Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;medoraman, post: 982322, member: 26302&quot;]I will research it and get back to you Doug. The main point is it becomes the increasing difficulty in extracting the trace metals that naturally occur in gold. It is a geometric progression. Could ancients do .99, Yeah I would say so. .999 would be very difficult and most of the time not worth it. .9999 I believe would be impossible given their technology. It is extremely hard for modern science to achieve this cheaply. 1.000 is only possible if you round, even today. To say gold is truly pure, with not an atom of impurity, is almost impossible unless you want to pay a million dollars an ounce. You have to vaporize it, trap off the gases at different points, then cool and do it again.</p><p><br /></p><p>Blending to 4 decimal places is easy, start with the same .99 gold, so the impurities are the same, and blend in your silver and you will have 4 decimal place accuracy. This is NOT the same as making .9999 gold, let alone 1.000 gold. So no, I do not believe Krause or Friedberg saying 1.000 gold. I would not believe a modern bullion coin saying 1.000 gold unless they admit they are rounding. </p><p><br /></p><p>Btw 24 carat is called pure gold, but its just a convenient name. It means .99 or .999 gold effectively, gold that is as pure as economically feasible and not interntionally diluted.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in