Pulverized unpopulated circuit boards with shaker table

[Smack]

If your going to use a shaker table to recover values from pcb's, I don't see it working as well without incineration first. But if your going to incinerate before or after shredding you may as well make refiner bars and sell to a copper refiner after an assay. I don't understand what all this screwing around is about. Sooner or later your going to come to the same conclusion all the other refineries have if you want to process large amounts of pcb's. Unless your end goal is the variable and if that's the case, I suspect maybe your looking at running this stuff on the table, collecting the sweets and sending the rest out to a refinery.

 

[kjavanb123]

Jon,

Thanks for your understanding. So far we had labors manually depopulate high grade boards, such as the ones telecomm boards which I posted here. But that just left me with the gold, and some tin lead solder. Plus the lot of materials we did manually were around 200lbs or less.

GoldSilverPro,
Sir, your words are like the final for me, confirming what I have been doing so far coming from you is like recieving a thumbs up from your mentor. I owe a lot of success in my refining to you sir, and I have the most respect since you share your wealth of knowledge with all of us here.

Necromancer,
Glad my post has helped you. For loads exceeding 1000lbs manually removing aluminum capacitors eat any profits, plus I have tried this once for few kg and it does not produce all that much Al caps weight wise. Result of this test shows most of the Al are in hooe 3 and 4 along with tailing and resins etc.
As for the water contamination, since I will be recirculating the water on shaker table, no way it reaches that volume of 1000s liter, but to be safe whenever I have to dispose the water circulating on table, I will send a sample of that water for a testing.

At the end I like to thanks guys at MBMMLLC for great help on this project, their table designs is different from what I have seen in other comapnies, and it showed in reality it can effective. My 20lbs of minus mesh 30 materials should be ready over the weekend, and will send it out to Steve on Monday, will keep you posted.

Regards,
Kevin

 

[Smack]

Water? Evaporate it off and collect what's left.

 

[kjavanb123]

Smack,

The whole purpose of this experiment was to avoid incineration. So far it looks it could get most of the gold, and separate most of metals from plastics. I am sure there is a liberation size that everything will be free from epoxy or resin, this table can separate 400 mesh sizes for gold ore, no gold bonding wire is that thin.

Regards,
Kevin

 

[Anonymous]

Kevin please confirm something for me.

You are allowed to remove the gold bearing products from the boards - effectively concentrating the value and sell those on but not sell the boards in their virgin state? What happens to the remainder of the boards currently?

 

[kjavanb123]

Jon,

That is correct I can recover anything I can from boards and sell or keep it, so far all boards after depopulation are stored in jumbo bags to be processed for copper and other metals by shaker table.

Regards
Kevin

 

[g_axelsson]

I read the whole thing and watched the videos. It looks and sounds feasible to me. Good luck on the next results.

I hope you realize that Kevins results so far doesn't mean much as we don't know how big the different fractions were. His constant claim on 95% recovery is only true if the four fractions from the shaker table were the same size. All we know is the starting weight of 9 kg and the weight of the four sample bags he sent for analysis, a total of 614g. Where the remaining 8386 g went we don't know so there is really hard to draw any conclusions.
Looking at the video it's clear that the heavy fraction is a lot smaller than the other three fractions so the recovery should be a lot less than the 95% he constantly boasts. In a worst case scenario the heavy fraction was only 53g and it represents 0.6% of the total mass. If it was larger I would question the sampling methodology to get a representative sample of that fraction since nothing else has been done correct.

The worst case scenario would be if the first fraction was only 53g and the second fraction maximized then the first fraction would contain 14.5% of the total gold.
The best case scenario would be if the first fraction was maximized then the first fraction would contain 99.8% of the total gold.

In the first case the original material would contain 9.8 toz/ton and the last case 222 toz/ton. The lowest amount of gold possible would be if the last fraction was maximized and that would give 3.2 toz/ton. As Barren Realms wrote, small socket motherboards yielded 4.4 toz/ton so that definitely has relevance because it shows what to be expected and gives a reality check of his numbers and how to interpret them.

Just for an experiment, I calculated the numbers for a hypothetical situation of the four fractions at 2%, 3%, 40% and 55% and came up with the relative gold content of 64%, 3,5%, 20,5 and 12% with a total amount of gold in the starting material at 7.4 toz/ton. What we see is that the gold is found in all the fractions and that the total amount of gold seems to be too high based on the initial boards. This casts doubts on how the samples were taken after passing through the shaker table.

GSP, I have the highest respect for your experience so this post isn't directed towards what you wrote, it's a explanation on why we are a couple of posters here that criticizes Kevins result and interpretation.
The reason I post here is to help those that might believe his statements and make bad decisions based on it.

Göran

 

[solar_plasma]

http://goldrefiningforum.com/~goldrefi/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=3913#p33454

One ton (2000 lbs) of "average" circuit board from modern computers and electronics generally yields (in a very good system) between 8 and 11 troy ounces of 24k gold.

Though this is only hearsay, it sounds plausible and would point strongly to the lower end of Göran's conclusion, since they were talking about PCBs from 2003. This would be about over 0,1866g/board or over 7€/kg. Plausibility check....

 

[Smack]

Jon,

That is correct I can recover anything I can from boards and sell or keep it, so far all boards after depopulation are stored in jumbo bags to be processed for copper and other metals by shaker table.

Regards
Kevin

I do remember you had stated this condition before but forgot about it, my apologies. Isn't the view/rule over there that no gold leaves the country? That could make it tough on a guy and a forum.

 

[goldsilverpro]

Any way to eliminate or, at least, reduce incineration is worth pursuing. Same with chemical usage.

Bag #1, the finest fraction, was the richest but it still was only .8% gold, if I remember right from calculating it the other day. Needs incinerating and some chemical work done on it.

Sometimes, you can't afford to get it all. Think about that. If I could get 80% - 90% using a hammer mill and a table, I might be satisfied. All depends on the profits.

That is the most complex table I have ever seen, but that is good. It has many ways of adjusting the outputs. The shaker guy should set up for fire assay. He could have answers in 2 or 3 hours and it would be more reliable, faster, and cheaper than sending them to an assayer. Costs about $5000 and he could run about 20 samples per 8 hour day. Fire assay for gold and/or silver can be learned in a day or two. Any changes made will generate samples. Start with your best bet and then fine tune it. Never change more than 1 thing at a time. This could be a very big deal if you can make it profitable.

The only thing I don't like but could live with is getting everything wet. When you get it wet, you then have to get it dry. Shaker tables aren't the only specific gravity separation devices one could use.
_________________________________________________

In the '70s and '80s, there were several patents for using various specific gravity methods to recover the PGMs in catalytic convertors. If I remember right, some claimed success in the 90% range. I would sure like to see about 10 pounds of pulverized cat material run across that table - accompanied by a number of pertinent assays, of course. Assaying the PGMs is much more difficult than assaying gold and silver.

 

[kjavanb123]

All,

Please note this is how I got to the 95% recovery rate, bag 1 contains 236 toz/ton of gold, bag 2 has 8.62 toz/ton, bag 3 has 3.78 toz/ton, and finally bag 4 contains 1.60 toz/ton. Added them all together divide, then divide the bag 1 content by the total, times 100, which gives 94.7% gold recovered at hole 1, and so forth with the others, so I concluded 95% of existing gold in running materials on table ended up in hole 1. Please advise.

Regards
Kevin

 

[CBentre]

Sounds like a language barrier.......what some want to hear and what some want to say. Kevin if that's all you wanted to know you have your answer. I never double checked your math but if 95% of your gold was concentrated in slot one I think you know where most of your gold is going to be. You still have to repeat the process a few times to come to that conclusion though. From the sounds of things you have a few members here that can really help you get some hard evidence regarding scientific data to further develop your process.
Cheers

 

[solar_plasma]

All,

Please note this is how I got to the 95% recovery rate, bag 1 contains 236 toz/ton of gold, bag 2 has 8.62 toz/ton, bag 3 has 3.78 toz/ton, and finally bag 4 contains 1.60 toz/ton. Added them all together divide, then divide the bag 1 content by the total, times 100, which gives 94.7% gold recovered at hole 1, and so forth with the others, so I concluded 95% of existing gold in running materials on table ended up in hole 1. Please advise.

