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
    51
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    25 days 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!

    • ch00f@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      25 days 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
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        25 days 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.

    • chirospasm@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      25 days ago

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

      Otherwise, it’s just sparkling rock.

  • Gladaed@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    24 days 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.

    • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      24 days 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?

  • aviationeast@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    25 days 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
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      25 days 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.

  • Kokesh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    24 days 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?

    • StinkyFingerItchyBum@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      24 days 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.

      • Kokesh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        24 days ago

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

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      24 days 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.

    • simsalabim@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      24 days 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?

  • Lovable Sidekick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    25 days ago

    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”.