Time Warp: Modern chemist as court alchemist











up vote
38
down vote

favorite
5












Premise



The premise is an adept modern chemist is transported back in time and is to serve as the court alchemist to a wealthy prince in the late 16th century.



Assumptions:




  • "Transmuting" gold is the chief goal, but the prince would possibly consider allowing for a different output to be yielded from "transmutation," providing its worth the time and resources

  • During this time nobility/royalty of the utmost wealth are documented having many alchemists on the payroll, so let's assume the modern chemist is working alongside actual alchemists

  • The prince's knowledge is expert; he has executed many con-artist alchemists in the past.

  • The modern chemist has disguised his strange accent/language/culture and has learned the local language, so as to communicate without raising superficial suspicion (of course it won't be how he says it, but rather what he says)

  • Though he may have modern knowledge, he has no modern scientific instruments with him; he must improvise everything with the resources available at the time

  • The modern chemist cleverly used his knowledge to predict results of experiments no one else could, and has worked his way to the position of lead alchemist and is partially immune to social ostracization. This means that he must still be mindful of how he articulates his concepts, but he cannot be overtly ostracized because he is different


European history shows that being ostracized by society doesn't bode well for said individual, so the last assumption is particularly necessary. Given these assumptions, which are generous for the chemist, there is still the problem of actually transmuting gold. As far as known science goes, the closest thing the modern chemist can think of that can serve as his "philosopher's stone" is a particle accelerator. He's thinking back to the 1941 Harvard particle accelerator experiment that bombarded neutrons into 400 grams of mercury resulting in a small amount of gold.



Alas, in the 1500's there can be no such luxury (tempting as it may be to throw that into the assumptions too), the modern chemist must bring his expertise to bear in another way if he is to save his hide and not be executed as a con-artist by the expert prince. What the modern chemist also knows is this: the prince may be an expert, but that just means he's an expert within the context of his era. Before the advent of modern chemistry, whether or not a metal was considered gold was determined not by its atomic structure (obviously), but rather if it satisfied the right properties: luster, malleability, color and weight.



Question



Could an adept modern chemist lead a team of obedient alchemists to produce a material that is extremely gold-like in terms of its physical/chemical properties? If so, roughly, how would he go about it? (no chemical formulae is required, just a general description)



Quality Metric 1: The more gold-like the output the better. This way, when rival alchemists present their "transmuted gold" the modern chemist's output will seem far superior, and thus improve his standing in society. To reiterate, by gold-like we mean properties including but not limited to: luster, weight, hardness, ect.



Quality Metric 2: If you are vehemently opposed to the idea that the modern chemist can yield a material that has properties more similar to gold than the material the 1500's alchemists transmuted, then propose the next-best way to save his skin.










share|improve this question
























  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    – L.Dutch
    2 days ago










  • I'm 10 billion percent sure I saw a similar story somewhere...
    – ANeves
    yesterday






  • 12




    After achieving the position of lead alchemist, only copper, silver and gold alchemist positions are left.
    – npst
    yesterday






  • 2




    His knowledge is expert, he's executed con-artist alchemists. He wants to transmute substances into gold. What?! I don't think there is such a thing as a non-con-artist alchemist by this line of reasoning.
    – Apollys
    yesterday










  • @Apollys I see your point, but Issac Newton, as clever a man as any, was in his youth an ardent alchemist. Alchemy has a certain connotation now, but it took centuries for alchemy to be totally discredited in the transmuting regard. So you're right in that it's not a clever thing to expect to be able to transmute substances into gold, but given their knowledge at the time, it was understandable. Even Newton dabbled.
    – Arash Howaida
    yesterday

















up vote
38
down vote

favorite
5












Premise



The premise is an adept modern chemist is transported back in time and is to serve as the court alchemist to a wealthy prince in the late 16th century.



Assumptions:




  • "Transmuting" gold is the chief goal, but the prince would possibly consider allowing for a different output to be yielded from "transmutation," providing its worth the time and resources

  • During this time nobility/royalty of the utmost wealth are documented having many alchemists on the payroll, so let's assume the modern chemist is working alongside actual alchemists

  • The prince's knowledge is expert; he has executed many con-artist alchemists in the past.

  • The modern chemist has disguised his strange accent/language/culture and has learned the local language, so as to communicate without raising superficial suspicion (of course it won't be how he says it, but rather what he says)

  • Though he may have modern knowledge, he has no modern scientific instruments with him; he must improvise everything with the resources available at the time

  • The modern chemist cleverly used his knowledge to predict results of experiments no one else could, and has worked his way to the position of lead alchemist and is partially immune to social ostracization. This means that he must still be mindful of how he articulates his concepts, but he cannot be overtly ostracized because he is different


European history shows that being ostracized by society doesn't bode well for said individual, so the last assumption is particularly necessary. Given these assumptions, which are generous for the chemist, there is still the problem of actually transmuting gold. As far as known science goes, the closest thing the modern chemist can think of that can serve as his "philosopher's stone" is a particle accelerator. He's thinking back to the 1941 Harvard particle accelerator experiment that bombarded neutrons into 400 grams of mercury resulting in a small amount of gold.



Alas, in the 1500's there can be no such luxury (tempting as it may be to throw that into the assumptions too), the modern chemist must bring his expertise to bear in another way if he is to save his hide and not be executed as a con-artist by the expert prince. What the modern chemist also knows is this: the prince may be an expert, but that just means he's an expert within the context of his era. Before the advent of modern chemistry, whether or not a metal was considered gold was determined not by its atomic structure (obviously), but rather if it satisfied the right properties: luster, malleability, color and weight.



Question



Could an adept modern chemist lead a team of obedient alchemists to produce a material that is extremely gold-like in terms of its physical/chemical properties? If so, roughly, how would he go about it? (no chemical formulae is required, just a general description)



Quality Metric 1: The more gold-like the output the better. This way, when rival alchemists present their "transmuted gold" the modern chemist's output will seem far superior, and thus improve his standing in society. To reiterate, by gold-like we mean properties including but not limited to: luster, weight, hardness, ect.



Quality Metric 2: If you are vehemently opposed to the idea that the modern chemist can yield a material that has properties more similar to gold than the material the 1500's alchemists transmuted, then propose the next-best way to save his skin.










share|improve this question
























  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    – L.Dutch
    2 days ago










  • I'm 10 billion percent sure I saw a similar story somewhere...
    – ANeves
    yesterday






  • 12




    After achieving the position of lead alchemist, only copper, silver and gold alchemist positions are left.
    – npst
    yesterday






  • 2




    His knowledge is expert, he's executed con-artist alchemists. He wants to transmute substances into gold. What?! I don't think there is such a thing as a non-con-artist alchemist by this line of reasoning.
    – Apollys
    yesterday










  • @Apollys I see your point, but Issac Newton, as clever a man as any, was in his youth an ardent alchemist. Alchemy has a certain connotation now, but it took centuries for alchemy to be totally discredited in the transmuting regard. So you're right in that it's not a clever thing to expect to be able to transmute substances into gold, but given their knowledge at the time, it was understandable. Even Newton dabbled.
    – Arash Howaida
    yesterday















up vote
38
down vote

favorite
5









up vote
38
down vote

favorite
5






5





Premise



The premise is an adept modern chemist is transported back in time and is to serve as the court alchemist to a wealthy prince in the late 16th century.



Assumptions:




  • "Transmuting" gold is the chief goal, but the prince would possibly consider allowing for a different output to be yielded from "transmutation," providing its worth the time and resources

  • During this time nobility/royalty of the utmost wealth are documented having many alchemists on the payroll, so let's assume the modern chemist is working alongside actual alchemists

  • The prince's knowledge is expert; he has executed many con-artist alchemists in the past.

  • The modern chemist has disguised his strange accent/language/culture and has learned the local language, so as to communicate without raising superficial suspicion (of course it won't be how he says it, but rather what he says)

  • Though he may have modern knowledge, he has no modern scientific instruments with him; he must improvise everything with the resources available at the time

  • The modern chemist cleverly used his knowledge to predict results of experiments no one else could, and has worked his way to the position of lead alchemist and is partially immune to social ostracization. This means that he must still be mindful of how he articulates his concepts, but he cannot be overtly ostracized because he is different


European history shows that being ostracized by society doesn't bode well for said individual, so the last assumption is particularly necessary. Given these assumptions, which are generous for the chemist, there is still the problem of actually transmuting gold. As far as known science goes, the closest thing the modern chemist can think of that can serve as his "philosopher's stone" is a particle accelerator. He's thinking back to the 1941 Harvard particle accelerator experiment that bombarded neutrons into 400 grams of mercury resulting in a small amount of gold.



Alas, in the 1500's there can be no such luxury (tempting as it may be to throw that into the assumptions too), the modern chemist must bring his expertise to bear in another way if he is to save his hide and not be executed as a con-artist by the expert prince. What the modern chemist also knows is this: the prince may be an expert, but that just means he's an expert within the context of his era. Before the advent of modern chemistry, whether or not a metal was considered gold was determined not by its atomic structure (obviously), but rather if it satisfied the right properties: luster, malleability, color and weight.



Question



Could an adept modern chemist lead a team of obedient alchemists to produce a material that is extremely gold-like in terms of its physical/chemical properties? If so, roughly, how would he go about it? (no chemical formulae is required, just a general description)



Quality Metric 1: The more gold-like the output the better. This way, when rival alchemists present their "transmuted gold" the modern chemist's output will seem far superior, and thus improve his standing in society. To reiterate, by gold-like we mean properties including but not limited to: luster, weight, hardness, ect.



Quality Metric 2: If you are vehemently opposed to the idea that the modern chemist can yield a material that has properties more similar to gold than the material the 1500's alchemists transmuted, then propose the next-best way to save his skin.










share|improve this question















Premise



The premise is an adept modern chemist is transported back in time and is to serve as the court alchemist to a wealthy prince in the late 16th century.



Assumptions:




  • "Transmuting" gold is the chief goal, but the prince would possibly consider allowing for a different output to be yielded from "transmutation," providing its worth the time and resources

  • During this time nobility/royalty of the utmost wealth are documented having many alchemists on the payroll, so let's assume the modern chemist is working alongside actual alchemists

  • The prince's knowledge is expert; he has executed many con-artist alchemists in the past.

  • The modern chemist has disguised his strange accent/language/culture and has learned the local language, so as to communicate without raising superficial suspicion (of course it won't be how he says it, but rather what he says)

  • Though he may have modern knowledge, he has no modern scientific instruments with him; he must improvise everything with the resources available at the time

  • The modern chemist cleverly used his knowledge to predict results of experiments no one else could, and has worked his way to the position of lead alchemist and is partially immune to social ostracization. This means that he must still be mindful of how he articulates his concepts, but he cannot be overtly ostracized because he is different


European history shows that being ostracized by society doesn't bode well for said individual, so the last assumption is particularly necessary. Given these assumptions, which are generous for the chemist, there is still the problem of actually transmuting gold. As far as known science goes, the closest thing the modern chemist can think of that can serve as his "philosopher's stone" is a particle accelerator. He's thinking back to the 1941 Harvard particle accelerator experiment that bombarded neutrons into 400 grams of mercury resulting in a small amount of gold.



Alas, in the 1500's there can be no such luxury (tempting as it may be to throw that into the assumptions too), the modern chemist must bring his expertise to bear in another way if he is to save his hide and not be executed as a con-artist by the expert prince. What the modern chemist also knows is this: the prince may be an expert, but that just means he's an expert within the context of his era. Before the advent of modern chemistry, whether or not a metal was considered gold was determined not by its atomic structure (obviously), but rather if it satisfied the right properties: luster, malleability, color and weight.



Question



Could an adept modern chemist lead a team of obedient alchemists to produce a material that is extremely gold-like in terms of its physical/chemical properties? If so, roughly, how would he go about it? (no chemical formulae is required, just a general description)



Quality Metric 1: The more gold-like the output the better. This way, when rival alchemists present their "transmuted gold" the modern chemist's output will seem far superior, and thus improve his standing in society. To reiterate, by gold-like we mean properties including but not limited to: luster, weight, hardness, ect.



Quality Metric 2: If you are vehemently opposed to the idea that the modern chemist can yield a material that has properties more similar to gold than the material the 1500's alchemists transmuted, then propose the next-best way to save his skin.







science-based chemistry history






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Nov 28 at 15:50

























asked Nov 28 at 6:06









Arash Howaida

2,89112242




2,89112242












  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    – L.Dutch
    2 days ago










  • I'm 10 billion percent sure I saw a similar story somewhere...
    – ANeves
    yesterday






  • 12




    After achieving the position of lead alchemist, only copper, silver and gold alchemist positions are left.
    – npst
    yesterday






  • 2




    His knowledge is expert, he's executed con-artist alchemists. He wants to transmute substances into gold. What?! I don't think there is such a thing as a non-con-artist alchemist by this line of reasoning.
    – Apollys
    yesterday










  • @Apollys I see your point, but Issac Newton, as clever a man as any, was in his youth an ardent alchemist. Alchemy has a certain connotation now, but it took centuries for alchemy to be totally discredited in the transmuting regard. So you're right in that it's not a clever thing to expect to be able to transmute substances into gold, but given their knowledge at the time, it was understandable. Even Newton dabbled.
    – Arash Howaida
    yesterday




















  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    – L.Dutch
    2 days ago










  • I'm 10 billion percent sure I saw a similar story somewhere...
    – ANeves
    yesterday






  • 12




    After achieving the position of lead alchemist, only copper, silver and gold alchemist positions are left.
    – npst
    yesterday






  • 2




    His knowledge is expert, he's executed con-artist alchemists. He wants to transmute substances into gold. What?! I don't think there is such a thing as a non-con-artist alchemist by this line of reasoning.
    – Apollys
    yesterday










  • @Apollys I see your point, but Issac Newton, as clever a man as any, was in his youth an ardent alchemist. Alchemy has a certain connotation now, but it took centuries for alchemy to be totally discredited in the transmuting regard. So you're right in that it's not a clever thing to expect to be able to transmute substances into gold, but given their knowledge at the time, it was understandable. Even Newton dabbled.
    – Arash Howaida
    yesterday


















Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– L.Dutch
2 days ago




Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– L.Dutch
2 days ago












I'm 10 billion percent sure I saw a similar story somewhere...
– ANeves
yesterday




I'm 10 billion percent sure I saw a similar story somewhere...
– ANeves
yesterday




12




12




After achieving the position of lead alchemist, only copper, silver and gold alchemist positions are left.
– npst
yesterday




After achieving the position of lead alchemist, only copper, silver and gold alchemist positions are left.
– npst
yesterday




2




2




His knowledge is expert, he's executed con-artist alchemists. He wants to transmute substances into gold. What?! I don't think there is such a thing as a non-con-artist alchemist by this line of reasoning.
– Apollys
yesterday




His knowledge is expert, he's executed con-artist alchemists. He wants to transmute substances into gold. What?! I don't think there is such a thing as a non-con-artist alchemist by this line of reasoning.
– Apollys
yesterday












@Apollys I see your point, but Issac Newton, as clever a man as any, was in his youth an ardent alchemist. Alchemy has a certain connotation now, but it took centuries for alchemy to be totally discredited in the transmuting regard. So you're right in that it's not a clever thing to expect to be able to transmute substances into gold, but given their knowledge at the time, it was understandable. Even Newton dabbled.
– Arash Howaida
yesterday






@Apollys I see your point, but Issac Newton, as clever a man as any, was in his youth an ardent alchemist. Alchemy has a certain connotation now, but it took centuries for alchemy to be totally discredited in the transmuting regard. So you're right in that it's not a clever thing to expect to be able to transmute substances into gold, but given their knowledge at the time, it was understandable. Even Newton dabbled.
– Arash Howaida
yesterday












9 Answers
9






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
91
down vote



accepted










Why struggling for gold, which any king and even merchant of the medieval world has, when you can go for Aluminum, which no king yet has?




