PDA

View Full Version : What If Someone Figured Out How To Create Gold In A Lab?



SevenEyedJeff
12-31-2009, 11:29 PM
What would you think if a process of producing gold in a lab were discovered (by molecular manipulation or the like) and it could be created in abundance with relatively low cost materials? What a technological advance it would be, to create a fiat currency out of gold! :D

Highly doubtful, but WHAT IF?

MaxGravy
12-31-2009, 11:31 PM
What would you think if a process of producing gold in a lab were discovered (by molecular manipulation or the like) and it could be created in abundance with relatively low cost materials? What a technological advance it would be, to create a fiat currency out of gold! :D

Highly doubtful, but WHAT IF?

Then I would invest in the public offering. However, IMO, not so likely.

Stormdancer
12-31-2009, 11:32 PM
What would you think if a process of producing gold in a lab were discovered (by molecular manipulation or the like) and it could be created in abundance with relatively low cost materials? What a technological advance it would be, to create a fiat currency out of gold! :D

Highly doubtful, but WHAT IF?


Then Lenin's prediction would become reality at long last. Due to the superior corrosion resistance and natural beauty, we'd use it to make urinals :)

jamstigator
12-31-2009, 11:47 PM
They've done it already. If you bombard heavier-than-gold elements with neutrons, eventually some small percentage of the heavier atoms will split and lose exactly enough protons to become gold. Now, I didn't say it was cost effective to do it - it's not and probably never will be. Nor is it at all reliable, as luck is involved.

DayStar
12-31-2009, 11:49 PM
What would you think if a process of producing gold in a lab were discovered (by molecular manipulation or the like) and it could be created in abundance with relatively low cost materials? What a technological advance it would be, to create a fiat currency out of gold! :D

Highly doubtful, but WHAT IF?

What if someone learned to print money on a printing press? :) You reckon it might dilute the value of money? Actually, we can make gold in a cyclotron, but it is too expensive to make it practical. Also, there are gazillions of tons of gold in seawater, but it is too expensive to get it out.

DayStar

SyncMaster
12-31-2009, 11:55 PM
"They" already did...it's called Tungsten.:eek:

jms7226
12-31-2009, 11:55 PM
What would you think if a process of producing gold in a lab were discovered (by molecular manipulation or the like) and it could be created in abundance with relatively low cost materials? What a technological advance it would be, to create a fiat currency out of gold! :D

Highly doubtful, but WHAT IF?

Ummm they already did.

Welcome to the future folks.

Nuclear experiments have successfully transmuted lead into gold, but the expense far exceeds any gain.

Also it is very radioactive, not sure if we want to wear lead suit to carry our gold.
But then again…..


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_transmutation

Just a matter of time and you'll have your solid gold what ever.

Don't panic the energy / cost required to do this on any scale will not happen soon your stacks are safe...

For now:eek:

Macca38
01-01-2010, 12:06 AM
Maybe when they can do this economically.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgfbjHz_UTo&feature=related

Cheers

SevenEyedJeff
01-01-2010, 12:14 AM
I found an interesting read on this....

>>> blog.modernmechanix.com/2007/06/16/us-alchemists-make-gold
Hope you don't have any radioactive gold in your pocket. :eek:

BeefBullion
01-01-2010, 01:46 AM
Supply and demand would take force, as they always do. Right now, there's a practical bottom price of gold, which is the cost to mine using common industrial methods; I don't have any solid figures, but I do recall hearing $400 an ounce. If the gold price dips below this for a significant period of time, supply is reduced, as mines with a higher cost-per-ounce overhead close, leaving only more productive mines with higher returns.

And so, if lab-created gold becomes _viable_, it would just be another source of supply. The new practical bottom would be the price to create gold in a lab rather than mine it.

Holdfast
01-01-2010, 02:22 AM
They've done it already. If you bombard heavier-than-gold elements with neutrons, eventually some small percentage of the heavier atoms will split and lose exactly enough protons to become gold. Now, I didn't say it was cost effective to do it - it's not and probably never will be. Nor is it at all reliable, as luck is involved.

And the Large Hadron Collider is sure going to make some great discoveries.

The next ten years will be very interesting.:)

thod00
01-01-2010, 04:37 AM
What would you think if a process of producing gold in a lab were discovered (by molecular manipulation or the like) and it could be created in abundance with relatively low cost materials?

Molecules are made by sticking together atoms. There are a limited number of types of atoms, one such type is called gold. Thus you can never make gold by molecular manipulation (chemistry). The reactor experiments aside, we have never created any gold. All the gold was extracted from rock, existing gold, not created. It cannot be made with low cost materials. Those materials either contain gold or they do not. You dont get much lower cost than the dirt we currently get it from.

Mryoga
01-01-2010, 05:22 AM
What would you think if a process of producing gold in a lab were discovered (by molecular manipulation or the like) and it could be created in abundance with relatively low cost materials? What a technological advance it would be, to create a fiat currency out of gold! :D

Highly doubtful, but WHAT IF?

It's already been done. I know a guy who knows a guy who's brother in law's cousin is a garage physicist and turns Silver into Gold. It is kind of silver heavy. Takes 100 ounces AG to make 1oz AU. PM me if interested;) :rolleyes: BTW Anyone can now turn Linen and Cotton into Gold.:D

urban prospector
01-01-2010, 05:24 AM
Supply and demand would take force, as they always do. Right now, there's a practical bottom price of gold, which is the cost to mine using common industrial methods; I don't have any solid figures, but I do recall hearing $400 an ounce. If the gold price dips below this for a significant period of time, supply is reduced, as mines with a higher cost-per-ounce overhead close, leaving only more productive mines with higher returns.

And so, if lab-created gold becomes _viable_, it would just be another source of supply. The new practical bottom would be the price to create gold in a lab rather than mine it.

at 700 25% of the mines in oz would close .. the most producing gold mine in oz was shut down or years they spent 3.2 billion to recommision it ,reopened last year or 2008 .people driving dump truck here are on 100k +
underground jumbo operator the money is bizzare like 900 a shift

cost money to get the pretties out of the ground then the stockholder want paying the company has to pay intrest on its debts and try and make a proffit also to reinvest .700 would be a real benchmark

Carpenter
01-01-2010, 05:41 AM
I found an interesting read on this....


Hope you don't have any radioactive gold in your pocket. :eek:

Unstable eh? Kind of like the gold I own.

ConanTheLibertarian
01-01-2010, 06:43 AM
Rhodium sells for over 2000 an ounce and there is literally tons of it in our Spent Nuclear Fuel inventories. Luckily the radioactive portion of Rhodium has a relatively short half life, so in a few decades it's stable.
There isn't much Gold to speak of in Spent Fuel, but the Rh might make a good side bar revenue for the fuel reprocessing business.

Alchemists from ancient times on up to David Hudson claimed to create the Philosopher's Stone which purportedly has some interesting traits.

jms7226
01-01-2010, 11:43 AM
Molecules are made by sticking together atoms. There are a limited number of types of atoms, one such type is called gold. Thus you can never make gold by molecular manipulation (chemistry). The reactor experiments aside, we have never created any gold. All the gold was extracted from rock, existing gold, not created. It cannot be made with low cost materials. Those materials either contain gold or they do not. You dont get much lower cost than the dirt we currently get it from.


Very contradictory a bit hard to follow what you are saying...

The current known processes for creating gold "Nuclear Transmutation" are forms of molecular manipulation (chemistry).

Gold itself is created naturally by chemical processes when large stars explode, again chemistry.

Now if you are talking about alchemy, mixing elements in a beaker with a philosopher’s stone by your side then I agree, not going to happen.

One of the past transmutation experiments actually used lead so also can be done with cheap material.

I know not in our life time, or any time soon most likely but you can't say we will never make gold by molecular manipulation (chemistry), because we already have.
Suggesting that man will never be able to repeat this using new accelerators and methods thus achieving usable amounts of gold is a fairly counter intuitive statement.

Never say never.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_transmutation


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthesis_of_noble_metals

Carpe diem
01-01-2010, 01:14 PM
I figure this would have the same effect as if I were able to squirt gold maples out of my cornhole!

Sparky McBiff
01-01-2010, 01:23 PM
Very contradictory a bit hard to follow what you are saying...

The current known processes for creating gold "Nuclear Transmutation" are forms of molecular manipulation (chemistry).

Gold itself is created naturally by chemical processes when large stars explode, again chemistry.

Now if you are talking about alchemy, mixing elements in a beaker with a philosopher’s stone by your side then I agree, not going to happen.

One of the past transmutation experiments actually used lead so also can be done with cheap material.

I know not in our life time, or any time soon most likely but you can't say we will never make gold by molecular manipulation (chemistry), because we already have.



It depends on your definition of Chemistry.
A classical definition of chemistry is really just the interaction of molecules due to the re-arrangements of the bonds between the electons in the outer shells of the atoms and doesn't really have anything to do with nuclear restructuring of the proton numbers in the nucleus.
Transmutation would of course actually involve a change in the number of protons in the nucleus but classical "chemistry" is just a rearrangement of the outer electrons.

TCWhite
01-01-2010, 01:23 PM
If I could make my blow up doll talk Id send the old woman packin too.

Why in the world would you want it to talk? Just enjoy the peace and quite!

rich_maverick
01-01-2010, 02:41 PM
What would you think if a process of producing gold in a lab were discovered (by molecular manipulation or the like) and it could be created in abundance with relatively low cost materials? What a technological advance it would be, to create a fiat currency out of gold! :D

Highly doubtful, but WHAT IF?

Impossible. Molecular manipulation only impacts the molecules within the chemical structure. To "make gold", you would have to mess with atomic capabilities. Unless you have a atomic collider, and can spend millions of dollars in powering up the collider so that you can create 1 new atom from 2 other atoms, good luck making this economically practical.

Rich

Sundog
01-01-2010, 05:36 PM
There is a better place to look for cheap gold.

Try seawater. If you can find a way to extract it, I've got a good supply for you to work with.

buzo46
01-01-2010, 06:17 PM
Why in the world would you want it to talk? Just enjoy the peace and quite!

Reminds me of the old joke:

`I met the perfect girl the other day,
She`s deaf and dumb and oversexed and owns a liquor store`
:D:)

golden_insect
01-01-2010, 10:27 PM
Well people still pay crazy amounts for diamonds which can be grown and are nothing more than a collection of carbon atoms.
Problem here is that there is a technical process capable of distinguishing between natural and artificial diamonds. As long as you can make your gold not radioactive, there will be no such process. I wonder what would be the price per oz if you have to create gold via transmutation? Could that be the top for this bulll? :)
One of the articles says that Platinum is actually the source material so we should be safe for the time being :)

Centaur
01-01-2010, 11:29 PM
Synthetic gold? Extremely unlikely per the many points posted here.

It would of course destroy the value of gold.. assuming the ingredients would be cheaper and more readily available than gold. And, although certain bankers would love to see it happen, I expect the people who have amassed fortunes in physical gold would cause the gold synthesizers to mysteriously disappear alongwith all their records.

HardlyPeeved
01-01-2010, 11:36 PM
There was a molectular-atomic method to "create" Gold at a very low cost, then there would be a huge rush to also create Uranium and Plutonium cheaply.

I don't believe any such technology exists or will become real.

However, once cheap heavy metals were possible then we would have unlimited energy/power (and unlimited means of weapons).

Yin and Yang.

This possibility is somewhat less than making cheap superconductors...if we could actually do these, then we could go to the stars...and Star Trek would be around the corner.

Probably not in our lifetimes.

goldstar2001
01-02-2010, 08:38 AM
What would you think if a process of producing gold in a lab were discovered (by molecular manipulation or the like) and it could be created in abundance with relatively low cost materials? What a technological advance it would be, to create a fiat currency out of gold! :D

Highly doubtful, but WHAT IF?

I recalled reading about this as a kid and found it on Wiki:

Although aluminium is the most abundant metallic element in the Earth's crust, it is rare in its free form, occurring in oxygen-deficient environments such as volcanic mud, and it was once considered a precious metal more valuable than gold. Napoleon III, emperor of France, is reputed to have given a banquet where the most honoured guests were given aluminium utensils, while the other guests had to make do with gold.[15][16] The Washington Monument was completed, with the 100 ounce (2.8 kg) aluminium capstone being put in place on December 6, 1884, in an elaborate dedication ceremony. It was the largest single piece of aluminium cast at the time. At that time, aluminium was as expensive as silver.[17] Aluminium has been produced in commercial quantities for just over 100 years.

see for more info http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium

Obviously some time in the future, physicists will replicate the process of a dying star which will through off many of the elements we use today (including gold). As the late Carl Sagan had said, we are all star stuff.

Prospector
01-02-2010, 09:06 AM
The reason scientists have not been able to make elements is that they insist on doing it their own way, which sometimes works and sometimes not. Nature uses a very different process which always works, and works by accident. Did you ever notice an odor in the air after a lightning storm? It's sulfur. A lightning bolt fuses two atoms of oxygen into an atom of sulfur. No equipment. No setup. It always works. By accident. You can make sparks with an auto ignition coil and get the same results. But you'll have to be clever to make gold.

readski
01-02-2010, 09:39 AM
The reason scientists have not been able to make elements is that they insist on doing it their own way, which sometimes works and sometimes not. Nature uses a very different process which always works, and works by accident. Did you ever notice an odor in the air after a lightning storm? It's sulfur. A lightning bolt fuses two atoms of oxygen into an atom of sulfur. No equipment. No setup. It always works. By accident. You can make sparks with an auto ignition coil and get the same results. But you'll have to be clever to make gold.

Prospector .... I believe it's OZONE not sulfur that is formed..

wyogold
01-02-2010, 05:44 PM
The reason scientists have not been able to make elements is that they insist on doing it their own way, which sometimes works and sometimes not. Nature uses a very different process which always works, and works by accident. Did you ever notice an odor in the air after a lightning storm? It's sulfur. A lightning bolt fuses two atoms of oxygen into an atom of sulfur. No equipment. No setup. It always works. By accident. You can make sparks with an auto ignition coil and get the same results. But you'll have to be clever to make gold.

This is a joke, right?

GoldNuggetBug
01-03-2010, 08:58 AM
What would you think if a process of producing gold in a lab were discovered (by molecular manipulation or the like) and it could be created in abundance with relatively low cost materials? What a technological advance it would be, to create a fiat currency out of gold! :D

Highly doubtful, but WHAT IF?

If you can use name like JMP, GS and back by FRB you can print paper or electronic database and make fools think they buying real gold. The lab of FRB being doing false gold for years now and still doing it.

pauper
01-03-2010, 11:14 AM
Problem here is that there is a technical process capable of distinguishing between natural and artificial diamonds.

Yes, and the key distinguishing feature is that artificial diamonds are essentially flawless, whereas the vast majority of natural diamonds have some imperfection. Otherwise, natural and artificial diamonds have the same properties (hardness, composition, density, resistence, thermal conductivity, etc.).

Also, since diamonds are valued on their degree of flawlessness, I suspect that this has thrown a monkey-wrench into the valuation of the most valuable (i.e. large and flawless) natural diamonds, since they are now virtually indistinguishable from artificial diamonds.

So -- IMO -- if "artificial" gold were to ever be created, it could probably be distinguished from natural gold because it would be essentially 1000.00000 fine. Of course, it could be made to be indistinguishable from "natural" gold (if so desired) by simply alloying it with some copper or silver.

Finally, I believe the key to producing all the gold needed to meet the world's demand is -- wait for it -- energy!

With cheap enough energy, all the gold we could want could be extracted from seawater. Of course, if energy were to ever be that cheap, it would potentially solve a great many of the world's ills.

Westerner
01-03-2010, 12:22 PM
What If Someone Figured Out How To Create Gold In A Lab?

I don't know. But I once read on the internut...

First you gotta go here... http://www.oregonvortex.com/photographs.htm

Then make one of these of sort..... http://www.labyrinthina.com/generator.jpg
What it is... http://www.labyrinthina.com/coral.htm

Then get some giant geodes kinda like these small ones... http://www.naturaltreasure.com/Amethyst_Boot.jpg
From http://www.naturaltreasure.com/minerals.htm

Then add some lead and mercury into the geode, and direct earths free electrical energy into the geode while in zero gravity.

