# What is the most expencive substance on Earth? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 10, 2003, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-expencive-substance-on-earth/174260 "2003-05-10T03:15:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![DrLiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/90ced4/32.png) [@DrLiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrLiver)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2003, 8:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-expencive-substance-on-earth/174260/21 "2003-05-10T08:25:34Z")
what’s a “foowph”? And why would it matter the speed at which it goes off (explosiveness), say it goes off, would there be any way of stopping it before it finishes…err…what it does? ---
**Author:** ![Turek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/turek/32/18782_2.png) [@Turek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Turek)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2003, 11:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-expencive-substance-on-earth/174260/22 "2003-05-10T11:57:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Deadly Nightlight \* > \*\*What would you do with antimatter if you could buy it? \*\* Build a warp core.😃 ---
**Author:** ![Shalmanese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shalmanese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shalmanese)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2003, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-expencive-substance-on-earth/174260/23 "2003-05-10T14:20:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole \* > \*\*Are you kidding me? Antimatter would be the best energy producing substance there is. \*\* Wrong! Unless we can mine antimatter from remote star systems of something, antimatter is an excellent energy STORAGE device, not an energy PRODUCING one. It takes exactly the same amount of energy to produce antimatter than to use it. You would still have to get the original energy from another source. ---
**Author:** ![handy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5a626/32.png) [@handy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/handy)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2003, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-expencive-substance-on-earth/174260/24 "2003-05-10T14:24:54Z")
“Anti-matter is just as stable as normal matter – so long as it doesn’t come into contact with the latter!” So how do you store it, since it appears you can’t just put it in a jar, which is made of matter. ---
**Author:** ![Rodd\_Hill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/3ab097/32.png) [@Rodd\_Hill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rodd_Hill)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2003, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-expencive-substance-on-earth/174260/25 "2003-05-10T14:41:30Z")
> [@](#): > > Okay, to refine the question what’s the most expensive subtance an average joe with no special qualifications like a nuclear weapons lab buy? So what is the street price of ambergris these days? ---
**Author:** ![Achernar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e274bd/32.png) [@Achernar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Achernar)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2003, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-expencive-substance-on-earth/174260/26 "2003-05-10T14:46:29Z")
If the question is what’s the most expensive substance by weight, I think you could make a case for hydrogen or helium. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2003, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-expencive-substance-on-earth/174260/27 "2003-05-10T15:04:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Achernar \* > \*\*If the question is what’s the most expensive substance by weight, I think you could make a case for hydrogen or helium. 😉 \*\* How does that work as a joke? Hydrogen and helium have _negative_ weights. Their expense by weight is _negative_, surely? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2003, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-expencive-substance-on-earth/174260/28 "2003-05-10T15:22:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by handy \* > \*\*So how do you store it, since it appears you can’t just put it in a jar, which is made of matter. \*\* You use a magnetic bottle. Essentially you float the stuff in the center of a container (which is also a vacuum) so it does not come into contact with any ‘normal’ matter. They do this now with antimatter being held in various labs in the US. Given the tiny amounts they manage this without too mcuh trouble but IIRC the problem of containment becomes much more difficult the more you have. If you ever watch Star Trek you’ll occasionally hear them going off on how they are about to lose warp core containment and they get very worried. They are talking in this case of losing the containment fields on the antimatter they use to power the spaceship which would result in the ship’s destruction. Sci-fi stuff I know but this is a believable scenario if you actually had an antimatter powered engine. ---
**Author:** ![Liz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/liz/32/17737_2.png) [@Liz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liz)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2003, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-expencive-substance-on-earth/174260/29 "2003-05-10T15:35:23Z")
Thanks to **Whack-a-Mole’s** posts, I have now exceeded the bandwidth and have been banned from [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com) Head…exploding. Seriously, thank you for such an informative post! ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2003, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-expencive-substance-on-earth/174260/30 "2003-05-10T15:40:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Desmostylus \* > \*\*How does that work as a joke? > > Hydrogen and helium have _negative_ weights. Their expense by weight is _negative_, surely? \*\* Huh? Negative weight for hydrogen and helium? Not so…they definitely have a positive weight. Don’t mistake helium balloons rising in an oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere for being weightless…the helium just weighs less than oxygen and nitrogen (and anything else for that matter except hydrogen). Seeing as how hydrogen is the most abundant element inthe universe I find it hard to see how it could be all that expensive (every glass of water you drink is loaded with hydrogen). On earth the cost is mostly the effort to get hydrogen by itself (e.g. separate it from oxygen in water) but there is plenty to be had. ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2003, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-expencive-substance-on-earth/174260/31 "2003-05-10T15:53:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole \* > \*\*Huh? Negative weight for hydrogen and helium? Not so…they definitely have a positive weight. Don’t mistake helium balloons rising in an oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere for being weightless…the helium just weighs less than oxygen and nitrogen (and anything else for that matter except hydrogen). > \*\* I understand what _weight_ and _mass_ mean. Measure the inertia of a helium balloon, and you’ll find that it’s positive, which implies positive _mass_. Measure the _weight_ of a helium balloon on a scale, and, hey, it’s negative. Go figure. ---
