Reply With Quote
Makes as much sense as any requiring radioactive methods.
How bout this one?
http://www.gata.org/node/5272
Makes as much sense as any requiring radioactive methods.
Only in the wonderful world of WoW......
http://www.wowwiki.com/Transmute:_Iron_to_Gold
One cannot simply add protons to heavy nuclei without some issues popping up.
I know of none.
Neither.
I mentioned neutron activation. This is not it.
The point I was making earlier is that gold necessarily has an upper bound in terms of value.
lol superspin. There's plenty of gold. Problem is, most isotopes are radioactive. Heck, I use gold nanos s in HIFU therapy research. The only gold isotope that decays directly to stable 197Au is metasable 197Au.
Its necessary to look at isotones of Au197 if you're interested in transmutation stuff.
It makes no sense tbh. But what do I know?
<sigh> You never really read anything do you? I'll highlight some of the parts that shouldn't have made sense.
Scientists find economic process for creating gold from base metals
Submitted by cpowell on Wed, 2007-07-18 02:04. Section: Daily Dispatches
By Ben Dover
San Francisco Comical
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
LIVERMORE, California -- Scientists at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory have discovered a process for inexpensively converting base metals into gold, the lab announced Tuesday night at a hastily called news conference.
Since medieval times the dream of alchemists has been to make gold, the exemplar of the precious metals, out of lead, the basest of the base metals. Heretofore this has been possible only through the use of particle accelerators and other devices of nuclear mechanics to remove three protons from each lead atom, a process requiring so much energy that it was far more costly than any gold that could be produced.
But Lab Director Stew Pidasso said Tuesday night the lab's scientists have produced economic quan ies of the precious metal in a different way.
"The alchemists and the early nuclear scientists failed to realize that there's more than one way to skin a proton," Pidasso said. "Instead of trying to knock protons out of lead, protons can be borrowed from metals with lower atomic numbers and added to make gold."
Pidasso said the lab, a division of the U.S. Department of Energy, first achieved the transformation by borrowing protons from copper and nickel and adding them to bars of iron. But when copper and nickel supplies ran out, the lab began using protons from calcium, which is abundant in seas s along the nearby California coastline.
According to Pidasso, using proton borrowing and high-quality varnishes, the lab will be able to manufacture about 1,500 metric tonnes of gold per year, which, he predicted, might indefinitely fill what is estimated to be the gap between annual world gold demand and mine and scrap supply.
Pidasso said the laboratory's gold research long has been funded by grants from JPMorganChase & Co. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. but that recently "enormous" help had been provided by Bear Stearns Cos.
The lab's announcement was expected to plunge the precious metals markets into chaos. A spokesman for the World Gold Council in London, reached late in the evening on his cell phone at a local club, would say only, "Young women in slinky outfits will look good in gold no matter how much of the stuff is available or where it comes from. Those details hardly matter to us."
Last edited by SnakeBoy; 12-01-2011 at 09:35 PM.
The Fed is the root of the following evils:
1) massive bureaucracy which tends to eat up our civil liberties, our economic freedoms, etc,
2) endless(?) funding for endless wars which destabilize our security, serve war profiteers bank accounts, and put a huge burden on our future generations to pay for our immoral murder and exploitation of brown people across the globe
3) the extraction of the wealth of the lower and middle class through inflation tax, which most of the public does not understand and cannot discover through the controlled MSM,
4) enables the blatant insider fraud that our fed legislators currently engage in
5) charges interest for providing a function that could otherwise be done at cost, without putting America in extreme debt. Any monkey can pull zeroes out of his/her ass.
6) Encourages bad investments, causing bubbles which burst leaving us all wet, as it artificially keeps interests rates low, encouraging imprudent borrowing/investment without sufficient savings to justify low interest rates, after which it...
