Final report
Download 4.8 Kb. Pdf ko'rish
|
|
Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dura-White 5Sn/12.4Cu* Ŷ Ɣ Ÿ Ɣ Ɣ Ŷ Ŷ Ŷ Ÿ Ɣ Ŷ Ɣ Ŷ Ÿ Ÿ 318.3 375.6 743.1 Dura-White 7.7Sn/12.7Cu* Ŷ Ɣ Ÿ Ɣ Ɣ Ŷ Ŷ Ŷ Ÿ Ɣ Ŷ Ɣ Ŷ Ÿ Ÿ 318.3 375.6 743.1 Dura-White 10.2Sn/11.2Cu* Ŷ Ɣ Ÿ Ɣ Ɣ Ŷ Ŷ Ŷ Ÿ Ɣ Ŷ Ɣ Ŷ Ÿ Ÿ 318.3 375.6 743.1 Key: Level of Impact – Ŷ : Significant; Ɣ 0DUJLQDO Ÿ : Minimal M = million; CPS = copper-plated steel; RM = Royal Mint; SS = stainless steel; NPS = nickel-plated steel; MPS = Multi-Ply-plated steel; RCM = Royal Canadian Mint; Sn = tin; Cu = copper * Dura-White-Plated Zinc ** Est = most probable; † = apparent seamless option; additional verification advised; ‡ = apparent EMS match with existing circulating coin; additional verification advised 220 Table 4-11. Impact to Stakeholders: Change Both Coin Dimensions and Material Composition of US Coins Material D enomin a ti o n Ven d in g M a ch in e Own ers a n d Op era to rs Laundr om at O w ne rs and Op era to rs P a y P h on e Own ers a n d Op era to rs M u n ici p a l P a rk in g Offi ci a ls Am u sem en t M a ch in e Own ers a n d Op era to rs Ga m in g M a ch in e Own ers a n d Op era to rs Tra n sit Officia ls Ca r Wa sh Own ers a n d Op era to rs M erch a n ts Manuf ac tu re rs of Co m m erci a l Co in -H a n d li n g Equip m en t Ven d in g M a ch in e a n d Oth er Co in -Accep to r Manuf ac tur er s Dep o sito ry In stit u tion s Co in a n d Cu rren cy Han d lers/ A rmor ed -C ar O p er a to rs B lind and V is u all y -I mp air ed Public Estimated Total Cost Impact in Fall 2014 Accounting for Net Effective Conversion Cost Associated with a 20% Corporate Tax ($M) Low Est** High 5052-H32 Aluminum One- cent Ŷ Ŷ Ŷ Ɣ Ÿ Ÿ Ŷ Ÿ Ɣ Ŷ Ŷ Ɣ Ŷ Ŷ Ŷ 82.5 120.6 180.3 CPS – Jarden Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ŷ Ÿ Ɣ Ŷ Ÿ Ɣ Ŷ Ŷ Ɣ 33.5 70.6 127.9 CPS – RM Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ŷ Ÿ Ɣ Ŷ Ÿ Ɣ Ŷ Ŷ Ɣ 33.5 70.6 127.9 302HQ SS Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ŷ Ÿ Ɣ Ŷ Ÿ Ɣ Ŷ Ŷ Ɣ 33.5 70.6 127.9 Surface-Modified Zinc Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ŷ Ÿ Ɣ Ŷ Ÿ Ɣ Ŷ Ŷ Ŷ 33.5 70.6 127.9 NPS – RM 5 cent Ŷ Ÿ Ŷ Ŷ Ÿ Ÿ Ŷ Ÿ Ɣ Ŷ Ŷ Ɣ Ŷ Ɣ Ɣ 826.0 1048.5 1590.6 Unplated 31157 Ŷ Ÿ Ŷ Ŷ Ÿ Ÿ Ŷ Ÿ Ɣ Ŷ Ŷ Ɣ Ŷ Ɣ Ɣ 826.0 1048.5 1590.6 MPS – RCM Ŷ Ÿ Ŷ Ŷ Ÿ Ÿ Ŷ Ÿ Ɣ Ŷ Ŷ Ɣ Ŷ Ɣ Ɣ 826.0 1048.5 1590.6 Dura-White-Plated Zinc Ŷ Ÿ Ŷ Ŷ Ÿ Ÿ Ŷ Ÿ Ɣ Ŷ Ŷ Ɣ Ŷ Ɣ Ɣ 826.0 1048.5 1590.6 669z Ŷ Ÿ Ŷ Ŷ Ÿ Ÿ Ŷ Ÿ Ɣ Ŷ Ŷ Ɣ Ŷ Ɣ Ɣ 826.0 1048.5 1590.6 G6 Mod Ŷ Ÿ Ŷ Ŷ Ÿ Ÿ Ŷ Ÿ Ɣ Ŷ Ŷ Ɣ Ŷ Ɣ Ɣ 826.0 1048.5 1590.6 302HQ SS Ŷ Ÿ Ŷ Ŷ Ÿ Ÿ Ŷ Ÿ Ɣ Ŷ Ŷ Ɣ Ŷ Ɣ Ɣ 826.0 1048.5 1590.6 Surface-Modified Zinc Ŷ Ÿ Ŷ Ŷ Ÿ Ÿ Ŷ Ÿ Ɣ Ŷ Ŷ Ɣ Ŷ Ɣ Ɣ 826.0 1048.5 1590.6 302HQ Stainless Steel 10 cent Ŷ Ÿ Ŷ Ŷ Ÿ Ÿ Ŷ Ÿ Ɣ Ŷ Ŷ Ŷ Ŷ Ɣ Ɣ 826.0 1048.5 1590.6 NPS – RM 25 cent Ŷ Ŷ Ŷ Ŷ Ŷ Ŷ Ŷ Ŷ Ɣ Ŷ Ŷ Ŷ Ŷ Ɣ Ɣ 1078.6 1445.1 2090.1 MPS – RCM Ŷ Ŷ Ŷ Ŷ Ŷ Ŷ Ŷ Ŷ Ɣ Ŷ Ŷ Ŷ Ŷ Ɣ Ɣ 1078.6 1445.1 2090.1 302HQ Stainless Steel Ŷ Ŷ Ŷ Ŷ Ŷ Ŷ Ŷ Ŷ Ɣ Ŷ Ŷ Ŷ Ŷ Ɣ Ɣ 1078.6 1445.1 2090.1 669z-Clad C110 Ŷ Ŷ Ŷ Ŷ Ŷ Ŷ Ŷ Ŷ Ɣ Ŷ Ŷ Ŷ Ŷ Ɣ Ɣ 1078.6 1445.1 2090.1 Dura-White 5Sn/12.4Cu* Ŷ Ŷ Ŷ Ŷ Ŷ Ŷ Ŷ Ŷ Ɣ Ŷ Ŷ Ŷ Ŷ Ɣ Ɣ 1078.6 1445.1 2090.1 Dura-White 7.7Sn/12.7Cu* Ŷ Ŷ Ŷ Ŷ Ŷ Ŷ Ŷ Ŷ Ɣ Ŷ Ŷ Ŷ Ŷ Ɣ Ɣ 1078.6 1445.1 2090.1 Dura-White 10.2Sn/11.2Cu* Ŷ Ŷ Ŷ Ŷ Ŷ Ŷ Ŷ Ŷ Ɣ Ŷ Ŷ Ŷ Ŷ Ɣ Ɣ 1078.6 1445.1 2090.1 Key: Level of Impact – Ŷ : Significant; Ɣ 0DUJLQDO Ÿ : Minimal M = million; CPS = copper-plated steel; RM = Royal Mint; SS = stainless steel; NPS = nickel-plated steel; MPS = Multi-Ply-plated steel; RCM = Royal Canadian Mint; Sn = tin; Cu = copper * Dura-White-Plated Zinc ** Est = most probable 221 4.7 OTHER FACTORS THAT COULD ALTER THE CONVERSION COSTS TO STAKEHOLDERS The impact of changes to circulating coins to all stakeholder groups discussed above was based on several assumptions including the following. x 100% of impacted coin-processing equipment will be upgraded. x Equipment upgrades will be a focused activity rather than one completed when other opportunities (such as routine maintenance) present themselves. Given coin-acceptance equipment manufacturers’ experience related to the multi-year