Gold--How did they know?

I wasn't meaning anything "better" or "worse" or that .999 is the best either...just showing what could be the origins of metals .999 is considered pure or pretty damn close to it...and back in the beginning I'm willing to bet nothing was as pure...I'm sure after people learned to refine better it got closer and even to .999 but in the beginning the people that lived back then that discovered metals and the generations that lived after them after that collected metals for weapons and such cause you could melt it down and form it in the way you wanted and then it was as hard as stone after cooling....that's what i was getting at...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

In a way that has already happened several times, look at the following chart, each major discovery of gold has resulted in a dip in prices. Most notable is the dip following the discovery of the new world in 1492.

 

What, indeed?

By density (g/cc):

[TABLE="align: left"]

Element
Density
Atomic Weight

Osmium
22.61
190.2

Iridium
22.56
192.2

Platinum
21.46
195.1

Rhenium
21.02
186.2

Gold
19.28
197.0

Lead
11.34
207.2
[/TABLE]

I'm not sure what gave you the idea that atomic weight determines density, but fifteen seconds with Google would show you that your conclusion was completely wrong.

 

I agree that .999 and higher purity isn't a practical consideration for monetary use, but there's at least one application where it's quite critical -- semiconductors. Here's a company that offers gold in four, five or six 9's purity (up to 99.9999% pure).

I wouldn't downplay the emotional element, either. As you say, increasing purity doesn't always affect material properties. But the alchemists of old didn't know that, so they drove for centuries to achieve an ultimate state of purity. They couldn't, of course, but the techniques they developed formed the foundations of modern practical chemistry -- which, I would argue, is quite important to us all.

 

I commend you for your fact checking. Fatima has a habit of making statements on a variety of topics that are easily refuted by just checking them out.

 

That is specific gravity, not atomic weight nor specific weight. The point made was weight i.e. heaviest metal, not the densest metal.

 

(moderator please delete.)

 

lol :-]

 

They found gold first all by its lonesome then they found silver. Only problem with silver was it came with a bottle of Tarn-X and a label "As will be seen on T.V. in the future".

 

I... see.

So the ancients that ratio411 was discussing must, too, have been thinking of atomic weight -- commendable of them, since most of their peers were still thinking in terms of earth, air, fire, and water, if that.

But even so, "gold is second only to lead" would still be wrong. Mercury, also known for thousands of years, falls smack between them -- both in density and in atomic weight, by coincidence​.

 

Okay smarty pants...
Tell me which is heavier, an oz of lead or oz of gold?

 

Not that there's a whole continent made from it, but that statement made me immediately think of diamonds and the centuries of misinformation we've been fed to artificially raise the value on an otherwise abundant commodity. I have to believe there is more known gold than we're led to believe, but it's made non available to hold it's value. After all, if you're business was selling gold, the less there was the higher your asking price would be.

So I guess in reality, there are continents made of gold. It's everywhere, on every continent, in every yard and beach and sandbox.

As far as why people have been attracted to it ,I don't think it was first looked upon as valuable as we know it today, but rather it was valued for it's uses, like Chris mentioned.
Guy

 

This would depend on which measurement you use. If the lead were an avoirdupois ounce and the gold a troy ounce then the gold would weigh more.
If both are weighed in troy ounces then they both weigh the same.
To clear things up:
1 avoirdupois ounce = 28.35 grams.
1 troy ounce = 31.10 grams

 

Specific gravity is a measure of the ratio of density of a substance to water. Gold has a specific gravity of 19.3, meaning that is is 19.3 times as dense as water. Lead has a specific gravity of 11.34, meaning that it is only 11.34 times as dense as water and therefore less dense than gold.

Put another way, a cubic meter of gold weighs 19,300 kilograms, while a cubic meter of lead weighs 11,340 kilograms. (A cubic meter of water weighs 1000 kilograms, or one metric ton).
http://www.simetric.co.uk/si_metals.htm

 

I agree with you about Mercury but as we all know, it is a liquid. Yeah, solid metal wasn't specified..........

 

It's the same answer as to which weighs more, a ton of feathers or a ton of lead.

 

Lead and gold are indeed 'heavy' ... but the same quantity of each would weigh differently, due to the density. As I said originally, lead has just over half the density, so an equal volume of each would mean that the weight (mass) of the lead ingot would be just over half the weight (mass) of the gold ingot.

(Note that wheareas it's generally accepted that Pu (Z=94) is not 'naturally-occurring', minute traces of it can be found in certain ores, as a by-product along decay paths. By the same token, both Fr (Z=87) and At (Z=85) are deemed 'naturally-occurring', but there's only ever about 1 oz of At [Astatine] occurring in the earth's crust (anywhere!!) at any one time due to its high volatility, and probably only a few oz of Francium)

 

Just an interesting counter thought. The Indian's thought beads and trinkets were precious enough to cause them to sell an island to the white man. In their eyes it was valuable, but this soon changed once these things were known and became common. This makes rarity the key to ever lasting value.

 

Just an aside, the indians who sold Manhattan never lived there, so all of the beads and trinkets they got were for free! Free is always good no matter how common.

 

Just as an additional aside: There has never been a deed, title or bill of sale offered as proof of the purchase. Only a letter on file by the Dutch stating they gave $24 worth of trade goods (no mention of beads or trickets specifically) to the Lenage Indians who were on the lower part of the island at the time. The upper part was contolled and inhabitted by the Reckgawanc Indians who probably had more claim to the total island than anyone else. A third tribe, the Canarsie, also hunted on this land which the Lenage were believed doing when the Dutch arived. The indians never had any concept of legal owner ship. They probably thought they were given these gifts for passage through the territory which was common among tribes then.