Getting pure gold (shining)

[Harold_V]

It's much more difficult to clean off purity gold in a melting dish than in a crucible furnace. However, it can be done in both. I'm talking about gold that still has base metals in it.

The thinking is flawed where fluxing to purify is involved. Fluxes do not remove clean metals, only the oxides. Unless you introduce something to fully oxidize the metals, they won't be removed, regardless of the system. The only improvement you can expect is the removal of already oxidized metals, and then only if the entire mass is exposed to the flux. To further complicate the matter, If you get stupid and add reducing agents (soda ash, for example), you not only don't remove the oxides, you reduce them and add them back to the gold as clean metals. The gold will come out shiny if kept under a flux cover, but it is not pure.

Clearly, melting under a flux cover has a limited effect on the fineness of gold, We're that not the case, all a refiner would have to do is melt his gold with flux and have it come pure. Both of us know that doesn't happen. Fact is, that's the reason I started double refining. Fluxing alone would not improve the quality to my level of satisfaction. I can't speak for others.

I try, as you do, to do everything possible to get the gold very pure before melting it. Sometimes, though, it is slightly off purity and needs a little flux work.

That may have happened to you, but it didn't happen to me. Now you understand why I asked you about your reports of consistent 9999 gold. As I've already stated, I double refined my gold for years to avoid the problem----secure in the knowledge that it rarely comes down in good quality the first precipitation----. Further, the quality suffers far more with gold from dirty solutions. Directly dissolving karat gold with AR by thinning it is a great example of asking for problems. The base metals, along with silver, are included in the solution. Why would you expect to precipitate 9999 quality, when drag-down alone would be significant. Remember, I never said it wouldn't work----fact is, I refined bench filings that way, and got terrible quality gold as a result. It was that gold that became my added metal for evaporating solutions. By melting it, the quality was slightly improved, but the second dissolution proved the key to success. Buttons that came from that gold were always off color (oxides).

It's been well documented that it's not easy to exceed 9995 with the AR process, although not impossible. As a result, I double refined my gold-----if for no other reason, I am an honest person and don't enjoy lying to myself, let alone a customer. I made no guarantee that my gold exceeded industry standard of 9995, although it surely did----but I did guarantee it met the standard. It was a safe way to conduct business-------no one calls you a liar when they get more than they bargained for, but you'll never be forgiven if you advertise 9999 and deliver 9997.

Notice that my ingots were marked simply "Fine Gold"? It was.

My method of melting was very telling of impurities. For one, the gold had every opportunity to get fully oxidized, not being melted under a flux covering, and an oxidizing flame used, not a reducing flame. That was on purpose. Should there be any base metals, the gold not only would come out discolored, but the melting dish would show signs of oxides. I'm very proud to announce that my melting dish was used until it was too thin to be of service, and was colored light purple-----time and again. So, my friend, while my first run gold may have been questionable, my second run gold was not-----ever. The only purpose flux served in my case was to "grease' the melting dish. There was NEVER a flux cover, just enough flux to keep the dish wet. There is no oxide to absorb when there are no base metals present. My second run gold never required a pickle.

On the subject of the color of gold when it precipitates, I made observations, and not once, but over years. I was always more concerned with quality than I was profit------so, to me, this was an important issue. The things I mention, below, are absolutes as far as I'm concerned, and were well supported by the end results I achieved. Please bear in mind that I used sulfur dioxide to precipitate, so nothing was added to my solutions to influence colors.

1- Gold that precipitates from dirty solutions will come down dark. It's a function of the contamination level. It is NEVER pure. It isn't just a matter of being finely divided, although being finely divided is symptom of being dirty.

2- Gold that precipitates from clean solutions will come down blonde---without fail. The sole exception is if the solution is quite dilute, at which time the gold forms smaller crystals, but they never lean towards black, they are slightly darker golden colored, and not as bright as larger crystals. The color, when washed, does not change, for they are dark because they are finely divided, and not reflecting light directionally.

