Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Sunbird, post: 8286134, member: 116324&quot;]Yeah, I forgot to reply to that bit. It has nothing to do with anything I&#039;m talking about. I was saying how surprised I was that US coins like the quarter were &quot;missing&quot; 21% of their volume/mass compared to a full cylinder, since eyeballing them it seemed like the field wasn&#039;t deep enough relative to the rim to account for a 21% hit, especially given all the raised design features that would partly offset the volume loss from the recessed field. It was just an expression of surprise and maybe mystery. I&#039;ll need to do some submersion tests, and figure out how to measure the field-to-field thickness, maybe with those micrometers or calipers that have the mouthy/toothy shape instead of the flat beak style I have – the ones where you can go <i>around</i> the edge of an object and measure an inner depth.</p><p><br /></p><p>I learned the difference between mass and weight as a kid. That distinction doesn&#039;t matter in this context, where Earth is assumed and mass and weight are equivalent. There aren&#039;t two different values here, a mass A and a weight B that don&#039;t match or something. The quarters weigh what they should – the ones I weighed recently are less than one percent off, with one 0.62% under and the other 0.53% over the official weight of 5.67 grams.[/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