Diamond Chip Cleaner (2 Viewers)

[DeLayjf]

I'm all about trying to make a safe mix with baking soda and baking powder

View attachment 5856

Is this the environmentally safer variety to try? I'm all about trying to make a safe mix with baking soda and baking powder. It's all about the chemistry

FYI - baking powder is not the same thing as Sodium Carbonate. However, you can make your own sodium carbonate by heating Sodium Bicarbonate (baking soda) at 200 F for 1 hour.

 

[atomiktoaster]

I'm all about trying to make a safe mix with baking soda and baking powder

FYI - baking powder is not the same thing as Sodium Carbonate. However, you can make your own sodium carbonate by heating Sodium Bicarbonate (baking soda) at 200 F for 1 hour.

You can buy sodium carbonate too. It's called "washing soda". I didn't read the rest of the thread, so I'm not sure if it's a good idea to use washing soda for anything chip related, though.

 

[DeLayjf]

Sodium Carbonate (washing soda) is one of the ingredients of Diamond Chip Cleaner.

 

[K-A]

Sodium Carbonate (washing soda) is one of the ingredients of Diamond Chip Cleaner.

Are you serious ?

 

[DeLayjf]

Yes,

Below is an excerpt from the patent form for DCC posted on post # 3

What is claimed is:
1. A cleaning solution consisting essentially of: sodium bicarbonate; sodium carbonate; and trisodium phosphate in an aqueous solution; wherein a total concentration of the sodium bicarbonate, sodium carbonate and trisodium phosphate, having a molar ratio of approximately 1 to 2.6 to 1.6, respectively, is less than approximately 2.75 percent.

 

[Alex Lundstrum]

Resurrecting a thread from a while back. Has anyone gone through the trouble to try to recreate the solution described in the patent? After reading through the patent, I'm a little bit confused on how the molar ratios are calculated... The patent goes through an example of using ~910 g sodium bicarbonate, ~1930 g sodium carbonate, and ~2270 g trisodium phosphate. If you do the math, this falls out at ratios of 1:1.7:1.3 rather than the stated 1:2.6:1.6...

Any other Chemistry/Chipping nerds out there that have looked into this?

 

[Mental Nomad]

I haven't checked your math or the source, but are you sure you're calculating molar ratios and not mass ratios, or that the patent is clearly indicating which they mean?

 

[Mental Nomad]

Nope, I'm getting the same results as you - 910 g : 1930 g : 2270 g yields molar ratios of 1 : 1.68 : 1.28.
(Using molar masses of 84.01 g/mol, 105.99 g/mol, 163.84 g/mol)

<scratches head>

Want me to run this by my buddy who happens to teach High School Chemistry and Physics?

 

[Alex Lundstrum]

Nope, I'm getting the same results as you - 910 g : 1930 g : 2270 g yields molar ratios of 1 : 1.68 : 1.28.
(Using molar masses of 84.01 g/mol, 105.99 g/mol, 163.84 g/mol)

<scratches head>

Want me to run this by my buddy who happens to teach High School Chemistry and Physics?

Sure. I tried running numbers using a combination of the hydrates of each as well, but the patent explicitly stated that the anhydrous material is to be used...

 

[Tommy]

Want me to run this by my buddy who happens to teach High School Chemistry and Physics?

 

[ovo]

don't forget the secret ingredient they don't list

 

[Blaster]

don't forget the secret ingredient they don't list

 

[Sunshine]

Nope, I'm getting the same results as you - 910 g : 1930 g : 2270 g yields molar ratios of 1 : 1.68 : 1.28.
(Using molar masses of 84.01 g/mol, 105.99 g/mol, 163.84 g/mol)

<scratches head>

Want me to run this by my buddy who happens to teach High School Chemistry and Physics?

No idea if this is the actual explanation, but would it be possible that, in solution, some fraction of the molecules shed a group (ie some of the sodium bicarbonate loses an OH group) and that this impacts the ratios? I only know Physics, my chem knowledge is borderline embarrassing.

 

[Mental Nomad]

No idea if this is the actual explanation, but would it be possible that, in solution, some fraction of the molecules shed a group (ie some of the sodium bicarbonate loses an OH group) and that this impacts the ratios? I only know Physics, my chem knowledge is borderline embarrassing.

I'm not strong enough on my chem to say - that's why I'll run it by the "chemistry teacher..." but I'm pretty sure that sodium cations or hydroxyl radicals, although ionic in solution, would still be considered part of the solute. More importantly, the conversion to molarity means we're counting molecules, not weight, and the number of molecules shouldn't be changing. (Unless I'm wrong.)

 

[Alex Lundstrum]

No idea if this is the actual explanation, but would it be possible that, in solution, some fraction of the molecules shed a group (ie some of the sodium bicarbonate loses an OH group) and that this impacts the ratios? I only know Physics, my chem knowledge is borderline embarrassing.

This was my other thought, that perhaps the bicarb and carbonate form a buffer at a given pH, resulting in some of the bicarb becoming the carbonate. My knowledge of buffer solutions is limited though.

 

[Sunshine]

I'm not strong enough on my chem to say - that's why I'll run it by the "chemistry teacher..." but I'm pretty sure that sodium cations or hydroxyl radicals, although ionic in solution, would still be considered part of the solute. More importantly, the conversion to molarity means we're counting molecules, not weight, and the number of molecules shouldn't be changing. (Unless I'm wrong.)

But if -- to use my totally made up example -- a molecule of sodium bicarbonate loses an OH group, then it's not a molecule of sodium bicarbonate any more. All of the constituent atoms are still around somewhere, but I don't know that it still gets to be counted in the moles of "sodium bicarbonate". Water by itself has separated H and OH; its pH ("power of hydrogen") of 7 in fact refers to how many H are around. So, for all we know, putting this stuff in water could lead to separating OH off bicarbonate, pulling Na off to form NaOH .... etc. etc. until it finally reaches a condition where the rate of a specific "joining" and the contrary "separation" cancel out. The molar ratios may not directly correlate to the way all the constituents were added. This is why I suck at chemistry; lots of things are plausible but I don't have a clue which actually happens.

Somebody have some Physics questions? I can handle those.

 

[Mental Nomad]

This was my other thought, that perhaps the bicarb and carbonate form a buffer at a given pH, resulting in some of the bicarb becoming the carbonate. My knowledge of buffer solutions is limited though.

I was worried about whether the powders would absorb humidity from the air, implying that part of the gram weight of powder was actually additional water. (Mix of pure molecule and hydrate? Or something?)

But if -- to use my totally made up example -- a molecule of sodium bicarbonate loses an OH group, then it's not a molecule of sodium bicarbonate any more. All of the constituent atoms are still around somewhere, but I don't know that it still gets to be counted in the moles of "sodium bicarbonate". Water by itself has separated H and OH; its pH ("power of hydrogen") of 7 in fact refers to how many H are around. So, for all we know, putting this stuff in water could lead to separating OH off bicarbonate, pulling Na off to form NaOH .... etc. etc. until it finally reaches a condition where the rate of a specific "joining" and the contrary "separation" cancel out. The molar ratios may not directly correlate to the way all the constituents were added. This is why I suck at chemistry; lots of things are plausible but I don't have a clue which actually happens.

Somebody have some Physics questions? I can handle those.

But Ph-neutral water has an equal (and balancing) number of OH- and H+ floating around. If there are 1,000 moles of water molecules, and 1 mole of OH-, there will also be 1 mole of H+, if all that went into the container is water.

If you add 1 mole of sodium bicarb, and 1 mole of sodium carbonate, your solution will necessarily have 3 moles of sodium ions (one from each sodium bicarb, and two from each sodium carbonate), and 2 moles of carbon (1 from each bicarb and carbonate). Now, the 1 mole bicarbonate in solution - how much of that may break out as CO2? Depends on acidity. And the 1 mole of carbonic acide from the sodium carbonate - how stable is that? I dunno... and if you mix it with the bicarbonate, I get confused. But I think the total count of moles of 3 moles of sodium and 2 moles of carbon don't change, unless carbon dioxide starts bubbling off, which it shouldn't, unless you introduce a bunch of unbalanced H- in the form of an outside acid. So the molarity should stand still.

I think.

The "chemistry teacher" should be out of "school" soon, and he'll be home "grading papers" after he eats. We may go to the gym to "lift weights" together, and I'll ask him about this.

 

[daschuck77]

Sounds like a bunch of hocus-pocus, fancy talk, and rocket surgery. Just learn me how to clean my chips good.

