Any Math genius out there?

[JJ Irani]

Here's a simple problem:

Weight of TT Blue Sub = 148 grams
Weight of SS Sub-date = 135 grams

Difference in weight = 13 grams.

Calculate the exact weight (in grams) of GOLD in the TT Blue Sub.

NOTE: Above weights are all based on weight of watch with all ORIGINAL links as they come from the factory.

Cheers - JJ

[Gedanken]

Well, if we were to know if the gold bits were used in place of 316 or 904, or if both were used what the proportions were, I suppose we could work it out fairly easily. Say JJ, seeing as how you're going to get a TT Sub to join your SS one, could we melt the bits of both down to perform some quantitave analysis on the composition?

[s7horton]

You're leaving out one important fact. The ratio of SS to gold in the TT sub. Without that (or the TT sub in hand) that math problem is not possible. Not to mention the fact that the movement, amoung other things are not to be counted.

If we were talking an SS sub vs. an all gold sub, that would be a different story.

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by s7horton

You're leaving out one important fact. The ratio of SS to gold in the TT sub. Without that (or the TT sub in hand) that math problem is not possible. Not to mention the fact that the movement, amoung other things are not to be counted.

If we were talking an SS sub vs. an all gold sub, that would be a different story.

Excellent point you've raised there, Seth.

Guess what? I asked this very same question on another forum a long time ago and one of the guys did the math and came up with the correct answer: 26 grams.

Now I can't remember how he quite worked it out, but he somehow knew the ratio of SS to Gold and just doubled the weight difference of 13 grams to equal 26 grams.

You seem like a math student, Seth. Perhaps you could work it out for us and come with some answers!!

Thanks - JJ

[morgman]

You should wait and get the GMT with solid gold links!!!

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by morgman

You should wait and get the GMT with solid gold links!!!

If it came with the same gorgeous BLUE dial, I would!!

[Gedanken]

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

Now I can't remember how he quite worked it out, but he somehow knew the ratio of SS to Gold and just doubled the weight difference of 13 grams to equal 26 grams.

What a load of bollocks. The only way that could work out is if you had the figures to show that the gold is exactly twice as dense as the SS. Without the relevant information, you'd have as much luck guessing the annual tonnage of bat guano in Brazil.

[jaycee]

But how much gold is in the gold? I don't know what Rolex use but remember that 9 carat gold is only 9/24ths gold i.e. a little over a third is actually gold, the rest is generally tin, zinc and other metals.

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by jaycee

But how much gold is in the gold? I don't know what Rolex use but remember that 9 carat gold is only 9/24ths gold i.e. a little over a third is actually gold, the rest is generally tin, zinc and other metals.

Rolex use only 18 K gold!!

[C.J.]

Originally Posted by Gedanken

What a load of bollocks. The only way that could work out is if you had the figures to show that the gold is exactly twice as dense as the SS. Without the relevant information, you'd have as much luck guessing the annual tonnage of bat guano in Brazil.

That's right about as much as JJ shovels at Mansors, right?

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by C.J.

That's right about as much as JJ shovels at Mansors, right?

Tosser!!

Originally Posted by Gedanken

What a load of bollocks. The only way that could work out is if you had the figures to show that the gold is exactly twice as dense as the SS. Without the relevant information, you'd have as much luck guessing the annual tonnage of bat guano in Brazil.

I hate posting "general" information about metals because it can be misleading, but yesterday when this subject came up I looked up the density of one type of SS and 18k gold:

316 SS = 7.8 g/cm3

18k gold = 15.5 g/cm3

And BTW I did not do the calculation that JJ refers to.

[s7horton]

Originally Posted by Avalon

I hate posting "general" information about metals because it can be misleading, but yesterday when this subject came up I looked up the density of one type of SS and 18k gold:

316 SS = 7.8 g/cm3

18k gold = 15.5 g/cm3

And BTW I did not do the calculation that JJ refers to.

Apparently I am wrong. Maybe gold is double stainless steel. The only thing here, though, is that Rolex uses 904 SS not 316. I'm not sure what the weight difference is between 316 and 904...

[s7horton]

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

Excellent point you've raised there, Seth.

Guess what? I asked this very same question on another forum a long time ago and one of the guys did the math and came up with the correct answer: 26 grams.

Now I can't remember how he quite worked it out, but he somehow knew the ratio of SS to Gold and just doubled the weight difference of 13 grams to equal 26 grams.

You seem like a math student, Seth. Perhaps you could work it out for us and come with some answers!!

Thanks - JJ

Well, it's true I was a math student, but I think I still need more information. If you knew the ratio of SS to Gold in the watch, you shouldn't need to double anything. Unless, of course, SS was exactly have the mass of gold, which I don't think it is. I'll think about it a little more and see what I can come up with...

[padi56]

Trust JJ another impossible one to answer,but the total gold weight well not a lot, considering the price difference.

[C.J.]

You're going wayyyyyyyyy off the deep end again

[Gedanken]

Yuh huh. This is as good as asking if a pound of feathers or a pound of iron is heavier.

[Gedanken]

That's volume, Craig - like I said, we have to account for density!

[miner]

How does the song go..

The length times the breadth plus four fifths of the depth
Was Pi R squared of F-All

[C.J.]

Originally Posted by miner

How does the song go..

The length times the breadth plus four fifths of the depth
Was Pi R squared of F-All

I played hockey and wrestled in high school, I was wayyyyy too dumb for these types of classes

[C.J.]

Originally Posted by Gedanken

That's volume, Craig - like I said, we have to account for density!

Uh huh, dense, thick, like his little woolly friends Now I got it

[Gedanken]

Hmm - nickel's slightly denser than iron, so 904 would be denser than 316 ...

Anyway, what the devil's that got to do with bat guano?

[Gedanken]

Seth, as Peter has pointed out in another thread, Rolex did not entirely switch to 904 SS. Some parts are still 316.

[s7horton]

Originally Posted by Gedanken

Seth, as Peter has pointed out in another thread, Rolex did not entirely switch to 904 SS. Some parts are still 316.

Well, we learn something new everyday. That is something I did not know. It doesn't change the fact, though, that there is some 904 and that may or may not have the same density as 316. I don't know my stainless steels well enough to know that without looking it up.

[s7horton]

according to the small amount of information I looked up, 904L and 316 stainless steel have EXACTLY the same density. 8000 kg/m^3...

For what it's worth...

Also, there appears to be a cheaper, better alternative to 904L....Someone more intelligent in metals may be able to correct me, but it appears that 2205 SS is as resistant to corrosion as 904, has a higher mechanical strength, and is a fair amount cheaper. Maybe we can convince Rolex to switch and drop their prices!

[Gedanken]

Originally Posted by s7horton

according to the small amount of information I looked up, 904L and 316 stainless steel have EXACTLY the same density. 8000 kg/m^3.

Yeah, in any case, for a lousy few grams the difference wouldn't bother anybody besides JJ.

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by Gedanken

Yeah, in any case, for a lousy few grams the difference wouldn't bother anybody besides JJ.

With my beloved Rollies, every milligram counts....let alone a WHOLE BLOODY GRAM!!!