Acid Chlorox reaction

[bswartzwelder]

I have been wondering for quite some time about the acid/Chlorox method. I used the AP method to recover the gold from some finger contacts, then put the gold into a beaker with HCl and added Chlorox. It fizzed, and slowly, the foils dissolved. Am I correct to assume the gasses which are given off when Chlorox is added to HCl are not responsible for dissolving the gold and are a by-product? I believed this to be the case since the gold dissolved after the gasses had dissipated.

 

[chlaurite]

I have been wondering for quite some time about the acid/Chlorox method. I used the AP method to recover the gold from some finger contacts, then put the gold into a beaker with HCl and added Chlorox. It fizzed, and slowly, the foils dissolved. Am I correct to assume the gasses which are given off when Chlorox is added to HCl are not responsible for dissolving the gold and are a by-product? I believed this to be the case since the gold dissolved after the gasses had dissipated.

If you mix them in equal molar amounts, you get NaClO + 2 HCl -> Cl₂ + H₂O + NaCl. Free Cl₂ acts as a strong enough oxidizing agent to oxidize gold - Except, free Cl₂ doesn't tend to stick around very long.

So really, as the only effect of HCl + NaClO, you get free Cl₂ both evolved and placed into solution. The evolved gas effectively goes to waste, but we do this with such an excess that we still saturate the solution; the lag between evolving gas and the gold dissolving just comes from the time it takes for the Cl₂ in solution to fully dissolve the gold.

As an experiment (which I haven't done, but you've inspired me to try it in the near future next time I have some foils to dissolve), use a pipette of chlorox to release it in very small doses well below the surface of your acid while stirring vigorously (careful, re-reading that on preview looks like a recipe for some serious burns if you screw up!). Theoretically, if you can get most of your Cl₂ to go into solution, you should only need a very small amount of it to dissolve any realistic (ie, small) amount of metallic gold. We only add so much normally as consequence of just dumping it in on top of the acid, so most of the Cl₂ goes to waste.

 

[bswartzwelder]

WOW! you just blew my old mind. I have looked for pipettes for some time and just haven't been able to find them in larger sizes. Probably a good deal, as they would most likely get dropped or roll off a bench and break anyhow. I never liked the idea of using my mouth to provide the motive force for transferring liquids into a pipette, that's why I always used a piece of tubing of some sort between the pipette and me. I did like how easily you could control the flow when you were releasing the liquid out of the pipette.

It's true, anytime I added Chlorox to HCl, it fizzed up immediately and seemed to finish reacting almost at once. However, I do have a bunch of old syringes around from the days when I refilled ink jet cartridges. Add a piece of airline tubing to the end of the syringe and I could suck up the Chlorox. Then, place the tubing all the way to the bottom of the vessel containing the HCl and slowly "pump" in the Chlorox. It would go to the bottom of the vessel giving the most time for the Chlorine to react before it finally off gasses. It would also put space between the chemicals and my beautiful face. Don't want to take any chances. I've been told I have a face that only a mother could love. Seeing how many mothers there are out there, I take that as a supreme compliment.

As a side note, ink jet cartridges usually have gold plated contacts on them. They are tiny, but instead of just tossing them, I try to recover the gold from them by adding them to me other e-scrap. If, where you purchase ink jet cartridges, they offer either a discount or a rebate for returning used cartridges, you will certainly get the most bang for your buck by trading them in. If they just accept them and offer no incentive, process them.

 

[Traveller11]

WOW! you just blew my old mind. I have looked for pipettes for some time and just haven't been able to find them in larger sizes. Probably a good deal, as they would most likely get dropped or roll off a bench and break anyhow. I never liked the idea of using my mouth to provide the motive force for transferring liquids into a pipette, that's why I always used a piece of tubing of some sort between the pipette and me. I did like how easily you could control the flow when you were releasing the liquid out of the pipette.

It's true, anytime I added Chlorox to HCl, it fizzed up immediately and seemed to finish reacting almost at once. However, I do have a bunch of old syringes around from the days when I refilled ink jet cartridges. Add a piece of airline tubing to the end of the syringe and I could suck up the Chlorox. Then, place the tubing all the way to the bottom of the vessel containing the HCl and slowly "pump" in the Chlorox. It would go to the bottom of the vessel giving the most time for the Chlorine to react before it finally off gasses. It would also put space between the chemicals and my beautiful face. Don't want to take any chances. I've been told I have a face that only a mother could love. Seeing how many mothers there are out there, I take that as a supreme compliment.

