Help with white powder in nitric

Gold Refining Forum

Help Support Gold Refining Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
deserves to be crucified?Not sure I would say that about another person.maybe its just me rooting for the underdog,but it sounds like the guy didnt do anythign wrong here.just looks like crossed wires he used some stuff that someone had mixed?was that a joke or was it a real accident? either way he wanted help for the powder and the other guy harold started in with the thing about how he screwed up cause he didnt read "what was put in print"?how the hell was that guy to know someone mixed his chemicals .and what was mixed? cant that stuff blow up? guess it doenst matter if the guy really is trying to drop it.
 
Guys I am begging you to please drop it.Whatever I did wrong I am sorry.I will try not to let it happen again(whatever that is).
 
Incineration is a time tested (dated) technique to recover from mistakes.

He's burning his own bridges to help. He can always retreat to his 30 books on the subject.
 
Ok I have never heard of "post" incineration(other than melting or smelting the final product).I am very familiar with "pre" incineration(ironically thanks to harold) to prepare the metals for the chemicals.And as usual I can't seem to find any further info about it in hokes book.

I just saw the comment from qst about the apology,I am unsure why you keep needling me about it,but I have long since stopped the conversation and you insist on bringing it up.I am too old for games and I don't have time for the negativity,I want to leave the garbage in the past?And you are absolutely right about the 30 book comment.I see so much paraphenalia on ebay from people trying to sell books and info on how to process that I just threw that number out there without seeing if there was any merit to the number.That was hasty of me,sorry.And a lot of you missunderstood what I said about hokes book.Hell I just read the comment again and I can clearly see why everyone got so upset.I certainly didn't think that it would sound the way it does now...when I wrote it.I let my emotions get the best of me and didnt take the time to correctly write what I wanted to say.And I am very sorry about that too.

Randy I am a male.My wife set the account up for me and used her name thinking I could change it once I got on here.But I never tried to.Also...your name "platdigger",do you really dig for platinum?I have only dug(and dredged)for gold,but didnt get very much.I have some old boards that I believe have platinum plating on them but they are in storage and I have had the time to take them out and test them.Not that they would be worth much,but I think they would be a good conversation piece.Well need to go help the wife.To anyone else that I may have offended,I am sorry,genuinely and sincerely.



Johnny
 
Johnny,

It's a pleasure having you on the forum. Whatever your mistake was, I suppose you shouldn't do it again. I said some things too, but don't worry about them.

Chris
 
Very clever edit there Johnny.

Had you not removed the post I read, a couple of moderators here would be well within their rights to not help you with the time of day.

For those of you that did not get to read his insults now removed, I apologize for the confusing remains of this page.
 
WOW, first time in the history of the world there's been a month of full moons in between 2 consecutive Friday the 13th's!! :lol: :lol:

Look in Hoke's book again. It actually will give you some good ideas on how to deal with what I'm assuming is probably tin and/or lead in your solution.

Also, in "other processes" there's a real good piece on incineration or two. Quite frankly, in my opinion at least, the best and easiest to understand what Harold's written (not knocking anyone else's threads there guys....Friday's over in just a wee bit.)

My understanding is that he eliminated quite a bit of potential hassle by sometimes incinerating again after a first run; and, I believe, he generally processed twice when refining Gold prior to melting (I don't think final products are smelted.) The in between incineration, I would assume, helped rid the powder of impurities and such. I doubt he ran into a whole lot of headaches accidentally producing AR at least.

Cheers,
John
 
Cutabove said:
how the hell was that guy to know someone mixed his chemicals .and what was mixed?
You'd do well to keep your mouth closed in this matter, Cutabove, otherwise your stage name is inappropriate. You, right now, are not a cut above.

Until you understand what was said, and why, you are not in the position to chime in, and you're asking for one hell of a lot of negative responses if you persist.

When you understand refining the way I understand refining, my comments concerning incineration will make sense. It is for that reason he got the response from me that he did. It was an attempt to have him understand that incineration is one of the processes that can be used to nullify what has been done to material, along with eliminating many unwanted constituents. Had he incinerated, he would not have experienced the problem he did, regardless of what had been done with the solution.

Now, in order for me to keep from ripping off your lips, read the above and come to understand the meaning, and why it is important, and stop stirring the pot of furor.

How much of my time do you expect me to waste on this subject? I have harped on it steadily as long as I've been on the board---more than two years now. It's time readers start paying attention to one of the magic bullets of refining.

cant that stuff blow up?
You can drop the drama. Do you think I'd have advised something that would have been dangerous? If you do, I'm highly insulted, and if you don't, you need, in the worst way, to start reading and stop talking.

Harold
 
How about a comment from a relativity new member that posts a few, but reads a lot.
Your comment is not welcome.

If you'd like to remain a member of this forum, I highly recommend you stop posting your insults. They serve no purpose aside from inflaming people like me-----the one you are targeting. Knock it off, or find some other place to spend your time. You will quickly wear out your welcome here.

Harold
 
jamthe3 said:
My understanding is that he eliminated quite a bit of potential hassle by sometimes incinerating again after a first run;
That's correct. When you process material that has a lot of "dirt' included, the end result can be, and often is, a solution that refuses to filter. I got baptism by fire in that regard, although my learning came not from dirty material, but material contaminated with dissolved tin. A liter of gold chloride took well over a day to filter, time that I could ill afford. From that I learned that I had to do something to eliminate contaminants that were troublesome. In this case, I don't recall that I read it in Hoke. It was something I tried on my own. Secure in the knowledge that anything I had already processed with nitric (which was pretty much my routine) would cause some of my gold to dissolve if I tried a wash with HCl, I tried incinerating the material a second time. The results were very acceptable.

The second incineration was also very revealing. What I learned is that in spite of my material being bone dry, it still contained a considerable amount of nitric, witnessed by the brown cloud coming off as the material was heated. It is for that reason I recommend all materials be incinerated if you wish to make a change of acids mid stream.

I continued to heat until the material no longer liberated signs of acid, then cooled and screened to insure there were no clumps. I followed that with a boil in HCl and tap water, resulting in a much improved material. Rinsing and decanting until the rinse water was free of color, I than dissolved the values, which filtered readily. That process became my routine, and saved far more time than it wasted, plus yielded a better quality product in the bargain. I recommend the process highly.

I then tried the same thing with floor sweeps and polishing wastes from a jeweler. I had previously boiled in nitric, in an attempt to recover traces of silver. By now, it was obvious to me that I was far better served to leave the traces behind, and pursue the material with HCl instead. Again, the end result was worth the effort. Filtration problems came to an abrupt end. Any silver that was left behind was recovered later, when the waste material was processed in an agitation tank with cyanide. By then, having been boiled in HCl, a great deal of it had been converted to silver chloride, making recovery very easy. In short, my routine became one of boiling in HCl only, never nitric, for floor sweeps and polishing wastes.

So then, if you are working with material that is troublesome, perhaps having particulate matter that may be of concern, try incinerating a second time, after the nitric digest (or the acceptable alternate method), then boil the material in HCl and water. Rinse, then pursue the values. I think you will be pleasantly surprised that the added effort will reduce handling time and reward you with an even better product.

and, I believe, he generally processed twice when refining Gold prior to melting (I don't think final products are smelted.) The in between incineration, I would assume, helped rid the powder of impurities and such. I doubt he ran into a whole lot of headaches accidentally producing AR at least.
To clear any confusion, I did not incinerate my precipitated gold. I incinerated only materials that were in process prior to dissolving the values for eventual recovery. I did this to enhance their ability to filter, and to rid them of unwanted substances that did not get eliminated in the preliminary digest. It worked both ways. I incinerated materials that had come from nitric, so they could be further processed with HCl before recovering values, but I also incinerated materials that had been exposed to HCl, when I wanted to do a second digest with nitric.

In both instances you can rinse well enough to reduce, or eliminate the risk of prematurely dissolving values, but it's a crap shoot. How many times is enough is not known, and is sure to vary, depending on the nature of the material in question. By sharp contrast, if you incinerate until the material has been well heated, you are assured of success with no regard to having values dissolved by the succeeding wash. The call is yours. I looked at incineration as my insurance. I have tried to help others understand the value of the process.

Harold
 
This thread has so bugged me, mainly because there have been so many other threads of the same kind of late. There is indeed a theme beyond the cycle of the moon here at play as others have alluded to. The people that have felt slighted are typically new members that in their world prior to meeting this forum were godlike in their knowledge of PM recovery and refining. They land here thinking they have a great mastery of refining and proceed in that way before taking the time to read the forum in any great detail to find out how little they know.

I wish I saw a way for new members to be eased into the forum as many of them indeed have contributions to make but they need to know they are no longer the definitive source of information. It is a learning curve.

The moderators do their best to keep people on topic and in a non confrontational way where all views can be expressed. We have 4 or 5 moderators on this forum and 2 (my opinion only) are the most prolific in their posting, advice, and moderating of others. These 2 also have the greatest amount of experience under their belts in full time refining experience that I am aware of on this forum. I may be a little bit off here but I believe Harold has 30 years plus and GSP has 40 years plus of full time refining experience. The great books that are discussed here are Hoke and Amend’s(sp) yet these 2 gentlemen have practical experience in refining that rivals both of these authors.

If someone asked if it was true that what they heard was that rainwater would dissolve gold and spit would precipitate it as .9999 fine one of them would reply. Perhaps chastising them first, but then they would walk them through what was required to do what they wished to accomplish.

I should note here that we have chemists as well as innovative individuals that do not have degrees but do tend to have full time jobs in this field that add to and compliment the long timers with their technical expertise, but because of their job commitments can not post and answer as often. I do not mean to slight anyone here but based on quality and quantity Harold and GSP stand apart. Anyone that has been here for awhile take a minute and just imagine what this forum would look like if you removed all of their posts and contributions.

Everyone here has the amazing opportunity to have 1 on 1 interactive question and answer sessions with them that money just can not buy. Then you have the humility of statements like GSP saying “I now must grudgingly admit that I have learned 100s (maybe 1000s) of things, that I didn't know before, from this forum”. This is from a man that worked full time in refining, how much do you think you know?

Everyone should take a deep breath and ask themselves why two people like this waste their time giving people information that is not available at any price elsewhere for free, and this is while they are criticized for telling the facts as they see them. They do not gain a damn thing by talking to you, they bother (in my humble opinion) because they have a love of the craft they have spent their life on and do not wish to see this knowledge lost with them.

Cheer up people, and respect your elders!

Ps;
Noxx,

I am not a computer geek so I do not know how to implement it (maybe Steve does) but this or something like it might be a good thing to force people to read before they were allowed to post to the forum. Maybe they would be a bit slower to be argumentative.
 
"Harold_V
Secure in the knowledge that anything I had already processed with nitric (which was pretty much my routine) would cause some of my gold to dissolve if I tried a wash with HCl, I tried incinerating the material a second time. The results were very acceptable.

The second incineration was also very revealing. What I learned is that in spite of my material being bone dry, it still contained a considerable amount of nitric, witnessed by the brown cloud coming off as the material was heated.

That makes sense.Any gold that swam in a base metal saturated acid bath would have residues that would not under any normal circumstance easily come off.This is the first time I have heard of the "second" incineration.I guess my largest fault here is not taking more time to read more posts about people having problems and the solutions that were suggested before I asked for help.

Had he incinerated, he would not have experienced the problem he did, regardless of what had been done with the solution.

Unfortunately it was irrelevant whether I had incinerated the material or not.I have discovered that the intitial problem of "white powder" was simply salt.The solution had bolied down a few times and naturally I continued to add fresh acid to keep the level up.Since salt does not evaporate off,the salt content grew higher until the solution became more saturated with it until eventually it dropped out as white powder in the bottom.I proved this by simply taking some of the dried powder and mixing it with a little tap water and it dissolved instantly.

The second problem of the gold going into solution may have been caused by the lack of a second incineration prior to adding the muratic,however had I incinerated it would not have mattered seeing as the muratic I added had bleach in it.


Now a question about pins.Pins are the main material that I process.But I had an idea that I wanted to run by you guys and see if anyone sees a fault or problem that I may arise.If I pounded the pins(prior to any processing) as flat as I could get them,then obviously the surface to mass ratio would greatly increase.The result should be a much faster process time.Am I right,or am I missing something?(And I did search for an answer on here first but did not find any thread that discussed it)

And can someone tell me if they prefer a rosebud oxy/acet tip over a brazing tip or vice versa?I use a a brazing tip and thanks to gsp Im pretty good at getting the gold to melt without ending up with a gold plated driveway,but if you guys feel a rosebud would make the process easier than I am willing to invest the money.

Johnny
 
Increasing surface area of pins may help , and exposing copper more,but it is still metal your acids will need to dissolve, if lating thin I dont see much benifit.unless they very heavily plated items, then cutting them has helped me.and smashing would be similar,heavy plated pins can be hard for the acid to reach the copper.
in my opinion a rosebud in welding torch is not what Harold refers as a rosebud(in his setup, they may call them rosebuds), the soldering tip would be closer, I use the smallest tip ( usually brazing tips) very low setting at first,for size of metal batch. mainly just heating to drive of acid, keeping flame way back maybe just flickering end of fire, and oxidize with out much heat and force from flame of torch till it begins to liquifie then can get torch tip in closer and more heat to melt,as it melts then can get hotter blue of flame in there and raise torch setting.to heat and stir the metal, can use alcohol to wet to keep powder from blowing away so easily if you are having trouble, some use tissue paper also, I only use paper for the junky stuff.
 
Thanks for the advice butcher.I agree with you about the tips,thats what I use now,and havent had too much trouble.I was just wanting to know if I could learn something new from the more experienced.As far as flattening the pins,I think I will do a test batch and just compare results.Who knows I may stumble onto something awesome.
 
Your comment is not welcome.

If you'd like to remain a member of this forum, I highly recommend you stop posting your insults. They serve no purpose aside from inflaming people like me-----the one you are targeting. Knock it off, or find some other place to spend your time. You will quickly wear out your welcome here.

Harold

Sorry Harold if you can not face the truth. Every fact and statement is true and your very response proves it. As I see it there was no insults in the post, but your childish actions by deleting the post before the forum members could read it and judge proves you are an egotistic ass. (that was an insult so you know).

I do have other places to spend my time.

I do not live on this forum like you do

I do not post an average of 3 or more posts a day like you do

And last but not least, I do not give a sh** about what you think of me.

Your opinion of me matters not. Your attitude matters a great deal. I will request you be banned from the forum. We don't have room for ill-mannered, childish people here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top