Hi Jason, Excellent experiment! You've probably got at least 100 You-Tubers that would love to be your "lab" assistant! Your down-to-earth explanations make you a pleasure to watch and learn from!! You're a GREAT teacher! Thank You for all your hard work & research! Stay Safe! Jim
In 1977 I worked in a gold mill. Knob Hill mining Republic Wa. This is how we process the ore to recover 99% of the gold. After the crusher and clarifier the very fine ore was put into some solution that included pine oil. The pine oil frothed up making foam. On top of the foam you could see lots of trails of gold. Really they often were "gold bubbles". Paddles with air bladders would rotate, horizontally, through the foam, slopping it over the outside edge of the container. This "concentrate" would fall to the floor of a locked room below. Thsi would go straight to the smelter. When I first saw in the room the concentrate had been shaped into a long row wall to wall about a foot wide at the top and about 6-8 inches deep. The sides we sharply slopped so an accurate measurement could be taken. The next step is where I took over. The muddy solution that was left over (about the density of a thin milk shake) was sent to two large cylindrical containers. Chemicals were added here and then the solution was sent to many other vats of similar sizes until it ended up at the thicker. The "thicker" is the same as they use in a sewage treatment plant. 60' foot across and 3 stories high. The gold was suspended and reduced to a particular size using cyanide. This (clear as drinking water) "Preg" (for "pregnant" with gold) would spill over the side at the top. It would then be combined with zinc in some vacuum chamber. After this the only thing left was gold, silver, zinc particles that combined at a very exact size. This was ran through four locked tanks that held "sock" like bags. (we called it the bag tanks) 144 socks in each of the four tanks. When removed the each held about 10-12 inches of this gold rich concentrate. The water was then pumped back up to the mine. I always thought the process was facinating.
@@EngGuy63 Metalogical meaning : metals being examined in a logical procedure. My latest word creation. Can be used in metallurgy or chemistry or physical properties. You have my permission to use it appropriately.
I'm going to brainstorm. The insulation on the furnace is lacking. The flame needs a short run to burn then contact the crucible. The incoming air needs to blow upwards, surrounding the burner to keep it from melting. Use enough air to combust the gas, any excess will cool the crucible. A stainless sheet around the crucible will reflect heat in. Insulate the outside. A thick piece of cast for the lid. A chimney to outside. Carbon monoxide is poisonous. So are metal fumes etc. Just some ideas for a permanent furnace. Love watching. Great show!
Have you tried a similar test with litharge instead of lead? If the gold particles are very small (likely in sulfides) they will have trouble settling through the slag to the lead. We have a problem with vaporization from the resin, up to 50% losses if we ash first. However with a litharge fire assay we get good agreement with the solution mass balance and XRF of the resin. Freezing up for the season tomorrow, so we will move from the mine and mill to the lab for the winter.
I am a geologist at a underground gold mine with a similar hydrothermal low sulfidation qtz vein and agree 100%, while you are seeing free milling gold in the samples theres likely tons more gold bonded with sulfides and possibly telluride complexes as well. Would love to see a video of litharge vs pure lead. Love the vids as always, thank you Jason!!
Another factor driving the choice of chemical is your desired environment within the crucible. If you want a reducing atmosphere with the crucible, then you would certainly use the carbonate. The CO2 will be heavier than atmospheric oxygen and act as a barrier to intrusion into your melt. If you desired an oxygenating environment, then the carbonate would be counter productive.
I really appreciate your doing these experiments. They answered some questions I had. Please continue with the experiments, as I find them very educational. Thanks.
Good experiment - and a good outcome - confirms that it doesn't matter what the starting compounds are it's the flux composition that matters. I wish more people understood how to set up experiments. Pick a hypothesis and try and _disprove_ it. Fail early and fail often. Eliminating things that DON'T work is much faster than trying to get it right first time.
This the only way I reach out to others. Choose some one else. I’m in for the pure enjoyment.watching others do what they do best. Thank you any way. Mike
Really good work Jason. I too was hoping for a richer sample, however I have some low grade stuff that I may recover in a similar way. Glad it seems like there’s little difference in the recipe results. Terrific, enjoyed, thanks sir ✌️PT
As always enjoyed the video thank you if I ever hit the motherload I'm going to hire you to melt my gold and teach me and I'll give you 50% as always I enjoyed thank you for the video and teaching me how to do this I appreciate it can't wait for the next one
I would suggest redoing it on a bigger scale. If they are the same then you might as well use the one that requires less to get the job done. only problem is without a known quantity of precious metal you don't know what your recovery rate is.
For a while, in industry, the off gasses from roasting sulphide ores was the principal source of sulphur dioxide that was then oxidised on a platinum catalyst to make sulphuric acid, without which the motor car just wouldn't start.
Jason, I saw a test report of flux ratio between na2co3 and naoh long time ago. Flux wise, 5% naoh + 95% na2co3 combination is the best recovery in the report. (Raw material is deselnized anodic slime)
I know it’s a lot of work and not really worth it but would you ever do a gold/silver button separation? As well as showing how to get the silver back from the nitric acid? Thank you so much for all the videos I have learned so much!
