can you double check this? (reactivity series)

[NickPerry]

Hello everyone! sorry for making my first post a question, but here goes:

I've never been the biggest chemistry guy (physics was always more my thing) but gravity recovering only works when elements aren't bonded to anything else (noble elements are nice for this

but in order to do all the refining of all the stuff I want to refine I'll eventually have to use chemicals, and having done some binge watching and reading, i think I understand the basic concept of refining

in broad terms, is this correct? :

start off with pulverizing everything to a powder form (makes reactions happen faster, and allows the acids to reach everything)

then:
wash with water to devolve some basic elements that haven't already been put into a more complex chemical bond (Cs -> Na -> Ca)
* if you think the water did dissolve some stuff, you can recover it via electrolysis.

then:
dissolve a good portion of the powder with Hydrogen chloride, leaving behind the noble metals + copper.

*to recover the elements that have been dissolved you can:
precipitate out Pb by adding Sn
precipitate out Sn by adding Ni
precipitate out Ni by adding Co
precipitate out Co by adding Cd
precipitate out Cd by adding Fe
precipitate out Fe by adding Cr
precipitate out Cr by adding Zn
precipitate out Zn by adding Mn
precipitate out Mn by adding Al
precipitate out Al by adding Mg

Mg (or Al) you can remove via electrolysis, leaving you with water/weak acid (I assume a lot of hydrogen will be lost amongst all the reactions.
and of course, you can skip steps if your confident some elements are not present. (i.e. you can precipitate out Ni by throwing in some Al)

now you're left with the more noble metals, which you would then devolve in something like sulfuric acid, or possibly Aqua regia if they're being super noble.
if you have any metal left after that, it should be Ti (+ ceramics of course)

*to recover the elements that have been dissolved you can:
precipitate out Au by adding Pt
^ ** there are better ways of precipitating these out without using other super expensive metals, but that's beyond what I want you to double check.
precipitate out Pt by adding Ag
precipitate out Ag by adding Hg
^ ** I believe Ag (silver) can also be extracted via electrolysis, unless I'm mistaken.
precipitate out Hg by adding W
precipitate out W by adding Cu
precipitate out Cu by adding Bi
precipitate out Bi by adding Sb
and then just follow the list above, until your back to Mg
also, again, the same rule applies that you can skip precipitating out at every step, and just go forward a few elements.


is my understanding correct? or am I way off?

 

[butcher]

NickPerry,

First let me welcome you to the forum.

You are way off, but with some study you will find the right path, the reactivity series is very useful in what we do but there is much more to recovery and refining.

If chemistry is not your thing, no worry, you do not have to understand all of the chemistry involved, and actually while studying how to recover and refine metals you can actually learn a lot of chemistry without actually knowing it, actually many things you do all of the time you are using chemistry, you may not know the chemical reactions but you use them, it is helpful to understand the chemistry involved, and with some time on the forum you will learn it along the way.

A good chemistry lesson, with no chemical equations (or chemistry involved) can be gained while you study Hokes book, she does not teach the chemistry equations , but she teaches you how to do the chemistry needed, and while doing the getting acquainted experiments in her book you will learn how different metals react with different acids, helping you get aquianted with the chemistry without going into detail of the chemistry, so basically by doing these experiments you are learning the chemistry without having to understand the chemistry, like lerning to build a fire and seeing the reaction without necessarily understanding the chemical reaction of that fire.

Like the chemical reaction of lighting a match to a pile of wood, you are doing a chemical reaction, by doing the experiments you will gain knowledge of how the wood (fuel) reacts to the air (oxygen) and heat, you do not have to understand the chemical equation, or have be able to explain it, to benefit from the fire, and learn that oxygen and heat is needed to burn the fuel (wood), but learning these chemical reactions can also be helpful, to understand what is in the byproduct (smoke and ash containing minerals he tree took from the earth).

Welcome to the forum keep reading through it and start with Hokes book, soon you will be on the right path of becoming a precious metal refiner, whether you study chemistry or not.

Hokes book found in the book section or under many members signature lines (frugal refiners should have a link, he also has posts on many places to begin your journey).

"Refining Precious Metals Wastes by CM. Hoke"
download/ file.php?id=2480

Testing Precious Metals C.M. Hoke
download/file.php?id=16976


The Pawnbrokers Guide to Testing Metals
download/file.php?id=1765

Forum Handbook Vol 1 and Forum Handbook Vol 2.

