Newport Tower - problems with the carbon dating.
Eric Stevens
at Windmills: The Newport Tower', published in the NEARA Journal
Volume XXX, 3&4. This raises many points which I will cover later.
However, it also contains the most coherent presentation of the C14
dating of the concrete that I have seen so far. I have previously
mentioned my doubts about the method used and the arrival of this
article has enabled me to examine the matter more closely.
The basic methodology behind C14 dating is well known. There are two
main carbon isotopes present in atmospheric carbon dioxide. One has
an atomic weight of 12 and the other has an atomic weight of 14. The
C14 isotope is created mainly by radiation from space etc and being
radioactive decays at a predetermined rate. That means that if a
sample containing carbon derived from the atmosphere is analysed to
determine the ratio of C14 to C12, the decay curve can in effect be
extrapolated backwards to intersect the known curve of atmospheric C14
content. That establishes the date at which the carbon became part of
the sample. The matter is much more complicated than this but that is
the basic principal.
C14 cannot be used to directly date objects which incorporate old
carbon. Shellfish are an example of this, particularly if they are
from deep water. The carbon which they have built into the lime of
their shells may have been in circulation in the ocean deeps for
hundreds of years. Direct dating of such objects will produce
excessively early dates.
The dating of certain early concretes adds to this problem. In the
case of the Newport tower, the mortar is made from a lime cement made
by calcining sea shells in either an open fire or a primitive hearth.
In theory, all the calcium carbonate is reduced to CaO by the
reaction:
Ca2CO3 —> CaO + CO2
In practice, the calcining is far from complete and a significant
proportion of the original calcium carbonate may remains.
Concretes harden by the formation of a gel. Too little water means
there is excessive un-gelled cement. Too much water means that the
gel is full of voids which weakens the gel structure. However, the
formation of the gel is only the initial reaction. There will
inevitably be unreacted lime - so called ‘free lime' - within the
cement and this will slowly react with atmospheric carbon dioxide over
a period of time to form calcium carbonate once again. The carbon in
the newly formed calcium carbonate will have been extracted from the
atmosphere and can be used to date the age of the calcium carbonate.
One of the problems is that the carbonation of the concrete starts on
the surface and works its way into the main body. The rate at which
this occurs depends upon the rate at which atmospheric CO2 can diffuse
through the concrete. Obviously the rate of diffusion will be low, as
it is driven mainly random motion of the molecules aided by small
pressure changes in the atmosphere.
It is known that carbonation proceeds from the surface of concrete so
that the surface will be carbonated soon after the concrete has set.
It is likely that the diffusing CO2 will have a high strike rate in
that as soon as it encounters unreacted lime, the CO2 will react to
form calcium carbonate. Consequently it is unlikely that a CO2
molecule will survive unreacted for sufficiently long to penetrate to
a great depth. Effectively what happens is that a wave of carbonation
slowly moves through the concrete to ever greater depths.
The effect of depth on the rate of diffusion is to slow it down as the
carbonation penetrates more deeply. A.M Neville (1995 Edition,
Properties of Concrete) illustrates this in his Fig 10.7. Even in his
fastest test case, penetration to 10mm occurs in 4 years, 15mm in
eight years and 19 mm in 16 years. Carbonation to greater depths will
obviously take very much longer. This means that CO2 incorporated in
calcium carbonate at great depth will not have reacted until very many
years after the concrete has set. That means that dating of the
concrete by this CO2 will underestimate the age of the concrete. To
some extent this is offset by the elapsed period required for the CO2
to penetrate to that depth but even so it will take a very long period
of time for the carbonation to penetrate to, say, 200mm.
Extrapolation of the data above produces a ridiculous answer but, even
so, a period of time measured in centuries does not seem unreasonable.
The whole matter is further complicated by the sensitivity of the rate
of diffusion to independent variables such as concrete composition,
temperature and weather exposure. I do not believe that it is at
present possible to accurately predict the time for carbonation at
considerable depths within modern well characterised cements, let
alone a mortar such as that used on the Newport Tower.
This then gives us two problems with the C14 dating of old mortars
such as the Newport Towers. First, old mortars may be riddled with
uncalcined lime containing carbon much older than the date of
calcination. Second, they will contain calcium carbonate which, except
on the surface, contains carbon much younger than the date of
calcination.
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.
That leaves the second question and what concerns me is that I have
never seen it mentioned, let alone discussed. There is nothing in
anything I have read to suggest that it has been considered by Junger
and Siemonsen. That is not to say that they have ignored the problem.
It merely is that I have seen no indication that they may have taken
it into account. This is serious as, as I will discuss again below,
they have taken samples up to 200 mm below the surface of the mortar
in the Newport Tower.
It is possible to find a way around the problems of dating old
concrete at depth by calibrating the C14 age against a specimen of
similar age and composition with a known history. On the surface
Junger and Siemonsen have done this by taking and dating samples from
the chimney of the Wanton-Lyman-Hazard house but in fact it seems that
this is in no way comparable with the mortar of the Newport Tower.
Even ignoring the effect of heat on the carbonation of concrete, there
is the fact that the mortar of the chimney is in no way comparable
with that of the tower. According to Carlson
(http://neara/org/CARLSON/atlantic.html) "The standard lime mortar of
the period was used in the chimney base and the tower mortar is
‘tabby" mortar made directly from shells". If Carlson is correct, and
I have read much the same information elsewhere, using the mortar from
the chimney of the Wanton-Lyman-Hazard house as a reference is like
trying to standardise oranges with a banana.
I think it is fair to say at this point I have no reason to accept the
Junger and Siemonsen C14 dating and I have very considerable reasons
to think it may be wrong.
First their procedure. According to Carlson they took mortar samples
with a 12mm drill. You will note that in the table below samples were
taken at depths up to 25cm and you will appreciate the significance of
this from the point of CO2 diffusion.
Lets have a look at their results. Assuming Carlson has quoted them
correctly they have come up with results as below. H = Height above
ground cm. D = Sample depth cm. Date Range is hopefully self
explanatory.
Position H D Date Range
Flue --
Sample 1 550cm Surface 1690 - 1820
Sample 2 550cm Surface 1740 - 1860
Column 7 –
Sample 1 110cm 7-12cm 1530 - 1640
Sample 2 110cm 7-12cm 1410 - 1570
Sample 3 110cm 7-12cm 1705 - 1855
Sample 4 110cm 7-12cm 1480 - 1630
Fireplace –
Sample 1 420cm 10-20cm 1770 - 1910
Sample 2 420cm 10-20cm 1750 - 1890
Column 6 –
Sample 1 20cm 10-25cm 1750 - 1930
Sample 2 20cm 10-25cm 1510 - 1640
Column 8 - 250cm Plaster 1510 - 1770
Control - Chimney Foundation of Wanton-Lyman-Hazard House
Sample 1 30cm Surface 1770 - 1970
Sample 2 30cm Surface 1730 - 1850
Carlson wrote of this in the ‘Tilting at Windmills' article:
"Jan Heinemier and Hogne Jungner published their report with an
English translation by the authors in Arkaeologiske (Udgravninger i
Danmark 1994 (Archaeological Excavations in Denmark 1994). In
addition to taking samples from the tower, control samples were
taken from the neighbouring Wanton-Lyman Hazard House (1680s).
From the report it appears that 15 samples were taken from the
tower, at a depth ranging from surface to 17cm and a height range
from 20cm to 55cm from the ground, 4 from the fireplace and the
rest from the columns. Four were excluded because of insufficient
carbon content.
Table 1 (p. 6) [see above EES] presents a simplified summary of
these results from years before present (B.P.), using 1950 as B.P.
By plotting these results in a wonderfully circuitous manner and
eliminating post-colonial dates, the authors arrive at a 95%
certainty of the tower's age: 1659 A.D. I invite those of you more
statistically inclined to plot this and get the same results. I
remain sceptical. In my non-scientific way, I wonder how it is
possible to take the two dates from the Wanton-Lyman-Hazard House
(built between 1677 and 1698) and carbon-dated to a range of 1730
to 1970, and conclude: "The weighted mean C14 of the two fractions
of the whole mortar sample (H23) from the Wanton-Lyman-Hazard House
is 139+51, i.e. not significantly different from that of the tower.
Calibration of this C14 age by its intercept with the calibration
curve yields a calendar age of 1689 A.D. calibrated." Try the math
on that one! So we have a range of dates from 1410 to 1970 and a
known error of 283 years. Why not subtract the 283 from 1410,
which gives us 1127? Followers of the Bishop Erie Gnupsson Theory
will appreciate that bit of wizardry, but I fail to understand the
wizardry of the C14 dating used by Heinenmeir and Jungner.
My concerns are different from Carlson's but I invite others to
extract a date of 1659 from the data. Of course, I accept that there
is probably a great deal more to this than was published by Jungner
and Heinemier and that the conclusions calculated by Carlson are
insufficient on their own to determine a statistically significant
date. Nevertheless the results do look peculiar, but that is not my
present concern.
There are several points emerging of significance to my present
concerns. First, Carlson states in the first quoted paragraph that
"Four (samples) were excluded because of insufficient carbon content."
This seems to very much confirm my fears that carbonation had not
completely penetrated to the full depth of the samples. The
implication of this for the C14 age of deep samples is obvious.
Second, if the dates for samples at depth need to be corrected for the
time taken for CO2 to diffuse to that depth, and if this correction
has not been made, the ages of deep samples are manifestly too low.
How much should we add? It's presently anybody's guess but if we add
at least 200 years to the deep samples, and present data suggests we
should add more, we are immediately back into the 16th century or even
earlier.
There are of course the surface samples. But even then, how much can
we trust them if we have a C14 dating of 1770-1970 and 1730-1850 for
the chimney of the Wanton-Lyman-Hazard House which is known to have
been built between 1677 and 1698? There is something distinctly wacky
hee.
I know someone will accuse me of arguing for a non-Colonial date but
that is not my real concern. What worries me is that the C14 age
determined by Heinenmeir and Jungner is being sedulously quoted as
**the_age** of the Newport Tower when as far as I can see it is
anything but that. I have no idea of the actual age of the Newport
Tower and at the moment I am not too sure that anyone else knows
either.
Eric Stevens
There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes, and those who don't. I belong to the second class.
Stephen Throop
Does charcoal buried several feed down pick up carbon?
Stephen Throop
Doug Weller
says...
> I have recently received a copy of Suzanne Carlson's article 禅ilting
> at Windmills: The Newport Tower', published in the NEARA Journal
> Volume XXX, 3&4.
>
that the testing involved "carbon-dioxide bubbles in the mortar"? As you know,
I haven't found mention of them in the report in the 1997 journal, which says:
"The risk of contamination from unburnt limestone is reduced by mechanical
separation. The mortar samples are gently crushed and wet sieved using a mesh
width of 65 microns. The grains of mortar are small, 1-10 microns, and they
easily pass through the sieve, whereas the fractions of calcite crystals of the
unburnt limestone are so much larger and harder that they can be well separated.
Subsequent to this mechanical separation, an additional chemical separation is
performed by utilizing the fact that the compact fossil carbonate reacts more
slowly with acid than the more porous mortar carbonate. Carbon dioxide, CO, is
evolved from the sample carbonate by reaction with 86%o phosphoric acid under
vacuum. The first 20-60% of the evolving CO= is collected separately as a first
fraction of the reaction and the rest is collected as a second fraction. The two
fractions are then radiocarbon-dated separately. The first fraction, which is
enriched in the fast reacting mortar carbonate, will tend to show a lower age
than the second fraction, which may be influenced by a residual amount of slow
reacting fossil carbonate in the sample. The age of the first fraction will thus
most reliably date the time of hardening of the mortar."
Does she give a reference for the bubble claims?
[SNIP]
> The dating of certain early concretes adds to this problem. In the
> case of the Newport tower, the mortar is made from a lime cement made
> by calcining sea shells in either an open fire or a primitive hearth.
> In theory, all the calcium carbonate is reduced to CaO by the
> reaction:
>
Again I am at a disadvantage, as the report I have at the moment mentions
limestone repeatedly but I can't find any mention of calcining sea shells. What
is she referencing for this? (It may be correct, I'd still like to be able to
check it).
[SNIP]
She clearly doesn't know a lot about carbon 14 dating and doesn't seem to
understand calibration.
However, I will try to answer your concerns. This will take some time as it
involves getting further information which I don't have at the moment, and that
will probably take several weeks at least.
Doug
--
Doug Weller member of moderation panel sci.archaeology.moderated
Submissions to: sci-archaeol...@medieval.org
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details
Doug Weller
> I wonder why they didn't try the charcoal at the bottom of the trench.
> Does charcoal buried several feed down pick up carbon?
>
a different case).
Steve Marcus
>
<snip>
>
> C14 cannot be used to directly date objects which incorporate old
> carbon. Shellfish are an example of this, particularly if they are
> from deep water. The carbon which they have built into the lime of
> their shells may have been in circulation in the ocean deeps for
> hundreds of years. Direct dating of such objects will produce
> excessively early dates.
This overstates the case. While it is necessary to employ
corrections when working with objects that may have obtained some
of their carbon from non-atmospheric sources, C14 an be used to
obtain accurate dates after applying calculated corrections.
Whether one wishes to characterize this as "directly" dating the
object or not is irrelevant; the fact is that C14 can be used to
obtain accurate dating in most instances. Sometimes, the
corrections are difficult to make. In general, see:
http://www.c14dating.com/corr.html
<snip balance, which includes some lovely examples of hand waving
at mathematics by Suzanne Carlson following her own admission
that she really doesn't understand the math involved.>
No Eric, I'm not shooting the messenger; I realize that you are
only telling us what Carlson has published.
I do, howeve, wonder at your willingness to embrace what she,
admittedly a non-professional, has written and to concurrently
dismiss the C14 study by professionals as published by another
professional (who prior to the study, was a believer in the Norse
theory of the Newport Tower).
>
> Eric Stevens
>
> There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
> two classes, and those who don't. I belong to the second class.
Steve
--
The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice,
because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and
should not be construed as either. This posting does not
represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal
view.
Steve Marcus
consider is that corrections to radiocarbon (C14) dating is a
standard issue that professionals consider when using the
technique and publishing the result. See:
http://www.c14dating.com/corr.html
One should also take the time to peruse the entire site, starting
with the main page:
I find it odd that a professional archaeologist would publish
results that included C14 dating unless he/she had complete
confidence that the dating had considered and made all necessary
corrections. This doesn't mean that new issues regarding
possible
sources of contamination that were not considered known when
the study was undertaken haven't arisen since the Newport Tower
study was
published, but reading what Eric has posted it doesn't seem like
the issues raised by Carlson are so esoteric that they would not
have been considered at the time the study was undertaken.
Steve
--
The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice,
because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and
should not be construed as either. This posting does not
represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal
view.
Doug Weller wrote:
>
> In article <g9rk0to8rp0gnjlr0...@4ax.com>, este...@ip.co.nz
> says...
> > I have recently received a copy of Suzanne Carlson's article 禅ilting
> > at Windmills: The Newport Tower', published in the NEARA Journal
> > Volume XXX, 3&4.
> >
> She is certainly not an expert in C14 dating. Does it explain why she claims
> that the testing involved "carbon-dioxide bubbles in the mortar"? As you know,
> I haven't found mention of them in the report in the 1997 journal, which says:
>
> "The risk of contamination from unburnt limestone is reduced by mechanical
> separation. The mortar samples are gently crushed and wet sieved using a mesh
> width of 65 microns. The grains of mortar are small, 1-10 microns, and they
> easily pass through the sieve, whereas the fractions of calcite crystals of the
> unburnt limestone are so much larger and harder that they can be well separated.
> Subsequent to this mechanical separation, an additional chemical separation is
> performed by utilizing the fact that the compact fossil carbonate reacts more
> slowly with acid than the more porous mortar carbonate. Carbon dioxide, CO, is
> evolved from the sample carbonate by reaction with 86%o phosphoric acid under
> vacuum. The first 20-60% of the evolving CO= is collected separately as a first
> fraction of the reaction and the rest is collected as a second fraction. The two
> fractions are then radiocarbon-dated separately. The first fraction, which is
> enriched in the fast reacting mortar carbonate, will tend to show a lower age
> than the second fraction, which may be influenced by a residual amount of slow
> reacting fossil carbonate in the sample. The age of the first fraction will thus
> most reliably date the time of hardening of the mortar."
>
> Does she give a reference for the bubble claims?
>
> [SNIP]
>
> > The dating of certain early concretes adds to this problem. In the
> > case of the Newport tower, the mortar is made from a lime cement made
> > by calcining sea shells in either an open fire or a primitive hearth.
> > In theory, all the calcium carbonate is reduced to CaO by the
> > reaction:
> >
> Again I am at a disadvantage, as the report I have at the moment mentions
> limestone repeatedly but I can't find any mention of calcining sea shells. What
> is she referencing for this? (It may be correct, I'd still like to be able to
> check it).
>
> [SNIP]
>
> She clearly doesn't know a lot about carbon 14 dating and doesn't seem to
> understand calibration.
>
> However, I will try to answer your concerns. This will take some time as it
> involves getting further information which I don't have at the moment, and that
> will probably take several weeks at least.
>
Doug Weller
says...
>
> On Thu, 09 Nov 2000 07:46:23 -0500, Stephen Throop <ste...@shelby.net>
> wrote:
>
> >I wonder why they didn't try the charcoal at the bottom of the trench.
> >Does charcoal buried several feed down pick up carbon?
>
>
> I'm fairly sure that carbon dating was not known as a useful tool in
> 1949 and 1950 when the excavations were carried out.
>
[Hits self on head]. Right, Eric.
Doug Weller
says...
> On Thu, 09 Nov 2000 17:45:27 GMT, Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk>> >> I have recently received a copy of Suzanne Carlson's article 禅ilting
> >> at Windmills: The Newport Tower', published in the NEARA Journal
> >> Volume XXX, 3&4.
> >>
>
>
> >Does it explain why she claims
> >that the testing involved "carbon-dioxide bubbles in the mortar"? As you know,
> >I haven't found mention of them in the report in the 1997 journal, which says:
> >
> >Does she give a reference for the bubble claims?
>
> misunderstood the basic methodology. In this area I've relied only on
> her ability to transcribe the dates.
Ok, just curious if she gave a reference.
> >[SNIP]
> >
> >> The dating of certain early concretes adds to this problem. In the
> >> case of the Newport tower, the mortar is made from a lime cement made
> >> by calcining sea shells in either an open fire or a primitive hearth.
> >> In theory, all the calcium carbonate is reduced to CaO by the
> >> reaction:
> >>
> >Again I am at a disadvantage, as the report I have at the moment mentions
> >limestone repeatedly but I can't find any mention of calcining sea shells. What
> >is she referencing for this? (It may be correct, I'd still like to be able to
> >check it).
>
> She has made this point on several occasions and so too have others.
So they have. It would be nice to find out why. As I said, the report summary
I have discusses limestone.
> Mallery also thought the Newport tower was made with "Tabby" mortar
> (and for this reason thought it had to have been built by the Irish
> who he apparently believed were the only people who knew how to do
> this at 'that' time - whatever 'that' is). In any case, Carlson is an
> architect and I would assume she would be able to tell one type of
> mortar from another.
Can't find your original post, but I gather she examined the mortar then?
> >[SNIP]
> >
> >She clearly doesn't know a lot about carbon 14 dating and doesn't seem to
> >understand calibration.
> >
> >However, I will try to answer your concerns. This will take some time as it
> >involves getting further information which I don't have at the moment, and that
> >will probably take several weeks at least.
>
> I would be interested to learn what you find out. As I said, this
> problem may already have been taken care of. Its just that I don't
> know.
>
Ok, hopefully I'll be able to help here.
Stephen Throop
> > >I wonder why they didn't try the charcoal at the bottom of the trench.
> > >Does charcoal buried several feed down pick up carbon?
> >
> > It **is** carbon!
I figured carbon dating required something made of carbon. I wasn't
sure if charcoal could be contaminated with fresher carbon from CO2 in
ground water.
(Wish I could spell "feet"!)
> >
> > I'm fairly sure that carbon dating was not known as a useful tool in
> > 1949 and 1950 when the excavations were carried out.
> >
> [Hits self on head]. Right, Eric.
>
Would excavators have saved any of the burnt wood?
Stephen Throop
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>I wonder why they didn't try the charcoal at the bottom of the trench.
>Does charcoal buried several feed down pick up carbon?
It **is** carbon!
I'm fairly sure that carbon dating was not known as a useful tool in
1949 and 1950 when the excavations were carried out.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>In article <g9rk0to8rp0gnjlr0...@4ax.com>, este...@ip.co.nz
>says...
>> I have recently received a copy of Suzanne Carlson's article 禅ilting
>> at Windmills: The Newport Tower', published in the NEARA Journal
>> Volume XXX, 3&4.
>>
>She is certainly not an expert in C14 dating.
Nobody said she was.
>Does it explain why she claims
>that the testing involved "carbon-dioxide bubbles in the mortar"? As you know,
>I haven't found mention of them in the report in the 1997 journal, which says:
-- snip ---
>
>Does she give a reference for the bubble claims?
No, and I've previously said in another article that she seems to have
misunderstood the basic methodology. In this area I've relied only on
her ability to transcribe the dates.
>
>[SNIP]
>
>> The dating of certain early concretes adds to this problem. In the
>> case of the Newport tower, the mortar is made from a lime cement made
>> by calcining sea shells in either an open fire or a primitive hearth.
>> In theory, all the calcium carbonate is reduced to CaO by the
>> reaction:
>>
>Again I am at a disadvantage, as the report I have at the moment mentions
>limestone repeatedly but I can't find any mention of calcining sea shells. What
>is she referencing for this? (It may be correct, I'd still like to be able to
>check it).
She has made this point on several occasions and so too have others.
Mallery also thought the Newport tower was made with "Tabby" mortar
(and for this reason thought it had to have been built by the Irish
who he apparently believed were the only people who knew how to do
this at 'that' time - whatever 'that' is). In any case, Carlson is an
architect and I would assume she would be able to tell one type of
mortar from another.
>
>[SNIP]
>
>She clearly doesn't know a lot about carbon 14 dating and doesn't seem to
>understand calibration.
>
>However, I will try to answer your concerns. This will take some time as it
>involves getting further information which I don't have at the moment, and that
>will probably take several weeks at least.
I would be interested to learn what you find out. As I said, this
problem may already have been taken care of. Its just that I don't
know.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>In article <a9vl0t0n6gupc5h22...@4ax.com>, este...@ip.co.nz
>says...
>> On Thu, 09 Nov 2000 17:45:27 GMT, Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <g9rk0to8rp0gnjlr0...@4ax.com>, este...@ip.co.nz
>> >says...
>> >> I have recently received a copy of Suzanne Carlson's article 禅ilting
>> >> at Windmills: The Newport Tower', published in the NEARA Journal
>> >> Volume XXX, 3&4.
>> >>
>> >She is certainly not an expert in C14 dating.
At the beginning of 'Tilting at Windmills... ' she wrote:
"After four years of research and scientific investigations, the
Danish Committee, in cooperation with Danish and Finnish experts,
the City of Newport and the Rhode Island Preservation and Heritage
Commission, has concluded its study on the origin of the tower. The
promised translation has failed to materialize, but, thanks to Jim
Whittall we have procured a Danish copy of the report by Dr
Johannes Hertz, Deputy antiquary of the Danish National Museum,
published in the 'Annual Repotr of the Danish National Museaum', as
well as a Danish copy with an English translation of the report on
the C14 dating, authored by Jan Heinemeir and Hogne Jungner. My
effort at translating the Danish sharpened my wits as well as my
pen and I'm ready for some jousting."
This is consistent with what I have found so far, that the report was
published as described and that while there is an English translation
of the text, there is no English translation of the various charts,
figures and diagrams. Without checking, I cannot be entirely sure, but
I think some or all of the report may have been published in a Swedish
or Danish journal devoted to Atomic Mass Spectrography.
>>
>> Nobody said she was.
>>
>> >Does it explain why she claims
>> >that the testing involved "carbon-dioxide bubbles in the mortar"? As you know,
>> >I haven't found mention of them in the report in the 1997 journal, which says:
>> -- snip ---
>> >
>> >Does she give a reference for the bubble claims?
>>
>> No, and I've previously said in another article that she seems to have
>> misunderstood the basic methodology. In this area I've relied only on
>> her ability to transcribe the dates.
>
>Ok, just curious if she gave a reference.
I think she has completely misunderstood what is involved. There
certainly will be bubbles but only at the time of testing.
>
>> >[SNIP]
>> >
>> >> The dating of certain early concretes adds to this problem. In the
>> >> case of the Newport tower, the mortar is made from a lime cement made
>> >> by calcining sea shells in either an open fire or a primitive hearth.
>> >> In theory, all the calcium carbonate is reduced to CaO by the
>> >> reaction:
>> >>
>> >Again I am at a disadvantage, as the report I have at the moment mentions
>> >limestone repeatedly but I can't find any mention of calcining sea shells. What
>> >is she referencing for this? (It may be correct, I'd still like to be able to
>> >check it).
>>
>> She has made this point on several occasions and so too have others.
>
>So they have. It would be nice to find out why. As I said, the report summary
>I have discusses limestone.
It would nice to find out why. :-)
>
>> Mallery also thought the Newport tower was made with "Tabby" mortar
>> (and for this reason thought it had to have been built by the Irish
>> who he apparently believed were the only people who knew how to do
>> this at 'that' time - whatever 'that' is). In any case, Carlson is an
>> architect and I would assume she would be able to tell one type of
>> mortar from another.
>
>Can't find your original post, but I gather she examined the mortar then?
I understand from her writings that she has physically examined both
the tower and the chimney. I could be wrong. Mallery certainly
examined the tower.
>
>> >[SNIP]
>> >
>> >She clearly doesn't know a lot about carbon 14 dating and doesn't seem to
>> >understand calibration.
>> >
>> >However, I will try to answer your concerns. This will take some time as it
>> >involves getting further information which I don't have at the moment, and that
>> >will probably take several weeks at least.
>>
>> I would be interested to learn what you find out. As I said, this
>> problem may already have been taken care of. Its just that I don't
>> know.
>>
>Ok, hopefully I'll be able to help here.
>
>Doug
Eric Stevens
Harald Henkel
Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <s2vl0toaathh3482i...@4ax.com>,
este...@ip.co.nz
> says...
> >
> > On Thu, 09 Nov 2000 07:46:23 -0500, Stephen Throop
<ste...@shelby.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >I wonder why they didn't try the charcoal at the bottom of the
trench.
> > >Does charcoal buried several feed down pick up carbon?
> >
> > It **is** carbon!
> >
> > I'm fairly sure that carbon dating was not known as a useful tool in
> > 1949 and 1950 when the excavations were carried out.
> >
And btw, the requirement to correct the "pure" dates received from
carbon dating (for changes of C-12/14 relation in atmospphere and maybe
other differences) was not known until about 1970, when Colin Renfrew
found out.
Harald Henkel
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Martha or Larry Athy
I have talked on the phone with the manager of the lab that has been
doing the C14 dating on the Comalcalco, Mexico, oyster shell mortar for
the Early Sites Research Society, of which I am a member. I have been
personally involved in this continuing project for many years.
We discussed three types of mortar, new oyster, old oyster, and
limestone varieties.
My understand is as follows.
With any of the three such types of mortar, a sample can be mechanically
and chemically separated into three different portions for AMS testing.
By crushing in a vacuum, any entrapped CO2 will be captured- the first
portion.
Any of the original CaCO3 that was not converted to CaO will tend to be
larger and harder particles- the second portion.
The newer CaCO3 formed when the mortar set will be smaller and softer
particles- the third portion.
The second and third portions are screened and chemically prepared for
the AMS testing. The separation between the second and third portions
will not be absolute, and there will thus be some cross effects.
After the AMS testing, all result are corrected and correlated by
standard methods as circumstances indicate. For reasons previously
explained herein by Eric Stevens, the first and third portions will tend
to give ages younger than they should be. The second portion will be
inclined to give ages older than they should be, and are usually not
tested. New oyster shell can not be separated into the second and third
portions; thus only the first and third test could be run, both giving
too young ages.
For a Newport Tower mortar (shell mortar) sample and a house chimney
mortar (limestone mortar) sample that happen to be the same age, the
first portion (CO2) tests should give about the same ages, but both
would be too young. Third portion tests would also give ages that are
both too young, but with the tower mortar relatively younger.
Thus the ages quoted by Suzanne Carlson in her paper and posted herein
previously should be on the young side of actual; and that certainly
appears to be the case. Although such dates have been calibrated by the
lab and/or authors per normal sampling testing procedures for these
specific types of samples, the data has clearly not been re-calibrated
to the known date of the house chimney samples. According to Carlson,
the authors state their conclusions; but Carlson does not find them
convincing. I am inclined to agree and am attempting such a
re-calibration myself.
Regards, Larry Athy, P.E.
Doug Weller
> First, Carlson states in the first quoted paragraph that
> "Four (samples) were excluded because of insufficient carbon content."
> This seems to very much confirm my fears that carbonation had not
> completely penetrated to the full depth of the samples.
>
The report says that the problem was contamination by an admixture of drilled
material from the stones caused by drilling in the joints between irregularly
shaped stones. What is wrong with this explanation?
[SNIP]
Doug Weller
marth...@webtv.net says...
[SNIP]
> The second portion will be
> inclined to give ages older than they should be, and are usually not
> tested.
>
It appears that they were tested, however.
> Thus the ages quoted by Suzanne Carlson in her paper and posted herein
> previously should be on the young side of actual; and that certainly
> appears to be the case.
>
Has anyone mentioned that the earliest dates appear to be 2nd fraction dates?
As I said, I'm trying to check all this and expect further information in the
next few weeks. It looks to me as though no one in this debate has all the
information necessary to make any conclusions.
Eric Stevens
or Larry Athy) wrote:
>
>I have talked on the phone with the manager of the lab that has been
>doing the C14 dating on the Comalcalco, Mexico, oyster shell mortar for
>the Early Sites Research Society, of which I am a member. I have been
>personally involved in this continuing project for many years.
>
>We discussed three types of mortar, new oyster, old oyster, and
>limestone varieties.
>My understand is as follows.
>
>With any of the three such types of mortar, a sample can be mechanically
>and chemically separated into three different portions for AMS testing.
>
>By crushing in a vacuum, any entrapped CO2 will be captured- the first
>portion.
So Carslon is not talking nonsense when she refers to the CO2 in the
bubbles.
>
>Any of the original CaCO3 that was not converted to CaO will tend to be
>larger and harder particles- the second portion.
>
>The newer CaCO3 formed when the mortar set will be smaller and softer
>particles- the third portion.
>
>The second and third portions are screened and chemically prepared for
>the AMS testing. The separation between the second and third portions
>will not be absolute, and there will thus be some cross effects.
>
>After the AMS testing, all result are corrected and correlated by
>standard methods as circumstances indicate. For reasons previously
>explained herein by Eric Stevens, the first and third portions will tend
>to give ages younger than they should be. The second portion will be
>inclined to give ages older than they should be, and are usually not
>tested. New oyster shell can not be separated into the second and third
>portions; thus only the first and third test could be run, both giving
>too young ages.
>
>For a Newport Tower mortar (shell mortar) sample and a house chimney
>mortar (limestone mortar) sample that happen to be the same age, the
>first portion (CO2) tests should give about the same ages, but both
>would be too young. Third portion tests would also give ages that are
>both too young, but with the tower mortar relatively younger.
>
>Thus the ages quoted by Suzanne Carlson in her paper and posted herein
>previously should be on the young side of actual; and that certainly
>appears to be the case. Although such dates have been calibrated by the
>lab and/or authors per normal sampling testing procedures for these
>specific types of samples, the data has clearly not been re-calibrated
>to the known date of the house chimney samples. According to Carlson,
>the authors state their conclusions; but Carlson does not find them
>convincing. I am inclined to agree and am attempting such a
>re-calibration myself.
>
>Regards, Larry Athy, P.E.
Eric Stevens
Doug Weller
says...[SNIP].
> >By crushing in a vacuum, any entrapped CO2 will be captured- the first
> >portion.
>
> So Carslon is not talking nonsense when she refers to the CO2 in the
> bubbles.
>
"I think she has completely misunderstood what is involved. There
certainly will be bubbles but only at the time of testing."
And what she actually wrote in her article was "3: The recent carbon dating by
the Danish Committee was based on a new and experimental technique of measuring
the C-14 in carbon-dioxide bubbles in the mortar"
You were right the first time. They were not measuring 'carbon-dioxide bubbles
in the mortar', she completely misunderstood what was done. Just as she doesn't
understand how the dates were arrived at.
Doug Weller
says...
[SNIP]
> See my other article. There **will** be bubbles in the mortar and
> based on what Larry has posted there is a technique involving crushing
> in a vaccuum for extracting the gases in those bubbles.
