1.5 Million 400 Troy Ounce Fake Tungsten Gold Bars - Goldfinger - A New Take On Operation Grand Slam

[newnewthing]

Re: 1.5 Million 400 Troy Ounce Fake Tungsten Gold Bars - Goldfinger - A New Take On Operation Grand

A magnetic field sort of "oozes" through a conductor. The more conductive a material is the slower it oozes. A superconductor actually prevents the magnetic field from entering it. Bulk conductivity can be measured by measuring the "ooze" speed. "B field" is EE terminology for the magnetic field much as "E field" is shorthand for the electric field. Vending machines actually use this effect to mechanically measure bulk resistivity of coins as one of the characteristics used to reject crude slugs.

I suspect the Gold depositories are quite experienced at detecting counterfeit bars.

[cobben]

Re: 1.5 Million 400 Troy Ounce Fake Tungsten Gold Bars - Goldfinger - A New Take On Operation Grand

"I suspect the Gold depositories are quite experienced at detecting counterfeit bars."

I think there was a very good reason why old ducat standard trade coin was light & very thin.

[Dr.No]

Re: 1.5 Million 400 Troy Ounce Fake Tungsten Gold Bars - Goldfinger - A New Take On Operation Grand

"I suspect the Gold depositories are quite experienced at detecting counterfeit bars."

I think there was a very good reason why old ducat standard trade coin was light & very thin.

Could it be that whoever is in charge of the vault(s) where these bars might reside (if they exist) know that they primarily consist of tungsten and have no interest in the rest of the world knowing about it?

[jpatter666]

Re: 1.5 Million 400 Troy Ounce Fake Tungsten Gold Bars - Goldfinger - A New Take On Operation Grand

Could it be that whoever is in charge of the vault(s) where these bars might reside (if they exist) know that they primarily consist of tungsten and have no interest in the rest of the world knowing about it?

Sigh....anyone know if GTU/CEF/BullionVault/GoldMoney have made any "we are absolutely certain we are not affected" declarations?

[xela]

Re: 1.5 Million 400 Troy Ounce Fake Tungsten Gold Bars - Goldfinger - A New Take On Operation Grand

Sigh....anyone know if GTU/CEF/BullionVault/GoldMoney have made any "we are absolutely certain we are not affected" declarations?

When buying at BullionVault they add this comment:

* Fine bullion is the 100% pure content of an actual assayed bar
which may contain impurities of up to a maximum of 1 part in 200.

So not worried.. hoping the ETFs got it all

[tmicou]

Re: 1.5 Million 400 Troy Ounce Fake Tungsten Gold Bars - Goldfinger - A New Take On Operation Grand

The following statement comes directly from BullionVault regarding the recent Fake Tungsten Gold Bars in the press:

[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']As you know, we send independent assayers into the vaults every year to check all the gold bars, and they send their report to our auditors who publish it – on their website – with the full financial audit.

To read the Assayer's Report
http://www.albertgoodman.co.uk/bullionvault/

Last year, the assayers were 100% satisfied with every bar. They are now due to return to the vaults later this month, coinciding with our 2009 financial audit. Meanwhile, we only ever accept bars from accredited vaults and refiners, and anyone who delivered us a gold bar which later turned out to be bad would be liable for the loss.

On top of that, we guarantee every gram of BullionVault gold ourselves:
http://bullionvault.com/help/terms_and_conditions.html#Warranted%20gold%20conte nt

With regards to the alleged tungsten fraud, such fakes could perhaps circulate outside the Good Delivery circuit. But it's unlikely that any such metal could ever make it into accredited storage.

Accredited custodians only take in bars from other accredited vaults, and metal only enters the system from accredited refiners. Even when they bear the correct bar stamps, large gold bars are not usually accepted from people outside the Good Delivery circuit, which is why taking a Good Delivery bar into private possession seriously dents its value. Any potential buyer, lacking the accredited storage history which ensures integrity, would rather deal accredited metal from an accredited source. It's this warranty -- that delivery is good -- which makes the professional wholesale market cost-efficient and liquid.

You can learn more about Good Delivery at the London Bullion Market Association (LBMA)'s website. You'll note just how exacting the criteria for refining and assaying are:
http://www.lbma.org.uk/delivery

The Physical Committee's detailed work on weighing scales is also worth reviewing. Because at these tolerances, the difference in density between gold and tungsten would show in a 400-ounce bar. Their very different melting points (1064°C for gold, 3422°C for tungsten) also make the alleged fakes unlikely, as do their physical states when cooled (gold is soft, tungsten brittle). Following back along the chain of integrity – the formal history of who held the bars, when, and in which approved facility – would ultimately lead to the producing refiner, and no amount of "tungsten" fakes would be worth the law suits, let alone the loss of LBMA accreditation.

As regards the rumours and stories themselves, "Impeccably reliable sources" would never tell an internet blogger that "a number of well-heeled market participants bought...gold futures on the London Bullion Market (LBMA)". Not because they wouldn't want to share such information, but for the simple reason that London dealers don't offer gold futures. Spot gold, forwards and options, yes. But futures, no.

Nor can anyone trade gold "on" the LBMA, because it is a trade association, not an exchange or the market itself. Nor is gold dealt at the London Metals Exchange (LME) as some authors state. It offers base-metal contracts.

Reliable sources of information would know this. They'd at least look it up before publishing.

Kind regards,
Adrian[/FONT]

[Dr.No]

More conspiracy theorizing, this time including silver (anyone got one on platinum or rhodium too?):

More conspiracy theorizing, this time including silver (anyone got one on platinum or rhodium too?):

http://news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1258527840.php

[Dr.No]

Gold in Euros, Zinc Dimes, Tungsten Gold & Lost Respect

http://news.goldseek.com/GoldenJackass/1258596000.php

[Charles Mackay]

Re: 1.5 Million 400 Troy Ounce Fake Tungsten Gold Bars - Goldfinger - A New Take On Operation Grand

Every day dozens of 400 oz bars are melted down and fabricated into coins, small bars and jewelery, etc. and no one has ever reported running across one of these tungsten bars.

There were these kinds of scares in the 70's bull market too. I'd guess that it's an isolated incident..

[ASH]

Re: 1.5 Million 400 Troy Ounce Fake Tungsten Gold Bars - Goldfinger - A New Take On Operation Grand

The Au layers on some electronic circuits, (connector fingers, PGA sockets, etc) are to provide corrosion resistant positive contact. They are significantly less conductive than the copper substrate they are on. Since they are thin in comparison, the voltage loss through the Au is negligible.

I'm a device guy rather than a circuit guy; I was talking about the contact metallurgy on the III-V compound semiconductor devices I make, which are all gold. I guess my experience with current flow into area contacts isn't a good guide for a lateral current flow problem.

It has been stated in this thread that it is impossible to directly measure the Gold bar bulk resistivity. It can be measured using 4 terminal techniques and sub microvolt DC meters. However, it is more easily measured using decaying B fields.

For the record, I wasn't one of those who was arguing that this couldn't be measured with the right equipment. Rather, I was wondering whether the difference in resistance would be perceptible with something really quick and dirty like an Ohmmeter in someone's garage. My thought was that maybe a fake would be something like a tungsten slug covered in a 1-mm skin of gold, and that the difference between "really conductive" (fake bar) and "really really conductive" (real bar) would be tough for the poorly-instrumented to measure.

For shits and giggles, I ran a finite element model of DC conduction in a "400-oz gold bar" with a 1-V potential difference between two 1-mm-square contact points separated by 1 cm. I ran the case both for a pure gold bar, and for a tungsten slug with a 1-mm-thick gold skin. You can definitely see the interface layer between Au and W in a logarithmic plot of current density. The simulation estimates the following difference in resistance between the two cases:

fake = 1.93E-5 Ohms
real = 1.57E-5 Ohms
delta = 3.6 micro-Ohms

So, if your test equipment can source something like an Amp and measure a voltage difference of a few micro-Volts, you're in business. (You, newnewthing, seem to speak from a position of some experience, so it is actually kind of gratifying to find that I get the same order of magnitude with a simulation; often one can't perform a proper sanity check when simulating a problem outside their experience.)

[ggirod]

Re: 1.5 Million 400 Troy Ounce Fake Tungsten Gold Bars - Goldfinger - A New Take On Operation Grand

However, it is more easily measured using decaying B fields....................
fake = 1.93E-5 Ohms
real = 1.57E-5 Ohms
delta = 3.6 micro-Ohms

Notes to NewThing and Ash - it is really humbling to participate in an economics discussion and find ideas like yours expressed. I guess that is what I like about iTulip. Between decaying B fields and actual simulation of bulk conductivity, the whole problem is resolved several times over - no fuss no bother. Thank you.

[waysouth]

Re: 1.5 Million 400 Troy Ounce Fake Tungsten Gold Bars - Goldfinger - A New Take On Operation Grand

Just talked to the local mint manager here

Told me you can't fabricate tungsten coins as tungsten is too hard to strike with a die

Go the coins!

[ASH]

Re: 1.5 Million 400 Troy Ounce Fake Tungsten Gold Bars - Goldfinger - A New Take On Operation Grand

Notes to NewThing and Ash - it is really humbling to participate in an economics discussion and find ideas like yours expressed. I guess that is what I like about iTulip. Between decaying B fields and actual simulation of bulk conductivity, the whole problem is resolved several times over - no fuss no bother. Thank you.

Back at you, ggirod. Frankly, I found your contribution to be more physically interesting than mine, and I found contributions from those who already knew about acoustic and other test methods to be more useful than mine, as was Newnewthing's contribution. But at least I have a nifty simulation tool to play with!

[LargoWinch]

Re: 1.5 Million 400 Troy Ounce Fake Tungsten Gold Bars - Goldfinger - A New Take On Operation Grand

Howard J. Ruff on Tungsten (and gold)...

[newnewthing]

Re: 1.5 Million 400 Troy Ounce Fake Tungsten Gold Bars - Goldfinger - A New Take On Operation Grand

Ash,

Your simulation seems about right. Cool tool. Yeah, us circuit types are more likely to use Spice(analog) and Matlab(digital/synthesis).

PS: I loved the steam tunnels.