  • Aluminum is shiny, like gold.

  • Aluminum is malleable in thin foils, like gold.

  • Aluminum, once passivated (i.e. covered by a thin layer of oxide), stops further oxidation. Gold is not oxidized at all, but no one will notice that subtle difference.


Since you are not aiming for mass production, sized on the needs of modern days, but you need to produce only small batches, you can set up a small electrolytic process to separate Aluminum from Bauxite.



Before the invention of the Hall–Héroult process, Aluminum cost was higher than gold, and considering its low density it will be appreciated also the lower burden of its transportation.



You will also have 0 risks of some competitor unmasking you, because nobody except you knows the technology and you are actually doing no trick.






share|improve this answer



















  • 24




    I think it was Napoleon who had an Aluminium cutlery set for really important guests. The rest would use silver.
    – Windlepon
    Nov 28 at 13:38






  • 4




    The cap of the Washington Monument was originally made out of Aluminum.
    – AJMansfield
    Nov 28 at 19:13






  • 3




    Clean aluminum is not strong(and making duraluminum is hard) and gets scratches easily. Also it has low density which makes it unlike gold/silver.
    – Vashu
    Nov 29 at 0:00






  • 4




    If your chemist is historically inclined, they'll know how to separate aluminum by reaction with sodium, which doesn't require electricity. (It does require a pretty good furnace to reduce soda ash to metallic sodium.)
    – Mark
    Nov 29 at 8:03








  • 6




    Also, at the time aluminium was more valuable than gold - theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/11/…
    – Algy Taylor
    2 days ago


















up vote
84
down vote













Gold is one of the densest metals in existence. Only few metals and alloys are heavier, but they are not much easier to obtain, like iridium, osmium, neptunium and plutonium (!).
If you use any lighter metal and try to make it look like gold you will be discovered and beheaded - the method of finding out density of alloys pretending to be gold was discovered by Archimedes around 200BC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eureka_(word)



Luckily for you, contrary to common myth the alchemists were not tasked with transmuting common metals to gold. At least not by smart princes. If you think about it - why would a magician who can produce gold out of common elements even need an employer? to take all the gold from him? That's the opposite of what most smart people look for in employment :)



Alchemists, at least those in princely courts, were very educated people. They were doing something much more useful than transmutation - they were improving quality gun alloys and of gunpowder. We're talking about an era when artillery becomes common and important element of battlefields, and handguns are improving to be actually somewhat useful too.



The stories of alchemists dealings with Satan are rumours originating in the smell of sulfur and mysterious fires coming from their workshops as misunderstood by the less educated courtiers. Also probably used as useful cover stories by princes who wanted their real interests secret from their cousins in other courts.



In conclusion: don't bother with gold. Learn how to make really good gunpowder and maybe some alloys, and the prince will give you gold instead of waiting for you to make it from dirt.






share|improve this answer



















  • 27




    One hundred times this. Nobody was looking seriously into transmuting lead into gold, and nobody was paying for such research. (OK, almost nobody; there were from time to time crooked alchemists and foolish princes, but such examples are rare and everybody at the time recognized them as crooks and fools.) The modern chemist only has to demonstrate how to make guncotton and his carreer is safe.
    – AlexP
    Nov 28 at 11:10






  • 3




    There are many other valuable things a modern chemist would be able to teach 16th century craftsmen to make, as well. For instance, much of what we know about organic chemistry today was discovered during the 19th and early 20th century quest for cheap, safe, bright, durable fabric dyes. The modern industrial processes might be a little too dependent on petroleum and electricity, but that just gives your character a chance to demonstrate their ingenuity.
    – zwol
    Nov 28 at 13:24










  • @AlexP Nobody was into chrysopoeia? Nobody?...not even people who were Emperor for 35 years? This is literally the exact person the OP is describing....
    – kingledion
    Nov 28 at 14:09






  • 5




    @kingledion: Emperor Rudolf II had a lot of extra-curricular interests, and he spent a lot of money on all kinds of women, all kinds of art, all kinds of books, all kinds of scientists and pseudo-scientists, and all kinds of clairvoyants and would-be magicians. However, his extra-curricular expenditures remained under control and did not jeopardise the treasury, unlike his military efforts, which did -- and, eventually, resulted in rather dire consequences. Had he been more interested in extra-curricular activities and less interested in imperial stuff the empire would have fared much better.
    – AlexP
    Nov 28 at 14:32








  • 4




    Also, modern chemist is pretty certain no other alchemist is going to come up with gold, fake or real, so now and then saying “I still didn't manage to make gold, but I came up with this alternative to gunpowder that makes less smoke… this beautiful dye… this way of making stronger steel…” will still make him the best of the bunch by far and thus great career.
    – Jan Hudec
    2 days ago


















up vote
30
down vote













Your modern chemist would be foolish to even try to make or fake gold. Instead, you make something that will cause other people to willingly give you THEIR gold. For instance, look the commercial possibilities in the aniline dyes, which should be easy for a modern chemist, and from which fortunes were made in our own history: https://library.si.edu/exhibition/color-in-a-new-light/making






share|improve this answer

















  • 13




    This. Aspirin, penicillin, and other medicines, gun powder and other explosives (how about some C4?), smokeless powder, better metallurgy or "new" metals like the aluminum mentioned in another answer, or knowledge of the world - 1500s still had plenty of "undiscovered" land and routes... Heck, if real gold is a must, lead an expedition to sail east from China (China/Japan were known then...) and "discover" the west coast of America, which will include California and you can have a little private gold rush 250 years early.
    – ivanivan
    Nov 28 at 18:59


















up vote
18
down vote













The only answer is platinum



Many other answers have pointed out the density problem. Since Archimedes was able to determine the difference between pure gold and electrum (gold alloyed with silver) using density, this should be a reasonably well known process for an 'expert' king. If you really want to trick the king into thinking he has gold, the only element that has most of gold's physical attributes (malleable, ductile, non-reactive, and very very dense) is platinum.



However, there is still one significant difference: melting point. Pure platinum would not be meltable with 1500s technology, you can't get a fire hot enough until the coke ovens of the later Industrial Revolution. A wise proto-chemist will know this isn't exactly gold. But, I'd hardly say that is disqualifying. If gold is valuable, how valuable is unmeltable gold (you can call it aurum indissolubilis in Latin)?



How to get some platinum



There are two basic ways you can separate platinum.



First, from nickel based ores, you can try to separate it magnetically. Platinum is paramagnetic, unlike ferro-magnetic nickel and iron. If you run an electromagnet over ground up ore, you could separate out the platinum. This won't be cheap or easy, but with some obedient apprentices, some copper wire, and a watermill, you could build both an ore grinder and a basic dynamo.



Second, you can electro-refine a copper ore. You basically make unrefined copper ore into a battery in a sulfuric acid bath (sulfuric acid was known as 'oil of vitriol' at the time, so you could get your hands on it). The majority copper will be dissolved into the acid bath, while the less reactive (or 'noble') elements like gold, silver, and platinum will end up in the sludge at the bottom.



So the real challenge is then finding ore with platinum in it. There, I can't really help you, I'm not sure how to identify those ores. But, hopefully, the chemist going back in time has some time to prepare, and get some mining maps or something.



Conclusion



If the goal is to simulate creating gold, the best way to do it is to separate platinum from various ores, using one of the two listed methods. This is about as close as you will get to the Philosopher's stone without a nuclear reactor to help you out.






share|improve this answer

















  • 4




    Platinum was so common in some New World ores that the Spanish literally just threw it out because it seemed to have no practical use. In fact, it was first described in 1557 - people of the time knew it existed, but working it would still be a valuable secret that they wouldn't figure out for another 200 years.
    – Cadence
    Nov 28 at 14:01










  • @Cadence Indeed, it was described as a peculiar gold "which no fire nor any Spanish artifice has yet been able to liquefy." Something like... aurum indissolubilis maybe? Where do you think I got that name :)
    – kingledion
    Nov 28 at 14:02






  • 2




    Sorry, but no go. The attribute that you left off the gold list is softness, which was very well-known. And platinum is very hard.
    – WhatRoughBeast
    Nov 28 at 18:29










  • @WhatRoughBeast Platinum's Mohs/Vickers hardness is 3.5, gold is 2.5. Copper is 3.0. Different...but not that different.
    – kingledion
    Nov 28 at 19:05






  • 1




    @WhatRoughBeast What are you going on about? Malleability is on the list in my answer. Hardness is represented by ductility, a more unique property of gold, related to its softness. Also, this is a modern chemist, so he wouldn't be limited by the knowledge of the day, and I include two feasible methods of purifying platinum. I get the impression you didn't read the question or answer thoroughly.
    – kingledion
    Nov 28 at 19:34


















up vote
9
down vote













Gold is nice and shiny, but you can not eat it and it does not give you any power to protect the gold you do have. But troops are nice. There are only a few problems with them.



They need feeding. So increasing food production by inventing fertilization is Huge. You need less people to grow food, you need less land for the same army production.



Another problem is logistic of army march. So you invent some basic food preservatives. Any of the simple ones will do. And you can transport much more food on longer routes. So no war of attrition against your lord.



And as for the troops equipment, steel is nice but tricky to produce.... if you don't have the right knowledge. And good steel can make your small army strong as a big one.



Conclusion



So going for something petty like producing few grams of gold-like substance is not as useful as providing your lord with the means to rob all his neighbors of the real stuff.



Afterthought



If still in a pickle, just destille some fungi juice and make him really happy



Or if you really want something with only value, then produce something like a purple dye that was in the time much more valuable then gold.






share|improve this answer



















  • 6




    "increasing food production by inventing fertilization" is not actually a thing. The necessity and desirability of fertilization was well-known. I suspect you mean inventing nitrogen fertilizer, with the classic being the Haber ammonia process. Of course, this will be a challenge, since a) you must separate nitrogen from oxygen, b) generate hydrogen, and c) react the two, typically at 450 C and 200 atmospheres. Oh yes, and d) you have to do this on an industrial scale. Like, in ton lots. And did I mention that ammonia is extremely toxic? Or that hydrogen and hydrogen - Hindenburg!
    – WhatRoughBeast
    Nov 28 at 18:37












  • Preservatives were also known -- salt being the most common. The problem, like that of fertilizer, is synthesis in sufficient quantity. A chemist and a chemical engineer have very different skillsets.
    – Mark
    Nov 29 at 7:44


















up vote
8
down vote













Forget gold. You can't do it. You can't even come close. If your prince wants riches, how about synthetic gemstones?



You might be able to produce diamonds through the chemical vapor deposition process, but the stones produced will be tiny, and prior to De Beers' marketing push, they were considered a fairly boring gemstone.



You could put together a suitable oxyhydrogen torch, and fuse alumina into synthetic rubies and sapphires. Alumina is pretty ubiquitous, and you can vary the color by adding trace amounts of iron, copper, chromium, and other metals to the mix.



Synthetic emeralds are probably not an option, since the techniques for making them are still mostly trade secrets, and appear to involve materials or material purities that would be unavailable in the 1500s.



The last of the cardinal gemstones, amethyst, requires high-pressure conditions for synthesis, though the main ingredient, silica, is even more common than alumina. You could try making it, but the metallurgy of the time means you're more likely to blow up your lab than produce gemstones.






share|improve this answer

















  • 1




    I don't see how you could do CVD in pre-industrial revolution.
    – tox123
    Nov 28 at 23:14










  • @tox123, diamond's a special case for CVD: you only need a vacuum, methane, hydrogen, and heat. Getting the vacuum is borderline (the guy's a chemist, not an engineer), which is why I've listed it as a "maybe".
    – Mark
    Nov 28 at 23:18










  • High pressure + poor metalurgy just means you need to build your press larger and thicker. Or make some good-quality steel first. That would get the prince's attention on its own.
    – Perkins
    yesterday










  • @Perkins "Sorry, I can't make you gold. But I can make you better swords, so you can go take that other Prince's gold instead?"
    – Chronocidal
    17 hours ago


















up vote
2
down vote













Brew poisonous chemicals & create bombs etc.



A prince may be interested in Gold, in order to gain money and power.
But why ? He wants to win against his enemies: other kingdoms.



Also, the more Gold floods the market, the cheaper it becomes.



So, propose him some poisonous stuff.
It helps him to reach his goals, allowing him to easily assassinate leaders causing chaos in the other kingdoms.



Also, many poisons are easy to create and show great effect. And even more of them could be of great use in battles ! Think of grenades and other explosives, or even guns.



To make sure your chemist isn't killed, make him keep all the formulas secret, stored only in his head. That way, if the prince kills him, he looses his advantages in combat and against other kingdoms.



PS : One example for a family that made their way to power using poison would be the Borgias.





Also, think of some other nice modern chemicals you could present him : sleeping gas(chloroform) etc.





Totally different attempt : cook some meth/other drugs. Make the prince addicted. And then he'll neeever let you be killed. He'll protect you to the end of his life.





TL;DR



Forget the Gold.
Basically, with modern knowledge and basic education, you could easily become his new leading scientiest and thus hardly replaceable.
By keeping some key formulas etc. secret you can also make sure that you'll always be needed.



Also, I can think of tons of extremely useful chemicals for all purposes. Others already mentioned fertilizers.






share|improve this answer























  • While equally valid an answer as the others, I question the morality of the modern chemist becoming the producer of highly-addictive synthetic drugs or dangerous chemical WMDs just to gain some acclaim. There are plenty of ways for the chemist to distinguish himself to his 16th century peers without also needing to be a sociopath.
    – Abion47
    2 days ago










  • @Abion47 Drugs are just the safest way. The prince appears to be a "not-so-nice" guy. You can't trust him. That's why you have to control him. If you produce anything else, he may decide to kill you, just because of the risk that you may change sites. If he's under drugs, the decision isn't up to him anymore.
    – LMD
    yesterday






  • 1




    Because devoted addicts of highly-dangerous and controlled substances have historically been capable of making logical and predictable decisions both while under their effects and while in withdrawal.
    – Abion47
    yesterday










  • Also I have to disagree. Using drugs to manipulate the prince into keeping you around by hooking him on drugs is far from a safe course of action. Nobility/royalty of the time seek power via control and have not been keen on te idea of being controlled. Once he realizes what you are doing, he will have you put to death, with the only question being if he plants spies in your laboratory to learn your process first in order to reinforce the point that he doesn't need you, only your drug.
    – Abion47
    yesterday










  • The only thing that can put you in his good graces long term is to give him what he really wants - a means to control. This can be through military conquests by supplying him with efficient gunpowder or other explosive substances or economically with synthetic gemstones, dyes, or other precious commodities that are difficult and expensive to make with 16th century means but trivial to a modern chemist. Not to mention I imagine that any given person would be much happier making these things than hard drugs and mustard gas.
    – Abion47
    yesterday




















up vote
2
down vote













Most of the great questions of alchemy, like transmuting lead into gold and elixirs of eternal life, have not only failed to materialize but turned out to be impossible in any practical sense. So I don't think you have much potential there. As you remark, one could make counterfeit gold, but why bother when there are other much more valuable legitimate things you can make?




  • Many dyes were extremely valuable, because they could only be produced through laborious processes in tiny amounts. This is why royalty wore purple, for example, it used to be very hard to make the dye and only kings could afford it.

  • Aluminum used to be more valuable than gold. Many other metals were expensive because efficient production methods did not exist.

  • Better steels and other alloys can be used for making very high quality weapons.

  • Chemical fertilizers could greatly improve agriculture, which had a huge influence on the economy back then.

  • Various methods of preserving food could provide enormous strategic advantage in war and trade.

  • Electricity could be discovered centuries early. Chemical batteries are not hard to make, even modern generators are pretty straightforward if you have access to a King's craftsmen.

  • Gunpowder and other explosives are very useful for military purposes, mining and construction.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Withadel is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

























    up vote
    0
    down vote














    Gold is thought to have been produced in supernova nucleosynthesis,
    and from the collision of neutron stars,[47] and to have been present
    in the dust from which the Solar System formed.[




    Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold#Origins



    The reason they think that is the maths show that all the gold on earth couldn't have been produced in the previous two generations of supernova the earth and sun was made from.



    Making Gold cannot be done with chemistry. It requires fusion and I suspect it is endothermic. Iron is the last exothermic fusion in a sun.



    As a rough rule of thumb, atomic is two magnitudes of order stronger than chemistry, and sub atomic two orders again.



    Think common chemicals that have been around for a while. Like gunpowder. One big invention (that saved a lot of towns) was to make it while wet. Dry it. Smash it up with wooden hammers then sieve it. This gave quality control over grain size and thus predictable burning. And the neighbours didn't have to die.






    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    CatCat is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.


















      Your Answer





      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      });
      });
      }, "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "579"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f131439%2ftime-warp-modern-chemist-as-court-alchemist%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      9 Answers
      9






      active

      oldest

      votes








      9 Answers
      9






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes








      up vote
      91
      down vote



      accepted










      Why struggling for gold, which any king and even merchant of the medieval world has, when you can go for Aluminum, which no king yet has?




      • Aluminum is shiny, like gold.

      • Aluminum is malleable in thin foils, like gold.

      • Aluminum, once passivated (i.e. covered by a thin layer of oxide), stops further oxidation. Gold is not oxidized at all, but no one will notice that subtle difference.


      Since you are not aiming for mass production, sized on the needs of modern days, but you need to produce only small batches, you can set up a small electrolytic process to separate Aluminum from Bauxite.



      Before the invention of the Hall–Héroult process, Aluminum cost was higher than gold, and considering its low density it will be appreciated also the lower burden of its transportation.



      You will also have 0 risks of some competitor unmasking you, because nobody except you knows the technology and you are actually doing no trick.






      share|improve this answer



















      • 24




        I think it was Napoleon who had an Aluminium cutlery set for really important guests. The rest would use silver.
        – Windlepon
        Nov 28 at 13:38






      • 4




        The cap of the Washington Monument was originally made out of Aluminum.
        – AJMansfield
        Nov 28 at 19:13






      • 3




        Clean aluminum is not strong(and making duraluminum is hard) and gets scratches easily. Also it has low density which makes it unlike gold/silver.
        – Vashu
        Nov 29 at 0:00






      • 4




        If your chemist is historically inclined, they'll know how to separate aluminum by reaction with sodium, which doesn't require electricity. (It does require a pretty good furnace to reduce soda ash to metallic sodium.)
        – Mark
        Nov 29 at 8:03








      • 6




        Also, at the time aluminium was more valuable than gold - theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/11/…
        – Algy Taylor
        2 days ago















      up vote
      91
      down vote



      accepted










      Why struggling for gold, which any king and even merchant of the medieval world has, when you can go for Aluminum, which no king yet has?




      • Aluminum is shiny, like gold.

      • Aluminum is malleable in thin foils, like gold.

      • Aluminum, once passivated (i.e. covered by a thin layer of oxide), stops further oxidation. Gold is not oxidized at all, but no one will notice that subtle difference.


      Since you are not aiming for mass production, sized on the needs of modern days, but you need to produce only small batches, you can set up a small electrolytic process to separate Aluminum from Bauxite.



      Before the invention of the Hall–Héroult process, Aluminum cost was higher than gold, and considering its low density it will be appreciated also the lower burden of its transportation.



      You will also have 0 risks of some competitor unmasking you, because nobody except you knows the technology and you are actually doing no trick.






      share|improve this answer



















      • 24




        I think it was Napoleon who had an Aluminium cutlery set for really important guests. The rest would use silver.
        – Windlepon
        Nov 28 at 13:38






      • 4




        The cap of the Washington Monument was originally made out of Aluminum.
        – AJMansfield
        Nov 28 at 19:13






      • 3




        Clean aluminum is not strong(and making duraluminum is hard) and gets scratches easily. Also it has low density which makes it unlike gold/silver.
        – Vashu
        Nov 29 at 0:00






      • 4




        If your chemist is historically inclined, they'll know how to separate aluminum by reaction with sodium, which doesn't require electricity. (It does require a pretty good furnace to reduce soda ash to metallic sodium.)
        – Mark
        Nov 29 at 8:03








      • 6




        Also, at the time aluminium was more valuable than gold - theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/11/…
        – Algy Taylor
        2 days ago













      up vote
      91
      down vote



      accepted







      up vote
      91
      down vote



      accepted






      Why struggling for gold, which any king and even merchant of the medieval world has, when you can go for Aluminum, which no king yet has?




      • Aluminum is shiny, like gold.

      • Aluminum is malleable in thin foils, like gold.

      • Aluminum, once passivated (i.e. covered by a thin layer of oxide), stops further oxidation. Gold is not oxidized at all, but no one will notice that subtle difference.


      Since you are not aiming for mass production, sized on the needs of modern days, but you need to produce only small batches, you can set up a small electrolytic process to separate Aluminum from Bauxite.



      Before the invention of the Hall–Héroult process, Aluminum cost was higher than gold, and considering its low density it will be appreciated also the lower burden of its transportation.



      You will also have 0 risks of some competitor unmasking you, because nobody except you knows the technology and you are actually doing no trick.






      share|improve this answer














      Why struggling for gold, which any king and even merchant of the medieval world has, when you can go for Aluminum, which no king yet has?




      • Aluminum is shiny, like gold.

      • Aluminum is malleable in thin foils, like gold.

      • Aluminum, once passivated (i.e. covered by a thin layer of oxide), stops further oxidation. Gold is not oxidized at all, but no one will notice that subtle difference.


      Since you are not aiming for mass production, sized on the needs of modern days, but you need to produce only small batches, you can set up a small electrolytic process to separate Aluminum from Bauxite.



      Before the invention of the Hall–Héroult process, Aluminum cost was higher than gold, and considering its low density it will be appreciated also the lower burden of its transportation.



      You will also have 0 risks of some competitor unmasking you, because nobody except you knows the technology and you are actually doing no trick.







      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited 18 hours ago

























      answered Nov 28 at 8:20









      L.Dutch

      71.7k22173345




      71.7k22173345








      • 24




        I think it was Napoleon who had an Aluminium cutlery set for really important guests. The rest would use silver.
        – Windlepon
        Nov 28 at 13:38






      • 4




        The cap of the Washington Monument was originally made out of Aluminum.
        – AJMansfield
        Nov 28 at 19:13






      • 3




        Clean aluminum is not strong(and making duraluminum is hard) and gets scratches easily. Also it has low density which makes it unlike gold/silver.
        – Vashu
        Nov 29 at 0:00






      • 4




        If your chemist is historically inclined, they'll know how to separate aluminum by reaction with sodium, which doesn't require electricity. (It does require a pretty good furnace to reduce soda ash to metallic sodium.)
        – Mark
        Nov 29 at 8:03








      • 6




        Also, at the time aluminium was more valuable than gold - theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/11/…
        – Algy Taylor
        2 days ago














      • 24




        I think it was Napoleon who had an Aluminium cutlery set for really important guests. The rest would use silver.
        – Windlepon
        Nov 28 at 13:38






      • 4




        The cap of the Washington Monument was originally made out of Aluminum.
        – AJMansfield
        Nov 28 at 19:13






      • 3




        Clean aluminum is not strong(and making duraluminum is hard) and gets scratches easily. Also it has low density which makes it unlike gold/silver.
        – Vashu
        Nov 29 at 0:00






      • 4




        If your chemist is historically inclined, they'll know how to separate aluminum by reaction with sodium, which doesn't require electricity. (It does require a pretty good furnace to reduce soda ash to metallic sodium.)
        – Mark
        Nov 29 at 8:03








      • 6




        Also, at the time aluminium was more valuable than gold - theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/11/…
        – Algy Taylor
        2 days ago








      24




      24




      I think it was Napoleon who had an Aluminium cutlery set for really important guests. The rest would use silver.
      – Windlepon
      Nov 28 at 13:38




      I think it was Napoleon who had an Aluminium cutlery set for really important guests. The rest would use silver.
      – Windlepon
      Nov 28 at 13:38




      4




      4




      The cap of the Washington Monument was originally made out of Aluminum.
      – AJMansfield
      Nov 28 at 19:13




      The cap of the Washington Monument was originally made out of Aluminum.
      – AJMansfield
      Nov 28 at 19:13




      3




      3




      Clean aluminum is not strong(and making duraluminum is hard) and gets scratches easily. Also it has low density which makes it unlike gold/silver.
      – Vashu
      Nov 29 at 0:00




      Clean aluminum is not strong(and making duraluminum is hard) and gets scratches easily. Also it has low density which makes it unlike gold/silver.
      – Vashu
      Nov 29 at 0:00




      4




      4




      If your chemist is historically inclined, they'll know how to separate aluminum by reaction with sodium, which doesn't require electricity. (It does require a pretty good furnace to reduce soda ash to metallic sodium.)
      – Mark
      Nov 29 at 8:03






      If your chemist is historically inclined, they'll know how to separate aluminum by reaction with sodium, which doesn't require electricity. (It does require a pretty good furnace to reduce soda ash to metallic sodium.)
      – Mark
      Nov 29 at 8:03






      6




      6




      Also, at the time aluminium was more valuable than gold - theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/11/…
      – Algy Taylor
      2 days ago




      Also, at the time aluminium was more valuable than gold - theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/11/…
      – Algy Taylor
      2 days ago










      up vote
      84
      down vote













      Gold is one of the densest metals in existence. Only few metals and alloys are heavier, but they are not much easier to obtain, like iridium, osmium, neptunium and plutonium (!).
      If you use any lighter metal and try to make it look like gold you will be discovered and beheaded - the method of finding out density of alloys pretending to be gold was discovered by Archimedes around 200BC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eureka_(word)



      Luckily for you, contrary to common myth the alchemists were not tasked with transmuting common metals to gold. At least not by smart princes. If you think about it - why would a magician who can produce gold out of common elements even need an employer? to take all the gold from him? That's the opposite of what most smart people look for in employment :)



      Alchemists, at least those in princely courts, were very educated people. They were doing something much more useful than transmutation - they were improving quality gun alloys and of gunpowder. We're talking about an era when artillery becomes common and important element of battlefields, and handguns are improving to be actually somewhat useful too.



      The stories of alchemists dealings with Satan are rumours originating in the smell of sulfur and mysterious fires coming from their workshops as misunderstood by the less educated courtiers. Also probably used as useful cover stories by princes who wanted their real interests secret from their cousins in other courts.



      In conclusion: don't bother with gold. Learn how to make really good gunpowder and maybe some alloys, and the prince will give you gold instead of waiting for you to make it from dirt.






      share|improve this answer



















      • 27




        One hundred times this. Nobody was looking seriously into transmuting lead into gold, and nobody was paying for such research. (OK, almost nobody; there were from time to time crooked alchemists and foolish princes, but such examples are rare and everybody at the time recognized them as crooks and fools.) The modern chemist only has to demonstrate how to make guncotton and his carreer is safe.
        – AlexP
        Nov 28 at 11:10






      • 3




        There are many other valuable things a modern chemist would be able to teach 16th century craftsmen to make, as well. For instance, much of what we know about organic chemistry today was discovered during the 19th and early 20th century quest for cheap, safe, bright, durable fabric dyes. The modern industrial processes might be a little too dependent on petroleum and electricity, but that just gives your character a chance to demonstrate their ingenuity.
        – zwol
        Nov 28 at 13:24










      • @AlexP Nobody was into chrysopoeia? Nobody?...not even people who were Emperor for 35 years? This is literally the exact person the OP is describing....
        – kingledion
        Nov 28 at 14:09






      • 5




        @kingledion: Emperor Rudolf II had a lot of extra-curricular interests, and he spent a lot of money on all kinds of women, all kinds of art, all kinds of books, all kinds of scientists and pseudo-scientists, and all kinds of clairvoyants and would-be magicians. However, his extra-curricular expenditures remained under control and did not jeopardise the treasury, unlike his military efforts, which did -- and, eventually, resulted in rather dire consequences. Had he been more interested in extra-curricular activities and less interested in imperial stuff the empire would have fared much better.
        – AlexP
        Nov 28 at 14:32








      • 4




        Also, modern chemist is pretty certain no other alchemist is going to come up with gold, fake or real, so now and then saying “I still didn't manage to make gold, but I came up with this alternative to gunpowder that makes less smoke… this beautiful dye… this way of making stronger steel…” will still make him the best of the bunch by far and thus great career.
        – Jan Hudec
        2 days ago















      up vote
      84
      down vote













      Gold is one of the densest metals in existence. Only few metals and alloys are heavier, but they are not much easier to obtain, like iridium, osmium, neptunium and plutonium (!).
      If you use any lighter metal and try to make it look like gold you will be discovered and beheaded - the method of finding out density of alloys pretending to be gold was discovered by Archimedes around 200BC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eureka_(word)



      Luckily for you, contrary to common myth the alchemists were not tasked with transmuting common metals to gold. At least not by smart princes. If you think about it - why would a magician who can produce gold out of common elements even need an employer? to take all the gold from him? That's the opposite of what most smart people look for in employment :)



      Alchemists, at least those in princely courts, were very educated people. They were doing something much more useful than transmutation - they were improving quality gun alloys and of gunpowder. We're talking about an era when artillery becomes common and important element of battlefields, and handguns are improving to be actually somewhat useful too.



