# GOLD EXTRACTION using MAGNETISM??



## justinhcase (Dec 21, 2016)

Came across this chap.
Seems to think he has abetter understanding of magnetism than the main stream schools of thought.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kfvyk0LHLSY
He guarantees his work.
I for one would not travel to an isolated mining claim and disappoint my sponsor.
It would be a very long walk home if you where lucky :lol: 
Any thought's?


----------



## g_axelsson (Dec 21, 2016)

As a physicist I must ask... what's "centrifugal magnetism"?

A lot of self promotion and technobabble in that video. Didn't watch it end to end, just skipped a lot. And the scientists have a pretty good grasp on what magnetism is and how it works. He might have written a book on magnetism but I very much doubt that it is "the book" on magnetism.

Btw, gold decelerated when passing a strong magnet is because of eddy currents, the same principle behind eddy current separators.
I use to demonstrate it by dropping a strong magnet through a close fitting aluminum tube, moving my hand to the bottom and catch the magnet when it comes out again.
The eddy current effect is strongly depending on size of the conductor, so fine particles aren't affected as much as big chunks.

Göran


----------



## Eamonn (Jan 3, 2017)

Just saw that video and was going to post it but you beat me to it Justincase.
The guy is really annoying and he makes it so hard to understand his theories, I can't tell if he is a genius or a nob.
There is one thing though. He is right that conventional science has not explained magnetism satisfactorily.
Cheers
Eamonn


----------



## g_axelsson (Jan 3, 2017)

Eamonn said:


> There is one thing though. He is right that conventional science has not explained magnetism satisfactorily.


In which way?

Göran


----------



## aga (Jan 3, 2017)

The video is mere technobabble, however it is built on one particular truth : nobody really knows what magnetism actually is.

How Magnetism works and how to measure/predict it's effects are very well researched and documented.

Same goes for Energy, Time, Matter etc : we don't really know what they actually _are_ but know how they behave (within limits).

Nobody knows if knowing What they are really matters either.


----------



## aga (Jan 3, 2017)

Eamonn said:


> can't tell if he is a genius or a nob


If he was a genius, he'd get someone more interesting to make his utoob videos


----------



## Eamonn (Jan 3, 2017)

> If he was a genius, he'd get someone more interesting to make his utoob videos


Probably a nob then.



> Eamonn wrote:
> There is one thing though. He is right that conventional science has not explained magnetism satisfactorily.
> 
> In which way?
> ...



Well: Can you tell me what is pulling, or pushing, one metal towards, or away from, another?

Eamonn


----------



## g_axelsson (Jan 3, 2017)

Eamonn said:


> > If he was a genius, he'd get someone more interesting to make his utoob videos
> 
> 
> Probably a nob then.
> ...


Surecando, the electromagnetic force, mediated by photons.

Here is a video from a guy that really has read the book on magnetism... no, not the one from the guy above.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TKSfAkWWN0

And this has been known by the science for the last 100 years.
Add another 50 years and magnetism on the quantum level were also quite well known. Feynman got his Nobel price for being part of development of QED, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics
After that the next milestone was the development of the standard model which explains and links the electromagnetic force, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force together in a common theory. That was made in the 1970:es and proven by experiments over the next 30-40 years.
The last big confirmation was the discovery of the Higgs boson in 2012, predicted in 1964.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson

What remains is to link general relativity (which explains among other things gravity) and the quantum physics together as that is two very well known theories with a lot of tests proving the validity of them. There are a couple of competing lines of attack on this problem and it will be fun watching the development in the coming years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k0PoB-43xE

Göran


----------



## aga (Jan 3, 2017)

g_axelsson said:


> As a physicist I must ask... what's "centrifugal magnetism"?


The only idea i could come up with was that a particle in a magnetic field experiences that field differently if it is in the 'eye' of the field or at some point distant.

There is a utoob video out there where a faceless tattooed guy shouts a lot for a very long time, mainly saying everyone else is wrong, yet offers absolutely no science or evidence at all.

At one point in the tedious video he shows a gyroscope that behaves differently in the centre of a huge Nd magnet than it does at the edge, and says 'centripetal' at some point.


----------



## aga (Jan 3, 2017)

g_axelsson said:


> What remains is to link general relativity (which explains among other things gravity)


The equations/theories are more a description than an explantion.

With the equations, we can predict and do amazing things.

Does not explain what things like Gravity actually are.


----------



## g_axelsson (Jan 3, 2017)

"Centrifugal magnetism" is just technobabble.



aga said:


> g_axelsson said:
> 
> 
> > What remains is to link general relativity (which explains among other things gravity)
> ...


Well, if you can't see that an equation describing how the fundamental physics works in detail and that one result is Maxwell's equations that describes perfectly how magnetic and electric fields works, then it is no idea to go even deeper since it still will only be a description of how nature works.

How about this : Magnetism is the force that charged particles feels when moving relatively to each other.
And gravity is the curvature of space.

I would say that science has a good understanding of what both magnetism and gravity is, there is only a question of finding the description at a deeper level that in the end gives both gravity and the other three forces when taken to the limit.

A video with an actual genius. :mrgreen: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSEXA5JueRU

Göran


----------



## aga (Jan 3, 2017)

The Acid Test is to say :-
Make me some Gold from this bit of charcoal i just found.

Success within a lifetime = complete understanding of the physics, chemistry and the Realities involved.
All the required bits are there in that bit of charcoal.

Currently we can't do that as we just do not know enough.

Good thing too as it'd smash the Gold price


----------



## g_axelsson (Jan 3, 2017)

That is just a stupid acid test. We do know how to make gold out of a piece of charcoal, it's just that it's not an interesting experiment and it would cost a lot. Especially if we had to do all the steps up to gold with the same starting material. It is easier to synthesize gold from mercury 198 by knocking off a neutron and it then decays into gold. First done in 1924 and then again in 1941. We can also do it by starting with bismuth in a similar manner. First done in 1980.

If we have to start with just carbon atoms we could still do it, we have a good grasp of the nucleosynthesis in stars, beginning with hydrogen and working our way up the periodic table.
http://www.goldstandardinstitute.net/2013/12/24/nucleosynthesis-of-gold-a-process-in-an-extreme-environment/
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/doi/10.1086/190111

The people doing this type of physics is busy trying to find stable elements above 118, especially the island of stability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_stability

Göran


----------



## justinhcase (Jan 4, 2017)

Some very interesting topic's.
Magnetism and gravity are two forces that do seem strange on our particular view point and dimension.
Both are theorized to have there origins in one of the dimensions described by quantum theory and the effects are weaker forces that have leaked through the interface of the membrane between dimension's.
The rule of thumb when dealing with such questions I understood to be"If you think you understand,You are mistaken"
No doubt some individuals on this board would have a home with in the large groups of people that communally can come to some understanding,but the most basic equations are very much beyond the understanding of 99 percent of man kind.
So to my mind we have two very interesting possibility's for discussions.
(a)the mechanic's of magnetism and how that relates to the recovery of target elements.
(b)How to represent information in a manner that douse not instigate negative human response instead facilitates a positive social reaction thus facilitating advantageous cooperation.

My understanding of the first question raised is to basic to have an opinion which was why I was hoping some one else with a better grasp might look at his "book " and render an unbiased opinion.
That over view would color the way the second question would be tackled.
If he has even a small gran of value to his point of view the way he has presented it makes it holey too well hidden behind poor social skills as to be digestible.If there is no truth to his observations this will indicate the poor social skills are just camouflager for a less than nice agenda.


----------



## aga (Jan 4, 2017)

g_axelsson said:


> That is just a stupid acid test. We do know how to make gold out of a piece of charcoal


I'm no physicist nor even a proper chemist, nor experienced refiner, so i happily defer to your superior knowledge.

Please don't go making any though, at least not in large quantities.


----------

