*Help* Johnson Matthey Kilobar Fails Ultrasound

Gold Refining Forum

Help Support Gold Refining Forum:

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

JayPowell2020

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2020
Messages
6
I have an older-looking Johnson Matthey kilobar that is not giving any clear ultrasound reading. I suspect it is little tiny air pockets that are thwarting the ultrasound. I have done this process many times in the past on RCM bars which always check out. This is consistent with the specific gravity test I'm measuring, which is giving me 18.5 instead of the expected 19.3, suggesting air pockets. I'm also having difficulty finding pictures of the same bar from the Brampton, Canada refinery anywhere on the web. This refiner was acquired in 2015 by Asahi Refiners and their new bars look different. Anyone have any advice on how I should proceed? The gold dealer I bought from at 1.5% above spot price said they're willing to buy it back, but I'll have to suffer the sell side premium.

[Picture attached]IMG_20200805_164043.jpg
 
If you are uncertain that it’s good check with JM and supply the picture to them they should be able to verify it’s good or bad.
 
If the density is really 18.5 you should tell them that the density of gold is 19.3 and that you want a replacement bar.
 
Thanks for the replies.
@Palladium,
I was thinking of just cutting it into halves or quarters and confirming under magnification it's just air bubbles. Since there are few metals that could give a specific gravity of 18.5, I'm thinking that if it does appear gold at the cross sections where I cut it, then it must be gold. I would see the plating or a different color if it's not.

The question is, if I drill it or cut it, how does this change my ability to sell the gold in the future? Would an assayer give me a value as close to spot as a gold dealer would? What is typically the difference between having 9999 gold sample to sell vs. having a brand bar as far as resale?

@Lou,

I'm going to use this argument to get a replacement. To better understand the issue, do you think the 18.5 would be consistent with air pockets? Or do you think that even with tiny pockets this is still too low?

@nickvc

JM is no longer in business as a refiner. Their operation was acquired by Asahi Refiners but so far they haven't replied. Is it in their interest to resolve this? JM is still in the chemicals business. I guess it's worth a shot since it's the same company.
 
It’s more likely that your measurement of the density is incorrect. Please describe your setup.


As far as cost on melting...

You’ll get 99% on melting for just a kg ; you’ll sell the bar as is for 101%.
2% is about $1300 loss.
 
Stop...!!!!
Do not damage your bar.

Simply preform a proper scientific assay.
Here I'll walk you through it step by step.
Step one. Visual assay. You see it and can identify by color.
Step two hardness softness test. On a piece of ceramic scratch a bit of a corner this indicates hardness of bar. (there should be a stripe or streak left behind... That will identify and vaLidate initial visual assay. The color it is on the scratch matches the color of bar then that is what it is.

Acid assay.
Make three separate streaks, test each with the acid test for 24,18,14.k That acid is nitric acid at different concentrates.
That will identify purity of content
Now to finalize in water.
Fill a clear container with purified water marking level and place bar in --note where the water rises. You would need to ref. wiki. For exactly mm for weight displacement ratio.
That will tell you the total purity of content.
And that is how you assay.


And for future reference.... Do least damage to any , again any assay you preform. The more damage the less valuable. Any questions inbox me.

Also try calibration of your xrf if you are having difficulty, they are only accurate when properly calibrated.
 
Jay was here for one day almost a year ago to ask his question, and has not been back. I don't think he will be reading your advice.
 
I know this is an old thread, but to be accurate about the latest comment about density measurement..:

Instead of marking and measuring a level of water, just put the container on a precision scale, and submerge the bar hanging from a wire without it touching the bottom. That way the gold bar will add weight to the total by displacing water.
The difference in weight in grams is your volume of the bar in ml. (@20 Degr. C under normal atmospheric presssure)

Mesuring the height of a water level in such a big container needed to submerge a gold bar is guessing at best, not measuring, because of the surface area and the effect of water creeping up against a wall. Very inaccurate.
To adjust for the volume of the wire, mark the spot where the wire went under, and measure the volume of that piece of wire the same way and substract that from the total volume.. done.

Martijn.
 
Understandable, but not everyone has that type of device. Yet everyone can get a large plastic container and fill to a mark level and place test pieces in.the displacement is easy to view when preparation is done.
Also the method of assay described is the scientific method, the accepted scientific method. One that can be performed at virtually any location on or off globe.
Thank you for your response, and view my other posts,.
 
jimdoc said:
Jay was here for one day almost a year ago to ask his question, and has not been back. I don't think he will be reading your advice.



Oh, well hope the thread was helpful, check out some of my others
 
Oh, well hope the thread was helpful, check out some of my others
I'm back!!

