Can I mix these?

[Geo]

Gold can be inquarted with copper just as well but it takes more acid. There is a thread on the forum where someone was using salt water as an electrolyte to dissolve a 14k ring. If it were any better than the methods taught on the forum, everyone would be using it instead of the other methods. So far, you have told us that you can break down a men's wedding band in 10 minutes. I can do the same with AR. You say you break down the metal and then still need to use AR to refine it. Why would anyone go through the extra steps with a dangerous chemical just to have to go down the same chemical road to refine the metal?

 

[Harold_V]

Acid stays in the cell it is a very small amuont that transfers in the mud.
What acid there is burns up in the exothermic reaction of the first rinse.

That's total nonsense. There's not enough heat generated to "burn up" acid by mixing with water--not even with concentrated sulfuric. I'll agree that what acid may be present is diluted, but nothing else. Do not post misinformation on this board. It is not well received.

Then acid bleach or aquatic regiea process.

Aquatic regiea?
Do you mean aqua regia?
We try to use proper terms on this board, so new readers don't assimilate bad habits. If you do not mean aqua regia, please be more specific with your post, describing the process you mentioned.

And then drop your gold cake at 3-9'S on the first melt.

That isn't guaranteed, nor is 3-9's a standard for anyone to shoot for. It's below the industry standard of 9995, so there's no real benefit in that being a target for purity. Beyond that, while precipitating is how gold is recovered, it, alone, isn't adequate to ensure high purity. I see no mention of washing the gold, so without proper washing, depending on how dirty your solution may be when you precipitate, you may well be below the 999 of which you spoke.

Inquartation is a medevil times way of doing it.
Works
But takes forever needs bunch of silver , Costs a lot in fuel.

Key to inquartation is what you said. It works, and it works very well. And the cost in fuel isn't an issue, as the material processed often would have required melting, anyway.

Those of us who use (or used) the inquartation process took advantage of the method by using scrap silver for the process, silver that would have required processing whether it was used for inquartation, or not. As an added benefit, the silver becomes a carrier for platinum group metals, concentrating them for convenient recovery when the silver is parted. All in all, inquartation has its own benefits, including lowering the amount of platinum group (important when processing dental gold). To post comments to the effect that it is "medieval" is not acceptable. It is, and will always remain a viable method of processing gold.

How operations are conducted is not a contest. Don't make it one. Readers will pick and choose those which best meet their needs. State your position in the matter, but do not lead readers such that you contradict processes that have proven to be successful, in particular when they have been well proven by time. We're not against revelations, but we are against anyone trying to undermine the processes that are commonly accepted. That serves no purpose and will get you on the wrong side of certain moderators (like me).

Harold

 

[bswartzwelder]

Just an update.

Since I started reading the forum, I got somewhat anxious to try many of the differing procedures to recover and refine gold. I tried some things where I added too much NaNO3 when making poorman's AR. Finally listening, I evaporated it down to a thick syrupy mass then added more HCl and did it over again. After adding HCl and evaporating 3 times, I dropped the gold with SMB. Got a really nice yellowish to light brown powder which I will re-dissolve in HCl and Chlorox and then drop with Oxalic acid.

The gold nugget has been used several times in various ways to make sure I have used up all the nitric, so there was only about 20 grams (give or take) left. I wrapped it with a very fine wire and put it into H2SO4. Using a lead cathode, I applied a DC current to it. At anything over 2 amps, my H2SO4 started heating up. The process was very slow and took 5 or 6 days only reducing the nugget by 2 or 3 grams on a good day. I now have a graduated cylinder with the black powder in the bottom. I washed with distilled water several times and added HCl. I now have between 20 and 40 ml of black powder in the bottom of the graduated cylinder with 400 to 500 ml of HCl on top. The HCl has turned a pale bluish color which I assume is copper. I will transfer everything to a beaker and after it settles, decant as much of the liquid off as possible. Then I will add HCl and slowly add Chlorox to dissolve the black powder. Then I will drop the gold with oxalic acid.

I weighed the remaining nugget and found it to be between 10 and 11 grams. I then mixed 50 ml HCl with 12 ml HNO3 and dropped it in. The next day, the nugget had disappeared. I found about 0.9 grams of placer gold which I dropped into the beaker as well. Everything seems to have disappeared. I may have a very slight excess of Nitric, so I will add Sulfamic acid to get rid of it. Then I will drop the gold with oxalic acid.

