Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 75

Thread: Does our ability to create man made Gold pose a threat to Golds ultimate worth?

  1. #51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilverShareHolder View Post
    I guess it is a real challenge to some peoples core beliefs
    It is a bigger challenge to basic physics and economics than it is to people's beliefs.
    Doveryai, no proveryai.

    Nullius in verba.

  2. #52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilverShareHolder View Post
    Some of the posts in this thread are quite a laugh. I guess it is a real challenge to some peoples core beliefs, to the point where they refuse to acknowledge facts and science or critically think about possibilities. Synthetic production of Gold has been a reality since 1941 or earlier. It is not my job to do anyone elses research or due diligence. For anyone interested you can begin to find basic information by google searching synthetic gold production. I have made no claims that this is cheap or efficient or that it will add substantially to the gold supply. I just thought the fact that Gold can be produced and it's potential impacts would make for thought provoking discussion.
    I have done a Google search and cannot find any site that I could share with the forum that lends any credible information that would suggest man made gold production is even possible in the near, or long term future. If it is just enough to put under a microscope why bother. Obviously it would need to be enough to compete with mined gold or why talk about it?

    I assume you can't either, but if you want to be taken seriously you really should do the research and provide more than a grade school fantasy similar to; "what would happen if robots got smarter than humans?'. Putting this on a computer discussion board would be comparable.

    I just don't see any thought provoking discussion here.

    Sorry if your idea of a though provoking discussion is not that thought provoking.

  3. #53

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by little hunt bro View Post
    You guys are correct...I misspoke. NASA still has capability of putting satellites into orbit, but no longer has the ability to put astronauts in space. I heard this straight from the NASA folks when I visited The Johnson Space Center with my son in the fall. US astronauts need to catch a ride with the Russians currently.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...an-rocket.html
    This was done on purpose. The US wants private companies to develop this capability. I would think most people on this forum would be happy about that.

  4. #54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by therealmaomao View Post
    I hope everyone will think for a minute... that computers were huge and expensive 20-30 years ago. I think technology advancements can/will create synthetic gold in the next 50 years.
    Classic flawed logic. Just because one technology developed it has nothing to do with the other. Then throw in the fact that perfecting and mass producing Gold from other elements isn't high on anyone's list of things to do. Some people still believe we are going to travel at the speed of light someday soon.

  5. #55

    Default

    I worked over there at NASA for several years = there are (were) so many parasitic, worthless "managers" it sickened me with the waste of money being paid to this collection of "good ole boys".
    Was a good move to cull em out ! ! ! !

  6. #56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilverShareHolder View Post
    Some of the posts in this thread are quite a laugh. I guess it is a real challenge to some peoples core beliefs, to the point where they refuse to acknowledge facts and science or critically think about possibilities. Synthetic production of Gold has been a reality since 1941 or earlier. It is not my job to do anyone elses research or due diligence. For anyone interested you can begin to find basic information by google searching synthetic gold production. I have made no claims that this is cheap or efficient or that it will add substantially to the gold supply. I just thought the fact that Gold can be produced and it's potential impacts would make for thought provoking discussion.
    1) just like to point out again my point that none of this could be accomplised without an absurdly high gold price to fund the R&D has not beem refuted. People use these futuristic ideas to argue against the PoG without admitting this...
    2) so artificial gold has been around since 1941 but they still cant mass produce it even after the PoG has gone from $20 to $1900 then back to $1300 so again... Point 1 proven...
    "A strange game Professor Falken... The only winning move is not to play."

  7. #57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by floridacoastman View Post
    I have done a Google search and cannot find any site that I could share with the forum that lends any credible information that would suggest man made gold production is even possible in the near, or long term future. If it is just enough to put under a microscope why bother. Obviously it would need to be enough to compete with mined gold or why talk about it?

    I assume you can't either, but if you want to be taken seriously you really should do the research and provide more than a grade school fantasy similar to; "what would happen if robots got smarter than humans?'. Putting this on a computer discussion board would be comparable.

    I just don't see any thought provoking discussion here.

    Sorry if your idea of a though provoking discussion is not that thought provoking.
    It is possible to create Gold in the laboratory by nucleosynthesis.

    Although in theory any man made gold would be indistinguishable from naturally occurring gold as there is only one stable isotope (197Au) . In practice the presence of a variety of low level contaminants especially radioactive contaminants would ensure that man-made gold could be distinguished from naturally occurring gold.

    BUT any such process would be entirely impractical for the creation of anything other than microscopic quantities. The costs involved in producing macroscopic quantities would be astronomical - 6 orders of magnitude greater than the price of gold.

    In addition the required starting materials make the process even more farcical, either:
    A very rare isotope of Mercury (196Hg) which constitutes just 0.15% of naturally occurring Mercury - rarer than gold itself and very difficult to separate from the other 6 naturally occurring isotopes each of which is at least 40 time more abundant.
    Or
    Platinum (196Pt Ė 25% of naturally occurring Platinum)

    So donít worry. Nucleosynthesis of gold is just a laboratory curiosity and will remain that way.

    http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=645017
    Perhaps I'm old and tired, but I think that the chances of finding out what's actually going on are so absurdly remote that the only thing to do is to say, "Hang the sense of it," and keep yourself busy.

  8. #58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilverIsMoney View Post
    1) just like to point out again my point that none of this could be accomplised without an absurdly high gold price to fund the R&D has not beem refuted. People use these futuristic ideas to argue against the PoG without admitting this...
    2) so artificial gold has been around since 1941 but they still cant mass produce it even after the PoG has gone from $20 to $1900 then back to $1300 so again... Point 1 proven...
    Your point hasn't been refuted by me because I do not disagree. I was not arguing against the price of Gold, I believe Gold is currently under valued.

  9. #59

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slarty1080 View Post
    It is possible to create Gold in the laboratory by nucleosynthesis.

    Although in theory any man made gold would be indistinguishable from naturally occurring gold as there is only one stable isotope (197Au) . In practice the presence of a variety of low level contaminants especially radioactive contaminants would ensure that man-made gold could be distinguished from naturally occurring gold.

    BUT any such process would be entirely impractical for the creation of anything other than microscopic quantities. The costs involved in producing macroscopic quantities would be astronomical - 6 orders of magnitude greater than the price of gold.

    In addition the required starting materials make the process even more farcical, either:
    A very rare isotope of Mercury (196Hg) which constitutes just 0.15% of naturally occurring Mercury - rarer than gold itself and very difficult to separate from the other 6 naturally occurring isotopes each of which is at least 40 time more abundant.
    Or
    Platinum (196Pt – 25% of naturally occurring Platinum)

    So don’t worry. Nucleosynthesis of gold is just a laboratory curiosity and will remain that way.

    http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=645017
    Good information about the mercury isotope needed to create stable Gold. I had read that it was a specific mercury isotope but hadn't been aware how rare and hard to isolate it was. Thanks for adding to the discussion.

  10. #60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jackrabbit View Post
    This was done on purpose. The US wants private companies to develop this capability. I would think most people on this forum would be happy about that.
    I don't think so. The NASA budget was slashed to free up more funds for vote buying giveaways and other boondoggles.

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •