Turn Mercury into Gold Cheaply?

7up said:
What is the likelihood of fusion getting to the point in the next 30 years where it is a viable energy source that makes gold cheap to make?
Click to expand...

Well, fusion is projected to be widespread in 30 years. Of course, it's been 30 years out for the last 40 years.

You do the math.
 
7up said:
What is the likelihood of fusion getting to the point in the next 30 years where it is a viable energy source that makes gold cheap to make?
Click to expand...

It isn't just an issue of when (if) fusion comes on line. Even if energy prices drop significantly, transmutation might still be a losing proposition if there are better ways to get gold. For example, there's vast quantities of gold in the ocean, just diluted to low concentrations (something like ~10 parts per trillion). Extracting that gold would require a lot of energy (one could even calculate the thermodynamic minimum based on the entropy of dissolution)), but I suspect less energy than it takes to transmute mercury into gold. And without any radioactivity either.
 
Do gamma rays reflect off of shiny metal surfaces the same way other wavelengths do?
 
Ziggurat said:
Cast iron cookware can be quite heavy. I don't see weight being a deal breaker.
Click to expand...

Cast iron is around 7 g/cm^3; gold is about 19. That's a pretty serious difference, especially since cast iron is so heavy to begin with.

I have a 50x50 mm cylinder of tungsten, which is about the same density as gold. It is astounding how much heavier it is than anything else comparable in size. Just the angular momentum would start posing problems for a whole pot made of equally dense material.

- Dr. Trintignant
 
Madalch said:
Do gamma rays reflect off of shiny metal surfaces the same way other wavelengths do?
Click to expand...

IIRC, you can reflect high-energy photons only at very shallow angles (I have to assume this is related to the Fresnel effect, where the coefficient of reflection goes up as the angle of incidence approaches 90 degrees). A full-on gamma ray may require an impractically shallow angle.

- Dr. Trintignant
 
Dr. Trintignant said:
Cast iron is around 7 g/cm^3; gold is about 19. That's a pretty serious difference, especially since cast iron is so heavy to begin with.
Click to expand...

But gold wouldn't need to be as thick, since it's a much better conductor than iron. Although at that point, maybe cladding would be better.

I just like the idea of cooking with gold.
 
7up said:
Likewise from same wikipedia source:

"Using fast neutrons, the mercury isotope 198Hg, which composes 9.97% of natural mercury, can be converted by splitting off a neutron and becoming 197Hg, which then disintegrates to stable gold. This reaction, however, possesses a smaller activation cross-section and is feasible only with un-moderated reactors."

and eta

"Only the mercury isotope 196Hg, which occurs with a frequency of 0.15% in natural mercury, can be converted to gold by neutron capture, and following electron capture-decay into 197Au with slow neutrons."

This too still way to expensive?
Click to expand...

Hindmost said:
Not if you can pick up a sodium reactor really cheap and run it without paying anyone or doing any maintenance. The small cross section thing is very bad...since it is essentially a probability of a reaction occurring. since it is low, the yield would be very small.

glenn
Click to expand...

For any entity that already has the reactor, about how high would gold have to go before it becomes economically worthwhile for them?
 
gold would make a nice roofing material. Its density, if used in thick sheets, might prevent roofs from blowing off in high winds. Adequate support structures would be indicated, but slate roofs are heavy too, and they make a quality roof.
Solid gold gutters would add a nice bling factor to otherwise boring suburban box houses.

I think it is a very useful metal. It seems a shame to have tons of it locked up at Fort Knox.
I think it might make a good substitute for aluminum foil as well.
Platinum is a lovely metal as well, though with a less pleasing color.
 
7up said:
For any entity that already has the reactor, about how high would gold have to go before it becomes economically worthwhile for them?
Click to expand...

Probably never. A nuke plant brings in over 300 million dollars in revenue a year. The amount of gold that would be produced would be very small due to the nature of the reactions...plus there would be radioactive byproducts and processing that would be expensive. Compared with normal revenue, it would help much. Plus, mercury and reactors are a bad combination. The reactor plant is a mercury exclusion area as it will amalgamate with essentially any metal and make is softer...which would be bad. Its why dentists use the stuff.