This should give me 3 beakers with relatively pure gold. I will put them all together and then do the triple boil in HCl and then triple boil in distilled water. Then, before I try to melt everything together, I will boil in either ammonia (household cleaner) or ammonium chloride.

Thanks to all those who have helped me. I still have a long way to go. I have several kg of computer chips to incinerate and a lot of cell phone circuit boards to process as well as several hundred SIM card chips with gold plated contacts. In no hurry, but feel the guidance of those here on the forum has been the difference between being happily surprised and greatly disappointed.

Bert

 

[richoc]

Midevil times are when inquarting gold for refining was invented, maybe well before that.

Electro winning is currently the way to go.

I only need eye droppings to do the A R or A C desolve, less chemicals less fumes.
I am no way giving away the steps here because there are dangers.
Yes there are washes in the process steps.
But no melting and remelting

Working with a few good men , We can do ore to karat jewlery in our cells.

Like I stated others will stick with what they know it is human nature not to changes what works for them.

The incandescent light bulb is now outlawed in the USA will you continue to use them, I stopped over 12 years back.

 

[richoc]

Harold.
You know you stuff for the meathods you use, no doubt there.
I respect that knowledge you help a lot of people.

Please have a open mind for the new methods that are developing.

The old ways poluted our earth in ways that may never recover.
I have seen open pits of mercury with onlyba rusted out old fenise tell you to keep out.
This company had to give up the claim and pay millions for fish restocking but the fish are poisonous to eat and the hazard after 20 years is still sitting there.


I telling you that they are not set in stone.
Diamonds are the hardest surface nature gave us.
My buddy makes them break down to a spherical NanoDiaond coating.
I made a solar powered cell for processing direct gold ore.
Works great working on maybe selling aftervpapervwork is all in order.
A no acid black sands processing system using electro winning to collect the PM groups.

Working on patent applications for some, so I can not open up to much.
But one of the biggest things is we do not need acids to break down what.we are harvesting.
Just very small amounts in a final refining step.
But if you near pure gold when you do the first drop it is of a very high purity.

 

[Harold_V]

Please have a open mind for the new methods that are developing.

Did you not pay attention to what I said?

I have no issues with things that are developing (although what you're doing is NOT new). What I have an issue with is your speaking poorly about systems that work very well, and may be a better choice than what you're doing, depending on circumstances that we may not understand. You come across as being the savior of all who refine. I don't think you are :!:

So then, if you can't discuss your method of working without saying something negative about other methods, don't discuss them here. I made it clear that you should discuss what you're doing, and how it works, pointing out advantages. That is acceptable. Discussing a process that is commonly accepted as not being so, as you've done, is not. That's your opinion, and it may not be shared by others, including myself. Don't put thoughts in the heads of those who may not benefit by what you're doing. Let them draw their own conclusions.

The old ways poluted our earth in ways that may never recover.

Please tell me how parting gold and silver is polluting the world in ways from which it may never recover, yet the electrolytic parting you choose to use is perfectly benign. I may be wrong, but I'm of the opinion that you're somewhat misinformed.

I have seen open pits of mercury with onlyba rusted out old fenise tell you to keep out
This company had to give up the claim and pay millions for fish restocking but the fish are poisonous to eat and the hazard after 20 years is still sitting there.

And I've seen dead deer at the side of the road, but I fail to understand how either of these example relate to the process of inquartation. Please stick to the topic at hand, and resist from making this topic a contest. I'm not going to respond to that kindly.

We're finished with this conversation, if you get my drift.

Harold

 

[g_axelsson]

Midevil times are when inquarting gold for refining was invented, maybe well before that.

Electro winning is currently the way to go.

I only need eye droppings to do the A R or A C desolve, less chemicals less fumes.
I am no way giving away the steps here because there are dangers.
Yes there are washes in the process steps.
But no melting and remelting

Working with a few good men , We can do ore to karat jewlery in our cells.

Like I stated others will stick with what they know it is human nature not to changes what works for them.

The incandescent light bulb is now outlawed in the USA will you continue to use them, I stopped over 12 years back.

I can't see anywhere that what you are using electrowinning in your procedures.

Electrowinning is the procedure to recover dissolved metals from a solution by plating it out with electricity.

Göran

 

[Harold_V]

I can't see anywhere that what you are using electrowinning in your procedures.