lag that vending and other equipment owners and operators had with upgrading their machines to accept the recently released and redesigned US $5 note from the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP), a percentage of the current owners and operators will either refuse to upgrade their equipment to accept coins of new metallic construction or they will take advantage of other maintenance needs to complete equipment upgrades. These operating strategies would significantly reduce the conversion cost estimates defined above. However, it is difficult to predetermine the size of this impact. This thought is echoed by a report from HM Treasury when discussing the impact of recent changes to the materials of construction for the United Kingdom’s 5-pence and 10-pence coins [4]. This reference expects that a significant number of machine owners will wait for up to 18 months or more to upgrade their equipment. Given that on average each year one-third of coin validators within the vending industry receives attention from a service technician, it is conceivable, that as many as 66% of the US coin acceptors could be upgraded without the attendant cost of a separate service fee. 4.8 VALIDATION OF NONSENSE PIECES A fundamental element in the approach to defining alternative coinage materials centers around two competing financial aspects of the decision: selecting materials and manufacturing processes that either: x Reduce costs to the United States Mint x Minimize the impact (including conversion costs) to stakeholders, who are dependent upon coins to conduct commerce. Striking the most favorable balance between these foci must be defined before final material selections can be made. In the present study, alternative material candidates were selected that represent one or the other of these foci. No metallic materials were found that can simultaneously accomplish both of these foci. Coins that would seamlessly (or nearly seamless) circulate with incumbent coins would satisfy a focus on minimizing the impact to stakeholders. Other non-financially based factors must also be included when considering alternative material candidates for circulating coins, including an evaluation of the uniqueness of the characteristics and/or properties of alternative material candidates relative to other coins and common slugs available throughout the world. To that end, nonsense pieces were tested to evaluate the consistency of their characteristics and properties with incumbent US circulating coins as determined by measuring the response of these nonsense pieces in existing automated coin-processing equipment. These drop tests were designed to provide confirmation of the intended characteristics and properties of proposed 222 alternative material candidates. To validate the performance of each alternative material candidate, CTC procured samples (either in planchet, blank or strip form), produced blanks (as needed) and worked with the United States Mint to produce test pieces using nonsense dies. Two sets of tests were completed. Nonsense pieces of alternative material candidates were struck at the United States Mint during an initial striking trial. Samples of these nonsense pieces were tested by SCAN COIN. This information was useful in eliminating some of the early alternative material candidates. After further development on selected alternative material candidates, a second striking trial was completed at the United States Mint in Philadelphia. The resulting nonsense pieces were then tested by three coin processing manufacturers: SCAN COIN, MEI and Coinco. 107 Each of these manufacturers relies upon different proprietary coin recognition technology and strategies. Therefore, limiting this initial evaluation to these manufacturers was expected to provide broad initial feedback on the suitability of the alternative material nonsense pieces to meet the objectives of Public Law 111-302. 4.8.1 Round One Testing Round One alternative material nonsense pieces (one-cent, 5-cent and quarter dollar) were struck at the United States Mint in Philadelphia on December 13–15, 2011. Samples of these nonsense pieces, along with randomly selected circulated coins, were tested in a SCAN COIN SC4000 machine. Testing was completed on December 19, 2011. The EMS and coin dimensions were evaluated for each of the 15 alternative material nonsense piece designs. Except for one of the aluminized steel one-cent coin alternative material nonsense pieces (which had 10 total specimens), each alternative material-denomination combination included 40 specimens. The circulated coin lots included 100 coins for each denomination tested. These confirmation tests were led by SCAN COIN, Ashburn, Virginia and were supervised by CTC. The nonsense pieces were kept at room temperature (approximately 21 °C [70 °F]) for over one hour before the start of testing. Each set of nonsense pieces was passed through the SC4000 machine once and then each set of nonsense pieces was passed through the machine a second time in the same sequence as that used in the first pass through the machine. Each pass through the coin sorter/counter for any given set of nonsense pieces (or circulating coins) took approximately 30 seconds. The following measurements were made for each nonsense piece and circulated coin: x Diameter x Thickness (an average of several readings) x Inner electrical conductivity at low frequency x Inner electrical conductivity at high frequency x Inner magnetic permeability x Outer electrical conductivity at low frequency x Outer electrical conductivity at high frequency x Outer magnetic permeability. 107 SCAN COIN, which has an American-based sales office, manufacturers high-speed coin sorting and counting equipment. MEI and Coinco, which are American owned, manufacture coin acceptors for vending machines and other devices. The project team recognizes that other coin-processing equipment manufacturers are resident in the US; CTC recommends that the United States Mint include comments from and have future alternative material nonsense pieces evaluated by additional automated coin-acceptance and coin-handling equipment manufacturers if the project is extended to include additional production development phases. 223 The nonsense pieces tested in the Round One confirmation tests included the following: x One-cent nonsense pieces Copper-plated steel Aluminum alloy 5052-H32 Aluminized steel from Atlas Aluminized steel from Ryerson x 5-cent nonsense pieces Dura-White-plated zinc (tin-plated zinc) Multi-Ply-plated steel – lot# 11-137 (copper/nickel-plated steel) Multi-Ply-plated steel – lot# 11-170 (copper/nickel-plated steel) G6 mod (copper-based alloy) 669z (copper-based alloy) 430 stainless steel 302HQ stainless steel 302 stainless steel with altered annealing heat treatment Nickel-plated 31157 (copper-based alloy) x Quarter dollar nonsense pieces Multi-Ply-plated steel 669z-clad C110 (copper-based alloy clad on commercially pure copper alloy C110). The electrical conductivity and magnetic permeability measurements are ratios of the measured value to a reference value used by SCAN COIN. Given the electronic sensors used by SCAN COIN, all individual parameters represent values that give relative magnitudes of local property rather than actual measured property values. For any given coin/nonsense piece, however, these reading are relatively as consistent as are the actual material properties and material distribution within each coin/nonsense piece. The resulting values for the US circulating coins were found to be consistent with readings that SCAN COIN has observed previously for US circulating coins. This was an indication that the SC4000 used for these tests was properly calibrated. Some EMS properties for the 430 stainless steel 5-cent nonsense pieces were beyond the acceptable limits set at the factory for the SC4000 machine used for these tests. As a result, the machine would not permit these nonsense pieces to pass completely through the machine to obtain the above-mentioned properties. Should 430 stainless steel nonsense pieces be of interest for future tests, these software-defined property limits could be modified to allow 430 stainless steel nonsense pieces to be evaluated with an SC4000. None of the one-cent nonsense pieces from Round One tests were found to have a similar electromagnetic signature to either pre-1982 or post-1982 one-cent US circulating coins. Three of the 5-cent nonsense pieces (G6 mod, 669z and 31157 [either unplated or nickel-plated]) were found to be indistinguishable from the incumbent cupronickel US 5-cent coins. Likewise, the 669z-clad C110 quarter dollar nonsense pieces closely matched the electromagnetic signature of the incumbent cupronickel-clad C110 US quarter dollar coin. All other alternative material nonsense pieces that were tested had a significantly different EMS than that of the corresponding incumbent US circulating coins. 224 4.8.2 Round Two Testing A second round of coins was struck at the United States Mint in late March 2012. These nonsense pieces were tested by three manufacturers: two coin-acceptor and one coin-handling equipment manufacturers. Although each of the manufacturers measures coin dimensions and EMS, the specific technology to do so differs from one to another: the most significant difference being the EMS frequencies used to identify the metallic composition of the coins. These differences in sensor design (and in the software used to interpret the output signals) result in varying degrees of sensitivity to detect slight differences in material composition. To maintain anonymity among the three manufacturers, summary observations are provided without reference to specific manufacturers. Furthermore, each manufacturer indicated that details defined within their individual reports are proprietary. Since all three manufacturers have fielded units throughout the world, they necessarily must be able to tune each unit to accept alternative coins as they are introduced into circulation throughout the world. Consequently, each manufacturer used its own unique, preexisting product standard test methods to evaluate the alternative material nonsense pieces. Each manufacturer requested some details on the alternative material candidates being tested; to avoid inappropriately disclosing proprietary information on the composition or suppliers of these materials, the descriptions provided by CTC to these manufacturers were kept simple (such as [but not limited to] “aluminum alloy,” “plated steel,” “stainless steel,” “copper alloy,” “plated zinc” or “plated copper,” as appropriate). In addition to the alternative material nonsense pieces, newly minted 2012 circulating coins, nonsense pieces made from the same materials as those used for circulating coins and randomly selected circulated coins of various mint dates were tested for each of the coin denominations evaluated. The circulated coins, which were randomly selected from coins in public use, were used to form a baseline from which the nonsense pieces could be compared. Nonsense pieces made from the same material as circulating coins, but with the nonsense image, 108 were compared to the newly minted 2012 coins to determine if any detectable difference could be determined between the coins/nonsense pieces struck with the two different images. Since all three coin-processing manufacturers found no detectable difference among the newly minted 2012 coins, nonsense pieces struck on incumbent material and randomly selected circulated coins, CTC was confident that any detectable differences between the alternative material nonsense pieces and the circulated coins could be attributed to material differences and not the differences in the struck image between the nonsense pieces and circulating coins. Note that all nonsense pieces made from alternative material candidates were struck with nonsense dies. The nonsense pieces tested for Round Two verification tests included the following: x One-cent coins Newly minted 2012 Circulated pre-1982 Circulated post-1982 108 These nonsense pieces had scrambled lettering throughout, an image of Martha Washington on the obverse and another image on the reverse. The United States Mint has used similar images for previous experimental evaluations. These images were designed to have features that mimic those of circulating coins to test the striking characteristics of the proposed alternative material candidates. 225 Incumbent material with nonsense dies Aluminum alloy 5052-H32 Copper-plated steel from JPZ Copper-plated steel from RM 302HQ stainless steel x 5-cent coins Newly minted 2012 Circulated Incumbent material with nonsense dies Nickel-plated steel Unplated 31157 Multi-Ply-plated steel Dura-White-plated zinc 669z G6 mod 302HQ stainless steel x Quarter dollar coins Newly minted 2012 Circulated Incumbent material with nonsense dies Nickel-plated steel Multi-Ply-plated steel 669z-clad C110 Dura-White-plated zinc 5-micron plating 8-micron plating 10-micron plating. 4.8.2.1 One-Cent Nonsense Pieces All three coin-processing equipment manufacturers drew similar conclusions about the one-cent coin alternative material candidates. Because of the differences in material construction, the pre 1982 one-cent coins have a different signature than that of the post-1982 one-cent coins. This situation is typically accommodated in active coin-processing software by allowing for two separate entries into the coin-property database; any coin that meets either of the two sets of characteristics and properties in these databases is accepted as a one-cent coin. Both the newly minted 2012 one-cent coins and the one-cent nonsense pieces of the incumbent post-1982 one-cent coin material provided signatures that were indistinguishable from the post 1982 circulated one-cent coins. In other words, those three sets of coins would validate as a one- cent coin in all coin acceptors/sorters/counters used in the present evaluation. All other one-cent nonsense pieces that were tested had signatures that differed from either of the two US one-cent circulating coins (i.e., pre-1982 one-cent coins, which were made of a mono- layer of a copper alloy and post-1982 one-cent coins made of copper-plated zinc). The two copper-plated steel nonsense pieces had similar signatures to each other; however, a detailed assessment of the signals showed that these two nonsense pieces could be distinguished from each other by some, but not all, coin-handling equipment. The copper-plated steel nonsense 226 pieces had similar characteristics and/or properties to the greatest number of foreign coins or common slugs available throughout the world. The stainless steel nonsense pieces had the smallest range of values for each of the measurements used to validate the one-cent nonsense pieces. 109 In addition, the stainless steel one-cent nonsense pieces had the fewest number of coins with similar characteristics to other known coins throughout the world. However, stainless steel is a commonly available material and can be easily frauded in automated coin-processing equipment through use of simple stainless steel disks. Furthermore, the color and size of one- cent stainless steel coins may result in confusion with the incumbent US dime coin. As a low-denomination coin, security is not a major concern for the US one-cent coin. Therefore, other factors should take precedence over fraud for this coin according to the three coin-processing equipment manufacturers. Placing lower emphasis on coin security for this low- denomination coin is also consistent with coin design strategies outlined in The WVA Coin Design Handbook [5]; it is also consistent with a previously stated position of the United States Mint [24]. Plated-steel coins were therefore the recommended material of choice by two of the coin- processing equipment manufacturers. The third manufacturer, however, noted that ferromagnetic-steel-based (plated or otherwise) coins could not be recognized by their US-based sensors. Ferromagnetic-steel-based coins would create a significant validation and security issue for this manufacturer. Therefore, they were not in favor of moving to any ferromagnetic-steel based materials for any coin denomination. The aluminum alloy 5052-H32 nonsense pieces caused operational problems for the two coin- acceptance manufacturers. While only a few aluminum one-cent nonsense pieces jammed one of the coin acceptors tested by one of the manufacturers, these aluminum nonsense pieces consistently jammed the other manufacturer’s devices. Although no particular difficulties were reported during testing of the aluminum one-cent nonsense pieces in the coin-handling manufacturer’s tests, all three manufacturers warned against the use of aluminum in coinage. Specific problems beyond jamming of the mechanisms included concerns about the larger variability in electromagnetic properties of aluminum (relative to more traditional coinage materials including cupronickel) and a common problem of aluminum coins galling and cold welding in high-speed sorters/counters. As reported by these manufacturers (and consistent with comments made by several stakeholders during one-on-one interviews), when coins cold weld, they often cause permanent damage to coin-processing machines. Although cold welding is unlikely to occur in coin validators (since the coins do not rub across each other at high speeds and forces) and even though one-cent coins are rarely accepted by coin validators, insertion of one-cent coins is still attempted (and the coins promptly rejected and returned to the customer) for payment by unwitting customers. Due to its low density and low resulting inertia, an aluminum coin put into a coin acceptor could stall in the coin chute and if followed by other aluminum coins, could jam the machine beyond the ability of the coin return mechanism to flush the obstruction from the system [27]. This would temporarily disable the machine until maintenance was performed. According to one industry expert, the mean time between placing a maintenance call and the machine receiving the needed maintenance is four days. The machine is essentially disabled during this time. Furthermore, the owner of the machine must pay for a 109 Small ranges are desired for validation parameters to increase fraud prevention in circulating coins. 227 maintenance call, which averages $75 per visit. Hence, the automated coin-acceptance and coin- handling communities strongly recommend against minting aluminum circulating coins (one cent coins or otherwise). 4.8.2.2 5-Cent Nonsense Pieces As with the one-cent nonsense pieces, newly minted 5-cent coins and nonsense pieces struck from incumbent 5-cent coin material were compared with a random sample of circulated 5-cent coins. All three of these coins/nonsense pieces were found to be indistinguishable from each other. Therefore, CTC concluded that any differences between the alternative material nonsense pieces and circulating coins, which form the baseline for the comparison, can be attributed solely to the materials of construction and the processing methods used to produce these nonsense pieces. For two of the three coin-processing equipment manufacturers, unplated 31157, 669z and G6 mod monolithic nonsense pieces were indistinguishable from incumbent 5-cent coins. The third manufacturer found unplated 31157 to be indistinguishable from incumbent 5-cent coins; 669z had a low acceptance rate (meaning that it had similar, but not acceptably consistent characteristics and properties to the incumbent 5-cent coin); G6 mod was consistently distinguishable from and outside the acceptance windows defined for incumbent 5-cent coins for this third manufacturer. All three coin-processing equipment manufacturers noted that all other nonsense pieces had characteristics and/or properties that allowed ready discernment from incumbent 5-cent coins. The two plated-steel nonsense pieces had unique signatures and could be easily distinguished from each other by two of the three manufacturers. However, for