3- Gold that precipitates dark, from dirty solutions, will always lighten in color with a good and proper washing. That involves more than a rinse---it requires boiling with HCL, rinsing well, and the use of ammonium hydroxide. There is no question, the quality of the gold is improved by this process.

4- Gold that precipitates light in color (blonde) generally changes little, if any, when washed. The color is light, and it stays that way. A sure sign the gold is pure. The wash solution does not change color, for it is absorbing nothing.

To me, the observations I've made indicate that the color of gold as it precipitates is a very good indicator of the quality. It would take a lot of evidence to sway my opinion, and I've not seen enough thus far to have that happen.

Harold

 

[Harold_V]

Harold,

Thank You for your advice here.

You're very welcome. Phillip. I take great pleasure in assisting those that have a similar agenda to one I had. Not everyone cares about the overall quality, but to me that was of uppermost importance.

Nobody that I know, or ever heard of around my area does refining or even has a clue that there are precious metals in electronic scrap. That leaves me to do much by the seat of my pants. The supplier of the sodium nitrate only gives limited directions.

It's not uncommon to find most folks lacking even the most basic of understanding of gold or silver refining. Gold, since '32, was so tightly regulated by our government that it was illegal to refine unless you had a federal license. As a result, little has been published in that regard, and what little that has been published, aside from Hoke's book, has been at a level that would be unlikely to be useful to the novice. I encountered that at every turn when I was attempting to learn. Had it not been for my good fortune to place a phone call to an elderly benchman that had experimented with refining, and owned a copy of Hoke's book, it's very possible that I would have stumbled along with no success.

It's great that guys like you and the other experienced refiners here are willing to share their tricks so us newcomers don't have to guess and wonder.

Aside from passing along the things that I confirmed by observations, and the pursuit of perfection, I take no credit for any of the things I post. Hoke's book was key to my success. If followed, you will be successful, although there may very well be other methods that yield comparable success. That's not the point-----Hoke hands the information to you --------there is almost no learning curve. You might keep that in mind if you move beyond gold and work with the platinum group.

Harold

 

[goldsilverpro]

Harold,

We could argue about these things til the cows come home. I just hope our bantering is instructive to the readers. I think we both have to search our memories to come up with this stuff. I know I do. No matter how we did it, we both came out with very similar final products. I admire you for perfecting a system to put out pure gold. You should realize, however, that probably no one else in the world uses your exact system yet, there are many other aqua regia refiners that put out gold as pure as yours, with one drop, myself included. From day one and many 10's of thousands of ounces later, besides the economic aspects, super pure gold has always been a pride thing with me. You're the only person I've ever met that routinely uses double aqua regia. I see your logic behind this. I just took a different approach.

About half of the gold I sold went into the manufacture of gold plating salts. Since I started out in the gold plating salts industry, this is where my contacts were. This industry has some of the most stringent gold purity requirements of any other industry. These salts were mainly sold to electronics mfgrs. and were all made with 9999 gold. Anything less would show up in faulty plating and the salts mfgr. would be out of business. My gold was suitable to enter this system.

Since pure gold ingots have a specific visual appearance, I chose to do nothing that would eliminate these visual effects. I wanted any educated buyer to have no doubts that my gold was pure. I didn't fire polish or buff the surface, for example. I didn't stamp my bars. I NEVER tried to sell gold that had oxide discoloration and never used acid to remove it. In my system, this discoloration was rare. When it happened, I remelted and cleaned it up. When I couldn't clean it up, I put it back into aqua regia, the last resort, as far as I was concerned.

In your post, you used words like, "the thinking is flawed" and "stupid", when referring to my methods. Although these words get my blood pressure up a bit, I try to calm down and look at this thing logically. I think that sometimes you feel that anyone with different experiences than you is flat out wrong. When we were refining, we operated in different worlds of industry. Your business was mainly with jewelers. Mine was in the more broad high tech world in L.A., mainly in the electronics manufacturing sector. We both satisfied our customers with pure gold. Most likely, your gold would be satisfactory in my sector and mine in yours. As Steve's signature says, "The proof is in the pudding."

I don't know where you got the idea that I cover the gold with flux. I never allowed that to happen. That would have really been stupid. I only used very small pinches of flux, mainly alternating between borax and niter. I usually used one pinch of soda ash, at the start, to adjust the flow of the flux. If it did reduce oxides, it made no difference, since all were eventually removed with niter. The molten gold forms a convex meniscus and the flux slides to the edge of the button. When I had too much flux, I usually let the gold barely solidify and then poured off the still molten flux. I'm talking about when using a melting dish. When using a crucible, it's diameter was much larger than a melting dish and the buildup of flux around the edge of the meniscus isn't as much of a problem. When you add niter, you can see the oxides rise to the top from the interior. The melt is always kept moving with the torch. When base metals are still present, there is a whitish film on the surface. This is a surface effect caused by the oxidizing flame and/or the oxygen in the air. When the base metals are gone, the gold has a brilliant metallic mirror surface with no evidence of white. Further additions of niter don't affect this surface. All of this is much easier to perform in a crucible furnace.

In order of decreasing particle size, gold goes - shiny metallic - blond - tan - light brown - medium brown - dark brown - almost black - black - black slime - purple, all with intermediate shades in between. With all of these, on a microscopic level. the individual particles are bright and shiny and probably crystalline. Only the eye sees them in bulk, in these colors. I would wager that I could, with some experimentation, start with 9999 gold and produce each of these colors, by varying the parameters. When refining, I have seen every one of these. In my experience, the finer gold is, the more difficult it is to filter, leach, and rinse out the contaminates. When really fine, these things become impossible. Therefore, the finer the gold, the more likely the gold will be impure. I always shot for lumpy, fluffy, light or medium brown gold. More like a sponge than a powder. This stuff rinses and leaches beautifully, maybe even easier than the heavier blond powder. Sometimes, the last, maybe 1%, of the gold dropped darker than the rest. I don't know why this happened, but it seemed to cause no problems, since the bulk was of good color..

When filtering, our leaching/rinsing system was a bit different. I went hot water rinses - approx. 50% nitric leach - hot water rinses - ammonia leach - hot distilled water rinses. We both used ammonia. I used it for silver chloride and, I think, you used it to detect any blue solution of nickel or copper. Only traces of these metals produce a strong blue color in the ammoniacal solution. I rarely got any blue because of the large amount of rinsing done, on my spongy gold, before the ammonia. You used HCl and I used nitric. I feel that nitric will remove everything that HCl removes, plus more. I never did understand why you used HCl.

By "dirty solutions", do you mean those that have base metals in them or those that have been improperly filtered?

 

[aflacglobal]

This might sound a little gay, but i love you guys. where have you been all my life ?

I can only hope to gain the knowledge you gentlemen have.

I can pretty much follow the topics and i understand the math.
but still that's not the same as experience.

Thanks gentlemen,

Ralph

 

[Harold_V]

Harold,

We could argue about these things til the cows come home. I just hope our bantering is instructive to the readers.

Why do you think I challenge you on subjects with which I don't agree? It is my objective to not only expose things that I feel are wrong, but to describe, to the best of my ability, what's wrong with them, as I see them. I'm not sue, who tossed a wet blanket on subjects but refused to say why. Readers should have every opportunity to not pick up bad habits, which both of us have, no doubt. Our discussions serve a good purpose, even if they annoy you.

I think we both have to search our memories to come up with this stuff. I know I do. No matter how we did it, we both came out with very similar final products. I admire you for perfecting a system to put out pure gold. You should realize, however, that probably no one else in the world uses your exact system yet, there are many other aqua regia refiners that put out gold as pure as yours, with one drop, myself included

If that was the case, why would any of them run parting cells, or for that matter, use the Miller process?

Sorry, I don't agree. Everything I've read indicates that even 9995 on a consistent basis isn't a reasonable expectation for a first refining, and my experiences back that notion perfectly well. That isn't to say that you can't achieve it, but to expect it routinely borders on the unreasonable. I'd be particularly hard pressed to believe you can do so with karat gold that has been directly dissolved with AR by dividing it finely in lieu of inquartation, where base metal and silver content are reduced. The direct AR process isn't a great deal different from how I processed filings from a jeweler's bench, which consistently yielded poor quality gold, and that's after a prolonged boil in nitric until there was no further action. This was after incineration and before AR. Why would you, or anyone, expect gold that comes from a dirty solution (dissolved base metals of all kinds) to be as clean as gold that comes from a clean solution? You don't feel there's more dragdown?

In your post, you used words like, "the thinking is flawed" and "stupid", when referring to my methods

Sorry, you're wrong. I did not make reference to them because they are "your methods". I made my comments because they're true. Note that I did NOT tell you you were stupid, nor that your thinking was flawed. I have no clue where you were taught to use those processes, which could have very well been passed to you by someone that was well meaning, but poorly informed.

If you use those procedures, that's your choice, but I outlined exactly what's wrong with them. Remember, doing something for an eternity that is not in your best interest will not turn it to something that is in your best interest. Hundreds of people doing something stupid doesn't make it smart. You get my drift.

You may have learned to live with the consequences of these things, but I don't think I can stand by in clear conscience while you endorse methods that have a potential to create more problems than they solve. Both of them do exactly that.

Although these words get my blood pressure up a bit, I try to calm down and look at this thing logically. I think that sometimes you feel that anyone with different experiences than you is flat out wrong.

Wrong again. I've clearly stated that there are many ways to achieve the end result, but I've also stated in clear English that if readers follow the advice stated in Hoke's book, one thing is assured. They will achieve success. Not sometime, but every time. Fact is, even Hoke presented options. I chose to exercise those that appealed to me, or were most convenient. I do not think my way is the best, but it was the best for me-----having tried various means for many operations, in keeping with Hoke's recommendations. If they worked for me, they can work for others as well, saving them the task of reinventing the wheel.

I don't know where you got the idea that I cover the gold with flux

This sort of lead me that direction:

http://goldrefiningforum.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=337&highlight=needle+scaling

In the link you said:

Needle guns are quite powerful. I used to use them to remove slag from ingots. They might break up IC's. The problem is to confine the material so it doesn't fly all over. Your chamber might just work. Not a bad idea."

I poured gold without any flux on my ingots. How did it, otherwise, get there on yours?

Since pure gold ingots have a specific visual appearance, I chose to do nothing that would eliminate these visual effects. I wanted any educated buyer to have no doubts that my gold was pure. I didn't fire polish or buff the surface, for example. I didn't stamp my bars.

Yet you clearly stated "Needle guns are quite powerful. I used to use them to remove slag from ingots."

Not only does slag leave tell-tale signs where it was on the ingot, but the removal by mechanical means, particularly by a scaler, defaces the ingot surface beyond recognition. You can't have it both ways.

I only used very small pinches of flux, mainly alternating between borax and niter. I usually used one pinch of soda ash, at the start, to adjust the flow of the flux. If it did reduce oxides, it made no difference, since all were eventually removed with niter. The molten gold forms a convex meniscus and the flux slides to the edge of the button

That reminds me of the guy that gets pulled over for running a stop sign. He insists to the cop that he slowed down---which is the same as stopping. Cops say to him------"Tell you what we'll do. I'll start thumping the hell out of you with my night stick. When you think you've had enough, you tell me if you want me to slow down, or stop".

Tell me, which would you prefer? You have a container of hot water and some salt. You don't want the salt in the water. Is it easier to keep it out, or to get it out once it's dissolved? That's the type of reasoning you're presenting to the readers. I don't agree, and I'm not going to agree in a week or a year. What a prudent individual does is keep it out, not toss it in and pretend it's not a problem. You, my friend, are passing a perfect opportunity to learn that soda ash is a reducer, and should not be included in flux for fine gold. You want to thin your flux? Use fluorspar. It does a better job, anyway.

I don't recall EVER needing to thin my borax when melting pure gold. The only time it got thickened was when there was an abundance of base metals. I trust you read my comments about melting my second refining. Melting dishes had only one color beyond clear-----a purple tinge----from colloidal gold. Borax, when clean, is not particularly viscous at the melting point of gold, but quickly sets as the gold freezes. Pouring any off when the gold has set is a tall order. You might be successful in scraping it out.

Hoke discusses raising the quality of questionable gold by the addition of niter (potassium nitrate). I tried it several times----never with success that was in keeping with my goal. Maybe you settled for less than I wanted. Dunno. I wasn't content to have gold that had oxides----and I never was successful in eliminating them by that means, not even after a quarter hour of heating with an oxidizing flame (a Hoke torch, fired by natural gas and oxygen). There was clear evidence they were lowered (dirty flux), I'll grant you that-------but-----again------if achieving high quality gold was as easy as melting with a proper flux, that's what we'd all be doing. It doesn't work---although it does remove some oxides. Maybe if I'd have spent a couple hours!

When I had too much flux, I usually let the gold barely solidify and then poured off the still molten flux

Been there, done that, got the T shirt, learned it didn't work. You don't think I tried every dodge in the book, too? I ended up double refining because it DID work, the other dodges didn't. My original method (first year or two of refining) of returning gold was to melt in a dish, with enough flux to reach the edge of the button, but not to cover it. The moment it froze, but was still red, I'd sprinkle a light covering of borax on the surface, then extract the button from the flux iwth tweezers. It was then pickled in sulfuric acid. The button was delivered to the owner, not shot. The flux, by now, was very sticky, and would not pour.

Therefore, the finer the gold, the more likely the gold will be impure.

This is a cause and effect situation. My observations were that gold precipitated from dirty solutions came down very fine---and dirty. I never did get gold to precipitate fine from clean solutions. It was so eager to agglomerate that the particles came down large, often very large. The contamination in dirty solutions prevents that from happening, at least from my observations. You're certainly entitled to see it the way you do------but I'm every bit as convinced that I am correct as you are.

I always shot for lumpy, fluffy, light or medium brown gold. More like a sponge than a powder. This stuff rinses and leaches beautifully, maybe even easier than the heavier blond powder. Sometimes, the last, maybe 1%, of the gold dropped darker than the rest. I don't know why this happened, but it seemed to cause no problems, since the bulk was of good color..

I'm pretty sure I can address the different colors. I've already stated that color is a function of concentration. Here's one for you to consider.

On rare occasion, when I'd re-refine, I'd have a touch of nitric still left in solution. The gold came down fine, but when it came time to wash the gold (with HCL), I'd get the slightest of dissolution. Stop washing after allowing it to boil for a brief period (to consume the nitric with the precipitated gold) and then ice the solution. The precipitation from the now very dilute solution produced gold that was slightly darker than the balance of the precipitated gold. There was so little present that it did not agglomerate as well as the heavily concentrated solution on the original precipitation.

When filtering, our leaching/rinsing system was a bit different. I went hot water rinses - approx. 50% nitric leach - hot water rinses - ammonia leach - hot distilled water rinses. We both used ammonia. I used it for silver chloride and, I think, you used it to detect any blue solution of nickel or copper. Only traces of these metals produce a strong blue color in the ammoniacal solution.

No, I had no need to detect copper. It did expose it if it was present, however, for, as you allude, the slightest trace of copper displays a bold blue color. I'd find hints of blue, but not routinely. I used ammonium hydroxide for one reason. When you change pH, elements that are in solution are prone to precipitate, so by going from acid to basic and back to acid, I had the opportunity to convert any sort of contaminant the could prove troublesome. Washing well with ammonium hydroxide is just one more step you can take to improve the quality of gold without adding anything to it that can prove harmful.

You used HCl and I used nitric. I feel that nitric will remove everything that HCl removes, plus more. I never did understand why you used HCl.