 

[Mental Nomad]

The word from The Chemist:

This formulation is trying to create a solution which is a buffer that is trying to make a precise pH - just slightly alkaline. He says, "the phosphate ions, carbonate ions, and bicarbonate ions bind with free hydrogens in the water to allow hydroxides to accumulate." The buffer keeps the solution mildly alkaline as the hydroxides get used up (presumably in attaching themselves to grunge.)

The formula in the patent - the masses listed - will not result in the molar ratios in the patent. The resulting molar ratio is 1 to 1.68 to 1.28.

He can't guess whether we should target the recipe in the patent (the masses listed), or the molar ratio in the patent. He suggests trying both on cheap chips to see which works.

We can try the formula in the recipe (scaled down by 1/208 to make a one-liter batch) as a test of the 1 to 1.68 to 1.28 solution.... And try an alternate formula to create an actual 1 to 2.6 to 1.6 solution. For this, The Chemist recommends "4.36 g of sodium bicarbonate, 9.28 g of sodium carbonate, and 10.9 g of sodium phosphate combined with 1 liter of water. Heat the water gently and stir constantly." He's not sure it will all dissolve for either formulation.

This makes sense, given the method described in the patent:

In some embodiments of the present invention, it has additionally been found advantageous to formulate the present cleaning solution in a particular manner. Thus in some embodiments, the appropriate amount of sodium bicarbonate (SB) is added to deionized, softened or RO water and stirred until dissolved. While SB is known to be quite soluble in water, it has been found to be advantageous to add the SB to water that has been warmed to between 30 to 40 degrees Celsius (°C) to hasten dissolution. Once the SB is dissolved, the appropriate amount of sodium carbonate (SC) is added to the SB solution, again with stirring. Upon addition of the SC, it will be noted that a hazy solution is obtained, and that even after prolonged stirring, the solution does not become fully clear. Finally the appropriate amount of trisodium phosphate (TSP) is added to the mixture of SB and SC, again with stirring. It will be noted that after addition of the TSP, in a short time (a few minutes) the mixture becomes clear, denoting a true solution of the three components.

So, who's going to try?

 

[Alex Lundstrum]

The word from The Chemist:

This formulation is trying to create a solution which is a buffer that is trying to make a precise pH - just slightly alkaline. He says, "the phosphate ions, carbonate ions, and bicarbonate ions bind with free hydrogens in the water to allow hydroxides to accumulate." The buffer keeps the solution mildly alkaline as the hydroxides get used up (presumably in attaching themselves to grunge.)

The formula in the patent - the masses listed - will not result in the molar ratios in the patent. The resulting molar ratio is 1 to 1.68 to 1.28.

He can't guess whether we should target the recipe in the patent (the masses listed), or the molar ratio in the patent. He suggests trying both on cheap chips to see which works.

We can try the formula in the recipe (scaled down by 1/208 to make a one-liter batch) as a test of the 1 to 1.68 to 1.28 solution.... And try an alternate formula to create an actual 1 to 2.6 to 1.6 solution. For this, The Chemist recommends "4.36 g of sodium bicarbonate, 9.28 g of sodium carbonate, and 10.9 g of sodium phosphate combined with 1 liter of water. Heat the water gently and stir constantly." He's not sure it will all dissolve for either formulation.

This makes sense, given the method described in the patent:

In some embodiments of the present invention, it has additionally been found advantageous to formulate the present cleaning solution in a particular manner. Thus in some embodiments, the appropriate amount of sodium bicarbonate (SB) is added to deionized, softened or RO water and stirred until dissolved. While SB is known to be quite soluble in water, it has been found to be advantageous to add the SB to water that has been warmed to between 30 to 40 degrees Celsius (°C) to hasten dissolution. Once the SB is dissolved, the appropriate amount of sodium carbonate (SC) is added to the SB solution, again with stirring. Upon addition of the SC, it will be noted that a hazy solution is obtained, and that even after prolonged stirring, the solution does not become fully clear. Finally the appropriate amount of trisodium phosphate (TSP) is added to the mixture of SB and SC, again with stirring. It will be noted that after addition of the TSP, in a short time (a few minutes) the mixture becomes clear, denoting a true solution of the three components.

So, who's going to try?

I haven't yet received my chips, but I'd be up to try, albeit with cheap versions of the ingredients. If anyone knows of anyone with access to reagent grade chemicals, would be a very interesting experiment.

 

[Mental Nomad]

My friend offered to mix up a batch in the lab, but I have no need... my clays are clean, and I've only got ceramics in the pipeline (I'm in the Boardwalk Group Buy.)

TSP might be the tricky part - Savogran TSP, as sold for cleaning walls at Home Depot, contains 20% to 25% sodium sesquicarbonate and 75%-80% trisodium phosphate dodecahydrate. I think it's formulated as the hydrate so they can sell it in a cardboard box and not worry about humidity.

Food grade TSP looks to be pure TSP; $10 for 113 grams (shipped): https://www.amazon.com/TriSodium-Ph...qid=1480386851&sr=8-1&keywords=food+grade+tsp

Also, he edumacated me that sodium phosphate = trisodium phosphate; it's Na3PO4, either way. There's no NaPO4... There are a couple of NaXXPO4s, but they all have names other than sodium phosphate, depending on what X is thrown in instead of the other sodiums.

 

[Alex Lundstrum]

I'll likely use the savogran. The TSP is a dodecahydrate, but the sesquicarbonate is anhydrous, according to the company president (emailed him). Past that I'll likely be using baking soda and washing soda. I'll try to post results once I have them.

 

[Mental Nomad]

I'll likely use the savogran. The TSP is a dodecahydrate, but the sesquicarbonate is anhydrous, according to the company president (emailed him). Past that I'll likely be using baking soda and washing soda. I'll try to post results once I have them.

If you want, post your mass calculations for the molarity ratio targets and I'll run it by The Chemist for confirmation.

 

[Alex Lundstrum]

So, after looking at this patent a bit more, noticed its date is Jun. 16, 1998. I thought patents were 17 years, but turns out in 1995 they switched it to 20 years (must have started taking longer to get them). Thus, legally, I'm technically not allowed to try to mimic this formula for another 1.5 years... Will have to follow up with results on Jun. 17, 2018. Until then, we'll have to be content with just using store-purchased TSP concoctions.

 

[DJ Mack]

Just let us know if you're a happy guy or not.

 

[Blaster]

".... and I'll run it by The Chemist for confirmation."

Just an aside to this thread topic, if you, or that Chemist you have locked in your underground lair , was able to grind up & analyze a recent Paulson chip to determine what exact substances ( metals, minerals, plastics) they were composed of, ... as a chip enthusiast, I'd love to see that info, ( as would 91.7613% of members here), even if the list were not able to be complete or ratio specific .. Not sure if a spectrum analyzer or what equipment the Chemist would need to have ... I'd gladly donate the chip..

 

[Mental Nomad]

Just an aside to this thread topic, if you, or that Chemist you have locked in your underground lair , was able to grind up & analyze a recent Paulson chip to determine what exact substances ( metals, minerals, plastics) they were composed of, ... as a chip enthusiast, I'd love to see that info, ( as would 91.7613% of members here), even if the list were not able to be complete or ratio specific .. Not sure if a spectrum analyzer or what equipment the Chemist would need to have ... I'd gladly donate the chip..

I have another friend who does spectroscopy all day... but time on his equipment is not cheap, and posting that sort of information is dramatically more likely to lead to legal troubles than making one's own DIY Diamond Chip Cleaner. With DIYDCC, you're not revealing trade secrets, and if you're not selling the stuff or running a poker game for profit, you have no revenue from which they could reasonably expect to pull damages. But revealing trade secrets on the Paulson formula? That could lead to trouble...

 

[Taghkanic]

I’m not a lawyer... But I have worked with a lot of lawyers. And my layman’s impression is that if you replicate a formula or analyze the composition of a product for your own education or personal use, it seems unlikely that you would be in any legal trouble. If you started marketing a competing product based on that same formula, obviously that would be different.

Imagine if you had a nut allergy. You buy a product that says on the label “contains no nuts!” You eat it and have a reaction. I’d guess you have every right to have the product analyzed, and even to publish the results.

But again: I am not a lawyer...

 

[Blaster]

I’m not a lawyer...

But again: I am not a lawyer...

 

[MD Mike]

Does using TSP without an ultrasonic machine still clean really well just soaking and agitating?