, and cannot remember that much about it, (but there are members here who have experience in this area and can explain it, or help with that).

So it is most likely, that it is with the oxalic acid procedure that you think you need the ammonium chloride, and not with the sulfamic acid to deNOx the aqua regia...

I wonder why you are even trying to use oxalic acid, and if this gold has already been refined before and this is the second refining.

In the second refining, I do not understand how you could so easily overuse nitric acid to dissolve the fine gold powders, and then would need sulfamic acid?


----------



## bswartzwelder (Aug 23, 2014)

I have read numerous times that you should use a second refining to get your gold really pure. Likewise, I have read that to get your gold really pure it is best to use different precipitants each time you drop your gold. I was doing the first refine of a man made gold nugget. I wanted to use oxalic acid because I read somewhere that it is highly selective towards dropping gold.

I made the mistake using ammonium chloride. I should have used ammonium hydroxide instead, so I may have screwed things up royally. I really didn't think I was overusing nitric. I've done that before and didn't want a repeat performance. I carefully measured my nugget as 10.76 grams. I also had about 0.92 grams of placer nuggets. I mixed 12.5 ml of HNO3 and 55 ml HCl. I knew it was a little high (on both), but figured the extra HCl would not be an issue. I also felt the very slight overuse of nitric could have easily been corrected with the sulfamic acid. I have never used either sulfamic nor oxalic, so I was a little eager to try them out. 

Now that you mention it, I likewise seem to remember somewhere where they had to adjust the pH of one of the precipitants to get the gold to drop. I even bought a pH meter and pH papers when I read about this. Looks like instead of doing anything with this mess I'll be doing some reading and re-reading until I find my mistake.

Butcher and Geo, I want to thank both of you for your inputs here. I'll let you know what's up just as soon as I can research things properly. Butcher, don't sell yourself short. You have a memory like a steel trap, and that post has really jogged my memory.


----------

