99.5%? Is it possible?

shop deals on amazon
xelexo
Advertise with us
Shop deals on ebay
Gold Refining Forum

Help Support Gold Refining Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Look I'm not going to argue with you, this is all well documented engineering data and is very easy to look up.

Pipe schedules refer to the dimensions of the tubing itself, be it stainless, carbon, plastics, or other exotic materials. PVC and CPVC have both a high and low temperature limit and are susceptible to UV damage and should be painted for outdoor applications.

http://www.snapfour.com/pdf/Table_38-39.pdf

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/22695979/Schedule-80-PVC-and-CPVC-Pipe-and-Fittings-Schedule
 
4metals said:
I chose CPVC because of the temperature. Something about exhausting over a furnace with plastic made me nervous, that's why I fed the fume directly over the furnace into a quartz glass pipe for 10 feet before transitioning to CPVC. (Did you ever see a PVC fueled fire? I did once in a plating shop it was like someone threw kerosene on it.) I suppose the physical scrubber could have been PVC but the deal I got at the time had it all in schedule 80 CPVC. The scrubber could have also been fiberglass, I like the vinyl ester resin as it withstands the corrosivity well.

Using a single cylinder and having it in a water tank is a good approach but we were doing 6 to 10 melts per day so we needed a bank of 8 tanks. Because of the way they were delivered and the distance, we purchased chlorine 4 tanks at a time. They were outside, 100 feet away from any building and enclosed by fire department rules. All of the delivery piping was double walled and we even ran it inside a dedicated 6" exhaust duct constantly pulling air out of the shop. That duct ended about 5 feet from the point of use. A pressure gauge told us the line pressure and in case of a leak in the feed the air was already going out. Fortunately the exhaust ducting on feed piping was never put to the test. When I design something I always make it like I have to be the guy over the furnace, sometimes I was, so I'm kind of anal about the safety I build into a process.

We never processed the crucibles separately from the regular melting room crucibles and stir rods, so I don't know how much metal was in the crucibles but I do know that our accountability of the gold between the melting and the slimes from the silver cell ran inside the margin of error for fire assays so it was negligible.

My point again about Chlorine gas is you can make it safe, even super safe, but I don't believe you can make it backyard safe!
Click to expand...

Maybe a little paranoid about the chlorine? :lol: Although 8 tanks in a fire could easily get out of hand...

It looks very safe and simple and not too costly. I think you did good.

Can you describe further your furnace/crucible setup?. Electric, induction or gas-fired?. Tilting furnaces?. Crucible covers?. You already said that you didn't slag the melts.

Did you further flux the pure gold afterwards with nitre/other?. What was your average fineness stopping at just the "purple stain" point without pushing further?.
 
The melting was done in an induction furnace, I prefer the push up type. I never covered the crucible because the ability to see the melt and control the chlorine feed rate was important to me.

The purity averaged 99.2% with silver being the remaining impurity. For that reason toughening with niter wouldn't help much.

Our goal for purity was .9995 back in the day so upgrade was necessary. For reasons of speed, and so no metal was ever out of the vault overnight, the 99 fine gold was shotted and digested in aqua regia. The acid stayed a beautiful red color as there were no base metals and due to careful nitric additions we were gassing by lunchtime. This process produced .9995 metal or better every time and acid use was half that of putting up karat gold directly. An added benefit was waste treatment was easy due to the lack of significant base metals.

If I had to do it over, I would consider solvent extraction to get to .9999 but in the early '80's I was happy with removing the bulk of the impurities quickly with chlorine followed by an aqua regia cleanup.
 
4metals said:
The melting was done in an induction furnace, I prefer the push up type. I never covered the crucible because the ability to see the melt and control the chlorine feed rate was important to me.

The purity averaged 99.2% with silver being the remaining impurity. For that reason toughening with niter wouldn't help much.

Our goal for purity was .9995 back in the day so upgrade was necessary. For reasons of speed, and so no metal was ever out of the vault overnight, the 99 fine gold was shotted and digested in aqua regia. The acid stayed a beautiful red color as there were no base metals and due to careful nitric additions we were gassing by lunchtime. This process produced .9995 metal or better every time and acid use was half that of putting up karat gold directly. An added benefit was waste treatment was easy due to the lack of significant base metals.