**Author:** ![Achernar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e274bd/32.png) [@Achernar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Achernar)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2003, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-expencive-substance-on-earth/174260/32 "2003-05-10T16:09:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole \* > On earth the cost is mostly the effort to get hydrogen by itself (e.g. separate it from oxygen in water) A similar thing could be said about antimatter - you wouldn’t be paying for the material as much as you would the container. **Desmostylus** : It works as a joke because if Hydrogen has a negative weight, one ounce of Hydrogen is unobtainable at any price. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2003, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-expencive-substance-on-earth/174260/33 "2003-05-10T16:11:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Desmostylus \* > \*\*Measure the inertia of a helium balloon, and you’ll find that it’s positive, which implies positive _mass_. Measure the _weight_ of a helium balloon on a scale, and, hey, it’s negative. Go figure. \*\* The ‘negative’ weight of your balloon is only because you are trying to weigh it in an atmosphere. The heavier atmosphere around the balloon falls underneath the balloon thus pushing it up. Put you helium balloon in a vacuum chamber with a scale at the bottom and you will find your balloon wieghs more with helium in it than it does empty. Maybe this will help you envision it better. Fill a container halfway with water and the other half with oil. The oil will rise to the top and the water will be at the bottom (because it is heavier). Would you suggest the oil now has negative weight? Weigh the container with and without the oil (leaving the water alone) and you will see that the container with the oil weighs more than without the oil. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2003, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-expencive-substance-on-earth/174260/34 "2003-05-10T16:17:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Achernar \* > \*\*A similar thing could be said about antimatter - you wouldn’t be paying for the material as much as you would the container. \*\* Nah…the way it stands today you will pay FAR more to get the antimatter than it costs to contain it. Getting hydrogen is FAR more simple (and hence cheaper) than getting antimatter. You need a particle accelerator to make antimatter and those are extremely expensive. Further, a particle accelerator today can only produce on the order of billionths of an ounce of antimatter per year. Very expensive production facility, very expensive and power intensive to run and very very little material return. You can produce and collect hydrogen in a high school physics lab…much cheaper and lots more product will result. ---
**Author:** ![Urban\_Ranger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Urban\_Ranger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urban_Ranger)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2003, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-expencive-substance-on-earth/174260/35 "2003-05-10T16:18:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Speaker for the Dead \* > Actually, antimatter bombs are not feasible. The energy released (to quote the books I’ve read) is more a “foowph” than a “boom,” and though it is quite a large amount of energy, is not _explosive_ per se. The books you read are wrong. An explosion is just energy released relatively quickly. You can’t get faster than matter-antimatter annihilation. ---
**Author:** ![Urban\_Ranger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Urban\_Ranger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urban_Ranger)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2003, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-expencive-substance-on-earth/174260/36 "2003-05-10T16:21:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole \* > On earth the cost is mostly the effort to get hydrogen by itself (e.g. separate it from oxygen in water) but there is plenty to be had. It’s much easier to get it from natural gas (methane). You get twice the amount (CH[sub]4[/sub] as compared to H[sub]2[/sub]0) with less energy. ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2003, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-expencive-substance-on-earth/174260/37 "2003-05-10T16:29:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole \* > \*\*The ‘negative’ weight of your balloon is only because you are trying to weigh it in an atmosphere. The heavier atmosphere around the balloon falls underneath the balloon thus pushing it up. Put you helium balloon in a vacuum chamber with a scale at the bottom and you will find your balloon wieghs more with helium in it than it does empty. > > Maybe this will help you envision it better. Fill a container halfway with water and the other half with oil. The oil will rise to the top and the water will be at the bottom (because it is heavier). Would you suggest the oil now has negative weight? Weigh the container with and without the oil (leaving the water alone) and you will see that the container with the oil weighs more than without the oil. \*\* Thanks for the elementary physics lesson. I’ll be forever in your debt. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Achernar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e274bd/32.png) [@Achernar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Achernar)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2003, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-expencive-substance-on-earth/174260/38 "2003-05-10T16:55:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole \* > Nah…the way it stands today you will pay FAR more to get the antimatter than it costs to contain it. How cheap is a magnetic jar these days? And of course, you wouldn’t have to build a whole accelerator just to get a few atoms of antiHydrogen; you’d just rent one for the day. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![bugg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecae2f/32.png) [@bugg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bugg)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2003, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-expencive-substance-on-earth/174260/39 "2003-05-11T05:33:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole \* > \*\*Are you kidding me? Antimatter would be the best energy producing substance there is. Perfect…100% extraction of energy. IIRC I read that one ounce of the stuff would be sufficient to orbit the Space Shuttle (maybe it was one gram…whatever the case it isn’t much). > \*\* FTR, antimatter and matter are exactly equal in their capability to produce energy. It’s just that we value one over the other because only one is easily found here. Your ounce of antimatter is useless[1] if you can’t find any matter to annihilate it with. [1] Well, useless for energy production. I’d imagine it’d still be useful for impressing the ladies. ---
**Author:** ![AbbySthrnAccent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@AbbySthrnAccent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AbbySthrnAccent)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2003, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-expencive-substance-on-earth/174260/40 "2003-05-11T05:46:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Padeye \* > \*\*Okay, to refine the question what’s the most expensive subtance an average joe with no special qualifications like a nuclear weapons lab buy? \*\* Saffron [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-expencive-substance-on-earth/174260.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-expencive-substance-on-earth/174260.md?page=3)