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.

  • qyron@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 hours ago

    You want gold? Tons of it? Go mine the asteroid belt. But if it is to become plentiful what value will it hold?

    Will cheap gold plated circuitry be back?

  • Kokesh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Why do we try to turn things into gold? The price of gold would collapse if we succeeded, so wouldn’t it be completely pointless?

    • zaphod@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Who gives a shit about the gold price except for some idiots who think it has some inherent value beyond some applications in electronics.

    • StinkyFingerItchyBum@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      3 hours ago

      I dunno. I would be cool with it if we stopped mining for Gold with all the environmental problems and found a way to profitably clean up the mercury from past gold mining and places like Grassy Narrows with extensive mercury poisoning.

      • zaphod@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 hours ago

        I would assume that this would lead to a rise in mercury mining instead of cleaning up Mercury contaminations, because that would probably be cheaper. And I don’t think mercury mining is any less toxic than gold mining.

      • Kokesh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 hours ago

        That would be great. But what I’m talking about is the collapse of the price of gold.

    • simsalabim@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Besides the shift to mercury mining others have already listed, you really think that this process is cheaper than mining gold and also cleaner and safer at the same time?

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 hours ago

      If you have a monopoly on the process, then its the same as the DeBeers Diamond Cartel. You can keep the price up by limiting the sale and spending a ton of money on marketing.

  • Gladaed@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    7 hours ago

    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.

      • Gladaed@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Mhhh. Would have to check the binding energy per nucleon charts. Might work. I automatically read lead.

    • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 hours ago

      LoL, why else would they be publishing a paper on the process rather than buying an absolute ton of mercury and manufacturing gold like mad?

  • Faceman🇦🇺@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    14 hours ago

    any particle accelerator can do that just incredibly slowly.

    Alchemy of that sort has been doable for generations, it’s just WILDLY impractical!

    • Stovetop@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      14 hours ago

      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.

        • Stovetop@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 hours ago

          I think gold could become a less coveted substance just in terms of value as a status symbol, but it could still benefit from being mass produced just due to its material properties. It’s a good conductor, doesn’t tarnish, is very malleable, etc.

          • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 hours ago

            Yes, it’s also a bit of an equalizer in terms of electronics production, if it becomes cheaper. One of my pipe dreams for the future is that such happens and makes it a bit more decentralized.

      • Faceman🇦🇺@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        13 hours ago

        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.

        • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          4 hours ago

          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.

          Believe it or not, this can actually be done without fusion alchemy.

          It’s been explored in science fiction and I believe there are some actual theories and papers on the subject, but here’s the quick version:

          The sun contains all the same elements found on earth in remarkably similar proportions (The exception being that all of earth’s hydrogen and helium were blown away long ago). But unlike earth, in the sun the heavy elements don’t separate and sink down to the core, everything just mixes together in one big suspension. Magnetic fields in the sun constantly eject charged particles out as solar wind and while these particles are mostly hydrogen, they actually contain every element found in the solar system. And because the particles are charged, this wind could be harvested using magnetic fields, it could be redirected and focused into a stream of matter for collection.

          And it’s a lot of matter that could be collected this way… The sun loses 130 billion tons of matter in solar wind every day. For comparison, Mars’s moon Deimos masses about 1.5 trillion tons, so the sun loses a full Deimos worth of matter every 12 days. There would be more than enough of every element in that stream to satisfy humanity for the foreseeable future.

          And my apologies for the long reply, someone mentioned space and I couldn’t help myself. 🤓

          • GamingChairModel@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 hours ago

            The sun loses 130 billion tons of matter in solar wind every day.

            But how much can be caught?

            From the sun, the angular diameter of the earth (12,756 km wide, 149,000,000 km away) is something like 0.004905 degrees (or 0.294 arc minutes or 17.66 arc seconds).

            Imagining a circle the size of earth, at the distance of the earth, catching all of the solar wind, we’re still looking at something that is about 127.8 x 10^6 square kilometers. A sphere the size of the Earth’s average distance to the sun would be about 279.0 x 10^15 square km in total surface area. So oversimplifying with an assumption that the solar wind is uniformly distributed, an earth-sized solar wind catcher would only get about 4.58 x 10^−10 of the solar wind.

            Taking your 130 billion tons number, that means this earth-sized solar wind catcher could catch about 59.5 tons per day of matter, almost all of which is hydrogen and helium, and where the heavier elements still tend to be lower on the periodic table. Even if we could theoretically use all of it, would that truly be enough to meet humanity’s mining needs?

            • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 hour ago

              Well there are a lot of factors defining how much usable material we could get, and how hard it would be to do it.

              Yeah, about 98% of the sun is hydrogen and helium, with other elements making up the remaining 2%.

              The machine used to generate the magnetic field would likely be a ring rather than plate, with the goal being to bend the trajectory of any matter that passes through the ring just a little. In effect it would work a lot like a lens, that could focus matter passing through it into a cone of trajectories, with collection happening at the point of the cone, possibly a point at a much higher in orbit. (This does introduce some complications in the different orbital speeds for the ring and collector, but without getting into it, there is a solution for that, it’s not the hardest part of this idea)

              And how much you can capture depends a lot on how close to the sun you can put your magnet field ring. If it’s stationed closer to the sun it shrinks the size of the sphere you’re trying to cover. So if your ring could survive at 0.2 AU from the sun (about half the distance of mercury’s orbit), a ring of the same diameter would cover 25 times more area of the sphere than if it was stationed at 1 AU.

              So your 59.5 tons collected turns into 1487.5 tons, 2% of which is 29.75 tons of usable material (which I’ll be honest, is not great considering the magnitude of the construction project). It’s probably a better deal if you’re using the hydrogen towards fusion power, but it’s still not great.

              The good news is that it scales well, the larger you make the ring, the better your ratio of materials gathered vs materials needed to build the ring, which makes the optimal diameter of the ring about the same as the diameter of the sun. So… yeah, this is not a project in our immediate future.

        • LePoisson@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          30
          ·
          13 hours ago

          just gather up some hydrogen/helium from space and transmute it into whatever you need. food, fuel, structures, etc.

          Tea, earl gray, hot.

  • Atropos@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    98
    ·
    16 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
      ·
      14 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
          ·
          7 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
        ·
        14 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
          ·
          14 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
        ·
        15 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
      15 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.

  • aviationeast@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    16 hours ago

    In theory but can they do it efficiently. Probably not. And definitely not yet. But hey let them get the fool’s money.

    • Sabin10@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      16 hours ago

      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.

      • antler@feddit.online
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        15 hours ago

        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

        • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          11 hours ago

          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

          • antler@feddit.online
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            5 hours ago

            Sure - they’re claiming to do two very difficult things simultaneously (net positive fusion and transmute mercury to gold at scale) which makes me even more skeptical. It’s like saying “Not only can pigs fly, but we’ve taught them to simultaneously do calculus.”

      • SheeEttin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        15 hours ago

        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.