Talk:Gold/Archive 3

The point that gold is usually found as a native metal (or metal alloy), rather than in chemical composition with other elements, seems to have been lost from the "Occurrence" section. Is this deliberate (because it's not true) or accidental? If accidental then can it be reinstated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.160.111 (talk) 03:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Isn't what you said reflected in the "Occurrence" section? Materialscientist (talk) 03:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it's "reflected", but it would be better to explictly state it (assuming true). 86.138.105.123 (talk) 13:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC).

Tensile Strength is listed as 0.00157 MPa The Actual unit is approx 120 or 130 MPa

http://www.azom.com/details.asp?ArticleID=1965

http://www.matweb.com/search/DataSheet.aspx?MatGUID=d2a2119a08904a0fa706e9408cddb88e

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Listerineman (talk • contribs) 15:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I corrected that and fixed a typo in the infobox which was restricting its access. As I read literature, the tensile strength can vary easily, thus the 120 MPa value is only a guide. Materialscientist (talk) 01:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been trying to find a reference to the estimated amount of gold on earth. The only references I've seen have been notes on either the amount of gold which has ever been mined, or the amount of gold which is expected to ever be mined (ie: gold in the crust). Am I incorrect in assuming that the amount in the crust would be only a small amount of the total of this relatively heavy element? Does anyone know how much gold is estimated to be on earth in total, mine-able or not? If this would be the same, perhaps a note that gold only occurs in the earth's crust (and an explanation of why) would be in order —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.169.121 (talk) 14:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Gold almost for sure occurs in all the Earth globe, not only on crust, but I have no clue on where to find such information. You'd better take this question to the reference desk. --Cyclopia^talk 15:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

We have accurate info on trace element abundances only in the crust, because the mantle and core are not accessible for chemical analysis, and therefore their compositions are somewhat conjectural, especially for trace elements. Plazak (talk) 15:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I have removed (repeatedly now) the daily quotation of gold price records in several gold articles. Other than mentioning the noteworthy appreciation trend which is likely to continue for some time, it is not the intent of WP to provide daily price tickers, nor does it enhance the content and goal of each of the articles. Kbrose (talk) 15:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Markvs88 has started edit warring here over improvements in the discussion of gold standards, insisting on verbage it had contributed at some time and indiscriminately also destroying another editorial update. The old text focused narrowly on the inter-war and post war periods giving undue weight that is out of context for the article. If anything the classical (real) gold standards before WWI should be mentioned first, gold standards existed hundreds of years ago too, but this is all out of context for an already long article. Furthermore, the insistence on the phrase 'replaced by fiat currencies' is factually incorrect. For example, the dollar was not replaced by another currency, instead 'fiat money' (the correct term) was issued instead. I invite a discussion of these issues. Kbrose (talk) 18:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I did not destroy any edits, I merely replaced that which was not factual. Had you looked more carefully, you’d have seen that I MERGED your edit (“Restored POV edit”, which is what yours edit is BTW!) with the original text so it was not destructive. (Also, you add a bit about mining under Monetary Policy and complain about context?) The section discussed is gold as money/monetary exchange, and that conversation cannot be had by sticking in some random, broad and fictional date of “the 1970s”. The fact is that many countries weaned off the gold standard, and most did so LONG before the US cut its final tie in 1971. I already cited France (1930s) and Germany (1920s) as examples. The old text is quite valid – discussing the history of gold backed currency without Bretton Woods is a large omission. The US dollar was in fact replaced by the US dollar – one no longer backed in gold. The modern US dollar is a fiat currency. Markvs88 (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You clearly don't have your history straight. If you say that FR and DE abandoned the gold standard long before, then the US didn't have one anymore either, which is in fact the common viewpoint, and that's why this discussion in your text is misleading. Both GE and FR participated in the gold pool just the same as US until 1968, so they had almost the identical relationship to gold as the US, with the only difference that USD was the primary peg to gold. 1971 was the turning point that started the 'unrestricted' (if not manipulated) adjustment of gold price, it is not an arbitrary point in time and pov, since it is clear by the gold price chart what happened going forward. You are trying to push a particular agenda, it's clear. Kbrose (talk) 20:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

