New type of electrolytic refining

[Harold_V]

If the process in question revolves around melting existing gold with silver, to inquart----guaranteed---the method isn't worth a damn.

Sorry, but that's the way it is.

Reason?

When you electolytically part metals, they are best parted when they are of high purity. Matters not which type of metal you wish to discuss.

I see the logic in suggesting that the gold be alloyed with 75% silver, leaving the gold behind, but in practice there's a couple problems that you have not addressed. One of them is that the gold you'll inquart won't be pure gold----it will be alloyed with copper, silver, nickel and maybe even zinc and cadmium, or some other sacrificial element used to protect the alloy in gold when it's melted.

Net result? The silver that is deposited will be impure---plus the contaminants in the alloy will foul the electrolyte rapidly, drastically limiting it's useful life.

Second problem?
Yep--there is one.

As you remove silver from the inquarted gold, the remaining gold honeycomb will conduct well---eventually isolating the remaining silver and depleting your electrolyte. The operation will slam to a halt, but will start co-depositing copper and palladium (assuming it's present) as it fails.

I do not mean to be rude---but you don't have anything worth protecting---and you can rest assured, others have tried the same thing and failed, just as you will. If you are spending money for a patent, you will be far better served to stop before you have been bled dry. I speak from experience in having tried that very thing with copper. What I learned is that a wise person does not re-invent the wheel when he is not well versed in wheel technology. All too many hair brained ideas appear to be valid ---when in fact they are not----something that escapes you because you don't understand the problems.

One more thing to consider. The industry standard for pure gold is 9995. If your first operation doesn't yield gold of that quality, or greater, it will require further processing. That will pretty much negate any value in using the procedure you outlined----which will yield marginal quality in both silver and gold.

I hope I'm wrong with my assessment. If I am, I am prepared to offer you a public apology.

Harold

 

[varords]

I really don't see any advantage of the process. Not trying to shoot you down just reading it for what it is. None of your experimental numbers hit the .995 mark which is industry standard purity. To me this is the mark you hit for qualifying as refining. Anything below that to me qualifies as recovery. All those steps and procedures your invention takes you through and you still have to process it again to clean it up. You mention mixing 24k gold and 24k silver by quartering the gold, forming an anode, making a solution of silver nitrate, adding excess nitric, and then applying a current. This was supposed to produce gold sponge and silver crystals on the cathode. You could just take the nitric you used and dissolve the silver without all those extra steps. Then you can use copper to recover the silver. Both of these can be done quickly. You stated run times of 40, 24, and 5 hours in the nitric process i just stated. Then on top of that it's still needs more refining. I just don't see many advantages over standard refining operating procedures. That was a controlled experiment with just two pure elements. With karat gold it can be a circus of what is and isn’t going to be in that mix. Maybe someone else will read it different.

Thank you for your comments. Very helpful. Please read my next comment.

 

[varords]

If the process in question revolves around melting existing gold with silver, to inquart----guaranteed---the method isn't worth a damn.

Sorry, but that's the way it is.

Reason?

When you electolytically part metals, they are best parted when they are of high purity. Matters not which type of metal you wish to discuss.

I see the logic in suggesting that the gold be alloyed with 75% silver, leaving the gold behind, but in practice there's a couple problems that you have not addressed. One of them is that the gold you'll inquart won't be pure gold----it will be alloyed with copper, silver, nickel and maybe even zinc and cadmium, or some other sacrificial element used to protect the alloy in gold when it's melted.

Net result? The silver that is deposited will be impure---plus the contaminants in the alloy will foul the electrolyte rapidly, drastically limiting it's useful life.

Second problem?
Yep--there is one.

As you remove silver from the inquarted gold, the remaining gold honeycomb will conduct well---eventually isolating the remaining silver and depleting your electrolyte. The operation will slam to a halt, but will start co-depositing copper and palladium (assuming it's present) as it fails.

I do not mean to be rude---but you don't have anything worth protecting---and you can rest assured, others have tried the same thing and failed, just as you will. If you are spending money for a patent, you will be far better served to stop before you have been bled dry. I speak from experience in having tried that very thing with copper. What I learned is that a wise person does not re-invent the wheel when he is not well versed in wheel technology. All too many hair brained ideas appear to be valid ---when in fact they are not----something that escapes you because you don't understand the problems.

One more thing to consider. The industry standard for pure gold is 9995. If your first operation doesn't yield gold of that quality, or greater, it will require further processing. That will pretty much negate any value in using the procedure you outlined----which will yield marginal quality in both silver and gold.

I hope I'm wrong with my assessment. If I am, I am prepared to offer you a public apology.

Harold

Thank you for your input. It is not about melting gold with silver, invention is purely refining gold. Silver is particularly interesting when gold alloy to be refined is gold-silver. If so silver will be pure on cathode when silver nitrate is used as electrolyte. Some amount of copper and other metals will not affect purity, however when their concentration in electrolyte will grow electrolyte should be replaced of course and old one recycled. This is true with Wohlwill procedure as well, but it is used widely. Think this way. Gold is not reacting, so we can forget about it. Remaining metals are silver and some other. If silver is more then 95% between remaining, I have essentially something like Wohlwill, silver can be obtained pure. When silver is lover, then purification affects only gold and remaining metals needs to be purified.

Regarding gold will conduct when it became honeycomb. It is true, but being filled with electrolyte electrochemical reaction will go as well. Proposed thickness was optimized for that. If you take half inch plate that will be difficult to refine.

Finally gold purity. I have 9993 which is indeed lower (by a small margin) then required. But that were first experiments, not well optimized, and in homemade apparatus. Unlike deposition on cathode where general purity is important and you can not get 9999 from 50% anode, purification on anode have two limitation. First, insoluble metals (PGM mainly). Second. When concentration of gold is high some molecules of base metals will be encapsulated by molecules of gold and not accessible by electrolyte. So with proper concentration of gold in alloy in the absence of PGM any purity can be achieved.

 

[varords]

And yes. It is already patented, so whatever I lost is already lost

 

[samuel-a]

varords

I never received a copy from you, i think i'm one of the 5 first to ask for it (maybe i'm wrong...?)
I did got the summery from you in PM but was just waiting for you to send a file or a link for me to review...

 

[varords]

varords

I never received a copy from you, i think i'm one of the 5 first to ask for it (maybe i'm wrong...?)
I did got the summery from you in PM but was just waiting for you to send a file or a link for me to review...

No. You are not one of the 5. Sorry you take it on you. You did not provide email address and I do not know that I can send attachment on this forum. Learned yesterday

 

[Harold_V]

So with proper concentration of gold in alloy in the absence of PGM any purity can be achieved.

In the real world, where you will work with gold alloys of various descriptions, that isn't an option. The point I've tried to make is that the method you have patented isn't new--it's known to work to some degree, but it's also known to be fraught with problems, which I tried to address.

I mentioned depletion of electrolyte. That is, indeed, a very real scenario. I've experienced that very thing when parting silver that was in the neighborhood of 95% pure, with platinum and palladium the contaminants of note (along with some copper).

If you can successfully overcome the issues I've mentioned (including a consistent 9995 or better gold), you will have something of value. I expect that's not going to be easy, if possible at all. Remember---if you can't run random gold samples, it's not any better than any other system. There's no shortage of methods to refine gold, all of which work reasonably well.

Harold

 

[varords]

So with proper concentration of gold in alloy in the absence of PGM any purity can be achieved.

In the real world, where you will work with gold alloys of various descriptions, that isn't an option. The point I've tried to make is that the method you have patented isn't new--it's known to work to some degree, but it's also known to be fraught with problems, which I tried to address.

I mentioned depletion of electrolyte. That is, indeed, a very real scenario. I've experienced that very thing when parting silver that was in the neighborhood of 95% pure, with platinum and palladium the contaminants of note (along with some copper).

If you can successfully overcome the issues I've mentioned (including a consistent 9995 or better gold), you will have something of value. I expect that's not going to be easy, if possible at all. Remember---if you can't run random gold samples, it's not any better than any other system. There's no shortage of methods to refine gold, all of which work reasonably well.

Harold

I purified 10K scrap (200g) made from many jewelry items. To 9994 purity, which as I mentioned could be improved just by running cell slightly longer. Obviously that scrap have all metals.

I can not part silver 95% pure using my invention, it will not work. No more then 40% pure. Could you please describe what you do, may be we do not understand each other.

 

[Harold_V]

I can not part silver 95% pure using my invention, it will not work. No more then 40% pure. Could you please describe what you do, may be we do not understand each other.

It's clear we aren't on the same wavelength.