the third manufacturer, plated- ferromagnetic-steel-based coins would not register with their coin-acceptance sensors. Ferromagnetic-steel-based coins would require both hardware and software upgrades for fielded coin acceptors produced by this manufacturer. In general, the range in the signatures of the plated-steel nonsense pieces were wider than other nonsense pieces, meaning that these plated- steel coins would require wider acceptance windows 110 and would therefore be more susceptible to fraud. The Dura-White-plated zinc 5-cent nonsense pieces were noteworthy for two reasons. x They had a very narrow band of properties in at least two of the three manufacturer’s products. x They had the lowest number of potential signature matches by foreign coins and slugs. Dura-White-plated zinc construction appears to offer the most secure 5-cent coin of any materials tested, including the incumbent 5-cent coin material. However, constructing coins of this material would require a substantial investment from the stakeholder communities to upgrade fielded coin-processing equipment to recognize this material construction. 110 The industry defines acceptance windows as the range in measured characteristics that have been determined to match a given coin. When all measured values fall within each of the acceptance windows, then a coin is declared valid, its denomination accounted for and further actions taken within the coin-processing equipment. 228 4.8.2.3 Quarter Dollar Nonsense Pieces The quarter dollar nonsense pieces were used as a test platform for dime, quarter and half dollar coins, assuming that all three of these coins will continue to be constructed of like materials and will continue to have a weight that is proportional to the coin’s face value; this design philosophy is consistent with that of today for these three US circulating coins. In other words, results from the quarter dollar material tests are assumed to be directly transferrable to the dime and half dollar coins. All three manufacturers were unable to distinguish between the newly minted 2012 quarter dollar coins, the circulated quarter dollar coins and the quarter dollar nonsense pieces made from cupronickel-clad C110 (the incumbent materials of construction for the quarter dollar coin). Therefore, CTC concluded that any differences between the measured properties for the alternative material nonsense pieces and the baseline circulated coins were strictly due to the materials of construction and production methods used to manufacture the nonsense pieces. The 669z-clad C110 nonsense pieces were found by all three coin-processing equipment manufacturers to be indistinguishable from the circulated quarter dollar coins. Therefore, this coin construction shows promise to be seamless with the incumbent cupronickel-clad C110 dime/quarter dollar/half dollar coin construction. All other quarter dollar nonsense pieces could be easily distinguished from incumbent US quarter dollar coins. Therefore, if used in future quarter dollar coins, the materials and manufacturing methods used to produce these other quarter dollar nonsense pieces would require an upgrade to all fielded active coin-processing equipment produced by the three manufacturers who conducted the validation tests. Although equipment from two of the manufacturers could easily be upgraded to accept plated-ferromagnetic-steel-based quarter dollar coins, the third manufacturer would be unable to do so with the sensors that are currently used in their fielded coin acceptors. The Dura-White-plated zinc quarter dollar nonsense pieces had the narrowest acceptance windows of all nonsense pieces that were evaluated; the three sets of Dura-White plated zinc nonsense pieces (having plating thicknesses of 5, 8 and 10 microns, respectively) would offer a signature approximately as unique as the incumbent quarter dollar coin relative to other coins and slugs available throughout the world. Download 4.8 Kb. Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: 
|