Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by MCP, Aug 22, 2006.
And is it commercially viable? I'm guessing the 2nd answer is no...
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
It's not commercially viable.
The small numbered elements on the periodic table (ie gold) aren't really prone to radiation, unlike the higher numbered elements such as plutonium
Even if you could, gold would eventually become worthless. So not much point really.
It is already quite worthless.
OK, it's worthless. Tell you what. I'll buy all of your Gold for 10 Euros/kilogram, a fair price for such a worthless commodity, OK? Any takers?
I seek to have gold in exchange for woman, LOL
It takes alot more than a neuclear reactor, tempature, pressure, energy I could only guess what else, the best theory I have heard is every element comes from hydrogen and the stars turn elements into other elements, The planets are piles of stardust. I read of scientist's who turned lead into gold but cost a fortune, you would have to create the enviroment of the inside of a star and control it!
isnt that called nuclear fusion?
Yes, and for that you'd need a nuclear fusion reactor.
At this stage all are experimental.
The first of the commercial type would be the international ITER project/reactor.
All the current nuclear power plants use nuclear fission.
also, I imagine that ITER would still cost more to produce gold than getting it out of the ground.
Yes, I too imagine that.
but if someone did produce gold commercially and was succesful, it would loose value, but would still be a very good non-corrosive metal for industrial and other applications. it's also almost as good a conductor as silver if i remember right, better than steal or copper. ever wonder why premium A/V cabling has a gold tint to the metal on the plugs?
but yeah, the value would drop, meaning whoever produced it woudl have to constantly make their operation more efficient, by like several hundred percent. maybe it could be done, but it is fusion after all.
and now that I think about it... fusion doesn't make gold like you think it does. once a star fuses iron, it suddenly takes more energy to make fusion happen than will come out of it. period. when iron forms in a star, it's a very small matter of time (minutes) before it supernovas. however, the massive supernova explosion smashes enough to gether to make elements heavier than iron, including lead, uranium, and GOLD. You wouldn't have to replicate the inside of a star, you'd have to replicate the inside of a supernova, the most devistating naturally occuring explosive force mankind is aware of!
entreprenuers, get to it!
Reminds me of that Superman episode from the 1950's, where the crooks force that guy to make gold with his new invention. And it turns out that more money is used to make the gold, then you can sell it for on the market!
Of course, you can make radioactive gold quite easily by neutron irradiation of other elements. That's done all the time. Check out the Gold "Flood Sources" used in nuclear medicine for quality control of the gamma cameras.
what is the difference between neuclear fusion and neuclear fission?
Kendall: Why not go to a dictionary and look it up. Or an encyclopedia. Or Wikipedia.
Fission, atoms are broken apart by high energy neutrons, in uranium and up the periodic table (transuranic elements) the breaking apart of the atom releases energy and more neutrons, which go on to break apart more atoms.
Fusion: atoms are fused together releasing energy and making elements higher up in the periodic table up to iron where it takes more energy to fuse iron atoms than it releases. Example, 2 hydrogen atoms fuse together to make a helium atom, 2 heliums together make beryllium (I think, might be lithium) etc
Separate names with a comma.