While the recovery is reasonably close I have to ask 2 questions. 1) which costs more to get? If the sodium hydroxide winds up costing more you aren't really saving anything even using less of it, the amount is not that big a difference for your use. 2) if the costs are comparable so the sodium hydroxide is costing about the same, which outgas would you prefer? The co2 which is a hothouse gas or the water vapour which has a cooling effect? Yes the actual amounts are small so it isn't really a big concern for MBMM but the answers might change some viewers plans.
I agree with you 200% I think 20 muleteam borax has it's place. And it boils like mad. I Wrote Jason this . Jason, I have been told that sodium makes for silver losses. It destroys platinum too. The only recipe for platinum I can find is 10 to 1 borax. Now I ask you, how much silver is lost? any gold lost? The oxidizer? burning up stuff. Where is the flour or charcoal. Where is the reducing atmosphere? You use an OXIDOZER. I think if you look into the boiling point/burning point of sodium is near the temps you use. I have heard of guys using lower temps/longer times? and getting better returns. You can't have metal AND burn it. A traditional Turkish goldsmith would take a round clay coffee cup looking thing and layer silver powder and then screened charcoal. Multiple layers and then covered with a lid of damp clay.. Now that's a reducing atmosphere. You need to look up David Hudson, Oremus on you tube. Mono atonic gold has an S5 orbital or something that makes it act like a halogen (Sodium and chlorine are halogens/) You couldn't forge anything out of that. It burns up. My guys use resin to dissolve the gold. But burn up the gold getting it out. Same deal on the arsenic / acid then put into charcoal. How to get it out of the charcoal without burning it up. I have a prospector playlist that has it if you can't find David Hudson. Yellow metal of gold is AU2. AU is white or black or green and possibly clear , depending on how it is annealed. It's a rabbit hole bud. Thanks for your great videos
I do believe in REFINING. dunking the lead back in. But with all the sodium and heat.....you can triple your losses. What if you didn't dunk it in. Use 30g lead each time. Try a borax control smelt and compare?
Frothing and bumping play merry hell with any reaction, whatever the temperature . At much lower temps where standard glassware is used , it will at least contaminate distillations , and even destroy your glassware . Testament to just how much energy is in play even in everyday things like a boiling pan of water or a vehicles coolant system . Also , the CO2 makes the reaction more acidic , at least until it all off gasses . You should see little difference in recovery efficiency with most sulfide ores between the CaCo3 and the CaOH .
With so much lead used per smelt vs recovered goal metals, could you use the lead button as a collector for many smells, without pupelling it each time?
Hi Jason, I have some sulfides that I want to smelt. They’re mostly made up of Galena, Pyrite and minor amounts of Chalcopyrite. How did you determine how many moles of sodium hydroxide to use based on your cons?
Hi Jason , I just referred you to Minor 49er , looking at a mine he has been into recently, looking at the walls color looked really good I mentioned to him to take samples, I'm sure he needs help with that kind of stuff .. I instantly thought of you... hope he takes my advice and contacts you... R/Steve
I don't go to sites that say Text me at another place. I think it's a scam. Pioneer Pauley had the same problem with that... So sorry look for another sucker.
The recipe for Platinum smelt is 10 to one borax. No sodium. It burns platinum I am seriously squinting at the sodium I am using.. How much burned up the exhaust? I heard it may hurt the silver too. Gold? Who knows? i think it has to do with the boiling point of sodium.sodiom bicarbonate boils a 2912 F
Hi Jason, the only way to do an accurate test is to have samples with known quantities in them. Then you can measure after the test and see how much has been recovered. Does it help to pour the molten metal/flux quicker in to the test mold? For some reason it seems to me that more flux flowing with the metal rather than less flux would recover more metal. How porous does the crucible get? It looks rough making it tougher to pour from.
Asking just out of curiosity, not a criticism, but isn't this chemistry well-known after hundreds of years of recovering gold from ore? Or have large operations all done something different (like cyanide leaching) so this isn't as well understood as it could be? Enjoy the videos!
I don't think there is a "best" flux or method. I think it all depends on the chemistry of the ore and as that changes so will the flux. There's likely a very good middle ground/average but I doubt there is a one size fits all recipe.
Interesting to see some original ore. I have a vein of sulfides that is easy to get to and assays 0.08/ton on the relatively clean sulfides. Have always wondered if that one is able to be made into some profit.
@@paulcoover9197 1 percent of a ton is 20 lbs but the grade reported is 8/100s of an ounce per ton or about three grams. With buyers margin you could figure 120 per ton which might be great if a huge volume and a big company could be intrested. But for a small miner diging a ton a day 120 if perfect recovery minus costs is just about wages
Wondering if you can reclaim the lead from the used cupel? I reclaim lead oxide (dross) back to pure pb using carbon (sawdust) to remove the O atoms releasing Co2 in my bullet casting operations
