uncertain of results

Gold Refining Forum

Help Support Gold Refining Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Yes sir Geo. I am fully aware of how to make the SnCl test solution. What I am not sure of however, is the white powder I bought that states that it is stannous chloride. I was curious if there is a way I can test some items I have lying around that I suspect are made of tin. My wife's cupcake hobby won't like it but they come dime a dozen. When I use the "SnCl" that I have, it turns a piss yellow. Not like a dehydrated piss but a medium piss. Not orange, not clear, but an in between yellow. Like how pee usually looks 90% of the time.
 
Do you not have a small bottle of auric chloride with which to test your testing solution? If not you should make some to have on hand to test your SnCl for viability. You can't use a test solution if it itself is in question. With your background you know that to be true. Just a thought.
Use Geos' advice and simply make some SnCl with 95/5 solder and HCl.
 
No disrespect meant but a background in most sciences means Jack when it comes to recovering and refining precious metals. It can help but also hinder as practical chemistry is not always as cooperative as theoretical chemistry and your belief in theoretical science can blind you to things that actually occur. Put your degree in the bin and study if you want to succeed at refining, it's not hard but it's a different subject, your mindset needs to adjust to a new challenge and a new set of rules, the basics of which are nicely outlined by Ms.Hoke and fully explored and explained here on the forum by people who bummed out on most science lessons but can recover and refine just about most value bearing materials. I'm no expert and will bow my head in shame to the amount I don't know about this subject but I will listen and I do learn,albeit slowly, and I have been in the business in every sense of the word probably longer than you have been alive.
 
WallaceFish said:
I have some things here that I suspect are fasioned from tin. Is there any way that I can confirm this?
Tin, when bent, squeaks.


than a total XXXXup.
What is it, a bad phase of the moon?
We do not use that kind of language on this forum. If you hope to remain a reader, lose it, and do it quickly.
No religion, no politics and no vulgar language. I'm going to start banning those who seem to think they are exempt.

All of you-----


CLEAN UP YOUR LANGUAGE. I AM NOT GOING TO POST FURTHER WARNINGS---I'M SIMPLY GOING TO START BANNING FOLKS WITH A POTTY MOUTH.

Harold
 
sometimes you buy something packaged with a pretty bow and it turns out to be something other than what you thought. we have a member that was making standard test solution and bought a couple of grains of Pt from an individual on Ebay, the Pt turned out to be Pd. try something that you are very sure of.plumbers solder labeled 95/5 tin/antimony solder works great. the 5% antimony will not dissolve in hcl, or at least does so very slowly.
 
Harold, thanks for the tip on identifying tin. As for my language; I thought I was using sensorship while still conveying what I was thinking. I'll be sure to keep that in mind in my future posts. No need to consider banning me. One request to adjust my verbage will suffice.

Geo, I took some of the HCl I used to wash my gold powder from my last run, and tested it with the questionable SnCl. Result: a little more than faint purple hue on the swab. I then tested on spent AR solution from last run and no change. I tested current AR solution and still getting a pee yellow. So I guess it is safe to say that my SnCl IS in fact doing its intended duty. So now that I have that issue cleared up, I took some samples of the shot that I did not do anything with yet, and looked at them under my scope. There is visible Au on this slag. I am convinced with 99.999% confidence that the last stuff I ran through had no gold in it or perhaps so little in comparison to BM that it was simply undetectable. In reading the book, I vaguely remember it mentioning something to this affect. This is what I mean when I said I can read the book cover to cover. But if I don't witness these things in a lab, it does not register completely. That's just my learning style.

Nick, you are right. These are two very different disciplines of science that rarely overlap if at all. But there are standards between the two that don't change at all, across the board. Like lab practices that ensure safety and quality control. This is an angle where I consider myself already a step ahead. Now don't get me wrong. That doesn't mean I think I am exempt from the need of any further knowlege. To put it in most basic terms I can think of... if you take, say a UPS truck driver, never seen a full scale lab except for high school maybe. We'll rank him a 0 on the refining scale. Now take an individual that has 30 yrs+ experience and put him at a 10. Because PM refining encompasses knowlege of many different aspects, of which I would say I am very familiar with a few, I would say I am right off the bat a 2 or 3. Thus, I don't want to deal with redundancies in these areas. I really just want to skip to what I don't know yet. No disrespect taken. Just want all to know my level of background for the above reasons.
 
Geo, I took some of the HCl I used to wash my gold powder from my last run, and tested it with the questionable SnCl. Result: a little more than faint purple hue on the swab. I then tested on spent AR solution from last run and no change. I tested current AR solution and still getting a pee yellow. So I guess it is safe to say that my SnCl IS in fact doing its intended duty.