By now you should understand that I am a student of Hoke. I used HCL because it is the recommended wash. You do recall that we're talking about a chloride solution, yes? Unless you take steps to eliminate all traces of chlorides, you risk dissolving your precipitated gold when you wash with nitric. I think so, and Hoke thinks so. I wouldn't dream of using nitric for the final wash, and I'm not concerned that it worked for you, or not. Assuming you do the nitric wash, and have a negative reaction, you'd be walking a very dangerous line when you started introducing ammonia to a gold chloride solution, a risk I'd rather not take. One thing sure, you wash with HNO3 long enough and that's going to happen, just like the occasional batch that contained a trace when I washed. I don't want to be held responsible for providing even a hint of something that can jeopardize a reader unnecessarily. If you can present cites that prove my position to be in error, I'd welcome the input. You likely understand that I'm not all that keen on opinion. I already have some that we don't agree on.

I'm not concerned if readers follow my recommendations, or not. What I am concerned with is that they use practices that don't create problems, and don't harm themselves or their loved ones. Follow the advice in Hoke's book-------the pitfalls have all been addressed. It will tell you how to wash your gold-------although I'm pretty sure it doesn't address the use of ammonium hydroxide. I had to learn that from a novice refiner. Wish I had my book at hand.


Here's the deal. You bring an ounce of pure gold to my shop, and I'll provide one. We'll make a setup to refine the two ounces. I have enough nitric and HCL and sulfuric to do the processing. Together, we'll alloy it to 14 K yellow, then we'll process it by your means. If you can produce gold with a single precipitation that melts without oxides, the gold is yours. If it has oxides, any oxides, the gold is mine. I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is. I trust you have enough faith in your grandiose claims to do the same.

Harold

 

[aflacglobal]

:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

 

[goldsilverpro]

My sentiments exactly, aflac.

I'm going to bow out of this, Harold, with a few closing statements. These long argumentative posts are wearing me out and we both are saying the same things over and over. It's a fact that we both produced excellent gold using different methods. This doesn't surprise me as much as it does you. I've probably known 50 professional refiners in my life and, with few exceptions, they all had similar goals and developed their own ways of producing good gold. I once worked for a guy who could care less about making pure gold. He shipped 99% and took a beating. This philosophy drove me nuts and I quit after a month.

Maybe, your dropping gold from concentrated solutions caused the first drop to be crappy. I seem to remember having trouble along those lines, At an early point in life, I started diluting the aqua regia 3 times before filtering and that seemed to take care of a lot of former problems.

I will concede that doing double aqua regia is a more guaranteed method of getting pure gold, especially for the novice. Maybe you're right in wanting these guys to do it. For me and every other professional refiner I've ever known, however, it's a big waste of time, energy, and money. Also, few or none of these guys inquarted.

The Hoke book is the best book for the beginner that I know of. However, it was written 67 years ago and, since then, there have been a lot of innovations in aqua regia refining.

Although an old method, the Miller chlorine/Wohlwill cell method is still the state of the art for refining gold. Once the initial outlay is covered, it's the cheapest, most reliable way of refining large quantities of gold. It's not used because the refiner can't get 9999 with aqua regia, no matter what you've read. It's like a refining machine, with set parameters and few variables. It avoids the very subjective method of using aqua regia. It avoids the workers screwing up the more sensitive aqua regia process. But, since it's very expensive to set up, only the big boys can afford it.

The definition of an ingot is metal in a bar form. The standard method for processing circuit boards is to burn - grind - screen - melt the metallics - ship the dust (pulps) and ingots to a copper smelter. The ingots produced run about 65% copper and, along with the pulps, they contain all of the other 20, or so, odd metals and PM's on the boards. These big 50# ingots have slag all over them, which must be removed. The needle gun worked the best for this purpose. These are the only ingots I have ever used the needle gun on.

I haven't read Ms.Hoke for awhile but, if I remember right, she used HCl to get rid of the iron from the ferrous sulfate she used to drop the gold. You and I don't normally use ferrous sulfate so, why use HCl? I can't think of anything else that would be present for it to dissolve. I haven't done aqua regia for awhile and I told you I have to search my memory to recall how I did certain things. I'm 67 and the CRS, Can't Remember S_ _t, gets a little worse each year. Of course, I thought of the presence of chlorides in tap water and from the aqua regia. My mamma didn't raise no stooped kids. Since you reminded me, I remember rinsing with distilled water in between the tap water rinses and the nitric acid. I also remember testing the last rinse before nitric for chlorides, with silver nitrate.

