Last week, Marathon Fusion, a San Francisco-based energy startup, submitted a preprint detailing an action plan for synthesizing gold particles via nuclear transmutation—essentially the process of turning one element into another by tweaking its nucleus. The paper, which has yet to undergo peer review, argues that the proposed system would offer a new revenue stream from all the new gold being produced, in addition to other economic and technological benefits.
This is stupid, but not for the reasons you would think.
The energy required to change lead into gold is bigger than their difference in price.
Good to see Gargamel following his dreams.
any particle accelerator can do that just incredibly slowly.
Alchemy of that sort has been doable for generations, it’s just WILDLY impractical!
Currently many orders of magnitude more expensive than just buying an equivalent amount of gold, but makes me wonder what the future might be capable of with those proofs of concept.
Science circling back around to alchemy is an interesting thought.
Humans sometimes run out of things to want.
If it is possible to make small amounts of those elements on purpose as a byproduct, it can help to offset the costs of the reactor in some small way and help with isotopic/nuclear research in general. But that can be done in pretty much any fusion reactor design to some degree.
As for Alchemy of the future, If in a thousand years we can just built whatever materials we need (including potential ultra heavy stable elements) from raw subatomic particles we don’t even need mining, just gather up some hydrogen/helium from space and transmute it into whatever you need. food, fuel, structures, etc.
just gather up some hydrogen/helium from space and transmute it into whatever you need. food, fuel, structures, etc.
Tea, earl gray, hot.
And a gross of self-sealing stem bolts.
I admit, it wasn’t on my 2025 bingo card, either.
So do it. Crash the economy, rip that bandaid right off.
How do I invest?!?!?!
“But it’s worth noting that the same process would likely result in the production of unstable and potentially radioactive isotopes of gold. As such, Rutkowski admitted, the gold would have to be stored for 14 to 18 years before it could be labeled radiation-safe.”
Ah yes, 18-year vintage, very nice choice. Pairs well with a 3 carat lab grown diamond!
Just sell politicians the 14-year vintage, they love that.
It’s only irradiated gold if it comes from the Radioactive Startup Part of San Fransisco.
Otherwise, it’s just sparkling rock.
No, my friend. Gold is an incredibly useful material, often not used because of price, unlike diamonds, which are mostly useful for abrasion/cutting.
Cheap gold could have a good effect on analog electronics, including the hobbyist kind.
I’m sometimes thinking that not everything needs a computer. If it does, many things are fine with a MC.
And not just analog electronics honestly, hobbyist computing in the ancient sense, of making hobbyist computers and using them, might have a small rebirth.
And mass-produced electronics would too become a fair bit cheaper to produce if gold were more widely available. Longevity, reliability. Maybe touchscreens’ economical advantage over physical buttons would be reduced even.
If we had the technology to freely form diamond, then it’s exceptionally hard, has incredible chemical resistance, among the very best thermal conductivities of any material, and it isn’t particularly heavy.
Being able to coat the inside of chemical vessels and pipes with diamond would hugely increase their lifespan, a heat exchanger made out of it would be incredible. Great for food processing, since you’d be able to clean it easily; great for abrasive or highly acid / alkili materials that corrode everything else. Probably awesome as a base layer for semi-conductors, as it would be great for heat dissipation.
But we are probably talking about nanotechnology to lay it down in sheets, which we don’t have (yet).
This is like a reverse Goldfinger plan. Could have an interesting impact on the gold market if it can be done at scale.
I’m sure most gold mining operations take at least a few years to get permitted and started and then there’s risk that you won’t find as much gold as expected.
Compared to a lump of gold that all you have to do is not lose it and it will appreciate in value all on its own.
Could have an interesting impact on the gold market if it can be done at scale.
Before figuring that out, they just need to develop a functioning fusion reactor. And since fusion energy is, as it has always been, a mere ten years off, it’s probable that such reactors will take longer to be developed than it will take that radioactive gold to be safe to handle.
Well getting more energy out of a fusion reactor than you put in is the really hard part, if you’re just doing it to make gold I imagine it’s easier
“All you have to do is find it.”
The value of gold is not just in its properties, luster, purity, etc., but also in the effort it takes to find or mine it. So, sure. Trip over a nugget and you’re…golden.
The same concept can be loosely applied to the abstraction of crypto currency. It takes energy and computational effort to acquire if you don’t just buy it.
I was wondering how radioactive the resulting material would be. Twenty years is totally viable for a power plant. Reactors in the US have been storing nuclear waste on site for a lot longer than that.
Alchemy you say? Take my money now, I’ll ask questions later. Glad we got in on this before the peer review!
Kings dont fund science, Kings fund alchemy!
USA USA USA …
I’ll wait and see if they can add some AI to it. But if they can, I’ll invest my entire life savings.
In theory but can they do it efficiently. Probably not. And definitely not yet. But hey let them get the fool’s money.
I read up on this the other day and their claims are 8 tons produced per gigawatt of energy consumed. Even if they manage a quarter. Of that, it’s enough to obliterate the value of gold. I doubt this will actuary go anywhere either way but it would be nice to see.
This article says (5 tonnes/yr) per GW produced. It’s a fusion reactor, so it’s making electricity, not consuming it.
At $0.05/kWh, 1 GWh of electricity is $438 million. At $3400/troy ounce, 5 tonnes of gold is $545 million. So that jives with the company’s estimate on the article that the sale of gold could double their revenue.
All bunk, of course
This is a fusion reactor, I’ll believe its making energy instead of consuming it when someone manages to get one to be net energy positive
That’s an enormous amount!
Most of the value of gold these days is its use in electronics, and jewelery. I’m fine with it being made cheap and plentiful. Anyone holding gold (or gold-backed investments) as opposition to other types of investments is going to see a big loss, but that’s what they bought into.
If we can actually do nuclear transmutation, that’s like one step away from a Star Trek replicator
6.4L of air produces 1 cm3 of iron. I guess that’s not that bad. It’s like three people filling their lungs with air.
The search for the philosophers stone never ended.
I really think I’m close, I just need to distill a little more urine
When they can do transparent aluminum, I’m in!
edit: yes I know there’s a ceramic material called ALON, which the manufacturer calls transparent aluminum because it contains aluminum oxynitride, but I don’t think that’s what Scotty meant. ALON is about 30-35% aluminum, same as the amount of lead in leaded crystal glass, which isn’t “transparent lead”.
Aluminium Oxide (Al2O3) can be crystal clear too, it’s just Sapphire, I have a chunk of it on my wrist right now, looks pretty clear to me, and almost as hard as a diamond.
Transparent aluminum was around in 2018 source
a lot longer than that.
Synthetic corundum, spinel and others have been around for over 120 years, and optically transparent uncoloured sapphire glass for over 80 years. They are just aluminium oxides.
ALON is just the new hotness, and not as good as some others in terms of visible light transparency.
