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.
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