I guess that the ash is pretty much Silicas and Oxides that do not dissolve in any acids we wish to use.
Best options for this ash
- Thread starter jord
- Start date
Help Support Gold Refining Forum:
I have no tests to verify this, so this is just an Idea out of the top of my head.
All solids in water can be liquefied by pressure/vibration.
In this state the particle distance could be sufficient to let the bond wires "sink".
Maybe add some ultrasonic into the mix as well.
As said, I have no idea if it will work, but it has been an Idea for a long time.
I just have not had the material to test it.
Edit to add:
Liquefied not in the sense of put into a solution, but rather a process called liquefaction, where as external pressure and vibration moves the particles away from each other and lets the whole behave as a "liquid".
The process behind mudslides and such.
All solids in water can be liquefied by pressure/vibration.
In this state the particle distance could be sufficient to let the bond wires "sink".
Maybe add some ultrasonic into the mix as well.
As said, I have no idea if it will work, but it has been an Idea for a long time.
I just have not had the material to test it.
Edit to add:
Liquefied not in the sense of put into a solution, but rather a process called liquefaction, where as external pressure and vibration moves the particles away from each other and lets the whole behave as a "liquid".
The process behind mudslides and such.
Last edited:
kurtak
Well-known member
First I want to thank goldshark, nick & Jon (spaceships) for chiming in here - I 
it when "deep thinkers" put ideas out there for problem solving ideas
The concept here (as I understand it) is to get the ash to go through the screen but get the bond wires to remain in/on the screen as your bond wire concentrate as a result of a simple back & forth horizontal sifting motion because wire length is greater then the screen mesh size compared to the wire diameter which is less then the screen mesh size
Per the bold print - & that is the problem - getting all the bond wires to remain flat - when you dump a bunch (or pile) of ash in the sifter some of the wires in that pile are going to be vertical & some will be horizontal
The ash it's self holds any vertical wires vertical allowing them to go through the screen (with the ash) & as well the "over size" in the ash goes to work at lifting horizonal wires to a vertical position so they also go through the screen (along with the ash)
That is how/why sifting works in the first place for separating over size from under size thereby giving you a more uniform particle size that then allows for density to its job of water washing --- light ash washes away leaving heaver material (bond wires etc.) in the bottom of your pan &/or table
You just are not going to get a good/true concentrate of bond wires to remain in/on top of the screen --- even if you put a pile of nothing but bond wire on a screen the back & forth sifting action would cause wire "ends" to catch on the ridges of the screen tipping them from horizontal to vertical allowing them to go though the screen
You "might" get some to stay in/on the screen but most will go through - they would have to be VERY long to keep from "up ending"
Kurt
it when "deep thinkers" put ideas out there for problem solving ideas The concept here (as I understand it) is to get the ash to go through the screen but get the bond wires to remain in/on the screen as your bond wire concentrate as a result of a simple back & forth horizontal sifting motion because wire length is greater then the screen mesh size compared to the wire diameter which is less then the screen mesh size
Per the bold print - & that is the problem - getting all the bond wires to remain flat - when you dump a bunch (or pile) of ash in the sifter some of the wires in that pile are going to be vertical & some will be horizontal
The ash it's self holds any vertical wires vertical allowing them to go through the screen (with the ash) & as well the "over size" in the ash goes to work at lifting horizonal wires to a vertical position so they also go through the screen (along with the ash)
That is how/why sifting works in the first place for separating over size from under size thereby giving you a more uniform particle size that then allows for density to its job of water washing --- light ash washes away leaving heaver material (bond wires etc.) in the bottom of your pan &/or table
You just are not going to get a good/true concentrate of bond wires to remain in/on top of the screen --- even if you put a pile of nothing but bond wire on a screen the back & forth sifting action would cause wire "ends" to catch on the ridges of the screen tipping them from horizontal to vertical allowing them to go though the screen
You "might" get some to stay in/on the screen but most will go through - they would have to be VERY long to keep from "up ending"
Kurt
kurtak
Well-known member
This actually works
It is basically the principal behind "bucket washing" which is a method I use as a "prewash" to "reduce" the amount of ash I need to run on my concentrator table
Out of time today but will post about that later
Kurt
I am a bit out of my depth here but I would be willing to try experiment with this. Do you think I will be able to carry this experiment out with a vaccum vessel (something like used when removing the air from resin)ran on a vibrator table at a slight angle? Would this act as some kind of air table and allow the particles with similar density to collect at each end?
I also have a large ultrasonic cleaner if it would be better
As I said I have not tested, but Kurt seems to have tested this.
No worries, will see what Kurt has to say on the matter for now i am just going to line my table with matting. The fine matting will be the main and I am also going to try the larger spaced but the fine should do.