I use Bernoulli/Archimedes' method quite accurately. I measure the delta weight of the plastic container with the bar fully levitating and submerged. Density of RCM bars using the same method is always within +/- 1%. This bar being off by 5% was a red flag of either air bubbles or imperfection from tungsten inserts. The ultrasound not passing was too much of a red flag.

Most of the methods you suggested Indigo are insufficient because they're mostly surface tests.

I'm going to do a youtube video on it, but to be absolutely 100% certain you have genuine bullion, there are 3 tests you need to do:
1 - density ( + weight of course)
2 - thru-bulk electrical conductivity measurement (Sigma Metalytics Pro, not the older one)
3 - ultrasound
4 - extra: diamagnetism test. Place strong neodymium magnet on a string, stand bullion vertically, and see if there is any attraction at all. There should actually be repulsion but the repulsion may not be detectable without fine instrument.

1,2,3 together are so robust that you don't really need anything else. It's a bit of an art learning how to do (3) properly.

XRF only does surface and should be avoided for confirmation purposes. No bullion dealers should be bothering to use XRF anymore for anything more than a first test before doing all of the above.

Unfortunately the vast majority of bullion dealers don't have the physics down as I do.

In the case of this bar, I got hold of the Sigma Metalytics Pro and it was very borderline unacceptable. The bar was just too sketchy. Not conclusive of tungsten. But all the measurements were slightly outside the tolerances. And ultrasound was way off. The dealer was willing to exchange it. If I were the dealer, I would have been scared when I saw all this!

Lesson learned is: only buy newer bullion bars. If any tests are not immediately passing, exchange it asap. Don't trust dealers to know what they're doing. You must learn the physics and verify yourself.
 
I think that is mainly a decoding/interpretation thing.
In my days it just gave "noise" from the reflection and if there were something closer than the other end the noise changed due to shorter travel. Today there may be all kinds of advanced software interpreting the patterns. Giving a lot of information that was out of our reach.
We used it for welds and such, any flaw and it was instantly visible.
And we could more or less see where it was.
 
Bernoulli-Archimedes experiments are very good to measure the density of materials. The Higher is the expected density the better is the accuracy. If you did the experiment correctly and you measure a density of 18.3 for gold instead of 19.3 gm /cm^3...well, something is wrong with that bar
 
Bernoulli-Archimedes experiments are very good to measure the density of materials. The Higher is the expected density the better is the accuracy. If you did the experiment correctly and you measure a density of 18.3 for gold instead of 19.3 gm /cm^3...well, something is wrong with that bar
Tungsten Density: 19.3 g/cm3.
So your method will not detect properly filled bars, as they will use a less dense filler to compensate for the small margin...
 
Tungsten Density: 19.3 g/cm3.
So your method will not detect properly filled bars, as they will use a less dense filler to compensate for the small margin...
The method measures the density with high accuracy: if the density is below 19.3 g/ cm3 for sure something is wrong, if you measure 19.3 is not sure is gold ( it could be even *rhenium filled other than). He measured 18.5 so something is wrong. I did not say that "if you measure 19.3 go cm3 is gold for sure"
 
The method measures the density with high accuracy: if the density is below 19.3 g/ cm3 for sure something is wrong, if you measure 19.3 is not sure is gold ( it could be even ruthenium filled other than). He measured 18.5 so something is wrong. I did not say that "if you measure 19.3 go cm3 is gold for sure"
Tungsten is 19.25. And gold 19.32 g/cm3 so with a little effort you can match just about any bar's density.
Some three nine bars can vary enough because of impurities and air pockets to be noted.
And it is the rougher bars that are being targeted for opening, filling and resealing.
They are very good, and you can not tell they have been interfered with.
Every aspect is correct because they were legitimate bars to start with.
 
@justinhcase I think I am missing what is your point, if your question is "how can I be sure that a certain object is made of pure gold?" The answer is: "combine density/resistivity/conductivity/heat capacitance measures". If your question is "how can I be sure that a certain object is NOT pure gold?" , The easiest (and fast) way is a density measure
 
@justinhcase I think I am missing what is your point, if your question is "how can I be sure that a certain object is made of pure gold?" The answer is: "combine density/resistivity/conductivity/heat capacitance measures". If your question is "how can I be sure that a certain object is NOT pure gold?" , The easiest (and fast) way is a density measure
It may be fast and easy, but it is not accurate, and the con-men have already worked out how to counter that method of screening.
Quite a lot of large companies been caught out, so smaller interests would be wise to take note of their mistake.
The only effective method which is none destructive fast and easy is a good quality ultrasonic flaw detector.
They can identify the internal architecture of the bar.
https://sonatest.com/products/flaw-detectors
 
Back
Top