Guided Tour

 

[solar_plasma]

Always a pleasure to read you answers, Butcher!

@NickPerry

precipitate out Pb by adding Sn
precipitate out Sn by adding Ni
precipitate out Ni by adding Co
precipitate out Co by adding Cd
precipitate out Cd by adding Fe
precipitate out Fe by adding Cr
precipitate out Cr by adding Zn
precipitate out Zn by adding Mn
precipitate out Mn by adding Al
precipitate out Al by adding Mg

There are some reasons, why this will not work in practice as easy as you think. The potentials of these metal are two close to each other. So the electrons will not feel motivitated enough to get their three letters up from the armchair. Probably not at all, at least so slowly, that it will equal to nothing in practice. Some metals will gladly react with the water or the electrolyte, - Mg and Ca fx. will just form Mg(OH)2 respectivly Ca(OH)2 and H2 and be happy with it. Others, if they do anything at all, will get passivated with insoluble layers. All redox processes (reduction=someone gains electrons/oxidation=someone gives electrons) can be seen as an equilibrium, that under some circumstances pushes to one or the other side.

Mg (or Al) you can remove via electrolysis, leaving you with water/weak acid (I assume a lot of hydrogen will be lost amongst all the reactions.
and of course, you can skip steps if your confident some elements are not present. (i.e. you can precipitate out Ni by throwing in some Al)

You can find descriptions, how to recover acids and metals electrolytically, but also this isn't as simple as you think. The electrolyte has to have a high concentration and the produced acids will still not be pure....but will work for some processes, if purity is no issue.

I tell you, what I have learned quickly on the forum: In refining there are proper methods....and there are proper methods, maybe also some work arounds...based on the proper methods. All proper methods are known. If anything is not know, it is probably no proper method. Only the few most skilled people here are sometimes coming with something really new, - well they have been refiners for some aeons and/or have a scientific degree and/or have gained knowledge comparable to a degree.

Therefor the best thing to do, is just follow the writings to the point in the beginning and only go another route, when or if you know what and why.

 

[NickPerry]

butcher: Thank you so much for your reply! and I will Start reading those books asap! thank you.

and yes, I am aware I do chemistry on a daily basis without thinking of it as chemistry, heck, I've even done chemistry in the lab and stuff too. it's just with everything I do I like to understand the fundamental principles, and if I can't understand that I tend to get confused (in physics it's easy to see whats going on, where as in chemistry you can't really see what the bonds are doing. but I digress. I'll read those books now (and continue to read other stuff too that I'll stumble across)

solar_plasma:

The potentials of these metal are two close to each other. So the electrons will not feel motivitated enough to get their three letters up from the armchair. Probably not at all, at least so slowly, that it will equal to nothing in practice.

ah! that makes sense! figured it was to easy to be true. chemistry never seems to follow it's own rules %100 of the time lol. (I know, the reactivity series isn't a rule)

or have gained knowledge comparable to a degree

I hope to become one of these people

Thank you for your reply!

 

[solar_plasma]

ah! that makes sense! figured it was to easy to be true.

:lol: you just learned your first forum lesson: If something seems to good to be true, it is probably not true.

chemistry never seems to follow it's own rules %100 of the time lol. (I know, the reactivity series isn't a rule)

It follows its rules to the point, but in reality mostly those rules interfere in a complex system, - just like Newton's mechanics, which also only work as simple as you think in a closed and simple system. Imagine a ball lying on a slanted board. It should role down. It doesn't. Why? Because the force from gravity is not big enough to overcome the frictional resistance.

Now you want to seperate the metals electrolytically from a messed up solution: This is like if you put a bunch of balls of different mass onto that board and try to seperate them by gravity just by lifting one side of the board upwards. It will work to some degree, but you will get significant impurities, dependent on how close the masses are to each other and how many different masses of balls you wanted to separate.

This is one reason, why we mostly try to get all basemetals leached from a material before we go after the pm's and it is one of many reasons, why we incinerate, precipitate, filter, syphon, decant, use the most clean labware, - we need to have as simple and pure systems as possible, so there are no interfering and disturbing processes beside.

For electrolytical recovery you need more or less in most cases 90+% pure material, for electrolytcal refining even 99+%. A special case is the sulfuric cell, which leaves the cobber beneath intact.

