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.

  • Atropos@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    99
    ·
    17 hours ago

    “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!

    • chirospasm@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      15 hours ago

      It’s only irradiated gold if it comes from the Radioactive Startup Part of San Fransisco.

      Otherwise, it’s just sparkling rock.

      • elucubra@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        No, my friend. Gold is an incredibly useful material, often not used because of price, unlike diamonds, which are mostly useful for abrasion/cutting.

        • addie@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 hours ago

          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).

        • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 hours ago

          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.

    • ch00f@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      16 hours ago

      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.

      • Boddhisatva@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        15 hours ago

        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.

        • Chronographs@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          15 hours ago

          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

      • ORbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        16 hours ago

        “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.

    • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      16 hours ago

      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.