      The stories of alchemists dealings with Satan are rumours originating in the smell of sulfur and mysterious fires coming from their workshops as misunderstood by the less educated courtiers. Also probably used as useful cover stories by princes who wanted their real interests secret from their cousins in other courts.



      In conclusion: don't bother with gold. Learn how to make really good gunpowder and maybe some alloys, and the prince will give you gold instead of waiting for you to make it from dirt.






      share|improve this answer



















      • 27




        One hundred times this. Nobody was looking seriously into transmuting lead into gold, and nobody was paying for such research. (OK, almost nobody; there were from time to time crooked alchemists and foolish princes, but such examples are rare and everybody at the time recognized them as crooks and fools.) The modern chemist only has to demonstrate how to make guncotton and his carreer is safe.
        – AlexP
        Nov 28 at 11:10






      • 3




        There are many other valuable things a modern chemist would be able to teach 16th century craftsmen to make, as well. For instance, much of what we know about organic chemistry today was discovered during the 19th and early 20th century quest for cheap, safe, bright, durable fabric dyes. The modern industrial processes might be a little too dependent on petroleum and electricity, but that just gives your character a chance to demonstrate their ingenuity.
        – zwol
        Nov 28 at 13:24










      • @AlexP Nobody was into chrysopoeia? Nobody?...not even people who were Emperor for 35 years? This is literally the exact person the OP is describing....
        – kingledion
        Nov 28 at 14:09






      • 5




        @kingledion: Emperor Rudolf II had a lot of extra-curricular interests, and he spent a lot of money on all kinds of women, all kinds of art, all kinds of books, all kinds of scientists and pseudo-scientists, and all kinds of clairvoyants and would-be magicians. However, his extra-curricular expenditures remained under control and did not jeopardise the treasury, unlike his military efforts, which did -- and, eventually, resulted in rather dire consequences. Had he been more interested in extra-curricular activities and less interested in imperial stuff the empire would have fared much better.
        – AlexP
        Nov 28 at 14:32








      • 4




        Also, modern chemist is pretty certain no other alchemist is going to come up with gold, fake or real, so now and then saying “I still didn't manage to make gold, but I came up with this alternative to gunpowder that makes less smoke… this beautiful dye… this way of making stronger steel…” will still make him the best of the bunch by far and thus great career.
        – Jan Hudec
        2 days ago













      up vote
      84
      down vote










      up vote
      84
      down vote









      Gold is one of the densest metals in existence. Only few metals and alloys are heavier, but they are not much easier to obtain, like iridium, osmium, neptunium and plutonium (!).
      If you use any lighter metal and try to make it look like gold you will be discovered and beheaded - the method of finding out density of alloys pretending to be gold was discovered by Archimedes around 200BC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eureka_(word)



      Luckily for you, contrary to common myth the alchemists were not tasked with transmuting common metals to gold. At least not by smart princes. If you think about it - why would a magician who can produce gold out of common elements even need an employer? to take all the gold from him? That's the opposite of what most smart people look for in employment :)



      Alchemists, at least those in princely courts, were very educated people. They were doing something much more useful than transmutation - they were improving quality gun alloys and of gunpowder. We're talking about an era when artillery becomes common and important element of battlefields, and handguns are improving to be actually somewhat useful too.



      The stories of alchemists dealings with Satan are rumours originating in the smell of sulfur and mysterious fires coming from their workshops as misunderstood by the less educated courtiers. Also probably used as useful cover stories by princes who wanted their real interests secret from their cousins in other courts.



      In conclusion: don't bother with gold. Learn how to make really good gunpowder and maybe some alloys, and the prince will give you gold instead of waiting for you to make it from dirt.






      share|improve this answer














      Gold is one of the densest metals in existence. Only few metals and alloys are heavier, but they are not much easier to obtain, like iridium, osmium, neptunium and plutonium (!).
      If you use any lighter metal and try to make it look like gold you will be discovered and beheaded - the method of finding out density of alloys pretending to be gold was discovered by Archimedes around 200BC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eureka_(word)



      Luckily for you, contrary to common myth the alchemists were not tasked with transmuting common metals to gold. At least not by smart princes. If you think about it - why would a magician who can produce gold out of common elements even need an employer? to take all the gold from him? That's the opposite of what most smart people look for in employment :)



      Alchemists, at least those in princely courts, were very educated people. They were doing something much more useful than transmutation - they were improving quality gun alloys and of gunpowder. We're talking about an era when artillery becomes common and important element of battlefields, and handguns are improving to be actually somewhat useful too.



      The stories of alchemists dealings with Satan are rumours originating in the smell of sulfur and mysterious fires coming from their workshops as misunderstood by the less educated courtiers. Also probably used as useful cover stories by princes who wanted their real interests secret from their cousins in other courts.



      In conclusion: don't bother with gold. Learn how to make really good gunpowder and maybe some alloys, and the prince will give you gold instead of waiting for you to make it from dirt.







      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited 2 days ago

























      answered Nov 28 at 9:52









      Milo Bem

      891110




      891110








      • 27




        One hundred times this. Nobody was looking seriously into transmuting lead into gold, and nobody was paying for such research. (OK, almost nobody; there were from time to time crooked alchemists and foolish princes, but such examples are rare and everybody at the time recognized them as crooks and fools.) The modern chemist only has to demonstrate how to make guncotton and his carreer is safe.
        – AlexP
        Nov 28 at 11:10






      • 3




        There are many other valuable things a modern chemist would be able to teach 16th century craftsmen to make, as well. For instance, much of what we know about organic chemistry today was discovered during the 19th and early 20th century quest for cheap, safe, bright, durable fabric dyes. The modern industrial processes might be a little too dependent on petroleum and electricity, but that just gives your character a chance to demonstrate their ingenuity.
        – zwol
        Nov 28 at 13:24










      • @AlexP Nobody was into chrysopoeia? Nobody?...not even people who were Emperor for 35 years? This is literally the exact person the OP is describing....
        – kingledion
        Nov 28 at 14:09






      • 5




        @kingledion: Emperor Rudolf II had a lot of extra-curricular interests, and he spent a lot of money on all kinds of women, all kinds of art, all kinds of books, all kinds of scientists and pseudo-scientists, and all kinds of clairvoyants and would-be magicians. However, his extra-curricular expenditures remained under control and did not jeopardise the treasury, unlike his military efforts, which did -- and, eventually, resulted in rather dire consequences. Had he been more interested in extra-curricular activities and less interested in imperial stuff the empire would have fared much better.
        – AlexP
        Nov 28 at 14:32








      • 4




        Also, modern chemist is pretty certain no other alchemist is going to come up with gold, fake or real, so now and then saying “I still didn't manage to make gold, but I came up with this alternative to gunpowder that makes less smoke… this beautiful dye… this way of making stronger steel…” will still make him the best of the bunch by far and thus great career.
        – Jan Hudec
        2 days ago














      • 27




        One hundred times this. Nobody was looking seriously into transmuting lead into gold, and nobody was paying for such research. (OK, almost nobody; there were from time to time crooked alchemists and foolish princes, but such examples are rare and everybody at the time recognized them as crooks and fools.) The modern chemist only has to demonstrate how to make guncotton and his carreer is safe.
        – AlexP
        Nov 28 at 11:10






      • 3




        There are many other valuable things a modern chemist would be able to teach 16th century craftsmen to make, as well. For instance, much of what we know about organic chemistry today was discovered during the 19th and early 20th century quest for cheap, safe, bright, durable fabric dyes. The modern industrial processes might be a little too dependent on petroleum and electricity, but that just gives your character a chance to demonstrate their ingenuity.
        – zwol
        Nov 28 at 13:24










      • @AlexP Nobody was into chrysopoeia? Nobody?...not even people who were Emperor for 35 years? This is literally the exact person the OP is describing....
        – kingledion
        Nov 28 at 14:09






      • 5




        @kingledion: Emperor Rudolf II had a lot of extra-curricular interests, and he spent a lot of money on all kinds of women, all kinds of art, all kinds of books, all kinds of scientists and pseudo-scientists, and all kinds of clairvoyants and would-be magicians. However, his extra-curricular expenditures remained under control and did not jeopardise the treasury, unlike his military efforts, which did -- and, eventually, resulted in rather dire consequences. Had he been more interested in extra-curricular activities and less interested in imperial stuff the empire would have fared much better.
        – AlexP
        Nov 28 at 14:32








      • 4




        Also, modern chemist is pretty certain no other alchemist is going to come up with gold, fake or real, so now and then saying “I still didn't manage to make gold, but I came up with this alternative to gunpowder that makes less smoke… this beautiful dye… this way of making stronger steel…” will still make him the best of the bunch by far and thus great career.
        – Jan Hudec
        2 days ago








      27




      27




      One hundred times this. Nobody was looking seriously into transmuting lead into gold, and nobody was paying for such research. (OK, almost nobody; there were from time to time crooked alchemists and foolish princes, but such examples are rare and everybody at the time recognized them as crooks and fools.) The modern chemist only has to demonstrate how to make guncotton and his carreer is safe.
      – AlexP
      Nov 28 at 11:10




      One hundred times this. Nobody was looking seriously into transmuting lead into gold, and nobody was paying for such research. (OK, almost nobody; there were from time to time crooked alchemists and foolish princes, but such examples are rare and everybody at the time recognized them as crooks and fools.) The modern chemist only has to demonstrate how to make guncotton and his carreer is safe.
      – AlexP
      Nov 28 at 11:10




      3




      3




      There are many other valuable things a modern chemist would be able to teach 16th century craftsmen to make, as well. For instance, much of what we know about organic chemistry today was discovered during the 19th and early 20th century quest for cheap, safe, bright, durable fabric dyes. The modern industrial processes might be a little too dependent on petroleum and electricity, but that just gives your character a chance to demonstrate their ingenuity.
      – zwol
      Nov 28 at 13:24




      There are many other valuable things a modern chemist would be able to teach 16th century craftsmen to make, as well. For instance, much of what we know about organic chemistry today was discovered during the 19th and early 20th century quest for cheap, safe, bright, durable fabric dyes. The modern industrial processes might be a little too dependent on petroleum and electricity, but that just gives your character a chance to demonstrate their ingenuity.
      – zwol
      Nov 28 at 13:24












      @AlexP Nobody was into chrysopoeia? Nobody?...not even people who were Emperor for 35 years? This is literally the exact person the OP is describing....
      – kingledion
      Nov 28 at 14:09




      @AlexP Nobody was into chrysopoeia? Nobody?...not even people who were Emperor for 35 years? This is literally the exact person the OP is describing....
      – kingledion
      Nov 28 at 14:09




      5




      5




      @kingledion: Emperor Rudolf II had a lot of extra-curricular interests, and he spent a lot of money on all kinds of women, all kinds of art, all kinds of books, all kinds of scientists and pseudo-scientists, and all kinds of clairvoyants and would-be magicians. However, his extra-curricular expenditures remained under control and did not jeopardise the treasury, unlike his military efforts, which did -- and, eventually, resulted in rather dire consequences. Had he been more interested in extra-curricular activities and less interested in imperial stuff the empire would have fared much better.
      – AlexP
      Nov 28 at 14:32






      @kingledion: Emperor Rudolf II had a lot of extra-curricular interests, and he spent a lot of money on all kinds of women, all kinds of art, all kinds of books, all kinds of scientists and pseudo-scientists, and all kinds of clairvoyants and would-be magicians. However, his extra-curricular expenditures remained under control and did not jeopardise the treasury, unlike his military efforts, which did -- and, eventually, resulted in rather dire consequences. Had he been more interested in extra-curricular activities and less interested in imperial stuff the empire would have fared much better.
      – AlexP
      Nov 28 at 14:32






      4




      4




      Also, modern chemist is pretty certain no other alchemist is going to come up with gold, fake or real, so now and then saying “I still didn't manage to make gold, but I came up with this alternative to gunpowder that makes less smoke… this beautiful dye… this way of making stronger steel…” will still make him the best of the bunch by far and thus great career.
      – Jan Hudec
      2 days ago




      Also, modern chemist is pretty certain no other alchemist is going to come up with gold, fake or real, so now and then saying “I still didn't manage to make gold, but I came up with this alternative to gunpowder that makes less smoke… this beautiful dye… this way of making stronger steel…” will still make him the best of the bunch by far and thus great career.
      – Jan Hudec
      2 days ago










      up vote
      30
      down vote













      Your modern chemist would be foolish to even try to make or fake gold. Instead, you make something that will cause other people to willingly give you THEIR gold. For instance, look the commercial possibilities in the aniline dyes, which should be easy for a modern chemist, and from which fortunes were made in our own history: https://library.si.edu/exhibition/color-in-a-new-light/making






      share|improve this answer

















      • 13




        This. Aspirin, penicillin, and other medicines, gun powder and other explosives (how about some C4?), smokeless powder, better metallurgy or "new" metals like the aluminum mentioned in another answer, or knowledge of the world - 1500s still had plenty of "undiscovered" land and routes... Heck, if real gold is a must, lead an expedition to sail east from China (China/Japan were known then...) and "discover" the west coast of America, which will include California and you can have a little private gold rush 250 years early.
        – ivanivan
        Nov 28 at 18:59















      up vote
      30
      down vote













      Your modern chemist would be foolish to even try to make or fake gold. Instead, you make something that will cause other people to willingly give you THEIR gold. For instance, look the commercial possibilities in the aniline dyes, which should be easy for a modern chemist, and from which fortunes were made in our own history: https://library.si.edu/exhibition/color-in-a-new-light/making






      share|improve this answer

















      • 13




        This. Aspirin, penicillin, and other medicines, gun powder and other explosives (how about some C4?), smokeless powder, better metallurgy or "new" metals like the aluminum mentioned in another answer, or knowledge of the world - 1500s still had plenty of "undiscovered" land and routes... Heck, if real gold is a must, lead an expedition to sail east from China (China/Japan were known then...) and "discover" the west coast of America, which will include California and you can have a little private gold rush 250 years early.
        – ivanivan
        Nov 28 at 18:59













      up vote
      30
      down vote










      up vote
      30
      down vote









      Your modern chemist would be foolish to even try to make or fake gold. Instead, you make something that will cause other people to willingly give you THEIR gold. For instance, look the commercial possibilities in the aniline dyes, which should be easy for a modern chemist, and from which fortunes were made in our own history: https://library.si.edu/exhibition/color-in-a-new-light/making






      share|improve this answer












      Your modern chemist would be foolish to even try to make or fake gold. Instead, you make something that will cause other people to willingly give you THEIR gold. For instance, look the commercial possibilities in the aniline dyes, which should be easy for a modern chemist, and from which fortunes were made in our own history: https://library.si.edu/exhibition/color-in-a-new-light/making