As a side note, ink jet cartridges usually have gold plated contacts on them. They are tiny, but instead of just tossing them, I try to recover the gold from them by adding them to me other e-scrap. If, where you purchase ink jet cartridges, they offer either a discount or a rebate for returning used cartridges, you will certainly get the most bang for your buck by trading them in. If they just accept them and offer no incentive, process them.

Chlorine gas dissolved in water becomes hypochlorous acid (HOCl) and hydrochloric acid (HCl). It is not necessary to have an extremely low pH, as in the "Acid/Clorox" method. HOCl is the oxidizer and the chloride ion is provided by the HCl, or "hydrogen chloride", as it is also known. In the Acid/Clorox process, the chloride ions are also supplied by the NaCl created when an acid and a base meet each other and cancel each other out.

As I have stated before, it is not necessary to use HCl to dissolve gold with chlorine, nor is it necessary to make chlorine gas. It actually disturbs me to see people with little or no experience in chemistry being advised to mix HCl and NaClO together, and next to no safety instructions on how to avoid a violent acid/base reaction, or inhaling chlorine gas.

To achieve EXACTLY the same process for dissolving gold into a soluble chloride, with the process at a neutral pH and NO chlorine gas is quite a simple thing. First, take a volume of bleach (stronger the better) whose pH will be slightly over 12 and, using a pH tester, slowly add acetic acid (vinegar) until the pH is between 7 and 8. To this, add un-iodized salt to 10% of the volume of the water. This mixture will put gold into solution.

What we have done by lowering the pH of the bleach (NaClO) is converted a good portion of the sodium hypochlorite (NaClO) into hypochlorous acid (HOCl), EXACTLY the same as if we were to bubble chlorine gas through water. There are other steps necessary to make this process work but, they are mechanical and quite easy to understand.

As I have stated many times on this forum, this process for dissolving gold with chlorine at an almost neutral pH is not theory, it was the primary method employed for recovering gold from hard rock mines right up until the introduction of cyanide leaching in the early 1900's. Cyanide had the advantage of not only being far simpler to use, it was also much cheaper; and chlorine leaching was abandoned almost overnight. However, as cyanide is both difficult for the small operator to obtain, and somewhat dangerous to use, a chlorine leach made from common household products definitely has a place for the modern small operator. Especially one that produces no chlorine gas, and does not employ highly corrosive acids.

 

[Harold_V]

As I have stated many times on this forum, this process for dissolving gold with chlorine at an almost neutral pH is not theory, it was the primary method employed for recovering gold from hard rock mines right up until the introduction of cyanide leaching in the early 1900's. Cyanide had the advantage of not only being far simpler to use, it was also much cheaper; and chlorine leaching was abandoned almost overnight. However, as cyanide is both difficult for the small operator to obtain, and somewhat dangerous to use, a chlorine leach made from common household products definitely has a place for the modern small operator. Especially one that produces no chlorine gas, and does not employ highly corrosive acids.

The one serious negative aspect of using chlorine is that silver is not recovered, unlike with cyanide.

Harold

 

[Traveller11]

As I have stated many times on this forum, this process for dissolving gold with chlorine at an almost neutral pH is not theory, it was the primary method employed for recovering gold from hard rock mines right up until the introduction of cyanide leaching in the early 1900's. Cyanide had the advantage of not only being far simpler to use, it was also much cheaper; and chlorine leaching was abandoned almost overnight. However, as cyanide is both difficult for the small operator to obtain, and somewhat dangerous to use, a chlorine leach made from common household products definitely has a place for the modern small operator. Especially one that produces no chlorine gas, and does not employ highly corrosive acids.

The one serious negative aspect of using chlorine is that silver is not recovered, unlike with cyanide.

Harold

Harold

At $23.62/ounce, I don't really lose any sleep over it.

 

[FrugalRefiner]

Poor silver... The Rodney Dangerfield of precious metals - it just doesn't get any respect.

When I was a kid, gold sold for around $35.00 an ounce. I wish someone had invested a bucket full of cash in it then. Now I see silver in the $30.00 an ounce range (yes, I know it's lower right now...), and I think what might this silver be worth someday to my grandchildren? They might just think old Gramps wasn't such an old feeb after all. :lol:

Dave

 

[Traveller11]

By the way, the soluble gold product created with this leach is not the usual gold (III) chloride or auric chloride (formula AuCl3 or Au2Cl6) that is made with the Acid/Clorox process. This leach will produce something called sodium tetrachloroaurate or sodium gold chloride for short, with a chemical formula of NaAuCl4. From what I can gather, the precipitants used to recover metallic gold from auric chloride will work on this, as well.

 

[modtheworld44]

By the way, the soluble gold product created with this leach is not the usual gold (III) chloride or auric chloride (formula AuCl3 or Au2Cl6) that is made with the Acid/Clorox process. This leach will produce something called sodium tetrachloroaurate or sodium gold chloride for short, with a chemical formula of NaAuCl4. From what I can gather, the precipitants used to recover metallic gold from auric chloride will work on this, as well.

Traveller11

Does this leach base metals as well or does it work similar to the way cyanide leaches gold?



modtheworld44

 

[Traveller11]

By the way, the soluble gold product created with this leach is not the usual gold (III) chloride or auric chloride (formula AuCl3 or Au2Cl6) that is made with the Acid/Clorox process. This leach will produce something called sodium tetrachloroaurate or sodium gold chloride for short, with a chemical formula of NaAuCl4. From what I can gather, the precipitants used to recover metallic gold from auric chloride will work on this, as well.

Traveller11

Does this leach base metals as well or does it work similar to the way cyanide leaches gold?



modtheworld44

Unfortunately, it will leach base metals, as well, as chlorine is very reactive. However, because it is not an acidic leach, but rather is close to neutral in pH, it cannot break the bonds of metal oxides (ie. haematite and magnetite). This is why, in the 1890's, ground ore was roasted, in the presence of oxygen, prior to leaching with this method. Roasting broke up the pyrites, turning the sulphur into sulphur dioxide and the iron into an oxide of iron. Any free iron in the ore was also turned into oxides. Large amounts of copper are also poison on this leach, unless oxidized as well.

Another drawback to this leach is that the process must take place inside an airtight revolving container, with either ALL of the air excluded by completely filling the container with ore and liquid, or by pumping air into the container and maintaining a pressure of 60 psi. In the 1890's, this pressure was created by mixing two chemicals together inside the sealed container to create chlorine gas, which then dissolved in the water in the container. Chlorine gas which did not dissolve built up pressure inside the container, achieving the same purpose as pumping in 60 psi air. This container must be either plastic or, if made from steel or other metals, plastic or lead lined to prevent the chlorine from reacting with the metal. Even stainless steel will react with chlorine and, outside of lead, the only other suitable metal is titanium.

The reason for excluding air, or for raising the pressure, is that hypochlorous acid (HOCl), the lower pH alter ego of sodium hypochlorite (NaClO) bleach, is, unlike sodium hypochlorite, a very powerful oxidizer and, for that reason, is very unstable. It wants nothing more than to lose that lone oxygen atom to the atmosphere and go from HOCl to HCl which is, of course, hydrochloric acid or hydrogen chloride. In the water system I operate, this can easily be proven. I add sodium hypochlorite bleach to drinking water, as a disinfectant, by means of a metering pump and injection nozzle. As the pH of our water is typically 7.5, this hypochlorite gets converted to a roughly 50/50 mixture of sodium hypochlorite and hypochlorous acid. I measure this mixture out in the system on a regular basis as "free chlorine" by means of a reagent. Once all the reactions with bacteria, organics and metals such as iron and manganese have occurred, the remaining free chlorine will stay in the water for as long as two weeks, temperature dependent, before the free chlorine is depleted. This is because the water pressure in our pipelines is a static 94 psi. However, once this water is poured from the tap into a glass and left to stand at atmospheric pressure, the oxygen atom is quickly lost from the HOCl and, within half an hour, most of the free chlorine is gone from the water. The same will happen with this leach. If attempted in open air, the oxygen will take the path of least resistance, and instead of oxidizing gold, will be lost to the atmosphere. The resulting HCl will also begin lowering the overall pH of the solution, and, once under pH 5, chlorine gas will be released. At a lower pH, the increased acidity is also enough to break the bonds of the metal oxides, putting base metals into solution and not gold.

Strangely enough, I thought the sole purpose of revolving the container was to keep the leach and ore mixed and in contact with each other. From reading an old mining paper, I learned the other purpose was to keep the gold particles in motion in order to abrade the silver chloride precipitating on the gold particles. It seems that silver chloride will form an impenetrable coating on the gold particles and impair the leach process. Constant tumbling knocks the silver chloride off, as, from what I have read, it does not have a strong bond to the surface of the gold particle.

 

[Traveller11]

I should also add that adding acetic acid (vinegar) to bleach is not the only way of lowering the pH of bleach to 7-8. You can accomplish the same thing with HCl and use far less of it than you would vinegar. However, adding HCl to bleach can give one a rather violent reaction, whereas vinegar barely sizzles when added to bleach.

This is another thing that has always concerned me about the Acid/Clorox process. Typically, the material is first covered in HCl, then bleach is added to that. As everyone knows, one of the first rules of chemistry is to always add acid to water, and NEVER add water to acid. If bleach is typically made up of over 90% water, would this not mean this process violates that rule?

 

[solar_plasma]

acid to water, and NEVER add water to acid. If bleach is typically made up of over 90% water, would this not mean this process violates that rule?

Dilluting strong bases or acids generates heat. Some generate more heat, some less - you don't want to put water into conc. sulfuric acid. Following this rule means avoiding violent reactions and splashing. When you use HCl/chlorox you will have a more or less violent reaction generating heat and chlorine, yes, but you are prepared and if done cautious, it will normally not splash. Nevertheless, you are prepared, it could splash.

The more concentrated the acid or base is,the more likely it would splash. Conc. sulfuric is an example for an acid that definately WILL splash.

 

[bswartzwelder]

Traveller11,
Thank you for your well thought out and informative posts. I read the first one with great interest. I was planning to research this process in more depth before attempting the acid/Chlorox method again. It is obvious to me that others on the forum have had the same experiences as I have based on some of their comments. I was trying to formulate a couple of questions, but also wanted to know more before asking those questions. Now, after having read your second post on the process, that has (for me) become a moot point.

I will be the first to admit I am not a chemist. I have had high school chemistry and while attending Penn State had some college level chemistry as well. I have always tried to be as safe as possible when dealing with chemicals. Always adding acid to water and not vice versa and always making additions slowly. Also, anytime I use a chemical with chlorine in its makeup, I make sure there is a breeze (either natural or forced) before I start out. Ever since I was a very small lad, I had heard stories of how my grandfather had been gassed in World War One and had one lung removed and part of the other one as well. It was the fact that according to the way you described the procedure there was little chlorine off gassing that really piqued my interest.

As far as my own acid/Chlorox experiences, the first time I tried it, I was dissolving foils from circuit boards with little or no base metals. They had first been processed with AP. After that worked so well, I decided to try it with some very small placer nuggets. That was the experience whereby it didn't work as expected.

I can see several drawbacks (at least for me) in your version. First, copper will "poison" the leach. That means it should only be used on foils which have already been stripped by the AP method and are free of base metals. It's a shame that it would not be effective on circuit boards (even those with the components removed) if there was still copper underneath or solder present.

Another drawback is the necessity of an airtight revolving container under a pressure of at least 60 PSI. The revolving container is not much of a problem, but a plastic, titanium, or lead lined container able to withstand 60 PSI would certainly pose some issues (at least for me). If it would work at close to ambient pressure, there are many plastic containers, easily obtainable (and cheap) which could suffice.

Your explanation of the chlorine coming out of solution at room temperature and pressure reminded my of one of the experiments/training sessions of my Nuclear Engineering classes. At the State College campus of Penn State, there is "swimming pool" nuclear reactor named the Brazealle (not sure of the spelling after all these years) nuclear reactor. You can stand around the gallery and look down into the reactor as it is being operated. As the power level increases, the blue glow from the core gets brighter. It has a 1 megawatt thermal rating for continuous operation, but can be pulsed to a thousand megawatts for a few thousandths of a second demonstrating an effect called "going prompt critical". During that instant, the light produced looks almost like looking at a huge flashbulb. Anyhow, as the reactor is in operation, it produces a byproduct which has a very short life span (on the order of a few seconds). This byproduct would rise with the heated water and as it broke the surface, it would set off radiation monitors in the area. The depth from the top of the core to the surface of the water was something like 9 to 12 feet. A few more feet of water meant the product would never get to the surface in a concentration that would set off the monitors as the radiation would decay to an acceptable level by then. The solution was to place a nozzle above the reactor core and blow water across the top of it. The radioactive byproduct now had to travel a longer distance by going at some angle other than the 90 degrees straight up. That was all it took to cause the byproduct to decay to safe levels before reaching the top of the surface.

Thank you, again for your explanation of the process. It was very informative and I do remember reading about it, but not lately. Do you have any pictures of your setup that you would care to share?