Electrowinning is the procedure to recover dissolved metals from a solution by plating it out with electricity.

Göran

An excellent observation.
This dude is guilty of endlessly posting misinformation, as GSP alluded in a post today. My patience with him is running thin, as I'm beginning to get the idea that he will eventually try scamming readers by way of selling his "invention" (which most likely differs little from other systems that are also not well accepted). What other possible reason could anyone have for an endless barrage of less than credible statements being made, especially after having been on this board for so long. By now he certainly must understand that he's digging a deep hole for himself.

Richoc, if you have nothing of worth to add to conversations, it will be in your best interest to remain silent. Do not continue to clutter threads with posts, as if you have the solution to everyone's problems. You don't have---and you're poorly informed, at least that's how it looks to me. The next bit of misinformation you post will be your last. Be warned.

I hope you recall reading on this board that I do not suffer fools gladly.

I don't.

I have to say, I got quite a chuckle from the comment of having abandoned the use of incandescent light bulbs 12 years ago. Maybe the fumes (coal oil) are getting to his head.
On that subject----twelve years ago, the options were switching to fluorescent lighting----which contains what? Seems to me it's mercury. Now there's a bold step forward.

Harold

 

[Claudie]

We in the USA are being forced to switch to the more toxic Mercury containing light bulbs. They have banned the manufacture of incandescent light bulbs here and continually promote the use of the fluorescent bulbs.
As I understand it, when one burns out, and they do burn out, you are supposed to take it in to a hazardous waste disposal facility instead of throwing them in the trash. I seriously doubt that people go through the bother of doing that. :|
I really don't believe switching to fluorescent bulbs has anything to do with saving energy or the environment. If we really wanted to save energy and the environment, why not use LED lighting? It's cheaper, lasts much longer, and gives off whatever light we design it to.
The new fluorescent bulbs smell terrible when they do burn out, that has to be healthy to breathe in our lungs. :shock:

Okay, I'm finished ranting now. :|

 

[bswartzwelder]

I have been switching to LED light bulbs. I have replaced 500 watts in my upstairs hallway with about 100 watts of LED's, over 560 watts on my front porch with 110 watts of LED's and two 500 watt floodlights with 100 watt floodlights. I have noticed quite a difference in my electric bills, but the LED lights are not cheap. I saw a 10 pack of 60 watt equivalent compact fluorescent lamps for $4.00 at Walmart.

Having said that, I have also stocked up on certain incandescent lamps. The ones used around bathroom mirrors are color enhancing and have a nice large globe shape. We have enough of them to last my lifetime.

 

[Harold_V]

Our new house has the lighting system installed that I purchased for the castle. The buyers had no need for the system, so I kept it as it offers some very nice features, such as control of any or all lights from multiple locations, plus dimming with memory, all by the simple push of a button.

That being said, it's a low voltage controlled solid state lighting system, which uses triacs for dimming and switching, and that's the problem.

I am not an electronics genius, nor do I play one on TV. Why this happens I can not say, but if I use LED lights with any of those circuits (not all are triacs---some are nothing more than relays), they don't turn off, even when the module is commanded to turn off. Really made me unhappy, as I had a pair of LED bulbs I wanted to use in the stairway leading to the top floor of the house. Had to switch to incandescent.

Harold

 

[butcher]

Fluorescent lighting needs some type of ballast, the older type used inductive coils, but many today have switched to electronic ballasts, LEDs also need some type of current resistor, (or a enough LEDs in series to drop voltage and current for the string of LEDs), or they need a ballast to drop voltage and current required for the LEDs, the standard electronic ballast will not be compatible with many types of lighting dimmers, the ballast and the dimmers need to be designed to do the job, and to work with each other.
To dim fluorescent (or LED lighting) you may have to have a dimmer circuit made for the light you are using, and dimming ballast made for the fluorescent lights or LED lights, to be able to dim the lights you are using.
Not all dimmers or ballasts are made the same.

I see where incandescent have their place, and benefits, and cannot be replaced by any other type of lighting, I also see where other types of lights would be a better choice.