7) performs a manipulation of the business cycle, from boom to bust, in order to facilitate the concentration of wealth at the top of the financial ladder, through fluctuation of currency liquidity
8) As Greenspan admitted, BEST CASE SCENARIO is that the Fed could effectively mimic gold as a slow source of gradual inflation,
9) one of the major functions purported to justify the Fed is economic stability, however a study of history will show that over history we have averaged 1-2 major disruptions per decade.
10) the fed has reduced the dollar's value more than 90% since it took hold of our currency. This robs citizens on fixed income and who diligently and save responsibily.
Last edited by Parker2112; 12-01-2011 at 10:40 PM.
You dont understand the case laid out above? Its completely incredible?
WC overuses the term "indoctrinated" but scott you are proof positive. You need to do some homework, professor.
Last edited by Parker2112; 12-01-2011 at 11:28 PM.
They predicted that they, the cream, would rob the crop perpetually through a manipulated business cycle?
Turn over the currency to the place that the Cons ution called for...the U.S. treasury. Eradicate our fatally escalating national debt in one fell swoop.
Snake took you for a ride with an article from Ben Dover of the San Francisco Comical.
Are you saying that method is not one that is radioactive?
Color me ignorant if you must, but it seems to me any time you forcibly combine two or more elemental particle at the nucleus level, you will have radioactive results. Now if I'm wrong, please enlighten me. Just because my assessment of the link differs than your does not mean I didn't read it. I did.
Careful......I'm watching a train wreck in slow motion here........
Dang it scott! Y'all were supposed to do a better job hiding it. I am only 9 mos away from a finance MBA, about to join the ranks and, well, watching the "professionals" is like watching the three stooges.
Shoulda gotten a poetry degree.
I think he wants a third coat.
I don't even know what to say to that
So I didn't pay that much attention to who wrote it. I went strait to the body of text. Are you now telling me there is no way to combine two elements into a heavier one? I hope not. There is so much science news out there from time to time just to get investors involved that never work. I didn't even know what the legitimacy would be.Snake took you for a ride with an article from Ben Dover of the San Francisco Comical.
Sorry you think all people have to be a closed minded as you appear to be.
Is it possible he still deosn't get it?
Then I take that as to mean you don't understand even the basic scientific theories involved, should it have been a real story.
I don't even know what to say to that
No, I get it. You just don't accept that I still see a tangent discussion.
I've had a few rounds of GM150. Given that and the fact that its the holiday season, I'm feeling.......generous. So I'll just ask, where in that article does it make mention of "combining" any elements. Read VERY carefully..........
It didn't, but to "borrow" (take) protons from other elements, there would need to be nuclear collisions, or interactions. Right?
I'm not one that only sees the step by step laid out. I can see there are things in between unsaid.
Not only are you open minded to using bars of iron, seas s, and high grade varnish to make gold, you think it makes sense.
Last edited by SnakeBoy; 12-01-2011 at 11:13 PM.
So fusion now entails a "borrowing" of protons? Funny, I could have sworn it involved the entire nucleus and orbital electrons of each atom in question.
It's not a "nuclear ionic bond".
You know what, You can think what you wish. Granted, varnish as a paint type material would not work. I am not one who assumes because I don't know of other meanings for a word, they don't exist. As for finding ways of using the elements from various sources, so what?
You are showing you are so closed minded, that you knowing the story was false from the start, means it is impossible to do something similar. I'm sorry, but I don't buy your untested version of impossible.
You depress me. Wanting to argue only from the viewpoint of a false story. What about the "what ifs." What if science someday did find a way to easily combine elements and make heavier ones?
Do you need a punching bag today? It appears you have some hostilities not worked out.
I see...So fusion now entails a "borrowing" of protons? Funny, I could have sworn it involved the entire nucleus and orbital electrons of each atom in question.
It's not a "nuclear ionic bond".
So anytime there is a scientific breakthrough, unknown before, it is still impossible in your world?
Why do you focus on one possibility when there are others? You call yourself a scientist? I say bull .
How many times do we see authors write something incorrect because they didn't understand?
If it makes you happy to see this from only one narrow minded perspective, then have at it. And you people claim I'm not open minded.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