      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      answered Nov 28 at 18:08









      jamesqf

      9,49011835




      9,49011835








      • 13




        This. Aspirin, penicillin, and other medicines, gun powder and other explosives (how about some C4?), smokeless powder, better metallurgy or "new" metals like the aluminum mentioned in another answer, or knowledge of the world - 1500s still had plenty of "undiscovered" land and routes... Heck, if real gold is a must, lead an expedition to sail east from China (China/Japan were known then...) and "discover" the west coast of America, which will include California and you can have a little private gold rush 250 years early.
        – ivanivan
        Nov 28 at 18:59














      • 13




        This. Aspirin, penicillin, and other medicines, gun powder and other explosives (how about some C4?), smokeless powder, better metallurgy or "new" metals like the aluminum mentioned in another answer, or knowledge of the world - 1500s still had plenty of "undiscovered" land and routes... Heck, if real gold is a must, lead an expedition to sail east from China (China/Japan were known then...) and "discover" the west coast of America, which will include California and you can have a little private gold rush 250 years early.
        – ivanivan
        Nov 28 at 18:59








      13




      13




      This. Aspirin, penicillin, and other medicines, gun powder and other explosives (how about some C4?), smokeless powder, better metallurgy or "new" metals like the aluminum mentioned in another answer, or knowledge of the world - 1500s still had plenty of "undiscovered" land and routes... Heck, if real gold is a must, lead an expedition to sail east from China (China/Japan were known then...) and "discover" the west coast of America, which will include California and you can have a little private gold rush 250 years early.
      – ivanivan
      Nov 28 at 18:59




      This. Aspirin, penicillin, and other medicines, gun powder and other explosives (how about some C4?), smokeless powder, better metallurgy or "new" metals like the aluminum mentioned in another answer, or knowledge of the world - 1500s still had plenty of "undiscovered" land and routes... Heck, if real gold is a must, lead an expedition to sail east from China (China/Japan were known then...) and "discover" the west coast of America, which will include California and you can have a little private gold rush 250 years early.
      – ivanivan
      Nov 28 at 18:59










      up vote
      18
      down vote













      The only answer is platinum



      Many other answers have pointed out the density problem. Since Archimedes was able to determine the difference between pure gold and electrum (gold alloyed with silver) using density, this should be a reasonably well known process for an 'expert' king. If you really want to trick the king into thinking he has gold, the only element that has most of gold's physical attributes (malleable, ductile, non-reactive, and very very dense) is platinum.



      However, there is still one significant difference: melting point. Pure platinum would not be meltable with 1500s technology, you can't get a fire hot enough until the coke ovens of the later Industrial Revolution. A wise proto-chemist will know this isn't exactly gold. But, I'd hardly say that is disqualifying. If gold is valuable, how valuable is unmeltable gold (you can call it aurum indissolubilis in Latin)?



      How to get some platinum



      There are two basic ways you can separate platinum.



      First, from nickel based ores, you can try to separate it magnetically. Platinum is paramagnetic, unlike ferro-magnetic nickel and iron. If you run an electromagnet over ground up ore, you could separate out the platinum. This won't be cheap or easy, but with some obedient apprentices, some copper wire, and a watermill, you could build both an ore grinder and a basic dynamo.



      Second, you can electro-refine a copper ore. You basically make unrefined copper ore into a battery in a sulfuric acid bath (sulfuric acid was known as 'oil of vitriol' at the time, so you could get your hands on it). The majority copper will be dissolved into the acid bath, while the less reactive (or 'noble') elements like gold, silver, and platinum will end up in the sludge at the bottom.



      So the real challenge is then finding ore with platinum in it. There, I can't really help you, I'm not sure how to identify those ores. But, hopefully, the chemist going back in time has some time to prepare, and get some mining maps or something.



      Conclusion



      If the goal is to simulate creating gold, the best way to do it is to separate platinum from various ores, using one of the two listed methods. This is about as close as you will get to the Philosopher's stone without a nuclear reactor to help you out.






      share|improve this answer

















      • 4




        Platinum was so common in some New World ores that the Spanish literally just threw it out because it seemed to have no practical use. In fact, it was first described in 1557 - people of the time knew it existed, but working it would still be a valuable secret that they wouldn't figure out for another 200 years.
        – Cadence
        Nov 28 at 14:01










      • @Cadence Indeed, it was described as a peculiar gold "which no fire nor any Spanish artifice has yet been able to liquefy." Something like... aurum indissolubilis maybe? Where do you think I got that name :)
        – kingledion
        Nov 28 at 14:02






      • 2




        Sorry, but no go. The attribute that you left off the gold list is softness, which was very well-known. And platinum is very hard.
        – WhatRoughBeast
        Nov 28 at 18:29










      • @WhatRoughBeast Platinum's Mohs/Vickers hardness is 3.5, gold is 2.5. Copper is 3.0. Different...but not that different.
        – kingledion
        Nov 28 at 19:05






      • 1




        @WhatRoughBeast What are you going on about? Malleability is on the list in my answer. Hardness is represented by ductility, a more unique property of gold, related to its softness. Also, this is a modern chemist, so he wouldn't be limited by the knowledge of the day, and I include two feasible methods of purifying platinum. I get the impression you didn't read the question or answer thoroughly.
        – kingledion
        Nov 28 at 19:34















      up vote
      18
      down vote













      The only answer is platinum



      Many other answers have pointed out the density problem. Since Archimedes was able to determine the difference between pure gold and electrum (gold alloyed with silver) using density, this should be a reasonably well known process for an 'expert' king. If you really want to trick the king into thinking he has gold, the only element that has most of gold's physical attributes (malleable, ductile, non-reactive, and very very dense) is platinum.



      However, there is still one significant difference: melting point. Pure platinum would not be meltable with 1500s technology, you can't get a fire hot enough until the coke ovens of the later Industrial Revolution. A wise proto-chemist will know this isn't exactly gold. But, I'd hardly say that is disqualifying. If gold is valuable, how valuable is unmeltable gold (you can call it aurum indissolubilis in Latin)?



      How to get some platinum



      There are two basic ways you can separate platinum.



      First, from nickel based ores, you can try to separate it magnetically. Platinum is paramagnetic, unlike ferro-magnetic nickel and iron. If you run an electromagnet over ground up ore, you could separate out the platinum. This won't be cheap or easy, but with some obedient apprentices, some copper wire, and a watermill, you could build both an ore grinder and a basic dynamo.



      Second, you can electro-refine a copper ore. You basically make unrefined copper ore into a battery in a sulfuric acid bath (sulfuric acid was known as 'oil of vitriol' at the time, so you could get your hands on it). The majority copper will be dissolved into the acid bath, while the less reactive (or 'noble') elements like gold, silver, and platinum will end up in the sludge at the bottom.



      So the real challenge is then finding ore with platinum in it. There, I can't really help you, I'm not sure how to identify those ores. But, hopefully, the chemist going back in time has some time to prepare, and get some mining maps or something.



      Conclusion



      If the goal is to simulate creating gold, the best way to do it is to separate platinum from various ores, using one of the two listed methods. This is about as close as you will get to the Philosopher's stone without a nuclear reactor to help you out.






      share|improve this answer

















      • 4




        Platinum was so common in some New World ores that the Spanish literally just threw it out because it seemed to have no practical use. In fact, it was first described in 1557 - people of the time knew it existed, but working it would still be a valuable secret that they wouldn't figure out for another 200 years.
        – Cadence
        Nov 28 at 14:01










      • @Cadence Indeed, it was described as a peculiar gold "which no fire nor any Spanish artifice has yet been able to liquefy." Something like... aurum indissolubilis maybe? Where do you think I got that name :)
        – kingledion
        Nov 28 at 14:02






      • 2




        Sorry, but no go. The attribute that you left off the gold list is softness, which was very well-known. And platinum is very hard.
        – WhatRoughBeast
        Nov 28 at 18:29










      • @WhatRoughBeast Platinum's Mohs/Vickers hardness is 3.5, gold is 2.5. Copper is 3.0. Different...but not that different.
        – kingledion
        Nov 28 at 19:05






      • 1




        @WhatRoughBeast What are you going on about? Malleability is on the list in my answer. Hardness is represented by ductility, a more unique property of gold, related to its softness. Also, this is a modern chemist, so he wouldn't be limited by the knowledge of the day, and I include two feasible methods of purifying platinum. I get the impression you didn't read the question or answer thoroughly.
        – kingledion
        Nov 28 at 19:34













      up vote
      18
      down vote










      up vote
      18
      down vote









      The only answer is platinum



      Many other answers have pointed out the density problem. Since Archimedes was able to determine the difference between pure gold and electrum (gold alloyed with silver) using density, this should be a reasonably well known process for an 'expert' king. If you really want to trick the king into thinking he has gold, the only element that has most of gold's physical attributes (malleable, ductile, non-reactive, and very very dense) is platinum.



      However, there is still one significant difference: melting point. Pure platinum would not be meltable with 1500s technology, you can't get a fire hot enough until the coke ovens of the later Industrial Revolution. A wise proto-chemist will know this isn't exactly gold. But, I'd hardly say that is disqualifying. If gold is valuable, how valuable is unmeltable gold (you can call it aurum indissolubilis in Latin)?



      How to get some platinum



      There are two basic ways you can separate platinum.



      First, from nickel based ores, you can try to separate it magnetically. Platinum is paramagnetic, unlike ferro-magnetic nickel and iron. If you run an electromagnet over ground up ore, you could separate out the platinum. This won't be cheap or easy, but with some obedient apprentices, some copper wire, and a watermill, you could build both an ore grinder and a basic dynamo.



      Second, you can electro-refine a copper ore. You basically make unrefined copper ore into a battery in a sulfuric acid bath (sulfuric acid was known as 'oil of vitriol' at the time, so you could get your hands on it). The majority copper will be dissolved into the acid bath, while the less reactive (or 'noble') elements like gold, silver, and platinum will end up in the sludge at the bottom.



      So the real challenge is then finding ore with platinum in it. There, I can't really help you, I'm not sure how to identify those ores. But, hopefully, the chemist going back in time has some time to prepare, and get some mining maps or something.



      Conclusion



      If the goal is to simulate creating gold, the best way to do it is to separate platinum from various ores, using one of the two listed methods. This is about as close as you will get to the Philosopher's stone without a nuclear reactor to help you out.






      share|improve this answer












      The only answer is platinum



      Many other answers have pointed out the density problem. Since Archimedes was able to determine the difference between pure gold and electrum (gold alloyed with silver) using density, this should be a reasonably well known process for an 'expert' king. If you really want to trick the king into thinking he has gold, the only element that has most of gold's physical attributes (malleable, ductile, non-reactive, and very very dense) is platinum.



      However, there is still one significant difference: melting point. Pure platinum would not be meltable with 1500s technology, you can't get a fire hot enough until the coke ovens of the later Industrial Revolution. A wise proto-chemist will know this isn't exactly gold. But, I'd hardly say that is disqualifying. If gold is valuable, how valuable is unmeltable gold (you can call it aurum indissolubilis in Latin)?



      How to get some platinum



      There are two basic ways you can separate platinum.



      First, from nickel based ores, you can try to separate it magnetically. Platinum is paramagnetic, unlike ferro-magnetic nickel and iron. If you run an electromagnet over ground up ore, you could separate out the platinum. This won't be cheap or easy, but with some obedient apprentices, some copper wire, and a watermill, you could build both an ore grinder and a basic dynamo.



      Second, you can electro-refine a copper ore. You basically make unrefined copper ore into a battery in a sulfuric acid bath (sulfuric acid was known as 'oil of vitriol' at the time, so you could get your hands on it). The majority copper will be dissolved into the acid bath, while the less reactive (or 'noble') elements like gold, silver, and platinum will end up in the sludge at the bottom.



      So the real challenge is then finding ore with platinum in it. There, I can't really help you, I'm not sure how to identify those ores. But, hopefully, the chemist going back in time has some time to prepare, and get some mining maps or something.



      Conclusion



      If the goal is to simulate creating gold, the best way to do it is to separate platinum from various ores, using one of the two listed methods. This is about as close as you will get to the Philosopher's stone without a nuclear reactor to help you out.