>
Ok, as I said, I hope to find out more about this, and that might clear up this
point.
Martha or Larry Athy
In my 10 Nov. posting on this subject, I closed by indicating that I am
attempting a re-calibration myself. As I indicated, the samples had
previously been calibrated by the lab or authors per normal sampling
testing procedures for these specific types of samples.
To the best of my knowledge, they did not publish any results of a
calibration of the unknown true dates of the tower to the known true
dates of the house chimney. This would have been a calibration (an
additional calibration or re-calibration) with a different purpose than
that of the previous sample calibrations.
To do my calibration, I calculated a linear curve on a graph of mean of
calibrated B.P. date ranges vs. mean of test B.P. date ranges (y vs. x).
On the graph, I plotted the actual known B.P. date for the house as 'y'
vs. the mean test B.P. date range for the average of both house samples
as 'x'. A line thru that point and thru 0/0 gives the linear
calibration curve. From this curve, a calibrated date can be read or
calculated for any test date.
My copy of Suzanne Carlson's "Tilting at Windmills: Newport Tower"
includes the C14 dating from the mortar samples taken in 1993 and
reported by Heinemeier and Jungner in 1994, the only such samples taken
to my knowledge. I copy the following from her paper but have rearranged
and coded to fit as follows:
-----------------
CODES:
H = Height Above Ground
D = Sample Depth
0000-0000 = Sample Date Range, A.D.
(C) = Chimney foundation of Wanton - Lyman - Hazard House. (This house
is said to date from 1677-1698.)
xxx-xxx = Sample Date Range, B.P.
x = Mean of Sample Date Range, B.P.
y = Mean of Calibrated Date Range, B.P.
z = Mean of Calibrated Date Range, A.D.
-----------------------------------------------
DATA (A.D. dates):
Flue: H= 550cm, D= surface.
(1) Sample 1: 1690-1820
(2) Sample 2: 1740-1860
Column 7: H= 110cm, D= 7-12cm.
(3) Sample 1: 1530-1640
(4) Sample 2: 1410-1570
(5) Sample 3: 1705-1855
(6) Sample 4: 1480-1630
Fireplace: H= 420cm, D= 10-20cm.
(7) Sample 1: 1770-1910
(8) Sample 2: 1750-1890
Column 6: H= 20cm, D= 10-25cm.
(9) Â Sample 1: 1750-1930
(10) Sample 2: 1510-1640
Column 8: H= 250cm, D= plaster.
(11) Sample 1: 1550-1770
Control (C) : H= 30cm, D= surface.
(12) Sample 1: 1770-1970
(13) Sample 2: 1730-1850
----
For purposes of calibration, I calculate:
(14) Average of (12) and (13): 1750-1910
(15) Average of actual house dates:
   1677-1698 = 1687
--------------------------------------------------
I then convert to Before Present (B.P.):
(1) 260-130; x=195+/-65
(2) 210-90; Â x=150+/-60
(3) 420-310; x=365+/-65
(4) 540-380; x=460+/-80
(5) 245-95; Â x=170+/-75
(6) 470-320; x=395+/-75
(7) 180-90; Â x=110+/-70
(8) 200-60; Â x=130+/-70
(9) 200-20; Â x=110+/-90
(10)440-310; Â x=375+/-65
(11)400-180; Â x=290+/-110
(14)200-40; Â Â x=120+/-80
(15)273-252; Â x=263+/-11
----------------------------------------------
I then use a linear calibration curve of y=263x/120; y= 2.1917x based on
the actual house B.P. date (15) and the average house sample B.P. date
(14). From this formula, calibrated dates are calculated for each sample
with results as follows:
------
CALIBRATED B.P. MEAN DATES:
Flue: H =550cm, D= Surface
(1) Â y= 430+/-65; Â z= 1520+/-65
(2) Â y= 330+/-60; Â z= 1620+/-60
Column 7: H= 110cm, D= 7-12cm
(3) Â y= 800+/-55; Â z= 1150+/-55
(4) Â y= 1010+/-80; z= 940+/-80
(5) Â y= 370+/-75; Â z= 1580+/-75
(6) Â y= 870+/-75; Â z= 1080+/-75
Fireplace: H= 420cm, D= 10-20-cm
(7) Â y= 240+/-70; Â z= 1710+/-70
(8) Â y= 280+/-70; Â z= 1670+/-70
Column 6; H= 20cm, D= 10-25cm
(9) Â y= 240+/-90; Â z= 1710+/-90
(10) y= 820+/-65; Â z= 1130+/-65
Column 8: H= 250cm, D= plaster
(11) y= 640+/-110; z= 1310+/-110
Control (C): H= 30cm, D= surface
(14) y= 263+/-80; Â z= 1687+/-80
------------------
Note that the three latest dates, (7), (8), and (9) are in the fireplace
or close to the ground and have within their range the time that the
tower was converted to a windmill, ca. 1675 A.D.. The five earliest
dates, (3), (4), (6), (10), and (11) are deep within columns or high off
the ground and date from 940 to 1310 A.D., presumably including the
tower construction time. The other three dates, (1), (2), and (5) date
from 1520 to 1620 A.D. and seem to indicate repairs previous to
reconstruction. Thus we have data demonstrating a pre-colonial tower
construction and colonial reconstruction.
I will be happy to reconsider these re-calibrated dates if someone can
come forward with more information or the details of a better method.
Regards, Larry Athy,
Professional Engineer
(This is a professional opinion, even though no client is involved.)
Eric Stevens
or Larry Athy) wrote:
>
>I have talked on the phone with the manager of the lab that has been
>doing the C14 dating on the Comalcalco, Mexico, oyster shell mortar for
>the Early Sites Research Society, of which I am a member. I have been
>personally involved in this continuing project for many years.
>
>We discussed three types of mortar, new oyster, old oyster, and
>limestone varieties.
>My understand is as follows.
>
>With any of the three such types of mortar, a sample can be mechanically
>and chemically separated into three different portions for AMS testing.
>
>By crushing in a vacuum, any entrapped CO2 will be captured- the first
>portion.
I mentioned in my original article on the problems of dating
concrete/cement that the initaila hardeneing mechanism is by the
formation of a gel. I also said that the gel structure is dependent on
the amount of water used in the original mix. Exactly the correct
amount gives a very dense gel almost entirely free of voids but most
hand mixed cements have an aexcess of water which gives rise to a
relatively open and porous gel structure. This must be the source of
the gases extracted by crushing within a vaccuum. The gases may come
from within the gel or from bubbles which are open to gas permeation
(by diffusion)from within the gel.
I was not aware that CO2 samples were obtained from such a source and
did not previously mention them. However, as I yesterday said in a
brief response my uncomplimentary remarks about Suzanne Carlsonn's
ability to understand the carbon dating methodology were entirely
unjustified and I withdraw them unreservedly.
At the atomic level, gases diffuse by a process of random bouncing,
both off each other and the physical constraints around them. For the
last few hundred years CO2 molecules have made up approximately 0.3%
of the total number of molecules in the atmosphere. When concrete is
mixed it will contain entrained air. The CO2 in that air will quickly
react with adjacent free lime to form a very small quantity of Calcium
carbonate. Form then on the gases within the concrete are
substantially CO2 free unless more can diffuse through from the
outside.
The CO2 diffusion is driven by the 'partial pressure' of CO2 in the
atmoshere which is 0.3% of 1 bar or 0.3% of 14.7 psi - which ever you
like - but in any case, it is not very much. The problem is that at
this level the diffusion is not just a matter of oozing through a
slightly porous plug of cement. The individual molecules must bounce
and ricochet of each other and the gel structure with random chance
determining where they are likely to end up.
The problem is that with the small pores of a gel one of the major
obstacles to CO2 molecules bouncing in is the large numbers of other
molecules bouncing out. So, being driven only by the low partial
pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere, it takes a long time for a
significant portion to find its way into the interior of the concrete.
Also, as I mentioned in my original article on the subject, any CO2
encountering unreacted free-lime inside the cement will be immediately
captured and turned into CaCO3. This means that a bubble or void can
only contain CO2 which is younger than that incorporated in the
adjacent CaCO3 which, in turn, is younger than the age of the cement.
>Any of the original CaCO3 that was not converted to CaO will tend to be
>larger and harder particles- the second portion.
>
>The newer CaCO3 formed when the mortar set will be smaller and softer
>particles- the third portion.
>
>The second and third portions are screened and chemically prepared for
>the AMS testing. The separation between the second and third portions
>will not be absolute, and there will thus be some cross effects.
>
>After the AMS testing, all result are corrected and correlated by
>standard methods as circumstances indicate. For reasons previously
>explained herein by Eric Stevens, the first and third portions will tend
>to give ages younger than they should be.
At a considerable depth the data on the rate of penetration of the
carbonation of concrete suggests the difference can be hundreds of
years. Even though there may be some CO2 incorporated from air
absorbtion at the time of original mixing this may be be outweighed by
the much larger quantity which has found its way into the concrete
over the years.
>The second portion will be
>inclined to give ages older than they should be, and are usually not
>tested. New oyster shell can not be separated into the second and third
>portions; thus only the first and third test could be run, both giving
>too young ages.
>
>For a Newport Tower mortar (shell mortar) sample and a house chimney
>mortar (limestone mortar) sample that happen to be the same age, the
>first portion (CO2) tests should give about the same ages, but both
>would be too young. Third portion tests would also give ages that are
>both too young, but with the tower mortar relatively younger.
The problem with the formation tests is that in the case of both the
tower and the chimney the samples were removed by a 12mm drill. This
would have both crushed and heated the samples and almost certainly
disturbed the contained gases. I would expect them to have been
contaminated with today's air which would have further understated the
age of the cement. It is to be regretted that they did not use a
tubular drill to remove intact cores.
>
>Thus the ages quoted by Suzanne Carlson in her paper and posted herein
>previously should be on the young side of actual; and that certainly
>appears to be the case. Although such dates have been calibrated by the
>lab and/or authors per normal sampling testing procedures for these
>specific types of samples, the data has clearly not been re-calibrated
>to the known date of the house chimney samples. According to Carlson,
>the authors state their conclusions; but Carlson does not find them
>convincing. I am inclined to agree and am attempting such a
>re-calibration myself.
The problem with the calibration which concerns me is that, if Carlson
is correct, the two cements are not comparable. If they were, one
could say that, on the basis of the known age of chimney the method
understates the age of the cement by X years (or Y% and Z years) but
this requires that the physical characteristics of the cement
affecting carbonation and gel formation be much the same. If the tower
is tabby mortar and the chimney is lime mortar and they were built by
different groups of people working possibly tens of years apart, the
whole matter becomes problematical.
Frankly, on the basis of what I presently know, I do not trust the C14
dating of the Newport Tower. This is not the same as saying that I
necessarily think it may be older than dated - although I do think it
may be. I am just saying that I think the dating is unreliable.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>In article <s72q0ts2drmfmbu2q...@4ax.com>, este...@ip.co.nz
>says...
>> On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 23:22:26 -0600 (CST), marth...@webtv.net (Martha
>> or Larry Athy) wrote:
>>
>> >
>[SNIP].
>> >
>> >By crushing in a vacuum, any entrapped CO2 will be captured- the first
>> >portion.
>>
>> So Carslon is not talking nonsense when she refers to the CO2 in the
>> bubbles.
>>
>Hold on, yesterday you wrote:
>
>"I think she has completely misunderstood what is involved. There
>certainly will be bubbles but only at the time of testing."
>
>And what she actually wrote in her article was "3: The recent carbon dating by
>the Danish Committee was based on a new and experimental technique of measuring
>the C-14 in carbon-dioxide bubbles in the mortar"
>
>You were right the first time. They were not measuring 'carbon-dioxide bubbles
>in the mortar', she completely misunderstood what was done. Just as she doesn't
>understand how the dates were arrived at.
See my other article. There **will** be bubbles in the mortar and
based on what Larry has posted there is a technique involving crushing
in a vaccuum for extracting the gases in those bubbles.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>In article <g9rk0to8rp0gnjlr0...@4ax.com>, este...@ip.co.nz
>says...
>[SNIP]
>
>> First, Carlson states in the first quoted paragraph that
>> "Four (samples) were excluded because of insufficient carbon content."
>> This seems to very much confirm my fears that carbonation had not
>> completely penetrated to the full depth of the samples.
>>
>The report says that the problem was contamination by an admixture of drilled
>material from the stones caused by drilling in the joints between irregularly
>shaped stones. What is wrong with this explanation?
Nothing, except that you seem to have the full report and I have not
(yet) been able to obtain a copy of even the english translation.
Svein Kjærevik
--
______________________________________
Svein Kjærevik
Kjærevik Båtservice
5636 Varaldsøy
Norway
E-Mail: kja...@online.no
______________________________________
Martha or Larry Athy <marth...@webtv.net> wrote in article
<26497-3A...@storefull-254.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
Thanks Larry!
If we use your assumed dates for construction, 940 and 1310, and just
calculate the middle value we end up with the year 1125. And as Gnupson
left Greenland in 1121, this appears to be a happy day. Or is it just not
that simple?
Regards.
----------
Steve Marcus
Of course it's not that simple. To "calibrate" the C14 data
under consideration, one would take the C14 data values obtained
for the control, that is, the mortar from the house, and then
compare the data values obtained from the samples from the object
being test, that is, the Newport Tower.
What Larry has done is to take as a couple of data points which
are the known dates of the control and to then treat them as a
FUNCTION of data that has already been calculated from those
doing the test, namely the DATES obtained for the control. The
curve obtained is that FUNCTION.
A true calibration would be to take the expected relative
percentages for C14 relative to C12 for the control date, which
are in fact points on a know curve (the curve showing the
percentages of the two components based on the half-life of C14),
and to adjust those points (or perhaps the entire curve) for the
actual known dates of the control. For example, if one would
expect the ratio of C14/C12 to be Y% for a given date BP, but the
sample yields Z%=(Y+ or - X)%, then one would make the same
adjustment when calculating dates based upon the data obtained
for the ration of C14/C12 in the test object (Newport Tower), and
then convert those adjusted data to dates BP.
In short, Larry is using already calculated results (calculated
dates) and not the original data from which these dates were
obained, and then drawing a curve which treats them as a function
of known dates. It is far from clear that this procedure means
anything. How does one obtain adjusted dates from calculated
dates that have presumably already been adjusted against the
control?
Doug Weller
says...
[SNIP]
> I mentioned in my original article on the problems of dating
> concrete/cement that the initaila hardeneing mechanism is by the
> formation of a gel. I also said that the gel structure is dependent on
> the amount of water used in the original mix. Exactly the correct
> amount gives a very dense gel almost entirely free of voids but most
> hand mixed cements have an aexcess of water which gives rise to a
> relatively open and porous gel structure. This must be the source of
> the gases extracted by crushing within a vaccuum. The gases may come
> from within the gel or from bubbles which are open to gas permeation
> (by diffusion)from within the gel.
>
> I was not aware that CO2 samples were obtained from such a source and
> did not previously mention them. However, as I yesterday said in a
> brief response my uncomplimentary remarks about Suzanne Carlsonn's
> ability to understand the carbon dating methodology were entirely
> unjustified and I withdraw them unreservedly.
>
and wet sieved to separate them, and then are chemically separated. "Carbon
dioxide, CO2, is evolved from the sample carbonate by reaction with 86%
phosphoric acid under vacuum."
It is at this point that you get the CO2. Please note that this does not
involve *crushing* within a vacuum. And I do not see how this explains
Carlson's statement about "carbon dioxide bubbles in the mortar." Perhaps you
could go over this again for me and explain why you now think she understands
the methodology -- and of course not just this bubble statement but the dating
as well, which I still say she doesn't understand.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>In article <b4ar0t425vr243o6t...@4ax.com>, este...@ip.co.nz
>says...
>[SNIP]
>> I mentioned in my original article on the problems of dating
>> concrete/cement that the initaila hardeneing mechanism is by the
>> formation of a gel. I also said that the gel structure is dependent on
>> the amount of water used in the original mix. Exactly the correct
>> amount gives a very dense gel almost entirely free of voids but most
>> hand mixed cements have an aexcess of water which gives rise to a
>> relatively open and porous gel structure. This must be the source of
>> the gases extracted by crushing within a vaccuum. The gases may come
>> from within the gel or from bubbles which are open to gas permeation
>> (by diffusion)from within the gel.
>>
>> I was not aware that CO2 samples were obtained from such a source and
>> did not previously mention them. However, as I yesterday said in a
>> brief response my uncomplimentary remarks about Suzanne Carlsonn's
>> ability to understand the carbon dating methodology were entirely
>> unjustified and I withdraw them unreservedly.
>>
>The summary of the report explains that the mortar samples are gently crushed
>and wet sieved to separate them, and then are chemically separated. "Carbon
>dioxide, CO2, is evolved from the sample carbonate by reaction with 86%
>phosphoric acid under vacuum."
>
>It is at this point that you get the CO2. Please note that this does not
>involve *crushing* within a vacuum. And I do not see how this explains
>Carlson's statement about "carbon dioxide bubbles in the mortar." Perhaps you
>could go over this again for me and explain why you now think she understands
>the methodology -- and of course not just this bubble statement but the dating
>as well, which I still say she doesn't understand.
At the time I made those remarks I was not aware of the technical
details you have just quoted. I was relying on information given by
Larry Athy in which he explained his C14 dating contact did make use
of a technique involving crushing the concrete in a vacuum. The acid
release of CO2 is at the heart of the ordinary methodology and until
Larry mentioned it I was not aware of use of an initial crushing. It
was this that gave rise to Larry's reference to three streams or sets
of samples, whereas the ordinary method gives rise to only two.
Doug Weller
says...
>
> At the time I made those remarks I was not aware of the technical
> details you have just quoted.
You weren't? What I quoted was part of a much longer quote I provided in early
October in a reply to something you wrote.
> I was relying on information given by
> Larry Athy in which he explained his C14 dating contact did make use
> of a technique involving crushing the concrete in a vacuum. The acid
> release of CO2 is at the heart of the ordinary methodology and until
> Larry mentioned it I was not aware of use of an initial crushing.
I'm sorry if you missed or forgot my post about this. So where do you stand now
on Carlson (both the bubbles and her understanding of the dating itself,
including calibration)>
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>In article <4kl31tkj4q4828bum...@4ax.com>, este...@ip.co.nz
>says...
>>
>> At the time I made those remarks I was not aware of the technical
>> details you have just quoted.
>
>You weren't? What I quoted was part of a much longer quote I provided in early
>October in a reply to something you wrote.
Lets get back to the beginning. I remember that quote of yours, but it
was only a partial quote of the whole (lengthy) article. What it
described was the separation of the old sea-shell calcite from the
newer calcium carbonate from within the concrete. At the time I
thought that this was all there was to it. basically it was merely a
refinement of the standard technique to give two streams of old and
new carbon. Then Larry came up with his crushing in vaccuo to extract
gases from the concrete before it was subject to the two stages which
you previously described. As Larry explained, this gives three streams
of CO2 for dating.
Suzanne Carlson's remarks did not make sense to me at first as she
talked about bubbles within the concrete. Then Larry talked about the
crushing of concrete in vaccuo to extract trapped gases. That idea had
not previously occurred to me but it made sense of Carlson's remarks.
However, I take it from what you have said that this stage was not
used by the Danish researchers. Have I understood you correctly?
>
>> I was relying on information given by
>> Larry Athy in which he explained his C14 dating contact did make use
>> of a technique involving crushing the concrete in a vacuum. The acid
>> release of CO2 is at the heart of the ordinary methodology and until
>> Larry mentioned it I was not aware of use of an initial crushing.
>
>I'm sorry if you missed or forgot my post about this. So where do you stand now
>on Carlson (both the bubbles and her understanding of the dating itself,
>including calibration)>
Where I stand on carlson's bubbles depends on what you reply to my
question above. As for the calibration, I intend to have a go at the
figures but first I need time. Second, I suspect there has been
mathematical manipulation of the underlying data which is not apparent
in the sketchy information which has been published, or at least
quoted by Carlson. I have seen Larry Athy's working but I have not had
a chance to read it properly.
Doug Weller
says...
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 06:08:51 GMT, Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <4kl31tkj4q4828bum...@4ax.com>, este...@ip.co.nz
> >says...
> >>
> >> At the time I made those remarks I was not aware of the technical
> >> details you have just quoted.
> >
> >You weren't? What I quoted was part of a much longer quote I provided in early
> >October in a reply to something you wrote.
>
> was only a partial quote of the whole (lengthy) article. What it
> described was the separation of the old sea-shell calcite from the
> newer calcium carbonate from within the concrete. At the time I
> thought that this was all there was to it. basically it was merely a
> refinement of the standard technique to give two streams of old and
> new carbon. Then Larry came up with his crushing in vaccuo to extract
> gases from the concrete before it was subject to the two stages which
> you previously described. As Larry explained, this gives three streams
> of CO2 for dating.
>
> Suzanne Carlson's remarks did not make sense to me at first as she
> talked about bubbles within the concrete. Then Larry talked about the
> crushing of concrete in vaccuo to extract trapped gases. That idea had
> not previously occurred to me but it made sense of Carlson's remarks.
> However, I take it from what you have said that this stage was not
> used by the Danish researchers. Have I understood you correctly?
You have. And I'm not convinced that even Larry's explanation makes sense of
Carlson's remarks.
> >> I was relying on information given by
> >> Larry Athy in which he explained his C14 dating contact did make use
> >> of a technique involving crushing the concrete in a vacuum. The acid
> >> release of CO2 is at the heart of the ordinary methodology and until
> >> Larry mentioned it I was not aware of use of an initial crushing.
> >
> >I'm sorry if you missed or forgot my post about this. So where do you stand now
> >on Carlson (both the bubbles and her understanding of the dating itself,
> >including calibration)>
>
> Where I stand on carlson's bubbles depends on what you reply to my
> question above. As for the calibration, I intend to have a go at the
> figures but first I need time. Second, I suspect there has been
> mathematical manipulation of the underlying data which is not apparent
> in the sketchy information which has been published, or at least
> quoted by Carlson. I have seen Larry Athy's working but I have not had
> a chance to read it properly.
>
Carlson doesn't appear to understand how the figures are calculated. Do you
think you can tell from either Carlson's or Larry's figures which dates come
from which fractions? I'm sure you realise the significance of the question.
It would be nice to know the source of the dates used by Larry and by Carlson
(of course Larry's source might even be Carlson). And exactly why Carlson
mentions bubbles.
One further point. I'm still hoping to found out the source of the mortar, and
how Carlson is so sure of the source. I know Means explicitly says he couldn't
tell if it was limestone or from shells directly, but of course was a long time
ago.
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
>On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 06:08:51 GMT, Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk>
>wrote:
[...]
>>I'm sorry if you missed or forgot my post about this. So where do you stand now
>>on Carlson (both the bubbles and her understanding of the dating itself,
>>including calibration)>
>Where I stand on carlson's bubbles depends on what you reply to my
>question above. As for the calibration, I intend to have a go at the
>figures but first I need time. Second, I suspect there has been
>mathematical manipulation of the underlying data which is not apparent
>in the sketchy information which has been published, or at least
>quoted by Carlson. I have seen Larry Athy's working but I have not had
>a chance to read it properly.
For Pete's sake, it's as plain as the nose on your face that she
hasn't a clue about calibration.
Brian M. Scott
Doug Weller
says...
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 14:43:26 GMT, Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >> Suzanne Carlson's remarks did not make sense to me at first as she
> >> talked about bubbles within the concrete. Then Larry talked about the
> >> crushing of concrete in vaccuo to extract trapped gases. That idea had
> >> not previously occurred to me but it made sense of Carlson's remarks.
> >> However, I take it from what you have said that this stage was not
> >> used by the Danish researchers. Have I understood you correctly?
> >
> >You have. And I'm not convinced that even Larry's explanation makes sense of
> >Carlson's remarks.
>
> advanced three stage technique of Larry's contact.
Instead of reading the report in the Newport Journal? Hardly a satisfactory way
of conducting research.
>
[SNIP]
I'll try to come back to this when I get more material.
>
> The problem with the Newport tower is that the procedure used the
> Wanton-Hazard-Lyman (is that name correct?) chimney as a reference.
> The date of construction was supposedly known relatively well but, if
> Carlson is correct, the material of the mortar is not at all
> comparable. This must then render any standardisation based on the
> chimney of dubious relevance.
Why assume Carlson is correct? She doesn't seem to have first hand information,
she doesn't understand the dating or calibration at all, etc.
[SNIP]
> >Carlson doesn't appear to understand how the figures are calculated. Do you
> >think you can tell from either Carlson's or Larry's figures which dates come
> >from which fractions? I'm sure you realise the significance of the question.
>
> Yes I do understand the significance. Presumably the date is based on
> the 'new' fraction corrected for contamination by the 'old'. I do not
> know how this was done.
No, some dates are from one fraction, some from the other. The oldest dates are
generally from the 2nd fraction. You would expect the 2nd fraction to give older
than actual dates. Carlson doesn't seem to realise this, although it's clear in
the report.
> >It would be nice to know the source of the dates used by Larry and by Carlson
> >(of course Larry's source might even be Carlson). And exactly why Carlson
> >mentions bubbles.
>
> I think Larry has at some stage said that his source was Carlson. I
> might be wrong. I've previously speculated that Carlson's refrence to
> 'bubbles' may stem from advice received by someone in the US who knows
> about the technique in general but did not know the exact technique
> used by the Danish team.
As I said, it appears Carlson's information is 2nd hand, and that's simply bad
research. Why trust her at all if this is in fact the case?
> >One further point. I'm still hoping to found out the source of the mortar, and
> >how Carlson is so sure of the source. I know Means explicitly says he couldn't
> >tell if it was limestone or from shells directly, but of course was a long time
> >ago.
>
> Mallery seemed to be convinced that the tower mortar was 'tabby'
> mortar made from shells.
>
But does he say why? I think some justification is called for.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>> Suzanne Carlson's remarks did not make sense to me at first as she
>> talked about bubbles within the concrete. Then Larry talked about the
>> crushing of concrete in vaccuo to extract trapped gases. That idea had
>> not previously occurred to me but it made sense of Carlson's remarks.
>> However, I take it from what you have said that this stage was not
>> used by the Danish researchers. Have I understood you correctly?
>
>You have. And I'm not convinced that even Larry's explanation makes sense of
>Carlson's remarks.
They still might if she had consulted someone who uses the more
advanced three stage technique of Larry's contact.
As I understand it, the reason why dating of concrete by such
techniques (whether two stage of three stage) are regarded as
controversial is that there is not a clear cut-off between the CO2
obtained from the uncalcified fraction of the original lime and the
CO2 obtained from (relatively) newly carbonated lime formed after the
cement is in place. It is not possible to completely separate the two
and the extent to which this is achieved depends a great deal upon the
skill of the operator.
Contamination of the new stream with traces of the old will give an
excessively old date for the new. It is possible to correct for such
contamination if (a) it is uniform across a number of runs and (b) it
is possible to standardise the procedure against a similar sample of
known age. Its a bit like determining the extent to which the needle
of a pressure gauge is bent by comparing it with the reading of a
gauge of known accuracy. Of course its not a simple linear offset, but
you get the general picture. [The fact that it is not a simple linear
offset is the reason I have previously referred to all kinds of
mathematics going on the background].
The problem with the Newport tower is that the procedure used the
Wanton-Hazard-Lyman (is that name correct?) chimney as a reference.
The date of construction was supposedly known relatively well but, if
Carlson is correct, the material of the mortar is not at all
comparable. This must then render any standardisation based on the
chimney of dubious relevance.
>
>> >> I was relying on information given by
>> >> Larry Athy in which he explained his C14 dating contact did make use
>> >> of a technique involving crushing the concrete in a vacuum. The acid
>> >> release of CO2 is at the heart of the ordinary methodology and until
>> >> Larry mentioned it I was not aware of use of an initial crushing.
>> >
>> >I'm sorry if you missed or forgot my post about this. So where do you stand now
>> >on Carlson (both the bubbles and her understanding of the dating itself,
>> >including calibration)>
>>
>> Where I stand on carlson's bubbles depends on what you reply to my
>> question above. As for the calibration, I intend to have a go at the
>> figures but first I need time. Second, I suspect there has been
>> mathematical manipulation of the underlying data which is not apparent
>> in the sketchy information which has been published, or at least
>> quoted by Carlson. I have seen Larry Athy's working but I have not had
>> a chance to read it properly.
>>
>
>Carlson doesn't appear to understand how the figures are calculated. Do you
>think you can tell from either Carlson's or Larry's figures which dates come
>from which fractions? I'm sure you realise the significance of the question.
Yes I do understand the significance. Presumably the date is based on
the 'new' fraction corrected for contamination by the 'old'. I do not
know how this was done.
>
>It would be nice to know the source of the dates used by Larry and by Carlson
>(of course Larry's source might even be Carlson). And exactly why Carlson
>mentions bubbles.
I think Larry has at some stage said that his source was Carlson. I
might be wrong. I've previously speculated that Carlson's refrence to
'bubbles' may stem from advice received by someone in the US who knows
about the technique in general but did not know the exact technique
used by the Danish team.
>
>One further point. I'm still hoping to found out the source of the mortar, and
>how Carlson is so sure of the source. I know Means explicitly says he couldn't
>tell if it was limestone or from shells directly, but of course was a long time
>ago.
Mallery seemed to be convinced that the tower mortar was 'tabby'
mortar made from shells.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>In article <ihr51t8ui339s5p1b...@4ax.com>, este...@ip.co.nz
>says...
>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 14:43:26 GMT, Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> Suzanne Carlson's remarks did not make sense to me at first as she
>> >> talked about bubbles within the concrete. Then Larry talked about the
>> >> crushing of concrete in vaccuo to extract trapped gases. That idea had
>> >> not previously occurred to me but it made sense of Carlson's remarks.
>> >> However, I take it from what you have said that this stage was not
>> >> used by the Danish researchers. Have I understood you correctly?
>> >
>> >You have. And I'm not convinced that even Larry's explanation makes sense of
>> >Carlson's remarks.
>>
>> They still might if she had consulted someone who uses the more
>> advanced three stage technique of Larry's contact.
>
>Instead of reading the report in the Newport Journal? Hardly a satisfactory way
>of conducting research.
Neither is relying on the report in the Newport journal. I don't know
the extent of that document but I do know there has been no complete
translation of the original Danish report into English. As I quoted
previously, Carlson has read the English version and (slightly
laboriously) translated the Danish version. If she got anything out of
that excercise over and above the English translation she knows more
about the tests than anyone who has to rely on the English version.
>>
>
>[SNIP]
>I'll try to come back to this when I get more material.
>
>>
>> The problem with the Newport tower is that the procedure used the
>> Wanton-Hazard-Lyman (is that name correct?) chimney as a reference.
>> The date of construction was supposedly known relatively well but, if
>> Carlson is correct, the material of the mortar is not at all
>> comparable. This must then render any standardisation based on the
>> chimney of dubious relevance.
>
>Why assume Carlson is correct? She doesn't seem to have first hand information,
>she doesn't understand the dating or calibration at all, etc.
Now its my turn. What makes you think I assumed anything? I quite
specifically said "if". You are making me say things I did not.
>
>[SNIP]
>> >Carlson doesn't appear to understand how the figures are calculated. Do you
>> >think you can tell from either Carlson's or Larry's figures which dates come
>> >from which fractions? I'm sure you realise the significance of the question.
>>
>> Yes I do understand the significance. Presumably the date is based on
>> the 'new' fraction corrected for contamination by the 'old'. I do not
>> know how this was done.
>
>No, some dates are from one fraction, some from the other. The oldest dates are
>generally from the 2nd fraction. You would expect the 2nd fraction to give older
>than actual dates. Carlson doesn't seem to realise this, although it's clear in
>the report.
I wrote about 'old' and 'new' fractions. You return with 'first' and
'second' fractions. I can see nothing in Carlson's article "Tilting at
Windmills" to suggest that she is making use of anything other than
the conclusions as to date reached by Jungner et al. However, you have
the advantage of me in that you seem to have an English translation of
the paper. I have no idea of the basis of Carlson's figures, which is
why I have been trying to track down the original.
>
>> >It would be nice to know the source of the dates used by Larry and by Carlson
>> >(of course Larry's source might even be Carlson). And exactly why Carlson
>> >mentions bubbles.
>>
>> I think Larry has at some stage said that his source was Carlson. I
>> might be wrong. I've previously speculated that Carlson's refrence to
>> 'bubbles' may stem from advice received by someone in the US who knows
>> about the technique in general but did not know the exact technique
>> used by the Danish team.
>
>As I said, it appears Carlson's information is 2nd hand, and that's simply bad
>research. Why trust her at all if this is in fact the case?
Her information quite clearly is not second hand. Dhe says quite
specifically that she has both the original Danish report and the
later English translation. That puts her one step closer than anyone
who relies upon the Newport Journal (unless it reprinted the full
English translation).
>
>> >One further point. I'm still hoping to found out the source of the mortar, and
>> >how Carlson is so sure of the source. I know Means explicitly says he couldn't
>> >tell if it was limestone or from shells directly, but of course was a long time
>> >ago.
>>
>> Mallery seemed to be convinced that the tower mortar was 'tabby'
>> mortar made from shells.
>>
>But does he say why? I think some justification is called for.
Not having anything of his, I don't know his exact reasons.
Martha or Larry Athy
It is not clear to my as to why Suzanne Carlson's reference to CO2
bubbles has become such an issue.
When Suzanne said in her 1996 'Tilting at Windmills---' paper, "This was
C14 dating of a lime mortar where carbon is taken from the carbon
dioxide voids, bubbles formed during the mixing and hardening of the
mortar", she was indicating what Johannes Hertz had said in his 1995
report. In addition, she quoted Hertz directly as saying "In mixing the
mortar, calcium carbonate is formed by chemical reaction from the
atmospheric carbon dioxide with the lime. ----- has had good results
with the separating out of the carbon for testing by AMS for C14." Thus
Hertz had described both the 1st and 3rd separated portions that I had
described previously after having talked to our C14 lab manager.
Thus Doug (and hit men) simply attack Carlson for reporting what Hertz
had written in his report rather than attack Hertz. Perhaps that comes
next. It is not at all clear to me as to which portion was actually
tested by the lab - perhaps both. To me it makes little practical
difference which they tested, since either portion would result in
sample results that are too young for reasons previously reported by
Eric Stevens.
In spite of Doug's repeated suggestion that Suzanne and I know nothing
of C14 testing of mortar and his insistence that he knows enough to
doubt our lab manager's opinions, it is clear that he has no
understanding of any of this.
Doug insists that Carlson does not understand the 'calibration'. She
has not been critical of the normal calibration work that has been
included in the sample data she published. She is only critical of the
subsequently published re-calibration theories of the authors, the
details of which are not shown in her paper. She insists that it is
foolish to date the tower by simply averaging the eleven sample dates.
Such is clearly the case, since the tower was reconditioned several
times as late as 1850. Furthermore, the average of the control sample
dates is 1830, much too late. If the average of the tower sample dates
is meaningful as to tower construction date, why is the average of the
control sample dates not also meaningful and the same date?
Since Hertz and the lab were clearly familiar with all three sample
portions, they could have used the first, the third, or both. If the
lab had been successful in the elimination of any significant
contamination of the 3rd portion by the 2nd, the 1st and 3rd portions
might give about the same results. Thus for either method, the
resulting sample dates would be expected to be too young, and many of
the published sample dates are indeed too young. Thus it appears that
the lab had been successful in separating portions 3 and 2.
I see no reason to question the lab sample dates. It is thus only
necessary to re-calibrate all sample dates to the known date of the
chimney mortar. I used one method of doing just that in my posting of
11 Nov.. To date, nobody has posted a meaningful criticism, which I had
invited.
The question of the types of mortar used in the tower and chimney has
been raised. The carbon in unburned limestone would normally be much
older than the carbon in unburned oyster shell. Since the control
samples are said to be from limestone mortar and are clearly too young,
we can assume that the lab has done a good job of separating portion 3
carbon or that they used portion 1 for testing.
Lets face reality. Doug would not be questioning the C14 dating, or my
re-calibration thereof, if the dates had all been colonial. The C14
data simply supports the other scientific data of the units of
measurement and the multitude of astronomical alignments. The tower is
probably pre-colonal, but we do not yet know who built it.
Regards, Larry Athy, P.E.
Steve Marcus
>
<snip>
>
> I see no reason to question the lab sample dates. It is thus only
> necessary to re-calibrate all sample dates to the known date of the
> chimney mortar. I used one method of doing just that in my posting of
> 11 Nov.. To date, nobody has posted a meaningful criticism, which I had
> invited.
Actually, I did post a meaningful criticism. Your method of
"re-calibration" makes zero sense. Calibration with C14 means
taking the data obtained from a sample, and comparing it with the
known curve which relates the relative percentages of C12 and C14
to years before present with that curve after the curve has been
adjusted for various factors that may exist in the sample that
would "skew" that curve. For example, if one knows that the
sample contains C14 that is non-atmosopheric, and might therefore
be "older than" or "younger than" the atmospheric C14
incorporated in the sample when the sample was new, the known
curve which gives dates for C12/C14 , must be "re-calibrated".
One method of "re-calibrating" the C12/C14 curve is to compare
dates obtained from a sample with dates that are in fact known
regarding objects found with the sample. That was what was done
in the Newport Tower situation, in which mortar samples from an
old house nearby the Tower where analyzed. They then compared
the data obtained from the Tower to the data obtained from the
house.
Your method was to take the dates calculated from the raw C12/C14
data obtained from the house and the Tower, and then relate them
to each other. You in effect made one a set a data a function of
the other. The result was simply to obtain dates that bore the
same relationship to each other as did the dates previously
calculated from the raw data itself. So what??
>
> The question of the types of mortar used in the tower and chimney has
> been raised. The carbon in unburned limestone would normally be much
> older than the carbon in unburned oyster shell.
Absolutely erroneous. The age of the carbon in either would
depend on the source of the carbon. Shellfish obtained from what
those using C14 testing refer to as a "reservoir" in which the
water is relatively stagnant and contains "old" carbon could well
test younger than limestone containing C14 incorporated in the
stone at an earlier date than the carbon incorporated in the
oyster shell.
Since the control
> samples are said to be from limestone mortar and are clearly too young,
> we can assume that the lab has done a good job of separating portion 3
> carbon or that they used portion 1 for testing.
>
> Lets face reality. Doug would not be questioning the C14 dating, or my
> re-calibration thereof, if the dates had all been colonial. The C14
> data simply supports the other scientific data of the units of
> measurement and the multitude of astronomical alignments. The tower is
> probably pre-colonal, but we do not yet know who built it.
>
Regardless of what Doug will or won't do, your "re-calibration"
proved absolutely nothing, except that you know how to manipulate
figures. I would assume that you access to the original Newport
Tower C14 report. Why not simply post what they stated re the
relative similarities or differences between the mortar in the
Tower and that in the control sample. Betcha that they addressed
this issue, didn't they?
And as to units of measurement, that argument is hardly
scientific. Do you think that merely because some measurements
can be taken in whole numbers in a given system implies that the
builder used that system? Or don't you understand that one may
take a measurement in any system, including that used by the
Egyptians? That some measurements in their system would be
"whole numbers" would imply what about the builders of the
Newport Tower?
> Regards, Larry Athy, P.E.
Steve
Doug Weller
marth...@webtv.net says...
>
> It is not clear to my as to why Suzanne Carlson's reference to CO2
> bubbles has become such an issue.
>
> When Suzanne said in her 1996 'Tilting at Windmills---' paper, "This was
> C14 dating of a lime mortar where carbon is taken from the carbon
> dioxide voids, bubbles formed during the mixing and hardening of the
> mortar", she was indicating what Johannes Hertz had said in his 1995
> report. In addition, she quoted Hertz directly as saying "In mixing the
> mortar, calcium carbonate is formed by chemical reaction from the
> atmospheric carbon dioxide with the lime. ----- has had good results
> with the separating out of the carbon for testing by AMS for C14." Thus
> Hertz had described both the 1st and 3rd separated portions that I had
> described previously after having talked to our C14 lab manager.
Where is this report published? The original Danish report is dated 1995. The
7th International AMS conference was 1996. Hertz' Newport History article is
1997. I'd like an exact citation so I can check the above, as it doesn't match
with what Hertz wrote in 1997. Larry's comments about first and third separated
portions are particularly confusing. The process involved first mechanical
separation (crushing and sieving) after which chemical separation was used with
two fractions collected for dating. Hertz does not mention carbon dioxide voids
in the 1997 article and he makes it clear that the carbon dioxide that was
testing was evolved from the sample carbonate by reaction with phosphoric acid
under vacuum as part of the testing procedure.
> Thus Doug (and hit men) simply attack Carlson for reporting what Hertz
> had written in his report rather than attack Hertz. Perhaps that comes
> next.
Personal attack doesn't help a discussion. I have not criticised what Hertz has
written in the report I've read, I've questioned why Larry Athy and Suzanne
Carlson's statements are so different from the report I have. I've had no
answer.
> It is not at all clear to me as to which portion was actually
> tested by the lab - perhaps both. To me it makes little practical
> difference which they tested, since either portion would result in
> sample results that are too young for reasons previously reported by
> Eric Stevens.
Eric also doesn't have the information required so far as I can see.
> In spite of Doug's repeated suggestion that Suzanne and I know nothing
> of C14 testing of mortar and his insistence that he knows enough to
> doubt our lab manager's opinions, it is clear that he has no
> understanding of any of this.
What can I say? Larry will persist in this sort of line even though I actually
have Hertz's 1997 report in front of me and it doesn't match what he and Suzanne
Carlson have written, and despite the fact that Carlson clearly doesn't
understand calibration.
> Doug insists that Carlson does not understand the 'calibration'. She
> has not been critical of the normal calibration work that has been
> included in the sample data she published. She is only critical of the
> subsequently published re-calibration theories of the authors, the
> details of which are not shown in her paper. She insists that it is
> foolish to date the tower by simply averaging the eleven sample dates.
Exactly who has done this? Nothing Hertz writes suggests that this was done, so
I would like a citation for this also.
> Such is clearly the case, since the tower was reconditioned several
> times as late as 1850. Furthermore, the average of the control sample
> dates is 1830, much too late. If the average of the tower sample dates
> is meaningful as to tower construction date, why is the average of the
> control sample dates not also meaningful and the same date?
>
Nothing above matches anything in the reports I have. We seem to be working
from extremely different documents. And Larry's 'average', even if it were
correct, isn't a calibrated date and wouldn't be reported without calibration.
Something is extremely wrong here.
> Since Hertz and the lab were clearly familiar with all three sample
> portions, they could have used the first, the third, or both.
Two samples, not three. Larry Athy must have read about another Newport Tower.
If the
> lab had been successful in the elimination of any significant
> contamination of the 3rd portion by the 2nd, the 1st and 3rd portions
> might give about the same results. Thus for either method, the
> resulting sample dates would be expected to be too young, and many of
> the published sample dates are indeed too young. Thus it appears that
> the lab had been successful in separating portions 3 and 2.
>
> I see no reason to question the lab sample dates. It is thus only
> necessary to re-calibrate all sample dates to the known date of the
> chimney mortar. I used one method of doing just that in my posting of
> 11 Nov.. To date, nobody has posted a meaningful criticism, which I had
> invited.
GIGO.
> The question of the types of mortar used in the tower and chimney has
> been raised. The carbon in unburned limestone would normally be much
> older than the carbon in unburned oyster shell. Since the control
> samples are said to be from limestone mortar and are clearly too young,
> we can assume that the lab has done a good job of separating portion 3
> carbon or that they used portion 1 for testing.
I still have no reason to think that the Newport Tower's mortar was not
limestone mortar. Larry may be correct, but I haven't seen any documentation for
it yet. The control samples from the Wanton-Lyman-Hazard house yield a calendar
date of 1689 AD (with some uncertainty of course, this isn't exact) which agrees
with the known time of construction, sometime between 1676 and 1698. Hardly too
young.
> Lets face reality. Doug would not be questioning the C14 dating, or my
> re-calibration thereof, if the dates had all been colonial.
I have not questioned the C14 dating as reported by Hertz. I question very much
the version that Larry Athy and Suzanne Carlson have presented. The C14 dating
supports a colonial construction.
As I've said, I'm getting two more reports on this and will present some sort of
analysis/summary of them when I can. Meanwhile perhaps Larry Athy can provide
the citations I've asked for above.
[SNIP]
Doug Weller
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 22:52:28 GMT, Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <ihr51t8ui339s5p1b...@4ax.com>, este...@ip.co.nz
> >says...
[SNIP]
> >>
> >> The problem with the Newport tower is that the procedure used the
> >> Wanton-Hazard-Lyman (is that name correct?) chimney as a reference.
> >> The date of construction was supposedly known relatively well but, if
> >> Carlson is correct, the material of the mortar is not at all
> >> comparable. This must then render any standardisation based on the
> >> chimney of dubious relevance.
> >
> >Why assume Carlson is correct? She doesn't seem to have first hand information,
> >she doesn't understand the dating or calibration at all, etc.
>
> Now its my turn. What makes you think I assumed anything? I quite
> specifically said "if". You are making me say things I did not.
I can see why you respond this way, but it was a question. Until we can verify
what she says, then her comments might be interesting but there is no point in
starting to base conclusions on them.
[SNIP]
> >As I said, it appears Carlson's information is 2nd hand, and that's simply bad
> >research. Why trust her at all if this is in fact the case?
>
> Her information quite clearly is not second hand. Dhe says quite
> specifically that she has both the original Danish report and the
> later English translation. That puts her one step closer than anyone
> who relies upon the Newport Journal (unless it reprinted the full
> English translation).
But Larry says she is quoting Hertz (but an article I don't know about) and
says I'm attacking Hertz, so what am I to think?
[SNIP]
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>In article <lei61tkhr8mj9msck...@4ax.com>, este...@ip.co.nz
>says...
>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 22:52:28 GMT, Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <ihr51t8ui339s5p1b...@4ax.com>, este...@ip.co.nz
>> >says...
>[SNIP]
>[SNIP]
>> >>
>> >> The problem with the Newport tower is that the procedure used the
>> >> Wanton-Hazard-Lyman (is that name correct?) chimney as a reference.
>> >> The date of construction was supposedly known relatively well but, if
>> >> Carlson is correct, the material of the mortar is not at all
>> >> comparable. This must then render any standardisation based on the
>> >> chimney of dubious relevance.
>> >
>> >Why assume Carlson is correct? She doesn't seem to have first hand information,
>> >she doesn't understand the dating or calibration at all, etc.
>>
>> Now its my turn. What makes you think I assumed anything? I quite
>> specifically said "if". You are making me say things I did not.
>
>I can see why you respond this way, but it was a question. Until we can verify
>what she says, then her comments might be interesting but there is no point in
>starting to base conclusions on them.
I certainly haven't been. I have been relying on certain statements of
fact given by her such as the positions and depths of samples. I have
also tentatively accepted her statement of the different types of
mortars. I have (possibly unjustifiably) assumed that as an architect
she would be able to tell 'tabby' mortar from lime mortar. I think any
of us could once we knew the difference.
I have read separately that Mallerey believed the tower mortar was
'tabby' mortar and that he used this as the basis of an argument that
the tower was built by the Irish. I have seen the monopoly claimed by
Mallery of the Irish on the manufacture of tabby mortar attacked. I
have seen various explanations of how the Irish came to build it for
others. I have never seen the identification of the mortar as 'tabby'
contradicted, but that does not necessarily mean that Mallery is
correct.
>
>[SNIP]
>> >As I said, it appears Carlson's information is 2nd hand, and that's simply bad
>> >research. Why trust her at all if this is in fact the case?
>>
>> Her information quite clearly is not second hand. Dhe says quite
>> specifically that she has both the original Danish report and the
>> later English translation. That puts her one step closer than anyone
>> who relies upon the Newport Journal (unless it reprinted the full
>> English translation).
>
>But Larry says she is quoting Hertz (but an article I don't know about) and
>says I'm attacking Hertz, so what am I to think?
In "Tilting at Windmills" she both quotes and attacks Hertz, but she
has also made it clear that she has read the original reports in both
Danish and English. In fact, I recall quoting the specific passage in
an earlier article.
Doug Weller
says...
> In "Tilting at Windmills" she both quotes and attacks Hertz, but she
> has also made it clear that she has read the original reports in both
> Danish and English. In fact, I recall quoting the specific passage in
> an earlier article.
>
>
and check to see that it does say specifically that she read the original
article in Danish? I'm puzzled by what she wrote. The only quote you have
provided is from Hertz's adaptation, for instance.
That's this one, from your article:
"The weighted mean C14 of the two fractions
of the whole mortar sample (H23) from the Wanton-Lyman-Hazard House
is 139+51, i.e. not significantly different from that of the tower.
Calibration of this C14 age by its intercept with the calibration
curve yields a calendar age of 1689 A.D. calibrated." Try the math
on that one!"
You do realise how ignorant her comment on the mathematics is, don't you? She
clearly hasn't a clue.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>In article <aq991tslpnigtrql6...@4ax.com>, este...@ip.co.nz
>says...