However, you should still make an AuCl solution and keep it to test your SnCl before use to make sure of its quality. Otherwise you can easily lose values. Also one for Pd,Pt etc. if you intend on dealing with these elements.
 
you can test against a known source of gold solution. dissolve a couple of grains of gold in what ever solution you prefer, either AR or hcl/Cl and keep it in a glass bottle as a standard for your stannous chloride.the investment of the $15.00 or so of gold can help eliminate alot of headaches in the future.
 
Please take this again in the manner it's meant.
In honesty it easier to teach a complete newbie the right ways if they have the right attitude than try to re educate someone who has some chemical knowledge, reason is they accept that the masters here on the forum and the teachings of Hoke will get them to their desired goal in the safest and fastest manner and don't try to re invent the wheel or argue because they think they know better.
Forget what you think you know and go back to basics, read Hoke, it's a brilliant easy to understand guide to recovery and refining precious metals, it teaches testing techniques and gives some good easy steps to get you started slowly and safely, if you have a background in lab work or chemistry it's like doing a refresher course that re focuses your mind to the processes and methods commonly used, it also covers PGMs and that is far from easy to master but with the book and help here on the forum it's possible for even a truck driver or an office worker to refine them.
We have a huge variety of people of all ages,cultures,sex and diverse occupations many of whom would honestly say they struggle to write quickly or coherently in their native tongue but who would run rings round me in actual refining and recovery and I ran my own commercial refinery for many years.
I learn something virtually everyday I come onto the forum, this is one very very big subject and I'd bet no one knows it all, even our moderators many of whom have spent a lifetime refining discover new things on here. This is a very much a hands on getting down and dirty science and while books give you a good background actual experience will beat them hands down but you need the basics first to have an understanding of what you are doing and what reaction to expect. If as you say you have a chemistry background it's a good start but don't neglect the basics or it might come back to haunt you.
 
WallaceFish said:
Indeed Maynman. This would be good practice. Would you have any disagreement regarding my methods of proving my current SnCl solution?

It's questionable and where there is question there is doubt. I myself would want to know for sure (where values may be involved) that my testing solution was viable. I'm on a very low budget and am trying to get every grain possible from my work. But if you are using a stock pot correctly, most all of your values should be recovered eventually. Just my opinion.
 
I made an AuCl solution using the first foils I got from my very first processing of edge fingers. That same solution still works more than 2 years later for testing my Stannous Chloride solution.

It now has little chunks of rubber floating about in it from one of the eye droppers that didn't get changed out quickly enough, but it still works fine. It has LONG outlasted several batches of Stannous Chloride.

It is still one of the most valuable items in my growing lab. It only cost a dollar or two worth of my gold to give me the peace of mind I need when discarding solutions.
 
maynman1751 said:
WallaceFish said:
Indeed Maynman. This would be good practice. Would you have any disagreement regarding my methods of proving my current SnCl solution?

It's questionable and where there is question there is doubt. I myself would want to know for sure (where values may be involved) that my testing solution was viable. I'm on a very low budget and am trying to get every grain possible from my work. But if you are using a stock pot correctly, most all of your values should be recovered eventually. Just my opinion.
So... Just to clarify here. I DID in fact test a KNOWN gold pregnant solution with the "questionable" SnCl. That gave me a POSITIVE result for Au. So from that, I gather my SnCl is authentic. I am still somwhat unclear of what you are saying. Are you saying I should test against another known gold bearing solution? Are you saying you DO disagree with my methods taken in proving the SnCl? Or is the fact that I'm getting a strange reading from the AR solution? Please, might you expand on that a bit?

nickvc said:
Please take this again in the manner it's meant.
In honesty it easier to teach a complete newbie the right ways if they have the right attitude than try to re educate someone who has some chemical knowledge, reason is they accept that the masters here on the forum and the teachings of Hoke will get them to their desired goal in the safest and fastest manner and don't try to re invent the wheel or argue because they think they know better.
Forget what you think you know and go back to basics, read Hoke, it's a brilliant easy to understand guide to recovery and refining precious metals, it teaches testing techniques and gives some good easy steps to get you started slowly and safely, if you have a background in lab work or chemistry it's like doing a refresher course that re focuses your mind to the processes and methods commonly used, it also covers PGMs and that is far from easy to master but with the book and help here on the forum it's possible for even a truck driver or an office worker to refine them.
We have a huge variety of people of all ages,cultures,sex and diverse occupations many of whom would honestly say they struggle to write quickly or coherently in their native tongue but who would run rings round me in actual refining and recovery and I ran my own commercial refinery for many years.
I learn something virtually everyday I come onto the forum, this is one very very big subject and I'd bet no one knows it all, even our moderators many of whom have spent a lifetime refining discover new things on here. This is a very much a hands on getting down and dirty science and while books give you a good background actual experience will beat them hands down but you need the basics first to have an understanding of what you are doing and what reaction to expect. If as you say you have a chemistry background it's a good start but don't neglect the basics or it might come back to haunt you.
Nick, Absolutely understand what you are saying. And I could see where in many cases that would certainly apply.
 
gold4mike said:
I made an AuCl solution using the first foils I got from my very first processing of edge fingers. That same solution still works more than 2 years later for testing my Stannous Chloride solution.