*Edited to add more photos *
I have also folded this sheet out of aluminium, it is 90cm width and 110cm in length. This will be my Miller table once pipework attatched or maybe even just a cascade waterfall for the ponds the same width.
Attachments
Last edited:
kurtak
Well-known member
Sorry but no time to post today as I had to reply to a PM I received
Kurt
Kurt
Ayham Hafez
Well-known member
Isn't the best way for recovering the PM's from ic chips ash is the lead bath?
Copper as a collector metal will consume a lot of nitric acid unless we use copper electrolysis cell, but lead bath can collect all PM's from the ash "literally All PM's" since the ash fully washed in the lead bath and with some NaOH any epoxy cover gold particles will be melted, lead bath with steel pot will help to reduce the used lead, for example we can wash 5 kg of ic chips ash with only 1-2 kilos of lead till it evaporated, also we can wash the ic chips with lead bath without milling or incinerate them but in this case we will get a lot of smoke, I think the only con of using lead bath is the toxic of it, isn't it?
Copper as a collector metal will consume a lot of nitric acid unless we use copper electrolysis cell, but lead bath can collect all PM's from the ash "literally All PM's" since the ash fully washed in the lead bath and with some NaOH any epoxy cover gold particles will be melted, lead bath with steel pot will help to reduce the used lead, for example we can wash 5 kg of ic chips ash with only 1-2 kilos of lead till it evaporated, also we can wash the ic chips with lead bath without milling or incinerate them but in this case we will get a lot of smoke, I think the only con of using lead bath is the toxic of it, isn't it?
What is up with you and wanting to use the most harmful ways? I have read many of your posts yet you still use urea to decompose your nitric solutions, lead to recover the gold? Yes it may be possible but why? , the gold is not worth your health
Naughtius Maximus
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2023
- Messages
- 17
I wonder what centrifugation would do? Soap it up and spin it.
Ayham Hafez
Well-known member
NOx is much more harmful than lead, I believe that most of members here use lead and urea but in same time they warn from using them to protect inexperienced readers, but they know how to use them without harming their selves, in general all PM's recovering processes are harmful if you don't know how to deal carefully with them.
That is plain wrong, we do NOT use or support the use of Urea.
It is not effective and it may create an explosive compound.
Regarding Lead, some use it but its use is not wide spread.
And it is only used for cupelling.
Anywhere where collector metal is needed the recommendation is Copper or Silver.
Lead is one of the tools in the tool box, but most will not use it unless it is absolutely necessary.
I use it to go fishing
I successfully used liquefaction to separate materials with different physical properties. It worked for relatively large, low surface-area particles (flakes, fines, metal bits, that don’t screen well). I tried a bunch of stuff once I realizied Some materials exhibit electrostatic interactions with water and take weeks to settle, . Very small, hydroscopic or hydrophobic particles behave differently: hydrophobic particles become effectively larger and less dense, and hydrophobic particles have empty (charged) space around them that make them effectively less dense. The composition of your water solution matters, after that it’s experimentation.
Have you considered differential settling? Liquify a manageable amount in a 5 gal bucket, for example, water, then mix thoroughly and allow stuff to settle for long enough for dense particles to cover the bottom, then pour off the unsettled liquid and let that settle before recovering your solution. You can reduce non-pm concentration by quite a bit this way, depending on wgat’s in the mix. You reuse water over & over. It takes time to tune a process,
Worst post I ever made. Let me start over.
I have taken advantage of the different settling rates of pm bearing mixtures in (water) solutions.
I have used liquefaction to separate mixtures, but I did not have any means to extract any of the constituents and everything mixed back together when I tried pouring it off—so a fail as a practical matter. Then I tried settling. It worked very well. I failed to state this plainly in my original post before detailing discoveries I made coming up with an effective, multi-step process. I got ahead of my skis there, sorry.
If I made editing errors, I throw myself on the mercy of the moderators. I am a noob in these things.
I have taken advantage of the different settling rates of pm bearing mixtures in (water) solutions.
I have used liquefaction to separate mixtures, but I did not have any means to extract any of the constituents and everything mixed back together when I tried pouring it off—so a fail as a practical matter. Then I tried settling. It worked very well. I failed to state this plainly in my original post before detailing discoveries I made coming up with an effective, multi-step process. I got ahead of my skis there, sorry.
If I made editing errors, I throw myself on the mercy of the moderators. I am a noob in these things.
Why not just use some kind of bag made from acid resistant material, leach the material then just lift the bag out let it drip drain then wash out and filter solution. Surely this is faster than filtering whole material or just wash it as Kurt instructed? Seem the best methods to me so far
