adcott

Google him. Should go without saying but he's a bit of a nutter/fantasist. I don't know where people are getting that he has a PhD or went to Princeton, etc... seems to directly contradict what he says in the bio section of his website. According to that he only did a physics undergrad at the University of Washington, but I'm not so sure about even that given his basic failings at simple maths/physics. I highly recommend his first "published" article: The Holographic Concept of Reality - it has big words in it so it must be science, right? (I must be too thick to grasp its brilliance as it reads like pseudo-scientific claptrap to me)

From: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWAu7FmKbYc

It's not a completely stupid statement. We do after all synthesise plutonium (an element) through uranium (another element). I'm not a particle physicist, but from my massively lay perspective it could be possible to create stable gold atoms by using a similar methodology and bombarding Pt 196 with protons (or Pt 195 with deuterium). It would be horrendously and prohibitively expensive to do so though.

Cheers Chris, this is some reassurance that I'm not going completely mental. How much did you find yours were out by? My test mass was the coins! Like I said, it's a cheap scale Definitely using the thing properly though. Right down to letting it settle in the ambient temperature of the room for half an hour and letting it warm up for 30 seconds before use (as per instructions). I hope the scale is accurate - it means I have a few ounces more than I thought I did.

Hey guys, I need to come out of lurking and ask if anyone else has experienced this... I've bought a cheap set of jewelery scales (accurate to 0.1g) and decided to test how good they were by using what I thought were "known weights". A 1oz .999 coin should read 31.1g. I started by weighing one of my philharmonics - it came out as 31.6g. I bought this coin from CID (sealed in mint tubes) so I assumed it must be the scales that were dodgy. I tested a few more phils and they all came out at 31.6... two were 63.2g, ten were 315.9g and so on. But then I weighed a maple - it came out at 31.5g Then an Eagle - 31.3g; Libertad - 31.3g. I decided to weigh a coin that I knew had definitely not been handled. I (very carefully) cracked open an encapsulated Kookaburra... 31.9g! Maybe it's to do with the surface area on the scales, I thought. So I placed two phils on top of each other on the scale (reading 63.2g), removed the top one and replaced it with an Eagle - it came out as 62.9g. Surface area on the scales remained the same, but the weight apparently changed. To remove any seeds of doubt about the legitimacy of CID coins, I hunted down an older Eagle I purchased from a trusted numismatic dealer my family has bought from for decades. This came out exactly the same as the CID-bought coin. Gold sovereigns I have tested have come out exactly as what they should be (8.0g). I'm sure the scales must be dodgy somehow. But given the consistent variance in the weights, logically the only conclusion I can draw from this is that these 1oz silver coins genuinely weigh different amounts. pics: 2009 Maple (CID) 2009 Kookaburra (CID) 2009 Eagle (CID) 2001 Eagle (local dealer) 1912 sov (local dealer) 2 x Philharmonics Philharmonic + Eagle Has anyone here accurately weighed their coins?

If you view it in terms of percentage increases from the previous figure, both silver and gold are broadly in sync apart from one week where silver rose by ~36.5% and gold by ~136.5% ... it appears as though a zero has been inadvertently added onto the gold price.