It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Philip Schneider's Formula for making Gold !!!

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 02:56 PM
link   
ok ATS'ers.......I wonder if this works....for I will try it....
------------------------------------------------------------------


"Wear rubber gloves and a gas mask when working with mercury to protect
yourself from Mercury poisoning.

1/4 OZ Silver Shavings 99.9% pure.

3 OZ Sulfur Powder Pharmaceutical grade.

10 OZ Cinnabar (also known as a mineral, Mercuric Sulfide, Hgs) - powder it,
or 1 OZ Mercury with no traces of Gold .

1 Quartz Geode.

4 12 Volt Car Batteries.

2 Lead Copper Electrodes.

Place all shavings and powder into Quartz Geode.

Connect Car Batteries to equal 48 Volts at 3 Amps per minute.

Place Leads into powder in Quartz Geode wait 25 minutes.

Produces 1.75 OZ of Gold.

Don't rush this, do this exactly as stated above, making larger amounts at one
time will produce radioactive gold (bad). You can repeat the procedure to make
as much gold as you need."




If anyone from ATS tries this....please let us know the results......I am going to try to do this with one of my freinds who has some sci knowledge....hope it works...daddy need new toys !!




posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Would be really strange if that is able to rearrange the atomic structure of those metals into that of Gold. But I'm very skeptical of it though.



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheBandit795
Would be really strange if that is able to rearrange the atomic structure of those metals into that of Gold. But I'm very skeptical of it though.



me too...but I am going to try it...what do I have to lose ??







[edit on 28-9-2006 by Alpha Grey]



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Not a thing... Go for it. And post the results (good or bad) here for us to see...


If you're succesful. I think more members will be willing to attempt to replicate the experiment.



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 03:29 PM
link   
It doesn't work, think about it. If anyone managed to create gold from other materials what would the global price of gold be doing now?

Falling inexorably.

Unfortunately, it isn't.



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 07:24 PM
link   
Um, nuclear explosion? The only way you're going to get gold is through nuclear reactions.



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 07:40 PM
link   
Nuclear reactors create gold eh? ... wear safety goggles, you may blow your self up and mercery in the eyes I hear is un healthy.. some kind of neurological malfunctions..


Personally if I found out how to make gold I wouldnt tell any one a damn thing about it!!! So that right there proves it false.. radioactive gold...



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by LordOfBunnies
Um, nuclear explosion? The only way you're going to get gold is through nuclear reactions.


Nuclear fusion, actually. That's how it's made in stars.

LOB's right.... gold isn't a compound; it's an element. You can't make a new element by mixing stuff together.

Look at the chemistry, here. Gold is element 79, meaning that there are 79 protons and 117 neutrons packed into a single nucleus. No chemical reaction changes the number of neutrons and protons in an atom. Chemical reactoins change what it bonds to, but not the basic nature of the atom (otherwise, when we burned hydrogen in the presence of oxygen, we wouldn't get H2O but rather some new element. And you know this doesn't happen -- we only get water under those conditions.)
www.dayah.com...

education.jlab.org...

What you have there is a formula for a mineral called Acanthite. It's hardly gold. : www.galleries.com...

You should also note that mercury and sulfur are rather toxic and the sulfur is likely to flame or flare when sparked by a car battery.

[edit on 28-9-2006 by Byrd]



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 11:16 PM
link   
Well, stars decay to iron usually. You'd want nuclear fission from uranium to get gold. Iron is the lowest nuclear energy state. Everything in a nuclear process goes towards it. You don't hear people talking about helium as a fissionable material.



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 11:28 PM
link   
This sounds like a rediculous formula with no basis for creating gold whatsoever...

what makes it even more absurd is the fact that you would make radioactive gold if the recipe ingredients are increased. This makes no sense to me. Chemical reactions cannot displace a neutron from an atom or better yet, add a neutron to an atom. So how would you get a radioactive gold atom? makes no sense....

nice try, I would advise abovetopsecret to lock and remove this post because you are pretty much guaranteeing sickness if you try this 'recipe'.



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 11:47 PM
link   
Not only is this chemically and physically not going to happen with the process you describe, but you may seriously hurt yourself with either mercury or lead particulates; also, 3 Amps of current is enough to kill you if you don't know how to handle such high currents.

Even if you could transform one element to another (and this IS possible in certain esoteric reactions, like in the sun or in atomic bombs or nuclear reactors, to name a few) you would either need a LOT of energy to do it, or else RELEASE a lot of energy; the first, you will not be able to achieve, and the second, you do not want to achieve, or be anywhere near when it happens :p It's also likely that you'd get radiation of one type or another coming your way.

I only ever took junior chemistry in university, but even that was enough to show me this isn't going to work, sorry. In the words of one wise professor, 'the reason we make you take classes you won't use is so that people can't B.S. you when you get out into the working world'. (he was saying this about my chemistry class, which in my program isn't too helpful, at least not directly)

I'm not trying to be mean or anything, hopefully this is taken as the constructive lesson it is meant to be. But learning a few basic things about science can really help figure out when something is total B.S. or not.



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 12:31 AM
link   
Why are people attempting to revive the dangerous and unscientific pracitce of alchemy? Lack of education I assume.



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alpha Grey
If anyone from ATS tries this....please let us know the results......I am going to try to do this with one of my freinds who has some sci knowledge....hope it works...daddy need new toys !!


It won't work. Changing one element into another isn't a chemical reaction. It's a nuclear one. No way you'll be able to pull that off on a table top, no matter how pretty your quartz geode is. Besides, mercury has a nasty habit of vaporizing under regular (ie, sea-level) pressure. You crack an ounce of mercury open and it'll evaporate into a cloud of gaseous metal which will collect in odd places like your ventilation systems, transforming your home into a toxic zone that'll require a special crew to clean up. You'll probably end up with highly aggressive cancer to boot, so enjoy your gold in the short time you have left.


Originally posted by LordOfBunnies
Well, stars decay to iron usually. You'd want nuclear fission from uranium to get gold. Iron is the lowest nuclear energy state. Everything in a nuclear process goes towards it. You don't hear people talking about helium as a fissionable material.


Stars don't "decay" to iron. Iron is the heaviest element a star can fuse, and by the time that is happening, the star is hardly a star anymore. Iron isn't the "lowest nuclear energy state", and as far as "everything going towards it"...I don't know exactly what you're trying to say. There are elements which are more reactive and elements that are less reactive than iron, meaning it's not at an extreme of anything. The only reason stars hit a limit at iron is due to the atom's size, and creating anything heavier requires pressures beyond which fusion can supply. Anything heavier is made in a supernova explosion, which has the power to crush iron into cobalt, cobalt into nickel, and so forth.

You don't hear helium used as a fissionable material because it's a noble gas and extremely stable. Mind you, you don't hear people using iron as a fissionable material either, as 95% of iron exists in a stable form, unlike Uranium and Plutonium which have no stable configurations and make ideal materials for fission reactions.


[edit on 29/9/2006 by Thousand]



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alpha Grey
ok ATS'ers.......I wonder if this works....for I will try it....
------------------------------------------------------------------


"Wear rubber gloves and a gas mask when working with mercury to protect
yourself from Mercury poisoning.

1/4 OZ Silver Shavings 99.9% pure.

3 OZ Sulfur Powder Pharmaceutical grade.

10 OZ Cinnabar (also known as a mineral, Mercuric Sulfide, Hgs) - powder it,
or 1 OZ Mercury with no traces of Gold .

1 Quartz Geode.

4 12 Volt Car Batteries.

2 Lead Copper Electrodes.

Place all shavings and powder into Quartz Geode.

Connect Car Batteries to equal 48 Volts at 3 Amps per minute.

Place Leads into powder in Quartz Geode wait 25 minutes.

Produces 1.75 OZ of Gold.

Don't rush this, do this exactly as stated above, making larger amounts at one
time will produce radioactive gold (bad). You can repeat the procedure to make
as much gold as you need."




If anyone from ATS tries this....please let us know the results......I am going to try to do this with one of my freinds who has some sci knowledge....hope it works...daddy need new toys !!


I'm hoping your comments to attempt this were tongue-in-cheek. The chemicals involved are pretty serious ... as is the electricity requirement. I'm not a chemist but I would be worried as to what kind of chemical reactions you're going to expose yourself to when you mix these chemicals and electricity.

Also this seems to be an extremely simplisitic recipe. Hell, my chili recipe is more involved that this, if it's this easy to make gold I guess its value won't hold for long.



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 09:49 AM
link   
In terms of nuclear processes, iron is the bottom of the barrel. If you want to fuse of fission iron, it actually requires energy to do both. On either side (with respect to atomic weight), you'll gain energy from either fusing or fissioning atoms and have to spend it to do the other. Example, you get energy when you fuse helium, but it requires energy to fission it. It takes energy to fuse uranium (assuming such a thing is possible) and you gain it from fissioning it. That is what I meant, it's in pretty much every good chemistry book that covers nuclear processes. Unfortunately, I don't have any chem books because I tested out of my chem requirements in college. Thus I just remember this from my chem courses and doing basic nuclear processes in those classes (read: AP Chemistry in High School with a VERY knowledgable teacher, pretty much a PhD chemists).

And you're right, decay was a bad word to use. They fuse into iron, which as stated above is the lowest energy thing for nuclear processes.



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 09:58 AM
link   
As unscientific as this formula is, The gold bug has always had me, and I have shamefully done much research into this myself...

If i were going to start trying to make gold, I would start with a natural occurring form of lead, called Galina, and try to get it to adopt the neccessary particles to change form...
from one element to another, at an atomic level...
I beleive they are very close atomically, yes?
so maybe thru some forced decay, or ionization it would alter it atomically.
Not that it would work, but it seems the proper place to start, rather than trying to "mix some up"

not anything to do with a chemical compound, or mixture...



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
Why are people attempting to revive the dangerous and unscientific pracitce of alchemy? Lack of education I assume.


Well one assumes they think there must be some basis in reality for the concept of low energy nuclear reactions?

Lets start with Kervran i guess....

www.lasarcyk.de...

experts.about.com...

www.rexresearch.com...

www.cheniere.org...

First few basically establishes the fact that all/most living things can transduce one element from another while the last few has to do with the observed unexplained heat/energy releases from assumed room temperature nuclear reactions which one assumes is the way it happens in living organism.

www.wired.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

www.csmonitor.com...

www.loe.org...

Stellar

[edit on 29-9-2006 by StellarX]



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 01:30 PM
link   
I would like to point out this information....

This (below) is a process of taking orbitally rearranged monatomic elements (in this case Gold) and turning it back into its metallic form....

ORME Gold is found in volcanic ash and other various places... In the page I took this from it explains how How true 100% ORMEs are undetectable via any chemical/other anaylisis but partial ORMEs still carry some of the bonds that make it a metal. So it can be detected.... though.... the partial ORMEs carry the Pure 100% ORMEs with them via their Messiner field...


"ORMEs are transformed into their original T-metal by means of a chemical bonding with an electron-donating element, such as carbon, which is capable of d orbital electron overlap and "spin flip". When the G-ORME is chemically bonded to carbon in an aqueous solution of ethyl alcohol under a specific potential, carbon monoxide is formed and the ORME forms Au+(Au+, a black precipitate, which under continued application of potential and dehydration reduces to Au+1 (Au-1, a metallic bonded diatom of gold. **This invention establishes that a high potential applied to the solution forces an electron into the d orbital, thus eliminating the electron pair.** The first potential, which for G-ORME is approximately -2.2 V and for other ORMEs is between -1.8 and -2.2 V, re-establishes the d orbital overlap. The final potential of -2.5 V overcomes the water potential to deposit gold onto the cathode."


www.zz.com...

A thorough read of that page should give you some more incite towards the wonderful world of nobel metals and ORMEs.... and Alchemy



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 08:38 PM
link   
Hmmmm... Any one know Alpha personally... Alpha appears to have abandoned the thread is it possible the chemical mixture turned Alpha filthy rich and is now some where in the French Riviara or.. maybe the 3 amps or Murcury killed her..



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by LordOfBunnies
In terms of nuclear processes, iron is the bottom of the barrel. If you want to fuse of fission iron, it actually requires energy to do both. On either side (with respect to atomic weight), you'll gain energy from either fusing or fissioning atoms and have to spend it to do the other.


Ah, that makes quite a bit more sense and yes, you're quite right. I was unsure of what you were getting at in terms of nuclear energy levels.


And you're right, decay was a bad word to use. They fuse into iron, which as stated above is the lowest energy thing for nuclear processes.


That they do. Thanks for coming back and clarifying that. I was lucky enough to have some extremely talented Highschool Chemistry and Physics teachers as well and I have to say I learned more from them than I did from my University professors, who seemed to be there for the money more than the work.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join