Topic: Synthetic gold from LENR reactors could drive crypto to insane levels - page 3. (Read 14938 times)
March 09, 2014, 02:39:34 PM
It is really unrealistic to think that gold could be synthetically mass produced to a point that would make it profitable to do so. Simply launching a space ship costs millions alone, not including the technology and hardware required to mine on an asteroid and then have return trips back to Earth. Maybe one day within a century we will send people to Mars and we may very well discover significant amounts of precious metals on Mars. I just wouldn't see any financial collapse due to any of these scenarios.
March 09, 2014, 02:26:29 PM
Umm, what is the benefit for separating the isotopes? For heavy water it's quite clear the properties in certain applications are needed, but for silver and copper?
Wasting energy on something for no further benefit is a waste...
nooooo how can someone be into BTC and so dumb :-(
good money is only about being rare and hard to create; gold has very little practical purpose and BTC has none
so rare isotopes would be perfect, as long as they are not accessible via LENR synthesis path
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Gold-Pressed_Latinum
March 09, 2014, 02:24:48 PM
brilliant contribution
yes I was thinking along the same lines. maybe certain isotopes of certain elements will be a store of value? those that are hard to synthesize in LENR factories?
GOLD PRESSED LATINUM HERE WE COME ...
March 09, 2014, 10:19:44 AM
There is a large difference here, thorium reactors just face some engineering challenges and operate on proven physics. Everything related to cold fusion and such doesn't.
That is not true. Physics is proven by observation, not by the approval of Robert Park.
Quote
Yeah I know, the evil scientific establishment keeps all those great inventions down
Ad-hom the strawman much? No conspiracy is required to fully explain the facts. Robert Park simply slandered Pons and Fleischman, thus setting physics back 30 years. His motivations were transparent and pecuniary. But now he is no longer the head of the APS.
when you resort to fallacious argument it brings your thesis, among other things, in to question.
March 09, 2014, 07:24:18 AM
Umm, what is the benefit for separating the isotopes? For heavy water it's quite clear the properties in certain applications are needed, but for silver and copper?
Wasting energy on something for no further benefit is a waste...
March 09, 2014, 03:25:34 AM
March 08, 2014, 11:07:19 PM
Gold has only one stable isotope and as the current understanding of physics goes won't be possible to be created artificially on an economical viable basis. (The amount of energy required to do so prevents it)
Nuclear physics is a pretty mature field, almost like chemistry and it would mean a pretty drastic scientific paradigm shift if physics would be able to describe a process of arbitrary creating elements on a economical viable basis.
This company reeks of a typical investing scam, all complete with hoax(pseudo)science. If they had something they would have gone the way over academia and published a research paper.
Any of you guys remember Steorn?
Nuclear physics is a pretty mature field, almost like chemistry and it would mean a pretty drastic scientific paradigm shift if physics would be able to describe a process of arbitrary creating elements on a economical viable basis.
This company reeks of a typical investing scam, all complete with hoax(pseudo)science. If they had something they would have gone the way over academia and published a research paper.
Any of you guys remember Steorn?
Well said EM.
March 08, 2014, 09:54:50 PM
LENR is a fake science.
March 08, 2014, 07:39:54 PM
if with lenr you mean "cold fusion" then sorry to dissapoint you
wikipedia says that palladium-catalysed fusion was a fake/error
and myon based reactions dont yield excess energy
wikipedia says that palladium-catalysed fusion was a fake/error
and myon based reactions dont yield excess energy
Well if someone wrote it on wikipedia then it must be true...
March 08, 2014, 04:33:52 PM
Just YUAN, is the best 
March 08, 2014, 04:27:25 PM
And if gold price is allowed to rise to market value...
Now THERE is something hard to value on its fundamentals. Bitcoin is a cakewalk compared to gold.
You mean the residual supply/demand balance after paper is removed. Since all the paper has to cancel out or rollover, it might not change as much as quickly as you think. Eventually it would go up because of growing imbalances which could no longer be steered by market ops, but probably not jumpwise absent a catalyst.
March 08, 2014, 03:53:13 PM
I didn't read anything but I expect the cost of synthesizing gold is greater than extracting it
Correct. Present technology suggests that future technology might change that sooner than anyone would have thought a few short years ago. And then there is asteroid mining, which may also change the economics, if done at sufficient scale.
March 08, 2014, 03:36:11 PM
I didn't read anything but I expect the cost of synthesizing gold is greater than extracting it
March 08, 2014, 03:30:56 PM
March 08, 2014, 01:56:06 PM
There is a large difference here, thorium reactors just face some engineering challenges and operate on proven physics. Everything related to cold fusion and such doesn't.
That is not true. Physics is proven by observation, not by the approval of Robert Park.
Quote
Yeah I know, the evil scientific establishment keeps all those great inventions down
Ad-hom the strawman much? No conspiracy is required to fully explain the facts. Robert Park simply slandered Pons and Fleischman, thus setting physics back 30 years. His motivations were transparent and pecuniary. But now he is no longer the head of the APS.
when you resort to fallacious argument it brings your thesis, among other things, in to question.
March 08, 2014, 12:42:50 PM
Bitcoin can go up even without LENR going online and producing gold.
Those who have gold ownership will have to diversify to bitcoin in order to hedge the possibility of gold becoming "printable".
Now, physical gold is a 180.000 tons market and the paper market is multiple times that.
The physical market is worth approximately 7.5 TRILLION USD.
Even if 1% of the physical (let alone the paper market) is hedged with Bitcoins as a precaution to possible scientific advances, we are talking 6 digit BTCs - as the demand of BTCs from that kind of money cannot be met without escalating prices (in a very steep way).
Those who have gold ownership will have to diversify to bitcoin in order to hedge the possibility of gold becoming "printable".
Now, physical gold is a 180.000 tons market and the paper market is multiple times that.
The physical market is worth approximately 7.5 TRILLION USD.
Even if 1% of the physical (let alone the paper market) is hedged with Bitcoins as a precaution to possible scientific advances, we are talking 6 digit BTCs - as the demand of BTCs from that kind of money cannot be met without escalating prices (in a very steep way).
March 08, 2014, 11:44:12 AM
Gold has only one stable isotope and as the current understanding of physics goes won't be possible to be created artificially on an economical viable basis. (The amount of energy required to do so prevents it)
Nuclear physics is a pretty mature field, almost like chemistry and it would mean a pretty drastic scientific paradigm shift if physics would be able to describe a process of arbitrary creating elements on a economical viable basis.
This company reeks of a typical investing scam, all complete with hoax(pseudo)science. If they had something they would have gone the way over academia and published a research paper.
Any of you guys remember Steorn?
Nuclear physics is a pretty mature field, almost like chemistry and it would mean a pretty drastic scientific paradigm shift if physics would be able to describe a process of arbitrary creating elements on a economical viable basis.
This company reeks of a typical investing scam, all complete with hoax(pseudo)science. If they had something they would have gone the way over academia and published a research paper.
Any of you guys remember Steorn?
I don't remember Steorn, but I thought the cavitation stuff was kind of interesting (in terms of transmutation of matter and stuff)
I still think that LFTR (liquid fluoride thorium reactors) are the way to go for abundant energy.
There is a large difference here, thorium reactors just face some engineering challenges and operate on proven physics. Everything related to cold fusion and such doesn't.
Yeah I know, the evil scientific establishment keeps all those great inventions down, if telsa only hadn't had his funds frozen by JPM we would have abundant free energy today, yadda yadda.... The thing is inside academia on the universities the cutting edge of science isn't really that constricted as the cranks claim. People don't need special research grants to try out something new. It's actually publishing stuff or doing actual science that's the requirement here.
March 08, 2014, 10:49:07 AM
if with lenr you mean "cold fusion" then sorry to dissapoint you
wikipedia says that palladium-catalysed fusion was a fake/error
and myon based reactions dont yield excess energy
See celani experiments on youtube. This was calibrated by national instrument engineers. wikipedia says that palladium-catalysed fusion was a fake/error
and myon based reactions dont yield excess energy
March 08, 2014, 10:47:47 AM
Gold has only one stable isotope and as the current understanding of physics goes won't be possible to be created artificially on an economical viable basis. (The amount of energy required to do so prevents it)
Nuclear physics is a pretty mature field, almost like chemistry and it would mean a pretty drastic scientific paradigm shift if physics would be able to describe a process of arbitrary creating elements on a economical viable basis.
This company reeks of a typical investing scam, all complete with hoax(pseudo)science. If they had something they would have gone the way over academia and published a research paper.
Any of you guys remember Steorn?
Nuclear physics is a pretty mature field, almost like chemistry and it would mean a pretty drastic scientific paradigm shift if physics would be able to describe a process of arbitrary creating elements on a economical viable basis.
This company reeks of a typical investing scam, all complete with hoax(pseudo)science. If they had something they would have gone the way over academia and published a research paper.
Any of you guys remember Steorn?
I don't remember Steorn, but I thought the cavitation stuff was kind of interesting (in terms of transmutation of matter and stuff)
I still think that LFTR (liquid fluoride thorium reactors) are the way to go for abundant energy.
Jump to: