Metals from picture fixer solutions?

shop deals on amazon
Advertise with us
Shop deals on ebay
xelexo
Gold Refining Forum

Help Support Gold Refining Forum:

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

In the only 2 references I found giving the amount of Au in color film, the gold concentrations were given in mg of gold per Mole of silver, and not in percent. Here again, they were 3 and 5 mg/M of Ag.
 
I agree - after all its only human nature to get a little loud when we feel we have been put on the defence. Sometimes we say things that don't quite sound the way we ment it or we hear something different then how it was ment.

Such things should be nothing more then a small bump in the road for grown men.

Kurt

(edit) that Is I agree with mic & jim - I personaly have enjoyed the debate on this
 
I agree 100% with GSP...there is not gold in B&W or colour comercial emulsions,probably there is gold in other kind of films or processes.

If my mind is right there are some gold baths for B&W negatives or pictures,but I read it in an old book(1890)of photography that I am trying to find in my disorderly library.

In the other hand,the presence of gold in a silver bar from a photo lab it does not mean that photo lab wastes(or photo emulsions) contain gold....all my silver bars contain gold(in very small amount)!!!!!!,but it comes from contamination in the´convection´s oven vessel of the company I sell my silver.I promess to post the analysis report.

Finally,I want to express my gratitude,respect and admiration to Mr. Chris Owen(worldwide known as GSP),who is a man with a vast knowledge,he has a great willingness to share with us his great hands on experiences in PM recovery/refining.

Manuel
 
Ok – here is where I am at on this one. I am simply not set up to deal with this yet (don’t have my fume hood set up yet in the lab I am building nor do I have a furnace yet) so I am going to take it to a friend that is better set up & is also a member of the form. I will be going to see him a week from today as he is gone till then. (I have some other stuff I was going to take to him anyway so not making the trip just for this)

Anyway – between now & then I would like to run a couple of experiments on each of the types of material I have for a couple of reasons (1) to get a grasp/feel for the process & (2) to get an idea of what kind of yield to expect.

The picture shows the set up I have for running my experiments. The propane camp stove is used to preheat the crucible & the acetylene torch to effect the actual melt (& yes I move the set up outside to do the work as well as wear the respirator)

Now for my questions to run my experiments (1) using the rebar flux method – what does my borax to soda ash flux ratio need to be & do I mix it v/v or w/w (2) then what does my flux to Ag sulfide ratio need to be (3) & being as how I am doing this with a torch instead of with a furnace should I bring the flux Ag sulfide to a melt – then put the rebar in & continue heat till I see no more reduction in the rebar – or start melt with the rebar already inserted in the mix.

Experiments using the potassium nitrate method I will follow Manuals step by step instructions.

One more note – I talked to the guy I got this stuff from (concerning the container of black charcoal like stuff) & he said to the best of his knowledge it is just the sludge from the bottom of the tank, no steel wool used (he actually owns a pharmacy & had a couple girls that ran the photo lab & as far as he knew they didn’t use any steel wool when cleaning/maintaining the equipment)

Kurt

P.S. I am hoping the recovery from this & the Ag from my last set of contact points is going to provide the funds I need to finish building my fume hood & build or buy a furnace. Getting tired of doing everything outside & with a torch.
 
Oooops forgot to post pic of melting set up :oops:
 

Attachments

  • pic fix 001.jpg
    pic fix 001.jpg
    126.4 KB · Views: 228
One more comment – I do realize that I would have to have the rebar at least red/orange hot (or hotter) if I was to melt the flux Ag sulfide before adding the rebar.

Kurt
 
kurt,

I always did this in a crucible furnace. I first blended about half (by weight) as much anhydrous borax as I had silver sulfide. I then put it in the crucible. When it started to melt, I added several lengths of rebar that were long enough to protrude about 6-8" out of the top of the crucible. The reason I used rebar, instead of chunks of iron, is because it was easier to remove them before pouring. Also, I could use them to stir the melt. There is a dwell time involved. I don't know the exact time, but I probably left the rebar in there for about 30 minutes. That may be overkill, but it always worked.

