Gold is where you find it redux

Nasti J

unread,

Apr 2, 2013, 12:40:26 AM4/2/13

to

There was a discussion here several months back about the world's
total gold "supply" - this article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21969100
addresses that question, quoting a man who certainly has an interest
in the accuracy of the statistics, "Warren Buffett, one of the
world's richest investors, says the total amount of gold in the world
- the gold above ground, that is - could fit into a cube with sides of
just 20m (67ft)."

Bill Gill

unread,

Apr 2, 2013, 9:10:34 AM4/2/13

to

In a Nova program last week it was stated that it would fit in a
cube 60 feet on a side. That seems to be a pretty good ball park
fit.

Of course I have no idea how anybody came up with the figure, so
I don't know if there is a real good figure.

Bill

Evan Kirshenbaum

unread,

Apr 2, 2013, 7:04:03 PM4/2/13

to

A quick search implies that worldwide production is about 2.5 metric
tons a year. At a specific density of 19.3, that would be about 129
cubic meters or a box about five meters on a side. A 20-meter cube
would be 64 years' worth at today's levels, and the rate has probably
increased a fair bit in recent decades, so that's probably in the
right ballpark.

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |Sorry, captain. Convenient
SF Bay Area (1982-) |technobabble levels are dangerously
Chicago (1964-1982) |low.

evan.kir...@gmail.com

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Lee Rudolph

unread,

Apr 2, 2013, 8:25:47 PM4/2/13

to

Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kir...@gmail.com> writes:

>Bill Gill <bill...@cox.net> writes:
>
>> On 4/1/2013 11:40 PM, Nasti J wrote:
>>> There was a discussion here several months back about the world's
>>> total gold "supply" - this article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21969100
>>> addresses that question, quoting a man who certainly has an interest
>>> in the accuracy of the statistics, "Warren Buffett, one of the
>>> world's richest investors, says the total amount of gold in the world
>>> - the gold above ground, that is - could fit into a cube with sides of
>>> just 20m (67ft)."
>>>
>> In a Nova program last week it was stated that it would fit in a
>> cube 60 feet on a side. That seems to be a pretty good ball park
>> fit.
>>
>> Of course I have no idea how anybody came up with the figure, so
>> I don't know if there is a real good figure.
>
>A quick search implies that worldwide production is about 2.5 metric
>tons a year. At a specific density of 19.3, that would be about 129
>cubic meters or a box about five meters on a side. A 20-meter cube
>would be 64 years' worth at today's levels, and the rate has probably
>increased a fair bit in recent decades, so that's probably in the
>right ballpark.

"Ballpark" should be the unit of measurement for diamonds,
not gold.

Lee Rudolph

David DeLaney

unread,

Apr 3, 2013, 1:13:29 AM4/3/13

to

Feathers or lead?

Dave, alarmingly
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

greymausg

unread,

Apr 4, 2013, 7:14:32 AM4/4/13

to

On 2013-04-03, David DeLaney <d...@gatekeeper.vic.com> wrote:
> Lee Rudolph <lrud...@panix.com> wrote:
>>Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kir...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>Bill Gill <bill...@cox.net> writes:
>>>> In a Nova program last week it was stated that it would fit in a
>>>> cube 60 feet on a side. That seems to be a pretty good ball park fit.
>>>>
>>>> Of course I have no idea how anybody came up with the figure, so
>>>> I don't know if there is a real good figure.
>>>
>>>A quick search implies that worldwide production is about 2.5 metric
>>>tons a year. At a specific density of 19.3, that would be about 129
>>>cubic meters or a box about five meters on a side. A 20-meter cube
>>>would be 64 years' worth at today's levels, and the rate has probably
>>>increased a fair bit in recent decades, so that's probably in the
>>>right ballpark.
>>
>>"Ballpark" should be the unit of measurement for diamonds, not gold.
>
> Feathers or lead?
>
> Dave, alarmingly

Gold is gold.
Diamonds are really valuable as relatively large stones, if you continue
considering down to very small sizes, there is an unlimited supply.

--
maus
.
.
...

R H Draney

unread,

Apr 4, 2013, 3:23:57 PM4/4/13

to

Nasti J filted:

Other than maybe Flava Flav, who would want a 67-foot cube of gold?...r

--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.

James

unread,

Apr 5, 2013, 2:44:28 PM4/5/13

to

I think I'd find something to do with it....

Lon

unread,

Apr 7, 2013, 7:37:33 PM4/7/13

to

As important, where would you put it?
Certainly not in the library.

Ralph Jones

unread,

Apr 7, 2013, 10:33:23 PM4/7/13

to

On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 17:37:33 -0600, Lon <lon.s...@comcast.net>
wrote:

[snip]

>
>As important, where would you put it?
>Certainly not in the library.
>

If you cut it up in 1222 pieces, you could carry it around in 1222
Boeing 787's...

Lon

unread,

Apr 9, 2013, 8:00:54 PM4/9/13

to

Only as long as it stays away from the batteries....

Lee Rudolph

unread,

Apr 9, 2013, 9:07:39 PM4/9/13

to

Just think of all the unidirectional hi-fi cables you could
coat the business ends of with it!

Lee Rudolph