Re: KRS - artificial weathering

From: Eric Stevens (eric.stevens_at_sum.co.nz)
Date: 09/17/04 

Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 21:54:49 +1200

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 08:51:43 GMT, "zolota" <zolota3@REMOVEshaw.ca>
wrote:

>
>"I E Johansson" <ingerxjohanssonx@telia.com> wrote in message
>news:Lhx2d.103519$dP1.373252@newsc.telia.net...
>>
>> "zolota" <zolota3@REMOVEshaw.ca> skrev i meddelandet
>> news:%_v2d.31317$%S.13731@pd7tw2no...
>>>
>>> "I E Johansson" <ingerxjohanssonx@telia.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Hqv2d.3441$d5.26437@newsb.telia.net...
>>> > zolota,
>>> > the suggested method of yours is one of the easiest to detect of all
>>> > according to scientists here.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Everything snipped so top posting is correct.
>>>
>>> How to detect please, that's why I posted it, to find the detection
>> method.
>>> You claim to know how to do it, tell me.
>>
>> That's only to use one of the modern electron-microscope. We could do it
>> back in 1976 -79 when I worked with salt on ice using the best microscope
>> then. Actually we had to do it because there was an accusation from some
>> we
>> today should call 'Green' propagandist that the salt on ice had this and
>> that effect on stone, asfalt and concrete. Of course it had and of course
>> it
>> was detectable. For the effect of combination salt, sea-wind resp acid
>> rain
>> on stone, graywake and other, as well as soil, ground, growth and fauna my
>> own father worked in the so called 'blue' (water-related weatering,
>> erosion
>> and polution) field from 1954 till he retired - I helped him with tests
>> from
>> 1957. The laboratarium they used could detect all non-normal ageing in
>> 1960's. It didn't look the same.
>> It still doesn't according to the geochemist I met with, as so many times
>> each year, last week.
>>
>> Inger E
>>>
>
>I would agree in the sense that an electronic instrument is the most likely
>device to find a tampered surface. But you have said nothing about what the
>scientist would be looking for with this instrument. Your 1976 EM could only
>scan physical appearances. While it may prove some frauds it cannot confirm
>that other surfaces are frauds, or ancient, and it cannot put a date on
>them. "It didn't look the same" is not a scientific observation, differences
>must be quantified. I repeat my question "what method"? (Not, what
>instrument)". What quantifiable chemical or physical marker would prove the
>age or fraudulence of an apparently old mineral surface, what minerals would
>you look at?
>
>As I noted to Eric, do you think that anyone would ever allow a cut through
>a letter of the KRS so that a cross section of the surface can be studied?

They already have allowed a sample to be cut from it. In any case, the
fact that it might not be permissible to take a piece from the KRS
does not mean that nothing would be found if a piece was taken.

Eric Stevens