My comment in regards to electrolyte depletion revolve around running a silver cell (which is what you are operating), parting an anode that was primarily silver (95%), plus platinum and palladium, which followed silver from inquartation.

When parting the anode, the amount of palladium and platinum was too great to allow the slimes to slough off. As the crust thickened (that would equate to the gold you leave behind), electrons continue to flow, but they do not transfer an ion of silver (that would happen to you as the remaining gold shielded more and more of the silver). Eventually, silver stopped flowing from the anode, but electrons continued to flow. In the process, silver in the electrolyte was depleted, and palladium began to co-deposit.

You have acknowledged what I'm talking about by making mention that you can't part an anode that is greater than ½".

It's not clear to me what you mean when you say you can't part 95% silver, but you can part 40% silver. That makes no sense.

Harold

 

[varords]

I can not part silver 95% pure using my invention, it will not work. No more then 40% pure. Could you please describe what you do, may be we do not understand each other.

It's clear we aren't on the same wavelength.

My comment in regards to electrolyte depletion revolve around running a silver cell (which is what you are operating), parting an anode that was primarily silver (95%), plus platinum and palladium, which followed silver from inquartation.

When parting the anode, the amount of palladium and platinum was too great to allow the slimes to slough off. As the crust thickened (that would equate to the gold you leave behind), electrons continue to flow, but they do not transfer an ion of silver (that would happen to you as the remaining gold shielded more and more of the silver). Eventually, silver stopped flowing from the anode, but electrons continued to flow. In the process, silver in the electrolyte was depleted, and palladium began to co-deposit.

You have acknowledged what I'm talking about by making mention that you can't part an anode that is greater than ½".

It's not clear to me what you mean when you say you can't part 95% silver, but you can part 40% silver. That makes no sense.

Harold

I see. We indeed talking different staff. I do not part that way. My invention is to dissolve silver (or cooper, zinc etc) from anode which is made from gold alloy up to 40% gold. I can dissolve all these metals leaving pure sponge form gold on anode. My invention to work, gold in gold alloy must be no more then 40% and no less then 20%. When less gold anode will be destroyed forming gold slime. When more - electrolyte will not penetrate deep in to anode to dissolve base metals (or silver) inside anode.

 

[varords]

I can not part silver 95% pure using my invention, it will not work. No more then 40% pure. Could you please describe what you do, may be we do not understand each other.

It's clear we aren't on the same wavelength.

My comment in regards to electrolyte depletion revolve around running a silver cell (which is what you are operating), parting an anode that was primarily silver (95%), plus platinum and palladium, which followed silver from inquartation.

When parting the anode, the amount of palladium and platinum was too great to allow the slimes to slough off. As the crust thickened (that would equate to the gold you leave behind), electrons continue to flow, but they do not transfer an ion of silver (that would happen to you as the remaining gold shielded more and more of the silver). Eventually, silver stopped flowing from the anode, but electrons continued to flow. In the process, silver in the electrolyte was depleted, and palladium began to co-deposit.

You have acknowledged what I'm talking about by making mention that you can't part an anode that is greater than ½".

It's not clear to me what you mean when you say you can't part 95% silver, but you can part 40% silver. That makes no sense.

Harold

So, I am not purifying silver. Silver is byproduct of gold purification. In some instances it can be purified simultaneously on cathode while main procedure - purification of gold take place on anode, In other instances silver can not be purified at the same time with gold and will form sludge together with other metals. On and under cathode.

 

[Harold_V]

So, I am not purifying silver. Silver is byproduct of gold purification. In some instances it can be purified simultaneously on cathode while main procedure - purification of gold take place on anode, In other instances silver can not be purified at the same time with gold and will form sludge together with other metals. On and under cathode.

I understand that, and that's part of the problem. Assuming you are successful in creating pure gold consistently, it comes at the expense of not creating pure silver when you are using a silver cell for the operation. That's what you're doing.

I'm still struggling with the idea that there's an advantage. It's not clear to me that there is---but keep in mind, my attitude was to achieve pure gold by the least complicated method that I could use. Inquartation and parting with nitric acid addressed my needs very well. If you can overcome the less than reliable purity issue, maybe, just maybe, there's a need for your cell. I'll have to see how it plays out before I'm convinced that there is.

Harold

 

[varords]

So, I am not purifying silver. Silver is byproduct of gold purification. In some instances it can be purified simultaneously on cathode while main procedure - purification of gold take place on anode, In other instances silver can not be purified at the same time with gold and will form sludge together with other metals. On and under cathode.

I understand that, and that's part of the problem. Assuming you are successful in creating pure gold consistently, it comes at the expense of not creating pure silver when you are using a silver cell for the operation. That's what you're doing.

I'm still struggling with the idea that there's an advantage. It's not clear to me that there is---but keep in mind, my attitude was to achieve pure gold by the least complicated method that I could use. Inquartation and parting with nitric acid addressed my needs very well. If you can overcome the less than reliable purity issue, maybe, just maybe, there's a need for your cell. I'll have to see how it plays out before I'm convinced that there is.

Harold

My invention versus inquartation-parting.

1. Inquartation - same for both, in my case higher gold content alloy can be used (up to 25% for inquartation, up to 40% invention).
2. Parting versus casting (or rolling) - we can consider to be same.

Then differences.

Inquartation - 6 volumes of 50% nitric acid are used. Treatment 3 times with boiling.

My invention. 1 volume of nitric acid used and it can be recycled. Turn on power supply and forget. In some instances silver could be copurified.
-------------------------------------

Real difference - my invention is more technological and uses less chemicals. Which is important for industrial refineries and did little difference for individual purifying gold.

 

[dtectr]

if I understand this discussion thus far - And I probably don't, as I have very little background in chemistry:

What you are doing is creating a carefully alloyed anode of sufficient "thinness" for the electrolyte to penetrate completely & hopefully dissolve base metals out, leaving a gold "honeycomb" or "sponge" behind, is that correct?

If so, and I'm just bouncing ideas around here - I would think that there are variables that should be addressed:
1. The 10k feedstock doesn't have "all metals" - only a few metals are acceptable alloying agents. The make-up of your test anode would therefore be reasonably consistent. This seems unrealistic in a "real-world" scenario to me.

2. Were there other, non-metallic contaminants, including but not limited to, carbon, stones, exotic metals, present as well? I would think that would be an X factor in the efficiency of this process.
2 a. As,I would assume, would the presence of tin, since it sounds like your electrolyte is nitric based. Is heat generated, either as part of the process or as a consequence of it? If so, tin would become even more of a factor, as metastannic acid could be generated. This would probably only be a factor in processing the slimes, though, I guess.

3. What you are assuming is that the lattice of the gold sponge will remain completely intact (if I understand the explanation thus far. I did NOT view the original patent) & that it won't trap contaminants within its matrix. If it does happen to start coming apart, you will now have to re-recover gold from the slimes, won't you? How will you control that?

4. You are also using utilities/energy (= additional costs) to form the anode, run the cell, etc., as opposed to a pretty straight-forward chemical process. Why do all that when you can achieve the same task with fewer steps & lower overhead?

Being "more technological" sounds to me like a lot of extra parts & steps to. "More" doesn't necessarily mean "better", especially in a field like refining, I would think.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't go get your patent & try selling it to someone - some years ago as I was researching the patent process I was told that an "invention" only has to be 10% different to be considered "new" .

That doesn't mean, however, people considering your invention, especially those from within the industry, will also consider it thus. Or, that they will be interested in buying or using it.

If i sound like a moron, I apologize for taking everyone's time. Maybe someone who has viewed the actual patent, without giving away proprietary information, could chime in & set me straight.

 

[goldsilverpro]

varords,

I sent you my email via PM on the forum. Look for the word "messages" at the top of about any page and click on it to get your PMs. I would very much like to see a copy of the patent.

Chris

 

[varords]

varords,

I sent you my email via PM on the forum. Look for the word "messages" at the top of about any page and click on it to get your PMs. I would very much like to see a copy of the patent.

Chris

Sent

 

[varords]

if I understand this discussion thus far - And I probably don't, as I have very little background in chemistry:

What you are doing is creating a carefully alloyed anode of sufficient "thinness" for the electrolyte to penetrate completely & hopefully dissolve base metals out, leaving a gold "honeycomb" or "sponge" behind, is that correct?

If so, and I'm just bouncing ideas around here - I would think that there are variables that should be addressed:
1. The 10k feedstock doesn't have "all metals" - only a few metals are acceptable alloying agents. The make-up of your test anode would therefore be reasonably consistent. This seems unrealistic in a "real-world" scenario to me.