SevenEyedJeff
01-03-2010, 12:58 PM
Westerner, that last pic looks like a scan of someone's lower leg and foot, with a firecracker inserted at the back of the foot. :rolleyes:

TCWhite
01-03-2010, 01:22 PM
As long as the cost to create it meets or exceeds the cost mine it, it wouldn't make any difference.

Now if they could make it very cheap, it would become worthless, just like fiat money...

Killver
01-03-2010, 03:42 PM
What would you think if a process of producing gold in a lab were discovered (by molecular manipulation or the like) and it could be created in abundance with relatively low cost material?

I believe gold can be atomically created by bombarding lead but it's astoundingly expensive.

But what if you could drag a charged bucket through the ocean and pick up the untold tons of suspended gold in seawater itself? Or have a filter that the tides run though, delivering pounds of gold every tide cycle?

Gold wouldn't be any fun if it wasn't difficult and/or expensive to obtain. Without the romantic part it's just another metal. Aluminum used to be much rarer and pricer than gold so maybe the future will offer newer choices- titanium/rhodium alloy perhaps- to stack along with traditional stuff.

wyogold
01-03-2010, 04:43 PM
I believe gold can be atomically created by bombarding lead but it's astoundingly expensive.

But what if you could drag a charged bucket through the ocean and pick up the untold tons of suspended gold in seawater itself? Or have a filter that the tides run though, delivering pounds of gold every tide cycle?

Gold wouldn't be any fun if it wasn't difficult and/or expensive to obtain. Without the romantic part it's just another metal. Aluminum used to be much rarer and pricer than gold so maybe the future will offer newer choices- titanium/rhodium alloy perhaps- to stack along with traditional stuff.

Gold in the oceans is not suspended but dissolved. The problem lies in separating the very very small amount of gold from the quite large amount of other dissolved substances. It could be done, but not cost effective. If it costs 100,000 $ to get an ounce of gold from seawater, there is no point in it.

Similarly, regular soil also contains gold. But not enough to do it economically. Which is why people mine ores which have a higher concentration of gold, enough so they can do it economically.

HardlyPeeved
01-03-2010, 05:34 PM
Long before we can make "Gold for nothing"...some Gold transmutation...humanity will travel to the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter and mine it for Gold and Silver and other metals.

Then haul the goods or entire asteriod back to Earth on a slow space-tug.

See the plot for the movie Outland with Sean Connery:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outland_(film)

Or the movie Alien and the ship Nostromo:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_(film)

The technology to perform this is almost at hand...and would only take a few hundred billion to pull-off....maybe Bill Gates (Gates Foundation) or Warren Buffett could?

jamstigator
01-03-2010, 06:11 PM
Even easier than that - the Near Earth Asteroids come to US twice a year. At their closest they are still farther than the Moon but not MUCH farther. No need for the tug to move them all the way here from the asteroid belt. One nudge on the NEAs and they'll become moons of Earth, and some of them do have hundreds of thousands or millions of tons of silver, gold, platinum, iron and nickel. The last bit of knowledge needed to make that cost effective is related to solar sails, and work on that is now ongoing.

The fact that the Russians are wanting to go nudge an asteroid AWAY from Earth shows just how close we are to tapping at least the NEAs. It's no harder to nudge an asteroid away from Earth than it is to nudge one toward Earth - energy is energy. Someone, probably Chinese or Russian, or both, is eventually going to realize, "Say, we could go snag that million tons of gold from the NEAs a lot cheaper than the cost of mining that much here on Earth." I always thought it'd be the lure of knowledge that would push us off this planet, but lust for gold is good enough for me and has been a very reliable motivator over the millenia.

Comet
01-03-2010, 09:28 PM
The amount of Au produced would be small and very costly from existing nuclear sources.

thod00
01-04-2010, 05:06 AM
Nobody is going to get permission to nudge an asteroid towards Earth. It has the potential to end all life on Earth if it goes wrong and comes down. It will be seen as a weapons system by all sides. The US would not be happy for someone to have a big rock hovering over them which could, with the flick of a switch be sent Earthwards.