If I had to do it over, I would consider solvent extraction to get to .9999 but in the early '80's I was happy with removing the bulk of the impurities quickly with chlorine followed by an aqua regia cleanup.
Click to expand...

Wow. 1 day refining with AR!. What vessels did you use to digest those big amounts in AR?. Glass or something else?. I bet you had a "fumes problem" bigger than with Miller.

How/to whom did you sell your refined products?. Mint or something?. Did they pay full price?.

I have avoided AR like the plague, except for a few experiments and batches containing palladium and platinum. Call me paranoid but never liked the idea of a broken vessel full of gold in solution, even with safety measures, it could get expensive very fast.

I still cringe when I see videos of people with a glass flask on top of an electric heater, nothing underneath, and dissolving gold.

After the failed Miller refinery "experience", all I did was inquarting 23-77 with silver and nitric digesting, whenever I had accumulated enough from small batches and running low on fine. It has been a hobby more than a business (or never a business, but didn't cost me money, but could never live off it??. Maybe that's better put.). I routinely got 997-998 with inquarting, and that was good enough to exchange with the jewelers. In the very rare cases where my gold didn't roll like butter, fluxing with nitre and/or ammonium chloride fixed the problem.

I always kept the best pieces that I bought directly (not from jewelers) and cleaned them and attempted to resell them at a premium instead of melting them and refine them.

Haven't refined anything in years, but maybe soon. Will have to borrow a torch here, and a crucible there...and steal some cookware from my wife. :roll:

Most of all what I liked best was to learn about human nature, if you get my drift...
 
250 gallon steam heated Phaudlers will handle 6000 ounces per digestion, considering the gold was in at 99% that's 5900 plus ounces out per batch, it went up quickly and scrubbing with caustic in one scrubber and peroxide in the other there was good fume control.

The gold was shipped overseas and Brinks was there every night for bars fine going out and karat coming in. The paid a few cents under per ounce, like $.20, if I remember.

Made a lot of money but worked a lot of hours, I like the consulting business much more and the hours are better.
 
4metals said:
250 gallon steam heated Phaudlers will handle 6000 ounces per digestion, considering the gold was in at 99% that's 5900 plus ounces out per batch, it went up quickly and scrubbing with caustic in one scrubber and peroxide in the other there was good fume control.

The gold was shipped overseas and Brinks was there every night for bars fine going out and karat coming in. The paid a few cents under per ounce, like $.20, if I remember.

Made a lot of money but worked a lot of hours, I like the consulting business much more and the hours are better.
Click to expand...

Very nice. Excuse my ignorance: What is a "Phaudler"?.

I once helped "improve" an AR digesting setup made of double walled PVC, but I was never happy with the original design, and how they handled the filtering, etc afterwards, etc. I collected my small consulting fees, left them a list of reccomendations, and moved on. They didn't/wouldn't want to change much, just to take care of the fumes, and some safety aspects. It looked very unprofessional setup and handling. Afterwards, I heard they broke a 5 gallon pyrex full of dissolved gold and had to "mop it", etc, etc.

I stopped giving free/unsolicited advice to people not long after, and started charging more for my services!.

Edit: Found in google: http://www.pfaudler.com/
 
Do those glass lined reactors/vessels wear inside?. How did you go about that?.

How did you filter afterwards, before precipitation?. Dropping with SO2 I presume or other?.

I'm fascinated!. You are/were the largest commercial refiner-person I have ever met, asides of Mr. Trepanier from the Canadian Mint!.

Thanks for the answers!.
 
Pfaudler is probably the primary manufacturer of glass-lined kettles/reaction vessels. The type I always used was made of steel and had a thick (I would guess about 1/4"-1/2") blue glass lining on the inside which was impervious to acids. There was a steam jacket around it for heating the solution inside. I usually used a 50 gallon one but they are available in any size, starting with 5 - 10 gallons. They cost many thousands of dollars new but there are tons of used ones available. For dissolving large quantities of metal, like karat gold, they can't be beat. Never buy a used one if any part of the glass lining has been damaged or patched. They have patch kits but they're not worth a damn. About the only way to properly repair the glass is to send it back to Pfaudler for re-lining - terribly expensive. When putting material into the kettle, don't drop heavy parts into it. I always placed the material in it carefully before adding the solution, to avoid chipping the glass. The glass is actually quite tough and durable but, you have to still be very careful.

