Re: detection gold on human body

snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.co.il (angel) wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  

Dangerous and unreliable: false accusations will flourish, because of spurious contaminations (by Au, but also by Cu, Ag, Sb, Pt, Pb, Bi, Hg,..., depending on the spectral instruments used). A not-so-far-fetched example could be the use of Sb2S3 (kool) as eye lining by oriental women (and several others, for that matter). Or the use of Precious Metal for piercings at (un)expected places of the body.
J.J.

Buckleys wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Why mess about with all that fancy magic-angle stuff? Just keep the field static at 5 or 6 Tesla and ping the subject with a good square GW pulse of a terahertz or so, then FFT out the echoes as they decay; like ringing a bell to see what it's made of. So you melt a few piercings and gold fillings; as long as we're dunking witches, let's do it right!
Mark L. Fergerson

Mark Fergerson ( snipped-for-privacy@cox.net) wrote: : Buckleys wrote: : > Uncle Al wrote: : > : >>angel wrote: : >> : >>>I'm interested in finding a way to detect gold (nuggets or dust) : >>>attached or hidden on a person's body. : >> : >>Au-197 magnetic resonance imaging. A 14.092 kG magnet resonates : >>protons at 60 MHz and gold at 1.0276 MHz. Low frequency is bad. At : >>constant field/swept frequency it has .0026% the sensitivity of proton : >>MRI - that is really crappy itself. At constant frequency/swept field : >>it has 8.6% the sensitivity of proton MRI. : > : > : > Won't work. It's a quadrupolar nucleus, and the signals are to broad to : > be detectable. Besides, spinning the subject up to 5kHz or so would make : > him dizzy. :)
: Why mess about with all that fancy magic-angle stuff? : Just keep the field static at 5 or 6 Tesla and ping the : subject with a good square GW pulse of a terahertz or so, : then FFT out the echoes as they decay; like ringing a bell : to see what it's made of. So you melt a few piercings and : gold fillings; as long as we're dunking witches, let's do it : right!
Naw, just dissolve them in HNO3. If it doesn't dissolve, it might be gold.
-- -- William "Dave" Thweatt Robert E. Welch Postdoctoral Fellow Chemistry Department Rice University Houston, TX snipped-for-privacy@ruf.rice.edu snipped-for-privacy@us.army.mil

snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.co.il (angel) wrote in message
  Quoted Text Here  
A person's body is made up of a certain percentage of gold.
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)

Starblade Darksquall wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Name it, trolling boring moron, and provide a reference.
-- Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm (Do something naughty to physics)

  Quoted Text Here  
First, I can show that copper is in the human body.
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/dec98/912791455.Mb.r.html
Since Gold is in the same period as Copper, I don't doubt that the human body contains a variable, trace quantity of gold if, for instance, the water they drink contained a small amount of it.
Furthermore, it IS a fact that elements from the same period can replace other elements in the human body, and in most animals. This is why certain radioactive elements, once ingested, are so dangerous: They persist in the human body, and are not cleaned out.
So, it's only reasonable to assume that there are trace amounts of gold in the human body, though not in any regular percentage, as I had seemed to make out to be the case earlier.
The reason I originally thought there was gold is because in a HS chemistry textbook or some other HS book I saw it listed amongst the elements in the human body.
However, now I do have proof that at least copper is in there, and since copper and gold are in the same period, it isn't unreasonable to think that some people might have a bit of gold in them, since elements from the same period tend to react similar to eachother.
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)

Will you also afirm that the human body contains Astatine? Francium?
Man, *you* are not reasonable (and you are an inch from pseudoscience, will you try to sell "gold pills" for the people in this newsgroup, New Age fellow?)
  Quoted Text Here  

Your ideas are so thin, you are not worthy text editing...
  Quoted Text Here  
spectrums,

  Quoted Text Here  
Would you at LEAST... STOP topposting?
(...Starblde Riven Darksquall...)

Not for you
  Quoted Text Here  

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 22:28:59 -0300, "João Antonio"
  Quoted Text Here  
Would you do it, because top posting makes you look stupid?
It does. As it happens, it is a mere indicator of fact, in most cases.
Do some reading on usenet posting protocols. Don't be an outlook express usenet retard. Ooops... too late.

top posting is not stupid it is more efficient!
Gave us:
  Quoted Text Here  

  Quoted Text Here  
Joe 123 has found an efficient way to land in killfiles. Nothing more.
<* PLONK *>

Oh please dont killfill me. how will I ever survive w/o you.
  Quoted Text Here  

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 18:32:09 GMT, "Joe 123"
Said the utter retard that cannot figure out why top posting is stupid! Yer lucky I am not in Tampa anymore. I'd cover your house in dead animals for the gators to come get. Of course, they would mistake your lame ass for carrion. Good. We need to get rid of your putrefying ass.

dont let that stop you. come get some. big panzy talking crap through a computer.
Gave us:
  Quoted Text Here  

On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 16:12:58 GMT, "Joe 123"
  Quoted Text Here  
No, dipshit... It IS STUPID!
Particularly when retards such as yourself fail to snip the previous post. You re-quote the entire post.
It isn't "more efficient", you retarded twit. It is more LAZY.
You don't fool anyone. You stupidity precedes you.

In sci.physics, Joe 123
wrote on Tue, 09 Sep 2003 16:12:58 GMT
  Quoted Text Here  
[snip]
A: Yes. But given the current conventions of Usenet, why bother? *Q: Can one learn how to read backwards? **A: Because we read forwards. ***Q: Why isn't it more natural to read them backwards? ****A: Because one has to read them backwards. *****Q: Why does top posting make discussions hard to follow? ******A: It makes discussions hard to follow. *******Q: Why is top posting bad?
:-)

  Quoted Text Here  
!tup lleW
(...llauqskraD neviR edalbratS...)

Thats a rather bigoted statement. I personally find OE far more functional than some slopped together POS 'open-source' news reader that takes hours to get to run right on my system. Im a CE and Ill flat out tell you, while Linux may be great for servers, its complete shyte for personal systems. Unwieldy and severally lacking in functionality. 99% of the people out there , including myself, do not want to recompile the kernel, I just want to read my friggen email. So if you have a problem with top-posting, then either fix it or shut the hell up, because noone cares.