I can't see how this process would lend itself well to torch melting. Maybe Harold has tried this with a torch and could give some pointers. With a torch, you may be better off trying Manuel's niter method.
 
Ok,here I am exactly as I have promised.These are the latest reports from my silver bars,take a look.As you can see there are gold and platinum but in very low amount.
 

Attachments

  • img002.jpg
    img002.jpg
    1.4 MB · Views: 198
  • img003.jpg
    img003.jpg
    1.5 MB · Views: 198
Besides,I have found the old book of photography and it says that gold(and platinum) are used in photographic print tonning.I am posting a page of this old book.Sorry guys,it is in spanish.

If you want to learn more about photographic toning go to the following link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photographic_print_toning

Uppsss!!!!..I almost forget to post some patents that say something about using gold as sensitizer.

Is there any gold in photographic emulsions?,that is the question.

Kindest regards

Manuel
 

Attachments

  • img004.jpg
    img004.jpg
    1.9 MB · Views: 155
  • US4008089.pdf
    210.4 KB · Views: 10
  • US4914017.pdf
    612.8 KB · Views: 15
Hey Kurt...that propane torch will not reach 1100 C so you will never see your silver in a metalic form.You need an oxygen/propane torch.

All silver compounds could be transformed to silver sulphide,if there is any sulphur present.This is exactly what happens with old photographic solutions and this is the way that Mother Nature produces silver,by transforming all silver compounds into silver sulphide using sulphur and heat from volcanoes,lovely,is not it?

Kindest regards.

Manuel
 
Kurt..is that plated tank acetylene?.....If it is then BE CAREFUL!!!!!!...NEVER ever use acetylene to melt a silver compound because a very big explosion could ocurr.

Come on,Kurt go to these links and work safe using oxygen instead of acetylene.

http://www.powerlabs.org/chemlabs/acetylide.htm
http://www.c-f-c.com/specgas_products/acetylene.htm

Manuel
 
goldsilverpro said:
I can't see how this process would lend itself well to torch melting. Maybe Harold has tried this with a torch and could give some pointers. With a torch, you may be better off trying Manuel's niter method.
Click to expand...
No, I agree, Chris, it's not really a torch proposition because the material benefits by a soak period, so the sulfides have a chance to convert. Like you, I used to use lengths of rebar, and for the same reasons. If you pay attention, you can tell when the conversion is complete, for the rebar ceases being dissolved.

I'm not suggesting that it can't be done by torch, but I'd hate trying. You can't really heat the entire mass as is required, nor can you maintain the required heat due to losses. That might not be true if a few oxy/acet rosebud torches were played on the crucible. This is most definitely a furnace proposition.

Harold
 
Your posts are very convincing. Yet I know what I remember. Could it be the 30 year difference represents the different results due to innovation in photo film? The canisters that I refined were before Kodachrome. The silver bar from 2010 that I found 1% gold in it could have sat on a shelf for 30 years. Who knows? Maybe it's about grades of film, ASA speeds or just that Kodak chemists have been working on formulations that needed less gold for the last 30 years. I don't care. One should take special attention to Juan"s warning. Acetylene introduced to a precious metal in the presence of hypo (sodium thiosulfate AKA sodium thionate) will cause a deadly explosion! And that's no theory---it's a grim fact. :cry: Dr. Poe
 
I'm not familiar with the reaction you speak of, acetylene and silver compounds, but in my suggestion of using an oxy/acet torch, I question if that would be troublesome. It would be restricted to playing on the crucible, not on the charge. A torch is never a good fit with a crucible, as I've mentioned before (that's why one uses melting dishes). Beyond that, my thoughts are that so long as the flame is oxidizing, there's no free acetylene present to cause a problem. Not looking for an argument, but an explanation, for a better understanding. Is there one forthcoming? Anyone willing to enlighten me (us)?

