Applying scientific principle and technique to a highly subjective ‘subject’ is as old as scientific inquiry; and still false. Professional coin graders often can’t agree on what is AT vs. NT and many would propose that there is no fundamental difference other than intent.
There is this pesky little issue of positive and negative controls. TPN does not own enough coins to create a statistically significant control group, and that the control group would be defined by TPN would doom the results to ‘garbage in, garbage out’ kind of experimentation. This is not a comment on TPN’s abilities but merely recognition of the most common mistake in scientific inquiry. That is to say, if the control group being used to calibrate this method cannot even be adequately defined as AT/NT than what is the validity of the data generated using the control group?
If this is true- “it will require a rather large database of analysis for comparison purposes.” Than we aren’t talking about a “FINALLY -- a scientific test to determine AT vs. NT!” But more like two guy’s comparative database.
"We are working on a way to test the coins through the slabs as well." This statement suggests maybe a light scattering device or IR beam both of which will require knowing precisely the density, thickness, and composition of the holder and the volume of air trapped above the coin in the slab for ‘each individual sample being analyzed.’ Since the TPG’s all have different plastic compositions that most likely have changed over the years, this subset of data would be nearly impossible to compile. The volume of ‘air’ trapped above the coin will be an individual variable and would most certainly make the above techniques worthless.
"Some of the other posters are right on the mark with their understanding of the technology involved." Maybe I missed the post where the technology involved was discussed.
Oh wait, while composing this thread I see a scientific looking chart given with no interpretation of results. This must be science.
<< <i>This chemist thinks your chemist friend is full of it. >>
Wouldn't smoeone who makes such a statement be expected to be able to back up that statement? >>
I can tell if the sperm from a sex crime kit came from a particular suspect. I can not tell if the sex was consentual or not. We've got the same kind of situation here. More information is needed to support any claims of consentual or forced toning.
Obviously no test will ever be able to show the intent of the previous owners of coins. But it is entirely possible to see the "fingerprints" of the various methods used to tone and oth- erwise doctor coins. There is likely to be far more work involved with this than appears to be the case. The biggest problem is that the "doctors" will simply have to keep making changes in the process to keep ahead of the technology to detect it.
This would be a benefit to the hobby and a larger benefit to those who prefer NT coins to AT.
TWQG is giving his informed opinion, not making a statement. The claim made in this thread is a statement, and that is what needs to be substantiated. I agree with him and DNADave that a burst of electromagnetic radiation of some wavelength probably is being used to excite the outer ring of electrons of the toning compounds, and the energy given off when they return to normal states will be measured and ID's can be made, both qualitatively and quantitatively. But even if the problems TWQG points out in trying to do it accurately within a slab, and the problems adhering to accepted methods of statistical analysis, are both overcome, the overriding question that leads to this pursuit will not have been answered. That is the question of intent. And you will be where you started.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
I dont see "intent" as being an issue. For most of you that are huge up on intent, why does it really matter? Replication should be the deciding factor. Even if I intend to tone coins the old fashion way and put them into albums or envelopes, do you really think all of the coins are going to turn out to be monsters? Have I ATd my coins by putting them in albums? Even if I placed them on a window sill, in a hot humid climate, it still might not give me the results I want. Trust me I tried. I have a bunch of coins in Watye Raymond Albums. I'll be long dead before I make a profit on the colors.
However, if I figure out a way to apply chemicals and heat to the surface of a coin to produce beautiful colors, now I have intent as well as replication. And thats where the problem lies. It isn't in intent. The doctors producing the wild colors on coins are not doing it the old fashion way and letting their coins sit in albums for years. Wheres the profit in that? They are devising chemicals and patterns that mimic natural toning in order to get them into slabs -- not 1 coin, but many. Hence the "Hoards" we so often hear about.
As for DNA's statement about rape and sperm, if you find the sperm of 1 man on 12 dead women -- do you really need to know the intent of the accused before the DA's office charges him with rape and murder. Intent is not something that can ever be absolutely proven in any situation. But we do convict people all of the time of mens rea crimes when the actions of that individual make intent rather clear. You can certainly infer intent from a totality of the circumstances.
I remember not so long ago a particular Ebay seller that was rather prolifict with AT coins was crucified on these same Boards for getting better and better at his craft. He even managed to get a few past NGC quite possibly. Did anyone know his intent before he was publically tried and convicted? He never listed or sold a single coin as naturally toned. Therefore he never really did defraud anyone, but we all here wanted to string him up.
Now I say that its possible to determine for a fact that his coins were AT, and now it wont matter because he never had the intent to tone coins and defraud people.
TPN - I don't understand what "binding energy" is, but it smells like it would be either proportional or inversely proportional to the speed with which the coin gained its color. Please enlighten me as best you can.
Also, with respect to:
We might also provide analysis for other doctoring such as artifical frost, putty, thumbing, and lasering metal.
Wouldn't it be far easier to start with trying to detect "artificial frost, putty, thumbing, and lasering metal"? AT detection could come later.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<<"TWQG is giving his informed opinion, not making a statement.">>
Is it too much to ask him to back up the "informed" part of that or is saying that someone is fulla crap adequate. If you say that my coin is not a 63 without telling me why it is not yer opinion means little.
TPN - I don't understand what "binding energy" is, but it smells like it would be either proportional or inversely proportional to the speed with which the coin gained its color. Please enlighten me as best you can.
Don't think so. More like a function of the composition of the toning.
The best this method will do is give a 'fingerprint' that possibly could be used to raise suspicion about the environment that created the toning. For instance, if the toning contained Arsenic [or some other rare element not commonly found], you'd have a tough time thinking it was natural.
No I'm not blind. No one is really worried about controls and all that other stuff at this point. The first thing to be ascertained is whether or not the specific method to be used could differentiate the toning caused by treatment with elemental sulfur or if some other sulfur bearing compound was used instead. If the toning was caused by sodium sulfide instead of thioglycolic acid for instance the test method should be able to show that. If the test can show the presence of compounds that were not known to be used in the manufacture of canvas, then that might suggest that the coin was not a bag toned coin. Do you understand the premise now?
Thanks for linking to this from the "Take a look..." thread.
It's very interesting and I hope it works. With the current cost of doing the test ($200), it won't help a lot of buyers unless volume brings the price way down, and hopefully it would be licensed by PCGS so you wouldn't have to submit a toned coin to two different places.
More science is good.
-Bob collections: Maryland related coins & exonumia, 7070 Type set, and Video Arcade Tokens. The Low Budget Y2K Registry Set
Always took candy from strangers Didn't wanna get me no trade Never want to be like papa Working for the boss every night and day --"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
<< <i>interesting; can you provide more detail? >>
Once I can get this rolling I'd be happy to. I will post results from the test and a full explanation of everything on my website, hopefully in the next 6 months.
<< <i>With the current cost of doing the test ($200), it won't help a lot of buyers unless volume brings the price way down >>
The price will come down with volume, but this isn't a test for lower priced coins. At this point I would love just to have this accepted by the community as a viable test to determine th origins of the toning/alteration of a coin's surface.
TPN, Best of luck on this highly ambitious endeavour. I believe a method of determination will eventually be discovered, it seems to me that there has to be a difference between a composition that took a week to create as opposed to one that occured over 60 years. Not to mention the foreign substances that are added to create color should be detectable. I look forward to watching this work progress, and hope you are onto something! I am surprised at some of the negative responses, especially those from the 'scientific' world. With so little information provided to us, how can you possibly make a blanket statement that it can't (or can) be done? There are not enough facts to base a decision one way or the other on. Really not much different than old Chris Columbus heard about falling off the edge of the world............. I mean, everyone knew the world was flat, right?
First, we don't see objects - we see the light that is reflected off of objects.
Light is electromagnetic radiation and humans only “see” a small portion of the entire spectrum (we can’t see X-rays for example)
Color is how our brains interpret different frequencies of visible light by the signals that “cone” receptors in our eyes send to the brain.
So a toned coin is perceived in our brain because light has been shone on the coin, and the surface of the coin has changed the frequency of that light so when it hits our eyes our brain will convert it as a color.
How do you change the frequency of the light? You need to bounce it around in a prism. Little prisms can be made on the surface of a coin by adding molecules that can line up so that the frequency of the light is changed as it is bounced around on the surface before reaching our eyes.
Einstein’s Universe e=mc2 Einstein told us there is only one thing in the universe. Matter is energy at rest. E=m. As the energy from the “Big Bang” cooled, it formed all of the matter in our universe. Hydrogen atoms formed and gathered together and went through the fusion process by becoming stars, each time becoming a heavier element as protons are added.
The mass of any nucleus is less than the sum of the separate masses of its protons and neutrons. In other words, sticking protons and neutrons together somehow causes some of their mass to vanish into thin air. (but we know it is actually converted to energy)
The "binding energy" of a particular isotope is the amount of energy released at its creation; you can calculate it by finding the amount of mass that "disappears" and using Einstein's equation. The binding energy is also the amount of energy you'd need to add to a nucleus to break it up into protons and neutrons again; the larger the binding energy, the more difficult that would be.
So how does work for telling a coin has been “Artificially” Toned? First you would have to define what “Natural” toning is, i.e. how did the molecules on the surface of the coin get there? By measuring the “binding energy” you could tell which isotopes are present. If you had a reference of a rate of decay you could possibly calculate how long they have been there. But it won’t tell you how they got there.
If an artist uses red paint to create a masterpiece we see red in his painting. If he spills a drop of red paint on the carpet, it is just as red.
Where your science is wrong
<< <i>I'm going to be submitting 10 coins to him for analysis, 5 that have been bodybagged by PCGS for artifical color and 5 that have been certified as authentic, natural toning. >>
So how does work for telling a coin has been “Artificially” Toned? First you would have to define what “Natural” toning is, i.e. how did the molecules on the surface of the coin get there? By measuring the “binding energy” you could tell which isotopes are present. If you had a reference of a rate of decay you could possibly calculate how long they have been there. But it won’t tell you how they got there.
If an artist uses red paint to create a masterpiece we see red in his painting. If he spills a drop of red paint on the carpet, it is just as red.
A tautology in logic means that your conclusion can be logically derived from your premises. It doesn’t mean that your conclusion is true. If your premises are false, you will reach the wrong conclusion.
For example: All frogs are green; Kermit is a frog; Therefore Kermit is Green.
That is a tautology (it is truth-functionally true). But the premise is wrong. Not all frogs are green.
If you want to take 5 coins returned as “Questionable Color” from PCGS and 5 PCGS graded coins and measure the isotopes present and conclude that a certain profile exists based on this sample, you will soon learn that “Not all frogs are green”.
The ONLY way to KNOW if a coin has toned naturally is to have followed it everywhere since if left the mint. If it was never in an environment that is deemed not a “normal way to store coins” then it would be NT and otherwise it is not.
The worst part of your premise is that PCGS gets it right.
If that is the basis of your scientifc method of detecting NT coins, you'll have to also define NT as being submitted enough times until it gets slabbed.
Relayer -- not true, this is where you fail. I'm not trying to prove a hypothesis. I doing an analysis and allowing the results to lead where they may. Many scientific hypothesis fail because they all start with a premise that someone is trying to prove or disprove something. Either you're right or you're wrong.
If you start with this is a coin thats NT or AT, you might be disappointed in what you find. I will allow the test to determine what is NT and what is AT.
Think of it this way. You think your leg is broken. You cant tell for sure. You have an x-ray taken of your leg. Its a diagnostic test, either it will confirm or deny the leg as broken. The results rarely lie, though you might have a hairline fracture, otherwise the test doesn't lie. Hypothesis lie. I'm not trying to "prove" what NT is, therefore I dont have to define it. I think, like an x-ray, once interpreted the results will define what has been undefinable until now.
However, if you dont believe me, thats fine, these arent my thoughts these are from a Phd that has worked in the field of surface analysis for greater than 20 years and owns his own business doing just that for major defense contractors and aerospace companies.
Look how science is presented in a courtroom. They don't testify that "This is OJ's DNA" they say "The probability that someone else other than OJ (and his twin) would have this DNA is 1 in 5 billion"
Say a bag of 1000 Morgans is found in a Mint today that can be verfied to have been sitting there for 150 years. Everyone agrees they are NT.
You run them through the gaunkulator and it determines they all have characteristics "abcd" so that becomes your baseline.
You AT some 150-year-old coins and run those through the gaunulator and they all have characteristics "abcde", so you conclude a AT coin has a different characteristic.
But later a collector dies and you run his 100-year-old album stored coins through the gaunkulator and find some have "abcd" , some "abce", some "abcde" so you expand your definition of NT. But now your "abcde" coins are NT.
The point is the gaunkulator doesn't go back in time to see all the places this coin has been.
The guankulator can only measure characteristics of the coin. Those charactersistics have to be interpreted by the gaunkulator operator based on rules.
Just like the PCGS graders use the rules in their minds to give their opinion if the coin is AT or NT.
So the guankulator can only automate the process of the PCGS graders assuming that (a) NT coins have consistent characteristics different from AT coins and (b) the 10 coin base is enough to teach the guankulator these rules and (c) the opinions of the PCGS graders are always correct.
That's not science. That's an automated guessing machine.
<< <i>Look how science is presented in a courtroom. They don't testify that "This is OJ's DNA" they say "The probability that someone else other than OJ (and his twin) would have this DNA is 1 in 5 billion" >>
FWIW You might be surprised to find out that the numbers are now 1 in several quadrillion and we now say that it is a unique identification (except for maternal twins or clones, of course)
<< <i>You might be surprised to find out that the numbers are now 1 in several quadrillion and we now say that it is a unique identification (except for maternal twins or clones, of course) >>
Unfortunately I heard a report recently that a study showed the numbers are more like 1 in 100 of a DNA match being correct. Not because of the science but because of the sloppy handling from when it's collected, stored and processed.
And for the guankulator to be accepted as science, we would need to know how often the gaunkulator is correct.
TPN, what is the probability that the guankulator will give a correct answer for any given coin?
Okay Relayer -- you're unentitled to your opinion. I'm just not sure how educated of an opinion it is, but it is yours and I'm sure thats your absolute truth. So stick with it. I'm sure somewhere in your family lineage there was a Phineas Relayer telling the Salem town fathers to burn Sarah Good and Sarah Osborne since they didn't float and thus they had to be a witches.
If nothing else, this thread has at least has cause some in the community to start thinking about applying scientific principles to certain issues that have not been adequately address as of this point in time.
<< <i>Unfortunately I heard a report recently that a study showed the numbers are more like 1 in 100 of a DNA match being correct. Not because of the science but because of the sloppy handling from when it's collected, stored and processed. >>
Link please?
I heard they were making a French version of Medal of Honor. I wonder how many hotkeys it'll have for "surrender."
<< <i>If that is the case we'd just have to worship the guankulator and never question it's results. >>
Ahhhhh.....patience Grasshopper.........patience.
Progress takes time and before I reveal everything, I just might want to see if there's some money to be made in this. With the right guankulator many people have become wealthy. If you dont try to build a better mousetrap, no one will ever beat a path to your door.
Be patience, others that I know are now working on other technology as well. Perhaps we can come together and solve problems instead of pointing out inconsistency.
Either you're part of the solution or the problem. I'd try to line up with the solution side.
I'm not even a chemist and I know some of the "scientists" here flunked the test. I have seen and worked with charts like the one shown above. Some should put their thinking caps on, because they don't know that they don't know.
Comments
Applying scientific principle and technique to a highly subjective ‘subject’ is as old as scientific inquiry; and still false. Professional coin graders often can’t agree on what is AT vs. NT and many would propose that there is no fundamental difference other than intent.
There is this pesky little issue of positive and negative controls. TPN does not own enough coins to create a statistically significant control group, and that the control group would be defined by TPN would doom the results to ‘garbage in, garbage out’ kind of experimentation. This is not a comment on TPN’s abilities but merely recognition of the most common mistake in scientific inquiry. That is to say, if the control group being used to calibrate this method cannot even be adequately defined as AT/NT than what is the validity of the data generated using the control group?
If this is true- “it will require a rather large database of analysis for comparison purposes.” Than we aren’t talking about a “FINALLY -- a scientific test to determine AT vs. NT!” But more like two guy’s comparative database.
"We are working on a way to test the coins through the slabs as well." This statement suggests maybe a light scattering device or IR beam both of which will require knowing precisely the density, thickness, and composition of the holder and the volume of air trapped above the coin in the slab for ‘each individual sample being analyzed.’ Since the TPG’s all have different plastic compositions that most likely have changed over the years, this subset of data would be nearly impossible to compile. The volume of ‘air’ trapped above the coin will be an individual variable and would most certainly make the above techniques worthless.
"Some of the other posters are right on the mark with their understanding of the technology involved." Maybe I missed the post where the technology involved was discussed.
Oh wait, while composing this thread I see a scientific looking chart given with no interpretation of results. This must be science.
<< <i>
<< <i>This chemist thinks your chemist friend is full of it. >>
Wouldn't smoeone who makes such a statement be expected to be able to back up that statement? >>
I can tell if the sperm from a sex crime kit came from a particular suspect. I can not tell if the sex was consentual or not. We've got the same kind of situation here. More information is needed to support any claims of consentual or forced toning.
it is entirely possible to see the "fingerprints" of the various methods used to tone and oth-
erwise doctor coins. There is likely to be far more work involved with this than appears to be
the case. The biggest problem is that the "doctors" will simply have to keep making changes
in the process to keep ahead of the technology to detect it.
This would be a benefit to the hobby and a larger benefit to those who prefer NT coins to AT.
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
However, if I figure out a way to apply chemicals and heat to the surface of a coin to produce beautiful colors, now I have intent as well as replication. And thats where the problem lies. It isn't in intent. The doctors producing the wild colors on coins are not doing it the old fashion way and letting their coins sit in albums for years. Wheres the profit in that? They are devising chemicals and patterns that mimic natural toning in order to get them into slabs -- not 1 coin, but many. Hence the "Hoards" we so often hear about.
As for DNA's statement about rape and sperm, if you find the sperm of 1 man on 12 dead women -- do you really need to know the intent of the accused before the DA's office charges him with rape and murder. Intent is not something that can ever be absolutely proven in any situation. But we do convict people all of the time of mens rea crimes when the actions of that individual make intent rather clear. You can certainly infer intent from a totality of the circumstances.
I remember not so long ago a particular Ebay seller that was rather prolifict with AT coins was crucified on these same Boards for getting better and better at his craft. He even managed to get a few past NGC quite possibly. Did anyone know his intent before he was publically tried and convicted? He never listed or sold a single coin as naturally toned. Therefore he never really did defraud anyone, but we all here wanted to string him up.
Now I say that its possible to determine for a fact that his coins were AT, and now it wont matter because he never had the intent to tone coins and defraud people.
Amazing!
TPN
If I had it my way, stupidity would be painful!
Also, with respect to:
We might also provide analysis for other doctoring such as artifical frost, putty, thumbing, and lasering metal.
Wouldn't it be far easier to start with trying to detect "artificial frost, putty, thumbing, and lasering metal"? AT detection could come later.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Is it too much to ask him to back up the "informed" part of that or is saying that someone is fulla crap adequate. If you say that my coin is not a 63 without telling me why it is not yer opinion means little.
<< <i>Is it too much to ask him to back up the "informed" >>
Dude, are you blind?
Don't think so. More like a function of the composition of the toning.
The best this method will do is give a 'fingerprint' that possibly could be used to raise suspicion about the environment that created the toning. For instance, if the toning contained Arsenic [or some other rare element not commonly found], you'd have a tough time thinking it was natural.
It's very interesting and I hope it works. With the current cost of doing the test ($200), it won't help a lot of buyers unless volume brings the price way down, and hopefully it would be licensed by PCGS so you wouldn't have to submit a toned coin to two different places.
More science is good.
collections: Maryland related coins & exonumia, 7070 Type set, and Video Arcade Tokens.
The Low Budget Y2K Registry Set
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
<< <i>interesting; can you provide more detail? >>
Once I can get this rolling I'd be happy to. I will post results from the test and a full explanation of everything on my website, hopefully in the next 6 months.
<< <i>With the current cost of doing the test ($200), it won't help a lot of buyers unless volume brings the price way down >>
The price will come down with volume, but this isn't a test for lower priced coins. At this point I would love just to have this accepted by the community as a viable test to determine th origins of the toning/alteration of a coin's surface.
TPN
I believe a method of determination will eventually be discovered, it seems to me that there has to be a difference between a composition that took a week to create as opposed to one that occured over 60 years. Not to mention the foreign substances that are added to create color should be detectable. I look forward to watching this work progress, and hope you are onto something!
I am surprised at some of the negative responses, especially those from the 'scientific' world. With so little information provided to us, how can you possibly make a blanket statement that it can't (or can) be done? There are not enough facts to base a decision one way or the other on. Really not much different than old Chris Columbus heard about falling off the edge of the world............. I mean, everyone knew the world was flat, right?
First, we don't see objects - we see the light that is reflected off of objects.
Light is electromagnetic radiation and humans only “see” a small portion of the entire spectrum (we can’t see X-rays for example)
Color is how our brains interpret different frequencies of visible light by the signals that “cone” receptors in our eyes send to the brain.