Depending on the type of asteroid, there will be all sorts of minerals in it. However they will not be concentrated. We can only mine these minerals on Earth economically because they are concentrated by natural processes. It is not economic to crush a thousand tonnes of rock to obtain a gram of gold on Earth and it certainly will not be so in space.

Longingold
01-04-2010, 10:53 AM
As some poster mentioned in a early post helium 3 on the moon is the cash crop to go for.
We need to get the fusion problem worked out first to use this fuel
This fall, the University of Wisconsin team hopes to demonstrate a third-generation fusion reaction between helium3 and helium 3 particles in the lab. The reaction would be completely void of radiation.
Scientists estimate there are about1 million tons of helium 3 on the moon, enough to power the world for thousands of years. The equivalent of a single space shuttle load or roughly 25 tons could supply the entire United States' energy needs for a year, according to Apollo17 astronaut and FTI researcher Harrison Schmitt.
"Helium 3 could be the cash crop for the moon," said Kulcinski, a longtime advocate and leading pioneer in the field, who envisions the moon becoming "the Hudson Bay Store of Earth."Today helium 3 would have a cash value of $4 billion a ton in terms of its energy equivalent in oil, he estimates. "When the moon becomes an independent country, it will have something to trade."
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/helium3_000630.html

Silver Beagle
01-04-2010, 11:46 AM
What would you think if a process of producing gold in a lab were discovered (by molecular manipulation or the like) and it could be created in abundance with relatively low cost materials? What a technological advance it would be, to create a fiat currency out of gold! :D

Highly doubtful, but WHAT IF?



Will you stifle it please. What are trying to do. Ruin it for us. Watch out for a Mr. Hudson. Just warning you.

Sparky McBiff
01-04-2010, 08:03 PM
Depending on the type of asteroid, there will be all sorts of minerals in it. However they will not be concentrated. We can only mine these minerals on Earth economically because they are concentrated by natural processes. It is not economic to crush a thousand tonnes of rock to obtain a gram of gold on Earth and it certainly will not be so in space.

Are you seriously trying to claim that asteroids cannot have higher concentrations of elements (or "minerals") because they don't undergo "natural processes"?
What, do you think that the "processes" out in space aren't natural?
I suggest that you maybe study a bit more about cosmology or astronomy before you proclaim such a outlandish thing.

Even a quick cursory search would show the fallacy of such a claim....

Even a relatively small metalic asteroid with a diameter of 1 mile can contain more than $20 trillion US dollars worth of industrial and precious metals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_mining

http://www.nova.org/~sol/station/ast-mine.htm

No area on earth can come remotely close to what asteroids can contain.

Holdfast
01-04-2010, 08:35 PM
All the gold, cobalt, iron, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, osmium, palladium, platinum, rhenium, rhodium and ruthenium that we now mine from the Earth's crust, originally came from the rain of asteroids and comets that hit the Earth after the crust cooled.

In 2004, the world production of iron ore exceeded a billion metric tons.

In comparison, a comparatively small M-type asteroid with a mean diameter of 1 km could contain more than two billion metric tons of iron-nickel ore, or two to three times the annual production for 2004.

The asteroid 16 Psyche is believed to contain 1.7×1019 kg of nickel-iron, which could supply the 2004 world production requirement for several million years.

.

SoCalAU
01-04-2010, 09:30 PM
All the gold, cobalt, iron, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, osmium, palladium, platinum, rhenium, rhodium and ruthenium that we now mine from the Earth's crust, originally came from the rain of asteroids and comets that hit the Earth after the crust cooled.

In 2004, the world production of iron ore exceeded a billion metric tons.

In comparison, a comparatively small M-type asteroid with a mean diameter of 1 km could contain more than two billion metric tons of iron-nickel ore, or two to three times the annual production for 2004.

The asteroid 16 Psyche is believed to contain 1.7×1019 kg of nickel-iron, which could supply the 2004 world production requirement for several million years.

.

The first company that can successfully pull off sustained profitable mining operations in outer space will become the most powerful entity on earth. Unlimited supply, no regulatory entities to bother with, no tree huggers to get in the way; sounds like a home run to me.

Palmbchtom
01-04-2010, 09:59 PM
I just found out how to make Gold in my Lab..but the big problem is : each time I open a coin up...i find Chocolate inside..:D

thod00
01-05-2010, 05:33 AM
Are you seriously trying to claim that asteroids cannot have higher concentrations of elements (or "minerals") because they don't undergo "natural processes"?

Asteroids will have higher concentrations of precious metals than the Earths crust. Alas they will be distributred evenly throughout the material of the asteroid. The Earth's crust is not homogenous. The "natural processes" refered to are those that act to concentrate the minerals onto specific locations, that which we call ore deposits. It is the action of water dissolving gold from vast volumes of rock and depositing it when that water surfaces that creates the gold veins which we mine. We do not have to crush the volume of rock because the water has done the work for us over the aeons. The concentration of precious metals in a gold seam far exceeds that in an equivalent volume of asteroid. At high concentrations you can actually see the gold flecks in the rock. Asteroids are dead rocks and have been for billions of years.


What, do you think that the "processes" out in space aren't natural?

The processes that exist in space, and there are some, are natural. Yet they do not act to concentrate minerals. The processes that exist on Earth to do so do not exist in space.


I suggest that you maybe study a bit more about cosmology or astronomy before you proclaim such a outlandish thing.

This is not about cosmology or astronomy, it is about geology. I like to believe my knowledge of astronomy and cosmology is very good. It should be, I sat units called 'general relativity and cosmology' and 'stellar structure' as part of my education and it has been a long term interest of mine. Forget the 'wonder' factor of cosmology. It is all maths, lots of equations in Greek letters.

jms7226
01-05-2010, 11:32 AM
Asteroids will have higher concentrations of precious metals than the Earths crust. Alas they will be distributred evenly throughout the material of the asteroid. The Earth's crust is not homogenous. The "natural processes" refered to are those that act to concentrate the minerals onto specific locations, that which we call ore deposits. It is the action of water dissolving gold from vast volumes of rock and depositing it when that water surfaces that creates the gold veins which we mine. We do not have to crush the volume of rock because the water has done the work for us over the aeons. The concentration of precious metals in a gold seam far exceeds that in an equivalent volume of asteroid. At high concentrations you can actually see the gold flecks in the rock. Asteroids are dead rocks and have been for billions of years.



The processes that exist in space, and there are some, are natural. Yet they do not act to concentrate minerals. The processes that exist on Earth to do so do not exist in space.



This is not about cosmology or astronomy, it is about geology. I like to believe my knowledge of astronomy and cosmology is very good. It should be, I sat units called 'general relativity and cosmology' and 'stellar structure' as part of my education and it has been a long term interest of mine. Forget the 'wonder' factor of cosmology. It is all maths, lots of equations in Greek letters.

You better go back and hit the books one more time.

Asteroids by far have a greater concentration of minerals, and it is exactly because they do not have active geology.

Eros just one asteroid is worth trillions.

An ore grade mine on earth is something like 10ppm on an asteroid it is over 100ppm.

As far as its distribution you are just assuming that. Asteroids were not made by evenly distributed particles of matter, sorry.

Even if we go by that ridiculous assumption then that would be a good thing, it would mean 1oz for every ton of material.

There are asteroids that are essentially mountain sized gold nuggets circling the Sun.

Read Up:

http://www.nss.org/settlement/asteroids/key.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/401227.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid

The physical composition of asteroids is varied and in most cases poorly understood. Ceres appears to be composed of a rocky core covered by an icy mantle, whereas Vesta is thought to have a nickel-iron core, olivine mantle, and basaltic crust.[15] 10 Hygiea, on the other hand, which appears to have a uniformly primitive composition of carbonaceous chondrite, is thought to be the largest undifferentiated asteroid.

Silver Beagle
01-05-2010, 12:28 PM
If they mine it in space what will they do with the tailings? Maybe make apartments? Cant' just leave all that dust and crushed rock floating around. They will have to solidify it into one big chunk for navigation purposes. Good book "The Reefs of Space" by Frederick Pohl. About mininig the asteroids and the Oort belt.