 

[butcher]

I personally do not see chemistry and physic's, or many of the other principles or sciences, that much different, like nature they follow certain laws or react in certain ways, learning how and why they react in predictable ways, and follow certain paths, we can understand more about them.

The inorganic chemistry of metals is not much different, and is not that hard to learn, although like many other sciences, you have to work to understand them, but if you have an interest in learning, and follow that interest, you can easily learn the principles and get a better understanding, like other sciences, you can spend lifetimes to learn all there is to these, but in one way I find that a great thing, as your brain will not die as long as you keep it following its interest, and growing by finding answers to the questions of your interests.

If the chemical side and learning the chemical reactions and equations and other principles of recovery and refining of precious metals interest you, you will learn them, and with the forum and its many resources you have found a great place, and resource to help you learn that interest.

NickPerry,
Follow your interests, enjoy learning, and keep searching for the answers to your questions, as they come up, and you will easily learn what your brain is guiding you to learn, soon you will be talking the chemistry side of recovery and refining precious metals and inorganic chemistry, writing chemical equations and having an understanding of what is happening in those chemical reactions, and have a better understanding of recovery and refining of metals.

The best teacher is your own interest, follow that teacher, A great teacher will help cultivate your interests.

 

[goldsilverpro]

NickPerry,

In most all cases that I can think of, in order to cement metal A from a solution with metal B, metal B must be soluble in the solution matrix. Cementation can be looked at as a reduction/oxidation exchange reaction. In simple terms, metal A is reduced and goes from a part of the solution to a solid and, simultaneously, metal B is oxidized and goes from a solid to a part of the solution.

Under ideal conditions, this weight ratio can be calculated. For example, when silver is cemented with copper, 1 gram of copper will dissolve while cementing 3.4 grams of silver.

2AgNO₃ + Cu = 2Ag + Cu(NO₃)₂

Weight ratio of Ag:Cu = (107.88 X 2)/63.54 = 3.4, where 107.88 is the atomic weight of silver and 63.54 is the atomic weight of copper.

However, if this is done in a nitrate matrix and there is some free nitric acid in the solution, the nitric will dissolve some copper without silver cementation occurring. Only after the free nitric is consumed by the dissolving of copper will the silver start cementing, in earnest. The end result will be that more than 1 gram of copper will be consumed while cementing 3.4 grams of silver.

In your list, none of these things were taken into consideration. Also, pH can enter into it. It is much more complicated than you presumed. Good question, though.

As an aside, I've always assumed that the word "cement" was coined because cemented silver looks like wet freshly mixed cement.



To me, most all true sciences are sub-sets of Physics. Physics is the mother.

 

[NickPerry]

sorry for the late reply. been busy. and I lol'd at some of the dated parts of Hoke's book (like using asbestos as a heat spreader) but the science behind it all is still relevant today though

anyways.

solar_plasma:
I'm always learning, because I love learning =D.

and yes, I suppose you are correct with things not being simple in a complex situation. curious enough however, the example you gave with the ramp & ball thing is close to a new type of density separator I'm working on.. but I won't say anything just yet, just in case it turns out to be a massive failure

butcher:
I assume chemistry will be for me, as every other thing I've learned was for me. (I've learned a lot of stuff, truly a jack of all trades type of person)
but at first things never seem to line up, until I have my first urika moment, at wich, or a brief instance everything looks simple (that's where I was with the reactivity series). then as soon as I try to put it to practice, things are tough again (but not as tough as before), but then I will get more urika moments, that happen more often, and each time adding a bit of colour, until finally I have one Bi urika moment that feels like I've stepped back and see the whole image. after which I only get tiny urika moments, and scarcely improve from there (like a true jack of all trades, I can't ever seem to master anything, I'm ust merely 'good' at a lot of things)

thanks for your post!


goldsilverpro:

It is much more complicated than you presumed

yes, yes it is. lol.

but your post was very insightful though, thank you!
in fact, I'll re-read it a few times over the next few days so that it stick in my head ^.^

To me, most all true sciences are sub-sets of Physics. Physics is the mother.

true, since when you get down to quantum physics, it's basically chemistry, but in smaller quantities.


-- Thank you all for your replies. hopefully this post is legible. it's about 2am here, and I really should be getting some sleep. so it's very possible that there is some sleep talk in this post that won't make any sense when I wake up tomorrow. cheers!