So a toned coin is perceived in our brain because light has been shone on the coin, and the surface of the coin has changed the frequency of that light so when it hits our eyes our brain will convert it as a color.
How do you change the frequency of the light?
You need to bounce it around in a prism. Little prisms can be made on the surface of a coin by adding molecules that can line up so that the frequency of the light is changed as it is bounced around on the surface before reaching our eyes.
Einstein’s Universe e=mc2
Einstein told us there is only one thing in the universe. Matter is energy at rest. E=m.
As the energy from the “Big Bang” cooled, it formed all of the matter in our universe. Hydrogen atoms formed and gathered together and went through the fusion process by becoming stars, each time becoming a heavier element as protons are added.
The mass of any nucleus is less than the sum of the separate masses of its protons and neutrons. In other words, sticking protons and neutrons together somehow causes some of their mass to vanish into thin air. (but we know it is actually converted to energy)
The "binding energy" of a particular isotope is the amount of energy released at its creation; you can calculate it by finding the amount of mass that "disappears" and using Einstein's equation. The binding energy is also the amount of energy you'd need to add to a nucleus to break it up into protons and neutrons again; the larger the binding energy, the more difficult that would be.
So how does work for telling a coin has been “Artificially” Toned?
First you would have to define what “Natural” toning is, i.e. how did the molecules on the surface of the coin get there? By measuring the “binding energy” you could tell which isotopes are present. If you had a reference of a rate of decay you could possibly calculate how long they have been there. But it won’t tell you how they got there.
If an artist uses red paint to create a masterpiece we see red in his painting. If he spills a drop of red paint on the carpet, it is just as red.
Where your science is wrong
<< <i>I'm going to be submitting 10 coins to him for analysis, 5 that have been bodybagged by PCGS for artifical color and 5 that have been certified as authentic, natural toning. >>
So how does work for telling a coin has been “Artificially” Toned?
First you would have to define what “Natural” toning is, i.e. how did the molecules on the surface of the coin get there? By measuring the “binding energy” you could tell which isotopes are present. If you had a reference of a rate of decay you could possibly calculate how long they have been there. But it won’t tell you how they got there.
If an artist uses red paint to create a masterpiece we see red in his painting. If he spills a drop of red paint on the carpet, it is just as red.
A tautology in logic means that your conclusion can be logically derived from your premises. It doesn’t mean that your conclusion is true. If your premises are false, you will reach the wrong conclusion.
For example: All frogs are green; Kermit is a frog; Therefore Kermit is Green.
That is a tautology (it is truth-functionally true). But the premise is wrong. Not all frogs are green.
If you want to take 5 coins returned as “Questionable Color” from PCGS and 5 PCGS graded coins and measure the isotopes present and conclude that a certain profile exists based on this sample, you will soon learn that “Not all frogs are green”.
The ONLY way to KNOW if a coin has toned naturally is to have followed it everywhere since if left the mint. If it was never in an environment that is deemed not a “normal way to store coins” then it would be NT and otherwise it is not.
The worst part of your premise is that PCGS gets it right.
If that is the basis of your scientifc method of detecting NT coins, you'll have to also define NT as being submitted enough times until it gets slabbed.
My posts viewed
since 8/1/6
If you start with this is a coin thats NT or AT, you might be disappointed in what you find. I will allow the test to determine what is NT and what is AT.
Think of it this way. You think your leg is broken. You cant tell for sure. You have an x-ray taken of your leg. Its a diagnostic test, either it will confirm or deny the leg as broken. The results rarely lie, though you might have a hairline fracture, otherwise the test doesn't lie. Hypothesis lie. I'm not trying to "prove" what NT is, therefore I dont have to define it. I think, like an x-ray, once interpreted the results will define what has been undefinable until now.
However, if you dont believe me, thats fine, these arent my thoughts these are from a Phd that has worked in the field of surface analysis for greater than 20 years and owns his own business doing just that for major defense contractors and aerospace companies.
TPN
Look how science is presented in a courtroom. They don't testify that "This is OJ's DNA" they say "The probability that someone else other than OJ (and his twin) would have this DNA is 1 in 5 billion"
Say a bag of 1000 Morgans is found in a Mint today that can be verfied to have been sitting there for 150 years. Everyone agrees they are NT.
You run them through the gaunkulator and it determines they all have characteristics "abcd" so that becomes your baseline.
You AT some 150-year-old coins and run those through the gaunulator and they all have characteristics "abcde", so you conclude a AT coin has a different characteristic.
But later a collector dies and you run his 100-year-old album stored coins through the gaunkulator and find some have "abcd" , some "abce", some "abcde" so you expand your definition of NT. But now your "abcde" coins are NT.
The point is the gaunkulator doesn't go back in time to see all the places this coin has been.
The guankulator can only measure characteristics of the coin. Those charactersistics have to be interpreted by the gaunkulator operator based on rules.
Just like the PCGS graders use the rules in their minds to give their opinion if the coin is AT or NT.
So the guankulator can only automate the process of the PCGS graders assuming that (a) NT coins have consistent characteristics different from AT coins and (b) the 10 coin base is enough to teach the guankulator these rules and (c) the opinions of the PCGS graders are always correct.
That's not science. That's an automated guessing machine.
My posts viewed
since 8/1/6
<< <i>Look how science is presented in a courtroom. They don't testify that "This is OJ's DNA" they say "The probability that someone else other than OJ (and his twin) would have this DNA is 1 in 5 billion" >>
FWIW
You might be surprised to find out that the numbers are now 1 in several quadrillion and we now say that it is a unique identification (except for maternal twins or clones, of course)
<< <i>You might be surprised to find out that the numbers are now 1 in several quadrillion and we now say that it is a unique identification (except for maternal twins or clones, of course) >>
Unfortunately I heard a report recently that a study showed the numbers are more like 1 in 100 of a DNA match being correct. Not because of the science but because of the sloppy handling from when it's collected, stored and processed.
And for the guankulator to be accepted as science, we would need to know how often the gaunkulator is correct.
TPN, what is the probability that the guankulator will give a correct answer for any given coin?
My posts viewed
since 8/1/6
If nothing else, this thread has at least has cause some in the community to start thinking about applying scientific principles to certain issues that have not been adequately address as of this point in time.
TPN
Science is measurable, repeatable and verifiable.
I have no doubt behind the science of measuring the characteristics.
It’s the interpretation of the results where the rules of science need to be applied.
A lie detector can measure your pulse, heartbeat, breathing, etc. That is science.
Interpreting what you measured into if someone is lying or not is an opinion.
That is the difference.
My posts viewed
since 8/1/6
<< <i>this thread has at least has cause some in the community to start thinking about applying scientific principles to certain issues >>
And that's a good point. The first part of the process is an idea being proposed, then it can be analyed and tested.
So the TPN Theory of AT Coin Detection is out there now.
It would be a good Theory if you phrased it as "I think I can detect AT coins from NT coins BECAUSE..."
If you can't explain the process, then it's a black-box where you put a coin in and if it comes out one slot it's AT and the other slot is NT.
If that is the case we'd just have to worship the guankulator and never question it's results.
My posts viewed
since 8/1/6
<< <i>Unfortunately I heard a report recently that a study showed the numbers are more like 1 in 100 of a DNA match being correct. Not because of the science but because of the sloppy handling from when it's collected, stored and processed. >>
Link please?
<< <i>If that is the case we'd just have to worship the guankulator and never question it's results. >>
Ahhhhh.....patience Grasshopper.........patience.
Progress takes time and before I reveal everything, I just might want to see if there's some money to be made in this.
With the right guankulator many people have become wealthy. If you dont try to build a better mousetrap, no one will ever beat a path to your door.
Be patience, others that I know are now working on other technology as well. Perhaps we can come together and solve problems instead of pointing out inconsistency.
Either you're part of the solution or the problem. I'd try to line up with the solution side.
TPN
<< <i>Link Please >>
I dunno, I head it on the radio. If there were only some way to seach for Information on the Internet.
DNA Test Results
My posts viewed
since 8/1/6
<< <i>If you dont try to build a better mousetrap, no one will ever beat a path to your door. >>
You should tell that to the guy who's built a better mousetrap. It turns out that things only have to be "good enough".
You should apply for a patent then (but you do have to explain how it works in order to get a patent)
I wouldn't invest too much money in the gaunkulator until you get past the art of interpreting the results, though.
My posts viewed
since 8/1/6
I wouldn't invest too much money
Can you not see the price is right?
It appears that the powers that be have silenced this important scientific device.
I bet it's the same group that prevents cars from getting 500 MPG.
My posts viewed
since 8/1/6