Gold or something on Moon or Mars...

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Gold or something on Moon or Mars...
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

1 · 2 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile hiamps
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 May 99
Posts: 4292
Credit: 72,971,319
RAC: 0
United States
Message 912386 - Posted: 28 Jun 2009, 18:01:48 UTC

If thru some analysis it was reported in Papers around the world that there were huge deposits of Gold on the Moon or Mars I bet it would spur private development in a hurry. A new Gold rush is what science needs...If someone can make lots of money they will figure out how.
Official Abuser of Boinc Buttons...
And no good credit hound!
ID: 912386 · Report as offensive
MrayProject Donor

Send message
Joined: 16 May 99
Posts: 124
Credit: 22,341,648
RAC: 12,693
United States
Message 912396 - Posted: 28 Jun 2009, 18:19:17 UTC

The cost of mining gold on the Moon or Mars makes it more expensive than gold is on Earth now. Gold just isn't worth it, you need something more valuable.


ID: 912396 · Report as offensive
John McCallum
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Dec 04
Posts: 848
Credit: 447,041
RAC: 107
United Kingdom
Message 912430 - Posted: 28 Jun 2009, 19:38:38 UTC - in response to Message 912396.  
Last modified: 28 Jun 2009, 19:42:00 UTC

The cost of mining gold on the Moon or Mars makes it more expensive than gold is on Earth now. Gold just isn't worth it, you need something more valuable.


Platinum? usualy 2-3x the price of Gold and has more uses in industry,but you still have to dig it out of the ground,remotely that means BIG Money
Old enough to know better(but)still young enough not to care
ID: 912430 · Report as offensive
Profile Robert Waite
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Oct 07
Posts: 2298
Credit: 10,315,632
RAC: 5,082
Canada
Message 912431 - Posted: 28 Jun 2009, 19:39:09 UTC

Like fountains of cold beer.
ID: 912431 · Report as offensive
Profile Lint trap

Send message
Joined: 30 May 03
Posts: 871
Credit: 28,092,319
RAC: 0
United States
Message 912439 - Posted: 28 Jun 2009, 20:05:51 UTC - in response to Message 912431.  

Like fountains of cold beer.



Close. Potable water will be the thing. Not so many years from now, when the population has doubled again.

Something like 3% (estimated) of the Earth's total water supply is fresh!

Martin
ID: 912439 · Report as offensive
Profile Mark W. Patton
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 30 Jul 99
Posts: 9
Credit: 3,969,601
RAC: 186
United States
Message 915851 - Posted: 8 Jul 2009, 21:11:44 UTC

It turns out that there is something more valuable than gold on the moon. It seems that because it has no atmosphere, there is much more of the highly energetic isotope Helium-3 on the moon. Here on earth, the atmosphere makes its natural occurrence rare but on the moon it is created in abundance by the sun's radiation. A relatively small amount of this isotope is believed by some to contain enough energy to revolutionize the global energy picture and possibly enable a quantum leap forward in the development of an energy grid that no longer relies on fossil fuels.

ID: 915851 · Report as offensive
Profile Borgholio
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 2 Aug 99
Posts: 653
Credit: 14,336,994
RAC: 3,213
United States
Message 916364 - Posted: 10 Jul 2009, 0:16:15 UTC - in response to Message 915851.  

It turns out that there is something more valuable than gold on the moon. It seems that because it has no atmosphere, there is much more of the highly energetic isotope Helium-3 on the moon. Here on earth, the atmosphere makes its natural occurrence rare but on the moon it is created in abundance by the sun's radiation. A relatively small amount of this isotope is believed by some to contain enough energy to revolutionize the global energy picture and possibly enable a quantum leap forward in the development of an energy grid that no longer relies on fossil fuels.


I am curious, how does helium (in any isotope form) promise great amounts of energy? It is, by nature, a stable gas. Fusing helium takes exponentially more power than fusing hydrogen, and helium would not burn in an engine or fuel cell.


You will be assimilated...bunghole!

ID: 916364 · Report as offensive
Profile Mark W. Patton
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 30 Jul 99
Posts: 9
Credit: 3,969,601
RAC: 186
United States
Message 916396 - Posted: 10 Jul 2009, 2:17:17 UTC
Last modified: 10 Jul 2009, 2:17:52 UTC

My understanding of it is that the third hydrogen atom is easily dislodged because helium-3 is not stable. That is why it is easily broken up by the earth's atmosphere and hence rare to find on Earth in a naturally occurring form. I would actually have to do more research on this to give a better explanation. It may be one of those urban myths that bears no weight when tested scientifically. One report does not make for proof positive.
ID: 916396 · Report as offensive
Profile Borgholio
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 2 Aug 99
Posts: 653
Credit: 14,336,994
RAC: 3,213
United States
Message 916401 - Posted: 10 Jul 2009, 2:41:39 UTC - in response to Message 916396.  

My understanding of it is that the third hydrogen atom is easily dislodged because helium-3 is not stable. That is why it is easily broken up by the earth's atmosphere and hence rare to find on Earth in a naturally occurring form. I would actually have to do more research on this to give a better explanation. It may be one of those urban myths that bears no weight when tested scientifically. One report does not make for proof positive.


Helium 3 is simply helium with an extra neutron. At no point does it become hydrogen. Furthermore even if it did, we can generate hydrogen much easier out of common water.


You will be assimilated...bunghole!

ID: 916401 · Report as offensive
Profile tullio
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 6209
Credit: 1,528,972
RAC: 2,398
Italy
Message 916418 - Posted: 10 Jul 2009, 3:55:57 UTC

Probably he meant tritium.
Tullio
ID: 916418 · Report as offensive
Profile Borgholio
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 2 Aug 99
Posts: 653
Credit: 14,336,994
RAC: 3,213
United States
Message 916425 - Posted: 10 Jul 2009, 4:16:12 UTC - in response to Message 916418.  

Probably he meant tritium.
Tullio


Possibly...if true it's still more cost effective to mine it down here. :)


You will be assimilated...bunghole!

ID: 916425 · Report as offensive
John McCallum
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Dec 04
Posts: 848
Credit: 447,041
RAC: 107
United Kingdom
Message 916577 - Posted: 10 Jul 2009, 19:16:30 UTC

article on Helium-3 not to be confused with Tritium(H³)or Duterium(H²) both isotopes of Hydrogen
Old enough to know better(but)still young enough not to care
ID: 916577 · Report as offensive
Profile tullio
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 6209
Credit: 1,528,972
RAC: 2,398
Italy
Message 916583 - Posted: 10 Jul 2009, 19:51:22 UTC

All this is based on a totally untested approach. The plasma temperature necessary for a deuterium-helium 3 fusion is greater than 100 keV, that is 10 times that of the deuterium-tritium reaction. The article does not say if the Lawson criterion is satisfied. I do not think that projects like the ITER Tokamak and the inertial confinement experiment by laser at Livermore would be carried on if the approach outlined in the article could be feasible. You have to perform experiments and submit your data to a process of peer review, otherwise you end up with wishful thinking like cold fusion. I never read of this approach in peer reviewed magazines like Nature and Science.
Tullio
ID: 916583 · Report as offensive
Profile Borgholio
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 2 Aug 99
Posts: 653
Credit: 14,336,994
RAC: 3,213
United States
Message 916592 - Posted: 10 Jul 2009, 20:12:26 UTC - in response to Message 916577.  

article on Helium-3 not to be confused with Tritium(H³)or Duterium(H²) both isotopes of Hydrogen


That article made my eyes bleed. There are so many inaccuracies and deliberate lies that it's not even funny. The article claims that billions of dollars have been invested in hydrogen fusion with little payoff. The fact is that the ITER reactor currently under construction is expected to be the first operational commercial fusion reactor. That's a hell of a lot more progress than helium fusion reactors.

The article also claims that hydrogen fusion releases most of it's energy in radioactive neutrons. Ok...since when is a neutron radioactive? Well ignoring that glaring error for a moment, neutron radiation itself can easily be contained in the reactor walls. When it comes time to replace the material, the used stuff will only be radioactive for a decade or so...and low level at that. Nothing even remotely close to the high level waste from a fission plant.

He goes further to say "WHEN the moon is a sovereign country...". Please, we haven't even set foot on the moon in 40 years and he's talking about sovereignty already? Ugh...he's desperate to sell his idea that helium fusion will ever be viable.


You will be assimilated...bunghole!

ID: 916592 · Report as offensive
Profile tullio
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 6209
Credit: 1,528,972
RAC: 2,398
Italy
Message 916720 - Posted: 11 Jul 2009, 3:26:41 UTC

As far as I know ITER is still an experiment to test the feasibility of nuclear fusion by the Tokamak approach, It is not a prototype of s commercial power plant. It has also incurred in rising costs and delays. A meeting on its progress has taken place in Japan in June, but I haven't read anything about it. A second meeting will be held in November. All my informations come from "Nature" magazine. The latest article I have is a special report "Fusion dreams delayed", in vol.459, 28 May 2009. The subtitle says "International partners are likely to scale back the first version of the ITER reactor", by Geoff Brumfiel.
Tullio
ID: 916720 · Report as offensive
Profile Borgholio
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 2 Aug 99
Posts: 653
Credit: 14,336,994
RAC: 3,213
United States
Message 916730 - Posted: 11 Jul 2009, 3:38:00 UTC - in response to Message 916720.  

As far as I know ITER is still an experiment to test the feasibility of nuclear fusion by the Tokamak approach, It is not a prototype of s commercial power plant. It has also incurred in rising costs and delays. A meeting on its progress has taken place in Japan in June, but I haven't read anything about it. A second meeting will be held in November. All my informations come from "Nature" magazine. The latest article I have is a special report "Fusion dreams delayed", in vol.459, 28 May 2009. The subtitle says "International partners are likely to scale back the first version of the ITER reactor", by Geoff Brumfiel.
Tullio


The Tokamak design is nothing new, ITER just improves on it by increasing the size massively. It is believed that due to the size, it will be able to run at a high enough efficiency level to be used commercially. I do correct myself, ITER is not actually a commercial powerplant, it is more of a prototype. Still, that's more than helium-fusion has produced.




You will be assimilated...bunghole!

ID: 916730 · Report as offensive
Profile Mark W. Patton
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 30 Jul 99
Posts: 9
Credit: 3,969,601
RAC: 186
United States
Message 917207 - Posted: 12 Jul 2009, 18:30:21 UTC - in response to Message 916592.  

Did you ever hear of the neutron bomb? It is nasty little device that allegedly exists somewhere in the U.S. arsenal. It seems that the beauty of this beast lies in the lack of collateral damage and the fact that it destroys primarily biological tissue. So, you nuke somebody else's cities, burn their dead bodies (to prevent disease, etc.) and move into their houses! The use of this device was considered so inhumane that it was banned by the Geneva convention. So, I guess neutrons can be dangerous-your house might be re-usable but you could be quite dead. Denigrating new ideas just because they are new is a habit I find most absurd.

ID: 917207 · Report as offensive
Profile Mark W. Patton
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 30 Jul 99
Posts: 9
Credit: 3,969,601
RAC: 186
United States
Message 917219 - Posted: 12 Jul 2009, 19:09:44 UTC - in response to Message 916401.  

Helium-3 has an extra proton-not neutron.
ID: 917219 · Report as offensive
Profile Mark W. Patton
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 30 Jul 99
Posts: 9
Credit: 3,969,601
RAC: 186
United States
Message 917220 - Posted: 12 Jul 2009, 19:16:04 UTC

Here is a quick and dirty source of information on Helium 3: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3


ID: 917220 · Report as offensive
Profile tullio
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 6209
Credit: 1,528,972
RAC: 2,398
Italy
Message 917269 - Posted: 13 Jul 2009, 2:00:07 UTC - in response to Message 917219.  
Last modified: 13 Jul 2009, 2:22:30 UTC

Helium-3 has an extra proton-not neutron.

Then it would be another element, having atomic number 3. When young, I have helped to build and test a bubble chamber for the International Atomic Energy Agency which detected neutrons,something a Geiger counter cannot do since neutrons have no electric charge, I used a Co60 gamma-ray source to bombard a Berillium target to obtain neutrons and calibrate the instrument. It used vacuum tube electronics and I was given the task to rebuild its electronics with the first Germanium transistors, which I did. So I was irradiated with a nice amount of neutrons and am still here. New ideas are not to be discarded but they must prove to work in the real world to be accepted. Fusion reactors are still in the experimental stage, both in the Tokamak approach and the inertial confinement approach tested at Livermore, a military lab. I think we should rather use the big fusion reactor which we can see every morning from a safe distance by looking East, the Sun.
Tullio
ID: 917269 · Report as offensive
1 · 2 · Next

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Gold or something on Moon or Mars...


 
©2017 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.