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.

 

Transmution Recipes For Making Gold

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 08:50 PM
link   
If you need my opinion I dont like gold that much as silver or titanium. But someone may need wedding rings, or just like gold so why not just make it?

items needed

1. 1/4 oz. silver shavings 99% pure
2. 3 oz. sulfur powder (pharmaceutical grade)
3. 10 oz. Cinnabar with no TRACES of gold (also known as
a mineral, Mercuric Sulfide, Hgs)- powder it
4. 1 quartz geode
5. 4 12 volt car batteries
6. 2 lead (Pb - the element) copper electrodes

place all shavings and powder into Quartz Geode, connect
car batteries to equal 48 volts at 3 amp per minute, place
leads into powder in Quartz Geode. Wait 25 minutes

produces 1.75 ounces of gold

don't get greedy, do exactly as stated

larger amounts at one time will produce radioactive gold,
you can repeat the procedure to make more gold. Wear
mask!!!!!!!! and gloves!!!!

More....(...The National Security Agency is EXTREMELY hostile to the distribution of the below...)


[Edited on 12-3-2004 by John bull 1]




posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 08:52 PM
link   
Have you tried it and succeded? I don't think it is possible.



posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 08:54 PM
link   
when you do that, and give me the gold, i'll believe you. or show me an unedited videotape of this happening.

and even if it does work, is it actual gold? or just gold colored? is it solid? liquid? powder?



posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 09:09 PM
link   
I bet that after playing with the cinibar, you only think you made gold.





BTW, do you know where the term "mad as a hatter" came from?



posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 09:55 PM
link   
How do you get it out of the geode after it has molded?



posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
BTW, do you know where the term "mad as a hatter" came from?


i know it has something to do with lead poisoning, doesn't it?



posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 10:15 PM
link   
I make golden showers all the time - all natural mixture too. Pure gold I tell you.


[Edited on 3-11-2004 by EmbryonicEssence]



posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid

Originally posted by HowardRoark
BTW, do you know where the term "mad as a hatter" came from?


i know it has something to do with lead poisoning, doesn't it?



mercury. 19th century hat makers used mercury in the process of making felt hats.



posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
mercury. 19th century hat makers used mercury in the process of making felt hats.


well then i guess i'm still okay for using lead when i make stained glass art! *phew!*



posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Interesting!! It would be fun to try it and see if it works. However, doing a quick bit of research, I don't know if it would really be worth it, in terms of dollars and cents anyway.

Right now Current Gold Prices are at $400.00 per Ounce. This makes 1.75oz according to what you've written. So the production of one batch equals about $700.00 worth of Gold. Not too bad IMO.


12 Volt Batterie (x4)=approx. $50ea. or $200
10 oz. of Cinnabar Mineral Powder=approx. $100.00/oz or $1,000

Just taking the batteries and Cinnabar alone, you've got Double the Cost for the amount of Gold Produced. Prices are Approximated from a quick look BTW.

So what I have to ask is, how many batches of Gold can you make from the ingredience that is listed there? Mainly the Cinnabar as it's the most expensive one by far. Cause if it's only one batch per 10oz. of Cinnabar, you'll be losing money, unless you can get it much cheaper of course.



posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 10:50 PM
link   
My God, What has happened to our educational system?????






posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
My God, What has happened to our educational system?????



Was this directed at me???


What do you mean???
Did I mess up the math or something somewhere???

Or are you talking about the whole idea of Transmutation of 'Lead to Gold'???



posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Uh the whole idea mOj


What a pile of crap this is. I think I'll go to the pub and cry into my beer.



posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
My God, What has happened to our educational system?????


if you were refering to my comment about me still being safe with lead, i was joking. i know how dangerous lead is, and am incredibly careful when i do need to use it.



posted on Mar, 12 2004 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kano
Uh the whole idea mOj


What a pile of crap this is. I think I'll go to the pub and cry into my beer.


Ah, well the idea is actually extremely old, usually attributed to so called 'puffers' of Alchemy. The scientific basis for the idea is actually fairly intelligent, especially for having an origin long before current knowledge of physics and chemistry.

If I'm not mistaken, it is known today that it can actually be done with current scientific technology. It requires the change on the atomic level obviously, but is possible. However, besides being a dangerous process, once again the cost of money and energy required far exceeds the resulting amount of Gold. So, while it can be done with today's technology and understanding, to do so would be a complete waste of time, energy and money. It would be like the shaving down of an entire tree to produce one toothpick per tree. Not very efficient in other words.



posted on Mar, 12 2004 @ 06:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid

Originally posted by HowardRoark
My God, What has happened to our educational system?????


if you were refering to my comment about me still being safe with lead, i was joking. i know how dangerous lead is, and am incredibly careful when i do need to use it.



No, I figured that. It is just that some people can actually take this whole thread seriously.

P.T. Barnum was right.



posted on Mar, 12 2004 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by mOjOm
The scientific basis for the idea is actually fairly intelligent, especially for having an origin long before current knowledge of physics and chemistry.


Actually, the scientific basis for the idea comes from demonology and is about as accurate/useful as a baseball bat made out of banannas.



If I'm not mistaken, it is known today that it can actually be done with current scientific technology. It requires the change on the atomic level obviously, but is possible.

Requiring a big reactor, a lot of time, and a lot of energy. Remember, you're taking stuff and attempting to make an element... not a compound. And you wouldn't start with any of the listed materials, but with another element.


It would be like the shaving down of an entire tree to produce one toothpick per tree. Not very efficient in other words.


Succinctly put!



posted on Mar, 12 2004 @ 08:51 AM
link   
I don't it would work. At least it can't work with current chemistry. A lot of problems have been metioned above, but I would like to add the fact that you lose mass! Totally 13.5oz gets in, 1.75oz gets out. I highly doubt you can lose this much mass through radioactive processes, which would be needed to transform the elements.

If anything gold-like gets out, it's probably a mineral that looks like gold. If I'm correct pyrite gets confused with gold a lot, but that's Iron Sulfide. Maybe other sulfides also look like gold.

Some of that stuff can also be quite dangerous, lead and sulfur. I really would like to emphasize that you wear gloves and mask when working with these chemicals.



posted on Mar, 12 2004 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Actually, the scientific basis for the idea comes from demonology and is about as accurate/useful as a baseball bat made out of banannas.


That's priceless, hehe....

Didn't give enough time on the hatter question, just saw this. I actually recently saw some special, where in one 3rd world country, kids make hats still using the mercury...it was pretty upsetting...



posted on Mar, 12 2004 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
Actually, the scientific basis for the idea comes from demonology and is about as accurate/useful as a baseball bat made out of bananas.


Demonology??? That doesn't sound right to me. I'm not sure where you've been getting your info about Alchemy, but I'm pretty sure 'The Study of Demons' wasn't exactly a major part of it, if at all. To get right down to it, True Alchemy wasn't really about the 'Lead into Gold' thing either, as it's commonly thought of today. True Alchemists were not after the Wealth that came from Monetary Superiority.

Originally, alchemy was an ancient tradition of sacred chemistry used to discern the spiritual and temporal nature of reality, its structure, laws, and functions. All forms of Science today have roots in Alchemy. Alchemists were trying to understand, and hopefully learn to use, the Universal Laws behind all Reality in all it's forms. "True" Alchemy is not, and never was, what 'Witch Hunting' Religious Fanatics or 'Stubborn Egocentric' Scientists make it out to be. However, like Religion and Science, Alchemy does of course have it's moments of failure, success, ridicule, worship, etc. as well as it's Misguided Practitioners and Historical Inaccuracies.

Personally, I find it a bit more accurate and/or useful than a 'Banana Baseball Bat' in any sense.



Requiring a big reactor, a lot of time, and a lot of energy. Remember, you're taking stuff and attempting to make an element... not a compound. And you wouldn't start with any of the listed materials, but with another element.


Hey, I never once said anything toward the validity of this specific method that is given in this thread. I was simply stating the fact that the transformation of one element to another is possible today. The above method almost seems to be trying to 'Grow' Gold in fact, rather than Changing one element to another, I'm not really sure. Regardless, I can't personally do either myself, and really only understand the basic idea behind it. Here is the best example I have that is easy to grasp:

Lead (atomic number 82) and gold (atomic number 79) are defined as elements by the number of protons they possess. Changing the element requires changing the atomic (proton) number. The number of protons cannot be altered by any chemical means. However, physics may be used to add or remove protons and thereby change one element into another. Because lead is stable, forcing it to release three protons requires a vast input of energy, such that the cost of transmuting it greatly surpasses the value of the resulting gold.

Transmutation of lead into gold isn't just theoretically possible - it has been achieved! There are reports that Glenn Seaborg, 1951 Nobel Laureate in Chemistry, succeeded in transmuting a minute quantity of lead (possibly en route from bismuth, in 1980) into gold. There is an earlier report (1972) in which Soviet physicists at a nuclear research facility near Lake Baikal in Siberia accidentally discovered a reaction for turning lead into gold when they found the lead shielding of an experimental reactor had changed to gold.

Today particle accelerators routinely transmute elements. A charged particle is accelerated using electrical and/or magnetic fields. In a linear accelerator, the charged particles drift through a series of charged tubes separated by gaps. Every time the particle emerges between gaps, it is accelerated by the potential difference between adjacent segments. In a circular accelerator, magnetic fields accelerate particles moving in circular paths. In either case, the accelerated particle impacts a target material, potentially knocking free protons or neutrons and making a new element or isotope. Nuclear reactors also may used for creating elements, although the conditions are less controlled.
chemistry.about.com...




It would be like the shaving down of an entire tree to produce one toothpick per tree. Not very efficient in other words.

Succinctly put!


Well, I'm glad we at least agree on something!!


EDIT: Spelling corrected.

[Edited on 12-3-2004 by mOjOm]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join