Electrochemistry Aqua regia and electroplating

[mikes1066]

If an assay was the absolute in ores why was I offered a job crushing assay glass and running it through AR looking for all the dirty metals that the assay flux removes. I did not take the job because it was minium wage and salaried. If an assay was the do all and end all why is it not accepted from one buyer to another. Why am I always hearing " I only accept assay from my perticular guy" . If an assay was so good there would be an industry accepted standard.

I only brought the jars inside to take the pictures. And YES there is a light bulb near the furnace. Everything is outside and covered.

I changed my mind and decided instrad of using Hcl I put the filterings in vinegar. So I went looking to remove more suspected chorides, nitrates, sulfates and so on. Everything dissolved so the must be more contaminates. Time for more single element replacement using more than one metal seperately in different jars. Everyone says copper, copper , copper. Lead may be a different choice but works better with sulfates than copper.

 

[FrugalRefiner]

Time for more single element replacement using more than one metal seperately in different jars. Everyone says copper, copper , copper. Lead may be a different choice but works better with sulfates than copper.

Mike, you've used the term "single element replacement" multiple times in this thread. Could you please explain what that term means to you? To me, it would mean that if I dissolved sterling silver, which is supposed to be only silver and copper, in nitric acid, then put a solid copper bar in the solution, the silver (a single element) would be replaced by the copper. But that's a pretty pure system. If you dissolve an ore in your choice of acid, then use a metal like lead that's much higher on the reactivity series, then many elements will be replaced, not just a single one.

The reason copper is so often recommended is that the elements below it in the reactivity series are the precious metals we are targeting.

I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm just trying to understand what you mean when you keep talking about single element replacement.

Dave

 

[goldsilverpro]

This thread is why I stopped working with miners. You don't tell them - they tell you. A good assayer will find 100 percent of the values in a sample, but he's not going to charge only $15-$25. The most important part of assaying is the sample - all an assay does is tell you what's in the sample bag. If you run a sample for a miner and get zero, the miner will never believe you. That's why miners like particular assayers that will give them high numbers.

 

[patnor1011]

Exactly.
My point was that with assay you will know exactly what is in your jar. Without an assay you have no idea only hope. You do not even know how much of that hope is in there.

 

[mikes1066]

you people can say what you want. When your ore starts with a specific gravity of 8.5 or higher, my best being a 9.3, and yes I know how do a specific gravity test.

Single element replacement test. separate any dissolved ore into several different glass or pyrex containers and add a solid or shaved or powered metal of only one variety per sample . thus a different metal with zero cross contamination.

Well I saved my personal method of digestion, precipitation, and rinsing for a second digestion using poor mans AR. Yes I know most will complain I used this method instead of distilled nitric but at least I now have Green AR . When the weather gets over freezing I will cook it down, degas procedure, and see whats there.

If you gentleman are so smart why don't you grab a pan , jump in a river , find something with a specific gravity over 8 and figure out whats there.

I notice that I did not find an answer to me being offered a Job crushing assay glass and running AR on it to find out what was in the assay glass. Did I just expose a major industrial processors freebies?

 

[FrugalRefiner]

Single element replacement test. separate any dissolved ore into several different glass or pyrex containers and add a solid or shaved or powered metal of only one variety per sample . thus a different metal with zero cross contamination.

OK, now I understand what you mean by using the term, but what does it show you. Again, I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I don't deal with ores so I'm not familiar with how you might test them. So if you dissolve some ore in your choice of acids, and you divide the dissolved liquid into several different beakers, then put different metals into them (I assume metals like copper, iron, zinc, etc.), what do you learn? I'm just trying to learn from you. You seem to know a lot more about this than I do.

Dave

 

[Lou]

Mike,

You can also believe what you want.

You say you're so sure about the specific gravity (which it is a good thing it's that dense) but don't know what's in your material--guess what, I'm in Ohio too. I can tell you what is in it.

You said,

If an assay was the absolute in ores why was I offered a job crushing assay glass and running it through AR looking for all the dirty metals that the assay flux removes. I did not take the job because it was minium wage and salaried. If an assay was the do all and end all why is it not accepted from one buyer to another. Why am I always hearing " I only accept assay from my perticular guy" . If an assay was so good there would be an industry accepted standard.

If the job is done right, it's usually pretty barren. Slags do carry some value but unless something is very wrong, then they do not carry much value. I highly doubt that a well conducted fire assay contains even 1/10th of 1 percent of the value of sample.

As to why assays aren't accepted from buyer to buyer--that's pretty simple. Dishonest, stealing people. Some of them were even miners. Maybe notoriously so. They like to salt their ore with the good stuff, trying to fool people, and frankly, I hope they jump back into a very cold river.

Unless I was there to watch the material getting sampled with a method I had agreed to or did it myself, and retained physical control over the sample, the sample is worthless to me.

And there are industry standard methods for assays. ASTM, ISO, etc. Do them all the time. They're for particular materials, like karat gold, or dental alloys, or brass in munitions cartridges. It's called scope and context. Certain material, in certain form gets analyzed a certain way.

I don't know what you mean by lead works better with sulfates than copper. Time was when they would evaporate down sulfuric acid in lead pots, so resistant is lead to the action of sulfuric acid.

If you're trying to cement value: copper.
If you're trying to collect values: lead.

 

[4metals]

Slags do carry some value but unless something is very wrong, then they do not carry much value.

I have seen a good number of ore assayers process their slags. The major reason isn't the assays that went right, it's the fusions that went wrong. There are so many potential scenario's in assaying ores that often a fusion does not go well so the fusion and sample and any inquarts go in the slag pile. So I would be thinking they are looking more to recover silver from processing slags than gold.

Most ore assays are based on an assay ton of sample, that is 29.166 grams per fusion. If you used an assay ton sample, every milligram you weigh in the resulting parting process equates to 1 ounce per ton in the ore. Trouble is the crucibles for those large fusions get costly and a lot of assayers will run a 1/10 assay ton sample size. So even a very very rich ore, run in a full assay ton, will yield milligrams of gold. So I don't see the value as being in ores, I see it in inquarts if it is anywhere.

But I agree with Lou and Chris, a good assayer will find the gold if it's there. But a bad, non representative sample has made many miners holding good assay results go broke.