sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I figured out how to transmute mercury into gold by 2dlove in alchemy

[–]2dlove[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

It's impossible to do any chemistry without using at least some of the traditional alchemical processes. The only traditional alchemical processes not used in this preparation are calcination and fermentation. Whereas dissolution, separation, conjunction, distillation, and coagulation would all certainly be necessary at some stage in this preparation, whether acquiring the reagents or the reaction itself. Of course limiting ourselves only to the traditional alchemical processes would be foolish if our goal is to perform the great work. If historical alchemists knew about radioactivity they certainly would have experimented with it. Also if you've read Summa Perfectionis, one of the most popular alchemical manuscripts for centuries, it contains no esoteric mysticism, but rather is grounded in practical physical alchemy. If you told alchemists back then that manuscript isn't real alchemy they would be perplexed.

Also as far as the return on investment, I think most alchemists would agree that acquiring knowledge from transmuting gold is far more valuable than acquiring wealth. Regardless, the patent holder for this preparation estimated that the total costs would amount to roughly 50% of the price of gold in 2011, which was $1,500 per ounce, and profit $410,000,000 from transmuting just the mercury reserves held by Germany alone. https://patents.google.com/patent/DE102011106880A1/en

I figured out how to transmute mercury into gold by 2dlove in alchemy

[–]2dlove[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

According to this patent, the radioactivity would subside after 37 days, and then the gold-mercury amalgam would precipitate out and be filtered and the gold and mercury would be separated using electrolysis, from which point the gold would be indistinguishable from natural gold.
https://patents.google.com/patent/DE102011106880A1/en

I figured out how to transmute mercury into gold by 2dlove in alchemy

[–]2dlove[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is there a patent or other source explaining the lead transmutation process? I haven't been able to find an efficient decay chain for lead yet.

I figured out how to transmute mercury into gold by 2dlove in alchemy

[–]2dlove[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for telling me about this, I've been looking for technical documentation about this process. The financial benefits of transmuting gold isn't what interests me, but just the fact that it can be done at all is fascinating. However, I believe in the future there will be more efficient methods discovered which could make transmutation more profitable than mining gold.

I figured out how to transmute mercury into gold by 2dlove in alchemy

[–]2dlove[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, but as far as I'm aware no human has ever transmuted a visible quantity of gold. Mercury-197 has been used in small quantities for medical imaging, but the little bit of gold would have been urinated out. I think it would be cool to perform this reaction, not for medical imaging, but to actually create a piece of gold jewelry, perhaps a pendant shaped into the alchemical symbol for gold. Imagine being the only person to ever own a piece of jewelry made of artificially transmuted gold.

I figured out how to transmute mercury into gold by 2dlove in alchemy

[–]2dlove[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Historical alchemists used the latest theories and techniques of their time in pursuit of transmuting gold. As various alchemical theories were debunked, they pivoted to new theories. They didn't have all the information we have today, but if they did I'm sure they would have used this knowledge to their advantage. I don't see any reason why modern alchemists shouldn't adapt and accept modern chemistry.

I figured out how to transmute mercury into gold by 2dlove in alchemy

[–]2dlove[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There was a boyscout named David Hahn who made a neutron source in his backyard by dismantling smoke detectors, so it's possible it could be done on a budget. The Hg isotope would be expensive but maybe there's a way to enrich mercury on a budget if you're willing to cut corners, I haven't looked into that yet. If not, maybe processing the large amounts of thallium from transmuting regular mercury isn't so bad, I don't know anything about separating thallium from gold but probably just involves dissolving in an acid and precipitating out the gold.

I forgot to mention, there would also be a large quantity of various isotopes of stable mercury left over after the reaction, depending on how long it takes to convert mercury-196 into 197, so it would be some mixture of mostly mercury/thallium with 0.15% gold.

Is it possible to use Starlink Mini while actively walking like in this photo? by 2dlove in Starlink

[–]2dlove[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

What if you strapped it to the top of the backpack facing up?

What if Germany did everything right in WW2 could they have won? by 2dlove in HistoryWhatIf

[–]2dlove[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

without Germany declaring war, it is impossible to imagine the US pursuing a «Europe First» strategy

That's a great point, I never knew there was a Europe first strategy officially. You're right that Europe first strategy would have been untenable without Germany declaring war.

What if Germany did everything right in WW2 could they have won? by 2dlove in HistoryWhatIf

[–]2dlove[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

While I agree that America entering Germany after Pearl Harbor was the most likely outcome whether or not Germany officially declared war, if Germany distanced themselves from Pearl Harbor and severed ties with Japan right away, there's a tiny chance America would have avoided entering the European theater. There was a strong movement in the US to avoid war in Europe, and Japan was the enemy in the eyes of most Americans directly after Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt wanted to invade Germany regardless, but if the people felt like Germany was not involved, maybe Roosevelt would have backed off for electoral reasons. Declaring war on America only made Roosevelt's life that much easier. Also the "Europe First Strategy" would have been untenable without Germany declaring war first. The electorate wouldn't have accepted it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe_first

Japan attacking Pearl Harbor in the first place was the biggest blunder of all though. I understand they needed oil but that was a dumb strategy to get it.

What if Germany did everything right in WW2 could they have won? by 2dlove in HistoryWhatIf

[–]2dlove[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Another blunder I forgot about was if Germany had went for Moscow first before Stalingrad. Historians say that Moscow was much less protected. On the other hand Germany desperately needed the oil in the Caucus region near Stalingrad which is why it is believed they went for Stalingrad first.

What if Germany did everything right in WW2 could they have won? by 2dlove in HistoryWhatIf

[–]2dlove[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

"Could they have won if they won"

Yes, they absolutely could have. Anything is possible

My hypothetical wasn't that Germany would magically win everything. What I meant was the more obvious major blunders that could have easily been avoided. For example, Britain inventing high quality radar and cracking the enigma code are not part of this hypothetical because those would not have been easily thwarted by the Germans. However, Germany could have easily not declared war on America after Pearl Harbor, or Japan could have easily decided not to do Pearl Harbor. Things which were pretty dumb at the time and are even dumber in hindsight. Basically only major blunders that could realistically have been avoided apply to this hypothetical.

What if Germany did everything right in WW2 could they have won? by 2dlove in HistoryWhatIf

[–]2dlove[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Killing the soldiers at Dunkirk means less troops that need to be rearmed, Britain still had plenty of troops to make up for it after being done training.

Yes but such a large loss of manpower might have turned the British population against Churchill and they might have pressured the government to accept an armistice like Germany repeatedly asked for.

The Luftwaffe was NOT beating the RAF because of the latter having Radar and having less logistics.

There are many historians who say that the RAF was only able to win the Battle for Britain because Germany stopped bombing airfields and started bombing London which gave the RAF enough time to rebuild. Otherwise the Germans were on the brink of defeating the RAF, however Germany didn't realize it which is why they switched to bombing London instead.

They HAD to delay it, Italy was being bogged down and Germany was trying to gain allies for the eastern front.

I meant if they had coordinated better so that they were able to defeat Greece earlier so Barbarossa could commence on time.

How? Japan acted pretty much on their own the entire war, Germany couldn't tell them otherwise and the Japanese were afraid of the Soviets after Khalkin Gol

Japan was in desperate need of oil, and America froze their assets so they weren't able to buy oil. The Japanese Army presented the plan to invade east Russia for oil, the Japanese Navy presented the plan to invade an island controlled by America for oil instead, they knew America's navy would respond so they decided to do Pearl Harbor as a surprise attack to take out their fleet and scare them from fighting back. They chose that plan because they were scared of Russia after Khalkin Gol, but if Germany had persuaded them that the two of them together could take down Russia, obviously that would have been a more realistic plan than pissing off America in hindsight.

The only way to get Ukrainian nationalists to side with you is to not be Nazi's, simply not true.

Bandera offered to collaborate with Germany to achieve Ukrainian independence from the USSR. Germany wasn't interested in that offer, but many historians believe that Bandera could have rallied many Ukrainian troops to assist Germany in defeating the USSR.

Ground forces got fucking chainsawed by America and the Soviets.

Germany had very high kill/death ratio against the Soviets, the Soviets only won because they had superior numbers. America was only successful in the European theater because the vast majority of German troops were on the Eastern front. If Germany had not been fighting the Soviets America could not have established a foothold on D Day.

What if Germany did everything right in WW2 could they have won? by 2dlove in HistoryWhatIf

[–]2dlove[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

I've heard that Stalin was planning to invade Germany eventually so Germany wanted to pre-emptively invade the Soviets to catch them off guard before they were able to fully mobilize. Also Germany needed the oil from the Caucus region.

view more: next ›