What gets my dander up is government thinks they are better suited to make the choice, or decision of what we can or cannot use. or where and when we can use them. and with something as basic of lighting I feel they go too far, I can and should be able to decide which type of light bulb is best for my application at hand, and I know I can make a more wiser decision than the government as to which light is best where and when, and where I can save energy or money by doing so.
It also aggravates me with the government making laws before the technology has been developed that would support the laws they make, take GFCI breakers for example, the government made the laws and changes to the national electrical code before the GFCI breakers were made that could do what the law said we had to do, the manufactures rushed for years to develop a product to do what they were supposed to be able to do to comply with the new laws, many electricians were putting in GFCI circuit breakers in homes across the country (as the manufactures were still trying to learn to develop them to work as intended) and then all over the country the manufactures were recalling these circuit breakers when it was found they did not work as intended, this cost home owners and consumers millions of dollars.

This has been done with many things, we are wasting more energy (and resources) in this country trying to become more energy efficient and to fulfill the new laws made by lawmakers who do not have a clue, lawmakers making the law before the technology can do what the lawmakers want us to do.

These lawmakers are some times driven by those who wish to make money or to control a market,(lobbyists), (R22 freon comes to mind here, when Dupont was about to loose the patient for R22 freon, it all of a sudden became so much more dangerous for our environment then the other types of freon that was almost the same type of chemical makeup).
Lawmakers think it is their job to constantly make up new laws; doing this day in and day out, they soon begin making many more new stupid laws.
I feel many of these lawmakers have less common sense than my neighbors pet dog.

Incandescent lighting will always have a use, and will still be used in many applications, other types of lighting also will have a use and purpose better suited for the applications at hand, new technology and old technology both can be used to our advantage, and be used to save energy.

But with lawmakers making these decisions for us of what we can or should use, we will all be disadvantaged from some of their stupid decisions.

It is also interesting how sales of incandecent lighting has increased in this country since these new laws have been passed.

I think Edison a man with common sense would turn over in his grave knowing what we are doing with lighting today, his light bulb will be continued to be advanced, but also his basic light bulb will always have a use, and will still be around for a long time to come.

 

[Geo]

Our new house has the lighting system installed that I purchased for the castle. The buyers had no need for the system, so I kept it as it offers some very nice features, such as control of any or all lights from multiple locations, plus dimming with memory, all by the simple push of a button.

That being said, it's a low voltage controlled solid state lighting system, which uses triacs for dimming and switching, and that's the problem.

I am not an electronics genius, nor do I play one on TV. Why this happens I can not say, but if I use LED lights with any of those circuits (not all are triacs---some are nothing more than relays), they don't turn off, even when the module is commanded to turn off. Really made me unhappy, as I had a pair of LED bulbs I wanted to use in the stairway leading to the top floor of the house. Had to switch to incandescent.

Harold

Harold, that could be a dangerous symptom. It sounds like what I was taught to call "bleed through". The circuit is receiving current from another circuit. If that one circuit is on a breaker by itself, turn off the breaker and test the circuit with a volt meter. Start with the lowest current setting. If you get a reading, go up until you find out how much is bleeding through. If it is bleeding over, your common is "hot" which can be very dangerous even at low amperage. It could be bleeding over from any of the other circuits. Check your common (white) against the ground (bare). There should be no measurable voltage. If it is, you may need an electrician to straighten it out.

 

[bswartzwelder]

Decided to start precipitating some gold a couple of days ago. Took the beaker with the AR in it and started to add Sulfamic acid to neutralize the excess nitric. There couldn't have been much excess nitric, but after 3 small spoonful of sulfamic acid, it was still fizzing. I was pretty sure I HAD to have eliminated all excess nitric. Calculated I would need about 12 grams of Oxalic acid and that would require about 100 ml of water to dissolve it into. Added 15 grams of oxalic to about 130 ml water and put it on the hotplate. Also added about 1/2 teaspoon ammonium chloride to it as well. When the temperature hit 190F, I added it to the AR. Nothing. No fizzing, no boiling, nothing. Set it aside until yesterday.

Yesterday I added a pinch of sulfamic acid and got no reaction. Turned on the hot plate and let it get pretty warm. Added another pinch of sulfamic with the same response. Then, without thinking, I added a teaspoon of the oxalic acid crystals. Forgot to mix them in hot water, but even so, nothing happened. Will it just take some more time for the gold to drop? I tested the AR solution with stannous and got a very strong positive for gold.

