Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-24-2017 9:51 PM
445 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Upcoming Birthdays: OnlyCurious
Post Volume:
Total: 801,959 Year: 6,565/21,208 Month: 2,326/2,634 Week: 514/572 Day: 61/70 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
345Next
Author Topic:   Potassium Argon Sensitivity Analysis
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5266
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 6.1


Message 16 of 64 (498882)
02-14-2009 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Engineer
02-14-2009 4:08 PM


Lead zirconate titanate is a good piezo material:

That's nice. Lead zirconate titanate is also as chemically distinct from zircon, which is zirconium silicate, as sodium chloride is from sodium cyanide. Lead won't fit in a zirconium silicate crystal lattice, and sodium cyanide doesn't belong on your pretzels.

I think the lead is right in there with the zirconium as a chemical compound.

Of course it is, in that chemical compound. PZT has a perovskite crystal lattice, zircon is tetragonal. PZT is man-made, zircon magma-made. They aren't the same.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Engineer, posted 02-14-2009 4:08 PM Engineer has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Engineer, posted 02-14-2009 10:08 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

    
Engineer
Member (Idle past 2865 days)
Posts: 65
From: KY, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 17 of 64 (498886)
02-14-2009 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Coragyps
02-14-2009 6:47 PM


quote:
Sorry, no put-it-in-the-box-and-turn-the-crank-and-the-right-answer-pops-out. That's why I'm saying you don't have the knowledge to analyze the data. You need to know the background, not just what's written in the manual. You could run and maintain the equipment just fine, but you don't understand what you'd be doing.

Mechanical and electrical engineers design your dating equipment. We know what we are doing. We have to understand the process and the physical material to design the measuring equipment. It doesn't mean we understand it as well as the expert in that field, but we need a certain level of understanding of both capability and limitation.

I'm thrown into a lot of problems where "I don't have a background" -- what's new for an engineer? You might be right about this one with dating where I've finally met my technical match, but currently I have two projects "not in my field", one belonging to a civil engineer and another belonging to an electrical engineer. I've also had to do nuke engineering and inferential statistics.

On the civil engineering side, I have to figure out what causes floor coatings to fail on concrete. I've got the answer but it sure took a while. I've never taken a course in concrete mechanics. If you think concrete physics and chemistry is simple, think again. It's not. If you can design a floor coating that won't fail, then you will be quite wealthy.

If you want to see a phase diagram that's totally whack, try taking a look at a solidus-liquidus graph in degrees baume for sulfuric acid -- not taught in mechanical engineering, that's for sure

As far as molecular lattice and interstituals, it's not such a big stretch for someone with a materials science background. I'll look at the zirconium, which doesn't want interstitial lead for some apparent reason. I only had one course in phase transformations and lattice structures, so admittedly I'm a little weak there.

As I said before, I want to see data, and I will look at whatever is provided. I think I am intelligent enough to evaluate it. It will, however, take time.

I appreciate the resources, but just talking about it isn't enough. If some technical person in another discipline askes me about failure mechanics, I'd have a way to explain it with technical information.

So often I've heard it said in my profession -- if someone can't explain something to a technically minded audience, then they really don't understand it themselves. If they understood it then they could explain it. I'm not saying that about the people on this forum, but I've always had to work with information that's "not in my field". The "you're to dumb to understand" approach, usually means someone has an agenda in my experience.

I think I can understand anything given the time. Just give me the time to digest what's been provided.

thanks.

Edited by Engineer, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Coragyps, posted 02-14-2009 6:47 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Engineer, posted 02-14-2009 10:17 PM Engineer has not yet responded

  
Engineer
Member (Idle past 2865 days)
Posts: 65
From: KY, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 18 of 64 (498887)
02-14-2009 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Engineer
02-14-2009 10:08 PM


quote:
That's nice. Lead zirconate titanate is also as chemically distinct from zircon, which is zirconium silicate, as sodium chloride is from sodium cyanide. Lead won't fit in a zirconium silicate crystal lattice, and sodium cyanide doesn't belong on your pretzels.

They don't have the same lattice structure. That's a sufficient answer.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Engineer, posted 02-14-2009 10:08 PM Engineer has not yet responded

  
Engineer
Member (Idle past 2865 days)
Posts: 65
From: KY, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 19 of 64 (498888)
02-14-2009 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by JonF
02-14-2009 5:09 PM


quote:
Why are you so insistent on retracing 60+ year old footsteps? This has been establsihed and tested and reviewed and re-establsihed and re-tested and re-reviewed and ...

If you have a better way for me to get the information I'm all ears. I don't think the internet is going to cut it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by JonF, posted 02-14-2009 5:09 PM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Coyote, posted 02-14-2009 10:47 PM Engineer has responded
 Message 22 by JonF, posted 02-15-2009 9:21 AM Engineer has responded

  
Engineer
Member (Idle past 2865 days)
Posts: 65
From: KY, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 20 of 64 (498889)
02-14-2009 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by JonF
02-14-2009 5:09 PM


quote:
That's the difference between science and engineering. You're qualified to run a mass spec ... what would you do in this guy's shoes? A zircon that predates the universe.

Here's the answer: A zircon that predates the universe 2.


Just from reading his short discription, I wouldn't know the answer for certain, and I haven't run a mass spectrometer since college.

Given that he has some answers that make sense I'd say he's either measuring the wrong element and he thinks it is the Thorium or something is wrong with the equipment settings. The easiest mistake is to misinterpret what the element or compond is. Elements and compounds can look so similar in a spectrometer analysis and yet be completely different in the diagnostic catalogue.

As I said, I don't have enough information to say this with any certainty because I know nothing about how this particular test was performed.

Edited by Engineer, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by JonF, posted 02-14-2009 5:09 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5540
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 21 of 64 (498890)
02-14-2009 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Engineer
02-14-2009 10:26 PM


60+ year old footsteps?
If you have a better way for me to get the information I'm all ears. I don't think the internet is going to cut it.

This kind of research is all through the technical journals. It has been for well over a century. That is where science is conducted!

And you are right, the fine details of scientific research are often not on the internet. Find a nice big library and get lost in the journals for a few weeks. Or months.

If you want the truth, though, I think you're a creationist trying to cast your doubt on the scientific process in order to reinforce your beliefs. I may be wrong, I hope so, but I've seen this same approach many times before.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Engineer, posted 02-14-2009 10:26 PM Engineer has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Engineer, posted 02-15-2009 9:22 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 3483
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 22 of 64 (498918)
02-15-2009 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Engineer
02-14-2009 10:26 PM


I'm thrown into a lot of problems where "I don't have a background" -- what's new for an engineer? You might be right about this one with dating where I've finally met my technical match,

I didn't say you've met your technical match; I don't know whether or not you have.

So often I've heard it said in my profession -- if someone can't explain something to a technically minded audience, then they really don't understand it themselves. If they understood it then they could explain it.

Oh, I can explain it. I have already explained how atmospheric argon is compensated for. I have already explained how the Ar-Ar method works. If you really insist, I will explain how the U-Pb concordia-discordia method works.

But you are looking for far more than an explanation. I'm not going to try to type out a college-level course or two in this medium, where graphics and equations are limited, where it would take months to explain it, when there are so many better resources available to which you've been directed.

If you want to discuss some point or ask for a quick explanation, this is a great medium and group of people to do it in. But you're not trying to discuss, you're asking for great chunks of technical information and detail to be spoon-fed, and that's not appropriate here.

If some technical person in another discipline asks me about failure mechanics, I'd have a way to explain it with technical information.

OK, that's a good example, 'cause my undergraduate and graduate work was in that field. How would you teach someone about failure mechanics on this message board, starting from scratch? Not just explaining what it's about, teaching them enough evaluate a catastrophic bridge collapse on their own. Would you type out everything that's needed, including the equations, the figures, all the references? Or would you point them to good ways to learn it on their own?

The "you're to dumb to understand" approach, usually means someone has an agenda in my experience.

Nobody's said you're too dumb to understand. You are too ignorant to understand. The latter is fixable. Go thou and fix it.

If you have a better way for me to get the information I'm all ears. I don't think the internet is going to cut it.

Obviously you're not all ears. From Message 3:

quote:
Why are you asking for this on an internet message board? I would think that a research lab connected to a university or large company would be a better source.

They would also have experienced scientists and lab technicians who would probably be willing to give advice and pointers on the project. If your project sounds productive and fruitful, maybe some would be willing to become involved in it with you.


From Message 9:

quote:
If you are really interested in the effect of atmospheric argon, ask your friends in that university geology department to let you into the library for a day or two to research what has been done in regards to atmospheric argon.

From Message 12:

quote:
Take a few college courses in isotope geochemistry, then you'll be ready to ask meaningful and answerable questions.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Engineer, posted 02-14-2009 10:26 PM Engineer has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Engineer, posted 02-15-2009 12:09 PM JonF has responded
 Message 26 by Engineer, posted 02-15-2009 12:40 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
Engineer
Member (Idle past 2865 days)
Posts: 65
From: KY, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 23 of 64 (498919)
02-15-2009 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Coyote
02-14-2009 10:47 PM


Re: 60+ year old footsteps?
To answer your point, I will always be a deist because of my own personal experiences that predate my choice of a religion and relate to my own personal conscience and experience.

My choice of a religion is based on what I consider to be the best, though primitive, explanation of who the metaphysical entity is. Our predecessors have no words or even a conceptual understanding of nuclear decay or science, but prior to the birth of our universe these concepts aren't very useful either.

Obviously our universe is finite on the time scale, and obviously it is highly ordered. On the otherhand I think a lot of "intelligent design" is nothing more than an attempt to rebutt science which in the end is destined to lose.

When I get to the end of the study which will take a while, I will probably find out that the dating methods are contiguous.

Consider the daunting task I had ahead of me, a mere mechanical engineer, to become a certified sig sigma black belt. Take a look at design of experiments (DOE) sec 7, and ANOVA in sec 6:

http://www.asq.org/certification/six-sigma/bok.html


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Coyote, posted 02-14-2009 10:47 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 02-15-2009 10:12 AM Engineer has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18241
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 24 of 64 (498923)
02-15-2009 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Engineer
02-15-2009 9:22 AM


Re: 60+ year old footsteps? Taking the Next Step ...
Hello again Engineer,

Consider the daunting task I had ahead of me, a mere mechanical engineer, to become a certified sig sigma black belt. Take a look at design of experiments (DOE) sec 7, and ANOVA in sec 6:
http://www.asq.org/certification/six-sigma/bok.html

The problem is that many people are not interested in how difficult this is, no matter how convinced you are that it is significant, rather they are interested in the question at hand.

When I get to the end of the study which will take a while, I will probably find out that the dating methods are contiguous.

JonF has been at pains to explain to you this is more than a Q&A issue, nor is this really a Q&A forum, rather we can point people to places where we learned things, as JonF has done. If you follow his suggestion then you may become a "six sigma black belt" in radioactive dating if you apply the same dedication to learning.

... I will always be a deist because of my own personal experiences that predate my choice of a religion and relate to my own personal conscience and experience.

Certainly I don't see that as a problem :D.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : subtitle


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Engineer, posted 02-15-2009 9:22 AM Engineer has not yet responded

  
Engineer
Member (Idle past 2865 days)
Posts: 65
From: KY, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 25 of 64 (498927)
02-15-2009 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by JonF
02-15-2009 9:21 AM


Jon F,

Congratulations on your advanced education. I was a candidate for the Georgetown Universiy NASA-Langly graduate program myself. I graduated magna cum laude in my undergrad curriculum.

One question here, just for the record. As a nuclear engineering professional I understand that radiation exposure speeds up nuclear reaction. This is fundamental to nuclear power plant operation.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/ral.htm

In the case of lava flow, we know that all surface substance is subject to radiation from the sun and other sources. Neutron bombardment speeds up nuclear reaction of the unstable isotopes. This fact allows us to generate heat in a nuclear reactor.

So what is the assumption for environmental radiation exposure over the past 4 billion years? Are you assuming it is a constant, or is this just a noise factor with small relative contribution anyway?

Edited by Engineer, : No reason given.

Edited by Engineer, : No reason given.

Edited by Engineer, : experimenting with html code

Edited by Engineer, : Nuclear irradiation does not speed up nuclear decay, it acclerates fission. My error.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by JonF, posted 02-15-2009 9:21 AM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by RAZD, posted 02-15-2009 12:44 PM Engineer has not yet responded
 Message 28 by NosyNed, posted 02-15-2009 12:48 PM Engineer has responded
 Message 31 by JonF, posted 02-15-2009 1:18 PM Engineer has responded

  
Engineer
Member (Idle past 2865 days)
Posts: 65
From: KY, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 26 of 64 (498929)
02-15-2009 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by JonF
02-15-2009 9:21 AM


quote:
OK, that's a good example, 'cause my undergraduate and graduate work was in that field. How would you teach someone about failure mechanics on this message board, starting from scratch? Not just explaining what it's about, teaching them enough evaluate a catastrophic bridge collapse on their own. Would you type out everything that's needed, including the equations, the figures, all the references? Or would you point them to good ways to learn it on their own?

This is a common problem I must endure everyday in my profession -- selling a highly technical project to a usually non-technical group of high level executives that hold the purse-strings for funding.

I would start out by telling the non-technical executives how failure mechanics is useful to humankind -- how many lives it could have saved in certain situations -- by how it can save them from catastrophe and loses that their company has experienced. I would provide technical case studies where it has done so.

Next, I would propose my plan to reduce such failures, their cost, and provide their proposed benefits. Then I would stand behind my promises with accountabilities that they can measure with financial results.

Usually the executives are some of the most technically ignorant people around. They, however, must make the ultimate decisions and hold accountability. That's how it works in my world: good communication, good research, a good business case, and measurable results.

I had to do something similar to this for my most recently funded project where we have concrete floor-coating failures that must be fixed or risk environmental contamination. The mid-level executives demanded the technical research to back my claims. Nobody has a satisfactory explanation in my opinion and I have to swag technical judgment into the solution. My reputation is always on the line, I have not been defeated yet, and I thank the creator for my successes. I am unrelenting, but I know when to quit.

Edited by Engineer, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by JonF, posted 02-15-2009 9:21 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18241
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 27 of 64 (498930)
02-15-2009 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Engineer
02-15-2009 12:09 PM


oh dear
As a nuclear engineering professional I understand that radiation exposure speeds up radioactive decay.

You are confusing nuclear reactions with radioactive decay. These are independent of each other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission

235U + N → 236U → 92Kr + 141Ba + 3N

versus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decay_chains

235U + 7.04x10^8 years on average → 231TH + α

Not the same

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Engineer, posted 02-15-2009 12:09 PM Engineer has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by NosyNed, posted 02-15-2009 12:49 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8751
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 28 of 64 (498931)
02-15-2009 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Engineer
02-15-2009 12:09 PM


Numbers
In the case of lava flow, we know that all surface substance is subject to radiation from the sun and other sources. Neutron bombardment speeds up nuclear decay of the unstable isotopes. This fact allows us to generate heat in a nuclear reactor.

Have you run the numbers on this? At this hand waving level it is meaningless.

Neutron bombardment speeds up nuclear decay of the unstable isotopes.

You know better than I do about this but that statement is, in this context, incorrect I think.

It does not speed up the decay of a particular isotope at all. It changes the isotope being considered. And that isotope decays just as it would (well, once the nucleus stops "ringing" from the collesion).

The numbers you need concern the amount of radiation that reaches the sample in situ, cross sections etc. If you are going to just speculate with arm waving then you are not really giving reasonable consideration to this at all.

As noted, independent methods arrive at consistent results in the vast majority of cases. If you conjure up possible problems you have to consider that the answer is that they aren't problems unless you can also explain why the problem is problematic across all methods.

You need to be able to keep that in mind. Always come back to that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Engineer, posted 02-15-2009 12:09 PM Engineer has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Engineer, posted 02-15-2009 1:16 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8751
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 29 of 64 (498932)
02-15-2009 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by RAZD
02-15-2009 12:44 PM


Re: oh dear
So succinct. :o
This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by RAZD, posted 02-15-2009 12:44 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Engineer
Member (Idle past 2865 days)
Posts: 65
From: KY, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 30 of 64 (498933)
02-15-2009 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by NosyNed
02-15-2009 12:48 PM


Re: Numbers
quote:
As noted, independent methods arrive at consistent results in the vast majority of cases. If you conjure up possible problems you have to consider that the answer is that they aren't problems unless you can also explain why the problem is problematic across all methods.

I think the measurement systems will concur. I must prove it to myself. As an engineer I deal constantly with closed system and open system assumptions.

Solar radiation on the earth is not a closed system and potentially could affect all surface measurements in some way. It might be miniscule, and even neutrons have a penetration limit, so it would have less effect as you go deeper into the earth's surface.

K40 can change to A40 through irradiation as shown in this technical paper:

http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/labs/argon/Methods/home.html

Other chemicals are produced as well.

This is simply visiting the closed system assumption. Was the earth bombarded at one time, and would it even make a difference if it was? If it made a difference would it affect all measurement systems the same way? probably not.

I still have to look. I'm sure I'm not the first to ask.

Edited by Engineer, : added link


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by NosyNed, posted 02-15-2009 12:48 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
345Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017