Selling pgms

[Palladium]

I would appreciate if members that have experience in pgms comment on this, and the rest should stay out if they have no experience with it.

I understand your frustration, ....... But i would tread lightly on who you think the enemy is here!

 

[Topher_osAUrus]

Stannous isnt the most accurate way to assess material in a quantitative way, its certainly more of a qualitative testing procedure. That being said, it can get you somewhere in the ballpark (at least in the nosebleed seats or parking lot of that stadium) -but- to have any chance at that, some exacting standards are required.

One of the better books I have read that goes over this in pretty good detail is TK Rose's Metallurgy of Gold (I know -pgm's vs. Gold-, apples and donuts) Even though its for gold, it will still give you an idea of how to set up standard solutions so you can use stannous in a little bit more quantitative way. (But it will never compete with a true assay Im afraid... ...I would only use it as an assessment if I, myself, was running the material)

For example, you mention dissolving a minimal part of the material and testing it, but, how much of the solution being tested was on each q tip? Why use q tips? I would imagine a spot plate or blotter paper would be better.

(just a suggestion, and a couple questions.. I have no side here)

Another thought, how were the pgm blacks treated after cementing? Did you roast them/force dry them and create palladium oxide? As it is insoluble in AR, but is soluble in HCl, HI, and HBr (if i recall Lou correctly)

Edit for grammar

 

[snoman701]

That's probably right, but I don't think it wil be out by a lot.
If I sell the material buyer can take the material, do assay and pay
Me according to that assay. I only need a fixed and reliable buyer for now as to grow a trustful relationship.
The material is continues and results always vary

So I think that there is an answer here. It's not the answer you want.

You don't feel you are in a trustful relationship, as you disagree with the assay, per the material buyer. I lack the finances to make mistakes in business, but I also know when a deal goes sour, it's gone and it's time to walk away. If you don't have enough money to pay the $35 return shipping which Alentia has quoted, for what you are confident is over an ounce of a PGM's, you are in the wrong business.

I'll be flat out honest, I don't know PGM's, but I do know mistakes. I make a lot of mistakes, and only my confidence from my experiences, of what I have seen through to the end, gets me through. Two weeks ago, my confidence from the knowledge I gained, from the experiences that this site has helped me perform put my home loan back in good standing. Had I taken the HONEST opinion of my buyer, I may have walked away...but I had done my own testing and assays.

I'm having a really difficult go at life right now, and can say with utmost humility....read and study, and you can get to a point where you are not at the mercy of someone else's opinion or mistakes.

Alentia has over a six year membership in this community. I have not personally done business with him, but nothing in his posting history suggests he's anything other than an upstanding individual.

 

[snoman701]

I would also add

The handheld XRF scanner you used, favors the heavy elements and is less accurate at the identification of light elements as it only irradiates at 50kva.

When comparing the platinum group metals, it is very important to look at the actual spectra produced by the instrument. It is also very important to have very good standards, that are actually very close to the alloy you are measuring, by which you can compare. This will include alloys which may have contaminants such as iridium, so that you can identify artifacts from contamination.

 

[madelyn]

Thanks for the tip Topher, I would consider using spot plate in the future. There is no specific reason I use q tips, I'm just used to using them.

I agree with everyone on the forum that stannous and xrf are not the way to get proper results.
But a stannous test is used to determine if there is any value of whatever in the matrix, that is where you are supposed to start before refining or assay to see if the matrix is worth the effort.
Any experienced refiner I think would do this In my opinion because it's what I would do. If someone sends me powders or anything I'm not familiar with, this is where I would start.

After cementing the pgms, I vacuum filter them so that it's dried out and then treat it on low heat on a hot plate as to not form any metal oxide.
These powders will dissolve slightly in hcl which is Pd and completely in hot AR which is pt and Pd.

It seems that everyone is focused on what I have done wrong and can't seem to find anything wrong with what Alentia has done. He can't even explain how he processed it to get to 1.7g of pt and what happened to the rest of the other material?

The 40grams of mud as he calls it came from about 9 complete cats which I paid about $600 for and of which he recovered 1.7gram.

 

[Topher_osAUrus]

I did not mean to have any implications in my suggestions or inquiries. I solely tried to give information in case something was initially overlooked. -It happens-

I did not give any suggestions, or ask any questions to Alentia, because very little was said by him, and, I'm not a moderator so it isnt any of my business. Sorry if my post was misconstrued in any way.

I just wonder why you didn't refine it yourself?
With ten years experience, and the ability to refine it in a day, that has me scratching my head.
-Again, just a curiosity, not an insinuation.-

Hope everything works out as it should

 

[madelyn]

It's ok Topher, no harm done.

The reason why I don't finish the refining process, is because I can't get hold af any sodium chlorate and DMG is very expensive to get this side. Also I can't get a seller for rhodium anywhere exept in the USA if any rhodium was ever in the matrix. So I figured I'd rather pay the extra $ to another refiner to process it further as this would make it a little easier.
I have processed theses a lot in the past and sold it in South Africa, that's why I know what the value is.

