-
Please join our new sister site dedicated to discussion of gold, silver, platinum, copper and palladium bar, coin, jewelry collecting/investing/storing/selling/buying. It would be greatly appreciated if you joined and help add a few new topics for new people to engage in.
Bullion.Forum
Discuss the " A Very Fine Prize for a simple Guess. :) " Comp in here
- Thread starter Tathradj
- Start date
Help Support Prospecting Australia:
- Status
1cc of distilled water at 4deg c as a reference equals exactly 1gm. Whether it is grams or cubic centimetres is irrelevant, both are exactly the same regarding SG.
The competition was for an estimate of specci weight not in exact terms of purified gold weight, geez........ Estimating a specci is just that an estimation. Quartz is not always exactly 2.65sg either. No one can really claim to estimate the exact weight of gold in a specci until it is crushed and the gold recovered.
I'm sure a weight was estimated before the comp and that is the number we are after.
The competition was for an estimate of specci weight not in exact terms of purified gold weight, geez........ Estimating a specci is just that an estimation. Quartz is not always exactly 2.65sg either. No one can really claim to estimate the exact weight of gold in a specci until it is crushed and the gold recovered.
I'm sure a weight was estimated before the comp and that is the number we are after.
In essence the 19.3sg of Au equates to 19.3 cubic centimetres of distilled water at 4 deg c to equal 1 cubic centimetre of pure 24k gold.
Hmmm! I had to read the comp rules / description a coupla times before i sorta worked out what I thought was being asked for :|
I reckon they're after our guess of the gram weight of the gold that is contained in the specie which has already been estimated using the regular specific gravity test.
But if all that is required is to nominate the specific gravity of the gold contained in the specie then BIG WAVE wins.
English grammar is a difficult beast to master and getting it right is the difference between....
helping Uncle Jack off a horse... or helping uncle jack off a horse... :
I reckon they're after our guess of the gram weight of the gold that is contained in the specie which has already been estimated using the regular specific gravity test.
But if all that is required is to nominate the specific gravity of the gold contained in the specie then BIG WAVE wins.
English grammar is a difficult beast to master and getting it right is the difference between....
helping Uncle Jack off a horse... or helping uncle jack off a horse... :
Guys.I've since realised that what was asked was the gold content in grams based on SG testing, so I withdraw my recent claims. Good luck all.
BigWave said:
I'm not so sure now BW .... I think you've thrown away a win
It does say estimated SG so 19ish would be correct in that case as 19.32 is the exact SG and not the estimated SG :lol:
as 19.32 is the exact SG and not the estimated SG :lol:
Oh, and an object's weight has units of Newtons - not Grams. Mass has units of Grams.
So, an object's apparent weight will change depending on where you measure it - more in Antarctica than at the equator, and around 1/6 on the moon's surface.
Its mass however, will not change (except in relativistic terms).
So, I believe what was asked for, was the estimated mass of gold (in a static reference frame) in Twapster's specci, not its SG (in g/cc) nor its estimated weight (in Newtons - wherever it was "weighed").
But that's all just Engineering correctness
So, an object's apparent weight will change depending on where you measure it - more in Antarctica than at the equator, and around 1/6 on the moon's surface.
Its mass however, will not change (except in relativistic terms).
So, I believe what was asked for, was the estimated mass of gold (in a static reference frame) in Twapster's specci, not its SG (in g/cc) nor its estimated weight (in Newtons - wherever it was "weighed").
But that's all just Engineering correctness
Farout BW glad you're not into the political correctness as well...... :lol:
BigWave said:Oh, and an object's weight has units of Newtons - not Grams. Mass has units of Grams.
So, an object's apparent weight will change depending on where you measure it - more in Antarctica than at the equator, and around 1/6 on the moon's surface.
Its mass however, will not change (except in relativistic terms).
So, I believe what was asked for, was the estimated mass of gold (in a static reference frame) in Twapster's specci, not its SG (in g/cc) nor its estimated weight (in Newtons - wherever it was "weighed").
But that's all just Engineering correctness
Yep I was going to say that :/
Actually I am. "Politics" is made up of two words: "poly" meaning many, and "tics" are blood sucking creatures. Is that extreme political correctness or what!!!!!
Tathradj, your sort of politics (poly of this sort of ticks ) is great mate - supporting us amateur prospectors. Sorry to be off topic.
I know I am a bit dry at times but any thing to have a laugh goes a long way Cobber.
You did not see me at my best in Laanecoorie as I was dealing with a fair bit of emotion
at the time.
Just wait until I get started.
No One is safe. :lol: :lol: :8
You did not see me at my best in Laanecoorie as I was dealing with a fair bit of emotion
at the time.
Just wait until I get started.
No One is safe. :lol: :lol: :8
God help us all then TDJ :lol:
Colmaca
Colin
this sounds like a waist of time.
- Status