      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      answered Nov 28 at 12:38









      kingledion

      72.3k26244427




      72.3k26244427








      • 4




        Platinum was so common in some New World ores that the Spanish literally just threw it out because it seemed to have no practical use. In fact, it was first described in 1557 - people of the time knew it existed, but working it would still be a valuable secret that they wouldn't figure out for another 200 years.
        – Cadence
        Nov 28 at 14:01










      • @Cadence Indeed, it was described as a peculiar gold "which no fire nor any Spanish artifice has yet been able to liquefy." Something like... aurum indissolubilis maybe? Where do you think I got that name :)
        – kingledion
        Nov 28 at 14:02






      • 2




        Sorry, but no go. The attribute that you left off the gold list is softness, which was very well-known. And platinum is very hard.
        – WhatRoughBeast
        Nov 28 at 18:29










      • @WhatRoughBeast Platinum's Mohs/Vickers hardness is 3.5, gold is 2.5. Copper is 3.0. Different...but not that different.
        – kingledion
        Nov 28 at 19:05






      • 1




        @WhatRoughBeast What are you going on about? Malleability is on the list in my answer. Hardness is represented by ductility, a more unique property of gold, related to its softness. Also, this is a modern chemist, so he wouldn't be limited by the knowledge of the day, and I include two feasible methods of purifying platinum. I get the impression you didn't read the question or answer thoroughly.
        – kingledion
        Nov 28 at 19:34














      • 4




        Platinum was so common in some New World ores that the Spanish literally just threw it out because it seemed to have no practical use. In fact, it was first described in 1557 - people of the time knew it existed, but working it would still be a valuable secret that they wouldn't figure out for another 200 years.
        – Cadence
        Nov 28 at 14:01










      • @Cadence Indeed, it was described as a peculiar gold "which no fire nor any Spanish artifice has yet been able to liquefy." Something like... aurum indissolubilis maybe? Where do you think I got that name :)
        – kingledion
        Nov 28 at 14:02






      • 2




        Sorry, but no go. The attribute that you left off the gold list is softness, which was very well-known. And platinum is very hard.
        – WhatRoughBeast
        Nov 28 at 18:29










      • @WhatRoughBeast Platinum's Mohs/Vickers hardness is 3.5, gold is 2.5. Copper is 3.0. Different...but not that different.
        – kingledion
        Nov 28 at 19:05






      • 1




        @WhatRoughBeast What are you going on about? Malleability is on the list in my answer. Hardness is represented by ductility, a more unique property of gold, related to its softness. Also, this is a modern chemist, so he wouldn't be limited by the knowledge of the day, and I include two feasible methods of purifying platinum. I get the impression you didn't read the question or answer thoroughly.
        – kingledion
        Nov 28 at 19:34








      4




      4




      Platinum was so common in some New World ores that the Spanish literally just threw it out because it seemed to have no practical use. In fact, it was first described in 1557 - people of the time knew it existed, but working it would still be a valuable secret that they wouldn't figure out for another 200 years.
      – Cadence
      Nov 28 at 14:01




      Platinum was so common in some New World ores that the Spanish literally just threw it out because it seemed to have no practical use. In fact, it was first described in 1557 - people of the time knew it existed, but working it would still be a valuable secret that they wouldn't figure out for another 200 years.
      – Cadence
      Nov 28 at 14:01












      @Cadence Indeed, it was described as a peculiar gold "which no fire nor any Spanish artifice has yet been able to liquefy." Something like... aurum indissolubilis maybe? Where do you think I got that name :)
      – kingledion
      Nov 28 at 14:02




      @Cadence Indeed, it was described as a peculiar gold "which no fire nor any Spanish artifice has yet been able to liquefy." Something like... aurum indissolubilis maybe? Where do you think I got that name :)
      – kingledion
      Nov 28 at 14:02




      2




      2




      Sorry, but no go. The attribute that you left off the gold list is softness, which was very well-known. And platinum is very hard.
      – WhatRoughBeast
      Nov 28 at 18:29




      Sorry, but no go. The attribute that you left off the gold list is softness, which was very well-known. And platinum is very hard.
      – WhatRoughBeast
      Nov 28 at 18:29












      @WhatRoughBeast Platinum's Mohs/Vickers hardness is 3.5, gold is 2.5. Copper is 3.0. Different...but not that different.
      – kingledion
      Nov 28 at 19:05




      @WhatRoughBeast Platinum's Mohs/Vickers hardness is 3.5, gold is 2.5. Copper is 3.0. Different...but not that different.
      – kingledion
      Nov 28 at 19:05




      1




      1




      @WhatRoughBeast What are you going on about? Malleability is on the list in my answer. Hardness is represented by ductility, a more unique property of gold, related to its softness. Also, this is a modern chemist, so he wouldn't be limited by the knowledge of the day, and I include two feasible methods of purifying platinum. I get the impression you didn't read the question or answer thoroughly.
      – kingledion
      Nov 28 at 19:34




      @WhatRoughBeast What are you going on about? Malleability is on the list in my answer. Hardness is represented by ductility, a more unique property of gold, related to its softness. Also, this is a modern chemist, so he wouldn't be limited by the knowledge of the day, and I include two feasible methods of purifying platinum. I get the impression you didn't read the question or answer thoroughly.
      – kingledion
      Nov 28 at 19:34










      up vote
      9
      down vote













      Gold is nice and shiny, but you can not eat it and it does not give you any power to protect the gold you do have. But troops are nice. There are only a few problems with them.



      They need feeding. So increasing food production by inventing fertilization is Huge. You need less people to grow food, you need less land for the same army production.



      Another problem is logistic of army march. So you invent some basic food preservatives. Any of the simple ones will do. And you can transport much more food on longer routes. So no war of attrition against your lord.



      And as for the troops equipment, steel is nice but tricky to produce.... if you don't have the right knowledge. And good steel can make your small army strong as a big one.



      Conclusion



      So going for something petty like producing few grams of gold-like substance is not as useful as providing your lord with the means to rob all his neighbors of the real stuff.



      Afterthought



      If still in a pickle, just destille some fungi juice and make him really happy



      Or if you really want something with only value, then produce something like a purple dye that was in the time much more valuable then gold.






      share|improve this answer



















      • 6




        "increasing food production by inventing fertilization" is not actually a thing. The necessity and desirability of fertilization was well-known. I suspect you mean inventing nitrogen fertilizer, with the classic being the Haber ammonia process. Of course, this will be a challenge, since a) you must separate nitrogen from oxygen, b) generate hydrogen, and c) react the two, typically at 450 C and 200 atmospheres. Oh yes, and d) you have to do this on an industrial scale. Like, in ton lots. And did I mention that ammonia is extremely toxic? Or that hydrogen and hydrogen - Hindenburg!
        – WhatRoughBeast
        Nov 28 at 18:37












      • Preservatives were also known -- salt being the most common. The problem, like that of fertilizer, is synthesis in sufficient quantity. A chemist and a chemical engineer have very different skillsets.
        – Mark
        Nov 29 at 7:44















      up vote
      9
      down vote













      Gold is nice and shiny, but you can not eat it and it does not give you any power to protect the gold you do have. But troops are nice. There are only a few problems with them.



      They need feeding. So increasing food production by inventing fertilization is Huge. You need less people to grow food, you need less land for the same army production.



      Another problem is logistic of army march. So you invent some basic food preservatives. Any of the simple ones will do. And you can transport much more food on longer routes. So no war of attrition against your lord.



      And as for the troops equipment, steel is nice but tricky to produce.... if you don't have the right knowledge. And good steel can make your small army strong as a big one.



      Conclusion



      So going for something petty like producing few grams of gold-like substance is not as useful as providing your lord with the means to rob all his neighbors of the real stuff.



      Afterthought



      If still in a pickle, just destille some fungi juice and make him really happy



      Or if you really want something with only value, then produce something like a purple dye that was in the time much more valuable then gold.






      share|improve this answer



















      • 6




        "increasing food production by inventing fertilization" is not actually a thing. The necessity and desirability of fertilization was well-known. I suspect you mean inventing nitrogen fertilizer, with the classic being the Haber ammonia process. Of course, this will be a challenge, since a) you must separate nitrogen from oxygen, b) generate hydrogen, and c) react the two, typically at 450 C and 200 atmospheres. Oh yes, and d) you have to do this on an industrial scale. Like, in ton lots. And did I mention that ammonia is extremely toxic? Or that hydrogen and hydrogen - Hindenburg!
        – WhatRoughBeast
        Nov 28 at 18:37












      • Preservatives were also known -- salt being the most common. The problem, like that of fertilizer, is synthesis in sufficient quantity. A chemist and a chemical engineer have very different skillsets.
        – Mark
        Nov 29 at 7:44













      up vote
      9
      down vote










      up vote
      9
      down vote









      Gold is nice and shiny, but you can not eat it and it does not give you any power to protect the gold you do have. But troops are nice. There are only a few problems with them.



      They need feeding. So increasing food production by inventing fertilization is Huge. You need less people to grow food, you need less land for the same army production.



      Another problem is logistic of army march. So you invent some basic food preservatives. Any of the simple ones will do. And you can transport much more food on longer routes. So no war of attrition against your lord.



      And as for the troops equipment, steel is nice but tricky to produce.... if you don't have the right knowledge. And good steel can make your small army strong as a big one.



      Conclusion



      So going for something petty like producing few grams of gold-like substance is not as useful as providing your lord with the means to rob all his neighbors of the real stuff.



      Afterthought



      If still in a pickle, just destille some fungi juice and make him really happy



      Or if you really want something with only value, then produce something like a purple dye that was in the time much more valuable then gold.






      share|improve this answer














      Gold is nice and shiny, but you can not eat it and it does not give you any power to protect the gold you do have. But troops are nice. There are only a few problems with them.



      They need feeding. So increasing food production by inventing fertilization is Huge. You need less people to grow food, you need less land for the same army production.



      Another problem is logistic of army march. So you invent some basic food preservatives. Any of the simple ones will do. And you can transport much more food on longer routes. So no war of attrition against your lord.



      And as for the troops equipment, steel is nice but tricky to produce.... if you don't have the right knowledge. And good steel can make your small army strong as a big one.



      Conclusion



      So going for something petty like producing few grams of gold-like substance is not as useful as providing your lord with the means to rob all his neighbors of the real stuff.



      Afterthought



      If still in a pickle, just destille some fungi juice and make him really happy



      Or if you really want something with only value, then produce something like a purple dye that was in the time much more valuable then gold.







      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited Nov 28 at 13:48

























      answered Nov 28 at 13:40









      Selenor

      30713




      30713








      • 6




        "increasing food production by inventing fertilization" is not actually a thing. The necessity and desirability of fertilization was well-known. I suspect you mean inventing nitrogen fertilizer, with the classic being the Haber ammonia process. Of course, this will be a challenge, since a) you must separate nitrogen from oxygen, b) generate hydrogen, and c) react the two, typically at 450 C and 200 atmospheres. Oh yes, and d) you have to do this on an industrial scale. Like, in ton lots. And did I mention that ammonia is extremely toxic? Or that hydrogen and hydrogen - Hindenburg!
        – WhatRoughBeast
        Nov 28 at 18:37












      • Preservatives were also known -- salt being the most common. The problem, like that of fertilizer, is synthesis in sufficient quantity. A chemist and a chemical engineer have very different skillsets.
        – Mark
        Nov 29 at 7:44














      • 6




        "increasing food production by inventing fertilization" is not actually a thing. The necessity and desirability of fertilization was well-known. I suspect you mean inventing nitrogen fertilizer, with the classic being the Haber ammonia process. Of course, this will be a challenge, since a) you must separate nitrogen from oxygen, b) generate hydrogen, and c) react the two, typically at 450 C and 200 atmospheres. Oh yes, and d) you have to do this on an industrial scale. Like, in ton lots. And did I mention that ammonia is extremely toxic? Or that hydrogen and hydrogen - Hindenburg!
        – WhatRoughBeast
        Nov 28 at 18:37












      • Preservatives were also known -- salt being the most common. The problem, like that of fertilizer, is synthesis in sufficient quantity. A chemist and a chemical engineer have very different skillsets.
        – Mark
        Nov 29 at 7:44








      6




      6




      "increasing food production by inventing fertilization" is not actually a thing. The necessity and desirability of fertilization was well-known. I suspect you mean inventing nitrogen fertilizer, with the classic being the Haber ammonia process. Of course, this will be a challenge, since a) you must separate nitrogen from oxygen, b) generate hydrogen, and c) react the two, typically at 450 C and 200 atmospheres. Oh yes, and d) you have to do this on an industrial scale. Like, in ton lots. And did I mention that ammonia is extremely toxic? Or that hydrogen and hydrogen - Hindenburg!
      – WhatRoughBeast
      Nov 28 at 18:37






      "increasing food production by inventing fertilization" is not actually a thing. The necessity and desirability of fertilization was well-known. I suspect you mean inventing nitrogen fertilizer, with the classic being the Haber ammonia process. Of course, this will be a challenge, since a) you must separate nitrogen from oxygen, b) generate hydrogen, and c) react the two, typically at 450 C and 200 atmospheres. Oh yes, and d) you have to do this on an industrial scale. Like, in ton lots. And did I mention that ammonia is extremely toxic? Or that hydrogen and hydrogen - Hindenburg!
      – WhatRoughBeast
      Nov 28 at 18:37














      Preservatives were also known -- salt being the most common. The problem, like that of fertilizer, is synthesis in sufficient quantity. A chemist and a chemical engineer have very different skillsets.
      – Mark
      Nov 29 at 7:44




      Preservatives were also known -- salt being the most common. The problem, like that of fertilizer, is synthesis in sufficient quantity. A chemist and a chemical engineer have very different skillsets.
      – Mark
      Nov 29 at 7:44










      up vote
      8
      down vote













      Forget gold. You can't do it. You can't even come close. If your prince wants riches, how about synthetic gemstones?



      You might be able to produce diamonds through the chemical vapor deposition process, but the stones produced will be tiny, and prior to De Beers' marketing push, they were considered a fairly boring gemstone.



      You could put together a suitable oxyhydrogen torch, and fuse alumina into synthetic rubies and sapphires. Alumina is pretty ubiquitous, and you can vary the color by adding trace amounts of iron, copper, chromium, and other metals to the mix.



      Synthetic emeralds are probably not an option, since the techniques for making them are still mostly trade secrets, and appear to involve materials or material purities that would be unavailable in the 1500s.



      The last of the cardinal gemstones, amethyst, requires high-pressure conditions for synthesis, though the main ingredient, silica, is even more common than alumina. You could try making it, but the metallurgy of the time means you're more likely to blow up your lab than produce gemstones.






      share|improve this answer

















      • 1




        I don't see how you could do CVD in pre-industrial revolution.
        – tox123
        Nov 28 at 23:14










      • @tox123, diamond's a special case for CVD: you only need a vacuum, methane, hydrogen, and heat. Getting the vacuum is borderline (the guy's a chemist, not an engineer), which is why I've listed it as a "maybe".
        – Mark
        Nov 28 at 23:18










      • High pressure + poor metalurgy just means you need to build your press larger and thicker. Or make some good-quality steel first. That would get the prince's attention on its own.
        – Perkins
        yesterday










      • @Perkins "Sorry, I can't make you gold. But I can make you better swords, so you can go take that other Prince's gold instead?"
        – Chronocidal
        17 hours ago















      up vote
      8
      down vote













      Forget gold. You can't do it. You can't even come close. If your prince wants riches, how about synthetic gemstones?



      You might be able to produce diamonds through the chemical vapor deposition process, but the stones produced will be tiny, and prior to De Beers' marketing push, they were considered a fairly boring gemstone.



      You could put together a suitable oxyhydrogen torch, and fuse alumina into synthetic rubies and sapphires. Alumina is pretty ubiquitous, and you can vary the color by adding trace amounts of iron, copper, chromium, and other metals to the mix.