Regards
Kevin

Now, what was the gold content in the material before concentrating? If it was much lower and there hasn't been an losses, your result is fantastic. Maybe it is the language barrier and I just didn't understand correctly.

 

[kjavanb123]

All,

Please refer to pdf file containing the latest assay result under the fa-au, for my calculation. I am preparing another batch of minus 30 mesh to send to Steve.

Here are some data regarding my pulverizing machine, which needs some modifcation.
Load 1 net weight: 5.950kg (13.13lbs)
Net weight passing mesh 30: 1.760kg (3.88lbs)
Net weight top of screen mesh 30: 4.120kg (9.09lbs)
Percentage of minus mesh 30: 29.57%
Percentage of plus mesh 30: 69.24%
Percentage of losses: 1.19%

Load 2 net weight: 5.760 (12.71 lbs)
Net weight of minus 30 mesh: 1.66 kg (3.66 lbs)
Net weight of plus 30 mesh: 3.62 kg (7.99 lbs)
Percentage of minus 30 mesh: 28.81%
Percentage of plus 30 mesh: 62.84%
Percentage of losses: 8.35%

It is due to the gap between the end of blades and body of mill which in latest version will be fixed. Also in all calculation in this post, I only screened mesh 30 materials and as you can see from the statistic above, it is not complete boards.

Regards
Kevin

 

[kjavanb123]

Hi,

I recalculated the ppm for gold for one ton of this mixture of boards and came up with 130g per ton of mixed boards, based on the following calculation, please advise or comment,

Bag #1 according to fire assay contains 236 toz/ton, that is 7,340 g/ton of gold. Since bag #1 weighs 53.4g, then actual gold in bag 1, will be 53.4 x 7,340 divided by 1,000,000, which is 0.391g of gold. Also using the formula of 30% recovery of minus 30 mesh that my grinder produces, I sent Steve 20lbs of minus and plus mesh 30, and with 30% of it become minus 30 mesh which he ran on table, then the weight of material he ran becomes 6lbs. Since 6lbs produced 53.4g of concentrate that has 0.391g gold, then 1000kg of the same materials would have 1000 x 0.391 divided by 6lbs (3kg) which comes to 130.65g per ton of mixture of boards that Steve ran 3kg of it on his shaker table.

Regards,
Kj

 

[Anonymous]

Excuse my candour however do you believe that sample size is large enough upon which to base a commercial decision?

 

[kjavanb123]

Jon,

I have not evaluated this project for being feasible for commercial yet, but based on my analysis above, and the price I purchased these boards it seems very feasible.

I have selected most of the boards exist in my load so it is very close to actual yield.

Regards
Kevin

 

[kjavanb123]

Hi all,

The assay result for second batch of minus 30 mesh pulverized boards are in, this time Steve from MBMMLLC ran them on their smaller shaker table 2x4, and shipped the wet discharged from 3 ports directly to AA lab and they dried it and included dry weight for each bags in the assay result.

I can't attach it here while on my iphone, so I am going to put it up while I get on my desktop. But numbers read for bag 1 which is concentrate from hole number 1, where the heavy materials go, to be 345g. Bag 2 weighs 1700g, and bag 3 or tailing discharge weighs 3790g. So total of 5,835g (5.835 kg) pulverized boards were ran on the table which matches what I had sent out to Steve.

Here is the assay reading for gold,
Bag 1: 45.2 toz / ton
Bag 2: 4.13 toz / ton
Bag 3: 1.03 toz / ton

Here is my calculation based on the given numbers, to find recovery rate of 2x4 shaker table with 3 discharge ports, and also an estimate about gold content per one metric ton of pulverized boards.

Gold content of bag 1 can be calculated by first converting toz to grams as following,
45.2 x 31.1 = 1405.2g, so one metric ton of concentrates at discharge port 1 would have that much gold, therefore 345g of concentrates should contain 1405.2 x 345 divided by 1,000,000 which is 0.48g.

