+- Southperry.net (https://www.southperry.net)
+-- Forum: Social (https://www.southperry.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Forum: Rubik's Cube (https://www.southperry.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=58)
+--- Thread: Why is this troll science wrong? (/showthread.php?tid=43782)
Why is this troll science wrong? - octopusprime - 2011-07-15
MagicsBISH Wrote:Its possible, just to expensive!
No.
C0SA Wrote:Yep... and what's the problem?
There isn't a problem, but if you already knew that then you should realize you really didn't add anything to the topic.
Why is this troll science wrong? - HybridStigmata - 2011-07-18
1. I'm pretty sure there are other elements worth more then platinum, like most early transuranic elements
2. The energy required to achieve platinum from gold far exceeds the gross profit
Nuclear options:
Undergoing beta decay from neutron-rich iridium
Undergoing alpha decay from proton-rich mercury
Why is this troll science wrong? - octopusprime - 2011-07-18
HybridStigmata Wrote:1. I'm pretty sure there are other elements worth more then platinum, like most early transuranic elements
2. The energy required to achieve platinum from gold far exceeds the gross profit
Nuclear options:
Undergoing beta decay from neutron-rich iridium
Undergoing alpha decay from proton-rich mercury
Worth more maybe. Just not as commercially viable.
Why is this troll science wrong? - FallenStar - 2011-07-18
I think it's wrong because it's element number 78 and 79 they both have stable nuclei. Therefore, they can't go into a decay mode and turn to something else. o.o
Why is this troll science wrong? - octopusprime - 2011-07-19
FallenStar Wrote:I think it's wrong because it's element number 78 and 79 they both have stable nuclei. Therefore, they can't go into a decay mode and turn to something else. o.o
This has already been answered. And that isn't why.
Why is this troll science wrong? - FallenStar - 2011-07-19
octopusprime Wrote:This has already been answered. And that isn't why.
My bad =S