 

[Traveller11]

Traveller11,
Thank you for your well thought out and informative posts. I read the first one with great interest. I was planning to research this process in more depth before attempting the acid/Chlorox method again. It is obvious to me that others on the forum have had the same experiences as I have based on some of their comments. I was trying to formulate a couple of questions, but also wanted to know more before asking those questions. Now, after having read your second post on the process, that has (for me) become a moot point.

I will be the first to admit I am not a chemist. I have had high school chemistry and while attending Penn State had some college level chemistry as well. I have always tried to be as safe as possible when dealing with chemicals. Always adding acid to water and not vice versa and always making additions slowly. Also, anytime I use a chemical with chlorine in its makeup, I make sure there is a breeze (either natural or forced) before I start out. Ever since I was a very small lad, I had heard stories of how my grandfather had been gassed in World War One and had one lung removed and part of the other one as well. It was the fact that according to the way you described the procedure there was little chlorine off gassing that really piqued my interest.

As far as my own acid/Chlorox experiences, the first time I tried it, I was dissolving foils from circuit boards with little or no base metals. They had first been processed with AP. After that worked so well, I decided to try it with some very small placer nuggets. That was the experience whereby it didn't work as expected.

I can see several drawbacks (at least for me) in your version. First, copper will "poison" the leach. That means it should only be used on foils which have already been stripped by the AP method and are free of base metals. It's a shame that it would not be effective on circuit boards (even those with the components removed) if there was still copper underneath or solder present.

Another drawback is the necessity of an airtight revolving container under a pressure of at least 60 PSI. The revolving container is not much of a problem, but a plastic, titanium, or lead lined container able to withstand 60 PSI would certainly pose some issues (at least for me). If it would work at close to ambient pressure, there are many plastic containers, easily obtainable (and cheap) which could suffice.

Your explanation of the chlorine coming out of solution at room temperature and pressure reminded my of one of the experiments/training sessions of my Nuclear Engineering classes. At the State College campus of Penn State, there is "swimming pool" nuclear reactor named the Brazealle (not sure of the spelling after all these years) nuclear reactor. You can stand around the gallery and look down into the reactor as it is being operated. As the power level increases, the blue glow from the core gets brighter. It has a 1 megawatt thermal rating for continuous operation, but can be pulsed to a thousand megawatts for a few thousandths of a second demonstrating an effect called "going prompt critical". During that instant, the light produced looks almost like looking at a huge flashbulb. Anyhow, as the reactor is in operation, it produces a byproduct which has a very short life span (on the order of a few seconds). This byproduct would rise with the heated water and as it broke the surface, it would set off radiation monitors in the area. The depth from the top of the core to the surface of the water was something like 9 to 12 feet. A few more feet of water meant the product would never get to the surface in a concentration that would set off the monitors as the radiation would decay to an acceptable level by then. The solution was to place a nozzle above the reactor core and blow water across the top of it. The radioactive byproduct now had to travel a longer distance by going at some angle other than the 90 degrees straight up. That was all it took to cause the byproduct to decay to safe levels before reaching the top of the surface.

Thank you, again for your explanation of the process. It was very informative and I do remember reading about it, but not lately. Do you have any pictures of your setup that you would care to share?

Sorry about that. I don't think I explained everything quite adequately for you. The method of pressurizing the revolving leaching container to 60 psi with air was only one way out of several that was employed in the late 1800's. Another method pumped a chlorine solution (hypochlorite/hypochlorous acid) into the bottom of the revolving container, which also had a valve at the top of it. As the solution filled the ore filled container, it eventually overflowed the top valve and, by design of the container, all of the air in the container was displaced by solution at this point. The flow of chlorine solution to the bottom of the container was cut off at this point, and the top valve was closed. This left a solution filled container with no air in it; or, if there was air, such a miniscule amount that the first bit of oxygen lost from the HOCl would very quickly build to a pressure that would not allow any more oxygen to be lost from the HOCl.

Another method employed was to have a mixture of ground ore and water in the revolving cylinder and, to this mixture, adding chloride of lime (calcium hypochlorite) and sulphuric acid, and then quickly sealing the container. This mixture, of course, produced chlorine gas. A goodly portion of the chlorine gas dissolved in the water, making hypochlorous acid (HOCl) and hydrochloric acid (HCl or hydrogen chloride), while the excess chlorine gas built up pressure inside the container; achieving the same end as pressurizing with air to 60 psi.

You see, there is more than one way to skin a cat; it all depends on how much you enjoy breathing chlorine gas.

It is unfortunate that copper has the effect it does on this leach. I have read several patents that recommended oxidizing copper to an oxide but, they were dealing with finely ground ore, and I do not know if this would be economical to do with printed circuits. As I stated in the last post, finely ground ores, in the late 1800's, were roasted in the presence of air to convert base metals and sulphides into oxides, which were impervious to chlorine at a pH close to neutral.

Here is a link to a good article from 1898:

http://geology.com/publications/getting-gold/secondary-gold-extraction.shtml

One minor correction; it is not the chlorine that is lost to the atmosphere when a solution of hypochlorous acid (chlorinated water, for example) is left to stand in an open container at atmospheric pressure. From the HOCl, it is the oxygen atom that is lost, leaving us with HCl or hydrochloric acid. This is why hypochlorous acid is known as such a powerful oxidizer, and why it is such a good disinfectant. As it oxidizes bacteria in water, that oxygen atom actually breaks through the outer cell wall of the bacteria, wreaking havoc with the DNA within.

 

[Gratilla]

Anyhow, as the reactor is in operation, it produces a byproduct which has a very short life span (on the order of a few seconds). This byproduct would rise with the heated water and as it broke the surface, it would set off radiation monitors in the area. The depth from the top of the core to the surface of the water was something like 9 to 12 feet. A few more feet of water meant the product would never get to the surface in a concentration that would set off the monitors as the radiation would decay to an acceptable level by then. The solution was to place a nozzle above the reactor core and blow water across the top of it. The radioactive byproduct now had to travel a longer distance by going at some angle other than the 90 degrees straight up. That was all it took to cause the byproduct to decay to safe levels before reaching the top of the surface.

Hmmm, something doesn't sound quite right here. The vertical speed of the byproduct (and thus the time to reach the surface) should be the same, irrespective of the added crossflow. True, the diagonal distance travelled would be greater, but the vertical component should be the same.

Take, for example, a plane travelling from A to B (in still air). If a crosswind is added, the ground speed would increase, but the airspeed would remain the same. [Of course the plane would now never reach its destination unless the plane's direction was changed to counteract the crosswind component.]

If adding the nozzles provided a solution though ... can't argue with that, but I would imagine some other "magic" was involved.

 

[niteliteone]

(snip)
If adding the nozzles provided a solution though ... can't argue with that, but I would imagine some other "magic" was involved.

That one important aspect (magic) was "time". since the the radiation was forced to travel a greater distance to reach the surface, which would require more time, it decayed before it reached the surface.
Remember radioactive particles have mass, therefore must obey laws of physics.

 

[Gratilla]

Agree
Agree
Disagree
Yes, but WHY???

The vertical distance remains the same.
The time to rise that vertical distance will remain the same.
The nozzles introduce a horizontal component and yes,
The distance travelled will be greater, and
the speed (in relation to the container) will increase, but surely
The time to rise the vertical distance will still remain the same.

Now imagine you're a mini Einstein sitting on one of those rising bubbles (without affecting it in any way) ... ... ...

Hmmm, where does my logic break down???

 

[niteliteone]

Agree
Agree
Disagree
Yes, but WHY???

The vertical distance remains the same.
The time to rise that vertical distance will remain the same.
The nozzles introduce a horizontal component and yes,
The distance travelled will be greater, and
the speed (in relation to the container) will increase, but surely
The time to rise the vertical distance will still remain the same.

Now imagine you're a mini Einstein sitting on one of those rising bubbles (without affecting it in any way) ... ... ...

Hmmm, where does my logic break down???

So by your logic, a head wind vs a tail wind would have no effect on how fast a 747 could climb to cruising altitude, assuming no other variables were involved. (ie. ground speed and throttle position)

edit to add;
"So by your logic" is said in a good way, not confrontational.

 

[solar_plasma]

Radiation against a flow of materia means, that the radiation, wether it is particle or wave radiation, has to pass more atoms per time without hitting them. So, setting a flow of materia against the radiation is pretty the same as shielding with materia of a higher density.


I hope this simple image isn't made impossible to understand caused my bad germ-english :lol:


I just wonder, how fast must the flow be to take any effect, considering the speed of the radiation.

 

[niteliteone]

(snip)
I hope this simple image isn't made impossible to understand caused my bad germ-english :lol:

On the contrary. It made me think more about what I was getting at above and is right on target. Unlike my example :mrgreen: