# Heard of Apple Gold yet?



## macfixer01 (Sep 23, 2015)

This could sure muddy the waters if this type of material is eventually adopted by other manufacturers or jewelers.

https://shar.es/176uf1

Macfixer01


----------



## nickvc (Sep 23, 2015)

I think someone was getting a little muddled up at the end of that article when they claimed that a Rolex of exactly the same weight would contain more gold, to be 18k it has to have 75% gold by weight, I think what they meant to say is that if two watches of exactly the same design were weighed the one made of Apple good would be lighter because of the ceramic alloying.
It won't make any difference to recovery or refining only that items will be lighter.


----------



## kurtak (Sep 23, 2015)

What I am wondering is what the problems "might" be when trying to refine it ?

is the ceramic going to be so fine that it goes through filters (colloid fine) will it settle out &/or floc out - if not it will drag down & wont wash out in your HC wash &/or filter pugging problems (ultra fine ceramic is a filtering nightmare)

Edit to ad; smelting might be a "must do" to slag off the ceramic 

Kurt


----------



## macfixer01 (Sep 23, 2015)

nickvc said:


> I think someone was getting a little muddled up at the end of that article when they claimed that a Rolex of exactly the same weight would contain more gold, to be 18k it has to have 75% gold by weight, I think what they meant to say is that if two watches of exactly the same design were weighed the one made of Apple good would be lighter because of the ceramic alloying.
> It won't make any difference to recovery or refining only that items will be lighter.




Yes it would make more sense to say that a Rolex of identical Size would contain more gold due to the lower density of the ceramic "alloy".


----------



## goldenchild (Sep 24, 2015)

"The low-density ceramic material takes up more space than any metal would. This allows Apple to use less gold, but still make up the 75% required to call it 18-karat gold."

This makes no sense. Are they using 

24k gold together with 25% ceramic 
or 
x amount of 18k gold with x amount of ceramic? 

I'd have to guess the latter if they are to keep the watches in a somewhat (I say somewhat because this is apple we are talking about) affordable price range for mass consumption.

This article does a much better job breaking it down. http://leancrew.com/all-this/2015/03/apple-gold/ Ironically apple products made of this new material will probably cost more than if they were made of an actual 18k alloy!


----------



## nickvc (Sep 24, 2015)

goldenchild said:


> "The low-density ceramic material takes up more space than any metal would. This allows Apple to use less gold, but still make up the 75% required to call it 18-karat gold."
> 
> This makes no sense. Are they using
> 
> ...



They would have to use fine gold as if you had 18k to start then add ceramic it would lower the actual gold content to below 18k and especially here in the UK it would have to be 75% Au or above to be hallmarked. I'd guess they are adding metals to the alloys to obtain the right colour and then using the ceramic to top off the balance, 9k casting alloys in the UK contain small amounts of silicon which helps the metal to flow better and get good castings so it's not a new idea, I'm wondering if they are using zirconium ceramic to toughen the metal as its light and very hard :?:


----------



## goldenchild (Sep 24, 2015)

nickvc said:


> They would have to use fine gold as if you had 18k to start then add ceramic it would lower the actual gold content to below 18k and especially here in the UK it would have to be 75% Au or above to be hallmarked. I'd guess they are adding metals to the alloys to obtain the right colour and then using the ceramic to top off the balance, 9k casting alloys in the UK contain small amounts of silicon which helps the metal to flow better and get good castings so it's not a new idea, I'm wondering if they are using zirconium ceramic to toughen the metal as its light and very hard :?:



I'm thinking of this from a marketing standpoint. There's now way they would be using an actual 18k "alloy". That would make the watch astronomically expensive. I think it will be a mostly ceramic watch with a small amount of 18k alloy. They will call this an 18k watch even though it's technically not an 18k watch. Sort of like the 24k phones that don't have any gold in it what's so ever. I could be wrong though. We will have to wait and see. Who will be the first on this forum to refine one?


----------



## FrugalRefiner (Sep 24, 2015)

goldenchild said:


> "The low-density ceramic material takes up more space than any metal would. This allows Apple to use less gold, but still make up the 75% required to call it 18-karat gold."
> 
> This makes no sense.


Maybe I'm reading it differently, but it does to me. 

If you make an 18K alloy of gold and platinum, it will be much more dense than an 18K alloy made of gold and aluminum. The gold and aluminum alloy will be less dense than the gold platinum alloy, so you would use less of it, by weight, for a given casting, like a watch case. 

I'm sure this isn't the watch most consumers will buy, but for those to whom price doesn't matter, it will be a new geegaw they can try to impress their friends with.

Dave


----------



## goldenchild (Sep 24, 2015)

FrugalRefiner said:


> Maybe I'm reading it differently, but it does to me.
> 
> If you make an 18K alloy of gold and platinum, it will be much more dense than an 18K alloy made of gold and aluminum. The gold and aluminum alloy will be less dense than the gold platinum alloy, so you would use less of it, by weight, for a given casting, like a watch case.
> 
> ...



It's confusing all around but the part that stuck out to me most is using "less gold" to make 18k. For 18k the gold content has to be 3:1 no matter what. So if there were say 25 grams of ceramic there would have to be 75 grams of gold. You cant call it 18k if there is anything less than 75 grams of gold. That's why I'm thinking they are going to use a predetermined ratio of 18k gold alloy together with a predetermined amount of ceramic and market it as an "18k product".

ETA: I think I finally get what everyone is saying :lol: but I still would like to see what the end product really is.


----------



## Anonymous (Sep 24, 2015)

I think what they mean is that 100g of 18K "apple gold" takes up an awful lot more space than 100g of 18k regular gold.


----------



## patnor1011 (Sep 24, 2015)

If I understand this correctly then it is a form of getting "cheaper" gold. Like when you take the same size bracelets the one made from apple gold will have in fact less gold in it than regular alloy. So people can go around with thicker chains and rings showing "wealth". Then I see people being careful to buy such stuff secondhand as it will be lighter than normal stuff, there will be some confusion around for quite long time. It may even be sort of rejected by most of public in favor of old reliable.


----------



## FrugalRefiner (Sep 24, 2015)

patnor1011 said:


> If I understand this correctly then it is a form of getting "cheaper" gold. Like when you take the same size bracelets the one made from apple gold will have in fact less gold in it than regular alloy. So people can go around with thicker chains and rings showing "wealth".


Very much like when manufacturers started pumping out hollow chains back when I was in the business. Just add some air, or some light weight component, and you have more bling for the money. Same reason they whip air into ice cream.



> Then I see people being careful to buy such stuff secondhand as it will be lighter than normal stuff, there will be some confusion around for quite long time. It may even be sort of rejected by most of public in favor of old reliable.


That's an interesting thought Pat. For those who use density as a sanity check when buying, I wonder what the difference is with this stuff. Dan Dement, are you watching this thread?

Dave


----------



## nickvc (Sep 25, 2015)

Dave making heavy looking pieces in gold that are in fact light is nothing new, during the Victorian era when labour was cheap and gold still expensive they made many hollow pieces a good example is the hollow chains which were formed round iron that was dissolved by acids.


----------



## justinhcase (Sep 25, 2015)

If you want to get an alloy right for a critical component you have to order the alloy based on recommendations of an Atomic percent Plot of that alloy.
I have always found the Karat system to be inaccurate.
I get a strange light gold alloy in mixed jewellery from some traders in the midlands.
There pitch's are mostly around fairly low wealth council estates and apparently they like this light cheep jewellery which brake's very easily.
Thus a notable amount of each lot is of this light alloy,always with cheep heavy stone's and enamels.
They do give a good indication on an acid stone but are on the low side of actual return.All passed by British standards and sold to Arguse.
If you work in percentage by weight instead of in the atomic percent your returns obviously will be affected by the density of the alloying element. 
14kt gold would contain 14/24 or 58.33 weight per cent gold the actual returns will depend on how dense it's partner is as you will get much more mass of aluminum than of zinc.
So I think in assay and for consumer clarity an atomic percentage of gold would be much more effective than a system based on the ground tuber of a south Africa plant.
Apple have not invented a new type of Gold(It looks very similar to the high temperature ceramic and platinum composite used in jet engines.)They have found yet an other clever way to fool the uninformed public.
As if the layer will be any thing more than paper thin.I would be surprised to find more than £2 of Au used to manufacture any of it's product's.


----------



## g_axelsson (Sep 25, 2015)

justinhcase said:


> If a truth can be told so as to be understood it will be believed..


I don't believe you! :lol: (In other words I don't understand your logic)


justinhcase said:


> If you work in percentage by weight instead of in the atomic percent your returns obviously will be affected by the density of the alloying element.
> 14kt gold would contain 14/24 or 58.33 weight per cent gold the actual returns will depend on how dense it's partner is as you will get much more mass of aluminum than of zinc.


What?
100 gram of 14kt gold would contain 58.33 g gold and 41.67 g other metals. Are you saying that 41.67 g of aluminum is more mass than 41.67 g of zinc? Mass is measured in grams (or grains, pounds, ounces, tons...)
The volume will differ and the density of the alloy will also differ but 14kt will always contain the same percent mass of gold no matter what the alloying element is. If the alloy can be less than 14kt and still test as 14kt on the stone then it is a problem with the test, not the definitions.



justinhcase said:


> So I think in assay and for consumer clarity an atomic percentage of gold would be much more effective than a system based on the ground tuber of a south Africa plant.


I think you got carat and carat mixed up! 
carat (weight) = 0.2 gram since 1907, loosely based on the mass of the seed of the carob tree in earlier times.
carat (purity) = 1/24 by mass or 4.166666...% by mass

Just to complicate things, there was a British measurement of weight called Board of Trade carat = 3.170 gram.
And also Refiner's carat where a pound troy was divided into 24 pound carat of 240 grain troy each. The pound carat was divisible into four pound grains of 60 grains troy each; and the pound grain was divisible into four pound quarters of 15 grains troy each. Likewise, the ounce troy was divisible into 24 ounce carats of 20 grains troy each; the ounce carat was divisible into four ounce grains of 5 grains troy each; and the ounce grain was divisible into four ounce quarters of 1 1⁄4 grains troy each.

(I copied that last part from wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carat_%28mass%29 as I'm too lazy to write it by myself.)

:mrgreen: 

Göran


----------



## justinhcase (Sep 25, 2015)

g_axelsson said:


> justinhcase said:
> 
> 
> > If a truth can be told so as to be understood it will be believed..
> ...



The word carat, a unit of mass for gemstones and a unit of purity for gold alloys, was possibly derived from the Greek word kerátion literally meaning a small horn, and refers to the carob seed as a unit of weight.(Is not wiky great!!https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceratonia_siliqua)
If you are dealing in weight 41.67 g of zinc takes up a lot less room than 41.67 g of aluminum.or in my very simple mind less molecules for zinc and a great meany more molecules for aluminum.adding a greater amount of a metal to an alloy would make a weaker mix of gold alloy even if by the letter of the regulation's it was the correct percentage by weight..
And I can not take the credit for the philosophical Haiku I nicked it off of Mr Terence McKenna.


----------



## g_axelsson (Sep 25, 2015)

But if you have 100 gram of 14kt gold then it doesn't matter how large volume the aluminum or zinc would occupy, you still have 58.33 grams of gold in 100 grams of 14kt gold whatever the alloying metal is.

I have gone back and corrected the miss I did when I wrote 46.67 g, 100-58.33 is of course 41.67g, nothing else.

Göran


----------



## jason_recliner (Sep 25, 2015)

But the lower density the filling material is, the larger the volume of shiny yellow stuff you get for that 100g of gold.
So for a watch case of any given volume, you require less gold. Only because karat is measured by mass.



> I think you got carat and carat mixed up!
> carat (weight) = 0.2 gram since 1907, loosely based on the mass of the seed of the carob tree in earlier times.
> carat (purity) = 1/24 by mass or 4.166666...% by mass


I know them as *karat* = 1/24 fineness and *carat* = 200mg. Your locale may vary.


----------



## nickvc (Sep 25, 2015)

Jason your been a pendantic idiot..
Whatever the claims, to be accepted as 18k it has to have 75% by weight gold, end of story, it matters not what you think, it's what the assay offfices in the UK determine to be 18k or a lower carat, if it fails the assay offices tests it's not 18k,simple it's marked as 14k or 9k.
Stop arguing over something you have obviously little knowledge or understanding, I worked for the assay office and know their rules... 
Do you?


----------



## jason_recliner (Sep 26, 2015)

nickvc said:


> Jason your been a pendantic idiot..
> Whatever the claims, to be accepted as 18k it has to have 75% by weight gold, end of story, it matters not what you think, it's what the assay offfices in the UK determine to be 18k or a lower carat, if it fails the assay offices tests it's not 18k,simple it's marked as 14k or 9k.
> Stop arguing over something you have obviously little knowledge or understanding, I worked for the assay office and know their rules...
> Do you?


Well I am certainly pedantic. And I enjoy the irony of misspelling it when abusing someone.
But I am not an idiot. My point is exactly the same as Jon's.

Also, personal attacks are quite unnecessary. Have a great day.


----------



## justinhcase (Sep 26, 2015)

I do not think Jason was the idiot.Did you get the name right on your target?
I think it was me.sorry.The difference is probably only interesting to people who need an alloy to preform a set task.
The distinction will help a little for refining as the lighter alloy will be more susceptible to base metal leaching because it is molecularity more dilute..
From my interaction with such large mass low density alloy's I had thought as one is molecularity more dilute it would have had some affect on the return's.
Or given an unscrupulous manufacturer a way to stay with in the legislation while passing weak alloy's.
The difference must have come from an other mechanism. 
May be during the initial melt as I noted some bright sparking and part of the lot being alloyed burning quite intensely.I put this down to aluminum which can catch .
So I will try putting it straight to base metal leaching instead of inquartation with the rest of the nine karat.
Luckily I self flagellate most of the day so one more example of my intellectual inferiority help's reinforce the hard line I take with my self.
I am an idiot a lot of the time.still the only way is up A.


----------



## kurtak (Sep 28, 2015)

Hmmm - got to thinking some more

What about acid scratch test

I mean if its made of gold & ceramic - nether will dissolve with acid

so wouldn't it test as 22k even though its only 18k (say its a broken chain & the end with the hallmark is missing) :?: 

Kurt


----------



## goldenchild (Sep 28, 2015)

kurtak said:


> Hmmm - got to thinking some more
> 
> What about acid scratch test
> 
> ...



It should actually test as 24k. That is, it will hold up to even the 24k acid. I'm wondering if even an XRF would read out as 24k. It's so messed up on paper. You could put any amount of gold in it with ceramic and it will test as 24k. If they put an actual 18k alloy in the ceramic it would then test as 18k with acid. But then how much actuall 18k alloy is in it? The ceramic really throws a curveball into the way we are used to doing things.


----------



## Palladium (Sep 28, 2015)

http://pdfaiw.uspto.gov/.aiw?PageNum=0&docid=20140361670&IDKey=A9058DEAFBAB&HomeUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fappft.uspto.gov%2Fnetacgi%2Fnph-Parser%3FSect1%3DPTO1%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF%2526d%3DPG01%2526p%3D1%2526u%3D%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html%2526r%3D1%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D50%2526s1%3D20140361670.PGNR.%2526OS%3D%2526RS%3D


----------

