Defeating the Grey Goop

[au-artifax]

For example, I discussed the temp I used with nitric 75-80°C, (light below boil simmer) then palladium throws the same thing in as if I never said I did the same thing.

God forbid i explain it so someone who is not you will come along later and understand the value in it and not mess up their gold and refuse to listen to unsound logic. How dare i !!!! My bad! Let me leave you with this thread.

But you didn't say it for the benefit of others. You said it as a way to say I was doing it wrong, even though I had done it your way. Otherwise you wouldn't even have mentioned it because I already had. You would have had a better reception had you suggested ways I could go about things from the point I was at to prove or disprove my theories than to just bomb the heck out of my procedures. Resume's of a person's vast experience is not an indication of prowess either, especially if they have shut the door for innovation and change. S'long....to whatever hidden agenda just reared it's ugly head.

 

[Palladium]

You didn't do it my way !!!! I never said use hcl. You used hcl first and then after you were told that was wrong you stuck to your guns and said well i got this.

Well I use HCl before nitric. HCl is cheaper, can even catch and dissolve stainless, and it doesn't leave clingy aluminum chloride residue "iffin Ize done midst sum" (in my best "dummer than lint phraseology).

So no you not listening and you just seem combative to anybody who's telling you different. If you want tried and true procedures then this is the place and we can help, but this reinventing the wheel is just a waste of time to anybody replying to this post where you are " Following directions" as you say.

 

[butcher]

I tried for several days to understand what was going on in this thread, re read it again today, and I am just as confused as the first time I tried to understand it.

I have a couple of jars of gray powders, one lead, and one tin, both are fairly pure powders of these metals I have separated, I Know they do not contain values, my plan is to make lead oxide with the lead at some later date.

 

[Palladium]

It is confusing. And i understand what he is saying about i need help with the mess i have now. That's understandable! The reply i made to this thread were meant to point out what you did wrong so next time you would know not to do that and the proper procedure to use to avoid a mess like this. Fixing the problem now makes no sense if you don't know how and why you got there in the first place so as to not do it again.

 

[butcher]

Palladium I read your post above and understood it well, it made a lot of sense.

What I had trouble understanding was all of the different acids and and what it was he was trying to do with those gray powders, I could not make any sense of any of it.

 

[Palladium]

I would have run the ar from the gold filled and filtered that off. Then take the filter with and residues and incinerate. From there you could use nitric to test for silver or pd in the nitric. Then you could have added hcl and run a sample in ar and tested for gold. That would have given you answers. If it's purple after that i would say silver chloride

 

[Palladium]

I think that's going to be my next video series.

Gold filled "Down and dirty". :mrgreen:

 

[Geo]

I would have run the ar from the gold filled and filtered that off. Then take the filter with and residues and incinerate. From there you could use nitric to test for silver or pd in the nitric. Then you could have added hcl and run a sample in ar and tested for gold. That would have given you answers. If it's purple after that i would say silver chloride

Well SURE, if you wanted to do it the right way but whats the fun in that?

 

[Palladium]

We all have to learn somewhere so i can't blame the guy for not knowing, that all part of the learning process, but it does get discouraging when they don't listen to advice.
I'm not upset because all i can do is give advice. If you follow it fine. If they don't fine also.

 

[g_axelsson]

AgCl? The ammonia didn't dissolve any of the GG. SnO2? The glucose would have sucked up the weakly bonded oxygen from the tin right away and left tin behind for the HCl to go after when I added HCl to the ammonium hydroxide wash.

And if it matters, yes I DO believe gold may take on a different crystalline structure in certain environmental conditions whether natural or man made. Carbon for example, how many different allotropes does it have?

You may believe in Santa Claus, but it doesn't make it more true. Gold doesn't have any allotropes as far as I know. Neither silver, palladium, platinum, iridium... or any precious metals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allotropy#Metals

Isn't this chemistry thing all based on things we cannot see? So who do you know that can prove there is no such thing as different structures of PM crystals? Is there nothing left to discover or has mankind won the game and learned all there is to know?

That is just stupid to say, chemists have measured reactions on the time scale of femto seconds ( 10^-15 s ) for over twenty years (example). Atomic force microscopes have been pushing around atoms and measuring the electron cloud around atoms for over a decade.
The latest generation of electron microscopes have resolution of below 0.1 nm (a gold atom is 0.29 nm) and can study fast processes with femto seconds resolution. :shock:

Even I have an electron microscope, a 30 year old JEOL 100 CX TEM, and I have taken a picture of the crystal structure of gold via electron diffraction. Since it is 30 years old I don't have the same resolution of modern TEM:s, only 1.4Å. I can see molecules but not individual atoms.
X-ray diffraction have been used for revealing the crystal structure of materials for 100 years now.

