Numismatist on whizzing

Reid Goldsborough wrote:

What I just can't understand is if whizzing removes metal, why is the
weight of whizzed coins the same as unaltered coins of the same type.
Maybe this has something to do with quantum physics and the uncertainty
principle, or perhaps superstring theory and brane cosmology.

I think I figured this out, though I'm still thinking through this, so
I'm open to suggestions and corrections. The reason whizzing removes
metal, despite whizzed coins being the same weight as unaltered coins,
is the same reason that metal on whizzed coins under magnification
appears pushed up against devices, legends, and rims. It's not that
metal is moved, not removed. That's too logical, too commonsensible.
That's what you might think in the everyday Newtonian/Einsteinian
four-dimensional universe of length, width, height, and time. But brane
cosmology, which is about the hottest thing going besides Jessica Alba,
holds that there are actually 11 dimensions.

These other dimensions are ultra-compact, so we can't see them. But, if
we look carefully, we can notice their effects. Most brane cosmologists
used to think that there were 10 dimensions. I believe that that extra
weight and the pushed-metal of whizzed coins proves that there must in
fact be an 11th dimension. I believe that it's the collision of unseen
branes that not only led to the creation of our current universe but
also the unexplained weight and pushed-up metal anomalies that "Jeff R."
in his famous whizzed experiment of the mid-2000s couldn't previously
account for.

So this is the real science behind this. I previously got wrong the way
that metal moves, thinking it was heat and pressure rather than pressure
alone that moves metal up against devices, legends, and rims. Now I see
that metal is actually removed as "Jeff R." says and then redeposited
through the 11th dimension.


--

Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos

On Dec 21, 11:26*am, Reid Goldsborough
wrote:

I am not a metallurgist, nor do I play one on TV. However, it seems to
me that if the wire brush was to be examined after 'whizzing' a coin,
or anything else, there would be traces of the object being 'whizzed'
in the brushes. With precious metals, it seems that it would be
worthwhile to retrieve them from the brushes, if economically viable.

Reid Goldsborough wrote:
Reid Goldsborough wrote:

What I just can't understand is if whizzing removes metal, why is the
weight of whizzed coins the same as unaltered coins of the same type.
Maybe this has something to do with quantum physics and the
uncertainty principle, or perhaps superstring theory and brane
cosmology.

I think I figured this out, though I'm still thinking through this, so
I'm open to suggestions and corrections. The reason whizzing removes
metal, despite whizzed coins being the same weight as unaltered coins,
is the same reason that metal on whizzed coins under magnification
appears pushed up against devices, legends, and rims. It's not that
metal is moved, not removed. That's too logical, too commonsensible.
That's what you might think in the everyday Newtonian/Einsteinian
four-dimensional universe of length, width, height, and time. But
brane cosmology, which is about the hottest thing going besides
Jessica Alba, holds that there are actually 11 dimensions.

These other dimensions are ultra-compact, so we can't see them. But,
if we look carefully, we can notice their effects. Most brane
cosmologists used to think that there were 10 dimensions. I believe
that that extra weight and the pushed-metal of whizzed coins proves
that there must in fact be an 11th dimension. I believe that it's the
collision of unseen branes that not only led to the creation of our
current universe but also the unexplained weight and pushed-up metal
anomalies that "Jeff R." in his famous whizzed experiment of the
mid-2000s couldn't previously account for.

So this is the real science behind this. I previously got wrong the
way that metal moves, thinking it was heat and pressure rather than
pressure alone that moves metal up against devices, legends, and
rims. Now I see that metal is actually removed as "Jeff R." says and
then redeposited through the 11th dimension.

Well, for the first time you did not condescendingly impugn Jeff as some
disembodied "whiz", so to my eyes and in that sense, you have made progress,
Mr. G.