The second beaker had the black powder from my electrolytic cell in it. Added about 400 ml HCL to the beaker. Then without knowing how much Chlorox I needed, I added about 20 ml with constant stirring. The black powder did not go into solution like I thought it would. Added another 20 ml Chlorox and again there was no visible reaction. Tested a drop of this solution with stannous and got a positive response as well. Maybe I need to add more Chlorox, or maybe it will just take a while longer to react. Any ideas?

 

[Geo]

Try diluting the solution with water, tap water will be ok for this. Even if you have to split it into two containers. Warm the solution again. When you dissolve the sulfamic crystals, do it in ambient temperature water. It will chill on it's own as it creates an endothermic reaction. Add the sulfamic solution slowly. If this does't work, you can always evaporate the solution back down. It sounds to me like the solution is too acidic. I may be wrong, that's just what I would start with first.

 

[bswartzwelder]

Geo,
Thanks for the reply. I don't want to make a mistake and lose any values, but I'm not completely sure I understand what you have said.

I understand diluting the solution using tap water.

Next, you say to dissolve the sulfamic acid crystals at ambient temperature.

In the next step, you say to add the sulfamic solution slowly. You don't say to heat it up, so I assume it isn't necessary to heat it up. It was in another post where one of the forum members said the sulfamic solution works best if heated to just below the boiling point. It was also mentioned that the sulfamic solution works best when a little ammonium chloride has been added to it. I added almost 1/2 teaspoon ammonium chloride to the sulfamic acid solution.

I look forward to trying your ideas this weekend (weather permitting). If all this fails, it will be back to evaporating everything back down and starting again from that point. A huge THANK YOU to everyone who has helped with these problems.

 

[butcher]

You do not need ammonium chloride to deNOx aqua regia with sulfamic acid, in fact if this is all you were doing I would say it would be a mistake to add it, because of the dangers involved.
If you were working with dental gold it would try to precipitate the platinum, possibly with the little bit of silver chloride as solution was diluted cooled, and settled...
Or if you were trying to precipitate a platinum compound...

I am unsure if you are missing something or getting some things mixed up, or if it is I who may be missing things, and getting something mixed up...

I have not used oxalic acid to precipitate gold. it has been a long time since I studied it, at one time I thought I might like to try it, but the more studied and I learned, I seen no real reason why I should (beside maybe as an experiment) because for what I have done I seen no real benefit, over a double refining using different precipitants each time.

If memory serves me ( I have the memory of a new born elephant) they did use ammonia, or ammonium hydroxide or even ammonium chloride with oxalic acid (I believe to adjust pH) and perhaps for some reason the ammonium or ammonia would work better with the chemistry involved, I do not know, and cannot remember that much about it, (but there are members here who have experience in this area and can explain it, or help with that).

So it is most likely, that it is with the oxalic acid procedure that you think you need the ammonium chloride, and not with the sulfamic acid to deNOx the aqua regia...

I wonder why you are even trying to use oxalic acid, and if this gold has already been refined before and this is the second refining.

In the second refining, I do not understand how you could so easily overuse nitric acid to dissolve the fine gold powders, and then would need sulfamic acid?

 

[bswartzwelder]

I have read numerous times that you should use a second refining to get your gold really pure. Likewise, I have read that to get your gold really pure it is best to use different precipitants each time you drop your gold. I was doing the first refine of a man made gold nugget. I wanted to use oxalic acid because I read somewhere that it is highly selective towards dropping gold.

I made the mistake using ammonium chloride. I should have used ammonium hydroxide instead, so I may have screwed things up royally. I really didn't think I was overusing nitric. I've done that before and didn't want a repeat performance. I carefully measured my nugget as 10.76 grams. I also had about 0.92 grams of placer nuggets. I mixed 12.5 ml of HNO3 and 55 ml HCl. I knew it was a little high (on both), but figured the extra HCl would not be an issue. I also felt the very slight overuse of nitric could have easily been corrected with the sulfamic acid. I have never used either sulfamic nor oxalic, so I was a little eager to try them out.

Now that you mention it, I likewise seem to remember somewhere where they had to adjust the pH of one of the precipitants to get the gold to drop. I even bought a pH meter and pH papers when I read about this. Looks like instead of doing anything with this mess I'll be doing some reading and re-reading until I find my mistake.

Butcher and Geo, I want to thank both of you for your inputs here. I'll let you know what's up just as soon as I can research things properly. Butcher, don't sell yourself short. You have a memory like a steel trap, and that post has really jogged my memory.