      Synthetic emeralds are probably not an option, since the techniques for making them are still mostly trade secrets, and appear to involve materials or material purities that would be unavailable in the 1500s.



      The last of the cardinal gemstones, amethyst, requires high-pressure conditions for synthesis, though the main ingredient, silica, is even more common than alumina. You could try making it, but the metallurgy of the time means you're more likely to blow up your lab than produce gemstones.






      share|improve this answer

















      • 1




        I don't see how you could do CVD in pre-industrial revolution.
        – tox123
        Nov 28 at 23:14










      • @tox123, diamond's a special case for CVD: you only need a vacuum, methane, hydrogen, and heat. Getting the vacuum is borderline (the guy's a chemist, not an engineer), which is why I've listed it as a "maybe".
        – Mark
        Nov 28 at 23:18










      • High pressure + poor metalurgy just means you need to build your press larger and thicker. Or make some good-quality steel first. That would get the prince's attention on its own.
        – Perkins
        yesterday










      • @Perkins "Sorry, I can't make you gold. But I can make you better swords, so you can go take that other Prince's gold instead?"
        – Chronocidal
        17 hours ago













      up vote
      8
      down vote










      up vote
      8
      down vote









      Forget gold. You can't do it. You can't even come close. If your prince wants riches, how about synthetic gemstones?



      You might be able to produce diamonds through the chemical vapor deposition process, but the stones produced will be tiny, and prior to De Beers' marketing push, they were considered a fairly boring gemstone.



      You could put together a suitable oxyhydrogen torch, and fuse alumina into synthetic rubies and sapphires. Alumina is pretty ubiquitous, and you can vary the color by adding trace amounts of iron, copper, chromium, and other metals to the mix.



      Synthetic emeralds are probably not an option, since the techniques for making them are still mostly trade secrets, and appear to involve materials or material purities that would be unavailable in the 1500s.



      The last of the cardinal gemstones, amethyst, requires high-pressure conditions for synthesis, though the main ingredient, silica, is even more common than alumina. You could try making it, but the metallurgy of the time means you're more likely to blow up your lab than produce gemstones.






      share|improve this answer












      Forget gold. You can't do it. You can't even come close. If your prince wants riches, how about synthetic gemstones?



      You might be able to produce diamonds through the chemical vapor deposition process, but the stones produced will be tiny, and prior to De Beers' marketing push, they were considered a fairly boring gemstone.



      You could put together a suitable oxyhydrogen torch, and fuse alumina into synthetic rubies and sapphires. Alumina is pretty ubiquitous, and you can vary the color by adding trace amounts of iron, copper, chromium, and other metals to the mix.



      Synthetic emeralds are probably not an option, since the techniques for making them are still mostly trade secrets, and appear to involve materials or material purities that would be unavailable in the 1500s.



      The last of the cardinal gemstones, amethyst, requires high-pressure conditions for synthesis, though the main ingredient, silica, is even more common than alumina. You could try making it, but the metallurgy of the time means you're more likely to blow up your lab than produce gemstones.







      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      answered Nov 28 at 23:05









      Mark

      12.2k2959




      12.2k2959








      • 1




        I don't see how you could do CVD in pre-industrial revolution.
        – tox123
        Nov 28 at 23:14










      • @tox123, diamond's a special case for CVD: you only need a vacuum, methane, hydrogen, and heat. Getting the vacuum is borderline (the guy's a chemist, not an engineer), which is why I've listed it as a "maybe".
        – Mark
        Nov 28 at 23:18










      • High pressure + poor metalurgy just means you need to build your press larger and thicker. Or make some good-quality steel first. That would get the prince's attention on its own.
        – Perkins
        yesterday










      • @Perkins "Sorry, I can't make you gold. But I can make you better swords, so you can go take that other Prince's gold instead?"
        – Chronocidal
        17 hours ago














      • 1




        I don't see how you could do CVD in pre-industrial revolution.
        – tox123
        Nov 28 at 23:14










      • @tox123, diamond's a special case for CVD: you only need a vacuum, methane, hydrogen, and heat. Getting the vacuum is borderline (the guy's a chemist, not an engineer), which is why I've listed it as a "maybe".
        – Mark
        Nov 28 at 23:18










      • High pressure + poor metalurgy just means you need to build your press larger and thicker. Or make some good-quality steel first. That would get the prince's attention on its own.
        – Perkins
        yesterday










      • @Perkins "Sorry, I can't make you gold. But I can make you better swords, so you can go take that other Prince's gold instead?"
        – Chronocidal
        17 hours ago








      1




      1




      I don't see how you could do CVD in pre-industrial revolution.
      – tox123
      Nov 28 at 23:14




      I don't see how you could do CVD in pre-industrial revolution.
      – tox123
      Nov 28 at 23:14












      @tox123, diamond's a special case for CVD: you only need a vacuum, methane, hydrogen, and heat. Getting the vacuum is borderline (the guy's a chemist, not an engineer), which is why I've listed it as a "maybe".
      – Mark
      Nov 28 at 23:18




      @tox123, diamond's a special case for CVD: you only need a vacuum, methane, hydrogen, and heat. Getting the vacuum is borderline (the guy's a chemist, not an engineer), which is why I've listed it as a "maybe".
      – Mark
      Nov 28 at 23:18












      High pressure + poor metalurgy just means you need to build your press larger and thicker. Or make some good-quality steel first. That would get the prince's attention on its own.
      – Perkins
      yesterday




      High pressure + poor metalurgy just means you need to build your press larger and thicker. Or make some good-quality steel first. That would get the prince's attention on its own.
      – Perkins
      yesterday












      @Perkins "Sorry, I can't make you gold. But I can make you better swords, so you can go take that other Prince's gold instead?"
      – Chronocidal
      17 hours ago




      @Perkins "Sorry, I can't make you gold. But I can make you better swords, so you can go take that other Prince's gold instead?"
      – Chronocidal
      17 hours ago










      up vote
      2
      down vote













      Brew poisonous chemicals & create bombs etc.



      A prince may be interested in Gold, in order to gain money and power.
      But why ? He wants to win against his enemies: other kingdoms.



      Also, the more Gold floods the market, the cheaper it becomes.



      So, propose him some poisonous stuff.
      It helps him to reach his goals, allowing him to easily assassinate leaders causing chaos in the other kingdoms.



      Also, many poisons are easy to create and show great effect. And even more of them could be of great use in battles ! Think of grenades and other explosives, or even guns.



      To make sure your chemist isn't killed, make him keep all the formulas secret, stored only in his head. That way, if the prince kills him, he looses his advantages in combat and against other kingdoms.



      PS : One example for a family that made their way to power using poison would be the Borgias.





      Also, think of some other nice modern chemicals you could present him : sleeping gas(chloroform) etc.





      Totally different attempt : cook some meth/other drugs. Make the prince addicted. And then he'll neeever let you be killed. He'll protect you to the end of his life.





      TL;DR



      Forget the Gold.
      Basically, with modern knowledge and basic education, you could easily become his new leading scientiest and thus hardly replaceable.
      By keeping some key formulas etc. secret you can also make sure that you'll always be needed.



      Also, I can think of tons of extremely useful chemicals for all purposes. Others already mentioned fertilizers.






      share|improve this answer























      • While equally valid an answer as the others, I question the morality of the modern chemist becoming the producer of highly-addictive synthetic drugs or dangerous chemical WMDs just to gain some acclaim. There are plenty of ways for the chemist to distinguish himself to his 16th century peers without also needing to be a sociopath.
        – Abion47
        2 days ago










      • @Abion47 Drugs are just the safest way. The prince appears to be a "not-so-nice" guy. You can't trust him. That's why you have to control him. If you produce anything else, he may decide to kill you, just because of the risk that you may change sites. If he's under drugs, the decision isn't up to him anymore.
        – LMD
        yesterday






      • 1




        Because devoted addicts of highly-dangerous and controlled substances have historically been capable of making logical and predictable decisions both while under their effects and while in withdrawal.
        – Abion47
        yesterday










      • Also I have to disagree. Using drugs to manipulate the prince into keeping you around by hooking him on drugs is far from a safe course of action. Nobility/royalty of the time seek power via control and have not been keen on te idea of being controlled. Once he realizes what you are doing, he will have you put to death, with the only question being if he plants spies in your laboratory to learn your process first in order to reinforce the point that he doesn't need you, only your drug.
        – Abion47
        yesterday










      • The only thing that can put you in his good graces long term is to give him what he really wants - a means to control. This can be through military conquests by supplying him with efficient gunpowder or other explosive substances or economically with synthetic gemstones, dyes, or other precious commodities that are difficult and expensive to make with 16th century means but trivial to a modern chemist. Not to mention I imagine that any given person would be much happier making these things than hard drugs and mustard gas.
        – Abion47
        yesterday

















      up vote
      2
      down vote













      Brew poisonous chemicals & create bombs etc.



      A prince may be interested in Gold, in order to gain money and power.
      But why ? He wants to win against his enemies: other kingdoms.



      Also, the more Gold floods the market, the cheaper it becomes.



      So, propose him some poisonous stuff.
      It helps him to reach his goals, allowing him to easily assassinate leaders causing chaos in the other kingdoms.



      Also, many poisons are easy to create and show great effect. And even more of them could be of great use in battles ! Think of grenades and other explosives, or even guns.



      To make sure your chemist isn't killed, make him keep all the formulas secret, stored only in his head. That way, if the prince kills him, he looses his advantages in combat and against other kingdoms.



      PS : One example for a family that made their way to power using poison would be the Borgias.





      Also, think of some other nice modern chemicals you could present him : sleeping gas(chloroform) etc.





      Totally different attempt : cook some meth/other drugs. Make the prince addicted. And then he'll neeever let you be killed. He'll protect you to the end of his life.





      TL;DR



      Forget the Gold.
      Basically, with modern knowledge and basic education, you could easily become his new leading scientiest and thus hardly replaceable.
      By keeping some key formulas etc. secret you can also make sure that you'll always be needed.



      Also, I can think of tons of extremely useful chemicals for all purposes. Others already mentioned fertilizers.






      share|improve this answer























      • While equally valid an answer as the others, I question the morality of the modern chemist becoming the producer of highly-addictive synthetic drugs or dangerous chemical WMDs just to gain some acclaim. There are plenty of ways for the chemist to distinguish himself to his 16th century peers without also needing to be a sociopath.
        – Abion47
        2 days ago










      • @Abion47 Drugs are just the safest way. The prince appears to be a "not-so-nice" guy. You can't trust him. That's why you have to control him. If you produce anything else, he may decide to kill you, just because of the risk that you may change sites. If he's under drugs, the decision isn't up to him anymore.
        – LMD
        yesterday






      • 1




        Because devoted addicts of highly-dangerous and controlled substances have historically been capable of making logical and predictable decisions both while under their effects and while in withdrawal.
        – Abion47
        yesterday










      • Also I have to disagree. Using drugs to manipulate the prince into keeping you around by hooking him on drugs is far from a safe course of action. Nobility/royalty of the time seek power via control and have not been keen on te idea of being controlled. Once he realizes what you are doing, he will have you put to death, with the only question being if he plants spies in your laboratory to learn your process first in order to reinforce the point that he doesn't need you, only your drug.
        – Abion47
        yesterday










      • The only thing that can put you in his good graces long term is to give him what he really wants - a means to control. This can be through military conquests by supplying him with efficient gunpowder or other explosive substances or economically with synthetic gemstones, dyes, or other precious commodities that are difficult and expensive to make with 16th century means but trivial to a modern chemist. Not to mention I imagine that any given person would be much happier making these things than hard drugs and mustard gas.
        – Abion47
        yesterday















      up vote
      2
      down vote










      up vote
      2
      down vote









      Brew poisonous chemicals & create bombs etc.



      A prince may be interested in Gold, in order to gain money and power.
      But why ? He wants to win against his enemies: other kingdoms.



      Also, the more Gold floods the market, the cheaper it becomes.



      So, propose him some poisonous stuff.
      It helps him to reach his goals, allowing him to easily assassinate leaders causing chaos in the other kingdoms.



      Also, many poisons are easy to create and show great effect. And even more of them could be of great use in battles ! Think of grenades and other explosives, or even guns.



      To make sure your chemist isn't killed, make him keep all the formulas secret, stored only in his head. That way, if the prince kills him, he looses his advantages in combat and against other kingdoms.



      PS : One example for a family that made their way to power using poison would be the Borgias.





      Also, think of some other nice modern chemicals you could present him : sleeping gas(chloroform) etc.





      Totally different attempt : cook some meth/other drugs. Make the prince addicted. And then he'll neeever let you be killed. He'll protect you to the end of his life.





      TL;DR



      Forget the Gold.
      Basically, with modern knowledge and basic education, you could easily become his new leading scientiest and thus hardly replaceable.
      By keeping some key formulas etc. secret you can also make sure that you'll always be needed.



      Also, I can think of tons of extremely useful chemicals for all purposes. Others already mentioned fertilizers.






      share|improve this answer














      Brew poisonous chemicals & create bombs etc.



      A prince may be interested in Gold, in order to gain money and power.
      But why ? He wants to win against his enemies: other kingdoms.



      Also, the more Gold floods the market, the cheaper it becomes.



      So, propose him some poisonous stuff.
      It helps him to reach his goals, allowing him to easily assassinate leaders causing chaos in the other kingdoms.



      Also, many poisons are easy to create and show great effect. And even more of them could be of great use in battles ! Think of grenades and other explosives, or even guns.



      To make sure your chemist isn't killed, make him keep all the formulas secret, stored only in his head. That way, if the prince kills him, he looses his advantages in combat and against other kingdoms.



      PS : One example for a family that made their way to power using poison would be the Borgias.





      Also, think of some other nice modern chemicals you could present him : sleeping gas(chloroform) etc.





      Totally different attempt : cook some meth/other drugs. Make the prince addicted. And then he'll neeever let you be killed. He'll protect you to the end of his life.





      TL;DR



      Forget the Gold.
      Basically, with modern knowledge and basic education, you could easily become his new leading scientiest and thus hardly replaceable.
      By keeping some key formulas etc. secret you can also make sure that you'll always be needed.



      Also, I can think of tons of extremely useful chemicals for all purposes. Others already mentioned fertilizers.