An agenda? I really have no idea what you're talking about. You *just said* 1968. My calendar says that's not “the 1970s”. And the US did indeed wean itself off of gold currency – the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 started a process continued by FDR and finally completed by Nixon. BUT! My point is that countries leave and joined and finally discarded the gold standard at various times (consider England during the Napoleonic Wars or the USA/CSA during the US Civil War), and NOT exclusively in “the 1970s”. The history of gold as monetary exchange (as I’m sure you’re aware) goes back into antiquity. Needless to say, it’s factually incorrect to say that the 1970s is a cutoff. As I also cited, the Swiss were the final country to quit gold in 1999. If you want to add a sentence (or four) adding detail regarding the collapse of the Bretton Woods system, I’m all for it. Also, I would greatly appreciate it if you would cease these personal accusations. Not only are they baseless, they’re impolite and I feel wholly unwarrented since I've not been disparaging of you and retained the parts of your edits that I did not see as problematic. Markvs88 (talk) 20:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It would help if we had reliable sources that states one way or another. Or even both: it's OK for Wikipedia to include multiple incompatible viewpoints as long as they are properly sourced and not given undue weight.—Tetracube (talk) 23:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping someone can add this to the History of Gold, http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080331/ap_on_sc/oldest_gold —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesusmariajalisco (talk • contribs) 00:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope someone could add this into History of Gold: http://www.goldtraderasia.com/livegoldprice.htm

1. British Official Price for the years 1257 to 1945
2. U.S. Official Price for the years 1786 to 2007
3. New York Market Price for the years 1791 to 2007
4. Gold/Silver Price Ratio for the years 1687 to 2006
5. London Market Price for the years 1718 to 2007

Thanks and appreciate your consideration. Bill Chiam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.74.108.31 (talk) 11:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

That site doesn't look really like a reliable source. Do you have one? --Cyclopia^talk 19:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

redacted, upon further research I am incorrect.

99.999% purity == .99999 fineness. Two different scales, I assume. Yergestro (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

[[wuu:金]]

In the health section there is a mention of "injectable gold", which can be prescribed for some complaints relating to the joints. How does this form of gold differ from that of metallic gold? Is this term actually referring to Colloidal gold? Jimjamjak (talk) 12:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Ddidnt see mention of GOLDS use in medicine,in article >beleive arthritis is treated with GOLD and radioactive GOLD isotopes used too in medicine.Thanks(dated Morn,Wed.Sept.30,200921stcent.Dr.Edson Andre' Johnson D.D.ULC Declared decided)Edsonbrasil (talk) 23:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Please add a new historical spot gold price

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/08/2708640.htm?section=business

Thanks. Fabtone —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabtone (talk • contribs) 09:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

We'd like to, but articles tend to get overwhelmed by breaking news if this sort of thing is done. This particular one has to cover the entire chemical, minerological, and economic history of gold, which is a tall enough order without noting details like this one. You might want to add this fact to the Wikipedia article Gold as an investment. Besides, is this a record high for gold, or a record low for the U.S. dollar and other currencies? Hard to say, isn't it? SBHarris 04:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The data table on the left side features some data in non-SI units; this is inconsistent with the majority of the data, given in SI units (sometimes alongside with non-SI). Example, densities are given in g/cm^3, while the SI unit of mass density is kg/m^3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.43.1 (talk) 13:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

In that same table the density is shown as being "19.3  g·m3" [sic], it is incorrect, it is either 19.3 g cm-3 or, 1930 Kg m-3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolando Rodriguez (talk • contribs) 22:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

wrong. if kg/m3 should be used it would be 19300 kg/m3 not 1930. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.241.174.161 (talk) 12:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It says 19,300 kg which is 19.3 tonnes. Materialscientist (talk) 22:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious about this Chinese phrase. It is apparently well established in online dictionaries, and alluded to in "The Dream of Red Mansions"[1] The wife of Wu Feixing was reported to have unsuccessfully attempted suicide by swallowing gold before accomplishing the task with alcohol.[2] But... is this truth (presumably involving some gold compound) or purely fiction? Wnt (talk) 23:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Fiction, I would guess. Gold metal is never poisonous. Some soluble gold compounds are, because the gold ion is poisonous, but they all must be made with complicated chemisty, as for example AuCl₃ needing aqua regia (a mix of concentrated nitric and hydrochloric acids). This seems a bit beyond traditional Chinese alchemy. The only naturally occuring gold compound is the telluride (Calaverite) and not only is it rare in most of the world, but I doubt very much if it's soluble enough in water that you could kill yourself with it. SBHarris 02:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You can eat gold. In fact, luxury restaurants for millionaire often decorate their cakes and icecreams with thin gold foil, which you eat together with the food. Gold has no biological effect (except that some illnesses of the knee joint can be cured by a gold solution based mixture, but that one is usually administered by a syringe). 82.131.210.162 (talk) 10:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, since the story said she was unsuccessful, maybe it was a true story! Another thing to consider is that swallowing really large amounts of gold might be bad for your digestive system for "mechanical reasons", if not for biochemical reasons. --Itub (talk) 06:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I should point out that the Dream of Red Chamber has a successful suicide involving the ingestion of gold; that of Second Sister You. Of course the books was written by a sheltered little lordling, what could he know? It's probably just a euphemism that people who didn't know better got confused with an actual method for offing yourself.--99.224.167.240 (talk) 00:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Having not heard or seen the phrase elsewhere, I suppose that it could be a metaphor about the dangers of greed. Many cultures warn against excessive wealth-seeking; perhaps the saying is an expression against it.Ocaasi (talk) 06:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

actually the world gold council states that its estimate of total production up to 2001 was 145,000 tonnes, roughly 19.4 cubic meters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.140.133.253 (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This number has to be way off or just based on bullion reserves by major nations. If you take in account human history and the masses of gold that we have mined through different methods over the last 5000 years, I would really estimated it to be around the 1,000,000 tons or so. My company assist in dust deals and we move about 3,000tons per year or about 1.8% of the worlds gold if the numbers were correct. Only about 100tons or so actually goes to market. Most of it goes into private reserves to be hedged against. I have even be into private vaults with over 20,000tons that were completely off the gold records.

Are you certain you were in a private vault with $800 billion worth of gold? I think maybe your units are off... 68.190.151.103 (talk) 04:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

clinical sign:

1) Gary D Wright Unusual and memorable. Chrysiasis secondary to sodium aurothiomalate treatment. Ann Rheum Dis. 1999 Jan;58(1):68

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1752759&blobtype=pdf

2) Smith RW, Cawley MI. Chrysiasis. Br J Rheumatol. 1997 Jan;36(1):3-5.

http://rheumatology.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/36/1/3?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=1&andorexacttitle=and&andorexacttitleabs=and&fulltext=chrysiasis&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT

3) Albert G.Kochs Zur Kenntnis der Chrysiasis [German] Journal Archives of Dermatological Research Volume 178, Number 3 / December, 1938 Pages 323-330

http://www.springerlink.com/content/l4x8474143lh8646/fulltext.pdf

Cavany JA, Chaignot A. Accidents nerveux de la chrysotherapie. Presse Med 1934;42:478

Mitsumoto H, Wilbourn AJ, Subramony SH. Generalized myokymia and gold therapy. Arch Neurol 1982;39:449-50

Nicholson D, Scalettar R, Jacobs RP. Rheumatoid rigor: gold induced myokymia. A report and review of the literature. J Rheumatol 1986;13:195-6

Perry RP, Jacobsen ES. Gold induced encephalopathy: case report. J Rheumatol 1984;11:233-4

Querido A. Gold intoxication of nervous elements on the permeability of the blood-brain barrier. Acta Psychiatr Neurol Scand 1947;22:97

Schlumpf U, Meyer M, Ulrich J, Friede RL. Neurologic complications induced by gold treatment. Arthritis Rheum 1983;26:825-31

Vernay D, Dubost JJ, Thevenet JP, Sauvezie B, Rampon S. “Choree fibrillaire de Morvan” followed by Guillain-Barré syndrome in a patient receiving gold therapy (letter). Arthritis Rheum 1986;29:1413-4

Caldron PH, Wilbourn AJ. Gold neurotoxicity and myokymia (letter). J Rheumatol 1988;15:528-9

> Gold is so stable and so valuable that it is always recovered and recycled. There is no true "consumption" of gold in the economic sense; the stock of gold remains essentially constant while ownership shifts from one party to another <

Considering the complexity of electronics and the tiny amounts of gold used in microwiring for CPU and printed circuit cards, I doubt if those are recovered. Probably it wouldn't worth the effort. Space technology also uses gold extensively (electronics and heatshielding wraps) and the gold launched aboard rockets is lost. 87.97.101.6 (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• See Digger gold. Abductive (reasoning) 10:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's another questionable entry:

"However, some economists do not believe gold serves as a hedge against inflation or currency depreciation.[11]" The cited article does not discuss the believes of economists (in the plural), just the opinion of one. Moreover, the rationale in that article (essentially an op-ed) is suspect (e.g., the example regarding exchange rates presumes, wrongly, that someone wouldn't hold gold in order to avoid direct currency exchanges but could sell gold for yen). Historically, gold has been widely used as a hedge. I recommend deleting this passage entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.51.122.18 (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

How is that possibly questionable? There *are* economists[[3]] that think gold is a poor hedge against inflation. I personally agree, since gold is (@ $1223.20/oz today) barely half of what the 1980 high would be today. I could see if the claim was "Gold is not a hedge..." but this is perfectly reasonable. After all, we can hardly say "gold is a hedge against inflation", because it isn't -- necessarily. That's because the price isn't static and there are other factors (weak dollar policy, oil, poor economic growth) which effect the price. Historically, gold *can* be a hedge, but it's failed as one probably as much as it has succeeded. Markvs88 (talk) 15:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

In the second paragraph of the characteristics of gold the article says that chlorine gas attacks gold to dissolve it. That is absolutely wrong. Aqua regia, a mixture of nitric and hydrochloric acid, dissolves gold by the nitric acid oxidizing the gold into a +3 oxidized state and the Cl- shifts the equilibrium far to the right by removing the Au+3 into AuCl4-. Please, someone with privileges, make this correction or remove the aforementioned misinformation. 129.62.89.113 (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Corrected. Materialscientist (talk) 02:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Please, look at the following chart for world gold production, it´s firstly updated (with the given data basis) and secondly the accumulated world gold production is added.

Proposal Replace file:

"Gold - world production trend.svg" by the public domain file: "Gold world production.png"

Realterm (talk) 11:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback, obviously further explantion and changes are necessary. Refering to the data source, I´ve chosen the same data, which is used for the chart "Gold - world production trend.svg" published at present. You can find the original source here: [4].

Refering to the two different vertical axis (left and right), I changed the chart caption, so hopefully there´s no misleading any more. The blue line represents the world gold production (in metric tons per year) at the left hand vertical axis. The additional grey line represents the accumulated world gold production (in metric tons) on the right hand vertical axis, i.e. the grey line gives the information, how much gold in sum was produced up to the chosen year. For example, in the year 2000 approximately 140,000 tons or 140,000,000 kg gold had been produced (This data is interesting, because of the fact, that gold is not destroyed and almost completely recycled and by this way, the grey line gives you a rough idea, how much gold is available above ground.)

(Remark: For the grey line you need additional data about the production before the year 1900, this data was taken from the German wikipedia article "Gold/Tabellen und Grafiken" [5], the original sources are mentioned there: "Soetbeer: Materialien zur Erläuterung und Beurteilung der Edelmetallverhältnisse (2. A. Berlin 1886), von 1886 an nach Statistical Abstract of the United States)

Realterm (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I was actually answering to another conversation (the guy who started it messed it up a bit when answering to me) but thanks for the details! --Cyclopia^talk 19:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Under Symbolism, there is the text: "Respected people are treated with the most valued rule, the "golden rule"."

The actual context of the text (alongside mentions of gold member, and gold card) makes it easy to confuse 'respected' with 'wealthy'. More to the point, the golden rule has nothing to do with respected people per say, but instead has everything to do with respecting other people. The wording of "most valued rule" is also subject to context, as the value of the rule is subject to what value the reader places in it, and not everyone will value it above every other rule as "most valued rule" would imply. I'm a bit short on the moment for ideas on how to reword it, but I do think an edit is in order for this specific sentence, as someone who's not familiar with the golden rule will take it to be something entirely different than what the rule actually is. A guideline for respecting others. Yamagawa (talk) 01:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Some very interesting reading, especially if you've put a lot of money into gold. http://news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1258049769.php One minor quibble, the density of gold and tungsten aren't exactly the same, but they are close enough that a bar of tungsten coated with a couple of millimeters of gold would be very difficult to tell from the same size bar of solid, pure gold. A very precise displacement volume test and mass test should work. Would X-ray or some other radiation test work to tell the difference? With the melting point of tungsten so much higher than gold, it'd be easy to get the gold off the bogus bars. Just melt it and scoop off the tungsten or pour off the gold. Would the density of molten gold be reduced enough that solid tungsten would sink? Bizzybody (talk) 08:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

IIRC there are ultrasonic methods that easily detect tungsten ingots in gold. Darsie42 (talk) 11:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The article state that one cubic meter of gold weights 19.3 kg. That is of course completely wrong, however 1000 kubic centimeter weights 19.3 kg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.241.174.161 (talk) 12:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to say exactly the same - this is an error that cannot be disputed and should be corrected asap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.226.38.81 (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Currently, the article correctly states that one cubic meter weighs 19300 kg. ChemNerd (talk) 22:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't the introduction rather say "since before the beginning of recorded history"? The Gold from the Varna Necropolis belongs to the 5th millennium BC (4600-4200 BC) according to its own article, which is before the 4th millennium BC starting point given in recorded history. This date would also have to be fixed in the "History" section of this article here. I'd fix it myself if the article wasn't edit-protected. -- 77.7.168.11 (talk) 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The article states that 2008 production in South Africa was 2,260 tonnes. It goes on to say: "In 2007 China (with 276 tonnes) overtook South Africa as the world's largest gold producer, the first time since 1905 that South Africa has not been the largest." It seems to me that either South Africa had a spectacular jump in production in 2008 or, more likely, there is a mistake in the reported quantity produced in China for 2007. Oclupak (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The statement that "195Au is also the only gold isotope to decay by electron capture" has been removed. Decay of 196Au by electron capture was being studied as long ago as the 1970s if not earlier (Van Pelt and Blok, "The electron-capture decay of 196Au," Nuclear Physics A 113/1-2, January 1979, pp. 109-118). See also the Nudat 2.5 Interactive Chart of Nuclides at the National Nuclear Data Center web site (http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/nudat2/). Piperh (talk) 19:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The second paragraph in chemistry states: "Au(III) (auric) is a common oxidation state and is illustrated by gold(III) chloride, AuCl3. Au(III) complexes, like other d8 compounds, are typically square planar." The central atom in a square planar configuration is bonded to four other atoms, yet the example given is AuCl3 - gold could only be bonded to three atoms, not four. Also, square planar is a covalent arrangement, yet AuCl3 is stated in ionic form (gold(III) chloride). Going to the linked AuCl3 page reveals that this compound is partially covalent (so mixing covalent/ionic descriptions is marginally acceptable, at least to me), and it is actually Au2Cl6, with the gold atoms sharing two of the chlorine atoms. Changing the formula given in this article to Au2Cl6 would make this substantially less confusing, and is more accurate; reducing to a stoichiometric ratio is only appropriate for typical ionic compounds, where there is no molecular unit. A better solution would be to explain the semi-covalent nature of gold(III) compounds, but I don't know if that is true (though it's reasonable to infer this from the chloride) or have any references (though some may already be used, here or at AuCl3). This is a request for someone with privileges to change the chemical formula, though making more extensive changes is of course an option. 131.151.67.237 (talk) 05:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll change it to Au2Cl6. Of course this is still formally Au(III). SBHarris 06:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The topic has many unnecessary repetitions.

We are told three times that all the gold mined so far in human history would form a block 20m on a side. The definition of pure gold (or fine gold) is given as 24k three times. There are other repetitions as well and while innocuous, I wonder if they are necessary. I hesitate to do any editing myself, but thought I would note it for others who may be inclined and suited to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.56.246 (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

"Gold is shiny and appealing to look at, it excites me."

Ridiculous statement. Needs to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.48.169 (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Gold-crystals.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on January 30, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-01-30. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 05:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Someone please fix the missing period at the end of the "Occurrence" section. It is stupid that a protected article as big as gold has such a elementary grammar mistake. EITHER FIX IT OR UNPROTECT THIS ARTICLE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.195.13.65 (talk) 11:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I like it the way it is! And the article is on so many watch lists that it i corrected within a day. --Stone (talk) 12:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Today's Picture of the Day features 'synthetic gold crystals'. Does 'synthetic' refer to the gold being synthetic, or the crystals being synthetic? 41.242.247.88 (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The crystals are synthetic made, not the gold ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

One unanswered question on this page: the formation of gold. On National Geographic ("Journey to the End of the Universe") they said that complex elements, such as gold, were formed in the death of supernovas... that all gold on Earth ultimately came from these cauldrons. I.e., that gold did not form on Earth. News to me! If anyone can add a section on the geological birth of gold, it would be most helpful. --Smilo Don (talk) 01:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The Earth formed from dust and the gold was in the dust. Every element from carbon (number 6) and heavier, was made in supernovas. Blown into space as dust, it collected into our present solar system, where most of became our Sun, and the rest became planets. Metals in the planets, from sodium to gold to uranium, are from previous supernovas in this area. See nucleogenesis. I'll add a line to the article if it doesn't have one. SBHarris 21:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

"Every element from carbon (number 6) and heavier, was made in supernovas." Simply not true. Every element from Iron on is, indeed, created in supernovae, which then redistribute these new atoms throughout the interstellar medium (see ISM, CNO cycle, proton-proton chain, triple alpha process, supernova, etc.) Lighter elements CAN be made in supernovae, but are not NECESSARILY so. This flase statement appears in several locations with respect to gold, which is unfortunate given its falseness. I feel for all of the teachers reading papers drafted by students who don't know how (or why) to consult printed sources. Chrismaytag (talk) 04:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I am sort of with Chrismaytag, as this sentence bothers me: "Like all elements with atomic numbers of six or higher (that is, carbon and elements beyond it), gold is thought to have been formed from a nucleogenesis process beginning from hydrogen in stars which then became supernovas." It clearly implies that that any element with a number greater than that of carbon is made (exclusively?) in supernovae conditions. I believe current accepted thought is that as supplied by Chrismaytag above. The section "Explosive nucleosynthesis" in Nucleogenesis basically states this, too. This content might need to be modified.Jack B108 (talk) 17:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I tried to amend the paragraph a bit with a reference to supernova nucleosynthesis. Is this at least a bit more correct? --Cyclopia (talk) 20:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that it is better now. This appears to have removed the problem regarding the issue of all elements above atom. no. 6. Thanks,Jack B108 (talk) 02:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Every element ON EARTH from carbon to anything heavier. I think you're missing the point. Whether elements from 6 to 26 can be made in stars that don't go supernovae, it's of no consequence to YOU, because unless they got OUT of the star and into intersteller space to become part of the cloud that formed the solar system, they never became part of Earth. Earth (and the elements heavier than carbon in it) is made of the ashes of supernovae, and that's where its elements from carbon and heavier were formed. The only other mechanisms known to get elements out of stars-- solar wind and coronal mass ejections-- do not supply enough elements back into space to be processes worth considering. SBHarris 19:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You might be right that these elements must have been blown into space by a supernova, but they weren't necessarily made by the supernova. They could have been in the star already. Most of the hydrogen on Earth was probably blown out into space by a supernova as well but it certainly wasn't made in one.Moon Oracle (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

(Please excuse my lack of proper syntax- I'm new to Wikipedia)

Section reads as follows:

The color of pure gold is metallic yellow. Gold, caesium and copper are the only metallic elements with a natural color other than gray or white. The usual gray color of metals depends on their "electron sea" that is capable of absorbing and re-emitting photons over a wide range of frequencies. Gold reacts differently, depending on subtle relativistic effects that affect the orbitals around gold atoms.[4][5]

and is incorrect: Caesium is colored only in the presense of oxygen, and osmium (and zinc to a lesser extent) have a natural blue hue, when pure and free of contaminants.

Should read, corrected, as follows:

The color of pure gold is metallic yellow. Gold, osmium and copper are the only metallic elements with a natural color other than gray or white. The usual gray color of metals depends on their "electron sea" that is capable of absorbing and re-emitting photons over a wide range of frequencies. Gold reacts differently, depending on subtle relativistic effects that affect the orbitals around gold atoms.[4][5]

Thewizzard1 (talk) 04:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I quickly rewrote that part my way, but welcome further corrections. It is not easy to explain this topic in a few words. Materialscientist (talk) 05:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dc987 (talk • contribs)

Plus, I'm not sure I believe you about cesium, as I've never seen a sample which isn't somewhat golden, and the color has been explained by relativistic quantum chemistry effects. It's all very well to say it's oxygen, but somewhere you have to have a photo of cesium which is silver. Where is it? SBHarris 05:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay "Thewizzard1" just dropped in that one time to leave an unreferenced and untrue (IMHO) comment. He's had more than a month to justify it and hasn't. Thus, I'm going to ignore him. Cesium is somewhat golden, for the same reason gold is. My reference for this is in relativistic quantum chemistry. Many photos of cesium are in caesium. If you've got new info for me, bring it. Otherwise, I'm putting this one back in the article. SBHarris 15:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The reference to plasmons in this section is wrong. It is true that there is a phenomenon in gold that is called plasmon but its not the cause of the yellow color. The plasmon frequency for gold is far in the UV. The reason for the yellow color is the band structure which is by some relativistic effects modified in a way that allows d-band excitations in the green. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Physicist1573 (talk • contribs) 11:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I am new to wikipedia, but I know a thing or two about the physics of gold. I just cannot let this stand any longer and will remove the reference to plasmons in the main text. Maybe I do something wrong but at least this incorrect physics is corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Physicist1573 (talk • contribs) 09:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

aha, just learned that I need to wait 4 days until I can edit this article. If someone reads this, please remove the reference to plasmons in respect to the color of gold. The golden color has nothing to do with plasmons, trust me. If you think of it otherwise, please provide a reference for it. You will not find one because its untrue. Of course, I cannot

provide a reference either to something that is just wrong. The paragraph now reads:

This color is determined by the density of loosely bound (valence) electrons; those electrons oscillate as a collective "plasma" medium described in terms of a quasiparticle called plasmon. The frequency of these oscillations lies in the ultraviolet range for most metals, but it falls into the visible range for gold due to subtle relativistic effects that affect the orbitals around gold atoms.[7][8] Similar effects impart a golden hue to metallic cesium (see relativistic quantum chemistry).

Correct would be:

This color is determined by subtle relativistic effects that affect the orbitals around gold atoms.[7][8] Similar effects impart a golden hue to metallic cesium (see relativistic quantum chemistry). Physicist1573 (talk) 11:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

In the Production section, we have: "Gold is so stable and so valuable that it is always recovered and recycled. There is no true consumption of gold in the economic sense..."

There are two industries that truly consume gold. First, when electronic equipment is discarded, it generally goes into the landfill - the gold plating on connector contacts isn't massive enough to make recovery profitable.

Second, in the aerospace industry, spacecraft are often wrapped in gold foil to distribute solar heating evenly around the structure, because it's a good thermal conductor; and there are also electrical connectors as above. Whether a spacecraft is de-orbited and is vaporized during re-entry (or it might rain down as small pieces, not recovered) or moved to a permanent parking orbit above geosynchronous altitude, or sent off to other planets and regions, the gold is lost to further use by man.

Significant amounts of gold are not lost in these ways, but it isn't quite correct to say it's always recovered and recycled. Significant money is expended in both these industries to buy the gold. While these points might not be significant compared to the whole, I believe they are remarkable and interesting, worthy of an encyclopedia. Friendly Person (talk) 01:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph has been tweaked and expanded in an attempt to improve the accuracy on this point. If someone knows of a ref that would quantify amounts used (and presumably lost) in space and/or electronics applications, that would be useful in this context. Piperh (talk) 19:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Also there are teeth. If someone is buried, any gold teeth they have pretty much stay in the grave, unless they are robbed (either in the cemetary or in the funeral home). The Nazi appropriation of Jewish gold teeth in the death camps is legendary, supposedly significant amounts of gold were "recovered", which does not generally happen I think. Friendly Person (talk) 02:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Second picture under "occurance" is missing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VoiceOfThePnyx (talk • contribs) 16:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Fixed (hopefully) Materialscientist (talk) 23:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

In the Gold Price Section it states: "In the fall of 2009, gold markets experienced renewed momentum upwards due to increased demand and a weakening US dollar"

The price of Gold has both materially weakened and strengthened in the face of a depreciating US dollar since the removal of the Gold Standard. There is no fixed correlation between the two over time and so objectively, to state that gold saw renewed momentum on the back of a weakening US dollar is speculative and should not be quoted without reference.

Also, it is pure speculation that it was an increase in demand that led to renewed upward momentum. There should be a reference to a statistical study that can prove this. Falling demand in in the early part of the 2000 decade also marked the bottom in prices highlighting that the opposite can be true to this statement. Traceyjc (talk) 11:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

This just happened: At july the 18th, 2011 14:51 UTC, gold passed the value of £1K. --83.108.31.228 (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe it has hit the value of £1000 nine times already. £1030 is the record. --88.89.69.123 (talk) 14:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The "all time high" price should note that it is a NOMINAL high, that is measured in dollar amount. This is not an "all time high" when adjusted for inflation. This is especially important to note given the current phrasing with comparisons to the US dollar. Also, the "bull market" comment that follows may not be appropriate (not because it is inaccurate, but because Wikipedia isn't the place for a recitation of investing views, as they are far too numerous and change far too frequently). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.128.18 (talk) 16:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The infobox says Brinell hardness 25 HB MPa which seems far too low. Is there a source for this ? Rod57 (talk) 02:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I found this 'The chemistry of gold extraction' John Marsden, Iain House, SME 2006, which confirms this figure. However, Hardnesses of the elements (data page) lists gold's HB as 0.245GPa, with a source. MinorProphet (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I was trying to de-orphan this article Gold phosphine complex as part of that I googled for refs and it has heaps. Unfortunately I don't have a clue about this subject. If anyone is interested in expanding this stub here is the link to google scholar search [6] Blackash have a chat 13:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Gold phosphine complex should really be a brief mention in either Gold or Phosphine. It's too specific an article. There are so many other permutations of metal + ligand, it's not worth having articles on each possibility. Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry is the place to discuss this. --Ben (talk) 14:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

In the 'jewelry' section there is a link to the 'Main article: Jewellery' shouldn't the spelling be consistent ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.210.176.121 (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

UK spelling vs US. Hard to say which should prevail here.... --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The following should be split into 2 paragraphs to separate where it occurs from its human history.

The native metal occurs as nuggets or grains in rocks, in veins and in alluvial deposits. Less commonly, it occurs in minerals as gold compounds, usually with tellurium. Gold standards have been the most common basis for monetary policies throughout human history, being widely supplanted by fiat currency only in the late 20th century. Gold has also been frequently linked to a wide variety of symbolisms and ideologies. A total of 165,000 tonnes of gold have been mined in human history, as of 2009.[1] This is roughly equivalent to 5.3 billion troy ounces or, in terms of volume, about 8500 m3, or a cube 20.4 m on a side. The world consumption of new gold produced is about 50% in jewelry, 40% in investments, and 10% in industry.[2]

82.44.65.57 (talk) 20:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that paragraph needed to be split, and the fact that it was mashed in was probably due to trying to keep fewer paragraphs in the lede. However, a previous statement about gold being least reactive of all elements except noble gases was wrong (that's probably iridium), so that gave me the opportunity to put the short bit about occurence in the first paragraph. I think it reads more naturally now, and all paragraphs contain material of the same type.

Why don't you register for a username, and edit? If you have an eye for writing that naturally organizes stuff like this, you can be a very valuable editor. Most articles on WP need some work of that type-- specialist knowledge isn't required. SBHarris 21:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

  Already done Jnorton7558 (talk) 03:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Price of gold is today Aug. 3 2011 USD 1,664.17

Luoranen (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)   Not done: Yes, and? As an encyclopedia page, we don't need to keep the price up to date. If that value is particularly relevant, please provide a reliable source (note that the link you provided was not reliable, and I removed it as potentially being spammy. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The price of gold moved past $1,700 an ounce on August 8th. The article states that this is the first time this has happened. Surely other sources could be found if needed should this be significant to the gold page. Jakobees (talk) http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Gold-price-tops-1700-as-apf-129713227.html?x=0

It has been proven. Put it in the article, you lazy editors http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14827624 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.11.216.79 (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

In due time, when somebody has the Nature article. We've long known that the "siderophile" elements in the Goldschmidt classification are depleted from the Earth's crust by comparison to metiorites. Thus all the meteroric iridium in the boundary from the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event that seems to be a geologically-recent dinosaur-killing asteroid. If a similar process delivered more gold to the upper crust 3.9 billion years ago (60 times longer ago than the dinosaurs being killed), it would not be surprising. Such a crecendo of terminal impacts in Earth's early history would have delivered substantial amounts of all these rare siderophile metals, also. Probably that's where they all come from, as far as miners are concerned. The rest of them are at the Earth's core where they're going to stay. SBHarris 18:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

At present the first paragraph states: "Gold also dissolves in alkaline solutions of cyanide, which have been used in mining."

Would read more accurately as: "Gold also dissolves in alkaline solutions of cyanide, and is used in gold's refining.Zedshort (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)