Electrochemistry Simple VS Complex Gold Salts

[goldsilverpro]

Concerning the battery charger thing. I must admit that, in dealing with electrolytic systems for 45 years (daily for at least 20 of those years), I've never used a battery charger. I always used plating rectifiers. I may be dense, but I can't see any difference in the marked polarity on a battery charger than that on a plating rectifier. Many of you have used battery chargers, mainly for the sulfuric cell. Did you hook the lead marked positive to the gold plated parts? Did the gold strip? If so, the positive on a battery charger is the same as the positive of a plating rectifier or battery.

Dr.Poe,

As is yours, my main purpose on this forum is to teach. However, due to my attachment to the members of the forum, my 2nd self-appointed purpose is to help protect them. I do what I can to keep them safe and from wasting money. I also search out untruthful statements and try to nip them in the bud. This vast PM subject is difficult enough without creating confusion.

The confusion over the question of, "where is the metal from a negative complex deposited - cathode or anode", still exists. You say anode and most of us say cathode (what if I am right about the battery charger?). I will try to convince you otherwise.

At least once, you said that the gold from a complex negative ion would deposit on the anode and that a simple positive gold ion would deposit on the cathode. Do you still believe this? I can't see that the marked polarity of a battery charger would alter your statement. You are saying that these 2 types of ion species are plated on different electrodes. Wouldn't this infer that, if you had gold and, say, nickel, in a chloride matrix, you would deposit gold (complex negative ion) on the anode and nickel (simple positive ion) on the cathode, simultaneously?? Wouldn't that be a wonderful way to separate metal alloys. Just pick the right solution and you've got a little refining machine. Surely, Wohlwill would have discovered that immediately and his first patent would have been totally different.

Unfortunately, that doesn't work. Metals always deposit on one electrode only, the cathode, no matter what the ion polarity is. Negative ions migrate to the anode but they don't deposit there. To deposit metal, anywhere, the negative ions must somehow be constantly replenished in the cathode film. This is done by mixing (stirring, pumping, heating, u'sonics, etc). It is also done by having a high concentration of metal in the solution. The anode and anything touching it is under a constant, strong, oxidizing pressure from the power supply, which overcomes the reduction needed to deposit metal. However, when you turn the power supply off, the gold would now be able to be reduced and could quickly cement onto the steel anode. Maybe, that's what you and the Ferrells are seeing.

According to Modern Electroplating, the following metals are commonly plated from negative complex ions - Au, Ag, Cu(CN), Zn, Cd, Sn, and Cr. Nickel and copper(acid) are often plated from simple positive ions. In every case, all are plated on the cathode, ONLY.

 

[AlZabrisky]

Dr. Poe wrote:
Wise people talk because they have something to say. Fools talk because they have to start a controversy.
Maybe I need to learn to have respect. Maybe others that don't understand should ask for more information without adding degrading marks and ridicule to their questions. Maybe it's their intention to try and chase away threats to their crowns or territories by goading one into a discourse, hoping that anger will swell, remarks made to instigate an ousting. Dr. Poe


I'll certainly level that I've not been very nice to you in this post. Simply put, I don't understand what the post was about--it didn't make clear sense to me why it was posted or if it was a question or just a statement. I am confused by why you'd post it in the format you did. It's clear to me you know quite a bit of science, but your presentation and delivery are poor. I see now that you weren't trying to discuss a Wohwill cell of any sort (something which I think we should discuss, even though it's impractical to most here due to expense).

The article that Butcher posted is effectively a much more in-depth discussion of what you were talking about with most of the explanation for plating behaviors in the text.

At the risk of sounding like der English Nazi, please try and be as clear as possible when you post.

You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother.
- Albert Einstein

It all started with the Ferrell's steel anode and cathode. They were trying to up grade from steel wool cementation. I stated that the gold would plate upon the anode. Then the brains had a stroke. Not possible they wrote, total BS, your integrity is in danger they wrote. Yet none of these brains could grasp a simple interaction between electroplating and cementation.
When the rules of cementation supersede the rules of electrodeposition. No, I don't recognize the authors of those books, reports and PHD depositions as having superior experience to mine. In 2010, I critiqued a refining book that was very informative and correct in almost everything. They made one mistake in the entire book. That mistake would have cost the lives of everyone entering the room within seconds. Their mistake was to print chlorine when the correct answer was bromine. It was referring to cyanide leaching. Their fatal mistake was in not understanding that chlorine combines with cyanide and vaporizes at room temperature. Had they used bromine, they wouldn't have put instant death into the room's atmosphere. So false humility from me is an evil thing. Whenever I give further information, it should be digested, tested
before rebuked. If the rebuke come, then let it be civil and leave out the comments like 'BS'. Everyone knows what 'BS' means and that it certainly is an invitation to a dispute. Dr. Poe

Dr Poe,

Please identify the above mentioned "Refining Book".
Thank you.

Dr AlZabrisky.

 

[Palladium]

While I do enjoy a good discussion or a debate the thing that bothers me most about the good doc is not his technical expertise but the way that his persona seems to be disrupting the everyday operations of the forum. I don’t think there is a time I haven’t logged in this week and seen something crazy concerning the good doc or what he has posted. Don’t get me wrong here I’m all for the doc or anybody else for that matter posting information to help the forum. What I am against is the disruptive behavior his attitude seems to bring out not only in him but the rest of us as well. Had this been a business his disruptive attitude would have called for his expulsion or reprimand immediately. He’s received several of those already it seems to no avail. I can understand what seems like his need for acceptance by his peers, but like Lou stated that is earned and not just given based on your brain size. I’ve heard the good doc state several times about this impressive resume but have yet to see anything that would prove the such. Theirs no doubt he might be a smart fellow to some degree but the brain power it takes to decipher his ramblings are just as well spent reading from proven authorities on the subject. He seems to have pulled us into his little realm of craziness and just the fact that I’m having to write this proves my point. I could be answering someone else’s thread who really need my help and needs it in layman’s terms. I reckon that all I got to say about that, for now.

 

[Dr. Poe]

Well I give up! not in what I know is true, but in trying to convince you guys of anything. I thought it would bring some peace to give a little bit. Not with you guys. It just doesn't help. Believe what you want to believe. I was hoping my statement to Butcher might just cool you guys down a bit. It didn't happen. Remember the Ferrells? They used a steel electrode for both the cathode and the anode. Yeah that's right. And the gold plated upon the anode just like I said that it would! Not a single one of you has reported an experiment to verify or debunk my statements. Not a single one of you 'mockers' has reported an actual recent thiosulfate leach reduced by electrolysis. None of you have even tried to understand the intersection of cementation to electrodeposition. You all seem to be stuck on the word 'reduction'. Well excuse me! Reduction occurs at the cathode as we all know. I said 'plate', and 'deposition' and never claimed that the gold was reduced by the anode, no not ever!
You all seem to believe that chlorine, Cl2, oxidizes gold. No, it doesn't. Cl-1 or Cl-3 does, but Cl2 reduces gold by cementation. And furthermore, the attraction of any loose particle of gold is to the anode. I'm only writing this post for the benefit of those that really need to know, and are watching. If they want further instruction, my Google e-mail is available to them. As for you mockers, Harold has forbidden expression. Dr. Poe :x

 

[butcher]

Dr. Poe,

I feel you have become a very smart man, studying hard to learn what you have, and you also have shared your hard earned Knowledge with us here on the forum, many of us here do not have the years of schooling you do, I for one barely graduated High school, and would not have if the teachers did not just keep passing me to the next grade (probably just so they would not have to deal with me), I could not read and comprehend the words I could spell out when reading, when I finished school, it was only later after school that I learned to read, and I spend countless hour studying many subjects now, not to become smart, but because a subject interests me and I get a question and want to know the answer.

When you tell me you have a PHD and are a Dr. with credentials to teach at a university, and much of what you teach here at the forum has a base in true facts, but then sometimes stated in a confusing matter to me, or then sometimes a line in their is polarized to what I have learned, it makes me not only confused, but also questions the intent, I can deal with it, if knowing it is not intended for any harmful purpose or to gain financially, or to purposely confuse members,

Here on the forum we have many members, we all come to this university to learn, when you state you are a Dr. and know something we expect that information to be correct with out confusion, here on the forum it is different from other university's, we are all teachers, and all teachers are also students, not like a college university where you may have to believe a professor just because he said it is so, or that he thinks or remembers it this way, and are not allowed to clear up the facts or debate his teachings, here it can be up for question.

I know from learning nobody will remember everything they have studied, nobody will know everything or every detail about a subject, there is just too much in many of these area's, we can all be mistaken with facts as we think we know or remember them, we all are human.

But I also expect a teacher here on this forum (new member to professional) to be willing to say when he believes it to be so, or that he see it this way, or if he knows for sure it works this way, states so, and if he teaches something, and is questioned on the facts tries to give proof of facts, without trying to confuse the person just trying to learn, or to be so pride full in his credentials to not admit he is human and can be wrong in the way he seen it or confused somewhat himself, or whatever.

Dr. Poe I must say I do respect you, not for your vast knowledge, but for sticking in here, you have been questioned and run through the grinder here, in a way I feel bad about that, as I have been a big part in it, that was not my intent, I just want to know your an honest man with honest intent. That I still have questions on that and probably will until I have something to show me your honor, we cannot meet each other face to face and look each others eyes, when we speak, we really do not know each other, we have little besides what we post to go by who we can trust, and I want to be able to trust every member here, I do not know if it is pride in your hard gained knowledge you are defending, or if you just believe it so strongly, or what. But you do have a very vast knowledge, and you should be respected for that, and you should not be questioned on your intent.

It is my hope if you are an honorable man with good intentions that you are given the opportunity to prove it, and that all of us members will just back off and give you the chance you deserve to do so, but as you know with so many cats a rat does not have a chance here in this cathouse, I am not calling you a rat.

Dr. Poe I Hope we become good friends and assist each other, and can learn to trust each other as we share what we have learned.

I am backing off and giving you room to teach, please make it clear and understandable.

GSP, the positive of a battery charger is no difference than a DC power supply (or DC plating rectifier) or a battery positive post, when hooked up to an electrode of a cell, they all make the anode of the cell electron poor (where oxidation occurs),as you well know from your many years of professional experience in the plating and recovery and refining industry.

 

[HAuCl4]

...As for you mockers, Harold has forbidden expression. Dr. Poe :x

I went to buy a flask of lecithin, but someone had cornered the market... :lol:

 

[AlZabrisky]

...As for you mockers, Harold has forbidden expression. Dr. Poe :x

I went to buy a flask of lecithin, but someone had cornered the market... :lol:

Chill.
Enough.
Harold??

Dr AlZabrisky.

 

[niteliteone]

Chill.
Enough.
Harold??

Dr AlZabrisky.

I second this motion

Tom C.

 

[publius]

All in favor say aye...

Aye!

 

[HAuCl4]

Actually, I attended college, grade school and high school simultaneously. I started research into solid rocket fuels at age 12.
Recess is over. Time to learn something. Dr. Poe

Surely you guys can appreciate, by now, that Dr. Poe is a jester. If you aren't convinced then go and look up his claim of his $10 Million book...with secret knowledge...

The most appropiate course of action is to continue to laugh as loudly as possible, and to move this thread to the bar and grill section of the forum. :lol:

 

[rusty]

Actually, I attended college, grade school and high school simultaneously. I started research into solid rocket fuels at age 12.
Recess is over. Time to learn something. Dr. Poe

Surely you guys can appreciate, by now, that Dr. Poe is a jester. If you aren't convinced then go and look up his claim of his $10 Million book...with secret knowledge...

The most appropiate course of action is to continue to laugh as loudly as possible, and to move this thread to the bar and grill section of the forum. :lol:

FYI the forum software has a friend or foe feature, if your not pleased with someone add to foe and get on with life.

 

[samuel-a]

Cl^-3 ??

Is that possible ?

 

[Lou]

I don't think so. You can have I<sub3>{-} and perhaps bromine do the same thing.

Let's let Poe alone. As long as he doesn't post blatant misinformation. I wouldn't call chlorine a reducing agent (but it can be, i.e. fluorine acting on it). 99.999+ cases, chlorine oxidizes gold.

 

[Harold_V]

I have made no secret of my lack of education. That applies, in particular, to chemistry. Not even in high school.

There may be something about this entire matter that is escaping me---but from my vantage point, what the good Dr. is saying is that there can be deposition on the anode under certain circumstances. He then proceeds to discuss steel as the anode.

Duh! Is anyone really surprised at his claim? After all, isn't that how we recover values in the stock pot? Doesn't steel (iron) cement gold? Isn't that exactly what he's been saying? Why should gold NOT deposit there?

Please---whoever understands this -----please straighten me out. Right now, I'm getting the feeling that the problem, here, is that terms are not being expressed such that the layman, a moron such as myself, for example, can understand what the hell is being discussed. The good doctor could do himself, as well as the majority of the readers, a favor by simply speaking in terms we could understand.

Poe is wise to observe the admonition to lose the antagonism and personal attacks. That goes for everyone, by the way.

A point I'd like to make is that we can confront issues without confronting individuals. From my vantage point, the moment the attack turns to the person instead of the topic, the attacker has lost the battle. If your beliefs can't be supported by fact, tearing down the reputation of the opponent shows your defeat. I witnessed that very thing when the issue of lifters in a ball mill was being discussed. There, an opinion was expressed as fact, and when that didn't fly, comments turned to personal attacks. That's what losers do, not what winners do.