      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited 2 days ago

























      answered 2 days ago









      LMD

      1794




      1794












      • While equally valid an answer as the others, I question the morality of the modern chemist becoming the producer of highly-addictive synthetic drugs or dangerous chemical WMDs just to gain some acclaim. There are plenty of ways for the chemist to distinguish himself to his 16th century peers without also needing to be a sociopath.
        – Abion47
        2 days ago










      • @Abion47 Drugs are just the safest way. The prince appears to be a "not-so-nice" guy. You can't trust him. That's why you have to control him. If you produce anything else, he may decide to kill you, just because of the risk that you may change sites. If he's under drugs, the decision isn't up to him anymore.
        – LMD
        yesterday






      • 1




        Because devoted addicts of highly-dangerous and controlled substances have historically been capable of making logical and predictable decisions both while under their effects and while in withdrawal.
        – Abion47
        yesterday










      • Also I have to disagree. Using drugs to manipulate the prince into keeping you around by hooking him on drugs is far from a safe course of action. Nobility/royalty of the time seek power via control and have not been keen on te idea of being controlled. Once he realizes what you are doing, he will have you put to death, with the only question being if he plants spies in your laboratory to learn your process first in order to reinforce the point that he doesn't need you, only your drug.
        – Abion47
        yesterday










      • The only thing that can put you in his good graces long term is to give him what he really wants - a means to control. This can be through military conquests by supplying him with efficient gunpowder or other explosive substances or economically with synthetic gemstones, dyes, or other precious commodities that are difficult and expensive to make with 16th century means but trivial to a modern chemist. Not to mention I imagine that any given person would be much happier making these things than hard drugs and mustard gas.
        – Abion47
        yesterday




















      • While equally valid an answer as the others, I question the morality of the modern chemist becoming the producer of highly-addictive synthetic drugs or dangerous chemical WMDs just to gain some acclaim. There are plenty of ways for the chemist to distinguish himself to his 16th century peers without also needing to be a sociopath.
        – Abion47
        2 days ago










      • @Abion47 Drugs are just the safest way. The prince appears to be a "not-so-nice" guy. You can't trust him. That's why you have to control him. If you produce anything else, he may decide to kill you, just because of the risk that you may change sites. If he's under drugs, the decision isn't up to him anymore.
        – LMD
        yesterday






      • 1




        Because devoted addicts of highly-dangerous and controlled substances have historically been capable of making logical and predictable decisions both while under their effects and while in withdrawal.
        – Abion47
        yesterday










      • Also I have to disagree. Using drugs to manipulate the prince into keeping you around by hooking him on drugs is far from a safe course of action. Nobility/royalty of the time seek power via control and have not been keen on te idea of being controlled. Once he realizes what you are doing, he will have you put to death, with the only question being if he plants spies in your laboratory to learn your process first in order to reinforce the point that he doesn't need you, only your drug.
        – Abion47
        yesterday










      • The only thing that can put you in his good graces long term is to give him what he really wants - a means to control. This can be through military conquests by supplying him with efficient gunpowder or other explosive substances or economically with synthetic gemstones, dyes, or other precious commodities that are difficult and expensive to make with 16th century means but trivial to a modern chemist. Not to mention I imagine that any given person would be much happier making these things than hard drugs and mustard gas.
        – Abion47
        yesterday


















      While equally valid an answer as the others, I question the morality of the modern chemist becoming the producer of highly-addictive synthetic drugs or dangerous chemical WMDs just to gain some acclaim. There are plenty of ways for the chemist to distinguish himself to his 16th century peers without also needing to be a sociopath.
      – Abion47
      2 days ago




      While equally valid an answer as the others, I question the morality of the modern chemist becoming the producer of highly-addictive synthetic drugs or dangerous chemical WMDs just to gain some acclaim. There are plenty of ways for the chemist to distinguish himself to his 16th century peers without also needing to be a sociopath.
      – Abion47
      2 days ago












      @Abion47 Drugs are just the safest way. The prince appears to be a "not-so-nice" guy. You can't trust him. That's why you have to control him. If you produce anything else, he may decide to kill you, just because of the risk that you may change sites. If he's under drugs, the decision isn't up to him anymore.
      – LMD
      yesterday




      @Abion47 Drugs are just the safest way. The prince appears to be a "not-so-nice" guy. You can't trust him. That's why you have to control him. If you produce anything else, he may decide to kill you, just because of the risk that you may change sites. If he's under drugs, the decision isn't up to him anymore.
      – LMD
      yesterday




      1




      1




      Because devoted addicts of highly-dangerous and controlled substances have historically been capable of making logical and predictable decisions both while under their effects and while in withdrawal.
      – Abion47
      yesterday




      Because devoted addicts of highly-dangerous and controlled substances have historically been capable of making logical and predictable decisions both while under their effects and while in withdrawal.
      – Abion47
      yesterday












      Also I have to disagree. Using drugs to manipulate the prince into keeping you around by hooking him on drugs is far from a safe course of action. Nobility/royalty of the time seek power via control and have not been keen on te idea of being controlled. Once he realizes what you are doing, he will have you put to death, with the only question being if he plants spies in your laboratory to learn your process first in order to reinforce the point that he doesn't need you, only your drug.
      – Abion47
      yesterday




      Also I have to disagree. Using drugs to manipulate the prince into keeping you around by hooking him on drugs is far from a safe course of action. Nobility/royalty of the time seek power via control and have not been keen on te idea of being controlled. Once he realizes what you are doing, he will have you put to death, with the only question being if he plants spies in your laboratory to learn your process first in order to reinforce the point that he doesn't need you, only your drug.
      – Abion47
      yesterday












      The only thing that can put you in his good graces long term is to give him what he really wants - a means to control. This can be through military conquests by supplying him with efficient gunpowder or other explosive substances or economically with synthetic gemstones, dyes, or other precious commodities that are difficult and expensive to make with 16th century means but trivial to a modern chemist. Not to mention I imagine that any given person would be much happier making these things than hard drugs and mustard gas.
      – Abion47
      yesterday






      The only thing that can put you in his good graces long term is to give him what he really wants - a means to control. This can be through military conquests by supplying him with efficient gunpowder or other explosive substances or economically with synthetic gemstones, dyes, or other precious commodities that are difficult and expensive to make with 16th century means but trivial to a modern chemist. Not to mention I imagine that any given person would be much happier making these things than hard drugs and mustard gas.
      – Abion47
      yesterday












      up vote
      2
      down vote













      Most of the great questions of alchemy, like transmuting lead into gold and elixirs of eternal life, have not only failed to materialize but turned out to be impossible in any practical sense. So I don't think you have much potential there. As you remark, one could make counterfeit gold, but why bother when there are other much more valuable legitimate things you can make?




      • Many dyes were extremely valuable, because they could only be produced through laborious processes in tiny amounts. This is why royalty wore purple, for example, it used to be very hard to make the dye and only kings could afford it.

      • Aluminum used to be more valuable than gold. Many other metals were expensive because efficient production methods did not exist.

      • Better steels and other alloys can be used for making very high quality weapons.

      • Chemical fertilizers could greatly improve agriculture, which had a huge influence on the economy back then.

      • Various methods of preserving food could provide enormous strategic advantage in war and trade.

      • Electricity could be discovered centuries early. Chemical batteries are not hard to make, even modern generators are pretty straightforward if you have access to a King's craftsmen.

      • Gunpowder and other explosives are very useful for military purposes, mining and construction.






      share|improve this answer








      New contributor




      Withadel is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






















        up vote
        2
        down vote













        Most of the great questions of alchemy, like transmuting lead into gold and elixirs of eternal life, have not only failed to materialize but turned out to be impossible in any practical sense. So I don't think you have much potential there. As you remark, one could make counterfeit gold, but why bother when there are other much more valuable legitimate things you can make?




        • Many dyes were extremely valuable, because they could only be produced through laborious processes in tiny amounts. This is why royalty wore purple, for example, it used to be very hard to make the dye and only kings could afford it.

        • Aluminum used to be more valuable than gold. Many other metals were expensive because efficient production methods did not exist.

        • Better steels and other alloys can be used for making very high quality weapons.

        • Chemical fertilizers could greatly improve agriculture, which had a huge influence on the economy back then.

        • Various methods of preserving food could provide enormous strategic advantage in war and trade.

        • Electricity could be discovered centuries early. Chemical batteries are not hard to make, even modern generators are pretty straightforward if you have access to a King's craftsmen.

        • Gunpowder and other explosives are very useful for military purposes, mining and construction.






        share|improve this answer








        New contributor




        Withadel is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.




















          up vote
          2
          down vote










          up vote
          2
          down vote









          Most of the great questions of alchemy, like transmuting lead into gold and elixirs of eternal life, have not only failed to materialize but turned out to be impossible in any practical sense. So I don't think you have much potential there. As you remark, one could make counterfeit gold, but why bother when there are other much more valuable legitimate things you can make?




          • Many dyes were extremely valuable, because they could only be produced through laborious processes in tiny amounts. This is why royalty wore purple, for example, it used to be very hard to make the dye and only kings could afford it.

          • Aluminum used to be more valuable than gold. Many other metals were expensive because efficient production methods did not exist.

          • Better steels and other alloys can be used for making very high quality weapons.

          • Chemical fertilizers could greatly improve agriculture, which had a huge influence on the economy back then.

          • Various methods of preserving food could provide enormous strategic advantage in war and trade.

          • Electricity could be discovered centuries early. Chemical batteries are not hard to make, even modern generators are pretty straightforward if you have access to a King's craftsmen.

          • Gunpowder and other explosives are very useful for military purposes, mining and construction.






          share|improve this answer








          New contributor




          Withadel is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.









          Most of the great questions of alchemy, like transmuting lead into gold and elixirs of eternal life, have not only failed to materialize but turned out to be impossible in any practical sense. So I don't think you have much potential there. As you remark, one could make counterfeit gold, but why bother when there are other much more valuable legitimate things you can make?




          • Many dyes were extremely valuable, because they could only be produced through laborious processes in tiny amounts. This is why royalty wore purple, for example, it used to be very hard to make the dye and only kings could afford it.

          • Aluminum used to be more valuable than gold. Many other metals were expensive because efficient production methods did not exist.

          • Better steels and other alloys can be used for making very high quality weapons.

          • Chemical fertilizers could greatly improve agriculture, which had a huge influence on the economy back then.

          • Various methods of preserving food could provide enormous strategic advantage in war and trade.

          • Electricity could be discovered centuries early. Chemical batteries are not hard to make, even modern generators are pretty straightforward if you have access to a King's craftsmen.

          • Gunpowder and other explosives are very useful for military purposes, mining and construction.







          share|improve this answer








          New contributor




          Withadel is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.









          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer






          New contributor




          Withadel is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.









          answered 2 days ago









          Withadel

          211




          211




          New contributor




          Withadel is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.





          New contributor





          Withadel is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.






          Withadel is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.






















              up vote
              0
              down vote














              Gold is thought to have been produced in supernova nucleosynthesis,
              and from the collision of neutron stars,[47] and to have been present
              in the dust from which the Solar System formed.[




              Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold#Origins



              The reason they think that is the maths show that all the gold on earth couldn't have been produced in the previous two generations of supernova the earth and sun was made from.



              Making Gold cannot be done with chemistry. It requires fusion and I suspect it is endothermic. Iron is the last exothermic fusion in a sun.



              As a rough rule of thumb, atomic is two magnitudes of order stronger than chemistry, and sub atomic two orders again.



              Think common chemicals that have been around for a while. Like gunpowder. One big invention (that saved a lot of towns) was to make it while wet. Dry it. Smash it up with wooden hammers then sieve it. This gave quality control over grain size and thus predictable burning. And the neighbours didn't have to die.






              share|improve this answer








              New contributor




              CatCat is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.






















                up vote
                0
                down vote














                Gold is thought to have been produced in supernova nucleosynthesis,
                and from the collision of neutron stars,[47] and to have been present
                in the dust from which the Solar System formed.[




                Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold#Origins



                The reason they think that is the maths show that all the gold on earth couldn't have been produced in the previous two generations of supernova the earth and sun was made from.



                Making Gold cannot be done with chemistry. It requires fusion and I suspect it is endothermic. Iron is the last exothermic fusion in a sun.



                As a rough rule of thumb, atomic is two magnitudes of order stronger than chemistry, and sub atomic two orders again.



                Think common chemicals that have been around for a while. Like gunpowder. One big invention (that saved a lot of towns) was to make it while wet. Dry it. Smash it up with wooden hammers then sieve it. This gave quality control over grain size and thus predictable burning. And the neighbours didn't have to die.






                share|improve this answer








                New contributor




                CatCat is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                Check out our Code of Conduct.




















                  up vote
                  0
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  0
                  down vote










                  Gold is thought to have been produced in supernova nucleosynthesis,
                  and from the collision of neutron stars,[47] and to have been present
                  in the dust from which the Solar System formed.[




                  Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold#Origins



                  The reason they think that is the maths show that all the gold on earth couldn't have been produced in the previous two generations of supernova the earth and sun was made from.



                  Making Gold cannot be done with chemistry. It requires fusion and I suspect it is endothermic. Iron is the last exothermic fusion in a sun.



                  As a rough rule of thumb, atomic is two magnitudes of order stronger than chemistry, and sub atomic two orders again.



                  Think common chemicals that have been around for a while. Like gunpowder. One big invention (that saved a lot of towns) was to make it while wet. Dry it. Smash it up with wooden hammers then sieve it. This gave quality control over grain size and thus predictable burning. And the neighbours didn't have to die.






                  share|improve this answer








                  New contributor




                  CatCat is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.










                  Gold is thought to have been produced in supernova nucleosynthesis,
                  and from the collision of neutron stars,[47] and to have been present
                  in the dust from which the Solar System formed.[




                  Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold#Origins



                  The reason they think that is the maths show that all the gold on earth couldn't have been produced in the previous two generations of supernova the earth and sun was made from.



                  Making Gold cannot be done with chemistry. It requires fusion and I suspect it is endothermic. Iron is the last exothermic fusion in a sun.



                  As a rough rule of thumb, atomic is two magnitudes of order stronger than chemistry, and sub atomic two orders again.



                  Think common chemicals that have been around for a while. Like gunpowder. One big invention (that saved a lot of towns) was to make it while wet. Dry it. Smash it up with wooden hammers then sieve it. This gave quality control over grain size and thus predictable burning. And the neighbours didn't have to die.







                  share|improve this answer








                  New contributor




                  CatCat is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer






                  New contributor




                  CatCat is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                  answered 1 hour ago









                  CatCat

                  1




                  1




                  New contributor




                  CatCat is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.





                  New contributor





                  CatCat is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.






                  CatCat is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.






























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                      Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                      Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f131439%2ftime-warp-modern-chemist-as-court-alchemist%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      QoS: MAC-Priority for clients behind a repeater

                      Ивакино (Тотемский район)

                      Can't locate Autom4te/ChannelDefs.pm in @INC (when it definitely is there)