Gold content of bag 2 is 4.13 toz per metric ton, so just plugging the bag 2 dry weight and assay results would be as following,
4.13 toz x 31.1 = 128.44g, so the 1700g concentrate at port 2 should contain 1700 x 128.44 divided by 1,000,000 which is 0.21g of gold, I am suspecting this should be plated gold, since it can not be seen as a line of free gold.

Bag 3 or tailing contains 1.03 toz x 31.1 = 32.03g, therefore based on similar calculation different variables, port 3 or tailing should hold 3790g x 32.03g divided by 1,000,000g which is 0.12g.

Now by adding the gold content of each bags, there should be total of 0.81g of gold assuming 100% from each bags. Bag 1 which contained 0.48g has 0.48g x 100 divided by 0.81g or 59.25% of total gold in 5.8kg pulverized boards, bag 2 has 25.92% recovery rate and finally tailing or discharge port 3 has 14.81% recovery rate.

Based on above numbers and total net weight of materials ran on shaker table of 5.835kg, has total of 0.81g of gold discharged from 3 ports, therefore a metric ton of such boards would have 1000kg x 0.81g divided by 5.835kg, is 138.81g (4.46 toz), which is very similar to what I got from first batch of pulverized similar boards, but on 4x8 shaker table, plus most of the first batch boards were already cleaned from any gold plating using cyanide.

I am going to order their hammer mill and 2x4 shaker table as it seems to do the job of separating most of gold, and this smaller table has advantage of less materials to deal with. I like to thank Steve and all his partners at MBMMLLC for making my idea into a reality. Their hammer mill also does an excellent job to pulverize the entire boards to minus 35 mesh which is the size of my pulverized boards.

Please advise.

Regards
Kj

 

[FrugalRefiner]

Now by adding the gold content of each bags, there should be total of 0.81g of gold assuming 100% from each bags. Bag 1 which contained 0.48g has 0.48g x 100 divided by 0.81g or 59.25% of total gold in 5.8kg pulverized boards, bag 2 has 25.92% recovery rate and finally tailing or discharge port 3 has 14.81% recovery rate.

Based on your math (which I haven't checked) I'm not sure I see a great advantage to using the shaker table. You'll still need to process ALL the material to get your gold. I can see that the table gives you a much higher percentage of gold per unit weight in the first hole, and that the material from hole 2 is richer than hole 3, but unless you process the material from hole 3, you're going to walk away from 14.81% of your gold. Maybe, in your particular circumstances, that works for you.

Now, if you'd said that the hole 3 material only contained, say, 5% of the gold, I would be much more impressed.

It's been interesting to follow this thread and see what you're trying to do, but, at 1.03 toz per ton, the material from hole 3 is richer than most commercially processed ores. What do you plan to do with this toxic waste if you don't process it?

Dave

 

[Barren Realms 007]

Now by adding the gold content of each bags, there should be total of 0.81g of gold assuming 100% from each bags. Bag 1 which contained 0.48g has 0.48g x 100 divided by 0.81g or 59.25% of total gold in 5.8kg pulverized boards, bag 2 has 25.92% recovery rate and finally tailing or discharge port 3 has 14.81% recovery rate.

Based on your math (which I haven't checked) I'm not sure I see a great advantage to using the shaker table. You'll still need to process ALL the material to get your gold. I can see that the table gives you a much higher percentage of gold per unit weight in the first hole, and that the material from hole 2 is richer than hole 3, but unless you process the material from hole 3, you're going to walk away from 14.81% of your gold. Maybe, in your particular circumstances, that works for you.

Now, if you'd said that the hole 3 material only contained, say, 5% of the gold, I would be much more impressed.

It's been interesting to follow this thread and see what you're trying to do, but, at 1.03 toz per ton, the material from hole 3 is richer than most commercially processed ores. What do you plan to do with this toxic waste if you don't process it?

Dave

I have a feeling that by fine tuning the table and re running the material a 2nd time he might have better results.