Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 62 (9041 total)
86 online now:
AZPaul3, PaulK, Tangle (3 members, 83 visitors)
Newest Member: maria
Happy Birthday: anglagard
Post Volume: Total: 885,909 Year: 3,555/14,102 Month: 175/321 Week: 35/59 Day: 0/14 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   New Dating Technique: ATTA (Atomic Trap Trace Analysis)
46&2
Junior Member (Idle past 2084 days)
Posts: 24
From: Kailua-Kona
Joined: 04-10-2014


(1)
Message 1 of 15 (760547)
06-22-2015 1:53 PM


I was reading a bit about this technique on another forum, but it's a bit over my head. I was wondering if anybody is familiar with it, what it's advantages and disadvantages are, and is it our best/most accurate technique, yet?

And from the YEC crowd, what are your objections to it?

Here are a few links dealing with it:

http://indigo.uic.edu/...3/1-s2.0-S0016703712003067-main.pdf
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1101/1101.2933.pdf
http://www.phy.anl.gov/atomic/PUBS/pub2000-07.pdf

From what I can tell, it's an improvement over AMS measurements, measuring instead with lasers, used (I think exclusively, so far) on the isotopes of inert gases, specifically Ar39, Kr81, and Kr85. The primary improvement being eliminating some contamination issues. It seems to be a much "cleaner; less noise" measurement. Though I would imagine there would still have to be some background noise.

The relatively short half lives of these isotopes (particularly Kr85) makes it useful for geologically recent events. I would think that it would also be useful as another crosscheck for carbon dating.

It lists quite a few possible applications, not all of which concern dating. It mentioned using for testing water and ice, but don't get how that would work, unless it was for non-age-testing purposes.

It seems to me that it will be particularly useful for more accurate dating of very recent events (last couple hundred years). And of course, it's always good to have another test available when the geology creates limitations with other methods.

So, if anybody with a little more science training than I have would be interested in checking it out, and maybe putting it layman's terms for us, it would be much appreciated.

Edited by 46&2, : No reason given.

Edited by 46&2, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 06-22-2015 3:37 PM 46&2 has responded
 Message 8 by kbertsche, posted 06-23-2015 12:26 PM 46&2 has not yet responded
 Message 14 by NoNukes, posted 06-23-2015 2:05 PM 46&2 has not yet responded

  
46&2
Junior Member (Idle past 2084 days)
Posts: 24
From: Kailua-Kona
Joined: 04-10-2014


Message 3 of 15 (760549)
06-22-2015 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
06-22-2015 3:37 PM


Sure, I'll review the sources and see what kind of summary I can come up with in the next 24 hours or so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 06-22-2015 3:37 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply

  
46&2
Junior Member (Idle past 2084 days)
Posts: 24
From: Kailua-Kona
Joined: 04-10-2014


Message 4 of 15 (760550)
06-23-2015 3:50 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
06-22-2015 3:37 PM


I've entered a brief summary of what I can glean from the papers. Let me know if there is something further you'd like me to address, and I'd be happy to do so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 06-22-2015 3:37 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply

  
46&2
Junior Member (Idle past 2084 days)
Posts: 24
From: Kailua-Kona
Joined: 04-10-2014


Message 7 of 15 (760577)
06-23-2015 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by JonF
06-23-2015 8:49 AM


The first paper you cited listed 85Kr dating as applying to 100,000 to 1,000,000 years, and noted this is beyond the range of 14C.

That first paper is the one I spent the least time on, but I don't think this can be right. The half-life of 85Kr is only 10.8 years.

Edited by 46&2, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by JonF, posted 06-23-2015 8:49 AM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by JonF, posted 06-23-2015 12:51 PM 46&2 has responded

  
46&2
Junior Member (Idle past 2084 days)
Posts: 24
From: Kailua-Kona
Joined: 04-10-2014


Message 13 of 15 (760585)
06-23-2015 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by JonF
06-23-2015 12:51 PM


It appears that even with the small ratio resolution, the measurement capability is still only good to about 6 half lives. Is this do to a low natural abundance of 81Kr?

Edited by 46&2, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by JonF, posted 06-23-2015 12:51 PM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by JonF, posted 06-23-2015 2:16 PM 46&2 has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021