Re: Problems with the radio carbon dating of the Newport Tower

On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 10:04:37 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
<smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> wrote:


"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:eqvbl3l745k6uc0e2ifi7153cu6v76mdo8@xxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 20:02:59 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
<smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> wrote:

You clearly don't know what they did. You are not aware of the
techniques they used to separate old -CO3 from new -CO3. In fact I
strongly suspect you don't know a damned thing about what they did.

Are you seriously contending that they could accurate calibrate those
chemicals? Or that they can know for a fact the source of the shells used
in the mortar (if any), and to what extent the original mortar was mixed
using sea shells znd to what extent lime was obtained from other sources?
All of these things will have an effect on the percentages of the
carbonate
and hence the radiocarbon dating.

Go read their paper you ignorant clown.

Then hang your head in embarrasment. :-(

This is from a prior post of yours:

Yep. The same post with which I started this thread.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.archaeology/msg/8a71d73bd19f0056?dmode=source :

"The team which C14 dated the Newport Tower (Dr Hogne Junger of the
University of Helsingfors and Jogen Siemonsen) made use of a technique which
drove off the old and new CO2 in two separate streams. I am not able to
comment on this although I understand the method is contentious in that it
is highly reliant on the skill of the operator. For the purposes of this
article I will accept both their method and their methodology and that it
has had no effect on the accuracy of the dating."

I have read the entire post linked above, which is where the quote comes
from, and which also discusses the report by Jan Heinemier and Hogne Jungner
as discussed by Suzanne Carlson in her article "Tilting at Windwills: The
Newport Tower." I have also read Hu McCulloch's comments on the dating
issue. I know what the technique used by Junger & Siemonsen was, and the
analysis used by Heinemier and Junger. I also understand McCulloch's
caveats.

Your (linked above) post claims not to doubt that the radiocarbon
methodology used on the Newport Tower is accurate, but calls it contenious.

Which it is. Nevertheless I think they got their lab work right.

McCulloch raises caveats with the methodology.

Largely the same ones which I originally raised way back about 8 or 9
years ago and which I still believe are problems to be resolved.

Carlson doesn't understand the math applied to arrive at the dating.

You don't understand that Carlson didn't understand the calibration
process by means of which a radiocarbon age is turned into a
chronological age.

My prior posts have stated that there is difficulty in trying to adjust for
the problems of the reservoir effect, and the use of shell lime, because
such adjustments will require knowledge of the conditions that existed when
the mortar was created, which may not be the same as the conditions that
exist today, and also it matters where the shells were obtained from and
what percentage of the lime used in the mortar came from shells.

I believe that Junger & Siemonsen and Heinemier and Junger did the best that
can be done. Beyond trying to adjust the methodology and the mathematical
analsysis for conditions as they did, there is no possible way to know
precisely where the shells used to obtain lime for the mortar in the Newport
Tower came from, and/or whether some of the lime came from sources other
than shells. There is also no way to know the precise contribution from the
reservoir effect in the 17th century at the location of Newport, Rhode
Island, against what it is today. Period.

Quite right. But what you persistently fail to realise is that H&J
dealt with the problem by mechanically and chemically separating the
old calcium carbonate from the new. The separation will not have been
perfect but it appears to have been reasonably effective. Its all
described in their paper.

Nothing that you've posted gives any indication that the above problems that
I have raised can be, or ever will be, overcome other than by adjusting the
methodology and math in the manner that **the experts** did. So, I will
repeat with some clarifications to facilitate your understanding:

Are you seriously contending that someone could **more accurately**
[accurate] calibrate **for the issues that I raised than Junger & Siemonsen
did** [those chemicals]? Or that **anyone** [they] can know for a fact the
source of the shells used in the mortar (if any), and to what extent the
original mortar was mixed using sea shells znd to what extent lime was
obtained from other sources? All of these things will have an effect on the
percentages of the carbonate and hence the radiocarbon dating.

What you say would be correct if H&J dealt with the problem the way
you seem believe they did. Unfortunately for your criticism, they
didn't do it the way you assume.

Since //you// have taken the caveats with their methods (as did McCulloch),
the burden is on //you (and Hu)// to suggest how to improve the methods that
have arrived at the currently accepted radiocarbon dating of the Newport
Tower.

Why do you think I started this thread? I was hoping to attract some
informed comments.

Of course as non-experts in the field (at least, as you posted,
Carlson is a big enough person to admit that she understands little in the
matter of radiocarbon dating), I suspect that you have a row to hoe that is
way to long for the both of you. Get back to us when you solve the
problems, or at least propose something that would address the problems, or
when someone else does...

In the meanwhile, I, and others who are rational thinkers, will accept the
result that have been produced that are incontestible:

--- waffle irrelevant to carbon dating snipped ----



Eric Stevens
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Problems with the radio carbon dating of the Newport Tower
    ... what percentage of the lime used in the mortar came from shells. ... Non-hydraulic mortars contain datable binder carbonate with ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Problems with the radio carbon dating of the Newport Tower
    ... the problems of the reservoir effect, and the use of shell lime, because ... what percentage of the lime used in the mortar came from shells. ... Non-hydraulic mortars contain datable binder carbonate with ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Possible flamebait: rifled mortar
    ... I often wondered about the benefits/drawbacks to rifling mortars. ... those particular drawbacks (i.e. larger shells for a more snug fit, ... other plastics as well) I was wondering if one was to build a mortar ... "rocket shell" which would be fired upward and simultaneously ignited ...
    (rec.pyrotechnics)
  • Re: Large diameter mortars
    ... I once blew the bottom out of a 10" HDPE mortar with a single-break ... 10" cylinder shell. ... all types of shells, but is hard work to transport, set up, and dig ...
    (rec.pyrotechnics)
  • Re: Possible flamebait: rifled mortar
    ... other plastics as well) I was wondering if one was to build a mortar ... and a salami shell to fit with the rifling (possibly ... So high a chamber pressure that HDPE or other plastics will ... Also the projectiles (shells) must have a much higher structural ...
    (rec.pyrotechnics)