C'mon guys!
Is there a scientist in the house? And by "scientist" I mean someone hell-bent on "discovery".

Science is built on knowledge and sound theories, not ignorance and dreams.

I'm not a fully fledged scientist but would like to look at myself as having a scientific mind. Science is built on a solid ground of proven and tested facts. A corner stone in the scientific process is peer review, any scientific work is scrutinized and checked from every possible angle and any weaknesses are revealed. If a work (article) can stand up to that level of scrutiny then it is accepted, but if there are weaknesses in it then it is never seen.
What I have seen in this thread is a lot of unsubstantiated statements and purely wrong statements.
- Metastannic acid (the gelatinous white goo that we get when mixing nitric with tin bearing materal) isn't an oxide, it is a hydroxide.
- Describe how glucose is "sucking up the weakly bonded oxygen from the tin"
- No precious metal allotropes are known
- Carbon have a whole lot of different allotropes but what does that have to do with gold or other precious metals?

Do you think I'm treating you harshly? I'm just trying to treat you in a scientific way, the way I've seen responses to badly written articles in scientific magazines. Editors and peer review could be quite frank when pointing out wrongs.

I have run into a lot of "grey goop" several times. Every time I have concluded that it is mostly metastannic acid, silver chloride, lead sulphate, lead chloride and probably some other chemicals in a mix. I don't care that much as everything I catch in a filter will be incinerated and leached again before I discards it. Probably it also contained some gold and palladium but the bulk makes it too hard and not worth going after small traces on a batch level.

Göran

 

[Rick_J]

I asked a friend who is much more knowledgeable than I about the grey goop. He posted me back the below, thinking it was tin oxide from the solder.

**Anyway, I tried processing e-scrap over the last couple of years and found it to be harder than I was expecting. The first thing I would ask this guy is, did he remove ALL of the solder from what he processed. If not then his grey goop sounds like tin oxide to me. It can cause the problems he is seeing, and it can be a cause of ghost gold if it is in an ore, as you are suggesting. Here is a web site that talks about using Na2SO4 to solve this problem as well as the very common problem of PGM sulfides in ore, which is the other major cause of ghost gold in ore: http://www.ejmpep.com/jeffrey_and_anderson.pdf**

While not doing any scrap recovery, I personally try to use ACS chemicals in my lab to avoid issues with contaminants.

 

[Geo]

heh, yea thats kind of what i said. solder is used in jewelry and even more so in repairs. you really never know what you are putting in the mix when dealing with gold filled.

you can defeat tin oxide but you must know how to deal with it first.

 

[au-artifax]

Pquote="g_axelsson"]

AgCl? The ammonia didn't dissolve any of the GG. SnO2? The glucose would have sucked up the weakly bonded oxygen from the tin right away and left tin behind for the HCl to go after when I added HCl to the ammonium hydroxide wash.

And if it matters, yes I DO believe gold may take on a different crystalline structure in certain environmental conditions whether natural or man made. Carbon for example, how many different allotropes does it have?

You may believe in Santa Claus, but it doesn't make it more true. Gold doesn't have any allotropes as far as I know. Neither silver, palladium, platinum, iridium... or any precious metals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allotropy#Metals

Isn't this chemistry thing all based on things we cannot see? So who do you know that can prove there is no such thing as different structures of PM crystals? Is there nothing left to discover or has mankind won the game and learned all there is to know?

That is just stupid to say, chemists have measured reactions on the time scale of femto seconds ( 10^-15 s ) for over twenty years (example). Atomic force microscopes have been pushing around atoms and measuring the electron cloud around atoms for over a decade.
The latest generation of electron microscopes have resolution of below 0.1 nm (a gold atom is 0.29 nm) and can study fast processes with femto seconds resolution. :shock:

Even I have an electron microscope, a 30 year old JEOL 100 CX TEM, and I have taken a picture of the crystal structure of gold via electron diffraction. Since it is 30 years old I don't have the same resolution of modern TEM:s, only 1.4Å. I can see molecules but not individual atoms.
X-ray diffraction have been used for revealing the crystal structure of materials for 100 years now.

C'mon guys!
Is there a scientist in the house? And by "scientist" I mean someone hell-bent on "discovery".

Science is built on knowledge and sound theories, not ignorance and dreams.

I'm not a fully fledged scientist but would like to look at myself as having a scientific mind. Science is built on a solid ground of proven and tested facts. A corner stone in the scientific process is peer review, any scientific work is scrutinized and checked from every possible angle and any weaknesses are revealed. If a work (article) can stand up to that level of scrutiny then it is accepted, but if there are weaknesses in it then it is never seen.
What I have seen in this thread is a lot of unsubstantiated statements and purely wrong statements.
- Metastannic acid (the gelatinous white goo that we get when mixing nitric with tin bearing materal) isn't an oxide, it is a hydroxide.
- Describe how glucose is "sucking up the weakly bonded oxygen from the tin"
- No precious metal allotropes are known
- Carbon have a whole lot of different allotropes but what does that have to do with gold or other precious metals?