>> In "Tilting at Windmills" she both quotes and attacks Hertz, but she
>> has also made it clear that she has read the original reports in both
>> Danish and English. In fact, I recall quoting the specific passage in
>> an earlier article.
>>
>>
>So you did. Could you do me a favour? Could you just look again at the article
>and check to see that it does say specifically that she read the original
>article in Danish? I'm puzzled by what she wrote. The only quote you have
>provided is from Hertz's adaptation, for instance.
Begin quote:
=======================
From: Eric Stevens <este...@ip.co.nz>
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
Subject: Re: Newport Tower - problems with the carbon dating.
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 13:20:18 +1300
-- snip --
On Thu, 09 Nov 2000 20:04:36 GMT, Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk>
wrote:
>In article <a9vl0t0n6gupc5h22...@4ax.com>, este...@ip.co.nz
>says...
>> On Thu, 09 Nov 2000 17:45:27 GMT, Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <g9rk0to8rp0gnjlr0...@4ax.com>, este...@ip.co.nz
>> >says...
>> >> I have recently received a copy of Suzanne Carlson's article 禅ilting
>> >> at Windmills: The Newport Tower', published in the NEARA Journal
>> >> Volume XXX, 3&4.
>> >>
>> >She is certainly not an expert in C14 dating.
At the beginning of 'Tilting at Windmills... ' she wrote:
"After four years of research and scientific investigations, the
Danish Committee, in cooperation with Danish and Finnish experts,
the City of Newport and the Rhode Island Preservation and Heritage
Commission, has concluded its study on the origin of the tower. The
promised translation has failed to materialize, but, thanks to Jim
Whittall we have procured a Danish copy of the report by Dr
Johannes Hertz, Deputy antiquary of the Danish National Museum,
published in the 'Annual Report of the Danish National Museaum', as
well as a Danish copy with an English translation of the report on
the C14 dating, authored by Jan Heinemeir and Hogne Jungner. My
effort at translating the Danish sharpened my wits as well as my
pen and I'm ready for some jousting."
This is consistent with what I have found so far, that the report was
published as described and that while there is an English translation
of the text, there is no English translation of the various charts,
figures and diagrams. Without checking, I cannot be entirely sure, but
I think some or all of the report may have been published in a Swedish
or Danish journal devoted to Atomic Mass Spectrography.
--- quote snipped ----
=================
End Quote
>That's this one, from your article:
>
> "The weighted mean C14 of the two fractions
> of the whole mortar sample (H23) from the Wanton-Lyman-Hazard House
> is 139+51, i.e. not significantly different from that of the tower.
> Calibration of this C14 age by its intercept with the calibration
> curve yields a calendar age of 1689 A.D. calibrated." Try the math
> on that one!"
>
>You do realise how ignorant her comment on the mathematics is, don't you? She
>clearly hasn't a clue.
I simply haven't had a chance to really examine either the figures she
quotes or her comments. This is partly due to pressure of work and
partly due to the fact that I don't think I have enough of the
essential background information to reach a meaningful conclusions.
Doug Weller
says...
> On Thu, 09 Nov 2000 20:04:36 GMT, Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <a9vl0t0n6gupc5h22...@4ax.com>, este...@ip.co.nz
> >says...
You quoted her as writing:
> > "The weighted mean C14 of the two fractions
> > of the whole mortar sample (H23) from the Wanton-Lyman-Hazard House
> > is 139+51, i.e. not significantly different from that of the tower.
> > Calibration of this C14 age by its intercept with the calibration
> > curve yields a calendar age of 1689 A.D. calibrated." Try the math
> > on that one!"
> >
> >You do realise how ignorant her comment on the mathematics is, don't you? She
> >clearly hasn't a clue.
>
> I simply haven't had a chance to really examine either the figures she
> quotes or her comments. This is partly due to pressure of work and
> partly due to the fact that I don't think I have enough of the
> essential background information to reach a meaningful conclusions.
>
Ok. I don't want to go into a lot of detail until I have the information I've
requested, but basically in the quote from her above she looks at the raw,
uncalibrated data, at the calendar date you get when the calibration is done,
subtracts the uncalibrated dates from either BP or the present and then
complains that they don't match the calibrated calendar age, suggesting that the
mathematics (which she sees as simple subtraction of the raw data from the
current date or BP) is wrong. As I said, she hasn't a clue.
Do you understand the purpose of calibration and how it works?
Martha or Larry Athy
On Thu, Nov 16, 2000, 9:07pm (CST+6),
Doug Weller wrote that:
-----------
I had previously said: "It is not clear to my as to why Suzanne
Carlson's reference to CO2 bubbles has become such an issue.
When Suzanne said in her 1996 'Tilting at Windmills---' paper, "This was
C14 dating of a lime mortar where carbon is taken from the carbon
dioxide voids, bubbles formed during the mixing and hardening of the
mortar", she was indicating what Johannes Hertz had said in his 1995
report. In addition, she quoted Hertz directly as saying "In mixing the
mortar, calcium carbonate is formed by chemical reaction from the
atmospheric carbon dioxide with the lime. ----- has had good results
with the separating out of the carbon for testing by AMS for C14." Thus
Hertz had described both the 1st and 3rd separated portions that I had
described previously after having talked to our C14 lab manager."
So Doug said: "Where is this report published? The original Danish
report is dated 1995. The 7th International AMS conference was 1996.
Hertz' Newport History article is 1997. I'd like an exact citation so I
can check the above, as it doesn't match with what Hertz wrote in 1997."
I now reply: Wrong as usual. The original report by Heinemeier and
Jungner were published in Danish and English in 1994 and is the report
from which Suzanne Carlson took the date range data for the tower and
chimney samples as published in her paper and have been posted here
several times in the recent past.
The dates copied by Carlson for both the tower and chimney samples were
those that had been calculated and calibrated by the lab from the raw
AMS data in accordance with the circumstances, as is always done by
labs. According to Carlson, the authors also indicated how they
suggested that such dates could be re-calibrated to take into account
the known chimney mortar date. Carlson was critical of the method used
for such later recalibration of the published dates, not the original
calibration.
Her comments relative to Hertz's paper was with reference to his paper
"Rundkirk Eller Vindmolle? ---." published in Danish only in 1995 (See
my reference in my previous oosting in the first paragraph above.). Her
paper was published in 1996. Carlson could not have been critical of a
Hertz 1997 paper that had not been written yet.
The 1997 paper would not relate to my 11 November posting of my first
attempt at recalibration, unless it gives lab sample dates different
from that published by Carlson and used by me. At that time, I invited
corrections to the sample dates is applicable or criticisms of the
recalibration method I had used. Neither has been forthcoming. All I
have seen is dark blown smoke.
----------
Doug continued: "Larry's comments about first and third separated
portions are particularly confusing. The process involved first
mechanical separation (crushing and sieving) after which chemical
separation was used with two fractions collected for dating. Hertz does
not mention carbon dioxide voids in the 1997 article and he makes it
clear that the carbon dioxide that was testing was evolved from the
sample carbonate by reaction with phosphoric acid under vacuum as part
of the testing procedure."
------------
I say: It is unfortunate that Doug has no understanding of any of what
has been said. Without knowing it, he is describing the separation of
the 2nd and 3rd portions and testing of the 3rd. As I have said several
times, They may not have extracted the first portion during crushing as
had been mentioned by Hertz in his 1995 paper. It matters little. The
testing of the third portion would give calibrated dates that are too
young, and such is indeed the case.
-------------
I had previously written: "In spite of Doug's repeated suggestion that
Suzanne and I know nothing of C14 testing of mortar and his insistence
that he knows enough to doubt our lab manager's opinions, it is clear
that he has no understanding of any of this."
--------------
And Doug had replied: "What can I say? Larry will persist in this sort
of line even though I actually have Hertz's 1997 report in front of me
and it doesn't match what he and Suzanne Carlson have written, and
despite the fact that Carlson clearly doesn't understand calibration."
-------------
To which I reply: That is presumably because Doug has the wrong Hertz
report.
--------------
(Much cut out)
And then Doug continued: "The control samples from the
Wanton-Lyman-Hazard house yield a calendar date of 1689 AD (with some
uncertainty of course, this isn't exact) which agrees with the known
time of construction, sometime between 1676 and 1698. Hardly too young."
---------------
And I say: Doug has just demonstrated again that he has no idea of the
facts of this matter and he simply writes more fiction - no doubt his
occupation. Nobody has suggested that the true calendar date of the
house chimney is too young. It is all of the sample dates for the tower
and the chimney that are surely too young.
---------------
I had said before: "Lets face reality. Doug would not be questioning
the C14 dating, or my re-calibration thereof, if the dates had all been
colonial."
-----------------
And Doug replied: "I have not questioned the C14 dating as reported by
Hertz. I question very much the version that Larry Athy and Suzanne
Carlson have presented."
----------------
I say: "Fine, if he questions the C14 dating that I have presented and
accepts the C14 dating of Hertz, the Hertz sample dating must be
different than mine. If such is the case, why has Doug not posted this
different sample dating by Hertz??? More Weller smoke!!!
-----------------
And Doug continued: "The C14 dating supports a colonial construction."
-----------------
And I now ask: If such is the case, why has Doug not posted such dating
supporting his claim??
---------------
And Doug continued: "As I've said, I'm getting two more reports on this
and will present some sort of analysis/summary of them when I can.
Meanwhile perhaps Larry Athy can provide the citations I've asked for
above."
----------------
I say: I have provided such citations, the published sample dates, my
recalibrated dates, explanations of the three C14 test portions, etc.
As is always the case, Doug has provided nothing in this matter except
meaningless criticism of Suzanne Carlson, his misunderstandings, and a
lot of worthless smoke. How does trying to demonstrate that the tower
is colonial justify such fabrications and smoke??
Regards, Larry Athy, P.E.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>Ok. I don't want to go into a lot of detail until I have the information I've
>requested, but basically in the quote from her above she looks at the raw,
>uncalibrated data, at the calendar date you get when the calibration is done,
>subtracts the uncalibrated dates from either BP or the present and then
>complains that they don't match the calibrated calendar age, suggesting that the
>mathematics (which she sees as simple subtraction of the raw data from the
>current date or BP) is wrong. As I said, she hasn't a clue.
>
>Do you understand the purpose of calibration and how it works?
That's twice you've asked me that and its now twice I have replied,
"of course I do".
You should also recall that I have several times made statements along
the lines of their likely being much mathematics in the back ground of
the original calculation. Also, when I wrote of the problems of dating
old concrete I commenced by briefly explaining the problems and the
need for calibration or standardisation. I then said something about
the correction not being a simple linear relationship. For all of
these reasons I am withholding judgement until I can obtain a copy of
the original report.
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
>On Fri, 17 Nov 2000 18:47:19 GMT, Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk>
>wrote:
>>Ok. I don't want to go into a lot of detail until I have the information I've
>>requested, but basically in the quote from her above she looks at the raw,
>>uncalibrated data, at the calendar date you get when the calibration is done,
>>subtracts the uncalibrated dates from either BP or the present and then
>>complains that they don't match the calibrated calendar age, suggesting that the
>>mathematics (which she sees as simple subtraction of the raw data from the
>>current date or BP) is wrong. As I said, she hasn't a clue.
>>Do you understand the purpose of calibration and how it works?
>That's twice you've asked me that and its now twice I have replied,
>"of course I do".
Then you should have no trouble agreeing that she obviously doesn't.
This is true regardless of what's in the original report.
[...]
Brian M. Scott
Doug Weller
marth...@webtv.net says...
>
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2000, 9:07pm (CST+6),
> Doug Weller wrote that:
> -----------
> I had previously said: "It is not clear to my as to why Suzanne
> Carlson's reference to CO2 bubbles has become such an issue.
> When Suzanne said in her 1996 'Tilting at Windmills---' paper, "This was
> C14 dating of a lime mortar where carbon is taken from the carbon
> dioxide voids, bubbles formed during the mixing and hardening of the
> mortar", she was indicating what Johannes Hertz had said in his 1995
> report.
Then please back it up with a citation from Hertz. I'm not saying it is wrong,
but I would like some evidence that it is correct.
In addition, she quoted Hertz directly as saying "In mixing the
> mortar, calcium carbonate is formed by chemical reaction from the
> atmospheric carbon dioxide with the lime. ----- has had good results
> with the separating out of the carbon for testing by AMS for C14." Thus
> Hertz had described both the 1st and 3rd separated portions that I had
> described previously after having talked to our C14 lab manager."
> -----------
> So Doug said: "Where is this report published? The original Danish
> report is dated 1995. The 7th International AMS conference was 1996.
> Hertz' Newport History article is 1997. I'd like an exact citation so I
> can check the above, as it doesn't match with what Hertz wrote in 1997."
> ----------
> I now reply: Wrong as usual. The original report by Heinemeier and
> Jungner were published in Danish and English in 1994 and is the report
> from which Suzanne Carlson took the date range data for the tower and
> chimney samples as published in her paper and have been posted here
> several times in the recent past.
Personal attack followed by no evidence. Hertz's abridgement in the Newport
journal states "The above description is an abridged and adapted version of Jan
Heinemeier & Hogne Jungner, "C-14 datering af kalkmortel/Carbon-14 Dating of
MOrtar," Arkaeologiske udgravninger I Danmark 1994 (Copenhagen 1995) which I
interpret as publiction in 1995. Minor point, however.
> The dates copied by Carlson for both the tower and chimney samples were
> those that had been calculated and calibrated by the lab from the raw
> AMS data in accordance with the circumstances, as is always done by
> labs. According to Carlson, the authors also indicated how they
> suggested that such dates could be re-calibrated to take into account
> the known chimney mortar date. Carlson was critical of the method used
> for such later recalibration of the published dates, not the original
> calibration.
>
I've pointed out why I think she doesn't understand calibration. Nor do I have
any evidence that the lab provided calibrated dates. Perhaps you could help me
with this and show where it states that they do. In your earlier post you refer
to the dates as having "been calibrated by the lab or authors" but now you seem
sure that they were calibrated by the lab first and then some new method was
used by the authors. In fact, the authors used the latest calibration curve they
had, Stuiver and Reimer 1993.
[SNIP]
> The 1997 paper would not relate to my 11 November posting of my first
> attempt at recalibration, unless it gives lab sample dates different
> from that published by Carlson and used by me. At that time, I invited
> corrections to the sample dates is applicable or criticisms of the
> recalibration method I had used. Neither has been forthcoming. All I
> have seen is dark blown smoke.
More personal attack. I've said I'm waiting for more information. However,
perhaps you could help here by saying where you got your calibration curve from.
Is it Stuiver and Reimer 1993 or are you using a different one? You seem to
start with raw, uncalibrated dates and then -- then what? This looks like a
'It's calibration, Jim, but not as we know it?' But if you can give me the
source of your calibration curve then at least I'll know we are both speaking
the same language.
> Doug continued: "Larry's comments about first and third separated
> portions are particularly confusing. The process involved first
> mechanical separation (crushing and sieving) after which chemical
> separation was used with two fractions collected for dating. Hertz does
> not mention carbon dioxide voids in the 1997 article and he makes it
> clear that the carbon dioxide that was testing was evolved from the
> sample carbonate by reaction with phosphoric acid under vacuum as part
> of the testing procedure."
> ------------
> I say: It is unfortunate that Doug has no understanding of any of what
> has been said. Without knowing it, he is describing the separation of
> the 2nd and 3rd portions and testing of the 3rd. As I have said several
> times, They may not have extracted the first portion during crushing as
> had been mentioned by Hertz in his 1995 paper. It matters little. The
> testing of the third portion would give calibrated dates that are too
> young, and such is indeed the case.
More personal attack. Two fractions were tested. If these are the 2nd and 3rd,
the report states that the C-14 dates are generally significantly older, not
younger, explaining why, etc. I'll go into this at another time but I've already
discussed it.
> -------------
> I had previously written: "In spite of Doug's repeated suggestion that
> Suzanne and I know nothing of C14 testing of mortar and his insistence
> that he knows enough to doubt our lab manager's opinions, it is clear
> that he has no understanding of any of this."
> --------------
> And Doug had replied: "What can I say? Larry will persist in this sort
> of line even though I actually have Hertz's 1997 report in front of me
> and it doesn't match what he and Suzanne Carlson have written, and
> despite the fact that Carlson clearly doesn't understand calibration."
> -------------
> To which I reply: That is presumably because Doug has the wrong Hertz
> report.
Where have I written that I doubt any lab manager's opinions? Whether they are
relevant or not, whether they are based on correct information, is another
question.