In regards to photo solutions containing greater values than silver, sure, it's possible, but in practice, in particular in modern photography, were they used? For starters, the price of these metals escalated to unrealistic heights, to such a point where even silver was reduced in quantity in many situations. If memory serves, color film had precious little, if any. That was my point in making mention that in all my years, I never encountered anything but silver, keeping in mind that I processed, at most, a few hundred ounces of recovered silver, primarily from an electrolytic recovery unit. Still, were it reasonably common, I'd expect I would have seen at least traces. It's virtually impossible to miss either platinum or palladium when alloyed with silver due to the shift in color when it is dissolved. I have always been in tune with the colors of solutions, and tested virtually everything, routinely.

Harold
 
From what little I understand the acetylene gas would need to be bubbled through solutions or metal powders to form alkynes or acetyl ides.

I have used an acetylene torch many times on (flames) metal powders, and never seen any adverse reactions, note these are flames although sometimes in (oxidizing flames) or reduced flames that may be richer in fuel, which would surely burn.

I too would like to hear how this could be dangerous, and many fuels are carbon based, would other fuels create this hazard.
 
The danger is from acetylene making acetyanalides. Which would only happen if the acetylene was not burned. A reducing flame, a pop off (losing the flame while adjusting) there's probably a hundred ways that acetylene could accidentally be introduced to the thiosulfate. Acetyanalides explode by touch. Is it wise to take such a chance?
While I'm posting here let me take this opportunity to apologize to goldsilverpro: Just because I was processing film and hypo tanks long before you doesn't make me still an expert on the subject. It's obvious that innovations have changed the nature of scrapping. I think that I'll stick to references to natural ore refining, something that which I still rule. Even the computer parts that I refined were from computers prior to 1981 where much more gold was found than today's computers. My field is geochemical research and refining. I specialize in telluride and other refractory ores. Back then, we could get 3/4 ounce from a single computer. Goldsilverpro, you were wrong that there was no gold in color film, but I was wrong that the gold amounted to anything of value. Dr. Poe
 
Granted I know almost nothing of organic chemistry, and would not want to inadvertently make a compound that may disfigure or kill me, so any advice on this subject I would gladly like to be corrected on, and any information on these compound or dangers will be received with interest.

From what I see many very dangerous compounds are formed with salts of metals, some of these we either form or come close to forming when we recover or refine these metals, many of the powders, or salts of these metals too can become catalyst for other reactions when heated, but I also believe many times the conditions we are using (with a few exceptions) are far enough away from forming a dangerous substance in quantity may keep us safe.

(I really do not know how to say this, but we may actually form minute amounts of an very dangerous compound in our mixture of recovered powders (organics or traces of other chemicals involved), but the compound as a whole keeps the dangerous compound from forming or reacting in an unwanted fashion, the chemical reaction as a whole is unfavorable for the chemistry of the reaction of these dangers to occur and thus not becoming a danger as the whole of the compound removes the danger of the minute component from reacting negatively (or giving us the unfavorable reaction non of us wish to see when holding a glass jar up to our face to see what it looks like).


I guess what I am trying to say is if there is a real danger in doing a process I want to either stay away from that process, or to know enough of the chemistry to now how to keep the process safe and keep myself from danger.

But then again I do not want to fear a reaction that may occur in a reaction that would really not form any dangerous situation because the conditions for forming such a reaction are so remote that it would almost be impossible to form the reaction even if that was the goal.

If this melting of metal salts including copper salts was so dangerous with an acetylene torch, I wish to know, but if there is more of a possibility the dust in my shop would react with oxygen in the air in the room and blow my shed roof off, than any reaction to occur melting a metal powder with this torch I would also like to be aware of that.

Yes there are scary things out in the woods in the dark, but I have no fear of the dark woods, because I know the same things are there in daylight, and I do not fear the woods in daylight, and realized long ago that is just as safe at night as day, yes maybe some critters like to roam at night but they fear me the same in light or dark, and I should not fear my own imagination of what could possibly be (but be so much remote as almost impossible).

Can anybody understand what the heck I am trying to say?
Or should I be fearing the dark?
 

Latest posts

Back
Top