On to different things. Refining isn't a one trick pony. Enough has been written on aqua regia refining for the novice to do it. The info is scattered but, it's just about all there. In 1989, I made a list of 250 refining topics to write articles on. Refining karat gold was only one item on that list. I still have that list. I was going to do a refining newsletter. I could probably double the list today. Only about 10-20 of these have been covered on this forum. On to bigger and better things!

 

[aflacglobal]

Yes please do go into the ultrasonic thing. I can see this now.
I Think.

 

[lazersteve]

I've repaired a ton of the control and oscillator boards for these rigs. The company that hired us to fix them used them for cleaning fuel injectors on engines. It's basicly just a high frequency (15-30khz), high power 'audio' amplifier circuit, noting too fancy. The tank was SS with a piezo element on it to excite the liquid. They put a lye solution in the ones I worked on. I may even have some schematics still laying around in my shop somewhere.

Steve

 

[aflacglobal]

I understand the working , even the design theory. No problem.

Now explain to me how this is used in the refing process. Get technical, i don't care. Hell i know it works for grand pa's teeth.
I won't to know the other. Who was it started this ? GSP do fill us in.

Ralph

 

[goldsilverpro]

That would sure be the way to do it, Steve. They cost an arm and a leg to buy. Another source is to find a freon vapor degreaser. Most of these had an ultrasonic driven pool of freon at the bottom of the tank. When freon went down, most of these were scrapped out. They are stainless and you usually find them in a scrapyard that specializes in stainless, like restaurant equipment. You know anything about these, Ralph?

 

[aflacglobal]

I'm not sure of the way it is used in refining. Let me explain. I have worked in many fields. Don't ask. The job just means more than the money. Trust me.
But i have put together many systems , some of my own design.
In the refining field. Hell no.

But the same basically applies in all system designs. complicated or complex systems are nothing more than made up of other tiny systems or controls. Which are made up of ???? other dam controls. I know my systems , now you gentlemen are teaching me what i need to know to work on my next project.

The experience and the chemistry.
When i worked for a defense contractor we had a batch cleaner that we would lower the parts into. M-16, grenade components, stainless parts.
It was lowered into a 6x6 well. About 10 ft deep . at the bottom it sit in a vat of acid. Don't know what it was, but i didn't want to at the time. I was a machinist makeing $ 28. hr . why it the hell would i want to play with acid.

The acid had a frequency modulator field made up of about 10,000 of these miniature things.
Around the top of the well was two rings one at the top. another 6 ft down.
From these rings they sprayed liquid nitrogen. To catch any of the vapors that rose from the well. Trust me these things turned acid in fog.

I understand that. But what about it's application in the refining process. Why use ? what would be its purpose. Please explain at quark and lepton
level if that's it.
Would it help. would it speed it up. Removes impurities.

Hell i got a vibrator. No not that. (for my back) lol.
Somebody stop this madness before i my brain reaches critical mass.
Danger will Robinson, danger.


Ralph

 

[Harold_V]

When i worked for a defense contractor we had a batch cleaner that we would lower the parts into. M-16, grenade components, stainless parts.
It was lowered into a 6x6 well. About 10 ft deep . at the bottom it sit in a vat of acid.

What you just described is a vapor degreaser. You sure it was acid? They're generally charged with trichloroethylene. Adding ultrasonic to it would be the ultimate in cleaning.

Harold

 

[aflacglobal]

YOU GOT IT !!!

 

[Harold_V]

I worked defense as well. I'm a retired machinist/toolmaker.

We had just such a critter at Sperry. They're not held in high regard these days------OSHA doesn't much like them.

