How to Make Gold

[Christopher]

I find this interesting, that all gold on earth was created in space. In a ultra-rare supernovae no less. So all gold on earth, has been splattered on earth as debris. And most gold on earth, has long settled into the bowels of earth, never to be recovered.

Gold Creation

So the simplest answer to “How is gold made?” is still supernovae. It has been reported that the dominant source of the r – process elements are Type II Supernovae with progenitor masses between 20 and 40 solar masses. But it is not certain if one or more of the above processes are necessary or if the supernova itself creates the r – process elements.
There are a couple of specific supernovae scenarios that can create r – process elements. One case involves a star with about 10 solar masses at the time of the supernova. Such a supernova gets two chances to create r – process elements: in the prompt supernova explosion or in a neutrino – driven wind that follows.

[Montana]

Well, first you grabs a level handful of protons with yer left hand. Then in yer right hand you grabs a heapin' handful of neutrons. Thens yew pertend yous a makin' a snowball......

(I know i'm a... :<P )

[Mark]

I would 'like' Montana, or I would 'rate' Montana,..but all I can do is .

[DownintheUpside]

That was perty funny Montana.

Now where did the gold veins come from if it was from the supernovae? I suppose if the gold was deposited prior to the earth's cooling phase... hmmm, interesting though.

[Dark Shooter]

Some gold may have originally been 'made' by a supernova, but there are many, many ways to make gold.

Metals are under a heading on the periodic chart that physicists seem to ignore. "transitional elements. The difference between an atom of hydrogen, and an atom of say, gold, is the number of protons, neutrons, and electrons. That's the only difference. So the trick must be in causing some elements to shed portions of their PNE's to join the PNE's of other metals, ending up with the correct combination.

Another method of creating gold is understood quite well by certain bacteria. They literally 'poop' gold.

Another method is when new water is programmed by metal digestion in nature, and is provided a suitable containment in nature.

All things are in a state of transition. Oil is being formed by the billions of tons each and every year, and that's a hydrocarbon. All things replenish, all things are being formed daily, all things are in states of transition.

The real question is not whether or not Au can be made, but rather whether it can be made economically.

That's the real trick.

It does no good to spend ten dollars making a dollar's worth of gold.

[Mark]

Actually the op was referring of the process to make gold (an element) from other elements.

The bacteria you mentioned is the result of them consuming exceptionally fine particles of gold, and excrete out larger particles of gold. They arent 'creating', they are mearly refining, at a small scale.

This microbial magician, named Cupriavidus metallidurans, when placed in a minilab full of gold chloride, a nasty toxin, gobbled up the poison and, in about a week, processed it out as 24-karat nuggets of the precious yellow metal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...57eb_blog.html

Additionally any gold produced by an earthen process to the surface, is just the earth pushing it to the surface, but again, it isnt creation so to speak.

But there are no energies big enough on earth to 'create ' gold from other elements. We wouldnt survive that type of reaction.

- - - Updated - - -

edit to add, since the original link has gone dead,...

GoldCreation.doc

[Dark Shooter]

I'll have to disagree. Maybe some bacteria can break down gold chloride, separating the gold from the chlorine, but there are other bacteria that 'crap' gold. Miners know that a creek can be mined out and left fallow for a few decades, come back, and it's got good gold once again. This is NOT other gold that washed down from other sources. There is/was no gold in the area/creek above the point before, nor after.

You expouse classical physics and classical geology. Which I must say is grossly incorrect.

One doesn't need large energies. Low, steady-state energy inputs combined with sufficient building blocks, and nuclear exchanges will compel a nuclear reorganization. The bacteria, while small, provide just enough low energy power to facilitate sufficient nuclear exchanges. While each bacteria is tiny, and the energy is slight, it is sufficient, and many bacteria add to the total. Other principles combine to actually 'grow' the smaller particles into larger particles.

It's no skin off my nose whether one understands or not, but if one only accepts one thing - Nothing is certain, nothing is known. Now we're hearing that the speed of light is not the fastest thing in the universe. For every fast and hard law of physics, there are exceptions.

Our problem currently is that our physics books only have half the material available, the rest was arbitrarily cast aside decades ago to make it match our limited capacities.

I've held in my hand a 4.8Kw generator that would run for months, including power supply. The following day, I held in the palm of my hand a 7.2Kw generator that would likewise run for months, and it too included its own power supply. It's the complete opposite of everything we "KNOW" about electrodynamics and electricity.

We don't know half of what there is already known.

[Christopher]

I would welcome any links that describe what you are suggesting.
I am facinated by that possibility, but yes, my facination is tampered by what I know (or lack to know).

[pdoke2003]

As Christopher has already stated, my interest is definitely peaked by your statements here DS, any chance you can expand upon what you're saying? I lack the knowledge to make any judgment on the majority of your posts, so I'm only going to hit the two points which I can knowledgeably comment on.

Some gold may have originally been 'made' by a supernova, but there are many, many ways to make gold.

Metals are under a heading on the periodic chart that physicists seem to ignore. "transitional elements. The difference between an atom of hydrogen, and an atom of say, gold, is the number of protons, neutrons, and electrons. That's the only difference. So the trick must be in causing some elements to shed portions of their PNE's to join the PNE's of other metals, ending up with the correct combination.

What you're talking about here is Fission (in the case of removing protons, neutrons and electrons from a larger atom) and Fusion (in the opposite case). You're correct in saying we could theoretically create gold through these mechanisms though it is made extremely impractical due to the both the enormous amount of energy required to start that process and the even larger amount released when you are successful. All of that is also ignoring the fact that we currently lack the ability to control the number of subatomic particles which are added or subtracted.

Oil is being formed by the billions of tons each and every year, and that's a hydrocarbon. All things replenish, all things are being formed daily, all things are in states of transition.

This on the other hand is simply a false comparison. Creating compounds through the bonding of elements and creating/transmogrifying the elements themselves are two completely different animals.

But like I said, I'd like nothing more than if you can prove me wrong. Hope to hear back from you soon with more examples, evidence, etc.

[Dark Shooter]

I don't understand the confusion on where it takes an enormous amount of energy to create gold or initiate a transmutation. When we clean up or reload many of our nuclear reactors - they're often enough lined with gold. Kilowatt-wise, yes they make a lot of heat energy, but compared to globally, they don't produce lots of energy. They take some of the lead lining and convert it to gold.

It's easier to take gold and turn to lead using radioactive energies, which is financially stupid, but you don't make enough gold to be beneficial, even with nuclear reactors. Anyone who does even basis inquiry would be able to find this at will.

No, the constant formation of oil is not a false comparison, as the principles of origin are very similar. Recombination. Whether you're using resonance, catalysts, initiating chemical reactions, electromagnetic energy, introducing specific heat energy or combinations of some or all of these principles, low energy is all that's required for nuclear exchange.

Why one would be amazed at the rare isotopes one can generate from a simple hydrogen plasma. Assuming your cathode is properly blended and prepared. Let's see. Considering just hydrogen plasma. That could be considered a function of electromagnetic energy. But then a proper cathode would be a matter of chemistry. Then there's the frequencies, which would initiate a specific resonance. And though in a vacuum, significant heat energy is being generated. Come to think of it, scalar electromagnetic energy is being generated as well. And within a properly prepared cathode, well, that can also act as a catalyst.

So . . . with a simple hydrogen plasma, which is the primary operative mechanism, and which are the variables?

Sometimes, a dog is not just a dog.

And even if I knew how to make bits of Au from Cu, Pb, or Ag, or Ag from Cu, of Pd from tin, I'd be an idiot to admit it. Much less share it.

Even if I'd seen several pounds of high purity Ag, which started out as only ounces of high purity Cu, damned if I'd admit it. Or if I'd seen .999 silver produce a 3%-3.5% Au content - would I admit it. Likely, and by this I mean if it were actually possible - by the time you cash in that 3% conversion after paying your bills for engaging the process - you'll realize that it's a money-losing process. Impractical. Financially irresponsible by 7%.

Alas, I can prove nothing.

However, the initial postulation/claim that gold is made by supernova's in the OP is totally wrong. Anyone can do a bit of homework and know it's totally wrong.

Good discussion.