Do you think I'm treating you harshly? I'm just trying to treat you in a scientific way, the way I've seen responses to badly written articles in scientific magazines. Editors and peer review could be quite frank when pointing out wrongs.

I have run into a lot of "grey goop" several times. Every time I have concluded that it is mostly metastannic acid, silver chloride, lead sulphate, lead chloride and probably some other chemicals in a mix. I don't care that much as everything I catch in a filter will be incinerated and leached again before I discards it. Probably it also contained some gold and palladium but the bulk makes it too hard and not worth going after small traces on a batch level.

Göran[/quote]

Sounds a lot like the criticism most notable scientists have received at one time or another. I guess the human race has discovered everything there is to discover then. No need for that silly old space exploration thing, or exploring in general. It's all been done, time to turn out the lights and call it a day right?!
If not, maybe you can enlighten everyone as to how new isotopes can be synthesized, but not allotropes. Why are so many scientists focused on man made elements if there is nothing left to discover? Please spare me any speeches about conforming. Speculation and dreaming has and will forever be an important part of science. Perhaps looking away from your calculator and computer and looking at the night sky might give you a hint about how much we really know of the universe. I for one cannot look at the vastness of space and say something does not exist. To say something doesn't is a little arrogant in my honest opinion.

 

[butcher]

au-artifax,
I have not followed this thread closely and have just scanned over it, but it sounds to me you are missing the whole point, why waste your time trying to make the wheel round, it is already round.

It is great to discover and find out new things, but it is also easier to learn the science already discovered before trying to reinvent the wheel. and when you do it is also easier to find that new discovery, and you will not miss it, while trying to reinvent the already round wheel.

 

[necromancer]

Pquote="g_axelsson"]

AgCl? The ammonia didn't dissolve any of the GG. SnO2? The glucose would have sucked up the weakly bonded oxygen from the tin right away and left tin behind for the HCl to go after when I added HCl to the ammonium hydroxide wash.

And if it matters, yes I DO believe gold may take on a different crystalline structure in certain environmental conditions whether natural or man made. Carbon for example, how many different allotropes does it have?

You may believe in Santa Claus, but it doesn't make it more true. Gold doesn't have any allotropes as far as I know. Neither silver, palladium, platinum, iridium... or any precious metals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allotropy#Metals

Isn't this chemistry thing all based on things we cannot see? So who do you know that can prove there is no such thing as different structures of PM crystals? Is there nothing left to discover or has mankind won the game and learned all there is to know?

That is just stupid to say, chemists have measured reactions on the time scale of femto seconds ( 10^-15 s ) for over twenty years (example). Atomic force microscopes have been pushing around atoms and measuring the electron cloud around atoms for over a decade.
The latest generation of electron microscopes have resolution of below 0.1 nm (a gold atom is 0.29 nm) and can study fast processes with femto seconds resolution. :shock:

Even I have an electron microscope, a 30 year old JEOL 100 CX TEM, and I have taken a picture of the crystal structure of gold via electron diffraction. Since it is 30 years old I don't have the same resolution of modern TEM:s, only 1.4Å. I can see molecules but not individual atoms.
X-ray diffraction have been used for revealing the crystal structure of materials for 100 years now.

C'mon guys!
Is there a scientist in the house? And by "scientist" I mean someone hell-bent on "discovery".

Science is built on knowledge and sound theories, not ignorance and dreams.

I'm not a fully fledged scientist but would like to look at myself as having a scientific mind. Science is built on a solid ground of proven and tested facts. A corner stone in the scientific process is peer review, any scientific work is scrutinized and checked from every possible angle and any weaknesses are revealed. If a work (article) can stand up to that level of scrutiny then it is accepted, but if there are weaknesses in it then it is never seen.
What I have seen in this thread is a lot of unsubstantiated statements and purely wrong statements.
- Metastannic acid (the gelatinous white goo that we get when mixing nitric with tin bearing materal) isn't an oxide, it is a hydroxide.
- Describe how glucose is "sucking up the weakly bonded oxygen from the tin"
- No precious metal allotropes are known
- Carbon have a whole lot of different allotropes but what does that have to do with gold or other precious metals?

Do you think I'm treating you harshly? I'm just trying to treat you in a scientific way, the way I've seen responses to badly written articles in scientific magazines. Editors and peer review could be quite frank when pointing out wrongs.

