samboyyellowsub:That's interesting.
Australia used to have sliver florin coins in circulation prior to the introduction of decimal currency in 1966. Coins made before 1946 were .925 fine, those after that were .500 fine, but had the same mass and diameter.
The alloys for .925 fine were silver 92.5%, copper 7.5%,
and for .500 fine were silver 50%, copper 40%, nickel 5%, and zinc5%
That means the .925 silver coins were thinner and denser that the .500 ones.
This resulted in the two alloys having different ring tones, naturally. The ring pitch of the .925 coins is lower.
I had always assumed that due to greater inertia resulting from the greater density of the .925 coins, the ring tones for for these coins must be lower.
I guess that if you have clad coins rather than a homogeneous alloy, the ring characteristics would be altered in a different way than by the assumption that I have indicated above.
Although my observations are true, my assumptions may be wrong. Can you make a comment about my assumptions?
Australia used to have sliver florin coins in circulation prior to the introduction of decimal currency in 1966. Coins made before 1946 were .925 fine, those after that were .500 fine, but had the same mass and diameter.
The alloys for .925 fine were silver 92.5%, copper 7.5%,
and for .500 fine were silver 50%, copper 40%, nickel 5%, and zinc5%
That means the .925 silver coins were thinner and denser that the .500 ones.
This resulted in the two alloys having different ring tones, naturally. The ring pitch of the .925 coins is lower.
I had always assumed that due to greater inertia resulting from the greater density of the .925 coins, the ring tones for for these coins must be lower.
I guess that if you have clad coins rather than a homogeneous alloy, the ring characteristics would be altered in a different way than by the assumption that I have indicated above.
Although my observations are true, my assumptions may be wrong. Can you make a comment about my assumptions?





















