Talk:Latinum

Conjecture on the value of a brick
I did some numbers based on the volumes of the units of currency. I first thought that the ratio of latinum to gold has to increase, because a brick isn't 2000 times larger than a slip. So the number crunching involved calculating the volumes of the units, converting to cc, and they came up as this:

slip10.24192cm³

strip---71.69341cm³ (slip x 7)

bar102.4192cm³ (slip x 10)

brick--524.3860cm³ (slip x ~51,2)

strips have 100 times the value of slips, but 7 times the volume of strips, 100/7= ~14,3

bars have 2000 times the value of slips, but 10 times the volume of strips, 2000/10= 200

Bricks have ~51,2 the volume of slips

100/7= ~14,3

(100/7)^2 = ~204,08

(100/7)^3 = ~2915,45

I had a hunch about the amount of latinum per cc of the brick (thus ratio of gold to latinum). Strips are 100 slips, but only around seven times the volume. Bars are 2000 slips, but 10 times the volume. A strip has around 14,3 times the amount of latinum per cc as a slip, and by rough numbers a bar has the same multiplier when compared to a strip. I have come to the conclusion that the density of latinum increases by exponents of ~14,3 (exact would be 100/7) per step. Thus a likely value for a brick of latinum under this conjecture would be fifteen thousand slips.

I'll throw out rounding errors as imperfect modeling of the items, as they're heavily carved and stamped, rather than being mathematically perfect hexahedra.

This also brings into question how small a slip-sized unit of latinum is, since a ~10mL worth of latinum is worth a hundred bricks. So if a brick contains a total of ~100 microliters of latinum, a slip only has 6 2/3 nanoliters suspended in one centiliter of gold.

So 2/3 parts per million (by volume), with each larger denomination having ~14,3 times the density of latinum vs gold as the previous unit.

88.114.108.203 01:15, July 4, 2018 (UTC)