I tried to find a photo of just the kettle but couldn't find one. Most have stirrer and pressure assemblies on top but all you need is the kettle (the vessel), itself. In this photo, for most dissolving, all you need is the bottom part, the kettle. Most people cover the kettle with a sheet of heavy inert plastic or fiberglass. About 2/3 to 3/4 of the cover is hinged and is raised in order to add or remove material. Usually, an inert exhaust pipe (usually high temp plastic) is mounted vertically to the back stationary part of the cover, in order to suck out the fumes and transport them to a scrubber. The shape of the kettle in the photo is fairly typical, but they come in various shapes. At one place I worked, we had several new dish-shaped kettles, 5 or 6 feet in diameter and a foot or two deep.
http://www.alibaba.com/product-gs/213307266/Glass_lined_reactor/showimage.html

I just found a photo of the inside (and, outside) of a small 10 gallon one. The ones I used were solid on the bottom, without the drain hole as in this photo. Click on View 2 more Photos and then click on Next or the small photo on the left.
http://www.aaronequipment.com/UsedEquipment/Tanks/Glass+Lined/77183.html
 
Thanks GSP. Hanging a basket made of fiberglass inside the PVC reactor was the way the folks did it in the setup I inspected (max 200 Oz at a time, so small reactor). That way the metal never touched or wore the lining of the reactor. Still this Pfaudler looks like A LOT better piece of equipment.

How did you ladle or siphon the stuff out, solid and liquid, for filtration, etc.?
 
I made a quick draw (sorry for the quality) for the PVC design that I mentioned before. I added another PVC valve at the bottom to the original design that I encountered and bettered somewhat.

The removable basket sits inside the reactor with the gold shot, it has a bottom with several large holes (like a colander), and a fiberglass filter.

The cover has a tube to plug the fume scrubber sucking air.

Basket was loaded with the shot and put in place, then hot HCL added, then nitric. After reaction complete, the basket was removed with most of the AgCl. The rest of AgCl settled on the bottom and was "brushed" towards the drain hole, with first valve open and bottom valve closed. Then closed the top valve and drained into a bucket with a little gold chloride/HCL by opening the bottom valve. Most of the chloride was out at this point. Then the main solution was filtered with a Buchner funnel made also of PVC. The Chloride washings, etc, also filtered.

Then precipitation with SMB in the funnel vessel.

It seems efficient in writing, but it was quite messy in practice, in my opinion. Too much man-handling of liquids, and rolling in, rolling out vessels, funnels, etc.
 

Attachments

  • PVCar.jpg
    PVCar.jpg
    31.2 KB
I found that digestion was both quicker and more complete under a little pressure, our reactor was an open topped, and no outlet on the bottom of the reactor. To create pressure I had a very heavy lid which was also coated with the blue glass, the top had a tab connected to a chain hoist to lift the reactor top off. The seal was made with a heavy flat viton gasket which sealed well under the full weight of the lid.

The top also had a 2" hole which I connected to a 24 inch diameter by 48" deep cylindrical tank. There was also a 1" hole for chemical feed. The 2" hose went in the bottom of the tank. On top of the tank was an exhaust to a scrubber. I had sight glasses so I could see how much water was in the tank. If I kept the tank empty, the reactor operated at atmospheric pressure, but if I added water to the tank the pressure inside increased to displace the weight of the water.

It was an easy cheap way to pressurize the reactor.

The top was lifted off after disconnecting the hoses and the steam lines (all quick disconnect) and the solution was siphoned into a filter and by using a vacuum filtration setup drawn directly into a gassing tank which was fiberglass reinforced to withstand the vacuum so the solution was pulled directly into the tank where it was to be gassed. Less handling less losses. The final bit of solution and any chlorides were removed by dumping the reactor into buckets. The reactor was mounted to pivot about its center of gravity when empty. So emptying was easy.

I've seen the wok shaped glass lined reactors GSP mentioned, they were used to concentrate gold potassium cyanide to make salts at a Lea Ronal refinery in Freeport. I went to an auction last winter at that plant, which had changed hands to Rhom & Haas and the reactor was there for bidding. The glass was in rough shape though so I passed. GSP is right to have them re-lined is very pricey.
 