Stick to the topic at hand, and avoid personal attacks. State facts as such, and state when something is your OPINION. That would help keep things a little more polite and friendly, leaving the door open for corrections without the antagonism.

Harold

 

[qst42know]

the positive of a battery charger is no difference than a DC power supply (or DC plating rectifier) or a battery positive post, when hooked up to an electrode of a cell,

Not all battery chargers produce a flat line DC voltage. It really depends on the rectifier circuit design. Pulsed DC does charge a battery and may even be desirable for charging but might change things in a plating or electrolysis application.

 

[butcher]

the positive of a battery charger is no difference than a DC power supply (or DC plating rectifier) or a battery positive post, when hooked up to an electrode of a cell,

Not all battery chargers produce a flat line DC voltage. It really depends on the rectifier circuit design. Pulsed DC does charge a battery and may even be desirable for charging but might change things in a plating or electrolysis application.

True not all battery chargers produce a flat line DC voltage.
It is DC rectified (single diode {half wave},or 4 diode bridge rectified{full wave}), (rectified current, Direct Current, one direction only) there will be ripple current, unless the battery charger, or power supply uses filter capacitors. (Simple battery chargers do not need filter capacitors), many other types of supplies use filter capacitors to smooth out this ripple (or bumpy line) to give a flatter DC line with less ripple) But this is still direct current (current flow in one direction only), (so electrons flow only one direction).

There are also pulsed power supplies, that are purposely pulsed current, these can have a duty cycle (on off cycle), most of these still put current flow in one direction (electrons only flowing in one direction (strictly DC).

There can be special power supplies that use a pulsed current with a duty cycle which actually change polarity (current flows most of the time mainly in one direction and reverses a very short period of time in the opposite direction), these are some times used in the plating or refining industry to keep unwanted metals in solution from plating along with the metal they are trying to plate out of solution. (or used to keep anode clear of passivation layer that may build up on them (like if some silver was in the mainly gold anode)

Also power supply’s or battery chargers can be built for different purposes,

Constant voltage, and variable current power supply,
Here the voltage is regulated, and current can vary.
This is what the lead acid battery chargers use, to charge the battery’s cells.
A lead acid battery changes resistance from when it is discharged, to when it is fully charged, (notice the ammeter on your charger is high current flow on a discharged battery, but the amperage falls as the battery is charged).

Constant current and variable voltage power supply,
Here the current is regulated and voltage can vary.
Nickel cadmium batteries have to be charge with this type of power supply

There are also other types of power supplies like switching power supplies that computers or other equipment use.
These produce a very flat line direct current, usually by stepping up the alternating current frequency early in the power supplies stages of its circuitry and then rectifying it and filtering it, as a noisy power supply (high ripple current) would create may problems with a computers circuitry or other digital circuits.

I have emailed Harold to to discuss the problem and my involvement, I wish not to stir any more dust here.

 

[Dr. Poe]

I don't think so. You can have I<sub3>{-} and perhaps bromine do the same thing.

Let's let Poe alone. As long as he doesn't post blatant misinformation. I wouldn't call chlorine a reducing agent (but it can be, i.e. fluorine acting on it). 99.999+ cases, chlorine oxidizes gold.

Cl2 (gas) + 2e- <--> 2Cl- Potential volts = 1.3583
Au+ + e- <--> Au Potential volts = 1.68
Au+++ + 3E- <--> Potential volts = 1.42
Simple math Dr. Poe

 

[Lou]

Sir, I refer you to your own thread.

http://goldrefiningforum.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=60&t=12705

If you think quoting the SRPs somehow makes you one iota of right about chlorine practically being a reducing agent for gold (III) in aqueous environments, you need re-educated.

By your logic you could never leave a solution of gold (III) in HCl, because Au(III) would be oxidizing chloride to chlorine. By your logic, it's impossible to dissolve gold with chlorine and 1M hydrochloric acid at 25*C. By your logic, it's impossible to make anhydrous gold (III) chloride. Chloride isn't an oxidant anyway.

Chlorine doesn't ever practically reduce gold by cementation. The only time chlorine is being oxidized by gold in my experience chlorinating A LOT of gold is electron transfer due to thermal disproportionation at higher temperatures. Not that the standard reduction table means a damn thing with temperature swings, since it's merely a cute table compiled for convenient access of thermodynamics information.

I'm done using SO2 though, I'll just use LCl2 now since I have my pick.


In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.

 

[AlZabrisky]

Dr. Poe wrote:
Wise people talk because they have something to say. Fools talk because they have to start a controversy.
Maybe I need to learn to have respect. Maybe others that don't understand should ask for more information without adding degrading marks and ridicule to their questions. Maybe it's their intention to try and chase away threats to their crowns or territories by goading one into a discourse, hoping that anger will swell, remarks made to instigate an ousting. Dr. Poe


I'll certainly level that I've not been very nice to you in this post. Simply put, I don't understand what the post was about--it didn't make clear sense to me why it was posted or if it was a question or just a statement. I am confused by why you'd post it in the format you did. It's clear to me you know quite a bit of science, but your presentation and delivery are poor. I see now that you weren't trying to discuss a Wohwill cell of any sort (something which I think we should discuss, even though it's impractical to most here due to expense).

The article that Butcher posted is effectively a much more in-depth discussion of what you were talking about with most of the explanation for plating behaviors in the text.

At the risk of sounding like der English Nazi, please try and be as clear as possible when you post.

You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother.
- Albert Einstein

It all started with the Ferrell's steel anode and cathode. They were trying to up grade from steel wool cementation. I stated that the gold would plate upon the anode. Then the brains had a stroke. Not possible they wrote, total BS, your integrity is in danger they wrote. Yet none of these brains could grasp a simple interaction between electroplating and cementation.
When the rules of cementation supersede the rules of electrodeposition. No, I don't recognize the authors of those books, reports and PHD depositions as having superior experience to mine. In 2010, I critiqued a refining book that was very informative and correct in almost everything. They made one mistake in the entire book. That mistake would have cost the lives of everyone entering the room within seconds. Their mistake was to print chlorine when the correct answer was bromine. It was referring to cyanide leaching. Their fatal mistake was in not understanding that chlorine combines with cyanide and vaporizes at room temperature. Had they used bromine, they wouldn't have put instant death into the room's atmosphere. So false humility from me is an evil thing. Whenever I give further information, it should be digested, tested
before rebuked. If the rebuke come, then let it be civil and leave out the comments like 'BS'. Everyone knows what 'BS' means and that it certainly is an invitation to a dispute. Dr. Poe

Dr Poe,

Please identify the above mentioned "Refining Book".
Thank you.

Dr AlZabrisky.

Dr Poe??????????

 

[Dr. Poe]

Dr. Poe wrote:
Wise people talk because they have something to say. Fools talk because they have to start a controversy.
Maybe I need to learn to have respect. Maybe others that don't understand should ask for more information without adding degrading marks and ridicule to their questions. Maybe it's their intention to try and chase away threats to their crowns or territories by goading one into a discourse, hoping that anger will swell, remarks made to instigate an ousting. Dr. Poe


I'll certainly level that I've not been very nice to you in this post. Simply put, I don't understand what the post was about--it didn't make clear sense to me why it was posted or if it was a question or just a statement. I am confused by why you'd post it in the format you did. It's clear to me you know quite a bit of science, but your presentation and delivery are poor. I see now that you weren't trying to discuss a Wohwill cell of any sort (something which I think we should discuss, even though it's impractical to most here due to expense).

The article that Butcher posted is effectively a much more in-depth discussion of what you were talking about with most of the explanation for plating behaviors in the text.

At the risk of sounding like der English Nazi, please try and be as clear as possible when you post.

You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother.
- Albert Einstein

It all started with the Ferrell's steel anode and cathode. They were trying to up grade from steel wool cementation. I stated that the gold would plate upon the anode. Then the brains had a stroke. Not possible they wrote, total BS, your integrity is in danger they wrote. Yet none of these brains could grasp a simple interaction between electroplating and cementation.
When the rules of cementation supersede the rules of electrodeposition. No, I don't recognize the authors of those books, reports and PHD depositions as having superior experience to mine. In 2010, I critiqued a refining book that was very informative and correct in almost everything. They made one mistake in the entire book. That mistake would have cost the lives of everyone entering the room within seconds. Their mistake was to print chlorine when the correct answer was bromine. It was referring to cyanide leaching. Their fatal mistake was in not understanding that chlorine combines with cyanide and vaporizes at room temperature. Had they used bromine, they wouldn't have put instant death into the room's atmosphere. So false humility from me is an evil thing. Whenever I give further information, it should be digested, tested
before rebuked. If the rebuke come, then let it be civil and leave out the comments like 'BS'. Everyone knows what 'BS' means and that it certainly is an invitation to a dispute. Dr. Poe

Dr Poe,

Please identify the above mentioned "Refining Book".
Thank you.

Dr AlZabrisky.

Dr Poe??????????

Identifying the book would open me up to a law suit. Do you think me naive? Just don't mix chlorine or chlorides wet or dry with cyanides. I have better things to do with my life than to defend my statements in a court of law. Besides, lawyers are expensive. Dr. Poe