It now has little chunks of rubber floating about in it from one of the eye droppers that didn't get changed out quickly enough, but it still works fine. It has LONG outlasted several batches of Stannous Chloride.

It is still one of the most valuable items in my growing lab. It only cost a dollar or two worth of my gold to give me the peace of mind I need when discarding solutions.
I highly commend you for your wisdom.
It never ceases to amaze me that some folks can't see the wisdom in testing. It's even more confusing to encounter folks that simply assume that the tests they perform are factual. Without a standard solution to test stannous chloride, that certainly is the case.

There's many simple processes that one can employ to ensure that they are getting proper results. When I refined, I had a series of tests I performed on solutions. I wanted to know exactly what I was dealing with, leaving nothing to chance. I even tested for iron on occasion, when I wasn't comfortable that the results I witnessed were in keeping with reality. Hoke details how to test for iron, if you're interested.

Unless given a reason, standard solutions of metals should remain viable until fully consumed. I had a platinum solution that was many years old, and still functioned as it should.

Harold
 
So... Just to clarify here. I DID in fact test a KNOWN gold pregnant solution with the "questionable" SnCl. That gave me a POSITIVE result for Au. So from that, I gather my SnCl is authentic. I am still somwhat unclear of what you are saying. Are you saying I should test against another known gold bearing solution? Are you saying you DO disagree with my methods taken in proving the SnCl? Or is the fact that I'm getting a strange reading from the AR solution? Please, might you expand on that a bit?

One fact is that you did get a strange reading from your AR. If you are sure of your known gold solution and satisfied with your test that's fine. I'm just saying that you should keep a known solution(s) that you use strictly for testing the quality of your test solution so there is no margin for error. That's all! Better safe than sorry!
 
Yes maynman, I am very sure of my KGS. Just needed reasurance from someone with more experience than I. Thank you! So any idea of what yellow means as a test result? Can't find anything stating other than the purple, orange, multi-color, ect. Nothing says what yellow is... LOL

Edit: Or if it does mention it somewhere, I missed it.
 
Well I don't have all that much experience myself. I just repeat what I know as fact that I have learned on this forum. The SnCl test is your eyes into your solution and it doesn't lie although you CAN get false results under certain conditions.
Maybe someone else can give you an answer about the yellow test result.
 
this may not be your culprit, but, even though stannous chloride is hcl and tin and the solution is clear, if you test a hcl solution that has a high percentage of tin in solution it can stain your test yellow. as well as zinc and lead. is there a needle like precipitation in the solution? (short, pointed,thin,cylindrical)
 
WallaceFish said:
Yes maynman, I am very sure of my KGS. Just needed reasurance from someone with more experience than I. Thank you! So any idea of what yellow means as a test result? Can't find anything stating other than the purple, orange, multi-color, ect. Nothing says what yellow is... LOL

Edit: Or if it does mention it somewhere, I missed it.
A trace of platinum in solution may well test yellow with stannous chloride. Needless to say, the level of concentration will make a big difference, right down to a coffee colored reaction if the concentration level is high enough.

Please take note that ect is not a word. If you are attempting to use the contraction for the words et cetera, it is properly spelled etc. We strive for correctness on this forum. Nothing personal----I speak out on this regularly.

Harold
 
Geo said:
this may not be your culprit, but, even though stannous chloride is hcl and tin and the solution is clear, if you test a hcl solution that has a high percentage of tin in solution it can stain your test yellow. as well as zinc and lead. is there a needle like precipitation in the solution? (short, pointed,thin,cylindrical)

Geo, there is no cylindrical precipitation in the solution. I have since, added a piece of this "gold plated" jewelry to a vessel with some nitric. The result was this: Noticable flakes of gold accumilated around the edges of my Griffin beaker, as well as some settling to the bottom. I am talking very tiny visible amounts. As the Nitric began to work on the BM's a grayish to white powder formed on the bottom, covering the visible gold. The resulting reaction has made an aquamarine solution, but as I stated before, the bottom is covered in a layer of grayish white powder which is hiding the gold. This is NOT explained in the book. I know in the beginning it tells you to observe the behavior of mostly pure metals in different environments, however I wanted to take observation of this specific jewelry as I have a large sum of it. Thanks in advance for any expansion on this.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top