DANGER Do NOT Mix Sulfuric acid & Glycerin 4 gold Recov

Shop deals on ebay
xelexo
Advertise with us
shop deals on amazon
Gold Refining Forum

Help Support Gold Refining Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Andrew W

Andrew W

Active member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
37
Location
Texas
I am finding this very important to inform all people who are mixing sulfuric acid and glycerin for carrier in a gold stripping process for gold recovery. There are several sellers selling a reverse plating kit or instructions for stripping gold off of gold plated jewelry and computer parts. The instructions that are given is a very dangerous mix which could lead to your death and to the death of friends, family and the people who live around you.

This mixture is only 2 steps from making nitroglycerin and 1 step away from making gun cotton aka nitro cellulose both of which are EXPLOSIVE!!!!!! Please, for God's sake and your safety, DO NOT MIX ANYTHING LIKE THIS. I would hate to know that someone has told you to do so and then you loose your life or killed someone. These sellers have NO clue as what they are telling you. Remember, they do NOT have a chemistry degree which is worst than a back yard brain surgeon. You would be safer jumping off a cliff without wings.



please, vote positive for me!!!
Click to expand...

http://reviews.ebay.com/DANGER-Do-N...cerin-4-gold-Recov_W0QQugidZ10000000004402540

What do yall think about this? :shock:
 
if there is no nitrate involve there is no explosive. sounds to me like he is selling something and trying to scare people from buying from others.

No one ever states to put the other ingredient required for explosive formation.

in other words, I don't know :oops:
 
I'm calling bull crap on it. James is right: no nitrate means no nitronium means no explosive.

To top it off, you can't get nitrocellulose from glycerine! You need pure cellulose for that, and it's remarkably not easy to do if you work at room temperature. I won't rule out the glyceryl trinitrate possibility (albeit still a long shot) but the nitrocellulose is ridiculous.

Apparently this guy doesn't have a chemistry degree either! Just plain wrong.
 
Well ebay folks aren't known to be the brightest people in the world. Wait... I think I just dissed myself... :?

Thanks AWS316 for bringing it to our attention anyway.
 
Adding concentrated nitric to the sulfuric-glycerin mix could be dangerous, couldn't it? Or maybe even adding sodium nitrate could be. Would it be good practice to just keep all nitrates away from your stripping cell area?
 
OMG said:
why would you add nitric in? it calls for sulfuric and glycerine.
Click to expand...
I meant that in the context of an accident. Since refiners use nitric acid and have it around they're lab, it could happen that someone might spill some somehow...sorry for the confusion.
 
Not to say your wrong or anything, but any good refiner caps his chemicals as soon as you finish pouring them, and always keep them seperated.
 
Steve over on the Alaska Gold Forum uses Sulfuric and glycerin in his cell. He has a video on his web site that shows exactly how to use it. To 3 cups of sulfuric he puts about 3/8 teaspoon of glycerin in it I believe it is. As far as I know he doesn't market the cells and I would sure as heck trust his information.

Art
 
Whatever! The glycerin is not needed, PERIOD. I have probably produced 10 times more gold, in my life, from the sulfuric cell than the total gold produced from the 3596 members of this forum. Forget the glycerin!!!
 
goldsilverpro said:
Whatever! The glycerin is not needed, PERIOD.
Click to expand...
You're wasting your time, Chris. Art likes to kill the messenger when he's told anything negative about things he wants to believe. Doesn't appear to matter that it may be true.

I have probably produced 10 times more gold, in my life, from the sulfuric cell than the total gold produced from the 3596 members of this forum. Forget the glycerin!!!
Click to expand...
Wow! I processed one hell of a lot of gold in my years. Thousands of ounces. You sure about that? :eek:

I agree------forget the glycerin. It may work with it, but nothing to this point has shown to my satisfaction that it is a necessary ingredient. The original patent certainly doesn't think it's required.

Harold
 
Harold, you know very well that I couldn't include you in that group. Actually, I meant the total gold produced from all the member's sulfuric cells. However, the way I originally phrased it is probably true if I exclude you. Sorry about the confusion.
 
Harold,

There you go again. I didn't say anything for or against the Glycerin. I just said Steve uses it and I trust his information. I don't know if it's needed or not and could care less. I wasn't the one that jumped on the fellow that posted that.

Some of you people on here need to back up and take a good look at your selves from time to time. So what if you're a pro at this. That doesn't give you the right to pass the snide remarks and put new members down. There is no telling how many new members have gotten off the fourm because of junk like that. I thought the pros on here were here to teach and share their knowledge. Seems it's a lot more fun to try to make others feel like dummies.

Art
 
Andrew W,

If I said anything that offended you I am very sorry. I sure didn't mean to. I didn't even i mply that you may be wrong. I simply don't know if you are or not and and it really doesn't matter to me. I was already planning on trying it without the glycerin but I was going to try to speak to Steve and ask him why he used it. At this point I don't know as a fact that it is dangerous or not and I'm not going to make a decision on it untill I am sure.

If you hang around here you will notice I don't buy into all the crap that is tossed around on here and sometimes the ones that do the tossing become upset because I don't agree with them. They are the ones that could care less if they are right or wrong as long as others agree with them.

I could care less if anyone agrees with me or not. I am going to continue to search for the information I am looking for and if I don't find it here I'll look elsewhere.

Art
 
All,

When I learned how to use the cell the glycerin was one of the ingredients that I was instructed to use.

I do not know why the glycerin was included in the process.

As GSP is pointing out, it is absolutely not required. I have removed it from my website as an item for sale. If I ever get around to updating my cell videos I will not include it in the new versions.

I'm sorry there has been such a heated debate over this subject.

I don't think it is hazardous to use glycerin as Andrew is stating as I used it for many years with no problems.

In my opinion, we should all move on to a more productive topic.


Steve
 
Art,

Often, when a knowledgeable person first comes on this forum, they have an air of egotism about them. They think that they know it all and everyone else is an idiot. I must admit that I also went through that stage. However, even though I have 40 years of full time professional experience doing this stuff, I have learned one hell of a lot of the forum. Hang around. You'll eventually get your comeuppance and then you can also start learning something.
 
GSP,

Why would you think I have not alread learned a lot on this forum? I am totally convinced that even tho we have come a long way we have only scratched the surface fo gold recovery. We ALL have a lot to learn yet. There is one thing I will not do and that is sit still while someone trys to shove their opinion down my throat.

I am eager to learn but I don't jump on anyone's coat tail and ride it where ever they go. I am very careful about accepting anything as fact until I am certain it is. If it's something I can go out here and try and verify what I have been tol then I'll accept it as fact. If I can't do that then I just let my little pea brain store it and watch for new information that wil verify it one way or the other. I'm not trying to be hard headed just careful. I have spent many years sifting through junk information searching for the real truth and I'm tired of that.

Art
 
goldsilverpro said:
Harold, you know very well that I couldn't include you in that group. Actually, I meant the total gold produced from all the member's sulfuric cells. However, the way I originally phrased it is probably true if I exclude you. Sorry about the confusion.
Click to expand...
Just having a little fun with you, Chris. :)

I think the point that has to be emphasized here is that there is a lot of mis-information being promoted. I'm not privy to the reasons it happens, and likely will never be, but I feel an obligation to help nip it in the bud. It is often the means by which others gloat over their success, hoping to become the exclusive owner of given processes by misinforming others. I'd like to think that we're here to share knowledge---and part of that is to expose BS when it's obvious. If in the process of reading, if I see a post that looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, pretty good chance it is. I'll be the first to step forward and say so.

Art--------if you'd quit denying information that is known to be true, perhaps I'd have less to say about your comments. I refuse to sit idly by while you promote ideas that may appear to be sound, but are known to be incorrect. It might pay you to get better informed on the behavior of metals as they interact with one another, so you'd understand that when I, or anyone else, suggests a given process won't work as hoped, you'd understand that the purpose was to keep others from delving in an area that is prone to failure and problems that are often beyond their control and/or ability. They should also be well aware of any hazards that possibly exist. I'd be remiss in my duties to allow such things to go unchallenged.

I'll revisit the point at hand briefly. You want to recover gold from black sands, using molten lead as a collector. I commented that some will dissolve in the lead, at least up to the point of saturation. You insist it isn't true. You're wrong. Your report is less than scientific in nature, and could easily work against you when in the hands of anyone that is capable of performing proper assays.

I'd like to hear your views of the work done by Sir T.K. Rose, who discovered that when gold and silver are placed in intimate contact, atoms of gold are transferred to the silver. This at ambient temperature. That is the basis of the reason a nickel barrier is plated on copper based alloys before gold is applied.

I'm at a loss to understand why you'd deny that lead will dissolve gold, particularly with extended exposure. Gold has a strong affinity for lead-----if in the process of picking up gold particles, it has no choice but to dissolve some of them. Otherwise it likely wouldn't work at all.

That you choose to ignore, or deny the information, doesn't give you license to promote your personal beliefs, leaving readers with mixed signals. As long as you intend to do so, you can expect me to offer a rebuttal. If it makes you look foolish, that's the price you have to pay for turning your back on well documented information. Why would you expect otherwise? I refuse to stand by when you, or anyone----offers misleading information.

Nothing wrong with using lead as a collector of values. You simply must be able to address the lead once it has been used for the purpose. Cupelling is one of the methods, which is not advised for the home operation due to the hazardous lead fumes created. As low level refiners, all of us are wise to avoid the use of lead, much the same as avoiding the use of mercury. By contrast, perhaps there are occasions where one or the other becomes a necessity. Readers should know and understand the ramifications when such a decision must be made.

Harold
 

Latest posts

Back
Top