James

Jud wrote:
On Dec 21, 11:26 am, Reid Goldsborough
wrote:

I am not a metallurgist, nor do I play one on TV. However, it seems to
me that if the wire brush was to be examined after 'whizzing' a coin,
or anything else, there would be traces of the object being 'whizzed'
in the brushes. With precious metals, it seems that it would be
worthwhile to retrieve them from the brushes, if economically viable.

One might postulate a cloud made up of microscopic chunks of both "whizzee"
and "whizzor" material forming around the point of impact. If such cloud
does actually exist, its presence (and the reduction in mass of both whizzee
and whizzor agents) is detectable, given the proper instrumentation and
procedures. Has this ever been done under rigorous laboratory conditions
with all other variables controlled?

James the Whizzer

"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
Jud wrote:
On Dec 21, 11:26 am, Reid Goldsborough
wrote:

I am not a metallurgist, nor do I play one on TV. However, it seems to
me that if the wire brush was to be examined after 'whizzing' a coin,
or anything else, there would be traces of the object being 'whizzed'
in the brushes. With precious metals, it seems that it would be
worthwhile to retrieve them from the brushes, if economically viable.

One might postulate a cloud made up of microscopic chunks of both
"whizzee" and "whizzor" material forming around the point of impact. If
such cloud does actually exist, its presence (and the reduction in mass of
both whizzee and whizzor agents) is detectable, given the proper
instrumentation and procedures. Has this ever been done under rigorous
laboratory conditions with all other variables controlled?

James the Whizzer

CHEEZ!!

"Jud" wrote in message
...
On Dec 21, 11:26 am, Reid Goldsborough
wrote:

I am not a metallurgist, nor do I play one on TV. However, it seems
to
me that if the wire brush was to be examined after 'whizzing' a coin,
or anything else, there would be traces of the object being 'whizzed'
in the brushes. With precious metals, it seems that it would be
worthwhile to retrieve them from the brushes, if economically viable.

Back when b&w film was still used extensively, you could buy kits to
recover the silver that is washed out from developing the negatives
(and IIRC maybe the printing paper). It was barely profitable for
home darkrooms but it was used by many large photo labs.

Recovering whizzed PMs as described here would be more difficult
because unlike liquid silver salts, it's only in the form of thin
solid gold or silver films deposited on hundreds of thin metal
whiskers. Some if not most of it is firmly bonded to the bristles
after friction heated a thin layer of the coin's surface atoms which
then cooled on the brush surfaces. The PM can be harvested, but the
process may be expensive and the amount transferred by one or two
coins probably would be trivial. A production line whizzing operation
doing hundreds of coins might make it somewhat profitable.

During the Alaska gold rush, unscrupulous assayers would apply a thin
coating of oil or syrup to their hands which they would frequently use
to brush their hair back or wipe on an apron. After work, a shampoo
or hand washing of the apron yielded a small but lucrative amount of
stolen flakes.

mazorj wrote:
"Jud" wrote in message
...
On Dec 21, 11:26 am, Reid Goldsborough
wrote:

I am not a metallurgist, nor do I play one on TV. However, it seems
to
me that if the wire brush was to be examined after 'whizzing' a coin,
or anything else, there would be traces of the object being 'whizzed'
in the brushes. With precious metals, it seems that it would be
worthwhile to retrieve them from the brushes, if economically viable.

Back when b&w film was still used extensively, you could buy kits to
recover the silver that is washed out from developing the negatives
(and IIRC maybe the printing paper). It was barely profitable for
home darkrooms but it was used by many large photo labs.

Recovering whizzed PMs as described here would be more difficult
because unlike liquid silver salts, it's only in the form of thin
solid gold or silver films deposited on hundreds of thin metal
whiskers. Some if not most of it is firmly bonded to the bristles
after friction heated a thin layer of the coin's surface atoms which
then cooled on the brush surfaces. The PM can be harvested, but the
process may be expensive and the amount transferred by one or two
coins probably would be trivial. A production line whizzing operation
doing hundreds of coins might make it somewhat profitable.

During the Alaska gold rush, unscrupulous assayers would apply a thin
coating of oil or syrup to their hands which they would frequently use
to brush their hair back or wipe on an apron. After work, a shampoo
or hand washing of the apron yielded a small but lucrative amount of
stolen flakes.

Are you suggesting that we have been a nation of criminals since, maybe, the
beginning?

James the Outlaw

"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
mazorj wrote:
"Jud" wrote in message
...
On Dec 21, 11:26 am, Reid Goldsborough
wrote:

I am not a metallurgist, nor do I play one on TV. However, it
seems
to
me that if the wire brush was to be examined after 'whizzing' a
coin,
or anything else, there would be traces of the object being
'whizzed'
in the brushes. With precious metals, it seems that it would be
worthwhile to retrieve them from the brushes, if economically
viable.

Back when b&w film was still used extensively, you could buy kits
to
recover the silver that is washed out from developing the negatives
(and IIRC maybe the printing paper). It was barely profitable for
home darkrooms but it was used by many large photo labs.

Recovering whizzed PMs as described here would be more difficult
because unlike liquid silver salts, it's only in the form of thin
solid gold or silver films deposited on hundreds of thin metal
whiskers. Some if not most of it is firmly bonded to the bristles
after friction heated a thin layer of the coin's surface atoms
which
then cooled on the brush surfaces. The PM can be harvested, but
the
process may be expensive and the amount transferred by one or two
coins probably would be trivial. A production line whizzing
operation
doing hundreds of coins might make it somewhat profitable.

During the Alaska gold rush, unscrupulous assayers would apply a
thin
coating of oil or syrup to their hands which they would frequently
use
to brush their hair back or wipe on an apron. After work, a
shampoo
or hand washing of the apron yielded a small but lucrative amount
of
stolen flakes.

Are you suggesting that we have been a nation of criminals since,
maybe, the beginning?

James the Outlaw

Yep. How else do you explain eBay?

mazorj wrote:
"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
mazorj wrote:
"Jud" wrote in message
...
On Dec 21, 11:26 am, Reid Goldsborough
wrote:

I am not a metallurgist, nor do I play one on TV. However, it
seems
to
me that if the wire brush was to be examined after 'whizzing' a
coin,
or anything else, there would be traces of the object being
'whizzed'
in the brushes. With precious metals, it seems that it would be
worthwhile to retrieve them from the brushes, if economically
viable.

Back when b&w film was still used extensively, you could buy kits
to
recover the silver that is washed out from developing the negatives
(and IIRC maybe the printing paper). It was barely profitable for
home darkrooms but it was used by many large photo labs.

Recovering whizzed PMs as described here would be more difficult
because unlike liquid silver salts, it's only in the form of thin
solid gold or silver films deposited on hundreds of thin metal
whiskers. Some if not most of it is firmly bonded to the bristles
after friction heated a thin layer of the coin's surface atoms
which
then cooled on the brush surfaces. The PM can be harvested, but
the
process may be expensive and the amount transferred by one or two
coins probably would be trivial. A production line whizzing
operation
doing hundreds of coins might make it somewhat profitable.

During the Alaska gold rush, unscrupulous assayers would apply a
thin
coating of oil or syrup to their hands which they would frequently
use
to brush their hair back or wipe on an apron. After work, a
shampoo
or hand washing of the apron yielded a small but lucrative amount
of
stolen flakes.

Are you suggesting that we have been a nation of criminals since,
maybe, the beginning?

James the Outlaw

Yep. How else do you explain eBay?

More in terms of Lying SOS syndrome than actual criminality.

James the Prevaricator

"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
mazorj wrote:
"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...

....
Are you suggesting that we have been a nation of criminals since,
maybe, the beginning?

James the Outlaw

Yep. How else do you explain eBay?

More in terms of Lying SOS syndrome than actual criminality.

James the Prevaricator

True, but when it comes to commerce, being a Lying SOS can rise to
fraud.

- mazorj the Sardonic