AMS RADIOCARBON DATING OF MODERN STEELS AND ANCIENT IRON ARTIFACTS: A NEW CARBON EXTRACTION METHOD IN USE AT LLNL UCRL: JC-138722 Authors: Andrea Cook, Earth and Environmental Division Presenting: Thursday, 2:00pm - 2:45pm Abstract: A new sealed double tube combustion method was developed at LLNL to extract carbon from modern steels and ancient iron artifacts. Iron samples were chemically pretreated with 10% nitric acid, vacuum sealed in 6mm quartz tubes with CuO, double tubed in vacuum sealed 9mm quartz tubes, and combusted at 1100°C for a minimum of 10 hours. The resulting CO2 was then graphitized routinely using hydrogen reduction with a cobalt catalyst (Vogel et al., 1989). Since only 1mg of carbon is required for AMS, small iron samples can be analyzed (50mg of a 2.0%C iron or 1g of a 0.1%C iron). After the initial developmental phase, carbon yields of 100% were consistently obtained. The radiocarbon age of modern high carbon steel manufactured using only coal as the carbon source was determined to be approximately 39,000± 450 BP, indicating that very little contamination is introduced during the sample preparation process. Since the Iron Age began less than 5,000 years ago, the background uncertainties should introduce errors of no more than ±40 years in the radiocarbon ages for actual artifacts. Several ancient iron artifacts of known date were analyzed to demonstrate that the new methodology is robust and can be successfully used to obtain the date of manufacture for any iron object, provided that it was made exclusively using charcoal that is contemporaneous with the manufacture of the object. We anticipate that this methodology will be particularly useful to archeologists who currently rely on context to date iron artifacts.
Yep the c14 dating would work for most wrought iron (charcoal fueled smelting) but not for modern steels produced in a Bessemer converter, however you are bang on the money wrought iron and modern steels can be told apart quite easily...
*edited for accuracy replaced blast furnace with Bessemer converter*
This message has been edited by joz, 02-18-2005 00:54 AM
Purple, I'm following this thread with interest. I would like to thank you for your offer and the availability of your expertise and resources. I have personally seen all of the "evidences" listed in this thread that purportedly disprove evolution.
If I recall correctly regarding the composition of the metal in the hammer, it was unique in the fact that it could not be reproduced under "normal" process due to the fact that its composition indicated that it was most likely formed under twice the atmospheric pressure of today - a pre-flood environmental assumption used today to explain among other things how dinosaurs were able to survive with such a small lung/mass ratio.
This is strictly recall from memory, so I don't have any materials with which to back it up. However, due to the emphasis on the 2atm of pressure required during the making of the hammer, I thought that it might be worthwhile to mention.
Satrekker Any chance you might be able to dig up the references to any papers written on this hammer?
I have been unable to find anything at all despite hours of searching on the University's library system and on the internet. Everything I find just leads back to the same site where Carl talks about it.
I even asked him personally if he would mind letting me take a look at his data.
So far I have heard absolutely nothing back and quite frankly I don't expect to.
I would be very interested to find out a little more about which processes in the forging of a hammer, could be dependent on pressure. Metalurgy is not my best field but I do know physical chemistry pretty well. I just can't think of how this could be a factor. I mean to make a significant difference in a chemical reaction you would likely need at least 10s if not 100s of atmospheres of pressure. Incidentally, the pressure in a closed kiln can get pretty high too, so if the hammer had been heated in such a device, a couple hunderd years ago, it could have had the same effect as an increased atmospheric pressure.
I will see if I can find out a little more about the effects of pressure on iron and steel reactions before making further comments.
Purple, Unfortunately, what I can recall was from a presentation that Dr. Baugh gave at the Creation Science Museum in Glenrose, TX. I am unsure as to the exact accuracy of what I am conveying. I was hoping that by presenting as best as I remember what I heard that a more knowledgeable individual might be able to draw something useful out of it.
Baugh is a known fraud and he is no doctor - unless you count "mail order" degrees as genuine. He actually "revised" his orginal "dissertation" AFTER being awarded a PhD. Literally nothing this guy claims is true. He is a known LFG (Liar for Jesus).
Haekel, with his claim of an "identical" stage that all vertebrate classes must pass through, was incorrect and he did over simplify his drawings to "prove" his claim. However, developmental biologists agree that many aspects of vertebrate development are highly conserved among the various classes. To compare the late 19th century claims (at worst - exaggerations) of Haeckel with the outright fraud (in his "research" and his academic "credentials") of Carl Baugh is not fair, imo. Besides, Haeckel submitted his claims to scientific scrutiny - and he was corrected by scientists. In which scientific journal did Baugh publish his research?