stripping gold fingers without chemicals

[blackwolf365]

something occured to me recently. i get stripping the gold fingers. i get srtripping out the ic chips attached to the boards. but what about the rest of the board? the part left over once the fingers and the ic chips have been removed. isnt there a worthwhile ammount of gold on that part as well?

 

[FrugalRefiner]

In most cases, no.

Dave

 

[blackwolf365]

In most cases, no.

Dave

it would take a fair amount of chips to make it worthwhile, then. kinda suck in a way. but the risk/reward ratio has to balance out right for profit to be had. thanks for the answer.

 

[niks neims]

it's not only gold...

You do realize that if you'd take complete PC (most of other consumer grade WEEE also) as a unit, most of $ would be in the copper? With iron probably coming in close second...

It's not until you are elbow deep in the electronics scrap when you start to see it for what it is - copper scrap, there is a reason that most of it gets industrially recycled in the copper cycle...

You will always be in the red by just picking off few gold bearing parts of boards and not making any money on the rest of it...

 

[anachronism]

I happen to agree with Nik here. Then again Blackwolf you're not giving me the impression that you're interested in experienced information here if I might so blunt.

 

[Ohiogoldfever]

Though I believe this site is full of very useful information it’s clear that it’s also full of old timers who assume any idea aside from the norm is useless. Innovation and improvement only happens from thinking outside the box.

Use solid logic, safe practices and do things how you feel will best satisfy your curiosity’s. In 30 years there will be more efficacy ways of refining, likely without toxic materials simply because someone tried something that the masters scoffed at. I don’t think anyone should be lax with safety or just try any old thing but assuming tried and true is the best way possible is simply narrow thinking. Progress does not happen when you simply rely on tried and true.

 

[galenrog]

If you had bothered to study the forum to any significant degree, you would already know that many here have successfully developed innovative methods of recovering precious metal from a wide variety of wastes, including electronic scrap.

Several innovations in refining has also been explored on this forum. A few successful. Most not so much.

Please study. You might learn something.

Time for more coffee.

 

[jarlowski1]

Though I believe this site is full of very useful information it’s clear that it’s also full of old timers who assume any idea aside from the norm is useless. Innovation and improvement only happens from thinking outside the box.

Use solid logic, safe practices and do things how you feel will best satisfy your curiosity’s. In 30 years there will be more efficacy ways of refining, likely without toxic materials simply because someone tried something that the masters scoffed at. I don’t think anyone should be lax with safety or just try any old thing but assuming tried and true is the best way possible is simply narrow thinking. Progress does not happen when you simply rely on tried and true.

What is clear is that you have absolutely no clue about chemistry, gold refining, or life in general. First it has take literally thousands of years and countless chemist to get to where we are now. Granted in the last 100 years or so we have leapt a great distance with the advancement in technology, however 1 thing will always remain true: When you dissolve metals into solution (especially the metals used in the electronics industry) that solution of metal salts becomes toxic. Secondly don't think for 1 second the "old timers" are not innovating and coming up with new things, as they are. They have a lot more knowledge than you and understand where innovations can be made rather than haphazardly trying something that makes no sense what so ever. Some great innovations have happened by accident, no doubt, however for that advancement to be understood it will take someone with knowledge and experience to study it. Finally you should take a step back sit down and listen and gain experience in what it is you are doing before you go trying to change the world. Eyes and ears open, mouth shut.... that quote in time will eventually make sense to you if you choose to respect people that know more than you.

 

[nickvc]

Though I believe this site is full of very useful information it’s clear that it’s also full of old timers who assume any idea aside from the norm is useless. Innovation and improvement only happens from thinking outside the box.

I will not take umbrage at been classed by you no doubt an old timer as I have probably refined and recovered more gold than you will ever see or handle however I do take umbrage over the fact you assume in your ignorance that no innovation has occurred or thinking outside the box as that is patently untrue if you take the time to study here on the forum.

Use solid logic, safe practices and do things how you feel will best satisfy your curiosity’s. In 30 years there will be more efficacy ways of refining, likely without toxic materials simply because someone tried something that the masters scoffed at. I don’t think anyone should be lax with safety or just try any old thing but assuming tried and true is the best way possible is simply narrow thinking. Progress does not happen when you simply rely on tried and true.

I hate to spoil your dream here of non toxic methods to recover and refine precious metals as they are the least reactive group of metals on the planet and only certain chemicals can break the bonds of these metals down, this is called chemistry, and if such non toxic methods existed I’m fairly certain some very clever refining chemist would already have discovered these methods.
Only once you have mastered the tried and true and fully understood the chemistry could you possibly begin to experiment with any chance of success, over the years we have opened up a very secretive world in which we have revealed and discussed trade secrets some of which were over a hundred years old to the extent that many senior members kept very quiet until the cat was out of the bag even though they knew these methods, that is understandable as it’s what kept them in work and in leading positions in the industry.

Bottom line here is if any innovation is likely to occur then it will be most likely an old timer who makes it or has enough knowledge to grasp the significance of a passing comment from another refiner who was experimenting but failed to see the possibilities.

 

[Shark]

While many here have came up with a "better mouse trap", most come here to learn how to recover/refine gold from various materials. Some even come here to learn ways to recover and/or refine other metals as well. Few come here to invent new ways of doing it as for many just learning the multitude of ways already available is a long and drawn out process as it is. As I see it, I have two choices. I can learn proven methods and gain a known knowledge and maybe some profit or spend more time and money experimenting and searching for new ways to do this. I let those with the knowledge do the experimenting and when they share their gained knowledge I learn from them. I do often adapt ways from other fields to use in various known refining methods just because I can use materials I have access to to get the job done. Even occasionally there are great threads where a group put various thoughts and ideas together and have some success at coming up with that better "mouse trap". It is great to follow along when those discussions come along and I can often pick up a great deal of new information just from others discussions. So many come along with "new" ideas right off and many times over the years there have been many of those just pop in and they are gone again, often because they didn't hear what they wanted to hear. Even a quick search of the forum can show many of these discussions. or even better take a quick read through the "Library" section. There are many fine posts there showing just how willingly members share their knowledge. Also many fine ideas are developed and passed on in the "Build your own equipment" section. All it takes is an open set of eyes and the time to read and study a bit.

 

[niks neims]

Though I believe this site is full of very useful information it’s clear that it’s also full of old timers who assume any idea aside from the norm is useless. Innovation and improvement only happens from thinking outside the box.

Use solid logic, safe practices and do things how you feel will best satisfy your curiosity’s. In 30 years there will be more efficacy ways of refining, likely without toxic materials simply because someone tried something that the masters scoffed at. I don’t think anyone should be lax with safety or just try any old thing but assuming tried and true is the best way possible is simply narrow thinking. Progress does not happen when you simply rely on tried and true.

I think you're right, but it goes far beyond just e-waste refining, for example, you clearly are using your keyboard, computer and internet connection wrong, you should think outside a box and innovate... Come to think of it, even oxygen is being wasted :/

I miss Jon :/

 

[Ohiogoldfever]

We could use a bit of innovation in all things really. I’m still working on bathroom breaks with out removing my pants. So far my findings are less than satisfactory.

In all seriousness I understand the need for someone to understand the chemistry prior to tweaking it to satisfy their own curiosity’s. It is a shame when something is viewed as already completely figured out though. Surly room to grow in this and many other hobbies or otherwise.

 

[markscomp]

Well, It DEPENDS doesnt it?

 

[FrugalRefiner]

Well, It DEPENDS doesnt it?

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[nickvc]

Chemistry has fixed rules and laws and they cannot be changed even with knowledge of the subject which I must admit is huge even on the refining side of it , most reactions within it have been known for centuries and in some case much longer I doubt there is better way to refine than we have already discovered or are using, unfortunately as I pointed out due to the fact that the metals involved are the least reactive they need strong oxidizers or bases to react all of which are highly toxic and in some case such as cyanide deadly and if they will dissolve them then many other metals will also dissolve leaving toxic solutions even after the PMs are removed.
Let’s put it another way the big boys generate billions every year in revenue, they employ some of the best chemists and operators on earth so don’t you think if there was a better cleaner way they would have found it.
The newest refining method now been used was discussed here on the forum but it took a very clever refining chemist to spot its potential but because of the costs it’s simply not of any use to a hobbyist or small time refiner.
If you want to learn this subject and then try to improve on some of it please be my guest and share what you discover that’s what this forum is about but I doubt very much you will discover much.

 

[Yggdrasil]

There is much that can be done with money and technology, it still is chemistry and it has its set rules within the envelope we use it.

I once found a sketch on a refining system which used supercritical liquid to dissolve PMs.
It has of course also its set rules within that specific envelope of temperature and pressure.
It is still chemistry, but out of reach for most of us due to cost, complexity and safety.
And it was an academic paper so it may not be feasible to scale up to production level.

There are still areas that may be improved in the future, due to cheaper technology, better understanding and so on, but most likely it will for the most part be tweaking and not total revolution, all though I would love to be wrong in this respect

 

[butcher]

Thinking outside the box works best when we have a good understanding of the box and what is inside and outside of that box.

Once you gain an understanding for yourself, maybe you can see how much the forum members have with their understanding of the tried and true methods passed down throughout mans history of working with these metals with every generation before them trying to learn and improve the skills they learned from those before them, and add some of their own improvements or improvisions to the processes, you too may begin to see all of the innovation and improvements the forum members have brought here for you to learn from.

Yes after gaining at least some insight into the subject of recovery and refining of metals and learning of the history and how the chemistry workings of these arts and skills and learn what there is to learn of the tried and true, then maybe you too can add some kind of improvement or improvision, or come up with some new idea, just as many members of this forum have.

Why is it that those who do not know anything about the box think it needs changing?
And those who have gained an understanding, and have helped to add improvements are considered ole timers, with ole fashion ideas.

 

[rickbb]

Innovation almost never occurs in giant leaps and bounds by tinkering. It happens gradually building in small steps built on the small steps from the others before you until one day the eureka moment happens.

You cannot think outside a box until you are intimately familiar with the inside of the box and how it's constructed. Until then you don't even know you are in a box.

Look at the light bulb. Everyone thinks it was magically invented by Edison tinkering in his shop, it wasn't. He built on the ideas and developments of a dozen others who were almost successful years before him. (Some records show one was.) He assembled a team of people that worked 12 hour shifts 6 days a week for years before they narrowed it down to a carbonized tungsten filament in a vacuum tube. It was that team going step by slow step until an innovation was born, not tinkering by Edison in a backyard shed.

It will be the same with PM recovery from e-scrap, the "old timers" knowledge being used step by slow step at a time until "eureka".

 

[Ohiogoldfever]

All great points gentlemen. I surely agree with the lions share of these arguments.

I’m certainly not saying a novice is likely to stumble upon that one big game changer, or that tried and true methods should be side stepped and disregarded. Most things in life are just as you say a long difficult road. However in science colossal leaps are often made by the man not constrained by the ridged thinking.

My father has been a master machine tech most his life. Hired and flown around the world because of his ability to repair problems with multimillion dollar machines others couldn’t manage to whip. I respect his understanding of electricity and mechanicals above anyone else. More than one time he has assured me that something wouldn’t work because it fell outside of lens law, or the bounds of thermo dynamics when in truth it was his belief structure was to ridged and new methods are proving to stretch our ability’s or understanding of these “laws” To many years of hard fought rules and ridged circumstances have served him well but also narrowed his path.

All in all guys I’m not saying any of you are wrong. Only saying that the box of known methods just may be shadowing something just outside the realm of standard thinking. No I don’t think the big money science would have figured it already. Two dudes won a Nobel prize for ripping scotch tape off a pencil lead!

I love the forum and am learning a ton reading what you all have accomplished. I’m very grateful for that. Just saying it’s not always in that box. Then again.... it just might be.

 

[g_axelsson]

As the resident physicist I'll have to step in and give some context. The guys who used scotch tape on pencils and received a Nobel price discovered graphene. They were well versed in how the box worked, realized they could find something interesting that way and had the tools and knowledge to interpret the results.
The theory that graphene existed were a theory for decades before Andre Geim and Konstantin Novoselov were at the right place with the right tools and a novel idea. At the outset they wanted to create thin pieces of graphite to study, the goal was to polish graphite down to 10-100 atoms thick but they only managed to get down to 1000 atoms thick pieces. Then they got the brilliant idea to stick this thin sheet of graphite between two pieces of tape, pull them apart, dissolve the tape and if lucky to find a thin enough piece. After a lot of trials they managed to extract graphene and make a number of experiments on it with the tools they had in the lab. The experiments proved that what they had was not only thin, it was a single sheet of graphite, the theoretical material graphene.
So, it wasn't a pencil lead and they didn't get their their Nobel prize for just ripping off tape off graphite.

If I wanted to build a better engine I would first study engineering, physics and chemistry to understand how an engine works. If you study physics and chemistry you will understand why some rules can't be broken. For example we can't create energy from nothing, momentum is conserved, there are a physical limit on how effective an engine can be built, ... and so on.

Maybe you don't agree with the last one and just thinks that I'm trapped inside the box, but that is a real thing. It has to do with the temperature of the gases inside the cylinder and it is a function of the temperature difference between the outside and the fuel burning. 'knowing that the engineers can go on and see what actually is possible to improve, for example to increase the temperature of the burning fuel by adding ceramic protection to the inside of the cylinder. See Carnot cycle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot_cycle

What we are all trying to tell you is that there is nothing wrong with thinking outside of the box but it's a lot easier if you know where the box is. Also, asking for help to think outside of the box when you don't want to learn where the box is will just make people ignore you. We have better things to do than trying to explain why a certain idea is bad.

Göran