ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

JJ Irani · 18 September 2006, 06:55 PM

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 · 18 September 2006, 08:34 PM

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 · 18 September 2006, 09:12 PM

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.

padi56 · 18 September 2006, 09:31 PM

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

C.J. · 18 September 2006, 10:43 PM

You're going wayyyyyyyyy off the deep end again

JJ Irani · 19 September 2006, 05:14 AM

Quote:

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 · 19 September 2006, 05:22 AM

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

JJ Irani · 19 September 2006, 05:24 AM

Quote:

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 · 19 September 2006, 09:36 AM

Quote:

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 · 19 September 2006, 09:53 AM

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.

Gedanken · 19 September 2006, 10:13 AM

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

C.J. · 19 September 2006, 10:22 AM

Quote:

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?

Gedanken · 19 September 2006, 10:29 AM

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

miner · 19 September 2006, 10:46 AM

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. · 19 September 2006, 11:02 AM

Quote:

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. · 19 September 2006, 11:03 AM

Quote:

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

JJ Irani · 19 September 2006, 06:21 PM

Quote:

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!!

JJ Irani · 19 September 2006, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by C.J.

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

Tosser!!

19 September 2006, 09:16 PM

Quote:

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.

Gedanken · 19 September 2006, 09:34 PM

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?

s7horton · 19 September 2006, 09:36 PM

Quote:

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...

s7horton · 19 September 2006, 09:38 PM

Quote:

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...

Gedanken · 19 September 2006, 09:41 PM

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

19 September 2006, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by s7horton

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...

904 is not THAT different to 316, and according to Padi, a good deal of a Rolex is 316 anyway (I have no idea if this is true or not, and I'm sure this thought will upset the 904L worshippers). In the context of this discussion (a SWAG at best) the weight difference between 904 and 316 is "negligible" I'm sure.

s7horton · 19 September 2006, 09:45 PM

Quote:

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 · 19 September 2006, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avalon

904 is not THAT different to 316, and according to Padi, a good deal of a Rolex is 316 anyway (I have no idea if this is true or not, and I'm sure this thought will upset the 904L worshippers). In the context of this discussion (a SWAG at best) the weight difference between 904 and 316 is "negligible" I'm sure.

Depends on what "that" means. I would say they are quite different when it takes 2000 lbs of force to shape 316 and something high like 40,000 lbs to shape 904. (that info was from the AD, don't quote me on those exact numbers)

Now, if you are referring to the difference in density, you may be correct, they may be relatively close.

s7horton · 19 September 2006, 09:53 PM

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!

19 September 2006, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by s7horton

Depends on what "that" means. I would say they are quite different when it takes 2000 lbs of force to shape 316 and something high like 40,000 lbs to shape 904. (that info was from the AD, don't quote me on those exact numbers)

Now, if you are referring to the difference in density, you may be correct, they may be relatively close.

Oy!

Gedanken · 19 September 2006, 10:37 PM

Quote:

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 · 20 September 2006, 05:09 AM

Quote:

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!!!

18 September 2006, 06:55 PM	#1
JJ Irani Fondly Remembered Join Date: May 2005 Real Name: JJ Location: Auckland, NZ Watch: ALL SOLD!! Posts: 74,320	Any Math genius out there? 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 __________________ Words fail me in expressing my utmost thanks to ALL of you for this wonderful support during my hour of need!! I firmly believe that my time on planet earth is NOT yet up!! I shall fight this to the very end.......and WIN!!

18 September 2006, 08:34 PM	#2
Gedanken "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2005 Real Name: Sir Location: Melbourne Watch: F-series SD Posts: 8,589	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? __________________ You buy a Casio to make sure you're on time; you wear a Rolex because you don't have to be on time.

18 September 2006, 09:31 PM	#4
padi56 "TRF" Life Patron Join Date: Jun 2005 Real Name: Peter Location: Llanfairpwllgwyng Watch: ing you. Posts: 52,264	Trust JJ another impossible one to answer,but the total gold weight well not a lot, considering the price difference. __________________ ICom Pro3 All posts are my own opinion and my opinion only. "The clock of life is wound but once, and no man has the power to tell just when the hands will stop. Now is the only time you actually own the time, Place no faith in time, for the clock may soon be still for ever." Good Judgement comes from experience,experience comes from Bad Judgement,.Buy quality, cry once; buy cheap, cry again and again. www.mc0yad.club Second in command CEO and left handed watch winder

18 September 2006, 10:43 PM	#5
C.J. "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: * Posts: 10,196	You're going wayyyyyyyyy off the deep end again __________________ Me? I'm still looking for Kokomo. I just hope that damn golfer isn't there

19 September 2006, 10:13 AM	#11
Gedanken "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2005 Real Name: Sir Location: Melbourne Watch: F-series SD Posts: 8,589	Yuh huh. This is as good as asking if a pound of feathers or a pound of iron is heavier. __________________ You buy a Casio to make sure you're on time; you wear a Rolex because you don't have to be on time.

18 September 2006, 09:12 PM	#3
s7horton "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Real Name: Seth Location: Grand Rapids, MI Watch: 16613LB, 126610….. Posts: 994	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.

19 September 2006, 05:22 AM	#7
morgman "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Bay Area, CA Posts: 475	You should wait and get the GMT with solid gold links!!!

19 September 2006, 09:53 AM	#10
jaycee "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Real Name: John Location: Halesworth, UK Watch: GMT Master II Posts: 69	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.

19 September 2006, 10:29 AM	#13
Gedanken "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2005 Real Name: Sir Location: Melbourne Watch: F-series SD Posts: 8,589	That's volume, Craig - like I said, we have to account for density! __________________ You buy a Casio to make sure you're on time; you wear a Rolex because you don't have to be on time.

19 September 2006, 10:46 AM	#14
miner "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Perth, Australia Posts: 1,294	How does the song go.. The length times the breadth plus four fifths of the depth Was Pi R squared of F-All

19 September 2006, 09:34 PM	#20
Gedanken "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2005 Real Name: Sir Location: Melbourne Watch: F-series SD Posts: 8,589	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? __________________ You buy a Casio to make sure you're on time; you wear a Rolex because you don't have to be on time.

19 September 2006, 09:41 PM	#23
Gedanken "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2005 Real Name: Sir Location: Melbourne Watch: F-series SD Posts: 8,589	Seth, as Peter has pointed out in another thread, Rolex did not entirely switch to 904 SS. Some parts are still 316. __________________ You buy a Casio to make sure you're on time; you wear a Rolex because you don't have to be on time.

19 September 2006, 09:53 PM	#27
s7horton "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Real Name: Seth Location: Grand Rapids, MI Watch: 16613LB, 126610….. Posts: 994	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!

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)