Talk:Gold

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Echo has identified Gold as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Czech,  French or German language Wikipedias.

Gold is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

	Chemistry Portal This article is supported by the Elements WikiProject, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details. This article has also been selected for the Version 0.5 release of Wikipedia.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Contents 1 New format 2 Information Sources 3 Archives 4 [Green Gold] Error 5 Quite Common in Turkey? 6 Geometry exercises 7 World Gold Council 8 Who are Rod Fitzhugh and Ted Scott? 9 Another purpose of using Gold. 10 Is buried Gold toxic? 11 Hardness of Gold 12 Ambiguous? 13 vandalism? 14 Gold medal 15 Vandal 16 Gold Concentration of Earth`s Crust is Incorrect 17 Looking to add properties 18 G-ORMES Gold

[edit] New format

Article changed over to new Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements format by maveric149. Elementbox converted 12:06, 14 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 23:36, 12 July 2005).

Just wanted to add a Gold Blog -

<a href="http://globalgold.blogspot.com/">Gold global perspective</a>

[edit] Information Sources

Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from Los Alamos National Laboratory - Gold. Additional text was taken directly from USGS Gold Statistics and Information, from the Elements database 20001107 (via dict.org), Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (via dict.org) and WordNet (r) 1.7 (via dict.org). Data for the table were obtained from the sources listed on the subject page and Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements but were reformatted and converted into SI units.

[edit] Archives

/Archive 1: Jun 2003 - Dec 2006

[edit] [Green Gold] Error

Both Rose Gold and White Gold link to their own articles, but Green Gold links back to the main Gold article. Why? Seems like a bug. 68.5.64.178 12:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Unlike white gold and rose gold, the green gold article consisted of only one sentence and was changed into a redirect. If you want to expand the topic into a stand-alone article, follow the "(Redirected from Green gold)" link and you can edit the redirect page. Femto 15:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quite Common in Turkey?

Can the author of the following line please provide a reference or some context? " For example, gold is quite common in Turkey but considered a most valuable gift in Sicily." Ordinary Person 03:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point, that needs a source. However, it doesn't sound incredibly unreasonable. Turkey has a constantly inflating currency, so people would naturally want to trade in gold. Plus, the strong Muslim tradition. And remember, it's not saying that people carry large amounts of gold everywhere they go, just that it's commonly appears. MrVoluntarist 03:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Apparently there is a great deal of gold mining and exploration activity going on north-west Turkey information about which can be found on the web. The area in Turkey is geologically much like the north-east corner of New Mexico in the US and it would appear that there is quite a lot of Gold in both regions [the New Mexico area around Cimarron was extensively mined up until the 1950's]. Whether or not Turkey deserves particular mention sounds as if interested parties were seeking investors IMHO... Drrocket 14:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geometry exercises

>> At the end of 2001, it was estimated that all the gold ever mined totalled 145,000 tonnes [1]. Gold has a very high density, 19.3 tonnes per cubic metre, therefore all the gold ever mined would make a cube 19.58 metres wide; or a cylinder with height and radius of 13.3 m; or a sphere with radius 12.14 m.

DelftUser, okay let's discuss, though technically it's your turn to explain for what reason it's been included again, not mine why I took it out. Science project exercises are not specific to this metal and its general article, and other geometries do add little to the approximate impression that the paragraph is meant to give. I'd find additional non-geometric comparisons more useful in any case, like the current world population per capita amount, for example. Femto 14:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

other non-geometric comparisons or even a diagram comparing the cube to an average human is fine with me, and I encourge you to do something in that line; for example one diagram can represent all three geometries, but please don't delete my work (without even a discussion) just because you feel like it. --DelftUser 15:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Without even a discussion? We're discussing it right now, aren't we? Your only point so far was that you find this info useful for science projects, and I disagree that it adds to the article. I have equal right to edit unrelated content out as you have to edit it in. One person for, one against, any article should remain in the state as it was before the edits of both involved parties, actually. Though I won't remove this again if you want, I still don't see any relevance to the topic. Femto 16:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Make that two against. Irrelevant math assignment removed. Vsmith 21:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, the inclusion of these figures are one way to visualize the volume of the gold mined. It is not irrelvant. I am in favor of maintaining the origianl information.--Morgan 05:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm shocked that the volume is so small. It wouldn't even fill a small movie theatre. I think the information should be retained. Carbonate 08:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course, but did you infer the compared dimensions of your movie theatre from the cube, the cylinder, or the sphere volume? I still maintain that one measure is enough to get an idea and more isn't always better. Femto 13:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I wouldn't object to trimming it down to just the cube or just the sphere as long as one of them is kept. Carbonate 14:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The current single reference is fine, the stuff above is just overkill. WilyD 14:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, i included the original comment about the 20 metre cube and a calculation because the volume is so small it seems implausable. This began after my friend's father (hello leno) claimed the that all the gold ever mined would fit inside his house. It wouldn't but i did the calc and was blown away how close it was, perhaps he just meant all the gold mined in australia? Knowing that the the volume of gold in existence was so small actually conveyed to me for the first time just how rare the metal is, i think this information is astonishing and i would like to include it. The problem is that the calculation looks ugly and will inevitably get trimmed out by someone who thinks its extraneous, and without the calculation someone else will cull the comment about the cube because it is not verified. anyone got any suggestions on how i can solve this? by some means other than pedantic territorial vigalance? mathew 10:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World Gold Council

It should be remembered that the WGC is not in any way an independent organisation - it's an industry association of gold producers, so - no matter whether this manifests itself in its publications - it's naturally interested in a high gold price. Things to look out for (and again, in no way suggesting it's actually done, just that there are potentially economic incentives to):

• understated production and reserve numbers (less gold would drive the price up)
• overstated cost of mining (ditto)
• overstated usefulness of gold (this actually appears to be the case)
• understated willingness of central banks to sell off gold

Whenever possible, I think it's better if independent sources are used.

RandomP 15:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

But it has an org domain, it must be non-commercial. (/naïve mode off/) Incidentally, the root http://www.gold.org/ page was removed from the external links some time ago because it offered little more than a commercial lobby portal. Some sub-pages seem fine as starting point for finding basic info, however I'd agree that having additional sources, especially for the money-related data, is always better. Femto 12:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe it's commercial, in the sense of trying to create a profit for itself - it's merely trying to create a profit for its members.

They seem to be a lot nicer than, say, the competitive enterprise institute. But even if they try really really hard to be objective, I think there's going to be a slight bias in the selection of people who work there, a slight (possibly subconscious) bias towards only passing on data that's positive about gold, ...

Anti-gold bias appears to be mostly nonexistent out there - I'm sure plenty of people do have an anti-gold bias, but there aren't out there writing "investment newsletters" telling people to sell gold.

That makes it a bit hard for articles about gold to be NPOV-compliant, and I think we're not terribly good about that right now.

RandomP 16:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who are Rod Fitzhugh and Ted Scott?

This bit keeps getting restored, and I honestly don't see what it's doing in this article. Is there anything notable about those people? Anything noteworthy about the gold they found? Do they look different from any other gold nuggets?

I'm tempted to remove the image caption, and possibly the image. Stop me.

RandomP 16:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The image is certainly appropriate for that section of the article. It shows raw, mined gold. As for the credit, why not say who found them? It may be relevant to those "in the know" about the gold mining industry. If you credit a photographer with a picture in an article, does he have to be notable? I really don't understand this drive to remove the credit. MrVoluntarist 16:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

My understanding (and this seems to match what I see when I actually look at a couple of heavily-edited articles) is, yes, all information in WP articles should be notable, and that credit for images is given on the image page. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, it's not intended to send secret messages to those "in the know" about the gold industry ;-)

and why should people who take images be credited prominently while those who write the articles aren't?

*secret handshake* RandomP 16:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not what I said, and you know it. I'd appreciate if for one in your life you would actually read what I post here. Between your "what did I say about MrsVoluntarist!" and "but people could have counterfeited gold coins in Ancient Greece if they used depleted uranium!" it's getting increasingly frustrating to communicate with you. Who found the nuggets may be relevant to someone, esp. if they have background information on the topic (i.e. on the gold mining industry). It's not "vanity". It's certainly not a "secret message" to the gold industry. If there were a picture of a software program running, it's not "vanity" to mention in the caption who wrote an earlier version, even if that person is otherwise non-notable and has no article. You can't just say, I ain't never heard of this person, he don't belong. Who found it *does* matter to people interested in the topic. MrVoluntarist 17:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

---

If you want to discuss things I allegedly said in other articles, or their talk pages, please use my talk page. Why is it relevant who found those gold nuggets? Do they look different from others? I'm obviously not "in the know" here. What am I missing? If they're just gold nuggets, and for whatever reason you insist that gold nuggets found by those two specific people must be credited, could we solve the problem by substituting a picture of some other gold nuggets?

RandomP 17:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to continue to ignore or blantantly distort what I post, I will point that out wherever you do so, not merely on your talk page. Of course it's worth adding who found them. That way if someone hears about a discovery later, or one before, they can link it back to this one. I don't even know why I'm explaining this. Why give credits on a movie? Why list the author of a book? MrVoluntarist 00:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

So this was a major or significant discovery? I'm not at all sure that you're saying that.

RandomP 01:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Lest we thought User:RandomP was finished falsely attributing statements to me. MrVoluntarist 02:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The people are of no notability to this topic. There are already enough pictures of nuggets in the article. The links on the image desription page are borderline adverts. - There should be a better reason than "why not" for defending this image's inclusion against three other editors. Femto 18:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If the description has adverts, remove the adverts from the description. Novel concept! It doesn't justify removing the image that something unnecessary is in the description. And please -- someone added the names, someone reinserted the names, and I reinserted the names. That's three to three. The burden of proof is on you to justify removing information about a picture that someone may be interested in if they track gold discoveries (as one of many examples). And when it comes to picutres, more is better, up to the point where it clutters and distracts from the article. That's just not happening at this point. MrVoluntarist 00:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If you've got better proposals than removing the image, be bold...

I, for one, do like the picture, since unless the jagged-edged gold nuggets of the other pictures, the nuggets displayed here showed the rounded shape I think of as more typical where gold nuggets are shaped by water.

RandomP 01:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, here's my proposal. Don't remove it. Leave the credit. Remove any advertising in violation of the rules on its description. MrVoluntarist 02:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Unacceptable to me. My proposal is to include the image with a brief text describing that it depicts gold nuggets found in Arizona, and nothing else. (The description of the image at the image's page is beyond the scope of this discussion page.)

RandomP 02:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I brought up the image's talk page because another person raised the issue here. Remember? And I understand you don't want people to find out who discovered the nuggets. I have a little more trouble understanding why. Because you don't like it when people learn these things? What's really going on here? MrVoluntarist 02:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Okay, MrVoluntarist just brought up a great point on his talk page that caused a bit of an epiphany for me. I'll try to describe the epiphany, not MrVoluntarist's point, here:

What he said was that, looking at a gold nugget, he would want to know who discovered it.

I must admit that I myself, reading about a chemical element or a mathematical theorem, want to know who discovered or proved it. When looking at a gold nugget, I don't care. When looking at a picture, yes. When looking at a good photograph, of course I want to know who the photographer was. Gold nugget, hmm, nope, still doesn't work.

However, this isn't about my personal reaction. This is about Wikipedia, which is sworn to the NPOV. And I must admit that from that point of view, there's no difference between someone getting mentioned for stumbling over a bit of gold or over a novel theorem, and both have happened. (Goldbach's conjecture is only marginally attached to Goldbach, but, hey, he got lucky. Incidentally the name "Goldbach" seems to hint at one of his ancestor's being named for finding gold in a small river, so maybe this sort of luck runs in families?)

And I must admit that the only consistent policy appears to me to name the person who found a given gold nugget when displaying a picture of it, unless impossible or unwanted (by the discoverer, of course).

However, for the gold article, I'm in favour of choosing a picture where no such credit is required, in the interest of brevity. However, how about including the picture (with the attribution), along with some more text, on gold nugget?

RandomP 03:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that's a good idea, but in that case I'd want gold nugget linked from that section. MrVoluntarist 03:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm Rod Fitzhugh - I am a professional and recreational gold prospector. Don't you think knowing who found the nuggets might make it more interesting for the readers? Personally when I read about something knowing the history of it (in this case who did it and where it came from) is great icing on the cake. I even removed the link to our websites from the image, we don't directly sell on our websites. I really want to become more active on Wikipedia and contribute, but some of you really defeat that energy. I am just trying to contribute in an interesting way.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gold Guru (talk • contribs).

Hi! Signing your comments with ~~~~ is generally a good idea - the wikipedia software will automatically replace the four tildes by your username when you hit "save page", so everyone can see who said what.

I think the most important thing for you to realise is that even if your image isn't used in one article, it can be used in many others - and, since you decide to make your image freely reusable by others, everyone can use it, even people who have nothing to do with wikipedia.

I think that readers of gold nugget would be interested in seeing some pictures of gold nuggets, and that we should attribute them properly when we do that - just like we commonly attribute mathematical theorems or chemical elements to the people who first "found" them. However, my impression is that readers of the gold article, by and large, aren't that interested in nuggets - they're interested in the refined stuff, its uses, its history, how much it's worth, and whether they should buy it (wikipedia cannot answer that last question, but it can provide knowledge about the gold market). They're also interested in how it's found, and gold nuggets should be mentioned on the page, but there are many other sections, so we should keep it short here.

That's why I think your image should go on gold nugget, properly attributed (though maybe we can leave out the day when they were found in the image caption? After all, it's not like gold nuggets look different today from what they did 200 years ago), but not in the gold article, or at least not with a caption.

Wikipedia is written for kids, too! I would think that many young readers find themselves overwhelmed with the sheer amount of text in a long article like gold, and look at the pictures first - so it might be a good idea to summarise important points of the article in the selection of images.

RandomP 02:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rod, your nugget image is a good one and should be included. However, your inclusion of your and your buddies names in the caption qualifies as vanity. Thousands of people find gold nuggets - just finding some nuggets does not make anyone notable enough to have their names included in an encyclopedia. The image is good and likely will continue to be used, but don't expect your names to show up in the caption as who found it is irrelevant to the articles it may be used in. Your name and credits will remain on the image page, but by uploading it you essentially relinquished control over its use. And, if it's any consolation, your names are now preserved for posterity on this talk page :-) Cheers, Vsmith 02:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

VSmith, don't veto a developing consensus unilaterally like that. I enjoyed learning the names when I read the article, and people who track/ are interested in gold prospecting, (i.e., the exact people who are going to be reading an article involving that picture) would certainly be interested. Crediting someone like this is not "vanity". Above, RandomP agrees with me that listing the names is acceptable. MrVoluntarist 03:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Er... I don't believe I vetoed anything. I was simply trying to explain some common practices in Wikipedia to Rod. As to vanity: if I put my name on an image caption it is vanity - however, if someone else credits me with an image or something then it doesn't fit the vanity bit - although my name would still likely not be notable enough for inclusion. And just because two editors here may agree - that doesn't really make any kind of binding consensus for anyone else. Thanks, Vsmith 03:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

VSmith: you were talking like the matter was settled when it clearly wasn't. You told him that it outright constitutes vanity, as if there were no debate going on about the matter. And as for whether it constitutes vanity: I was delighted to have names associated with the discovery, even though they currently don't mean anything to me, and I had nothing to do with that image's inclusion. (Although I bet that won't stop you from alleging that, right?) Remember, Wikipedia is not paper; we don't have to cut out things people may be interested in out of space concerns. Some readers certainly will want to know. What's really going on here? MrVoluntarist 03:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Gold Guru 03:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)Gold Guru/Rod Fitzhugh

Thanks for being patient with me figuring out how to post here :) I'm learning :)

To RandomP

I believe the image should be on gold as it is raw gold and a good example of what real gold nuggets look like. We took it right out of the ground in the raw, its not refined. The date adds interest as do our names. Its not a vanity thing. We have different perspectives if you believe that. The article is about Gold and that is Gold. Real gold, photographed just a few hours out of the ground.

You said "it's not like gold nuggets look different today from what they did 200 years ago"

I disagree through real life experience. I have found many nuggets and no two look alike. Gold (nuggets) that contain more than 25 percent host rock are called specimen gold, then there is wire gold, sponge type gold, many types of gold. My point here is to illustrate that Gold in found in many forms. The pictures of the gold you have on the site now is really not "common form". The picture I donated is "common form" and I have been finding gold for many years and have friends all over the globe who prospect and have seen gold from all over the world and even traded gold I have found for gold from other parts of the world. The internet is an amazing tool :)

You said "I think the most important thing for you to realise is that even if your image isn't used in one article, it can be used in many others - and, since you decide to make your image freely reusable by others, everyone can use it, even people who have nothing to do with wikipedia."

Yes I realize that. It has been donated it to the public.

You said "my impression is that readers of the gold article, by and large, aren't that interested in nuggets - they're interested in the refined stuff, its uses, its history, how much it's worth, and whether they should buy it"

How did you come to that conclusion? Its your impression, not a fact. The picture adds interest in my opinion.

Agreed, Kids love gold prospecting. And reading about when, where and who peaks their desire to learn more. (Of course that applies with most readers if you want my 2 cents)

To Vsmith You said: "However, your inclusion of your and your buddies names in the caption qualifies as vanity" To me that is your opinion, in my opinion it peaks interest.

You said: "And, if it's any consolation, your names are now preserved for posterity on this talk page :-)" Well that matters little to me and does not concern me in the least.

Again guys, I'm new to this discussion format - thanks for your patience :) Still learning how to go about things on Wikipedia.

Of course, too many images of nuggets might make the page hard to read - it's a hard line to walk. Some people may be interested in nuggets - there's no reason to leave them out of the encyclopaedia. The dates and names should be left off, unless the date and names would be considered encyclopaedic articles in their own right. Thus if the gold was mined by Noah Timmins of Mattawa, Ontario, this might be an appropriate reference for the caption. If it was mined by Johnny Nobody of Assbackwards, Ontario then it should be left out.

Hey! My grandfather's sister's son's college roommate's best friend's mother is from Assbackwards, Ontario!!! Carbonate 14:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another purpose of using Gold.

As I read the Chemistry book yesterday. Purpose of gold is also using for preventing the teeth from cavity. Is it right? Because in some countries, they usually use gold for preventing from cavity. As scientists(Chemistry) observed gold, gold is one of the metal that can be used in teeth. Which is belonged to dentistry as I mentioned this in Dentistry article. I think that this one is already mentioned in the article. *~Daniel~* ☎ 06:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is buried Gold toxic?

On a recent trip to central Mexico natives told me of a vast number of surface gold deposits and buried treasure. This tresure ranged from very old gold mines and gold/silver coins from the Spanish times and from the revolutionaries / independence movement. Apperently this "treasure" was buried to hide it from "whoever" and evetually was forgoten. In the last 15 years about 10-15 people have found large pots of coins and gold bars, sadly all have ultimately died from unknown health resons within weeks or months of teir finding. According to folk some have died by inhaling odorless toxic fumes/gases bottled up when they were digging, some others (majority) believe the gold and coins are cursed. I believe is the first one. By the way much of this stuff has been re-buried to keep the curse away, according to them. Has there ever been a study made on this? Does buried gold or coins expell toxic odorless fumes over time? Is there a health hazard breathing or handling old gold pieces, ore or bars? If anything found what type of processing will I need once I find something? Chemical bath, vacum sealed bags, etc? I'm very curious and willing to go down there again to check it out but I want to take all the proper precautions to do a safe dig and come out alive. User:Eternalyalive 00:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

No, gold itself is not toxic. Your story sounds to me like folklore, of the sort that is meant to discourage tourists from digging up other people's property or otherwise making jerks of themselves looking for "Mexican gold". However, there are all kinds of nasty chemicals involved in refining gold, none of which should leave any residue in a minted coin or bar. --FOo 08:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? All metals are toxic in high concentrations. Gold is not as easily absorbed by the human body, but in the unlikely case of extended exposure to gold, it is possible to reach some level of toxicity. Sure, gold may be the safest metal for the human body from a physiological standpoint, which is why we use gold in fillings, but that does not justify the flat out removal of numerous additions mentioning gold toxicity. Could it be that some people are romanticizing gold to the point that they would ignore a potential health threat and deny all possibility of gold toxicity? Plainly biased. I believe that there should be further study done on this subject. Fundamental research on metal toxicity is suggested.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.11.91.207 (talk • contribs).

Everything is toxic if the concentration is high enough: water, oxygen, a 2000 lb. block of iron on your head. Gold salts can be toxic in small amounts, I believe. This is, however, not the place to do further research. If there is further research, this is a good place to describe it. eaolson 00:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

My point is that there should be something said on the toxicity of gold, just as toxicity is mentioned in most other articles on metals; see copper for example. I have no idea how you rationalize the use of your "2000 lb. block of iron" straw-man, but it clearly holds no bearing in this topic as it does not relate to the subject at hand. Without a doubt, too much of anything can be detrimental to your health, but some things are actually considered toxic. There is no relationship between the "toxicity" of what you described and the toxicity of metal, as each substance has its own greatly varying affect on the human body - not all of them are toxic by definition, but metals are universally toxic to one degree or another. As for research, I was simply suggesting that we should gather verifiable information on the toxicity of gold to add to this entry. Or is that not what wikipedia is for? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.11.91.207 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

Having spent many years running an actual chemical refinery [admittedly we conducted no actual experiments on the toxicity of Gold or its compounds] and having been exposed to metallic Gold in many physical forms as well as most Gold compounds, including the Cyanide complexes [no few of which actually left metallic Gold in the fatty layers under my epidermis], and having suffered *no* effects, I would have to see some very serious research on this matter.

The reason Copper and other metals are considered toxic is due to the toxicity of their water or fat soluble compounds and the effects they cause; since Gold itself does not readily react with human body fluids [or other common fluids] to form water or fat soluble compounds, it is generally considered to be a non-toxic metal. Drrocket 14:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the story about the toxic buried gold is either folklore or if there was something toxic it was not the gold. However, there is something to be said about toxicity of gold. First, some gold compounds can be toxic, but let's focus on metallic Au(0), which seems to be the main controversy. While it is almost completely non-toxic, there is evidence that it does dissolve, although extremely slowly, due to interaction with certain ligands found in the human body, and even on the skin. Some people do have allergic reactions to gold: search google for "gold dermatitis" for some references.[2] Although in some cases the reaction can be attributed to other components of the gold alloy (such as nickel), it seems that some people are reacting to the gold itself. A good article to read about the toxicity of gold in general is B. Merchant. Gold, the Noble Metal and the Paradoxes of its Toxicology. Biologicals 1998, 26, 49-59. DOI:10.1006/biol.1997.0123 --Itub 16:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I find it most interesting that the author of the article you suggest I read re: toxicity of gold insists that I pay out $30 US for the privilege; I think not. All other information I can find on the subject would suggest minor possible toxic effects of injecting various gold compounds in to muscle and/or the bloodstream for medical reasons [usually, arthritis is described]. The NIH [US] and all published MSDS information indicates that no-one else considers gold to be a toxic material. I would be much more concerned about the toxicity of peanuts than gold. Drrocket 19:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but most of the scientific literature requires subscription and that doesn't make it any less valid. If you don't want to pay for the article, try to get it for free from a University library. I never said that you should worry about gold toxicity, just that there are documented cases in the mainstream scientific literature. Itub 10:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No need to apologise, this is a civilized discussion of a scientific topic. I am well aware that "most of the scientific literature requires subscription" in as much as I subscribe to a great deal of it [being the eclectic sort]. My point is simply that this is one article against many. Granted that it was, in all probability, peer-reviewed, the preponderance of paper indicating no specific biological damage due to exposure to gold under ordinary circumstances would, IMO, argue for caution in this area. For no other reason, I would think, than to avoid unnecessarily alarming the un-informed. Drrocket 04:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hardness of Gold

The Brinell hardness of gold in this article is incorrect in two ways.