Harold

 

[aflacglobal]

i was in machinist school

 

[Harold_V]

I'm going to bow out of this, Harold, with a few closing statements. These long argumentative posts are wearing me out and we both are saying the same things over and over

This entire thread has lost it's perspective. Bowing out "with closing statements" that challenge published and well accepted practice is hardly "bowing out".. (washing with HCL, for example)

The question as asked was:

Hello,
I would like to know what I must add/change to a standard AR process to get pure gold after melting it. Most of the gold buttons I get are not completly shining and seem to have a very thin layer of impurties. How can I correct that ?
Thanks

Your insistence that it's easy to precipitate 9999 gold doesn't address the issue, so unless you're prepared to disclose your method, so all of us can achieve your level of excellence, I, too, see no good coming from this as it stands. Turning it into a pissing contest about how well you can precipitate gold doesn't help the guy that wants to know how to improve his quality by the AR method. That was, after all, the point. I've done my level best to address that issue-----and have Hoke waiting in the wings as my reasons. You did read my comments about being a student of Hoke, I presume? :wink:

Harold

 

[AgAuPtRh]

In nearly 30 years of being in the Wood/cabinets/furniture/architecture business -- I can remember only a handful of times when situations like this would arise.

Here's my take and request.

This here has been one the most informative threads so far, in my opinion, on the forum. up to a point !!!!!!!!

Personally I don't care which one of you is "Right" --because more likely than not both of you are. I don't need to know who is "better" "more Better" "right about absolutely everything" or who is the top dog around these parts. And I'll tell you why-----------I came here to learn not to see who's best -- I didn't come here to pick sides for some kind of vote -- I don't spend what precious time I do have waiting to come in to this forum to see who WON.

I'm a busy man -- Regular job, side work, another small business venture and at the same time studying and reading and testing to learn the Art of Refining. Some of my ventures/comittments will be completed/ended here in a couple of weeks which will allow me the time to really get in to the meat of this trade and start practicing/processing/refining. I've been preparing for this for some time. With loads of literature, chemical glassware, building my own furnace, and more.

I believe I have the capabilities to read whatever--Hoke, Smith, Brady, Rose, Amman, Humble, and make the right choice for my situation and needs, and trust that choice and decision. I don't need to have anyone thinking for me or deciding "what" I need to learn or "How" I need to learn it. I haven't seen once in reading Hoke, Smith, Rose, Amman or whoever that spends anytime at all needing to be right -- About Anything. They just confidently present their methods and let the reader decide.

Certainly would be cool if it was the same here.

That's my take.

Here's my request.

If you two need to have a pissing match -- take it out back. You are disturbing the students. Or as I once heard from a friend

Come down off of your cross and build a bridge -- so you can get over it.

in other words---- do your business in private email to each other. That option IS open you know.

That's my take

 

[goldsilverpro]

AuAgPtRh,

You're 100% right, of course. I wondered when somebody would speak up and I really appreciate your doing it. These things start out innocently and then they sort of snowball. On the surface, it looked like a "top dog" thing but, I don't think that either of us felt that way. It was sort of an intellectualism thing gone sour. We sort of dragged each other into it and learned how to push each other's buttons. Like I said, it snowballed. Harold may feel differently, but that's the way I see it.

Whatever the motives, I vow to never get into one of these situations again. I've been in 2 or 3 of them now, and they all have ended badly. They are time consuming, energy zapping, and annoying to the other members. I apologize. I seem to be apologizing a little too much lately and need to stand back and examine my motives. The more this stuff happens, the less the other members participate. This is very bad, because the 200+ members are the heart and soul of this forum. Without you guys, this forum is nothing. Forums are like a living organism and it doesn't take much to kill them.

Sorry again, guys. If I do this again, please call me on it immediately.

Chris

 

[aflacglobal]

Can't we all just get along ? LOL

It's natural to want to be the alpha dog.
After all where would we be without competition and free enterprise.
I guess we can all agree to disagree.

I still love all you guys the same.
I'm new at this, but i take everyone advise and then i make my own
well informed decision. I'll listen to anybody, then it's up to me.


Ralph