Im really pleased that this subject is out in the open at last, without the normal this is impossible tag,its never going to be the way to refine for most of us but its great to see how it can be made to work.Now this is outed I wonder what the big boys next secret method will be.......
 
4metals,

Excellent suggestions for creating some pressure. A little pressure always helps.

We siphoned what we could and dipped the rest out. I always fashioned dippers by cutting a round plastic gallon jug in a certain manner.
 
goldsilverpro said:
So you were the master of purple fingers in your day!
Click to expand...

True. The purple always came off with cyanide, though.
Click to expand...
That worked for me. (Sure did leave your fingers feeling slimy, though!)

Harold
 
4metals said:
I found that digestion was both quicker and more complete under a little pressure, our reactor was an open topped, and no outlet on the bottom of the reactor. To create pressure I had a very heavy lid which was also coated with the blue glass, the top had a tab connected to a chain hoist to lift the reactor top off. The seal was made with a heavy flat viton gasket which sealed well under the full weight of the lid.

The top also had a 2" hole which I connected to a 24 inch diameter by 48" deep cylindrical tank. There was also a 1" hole for chemical feed. The 2" hose went in the bottom of the tank. On top of the tank was an exhaust to a scrubber. I had sight glasses so I could see how much water was in the tank. If I kept the tank empty, the reactor operated at atmospheric pressure, but if I added water to the tank the pressure inside increased to displace the weight of the water.

It was an easy cheap way to pressurize the reactor.

The top was lifted off after disconnecting the hoses and the steam lines (all quick disconnect) and the solution was siphoned into a filter and by using a vacuum filtration setup drawn directly into a gassing tank which was fiberglass reinforced to withstand the vacuum so the solution was pulled directly into the tank where it was to be gassed. Less handling less losses. The final bit of solution and any chlorides were removed by dumping the reactor into buckets. The reactor was mounted to pivot about its center of gravity when empty. So emptying was easy.

I've seen the wok shaped glass lined reactors GSP mentioned, they were used to concentrate gold potassium cyanide to make salts at a Lea Ronal refinery in Freeport. I went to an auction last winter at that plant, which had changed hands to Rhom & Haas and the reactor was there for bidding. The glass was in rough shape though so I passed. GSP is right to have them re-lined is very pricey.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the detailed description 4metals. A few questions:

Did you get rid of fumes/vapors at the end before lifting the top off?.

Was there an HCL stink at all during the operation?.

How did you load the shot inside the tank at the beginning?. 180 Kg of material to load is not trivial.

What about the acid pumps to load the reactor?.

Also: Were there any bits of undigested metal trapped in the chloride slimes?.

Thanks also GSP.
 
To eliminate the fumes above the solution we first drained the tank which created pressure, now the scrubber could actually suck out of the reactor. Then we cooled the reactor by running chilled water through the steam jacket, this served 2 purposes, the cooler acid didn't smell as much and the cool acid drops most of its silver so it can be filtered much more effectively.

There was never any strong acid small in the refinery, the room did have a good air turnover though.

The shot was loaded in by tilting the reactor and pouring the shotted material so it slid down the wall. After a few years of doing this we could see where the shot had scratched the shiny surface of the glass along its path but not enough damage to cause concern.

The acid was added with double diaphragm drum pumps, a 316 stainless one for nitric and a composite one for hydrochloric.

The chlorides were pure white and fluffy never trapped any gold, probably because the silver percentage going in was so low.
 
Thanks again 4metals.

Now, after the filtration and SO2 drop (I assume you used SO2 because of costs?), did you re-cycle the HCL from the barren liquids or else what did you do with the liquid waste?.

Also, would you describe the filtration membrane and setup?. I assume it was a Buchner type with vaccuum, but for that amount of liquid I can't think of a proper membrane material/setup.

The setup I left the PVC folks with used a Buchner type made of PVC with layered coffee filters in the middle of two fiberglass cloths. It was gravity filtered without vaccuum, because...the vaccuum pump had broken and they said they would replace it "sometime".

They never had any gold in the AgCl either, because the shot was layered out horizontally to offer maximum surface to the acids, and was pretty much all digested simultaneously.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top