There are certain things that reactors can produce that have commercial value, but gold isn't one of them. I am too lazy to do the calcs, but on inspection, it is a boondoggle.

glenn
 
Ziggurat said:
But gold wouldn't need to be as thick, since it's a much better conductor than iron. Although at that point, maybe cladding would be better.

I just like the idea of cooking with gold.
Click to expand...

Obviously sufficiently cheap gold would be ideal for bullets. Not only do they have a massive kinetic energy wallop, but it's soft enough not to damage barrels, doesn't corrode the parts, and isn't nearly as toxic as the other contenders, lead and depleted uranium.
 
tyr_13 said:
Obviously sufficiently cheap gold would be ideal for bullets.
Click to expand...

Excellent idea!

I'm not sure they'd replace uranium for specialized military applications like warthog ammo, since you probably want penetrators to be very hard as well as dense, but certainly ordinary bullets would be better with gold than lead.
 
Why do I get the sneaking suspicion that there is a significant amount of overlap between the people pushing this cheap gold thing and those that want us to switch our currency over to the Gold Standard?
 
Travis said:
Why do I get the sneaking suspicion that there is a significant amount of overlap between the people pushing this cheap gold thing and those that want us to switch our currency over to the Gold Standard?
Click to expand...

Cheap gold will not work. If it is the case mercury can't be turned into gold, then gold can work as money or a safe store of value. If it can be made from another element economically, then that would be a whole topic in itself to determine if it could still perform as money or will it be too cheap.
 
Last edited:
7up said:
They also use:

(ii) Electrons (bremsstrahlung) generated by a machine at maximum energy of 10
million electron volts (MeV).
(iii) X-rays generated by a machine at a maximum energy of 5 MeV

to irradiate food.
Click to expand...



There is work being done now to use reactions such as this to produce radiopharmaceuticals.

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&sourc...9aN_JjB8Q&sig2=TS5mMjOIYUelxkRwLFTclQ&cad=rja



Effect with electron beam (20…25 MeV) on high-Z
converter is accompanied by an emission from the latter a
mixed stream of bremsstrahlung photons, photoneutrons
and electrons. As a rule, an analysis of 99Mo generation in
thus irradiated target of natural molybdenum is conducted
mainly considering photonuclear channel on 100Mo
isotope which content in a natural Mo makes 9.63% [2,3].
Taking into account extremely high cost of enriched
100Mo isotope (up to $1000 per gm.) there is a special
interest in research of all possible mechanisms for Mo-99
generation in natural target under influence of mixed
radiation as well as other attendant isotopes.
Click to expand...


That's $1000 per gram, not ounce. One once is just over 28 grams, so this is something on the order of 20 times as expensive.


An estimation shows that in case of electron
energy in range 20…25 MeV and beam current of 1 mA it
is possible to produce per operating day up to 1 Ci 99Mo.
Click to expand...


I've been trying to find a conversion for that number into a mass of 99Mo, but haven't found one yet. Anyone else know how to convert this easily? I could figure it out, but I'm lazy :D
 
Horatius said:
An estimation shows that in case of electron
energy in range 20…25 MeV and beam current of 1 mA it
is possible to produce per operating day up to 1 Ci 99Mo.
Click to expand...

I've been trying to find a conversion for that number into a mass of 99Mo, but haven't found one yet. Anyone else know how to convert this easily? I could figure it out, but I'm lazy :D
Click to expand...

1 Ci = 3.7 x 10^10 decays/second.
mean life of 99Mo = 3.9 d = 3.4e5 seconds
one curie of 99Mo = 3.7e10 * 3.4e5 = 1.26e16 atoms
one atom = 99/6.02e23 grams
1.26e16 atoms = 2 micrograms
 
I don't think you have to be a physicist to figure out that if this worked, someone would be doing it already.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom