Alchemy is in fact real.
Debate Rounds (4)
Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2 Pro: Opening Argument
Round 2 Con: Rebuttal
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Closing Statements
Resolution: Alchemy is in fact real.
Alchemy: The process of turning invaluable metals/elements into gold or other highly valuable elements
As an Organic Chemistry student and Physics enthusiast, I feel the need to defend my brethren of the Middle Ages, the only interesting part of history to me. Good luck to any opponent who chooses to accept. Dost thou accept?
Rules: You must follow the debate structure. The definition given is indisputable.
I will not crack down on the sites you are using to back up your claims as I am aware no respectable paper would include Alchemy, as a result you have no choice but to use what ever you can.
I will be happy if you agree to the same definitions as I have posted. Also assuming by Alchemy you are referring to cold fusion.
Alchemy: the medieval forerunner of chemistry, concerned with the transmutation of matter, in particular with attempts to convert base metals into gold or find a universal elixir.
Alchemy: The process of turning invaluable metals/elements into gold or other highly valuable elements.
Cold fusion: is a hypothetical type of nuclear reaction that would occur at, or near, room temperature, compared with temperatures in the millions of degrees that are required for "hot" fusion, which takes place naturally within stars.
We are assuming that Alchemy and cold fusion are one in the same.
Sorry for the overly long winded way of saying... ~ I accept. ~
Good luck :)
My argument will be two fold. One from a single displacement reaction via oxidation/reduction and also nuclear physics.
What I will do is take reactions that have indeed taken place (and give proof of such) and compare the relative value of the atoms in the reactants to the products. Note that the practicality and cost of performing the reaction do not matter. Only the value of the reactants compared to the products and possibility of the reaction matter.
Argument 1: Single Displacement Reaction via Oxidation/Reduction
* Means that there are calculations to back it up if the opponent so desires. These are rather simple, and I would much rather have the opponent do it themself before criticizing me of not providing proof. All the information to do the calculation is given in the sources or the periodic table of elements.
Balance Chemical Equation: 2 Al + Fe2O3 -->Al2O3 + 2 Fe
Description: Aluminum foil reacted with iron (III) oxide yields aluminum (III) oxide and elemental iron.
Ratio of metal reactant to metal product: For every 1 atom(s) of Al, you produce 1 atom(s) of Fe.
Price: The price of Fe2O3 and Al2O3 are negligible.
*Price of one mole of Fe: $0.249 USD
*Price of one mole of Al: $0.0464 USD
Outcome: Net gain in value
Possibility: First rationalization for this reaction is done by looking at the electromotive series.
Elements higher on this chart have less affinity for electrons. This table is almost directly related to the value of each element also. Metals that hold onto their electrons incredibly well (i.e. Gold) are more valuable than metals that don't hold onto their electrons well (i.e. Nickel). Because of this, they are less susceptible to rusting. Back to the point, this reaction is thermodynamically favorable. The voltage of this cell demonstrates whether or not this reaction would spontaneously occur. In fact, it does. The voltage would be *1.23. This is positive representing that it occurs spontaneously and equilibrium lies far towards the products. Entropy is almost completely arbitrary for this reaction since you don't gain or lose any liquids or gases.
Notice that this reaction is not limited to aluminum and iron. You could replace these with a gold salt and any metal above it on that chart. Gold salt is much more valuable (than rust) however since gold is almost always in its neutral metal state.
You could also reverse these reactions using electrolysis, however you need an energy source.
Argument 2: Nuclear Physics
I am by no means a nuclear physicist so this will be more generalized than my previous argument.
Reactions: Production of Super Heavy Metals (If this image doesn't work please go to this link:
s://upload.wikimedia.org...; alt="Schematic diagram of ununoctium-294 alpha decay, with a half-life of 0.89 ms and a decay energy of 11.65 MeV. The resulting livermorium-290 decays by alpha decay, with a half-life of 10.0 ms and a decay energy of 10.80 MeV, to flerovium-286. Flerovium-286 has a half-life of 0.16 s and a decay energy of 10.16 MeV, and undergoes alpha decay to copernicium-282 with a 0.7 rate of spontaneous fission. Copernicium itself has a half-life of only 1.9 ms and has a 1.0 rate of spontaneous fission." />
This reaction was performed at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory according to
https://en.wikipedia.org.... 3 or possibly 4 atoms of Ununoctium have been made ever.
*Price per atom of Californium: Negligible (But to be sure, I did the calculation), 1.12 E(-14) USD
Price per atom of Calcium: Negligible
Price per atom of Ununoctium: Priceless due to its rarity, difficulty to create, and scientific research possibilities with just a single atom of Ununoctium.
Thus for these two reasons, alchemy is possible and has been done. Alchemy is a fact.
i will be able to debate again in two days or so, if you would like to re-post this debate.
i do apologise, the work load has been strenuise, i only got online to check up on some things.
Extend, also I will take your offer.
i do appreciate this, thankyou.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.