Yep, I've been very skeptical too, but after hours of testing I'm more convinced by my results than official mint specs. Apparently a few are fairly close to spec in any case!
Now, if I had seen a consistently low reading across the board for coins of many compositions, that would have raised a flag to me.
As it turns out, my bronze and CuNi "control group" coins have tested very close to official specs, as well as several older coins of "pure copper" composition.
I know the effect air bubbles would have on density, and I have devised methods to reduce that error as much as I can.
Even if that were the case, it does not properly explain the discrepancy I see, particularly with the bullion bar. Let's just say the results are interesting--not conclusive, and I'll continue to test more coins. While my own tests have little weight, it might be an easy matter to send a few coins to a real lab for analysis.
Let's say for argument's sake my results have a semblance of accuracy, would that amount to a "juicy scandal"? I'm not convinced it would be considered a scandal (back then), particularly if those "holding the bag" didn't want that information public. How would people hear about it otherwise? Would they believe a "science geek" like me? I doubt it!
Now, if I had seen a consistently low reading across the board for coins of many compositions, that would have raised a flag to me.
As it turns out, my bronze and CuNi "control group" coins have tested very close to official specs, as well as several older coins of "pure copper" composition.
I know the effect air bubbles would have on density, and I have devised methods to reduce that error as much as I can.
Even if that were the case, it does not properly explain the discrepancy I see, particularly with the bullion bar. Let's just say the results are interesting--not conclusive, and I'll continue to test more coins. While my own tests have little weight, it might be an easy matter to send a few coins to a real lab for analysis.
Let's say for argument's sake my results have a semblance of accuracy, would that amount to a "juicy scandal"? I'm not convinced it would be considered a scandal (back then), particularly if those "holding the bag" didn't want that information public. How would people hear about it otherwise? Would they believe a "science geek" like me? I doubt it!























