Comment by chasil
8 hours ago
If I am reading this correctly, then mercury-198 will receive a neutron, decay to mercury-197, then emit an electron to become gold-197.
Mercury has seven stable isotopes ranging from 195 to 204, so purifying to 198 is challenging (this isotope is 10% of the metal's occurrence). Would this require centrifuges as uranium does?
The decay chains of the other isotopes would be different.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthesis_of_precious_metals#G...
"...the production cost is estimated to be a trillion times the market price of gold."
The above reaction is at the end of the section.
You wouldn't enrich the 198 isotope, you'd just bombard natural mercury and chemically separate out the gold afterwards.
> "...the production cost is estimated to be a trillion times the market price of gold."
Wikipedia just pulled this one out of its butt. The value of a neutron in a nuclear reactor is the opportunity cost of it not hitting a uranium atom to produce fission. 1 mole of neutrons can produce about $100,000 worth of wholesale electricity assuming 40% efficiency. 1 mole of neutrons could alternatively produce 1 mole of gold, which is worth about $26,500. So it's roughly 4 times the market price of gold.
Of course there would be the cost of building and running the reactor and the associated chemical processes to collect the gold, but these cost are probably similar orders of magnitude to mines and refineries. Certainly not 12 orders of magnitude more.
While it's not economical to make gold this way, it is economical to make certain medical isotopes this way.
>> "...the production cost is estimated to be a trillion times the market price of gold."
> Wikipedia just pulled this one out of its butt.
It is worth checking before accusing someone of making something up...
This appears to come from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-l..., which states that the author of a 1980 experiment says "It would cost more than one quadrillion dollars per ounce to produce gold by this experiment." That appears (from skimming sources) to come from a running cost of $5000/hr to produce a few hundred atoms of gold per hour. Modern methods are probably more efficient, but the number didn't come from nowhere.
Addendum: And per https://home.cern/alice-detects-conversion-lead-gold-lhc, the LHC can turn lead into gold at a rate of 89000 nuclei per second, which is ridiculously far from economically reasonable. The LHC cost $9 billion and uses a lot of power, so I'd say not "similar orders of magnitude to mines and refineries" used for gold.
No, you moron.
Read the original text. Several of the gold daughter isotopes are unstable.
Do I need to find this for you, idiot?
I'm in a mood to be especially caustic for one who is flatly wrong...
Edit: Moron!
"In 1941, Rubby Sherr, Kenneth Bainbridge and Herbert H. Anderson synthesized gold from mercury with neutron bombardment using the cyclotron at Harvard University, but the isotopes of gold were all radioactive."