I have run into a lot of "grey goop" several times. Every time I have concluded that it is mostly metastannic acid, silver chloride, lead sulphate, lead chloride and probably some other chemicals in a mix. I don't care that much as everything I catch in a filter will be incinerated and leached again before I discards it. Probably it also contained some gold and palladium but the bulk makes it too hard and not worth going after small traces on a batch level.

Göran

Sounds a lot like the criticism most notable scientists have received at one time or another. I guess the human race has discovered everything there is to discover then. No need for that silly old space exploration thing, or exploring in general. It's all been done, time to turn out the lights and call it a day right?!
If not, maybe you can enlighten everyone as to how new isotopes can be synthesized, but not allotropes. Why are so many scientists focused on man made elements if there is nothing left to discover? Please spare me any speeches about conforming. Speculation and dreaming has and will forever be an important part of science. Perhaps looking away from your calculator and computer and looking at the night sky might give you a hint about how much we really know of the universe. I for one cannot look at the vastness of space and say something does not exist. To say something doesn't is a little arrogant in my honest opinion.[/quote]
----------------
--------------------------------
---------------------------------------------

au-artifax.

if you truly believe you have this new discovery down to a science & you can do what you claim i would like to suggest you have it patented A.S.A.P.
make sure get a international patent.

because now that it is out on the internet anyone can pick up your original idea and make billions & billions of dollars with it.

i understand that we don't understand what you are trying to explain to us because we are all stuck in a "copy box" take your new discovery and run with it.

so.......

monday afternoon when you get back from the patent office please let us know the patent number so we can read it in its full detail
i would think we can all better understand it when its in all of its glory & no one is going to take your fame & fortune away.

Dave C.

 

[g_axelsson]

Sounds a lot like the criticism most notable scientists have received at one time or another. I guess the human race has discovered everything there is to discover then. No need for that silly old space exploration thing, or exploring in general. It's all been done, time to turn out the lights and call it a day right?!
If not, maybe you can enlighten everyone as to how new isotopes can be synthesized, but not allotropes. Why are so many scientists focused on man made elements if there is nothing left to discover? Please spare me any speeches about conforming. Speculation and dreaming has and will forever be an important part of science. Perhaps looking away from your calculator and computer and looking at the night sky might give you a hint about how much we really know of the universe. I for one cannot look at the vastness of space and say something does not exist. To say something doesn't is a little arrogant in my honest opinion.

au-artifax, you are accusing the wrong person to think all is discovered. But when it comes to classical physics and the base sciences we have most of it figured out. I dated a girl a year ago and she was researching quantum loop gravity, that is where one of the frontier of science lies today. We don't know yet how to combine quantum physics and gravity but that doesn't mean that Newtons laws is wrong.
Maybe it is arrogant to say that there doesn't exists any allotropes of gold, but then it is equally arrogant to explain a grey goop would contain allotropes of gold.

I don't understand your coupling between allotropes and isotopes. Do you even know what you are talking about?

Allotropes : Different crystal forms of an element, for example carbon has graphite and diamond among other.

There are a limited way we can stack atoms and one important factor is the valence electrodes. Carbon for example have four and can be made into a whole lot of chains, tubes, sheet and mesh. In metals the atoms have one or several valence electrons that are weakly attached to the atom and when metals bond they do it with metallic bonding, leaving the atom as a small ball without certain direction it would like to bond. This is the basis of the cubic crystal system that gold, copper, aluminum, silver and many more metals crystallizes in.
To create a new allotrope we would need to stack the metal atoms in a new way but metal atoms sits in a sea of electrons and moves easily. The cubic crystal is the most effective way to stack gold atoms.

Isotopes : Different number of neutrons in an atom with the same number of protons. For example hydrogen (1 proton) with deuterium (1 proton 1 neutron) and tritium (1 proton 2 neutrons).

Isotopes can be synthesized by smashing different atoms together in an accelerator and in the debris you can find new isotopes. Atoms with a certain composition is quite stable but if you create isotopes that is further away from the stable isotopes they are quite short lived. With better instruments and better control of the parameters of the experiment we can make more of a certain isotope and we are getting better to detect the isotopes.
That is why we can still synthesize new isotopes but not stable ones.

I do watch the skies a lot, I have worked as a guide at our local observatory and I have a meteorite collection with pieces from Mars and the Moon. I'm constantly amazed of what our scientists can achieve and think that there should be more money put into science. But I don't think we should give money to scientists that wants to prove that the Earth is flat. Some things we know with high enough probability.

So, you say that you have an unknown allotrope of gold in your grey goop. I'm skeptical and say... Prove it!
What is the process that creates the allotrope? Which crystal system has the gold crystallized in?

Göran

 

[g_axelsson]

necromancer, sadly there is no prerequisite that a patent should work to get it granted.

Göran

 

[necromancer]

necromancer, sadly there is no prerequisite that a patent should work to get it granted.

Göran

yes, i understand that you are 100% right !!