Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8929 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-26-2019 3:34 AM
36 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,465 Year: 15,501/19,786 Month: 2,224/3,058 Week: 82/516 Day: 3/79 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
678910
11
Author Topic:   Hammer found in Cretaceous layer
joz
Inactive Member


Message 151 of 160 (186168)
02-17-2005 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Quetzal
02-17-2005 8:41 AM


I was just speculating based on what I knew of radiocarbon dating and historical metalsmithing methods....

However a search got me this...

http://www.llnl.gov/2020/posterList.htm#radiocarbon

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.

[pats self on back]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Quetzal, posted 02-17-2005 8:41 AM Quetzal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Quetzal, posted 02-17-2005 7:56 PM joz has not yet responded

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 152 of 160 (186170)
02-17-2005 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by Coragyps
02-17-2005 9:26 AM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Coragyps, posted 02-17-2005 9:26 AM Coragyps has not yet responded

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 4105 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 153 of 160 (186382)
02-17-2005 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by joz
02-17-2005 11:07 AM


Muchas gracias! (Q joins in joz's backpatting.)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by joz, posted 02-17-2005 11:07 AM joz has not yet responded

  
satrekker
Inactive Member


Message 154 of 160 (196176)
04-02-2005 4:24 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by PurpleYouko
01-06-2005 12:44 PM


Re: The deed is done!
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by PurpleYouko, posted 01-06-2005 12:44 PM PurpleYouko has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by PurpleYouko, posted 04-02-2005 11:32 AM satrekker has responded

  
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 713
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 155 of 160 (196212)
04-02-2005 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by satrekker
04-02-2005 4:24 AM


Re: The deed is done!
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.

PY


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by satrekker, posted 04-02-2005 4:24 AM satrekker has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by satrekker, posted 04-02-2005 5:07 PM PurpleYouko has not yet responded

  
satrekker
Inactive Member


Message 156 of 160 (196256)
04-02-2005 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by PurpleYouko
04-02-2005 11:32 AM


Re: The deed is done!
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.

BB


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by PurpleYouko, posted 04-02-2005 11:32 AM PurpleYouko has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Coragyps, posted 04-02-2005 5:27 PM satrekker has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5398
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 157 of 160 (196259)
04-02-2005 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by satrekker
04-02-2005 5:07 PM


Re: The deed is done!
I am unsure as to the exact accuracy of what I am conveying.

Coming from "Dr" Baugh, I'll bet that the accuracy is very, very low. Or absent. I would imagine that he was trying to raise money for his hyperbaric chamber at his "museum." The man is a fraud.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by satrekker, posted 04-02-2005 5:07 PM satrekker has not yet responded

    
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 1126 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 158 of 160 (219093)
06-23-2005 5:27 PM


Even AIG says Baugh is a fraud.
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/whatbau.htm

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).


Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by randman, posted 06-28-2005 2:46 AM deerbreh has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3132 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 159 of 160 (220315)
06-28-2005 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by deerbreh
06-23-2005 5:27 PM


Re: Even AIG says Baugh is a fraud.
Dang, he's maybe worse than Haeckel.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by deerbreh, posted 06-23-2005 5:27 PM deerbreh has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by deerbreh, posted 06-29-2005 11:32 AM randman has not yet responded

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 1126 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 160 of 160 (220664)
06-29-2005 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by randman
06-28-2005 2:46 AM


Re: Even AIG says Baugh is a fraud.
randman said:

"Dang, he's maybe worse than Haeckel."

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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by randman, posted 06-28-2005 2:46 AM randman has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
678910
11
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019