First, the unit of measure for the Brinell hardness scale is the Brinell Hardness Number (BHN or, more commonly, HB), not Mpa as shown in this article.

Second, the hardness of gold using the Brinell hardness scale should be approximately 18 BHN to 25 BHN —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.63.60.158 (talk • contribs) .

Brinell Hardness is not a unit but a dimension of pressure, we usually prefer SI units, that is, MPa instead of kgf/mm². No idea about the numbers, reference is hardnesses of the elements (data page), so far webelements.com is the only source. Interestingly, 25 × 9.81 = 245.25, so 2450 looks like a conversion error. Marked the value with a question mark for now. If you can provide more authoritative sources please do. Femto 16:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia entry on "brinell hardness" makes no reference to MPa. Compare gold's hardness to other metal's values.

[edit] Ambiguous?

Quote from Applications section

"to corrosion and other desirable combinations of physical and chemical properties, gold also emerged in the late 20th century as an essential industrial metal, particularly as a thin plating on electrical card contacts and connectors."

Spcifically 'electrical card'. The meaning is unclear in North America; perhaps 'printed circuit board' would enhance clarity?

Drrocket 01:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Well, electrical card is more general (and certainly used in parts of North America as the more general term). For clarity, the word card can probably be eliminated if you like, to leave just electrical contacts and connectors - which certainly makes sense and is accurate in context. WilyD 14:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Changed to "printed circuit board contacts". I've never heard the term "electrical card" in North America, and there's no WP article for it. There is one for PCBs. It could still be changed to "electrical connectors" for simplicity. eaolson 14:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Many 'electrical connectors' are not gold plated and this use might require further expansion for clarity while the use of gold plating on 'printed circuit board contacts' is nearly ubiquitous. 'electrical contacts' would, I think, also require expansion for clarity in that the term would include all electrical contacts such as those in light switches and electrical contactors [as in motor starters] and relays. I favor 'printed circuit board contacts' for brevity and clarity. Drrocket 09:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] vandalism?

A moment ago when I got to this page it said "chloe eats brown cheese" right after the pronunciation parentheses. I looked in the "edit page" to take it out, but it wasn't there. When I went back the phrase was gone. What's up with this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Todd212 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

Edits are always made to the current page so you didn't see the already reverted vandalism, but your web browser showed you a cached article until it was reloaded. Femto 21:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gold medal

For some reason "gold medal" was in the list of compounds of gold. I can only assume this was a joke, so I went ahead and removed it. Mr. Accident 03:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal

This page was vandalized so I reverted it. Sorry I didn't log in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.2.92.2 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 25 January 2007.

[edit] Gold Concentration of Earth`s Crust is Incorrect

The article states that the concentration of gold in the Earth`s crust is 3ppm (3g/t). This is obviously untrue and is also contradicted by an earlier segment of the article stating that gold needs a concentration of at least 1g/t to be viably mined. If the article was correct then it would be economically viable to mine rock almost anywhere for the purpose of economically extracting gold.

Thee real concentration of gold in the Earth`s crust should be thousands of times less than that which is stated in the article. I have had a look at various articles on the internet and they give widly varying results, some which sound absolutely unbelievable. I can`t find anything that looks definative at the moment, but maybe someone else can.

STASI —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.219.144.207 (talk) 19:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

It should be about 3 parts per billion (10^9). See Abundances of the elements (data page). --Itub 09:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Looking to add properties

I've been looking for the TCR (temperature coefficient of resistance) of several materials including Gold, but couldn't find it here. It's an important physical property (at least for electrical engineers) to have and would be nice if someone authorized could add it. Here is a link with some TCRs for Gold and other metals: http://www.opamp-electronics.com/tutorials/temperature_coefficient_of_resistance_1_12_06.htm

Thanks WombofWoe 14:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] G-ORMES Gold

I believe that we should create or add to this article, G-ORMES Gold. The full details on G-ORMES materials and the gold itself can be found at www.asc-alchemy.com/patent.html .

Basically it is created two ways. Through Chemical extraction detailed on the page I have provided you with or by burning Gold at 6,000 Degrees Celcius for exactly 70 Seconds. The Gold is then reported to explode with a bright flash leaving in its wake a white, glassy powder. Strangely enough, despite having been patented as G-ORMES gold, the material has none of the properties of gold (which is why i suggest a separate article). The most remarkable thing about this material is that it is a superconductor at room temprature and will also create a Meisner Field when electric currents are introduced to it.

There are various articles on the internet detailing its medical properties too, which is why I suggest a wikipedia entry about this and other G-ORMES materials.

James Random 14:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, how does one obtain a temperature of 6,000 degrees Celsius in order to carry out this process?Drrocket 04:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'd like to know how one creates a room temperature superconductor without attracting the attention of every electrical engineer and material scientist in the world. Not to mention without winning the Nobel Prize. eaolson 04:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The key would be not telling anyone about it - but unfortunately, then such material wouldn't have reliable sources WilyD 15:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Alas, alchemical crap like this, polluting the web-of-lies, is much like the water fuel cell (water-powered-car) and other things that Wikipedia must stand up to, despite presense of plenty of references, created by madmen and hucksters. Just think of it all as a offer from Maria M'Butu, whose dead husband was murdered by Nigerians, but managed to get all of his $100 million into a numbered bank account, which she needs your help to transfer out of the country. Which is why she's spamming you. Maybe G-ORMES gold will help you with this errand of mercy. Good luck, Mr. Random. SBHarris 20:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Actually it was discovered by accident on three separate occasions and all from various places around the world. The first was on an archeological dig in Mount Horeb. Archeologists discovered what they thought to be a temple, but which was later discovered to be a huge smelting furnace over 250,000 years old. the government put a D-Notice on it and all access cut off. The second was by a russian metallurgist who, out of idle curiosity, discovered what would happen if he burned a material at Sun Tempature for longer than he had been taught to do so. The result was the same powder. The third was By Dave Hudson, a dirt farmer from arizona. he discovered it through chemical extraction of sulphuric acid from high sodium soil. quite by accident i assure you.

To answer your questions. One, I don't know how you get that temprature, except in an arc furnace. But burning materials at that temprature is a tried and tested means of analyzing alloys and compounds. As the various materials in an alloy or material reach their boiling tempratures, they boil away and a computer analyzes and identifies that material. It is practiced to be burned at 15 - 20 seconds to get these readings. At 70, you get G-ORMES gold.

To answer the second question, you don't create a room temprature superconductor without every electrical engineer in the world hearing about it. You also don't create one without the pharmeceutical and oil companies hearing about it since not only is G-ORMES a supply of free and renewable energy, it also has various healing properties. There are more and more websites cropping up here and there, one even with a video demonstratingthe uses of G-ORMES gold.

• To answer the second question, you don't create a room temprature superconductor without every electrical engineer in the world hearing about it. You also don't create one without the pharmeceutical and oil companies hearing about it since not only is G-ORMES a supply of free and renewable energy, it also has various healing properties.

  Why, of course it does! All magical substances do. SBHarris 05:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The best thing is to read Dave Hudsons website and make your own mind up as to whether it shoudl get some sort of mention in the article. James Random 14:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I read his page and the patent. Drrocket 04:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• I've read the webpage. Scientifically speaking, it's complete gibberish. I would be curious to know how he measured superconductivity in this material. That's not really a trivial thing to do. I looked for this patent at the USPTO, and it doesn't seem to exist there. So either it's a patent that has been filed and not approved, or was rejected, or it is a "patent" that exists only on this webpage.

Since anyone can start a webpage, I don't really consider this a reliable source. eaolson 14:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)