I have asked Alentia to post pictures of the leftover material and only then I will pay him the money to ship it back.

 

[Alentia]

Apologies, I was away and just got back, here are the pictures of leftover mud and sand wit iron removed.

 

[Alentia]

Main metal or at least 90% in cats is Pt, there are very small percentage of Pd and Rh, so no one will pay for minor metals anyway. If you expect to get paid for metal it is either must be a lot (like about or over an ounce)or it should be prevalent with over 50-60% from total weight.

I have seen lots of sand and not sore much Pt from other cats recoveries before and trace amounts of Pd and Rh.

 

[Yggdrasil]

HI!
Cat converters has various contents and matrices.
Most are, at least in Europe, honeycombs of ceramic origin.
Some are made of metal matrix and some old kinds has pellets.
They all contain from none to some, of one or all the PGMs Pt, Pd and Rh.
Some do not contain Pt and some no Pd.
If they are high in one they are usually low on one or both of the others.
They may or may not, contain significant amounts of Pt or Pd.
Regarding Rh they will seldom go beyond 2g pr piece quite a few has no Rh.

I have seen claims that they may contain other more exotic elements as well.

Later cars have particulate filters and they will look like cats, but has no valuables inside.
They look like cats but half the channels are blocked on each side, so the gas flow is forced
through the ceramic substrate.

As always use ample safety gear.
Even more so, if you choose to work with PGMs.

 

[ARMCO]

One thing I have learned about joining, then posting, then reading, then shutting up for a good while (lol) on this forum is that there is levels of experience here. In fact I would say there are different "dimensions" of experience if you'll forgive me for being flamboyant with my language.

To my friends and acquaintances I am an expert. When I got on this forum, I thought I knew quite a bit. I found out that I do know quite a bit (2 years for trial, error, reading, watching YouTube [KADriver and such}, but really the level of experience and knowledge I have informed me enough [/i]to realize that many of the contributors to this forum are in a completely different different class and I know almost nothing compared to them. They are in a much higher dimension, {Lou, Noxx, etc}.

With that being said about my experience ... I would say that I would only depend on stannous as a qualitative test (Is it present or not) and never as a quantitative (how much is there) test. If one sets up a standard solution to compare against you can get closer for your own benefit but I don't believe close enough for a buyer. The same is true in my opinion when adding XRF to the equation. You get closer but not reliable enough.

The people that buy from ME will only depend on a melted dore bar that they then XRF multiple surfaces of. If I were to bring them powder (first of all I don't know that they would accept it) they will melt it and XRF it. If I bring them a dore' bar, they will melt it and XRF it. Bottom line, that's the only way you can (short of a fire assay by a competent and dare I say professional outfit) get a reliable result that people can exchange currency for and feel good about it.

Therefore, my suggestion is to melt your powder into a metallic form (this would not cost you much). Then XRF it on multiple surfaces. Take pictures of those results and what surfaces were tested. You can take an average from that and negotiate a price from there.

Otherwise there are simply too many variables and as such both sides can feel cheeted when no one was deliberately being less than upstanding. It was simply "sloppily" done as far as a business deal and left a very high chance for this particular outcome. And this outcome is the result. So sorry.

 

[anachronism]

Hi Armco

I do understand what you're saying but- and it's a big but - there's no way heaven made that I would recommend putting an unknown powder into a crucible and setting light to it. Unless of course you can guarantee that zero percent of the fumes get anywhere near you- and that's darned near impossible for the home refiner.

If you stat a thought process of what may be in that powder, that would hurt you then by the time you have finished that process you'll have a list that will make your eyes water. 8)

Jon

 

[ARMCO]

Hi Armco

I do understand what you're saying but- and it's a big but - there's no way heaven made that I would recommend putting an unknown powder into a crucible and setting light to it. Unless of course you can guarantee that zero percent of the fumes get anywhere near you- and that's darned near impossible for the home refiner.

If you stat a thought process of what may be in that powder, that would hurt you then by the time you have finished that process you'll have a list that will make your eyes water. 8)

Jon

Jon,
II appreciate what your saying. I always assume everything that I smelt, or melt is toxic. So it's always under a fume hood with the possible addition of a good respirator. Doesn't everybody do that??? :shock: :? :roll:

Also, I suppose I should say I was directing that at the seller also, who feels "certain" he knows what is in his powder and not the buyer, to whom this is a completely unknown powder.

Nonetheless the advice of a respirator and a fume hood (or at least a respirator and working outdoors although that's very iffy since the wind can change on you) would be a minimum. Sorry if I should've included that, so point taken but ....as I think about it.

I wouldn't recommend doing ANY of the things we do without a fume hood and a respirator, period. So I don't think my suggestion is that far off base when you operate from that understanding.

IMHO

Scott :wink:

Added later. Ok I’m embarrassed. We’re talking melting... no I don’t melt under a fume hood. But I do have an awful lot of ventilation going in the shop and wear a respirator. So forgive the above. I won’t delete it I’ll just add to it here “Mea Culpa”