Ceramic CPU recovery gonne wrong. Help please.

[archeonist]

The excess copper will use up the nitric and the rest of the copper will cement out the gold and all other metals above copper in the reactivity series.

Per the underlined --- you got that wrong --- copper cements "only" the metals BELOW copper

That's why we use copper

Zinc will work too.

In this case - NO - you do NOT want to use zinc --- he started with CPUs &/or ceramic ICs - zinc is "way high" in the reactive series & will therefore cement "everything" BELOW zinc which means you will end up with a mess of just about everything dissolved in the "first place"

zinc is used (only) when your solution is relatively clean to start with - such as cementing PGMs "after" gold has been dropped with SMB (or other chem precipitant)

Edit to add; - in this case - cementing with zinc is BAD advice :!:

Kurt

Well I know very well what I am talking about Kurt but I think you guys in the US write the reactivity series beginning with the most reactive metal or least noble. Here we begin with the least reactive metal or most noble, for instance:
Au Most noble
Ag
Cu
Fe
Zn
Na Least noble
That is why I say above, copper cements Ag and Au. I shall stick with the US way.

Zinc will cement both Au and Ag, but of course all other metals like Fe and Cu so in the case of having just Au in solution Zn will work but here this is not recommend for all other metals will cement from the dirty solution, good point there.

 

[Shark]

I for one watch YouTube quite often. There are many knowledgeable people on there. The downside is for every one who knows what they are doing there are 100's who are causing more harm than good. Knowing which to follow isn't easy for those who are just getting started as I have removed many links there from my list as I learned more on the subject over the last few years.

Any way, I have watched the video you linked to several times, often out of boredom with other channels. I often learn many small things from some videos that aren't always concerned with the actual subject matter, such as how to fold a filter paper properly.

I think you better could say: there are only a few knowledgeable people on there.. A lot of them do dangerous things concerning their health on a long term, they make it look easy burning chips in their gardens, dealing with dust, not wearing gloves etc.

If you know what you are looking at you could actually learn something from it but be carefull not to learn the bad things.

Sorry our internet has been down.

I am judging YouTube, not just the refining that is shown there. We tend to poor mouth it based on refining but there is much more out there. That is why I say there many knowledgeable people on there. I have learned much from YouTube both concerning refining and many other subjects such as my newer hobbies of tree grafting and growing the grandiflora variety of roses. But I do understand where you coming from with your comment also.

 

[kurtak]

Well I know very well what I am talking about Kurt but I think you guys in the US write the reactivity series beginning with the most reactive metal or least noble. Here we begin with the least reactive metal or most noble, for instance:
Au Most noble
Ag
Cu
Fe
Zn
Na Least noble

per the underlined

It has NOTHING to do with how we right the series here in the U.S. & how they "may" right it elsewhere :!:

In the world of science &/or chemistry - the way it is written is "A STANDARD" & it will be a chart hanging on the wall in "exactly" the same way regardless of the lab &/or school (chemistry) class room you walk into "anywhere" in the world

If you look it up on the internet - you will find it to be written "exactly" the same way - regardless of where you search it from - or where it is linked to/from

:arrow: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactivity_series

:arrow: https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=reactive+series+of+metals&qpvt=reactive+series+of+metals&FORM=IGRE

The reason for that is so that scientist & chemist work on the same page as a STANDARD in their work & discussions regardless of the lab or school they work out of "anywhere" in the world

It is discussed here on the forum according to the "world STANDARD" --- which is why I corrected you on it - because of "world STANDARD" --- you have it wrong

saying other wise will not change FACT

Edit to add; - please note the opening statement on the wiki page --- "In chemistry, a reactivity series (or activity series) is an empirical, calculated, and structurally analytical progression[1] of a series of metals, arranged by their "reactivity" from highest to lowest.[2][3][4] It is used to summarize information about the reactions of metals with acids and water, double displacement reactions and the extraction of metals from their ores."

Note; - the first two words (as underlined by me) "In chemistry" --- in other words - its a "standard" in chemistry --- also note that it goes on to say - "is an empirical, calculated, and structurally analytical progression" --- the word empirical being underlined by me --- meaning the series - regardless of where you go &/or are from - is written "the same" in the world of chemistry

Kurt

 

[kurtak]

Can someone consolidate on these conclusions?

Thanks !!
Winged

Yes - your conclusions are correct :mrgreen:

Kurt

 

[Wingedcloud]

Can someone consolidate on these conclusions?

Thanks !!
Winged

Yes - your conclusions are correct :mrgreen:

Kurt

Thank you kurtak for you answer !
Will all the respect for everyone that replied to my original topic, being validated by someone with your experience and knowledge sure gives motivation

So, after giving it a little more time on the cementation process, I proceeded to filtering my solution to gather all the mud deposited in the flask's bottom.
I read somewhere that filtering all the mud and slime from the cementation process was a huge pain, and it sure is. The filter is a bit clogged up with some white-ish slime, that I read somewhere that could be some copper chloride that formed.
Either way, got the larger amount of the sediment on a beaker, where I hope ( :lol: ) my gold will be.



Since it is evident that some copper particles are still mixed with the smaller gold particles, will a nitric leaching prior to the AR leaching be advantageous, in order for the AR solution to be cleaner ?

Thanks again !!

Winged

 

[kernels]

Nice, you have made some good progress.

What you have there looks like mostly Gold, cover in HCl, heat, add HNO3 in small increments - start with 2ml and wait for that to complete stop reacting, then add even small amounts based on how much material remains. At the end it will take a long time for the last little spec of Gold to dissolve.

 

[Wingedcloud]

Nice, you have made some good progress.

What you have there looks like mostly Gold, cover in HCl, heat, add HNO3 in small increments - start with 2ml and wait for that to complete stop reacting, then add even small amounts based on how much material remains. At the end it will take a long time for the last little spec of Gold to dissolve.

Thanks kernels

If there is something good about the initial mistake is that I got to learn about cementation a bit more :lol:

Yeah, I have AR'ed gold powder before and it sure takes longer to dissolve than the thin gold from RAM, for example. Just a little patience after all this work to do it right this time :wink:

Winged.

 

[archeonist]

Well I know very well what I am talking about Kurt but I think you guys in the US write the reactivity series beginning with the most reactive metal or least noble. Here we begin with the least reactive metal or most noble, for instance:
Au Most noble
Ag
Cu
Fe
Zn
Na Least noble

per the underlined

It has NOTHING to do with how we right the series here in the U.S. & how they "may" right it elsewhere :!:

In the world of science &/or chemistry - the way it is written is "A STANDARD" & it will be a chart hanging on the wall in "exactly" the same way regardless of the lab &/or school (chemistry) class room you walk into "anywhere" in the world

If you look it up on the internet - you will find it to be written "exactly" the same way - regardless of where you search it from - or where it is linked to/from

:arrow: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactivity_series

:arrow: https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=reactive+series+of+metals&qpvt=reactive+series+of+metals&FORM=IGRE

The reason for that is so that scientist & chemist work on the same page as a STANDARD in their work & discussions regardless of the lab or school they work out of "anywhere" in the world

It is discussed here on the forum according to the "world STANDARD" --- which is why I corrected you on it - because of "world STANDARD" --- you have it wrong

saying other wise will not change FACT

Edit to add; - please note the opening statement on the wiki page --- "In chemistry, a reactivity series (or activity series) is an empirical, calculated, and structurally analytical progression[1] of a series of metals, arranged by their "reactivity" from highest to lowest.[2][3][4] It is used to summarize information about the reactions of metals with acids and water, double displacement reactions and the extraction of metals from their ores."

Note; - the first two words (as underlined by me) "In chemistry" --- in other words - its a "standard" in chemistry --- also note that it goes on to say - "is an empirical, calculated, and structurally analytical progression" --- the word empirical being underlined by me --- meaning the series - regardless of where you go &/or are from - is written "the same" in the world of chemistry

Kurt

Not in my country but your point is clear. I say lets end this discussion.

 

[Wingedcloud]

Hello all again.

Finally reached the end of it.



Washed up, seems to have good purity, even before melting. Weighed 3.2g.

I'd like to thank everyone that come through and provided orientation on how to get that gold in that paper, after I messed up

This recovery will be part of a new topic I am building about gold yields from different sources, which will be on the forum soon.

Thank you all again !

Winged

 

[rickzeien]

Looks good! Thanks for posting.

Thanks to the incredible group of mentors here on the Forum as well!

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[Shark]

Very nice!

It is good to watch someone listen and take the advice and use it as intended. The added pictures showing the progress is a bonus when trying to help someone.