2. Were there other, non-metallic contaminants, including but not limited to, carbon, stones, exotic metals, present as well? I would think that would be an X factor in the efficiency of this process.
2 a. As,I would assume, would the presence of tin, since it sounds like your electrolyte is nitric based. Is heat generated, either as part of the process or as a consequence of it? If so, tin would become even more of a factor, as metastannic acid could be generated. This would probably only be a factor in processing the slimes, though, I guess.

3. What you are assuming is that the lattice of the gold sponge will remain completely intact (if I understand the explanation thus far. I did NOT view the original patent) & that it won't trap contaminants within its matrix. If it does happen to start coming apart, you will now have to re-recover gold from the slimes, won't you? How will you control that?

4. You are also using utilities/energy (= additional costs) to form the anode, run the cell, etc., as opposed to a pretty straight-forward chemical process. Why do all that when you can achieve the same task with fewer steps & lower overhead?

Being "more technological" sounds to me like a lot of extra parts & steps to. "More" doesn't necessarily mean "better", especially in a field like refining, I would think.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't go get your patent & try selling it to someone - some years ago as I was researching the patent process I was told that an "invention" only has to be 10% different to be considered "new" .

That doesn't mean, however, people considering your invention, especially those from within the industry, will also consider it thus. Or, that they will be interested in buying or using it.

If i sound like a moron, I apologize for taking everyone's time. Maybe someone who has viewed the actual patent, without giving away proprietary information, could chime in & set me straight.

Let me to address your questions.

1. Yes, of course 10K gold would not represent all metals. It is a test case. Theoretically all metals (except PGM and very few other) should be dissolved. So far every sample I prepared passed test.

2.Gold is melted initially to prepare anode and that should remove stones and like.

2a. No heat generated, you may run electrolytic cell at elevated temperature if you wish to reduce slightly utility bill. Metastannate indeed is not soluble, although it should not be formed if other acids are used. Nothing is absolutely perfect after all.

3. There are methods for refining gold on anode where gold anode comes apart and pure gold is collected from the bottom of electrolytic cell. This is difference, this is what I patented. It is obviously more convenient to remove anode from cell, wash it and use then collecting gold slime from the bottom of cell.

4. Utility bill. Let assume I have 10A current over 10V (to high, but let calculate). it is 100W. I run the cell 20 hour to purify 10 ounces of gold alloy. So I use 2 kWh energy. It cost 40-50 cents. Cost of nitric acid or its salts 1 dollar per kilo. 30 cents will be used. So not considering initial investment in equipment it will cost less then dollar to refine 10 ounces of gold. To compare with inquartation. You need about $1.5 nitric acid, plus cost for energy to keep your staff boiling for many hours. With Wohlwill process - you need approximately same amount for energy plus locked gold. For Miller process - I do not know cost. There I have gold in melted state for few hours and chlorine gas in large quantities. It should be more costly. And not very pleasant.

 

[goldenchild]

I think varords will do fine with his invention whether it's truly a new method or not. Look at iShore. That's not an insult just an observation. Whether you can get the "big boys" to want to use your invention is the big question. I wish you good luck.

 

[varords]

I think varords will do fine with his invention whether it's truly a new method or not. Look at iShore. That's not an insult just an observation. Whether you can get the "big boys" to want to use your invention is the big question. I wish you good luck.

Thank you. I am planning to sell small apparatus. Trying to contact large and medium refining and mining companies as well. And producers of equipment. This is the most difficult, I can not locate them. It seem to me that refineries are making their own equipment. Who for example produces and sells Wohlwill electrolytic cells?

 

[rusty]

I think varords will do fine with his invention whether it's truly a new method or not. Look at iShore. That's not an insult just an observation. Whether you can get the "big boys" to want to use your invention is the big question. I wish you good luck.

Thank you. I am planning to sell small apparatus. Trying to contact large and medium refining and mining companies as well. And producers of equipment. This is the most difficult, I can not locate them. It seem to me that refineries are making their own equipment. Who for example produces and sells Wohlwill electrolytic cells?

varords try this site, a mix of trades people who will competitively bid for your work. http://rfqwork.com/

Before tendering an offer, you will need to draw up plans of your project with a materials list along with how may units you want to have made.

Also there are some very capable forum members with both skills and knowledge who may consider making an offer to build your cell. Again the materials list and specs you require would help to make an offer.

Best Regards
Rusty