And you think this because........?
99.5%? Is it possible?
- Thread starter Montecristo
- Start date
Help Support Gold Refining Forum:
And you think this because........?
Goldenchild
You're confusing accountability with fineness. The 99.875 you had as an assay for your gold means you had 0.00125 of impurities in your gold.
The 99.875 I was referring to was accountability, meaning how much of the expected gold actually comes out in the end. It is an important parameter to watch as you can produce .9999 fine gold and only account for 95% of what was expected and still lose the customer.
You're confusing accountability with fineness. The 99.875 you had as an assay for your gold means you had 0.00125 of impurities in your gold.
The 99.875 I was referring to was accountability, meaning how much of the expected gold actually comes out in the end. It is an important parameter to watch as you can produce .9999 fine gold and only account for 95% of what was expected and still lose the customer.
HAuCl4
Well-known member
4metals said:
Mainly because the big AgCl volume traps all the insolubles and still some gold/platinum/palladium in the atomizer process, whereas the AgCl (if you go that way) is much cleaner in the inquartation first process. Notice that after inquartation+nitric leach, the recovery of the Ag, most Pd, Pt can go in parallel (time) with the AR or HCL-NaCLO3 leach of the gold+other, NH4Cl recovery of whatever Pt,Pd is left, and finally the gold. The insolubles would be very easy to isolate too.
That's just my opinion without actual hands on experience.
Fournines
Well-known member
HAuCl4 said:
I've watched 5,000 oz get turned into wet mud in just a few minutes. It's pretty cool the first time you see one of those things in action.
HAuCl4
Well-known member
Fournines said:
I'd love to see it sometime. Especially the 5,000 oz! :lol:
Irons
Well-known member
HAuCl4 said:
I'm being perfectly serious. I bought a power washer a while back and the manual says it will generate over 2000 psi, depending on which nozzle you use. I bet it would break up the Gold quite well. There would probably have to be more than one nozzle. I don't know how many nozzles one power washer would handle, but they are not that expensive and two or more would be a reasonable expense.
If you get the particles small enough, and that is what the atomizer is there for, the acid penetrates and the digestion is complete. Yes there are silver chlorides but the coating over undissolved metal to trap values is minimal if it exists at all due to the fine particle size. The ability of the acid to penetrate a silver chloride coating is apparently greater than the size of the particles.
And Fournines is right, seeing a bar one minute, molten metal the next and then fine mud is a sight to see.
And Fournines is right, seeing a bar one minute, molten metal the next and then fine mud is a sight to see.
HAuCl4
Well-known member
If you can wash the AgCl very well of me (HAuCl4 :lol: ) and there are no other nasty PGMs at all present, then I agree with you 100%. 8)
I perfectly believe fournines. I understand he runs a large operation in NYC. I was just joking, because I have only seen 5,000 OZ in pictures and films, like mostly everybody else.
I perfectly believe fournines. I understand he runs a large operation in NYC. I was just joking, because I have only seen 5,000 OZ in pictures and films, like mostly everybody else.
HAuCl4
Well-known member
Irons said:
OK...so we got the pressure source, water nozzles, hydraulic capacitor, anyone got a picture of the heated metal nozzle, melter?.
Barren Realms 007
In Remembrance
You don't use a heated metal nozel to inject the gold to be atomized. You can take a crucible drill 1/8" holes in the bottom. This is the crucible you are going to pour your molten gold into. You heat the crucible with the holes in it and then you pour your gold into that and it run out the holes thru the atomizer and you are complete.
HAuCl4
Well-known member
Barren Realms 007 said:
Cool. Simpler than I thought.
What angle, pressure and volume per second of water through the nozzles (3 nozzles?) to produce sub 100 mesh powder?.
At what temperature do you pour the metal?.
HAuCl4
Well-known member
4metals said:
I was thinking that inquarting and then atomizing would be even better. Even with a less than perfect atomizer, and a less than perfect 1:3 inquart.
Get the best of both worlds: Flash digestion, no values at all trapped in the AgCl, and 9999 Ag possible in 1 pass without re-processing AgCl. Insolubles like Rh, etc available inmediately. Still would probably need to re-cycle the nitric. :shock:
Barren Realms 007
In Remembrance
HAuCl4 said:
See if this will help.
http://www.goldrefiningforum.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=6211&hilit=atomizer
HAuCl4
Well-known member
Thanks Barren!. I think that would work perfectly for the inquart first +atomize later!. I don't think it is good enough for what 4metals is suggesting though.
Maybe at a higher pressure the sand will turn to mud?.
Maybe at a higher pressure the sand will turn to mud?.
Think again dude, it works..........well.
HAuCl4
Well-known member
4metals said:
I take your word for it 4metals!. Cheaper than $150 K too!. :lol:
HAuCl4
Well-known member
So using one of these atomizers, the "new standard" is something like:
400 Lb of 4 metals refined in 4 hours to 4 nines?. :lol:
I can see gold could be done in 1-2 hours, silver 2-3 hours, Pd 2-3 hours, and a stretch to do 9999 Pt in 4 hours, but perhaps possible?.
Less than 1 per 1000 in "losses" too.
Unthinkable stuff 20 years ago!. 8)
edit: Probably not cost effective to refine small amounts of Pt, Pd on a daily basis, yet technically possible.
400 Lb of 4 metals refined in 4 hours to 4 nines?. :lol:
I can see gold could be done in 1-2 hours, silver 2-3 hours, Pd 2-3 hours, and a stretch to do 9999 Pt in 4 hours, but perhaps possible?.
Less than 1 per 1000 in "losses" too.
Unthinkable stuff 20 years ago!. 8)
edit: Probably not cost effective to refine small amounts of Pt, Pd on a daily basis, yet technically possible.
Irons
Well-known member
I have a question about settling time and any losses from colloidal gold suspended in the water. One time bottleneck I see, is the Gold settling time. If it takes a day or more for the fines to settle out, that would be a significant bottleneck it the process. You can filter the water with a sub-micron filter but if you do it too soon, the filter will clog and the process will slow to a crawl again. It could take weeks or months for the finest particles to settle out. I've found that a few drops of acid in 4 liters of water speeds things up a lot, but it still takes time, and time is money.
HAuCl4
Well-known member
Hi Irons: I thought about that and the best solution I could come up with was using a COARSE filter and passing the liquid twice, the second time through, the larger particles acting like a filter for the small particles.
Like a bed of rocks on the bottom, then of pebbles, then of sand, then of mud.
I think with good vaccuum that would work. I've used that trick before in a water treatment application, but not on those very fine particles of precious metals.
Maybe the guys doing it will speak on how they actually do it.
Like a bed of rocks on the bottom, then of pebbles, then of sand, then of mud.
I think with good vaccuum that would work. I've used that trick before in a water treatment application, but not on those very fine particles of precious metals.
Maybe the guys doing it will speak on how they actually do it.
Barren Realms 007
In Remembrance
HAuCl4 said:
You are talking about a sand filter.
I wouldn't use it in this line of work.
If you worked at the water treatment facility long enough you would find that the filter material would need to be changed out at some point because of it being stopped up.
You would be better off letting it sit and settle. Any kind of filter you use you have the possability of loosing values traped in the filter