I am waiting for actual quotes from Larry to show that I have the wrong Hertz
report. The only quotes I've seen from Hertz so far are in my report. And it is
Suzanne Carlson's own words that show that she doesn't understand calibration.
> --------------
> (Much cut out)
> And then Doug continued: "The control samples from the
> Wanton-Lyman-Hazard house yield a calendar date of 1689 AD (with some
> uncertainty of course, this isn't exact) which agrees with the known
> time of construction, sometime between 1676 and 1698. Hardly too young."
> ---------------
> And I say: Doug has just demonstrated again that he has no idea of the
> facts of this matter and he simply writes more fiction - no doubt his
> occupation. Nobody has suggested that the true calendar date of the
> house chimney is too young. It is all of the sample dates for the tower
> and the chimney that are surely too young.
More personal attack. I haven't suggested that the true calendar date is too
young. I have pointed out that Suzanne Carlson used uncalibrated dates in her
attack on the mathematics of the report, whereas they used calibrated dates.
The calibrated dates match the calendar age.
> ---------------
> I had said before: "Lets face reality. Doug would not be questioning
> the C14 dating, or my re-calibration thereof, if the dates had all been
> colonial."
> -----------------
> And Doug replied: "I have not questioned the C14 dating as reported by
> Hertz. I question very much the version that Larry Athy and Suzanne
> Carlson have presented."
> ----------------
> I say: "Fine, if he questions the C14 dating that I have presented and
> accepts the C14 dating of Hertz, the Hertz sample dating must be
> different than mine. If such is the case, why has Doug not posted this
> different sample dating by Hertz??? More Weller smoke!!!
More personal attack (makes replying to Athy very tedious).
No,the C14 sample dating is not different. The way it is treated by Larry and
by Hertz is very different. But if Larry Athy can give us the source of his
calibration curve the difference might be resolved.
> -----------------
> And Doug continued: "The C14 dating supports a colonial construction."
> -----------------
> And I now ask: If such is the case, why has Doug not posted such dating
> supporting his claim??
> ---------------
> And Doug continued: "As I've said, I'm getting two more reports on this
> and will present some sort of analysis/summary of them when I can.
> Meanwhile perhaps Larry Athy can provide the citations I've asked for
> above."
> ----------------
> I say: I have provided such citations, the published sample dates, my
> recalibrated dates, explanations of the three C14 test portions, etc.
> As is always the case, Doug has provided nothing in this matter except
> meaningless criticism of Suzanne Carlson, his misunderstandings, and a
> lot of worthless smoke. How does trying to demonstrate that the tower
> is colonial justify such fabrications and smoke??
Now I'm being attacked for wanting to wait for more information. Great.
No citations published so far using the word bubble, for a start, despite
repeated requests. There is no point in just reposting the Hertz report from
the 1997 Newport Journal when I shall shortly be getting more information. I'd
prefer to do it all at once. Maybe the further articles will explain Larry's
claims about bubbles and three C14 test portions (since the report I have only
mentions 2). I hope it will clarify some other issues.
Meanwhile, Larry, a citation for carbon dioxide voids, please (at least to
satisfy my curiousity) and more importantly, the source of your calibration
curve and the reason you reject the one used by the authors.
Eric Stevens
It isn't necessarily obvious at all. I have never seen the source
documents from which she has been quoting and I will bet that neither
have you nor Doug Weller. What we need are some facts. I don't know
that these will be easily come by as for some weeks I have been trying
to obtain them myself without success. In the mean time, this whole
business is getting out of hand.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>In article <26130-3A...@storefull-255.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
>journal ...
This is the first time that you have indicated that the doucument from
which you have been working is an abridgement. I am surprised that you
should think it a suitable foundation for an attack upon Carlson.
> ... states "The above description is an abridged and adapted version of Jan
>Heinemeier & Hogne Jungner, "C-14 datering af kalkmortel/Carbon-14 Dating of
>MOrtar," Arkaeologiske udgravninger I Danmark 1994 (Copenhagen 1995) which I
>interpret as publiction in 1995. Minor point, however.
It is not at all a minor point. The need to work from prime sources is
repeatedly made in this news group. It is entirely inappropriate for
you to mount an argument based on a secondary source which you now say
is an 'abridgement' and then say that this is aminor point.
>
>> The dates copied by Carlson for both the tower and chimney samples were
>> those that had been calculated and calibrated by the lab from the raw
>> AMS data in accordance with the circumstances, as is always done by
>> labs. According to Carlson, the authors also indicated how they
>> suggested that such dates could be re-calibrated to take into account
>> the known chimney mortar date. Carlson was critical of the method used
>> for such later recalibration of the published dates, not the original
>> calibration.
>>
>I've pointed out why I think she doesn't understand calibration. Nor do I have
>any evidence that the lab provided calibrated dates.
Of course you don't. You don't know exactly what they produced. You
have **never** seen their report, either in English or in the original
Danish. Yet, you continue to attack Carlson's understanding of the
calibration even though you have been told that she has read the
original reports. You may still be correct. She may not understand
calibration. But your present knowledge leaves you in absolutely no
position to claim that.
>Perhaps you could help me
>with this and show where it states that they do. In your earlier post you refer
>to the dates as having "been calibrated by the lab or authors" but now you seem
>sure that they were calibrated by the lab first and then some new method was
>used by the authors. In fact, the authors used the latest calibration curve they
>had, Stuiver and Reimer 1993.
>
>
>[SNIP]
>> The 1997 paper would not relate to my 11 November posting of my first
>> attempt at recalibration, unless it gives lab sample dates different
>> from that published by Carlson and used by me. At that time, I invited
>> corrections to the sample dates is applicable or criticisms of the
>> recalibration method I had used. Neither has been forthcoming. All I
>> have seen is dark blown smoke.
>
>More personal attack. I've said I'm waiting for more information. However,
>perhaps you could help here by saying where you got your calibration curve from.
>Is it Stuiver and Reimer 1993 or are you using a different one? You seem to
>start with raw, uncalibrated dates and then -- then what? This looks like a
>'It's calibration, Jim, but not as we know it?' But if you can give me the
>source of your calibration curve then at least I'll know we are both speaking
>the same language.
If you are going to get down to this level of detail, do you have the
Stuiver and Reimer 1993 data? For that matter, do you know anything of
the data and methodology used to deal with the problems of determining
the date of old concrete? It seems to me that suddenly you are
starting to challenge Larry on grounds which might be important only
if you had and understood the full report.
>
>> Doug continued: "Larry's comments about first and third separated
>> portions are particularly confusing. The process involved first
>> mechanical separation (crushing and sieving) after which chemical
>> separation was used with two fractions collected for dating. Hertz does
>> not mention carbon dioxide voids in the 1997 article and he makes it
>> clear that the carbon dioxide that was testing was evolved from the
>> sample carbonate by reaction with phosphoric acid under vacuum as part
>> of the testing procedure."
>> ------------
>> I say: It is unfortunate that Doug has no understanding of any of what
>> has been said. Without knowing it, he is describing the separation of
>> the 2nd and 3rd portions and testing of the 3rd. As I have said several
>> times, They may not have extracted the first portion during crushing as
>> had been mentioned by Hertz in his 1995 paper. It matters little. The
>> testing of the third portion would give calibrated dates that are too
>> young, and such is indeed the case.
>
>More personal attack. Two fractions were tested. If these are the 2nd and 3rd,
>the report states that the C-14 dates are generally significantly older, not
>younger, explaining why, etc. I'll go into this at another time but I've already
>discussed it.
If there are three fractions, the second should be older and the third
should be younger. You don't have to go into the reasons. I've already
covered them in my post which started this thread. If both fractions
are older, it strongly suggests that the two streams have not been
adequately separated. It would not be altogether surprising if this
was the case. This is exactly the problem which causes the technology
to be described as 'contentious' when used to date concrete.
>
>> -------------
>> I had previously written: "In spite of Doug's repeated suggestion that
>> Suzanne and I know nothing of C14 testing of mortar and his insistence
>> that he knows enough to doubt our lab manager's opinions, it is clear
>> that he has no understanding of any of this."
>
>> --------------
>> And Doug had replied: "What can I say? Larry will persist in this sort
>> of line even though I actually have Hertz's 1997 report in front of me
>> and it doesn't match what he and Suzanne Carlson have written, and
>> despite the fact that Carlson clearly doesn't understand calibration."
>> -------------
>> To which I reply: That is presumably because Doug has the wrong Hertz
>> report.
>
>Where have I written that I doubt any lab manager's opinions? Whether they are
>relevant or not, whether they are based on correct information, is another
>question.
>
>I am waiting for actual quotes from Larry to show that I have the wrong Hertz
>report. The only quotes I've seen from Hertz so far are in my report.
You may be correct but you seem to be sliding past the important
point. You should know, as I have already posted to this effect, and
your own web search should have confirmed the situation, that the full
report was published only in Danish as part of the Danish National
Museum's original report. There has been an English translation of the
text but none of the tables or figures. The only report you have seen
so far is in a later and shorter report by Hertz in the Newport
Journal. You should not need quotes from Larry to confirm that you
have only a popular and no doubt condensed paraphrase of the original
report.
>And it is
>Suzanne Carlson's own words that show that she doesn't understand calibration.
And you reach that conclusion entirely on the basis of the quite
inadequate report in the Newport Journal.
Calling for the calibration curve is what Larry calls 'blowing smoke'.
Howabout giving us a quote of the text from Hertz upon which you are
relying?
>
>> -----------------
>> And Doug continued: "The C14 dating supports a colonial construction."
>> -----------------
>> And I now ask: If such is the case, why has Doug not posted such dating
>> supporting his claim??
>> ---------------
>> And Doug continued: "As I've said, I'm getting two more reports on this
>> and will present some sort of analysis/summary of them when I can.
>> Meanwhile perhaps Larry Athy can provide the citations I've asked for
>> above."
>> ----------------
>> I say: I have provided such citations, the published sample dates, my
>> recalibrated dates, explanations of the three C14 test portions, etc.
>> As is always the case, Doug has provided nothing in this matter except
>> meaningless criticism of Suzanne Carlson, his misunderstandings, and a
>> lot of worthless smoke. How does trying to demonstrate that the tower
>> is colonial justify such fabrications and smoke??
>
>Now I'm being attacked for wanting to wait for more information.
It is a very great pity that your desire to wait for more information
was not evident before you decided to launch into an attack on Suzann
Carlson.
>Great.
>No citations published so far using the word bubble, for a start, despite
>repeated requests. There is no point in just reposting the Hertz report from
>the 1997 Newport Journal when I shall shortly be getting more information. I'd
>prefer to do it all at once. Maybe the further articles will explain Larry's
>claims about bubbles and three C14 test portions (since the report I have only
>mentions 2). I hope it will clarify some other issues.
There may well be only two test portions in the method used by the
Danish team. If that is the case, I would like a clear explanation of
why I should accept the second portion results as being older than the
dates as finally determined.
>
>Meanwhile, Larry, a citation for carbon dioxide voids, please (at least to
>satisfy my curiousity) and more importantly, the source of your calibration
>curve and the reason you reject the one used by the authors.
Atmospheric C14 calibration curves are the least part of the problem.
Doug Weller
says...> > [quoted text muted]
> >>"of course I do".
> >
> >Then you should have no trouble agreeing that she obviously doesn't.
> >This is true regardless of what's in the original report.
>
> documents from which she has been quoting and I will bet that neither
> have you nor Doug Weller.
>
else you've posted.
In any case, her statement {snipped by you) is enough to show how little she
understands the issues.
Doug Weller
says...
I gather you support her attack on the mathematics then? Please justify this,
as that is the 'attack' you are decrying.
> > ... states "The above description is an abridged and adapted version of Jan
> >Heinemeier & Hogne Jungner, "C-14 datering af kalkmortel/Carbon-14 Dating of
> >MOrtar," Arkaeologiske udgravninger I Danmark 1994 (Copenhagen 1995) which I
> >interpret as publiction in 1995. Minor point, however.
>
> It is not at all a minor point. The need to work from prime sources is
> repeatedly made in this news group. It is entirely inappropriate for
> you to mount an argument based on a secondary source which you now say
> is an 'abridgement' and then say that this is aminor point.
Nonsense. Carlson's Hertz quote is in this document. I can't use it because
she seems to have taken it from another?
> >> The dates copied by Carlson for both the tower and chimney samples were
> >> those that had been calculated and calibrated by the lab from the raw
> >> AMS data in accordance with the circumstances, as is always done by
> >> labs. According to Carlson, the authors also indicated how they
> >> suggested that such dates could be re-calibrated to take into account
> >> the known chimney mortar date. Carlson was critical of the method used
> >> for such later recalibration of the published dates, not the original
> >> calibration.
> >>
> >I've pointed out why I think she doesn't understand calibration. Nor do I have
> >any evidence that the lab provided calibrated dates.
>
> Of course you don't. You don't know exactly what they produced. You
> have **never** seen their report, either in English or in the original
> Danish. Yet, you continue to attack Carlson's understanding of the
> calibration even though you have been told that she has read the
> original reports. You may still be correct. She may not understand
> calibration. But your present knowledge leaves you in absolutely no
> position to claim that.
I see. I have the table in front of me, and it does NOT give calibrated dates.
Unless you are suggesting that Hertz reproduced it accurately.
But again, how about precisely backing up her attack on the report's
mathematics? Why do you think it has any validity?
Eric, are you now claiming that Larry has the full report? What exactly do you
KNOW that he has.
If. I keep asking for evidence.
Are you accusing me of lying? I HAVE TABLES AND FIGURES. They exist. They're in
the Newport Journal article. Why are you claiming they aren't? Email from Larry
or something? And don't tell me what I need. If Larry claims I have the wrong
Hertz report it's up to him to show me I do.
Why do you keep acting as a mouthpiece for Larry Athy? How about telling us why
you defend his recalibration? (I presume you do, as you haven't criticised it
and you jump on me all the time).
> >And it is
> >Suzanne Carlson's own words that show that she doesn't understand calibration.
>
> And you reach that conclusion entirely on the basis of the quite
> inadequate report in the Newport Journal.
No, I reached that conclusion by reading what she wrote.
And you've decided the report is 'quite inadequate' without reading it. Why,
you've even decided it doesn't have tables and figures! And as I said,
implicitly accused me of lying since I've made it clear I'm using it.
How about reading the quotes I've already provided? Specifically more do you
want?
And how in the world is asking for Larry's calibration curve blowing smoke?
Instead of just repeating the insult, how about explaining why it doesn't
matter?
> >> -----------------
> >> And Doug continued: "The C14 dating supports a colonial construction."
> >> -----------------
> >> And I now ask: If such is the case, why has Doug not posted such dating
> >> supporting his claim??
> >> ---------------
> >> And Doug continued: "As I've said, I'm getting two more reports on this
> >> and will present some sort of analysis/summary of them when I can.
> >> Meanwhile perhaps Larry Athy can provide the citations I've asked for
> >> above."
> >> ----------------
> >> I say: I have provided such citations, the published sample dates, my
> >> recalibrated dates, explanations of the three C14 test portions, etc.
> >> As is always the case, Doug has provided nothing in this matter except
> >> meaningless criticism of Suzanne Carlson, his misunderstandings, and a
> >> lot of worthless smoke. How does trying to demonstrate that the tower
> >> is colonial justify such fabrications and smoke??
> >
> >Now I'm being attacked for wanting to wait for more information.
>
> It is a very great pity that your desire to wait for more information
> was not evident before you decided to launch into an attack on Suzann
> Carlson.
My criticism of Carlson is based on what she wrote. You continue to refuse to
defend it except by attacking me.
> >Great.
> >No citations published so far using the word bubble, for a start, despite
> >repeated requests. There is no point in just reposting the Hertz report from
> >the 1997 Newport Journal when I shall shortly be getting more information. I'd
> >prefer to do it all at once. Maybe the further articles will explain Larry's
> >claims about bubbles and three C14 test portions (since the report I have only
> >mentions 2). I hope it will clarify some other issues.
>
> There may well be only two test portions in the method used by the
> Danish team. If that is the case, I would like a clear explanation of
> why I should accept the second portion results as being older than the
> dates as finally determined.
You'll have to wait.
> >Meanwhile, Larry, a citation for carbon dioxide voids, please (at least to
> >satisfy my curiousity) and more importantly, the source of your calibration
> >curve and the reason you reject the one used by the authors.
>
> Atmospheric C14 calibration curves are the least part of the problem.
>
Why? And if they are, then are you saying we can ignore them?
Martha or Larry Athy
I see no point in continuing a statement by statement debate on this
subject with Doug, since he has no idea of what he is writing about and
is just blowing meaningless dark smoke, trying to hide that fact.
When I point out that Doug is wrong, etc., he simply says that I am
making a 'personal attack'. When he says that other people are wrong,
he does not seem to consider his statements to be 'personal attacks'.
If I were to suggest that he does not know how to design a hydraulic
system, tell us the number of square feet of foundation under my house,
build a lunar rocket, or interpret a C14 report, it would be clear that
I would be correct; and there is no reason for him to say that I was
attacking him personally. He seems to have some complex by which he
considers himself guilty of not knowing everything. As a matter of
fact, he seems to be avoiding giving us information on his educational
and professional background.
The ages of the C14 samples from the tower and house chimney, as given
in the original Danish report and as published in Carlson's paper, have
been given several times under this subject, including in my attempt at
re-calibration detailed in my posting of 11 November. On several
occasions, I have asked that anyone post herein any data different from
the data previously published herein. No such data has been posted. I
have also asked for specific suggestions as to how to improve my method
used to re-calibrate such lab data to a known sample date. No such
suggestions have been forthcoming.
Such alternate data or suggestions would be consistent with moving
forward in a scientific manner. To criticize Carlson for disagreeing
with a previous re-calibration, about which we know no details, is
foolish.
To suggest that any lab would give to its client sample dates that have
not been calculated and calibrated to the best of its ability (based on
all information known to it at the time), is absolute foolishness. That
any lab would take eleven such calibrated sample dates ranging from an
earliest date of 1410 A.D. to a latest date of 1930 A.D. and suggest
that all eleven would re-calibrate to 1687 A.D., would be engaging in a
practice so foolish as to be suicidal.
It is such a re-calibration by someone that was the subject of Carlson's
criticism. The name of the person, the method, and the sample by sample
results have not been posted herein. When such information is posted,
it can be criticized. Until then, it is of no meaning.
In the meantime, the details of my method could be criticized, as should
be done if it is wrong.
Regards, Larry Athy, P.E.
gblack
"Doug Weller" <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1480723cd...@news.blueyonder.co.uk...
: In article <c6ic1t8o9iccp8co5...@4ax.com>,
este...@ip.co.nz
large snip for sanitys sake (and brevity)
: > There may well be only two test portions in the method used by the
: > Danish team. If that is the case, I would like a clear explanation of
: > why I should accept the second portion results as being older than the
: > dates as finally determined.
:
: You'll have to wait.
:
: > >Meanwhile, Larry, a citation for carbon dioxide voids, please (at least
to
: > >satisfy my curiousity) and more importantly, the source of your
calibration
: > >curve and the reason you reject the one used by the authors.
: >
: > Atmospheric C14 calibration curves are the least part of the problem.
: >
:
: Why? And if they are, then are you saying we can ignore them?
It looks, Doug, as if we have a new scientific methodology.
Ignore evidence and tables and years of experimentation and archaeology and
written history and all that sort of junk for pendantic did/didn't !
My point about concrete (having poured some number of cubic yards over the
years) is, with the materials used and useable, there should be a large body
of independantly verifiable data available out there to work from.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>In article <c6ic1t8o9iccp8co5...@4ax.com>, este...@ip.co.nz
>says...
>> On Sat, 18 Nov 2000 08:29:26 GMT, Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <26130-3A...@storefull-255.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
>> >marth...@webtv.net says...
>> >>
---- snip ----
>>
>> This is the first time that you have indicated that the doucument from
>> which you have been working is an abridgement. I am surprised that you
>> should think it a suitable foundation for an attack upon Carlson.
>
>I gather you support her attack on the mathematics then? Please justify this,
>as that is the 'attack' you are decrying.
Don't be daft. I've been invited to give my opinion on the mathematics
previously and withheld comment as I lack the original report. I have
made that point several times. I have asked for assistance in locating
a copy and so far no one has tole me where I can get one. Contrary to
what you seem to be assuming, this is not a case of 'if you aren't
against Carlson, you must be for her'. I am not in a position to offer
informed comment and now it seems that neither are you.
>
>> > ... states "The above description is an abridged and adapted version of Jan
>> >Heinemeier & Hogne Jungner, "C-14 datering af kalkmortel/Carbon-14 Dating of
>> >MOrtar," Arkaeologiske udgravninger I Danmark 1994 (Copenhagen 1995) which I
>> >interpret as publiction in 1995. Minor point, however.
>>
>> It is not at all a minor point. The need to work from prime sources is
>> repeatedly made in this news group. It is entirely inappropriate for
>> you to mount an argument based on a secondary source which you now say
>> is an 'abridgement' and then say that this is aminor point.
>
>Nonsense. Carlson's Hertz quote is in this document. I can't use it because
>she seems to have taken it from another?
Basing your criticism of Carlson on it is unjustified as you do not
know the full context in which it was made. Evaluation of the dating
of the tower is not a matter where you can pick and choose paragraphs
without knowing the whole.
>
>> >> The dates copied by Carlson for both the tower and chimney samples were
>> >> those that had been calculated and calibrated by the lab from the raw
>> >> AMS data in accordance with the circumstances, as is always done by
>> >> labs. According to Carlson, the authors also indicated how they
>> >> suggested that such dates could be re-calibrated to take into account
>> >> the known chimney mortar date. Carlson was critical of the method used
>> >> for such later recalibration of the published dates, not the original
>> >> calibration.
>> >>
>> >I've pointed out why I think she doesn't understand calibration. Nor do I have
>> >any evidence that the lab provided calibrated dates.
>>
>> Of course you don't. You don't know exactly what they produced. You
>> have **never** seen their report, either in English or in the original
>> Danish. Yet, you continue to attack Carlson's understanding of the
>> calibration even though you have been told that she has read the
>> original reports. You may still be correct. She may not understand
>> calibration. But your present knowledge leaves you in absolutely no
>> position to claim that.
>
>I see. I have the table in front of me, and it does NOT give calibrated dates.
>Unless you are suggesting that Hertz reproduced it accurately.
Here we go again. You are inviting me to give an opinion on the basis
of a document I have never seen. I refuse to do so. Is it possible for
you to post it in some way?
>
>But again, how about precisely backing up her attack on the report's
>mathematics? Why do you think it has any validity?
Who said I did? I have repeatedly pointed out that there is more to
this than presently meets the eye and until I know the full story I am
withholding comment.
>
--- snip ---
>> If you are going to get down to this level of detail, do you have the
>> Stuiver and Reimer 1993 data? For that matter, do you know anything of
>> the data and methodology used to deal with the problems of determining
>> the date of old concrete? It seems to me that suddenly you are
>> starting to challenge Larry on grounds which might be important only
>> if you had and understood the full report.
>
>Eric, are you now claiming that Larry has the full report? What exactly do you
>KNOW that he has.
I have not the least idea of what documents Larry has on this subject
(or any other subject for that matter). All I know is that Larry seems
to have correctly identified the series of reports which have been
issued on this subject. The only one which I did not previously know
about was the one in the Newport Journal upon which you have been
relying.
--- snip ---
>> If there are three fractions, the second should be older and the third
>> should be younger. You don't have to go into the reasons. I've already
>> covered them in my post which started this thread. If both fractions
>> are older, it strongly suggests that the two streams have not been
>> adequately separated. It would not be altogether surprising if this
>> was the case. This is exactly the problem which causes the technology
>> to be described as 'contentious' when used to date concrete.
>
>If. I keep asking for evidence.
What is needed is a copy of the full report.
---- snip ----
>> >I am waiting for actual quotes from Larry to show that I have the wrong Hertz
>> >report. The only quotes I've seen from Hertz so far are in my report.
>>
>> You may be correct but you seem to be sliding past the important
>> point. You should know, as I have already posted to this effect, and
>> your own web search should have confirmed the situation, that the full
>> report was published only in Danish as part of the Danish National
>> Museum's original report. There has been an English translation of the
>> text but none of the tables or figures. The only report you have seen
>> so far is in a later and shorter report by Hertz in the Newport
>> Journal. You should not need quotes from Larry to confirm that you
>> have only a popular and no doubt condensed paraphrase of the original
>> report.
>
>Are you accusing me of lying? I HAVE TABLES AND FIGURES. They exist. They're in
>the Newport Journal article. Why are you claiming they aren't? Email from Larry
>or something? And don't tell me what I need. If Larry claims I have the wrong
>Hertz report it's up to him to show me I do.
I'm not accusing you of lying. I'm accusing you of launching an attack
on Carlson based on incomplete information. When I wrote "you seem to
be sliding past the important point" I was referring to your
reluctance to deal with problems of you not having the full story. To
me, this is the fundamental weakness of your position. This is not a
matter of accepting Hertz's claim (on authority) that the dating has
been done correctly. Carlson is criticizing the internal workings of
the dating procedure and we cannot properly comment on her claims
unless we properly know what it is she has been criticizing.
>
>Why do you keep acting as a mouthpiece for Larry Athy? How about telling us why
>you defend his recalibration? (I presume you do, as you haven't criticised it
>and you jump on me all the time).
This is getting silly. I do not act as a mouthpiece for Larry Athy,
even if we do agree on a number of matters. I have not defended his
recalibration. I have offered no comment on that, even though I have
been invited to do so. I have even several times explained why.
>
>> >And it is
>> >Suzanne Carlson's own words that show that she doesn't understand calibration.
>>
>> And you reach that conclusion entirely on the basis of the quite
>> inadequate report in the Newport Journal.
>
>No, I reached that conclusion by reading what she wrote.
... and the Newport Journal. But as far as I know, she is not
criticising the Newport Journal. She is criticising the orginal
report.
>
>And you've decided the report is 'quite inadequate' without reading it. Why,
>you've even decided it doesn't have tables and figures! And as I said,
>implicitly accused me of lying since I've made it clear I'm using it.
Of course it is quite inadequate for a proper technical evaluation if
it is a condensation of the original. Further, I have never accused
you of lying. I have accused you of trying to avoid acknowledging the
impropriety of attacking Carlson's comments on the original report
without you first reading the original report. The fact that you have
read an abridgement written for popular consumption by but one of the
authors of the original is not an adequate substitution. Many people
in this news group have been smacked down for doing such things and
the need for the use of 'prime sources' has been repeatedly expressed.
There is no reason why an attack on Carlson should be an exception.
--- snip ----
>> Calling for the calibration curve is what Larry calls 'blowing smoke'.
>> Howabout giving us a quote of the text from Hertz upon which you are
>> relying?
>
>How about reading the quotes I've already provided? Specifically more do you
>want?
I want the original report. As a poor substitute, I would like the
full text of the article in the Newport Journal upon which you are
relying. So far, all we have had is the bits and pieces which you have
fed out as your argument requires. You did exactly the same thing with
the Plowden documents and misunderstandings occurred as a result.
>
>And how in the world is asking for Larry's calibration curve blowing smoke?
>Instead of just repeating the insult, how about explaining why it doesn't
>matter?
In the early days, C14 calibration curves were many and variable. By
the time of this report C14 calibration had settled down to a
generally accepted standard. Certainly the dating of the sample might
be affected by the curve selected but not to a great extent. For
reasons which I have already explained, there are much greater sources
of both error and uncertainty in the dating of concrete and these are
the matters which warrant attention. In this case, I have to agree
with Larry. Your concentration on the C14 calibration curve indicates
that you do not properly understand the C14 dating procedure for
concrete.
>
--- snip ---
>> >Now I'm being attacked for wanting to wait for more information.
>>
>> It is a very great pity that your desire to wait for more information
>> was not evident before you decided to launch into an attack on Suzann
>> Carlson.
>
>My criticism of Carlson is based on what she wrote. You continue to refuse to
>defend it except by attacking me.
I am neither attacking nor defending Carlson. You say "My criticism of
Carlson is based on what she wrote". You seem to be unable to
comprehend that I am attacking you (and I guess I am) not for what you
wrote about Carlson, but for writing it about her without ever having
read the document about which she wrote. Instead, your enthusiasm to
clobber her led you into battle on the basis of quite inadequate
information.
>
>> >Great.
>> >No citations published so far using the word bubble, for a start, despite
>> >repeated requests. There is no point in just reposting the Hertz report from
>> >the 1997 Newport Journal when I shall shortly be getting more information. I'd
>> >prefer to do it all at once. Maybe the further articles will explain Larry's
>> >claims about bubbles and three C14 test portions (since the report I have only
>> >mentions 2). I hope it will clarify some other issues.
>>
>> There may well be only two test portions in the method used by the
>> Danish team. If that is the case, I would like a clear explanation of
>> why I should accept the second portion results as being older than the
>> dates as finally determined.
>
>You'll have to wait.
As I have been.
>
>> >Meanwhile, Larry, a citation for carbon dioxide voids, please (at least to
>> >satisfy my curiousity) and more importantly, the source of your calibration
>> >curve and the reason you reject the one used by the authors.
>>
>> Atmospheric C14 calibration curves are the least part of the problem.
>>
>
>Why? And if they are, then are you saying we can ignore them?
I'm not saying we should ignore them. I'm saying (as I have said
above) when dating concrete, there are much more important sources of
uncertainty and error which cause the procedure to be contentious in
the eyes of many. These are the areas upon which I wish to
concentrate.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>In article <2qgc1tkc0cu9hpkjt...@4ax.com>, este...@ip.co.nz
>says...
>> On Sat, 18 Nov 2000 00:21:10 GMT, sc...@math.csuohio.edu (Brian M.
>> Scott) wrote:
>>
>> > [quoted text muted]
>> >>"of course I do".
>> >
>> >Then you should have no trouble agreeing that she obviously doesn't.
>> >This is true regardless of what's in the original report.
>>
>> It isn't necessarily obvious at all. I have never seen the source
>> documents from which she has been quoting and I will bet that neither
>> have you nor Doug Weller.
>>
>The Hertz report I have has the quotes she's used, unless I've missed something
>else you've posted.
>
>In any case, her statement {snipped by you) is enough to show how little she
>understands the issues.
Still arguing that prime sources are not really necessary? That
selected quotes from a abreviation written for popular consumption by
only one of the authors of the original report are quite sufficient?
Naah - can't be.
Doug Weller
says...
[SNIP]
> Still arguing that prime sources are not really necessary? That
> selected quotes from a abreviation written for popular consumption by
> only one of the authors of the original report are quite sufficient?
> Naah - can't be.
>
>
You refuse to discuss what she wrote for some reason while still defending her
knowledge of C14 dating. Instead you want to discuss the adequacy of an article
you haven't read.
Doug Weller
says...
[SNIP]
> I am neither attacking nor defending Carlson. You say "My criticism of
> Carlson is based on what she wrote". You seem to be unable to
> comprehend that I am attacking you (and I guess I am) not for what you
> wrote about Carlson, but for writing it about her without ever having
> read the document about which she wrote. Instead, your enthusiasm to
> clobber her led you into battle on the basis of quite inadequate
> information.
Here is the Carlson quote I am discussing:
"In my non-scientific way, I wonder how it is
possible to take the two dates from the Wanton-Lyman-Hazard House
(built between 1677 and 1698) and carbon-dated to a range of 1730
to 1970, and conclude: "The weighted mean C14 of the two fractions
of the whole mortar sample (H23) from the Wanton-Lyman-Hazard House
is 139+51, i.e. not significantly different from that of the tower.
Calibration of this C14 age by its intercept with the calibration
curve yields a calendar age of 1689 A.D. calibrated." Try the math
on that one!"
I'm happy to have you show me to be wrong, but she starts off with the raw C14
dating and seems to think that the weighted mean date has been subtracted from
the present date and incorrectly shown as yielding a 1689 date. That's how I
interpret her comment 'Try the math on that one!' Of course, what she doesn't
understand, in my opinion, is the meaning of the quote from Hertz above.
I think there is sufficient information there to judge whether or not she
understands what she is writing about. Perhaps you could tell me why you think
she is correct in criticising the maths involved.
And the reason I asked if you were calling me a liar is because you deny that
the report I have has tables and figure. I assure you it is not that inadequate.
Doug
[SNIP]
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>In article <ngqd1tcgd0qelf5pd...@4ax.com>, este...@ip.co.nz
One of the things you snipped from my article to which you are
responding was my statement:
"I want the original report. As a poor substitute, I would like the
full text of the article in the Newport Journal upon which you are
relying. So far, all we have had is the bits and pieces which you
have fed out as your argument requires. You did exactly the same
thing with the Plowden documents and misunderstandings occurred as
a result"
Now, you are doing exactly the same thing, you are feeding selected
text as your argument requires. In anticipation of what you might be
tempted to make of that statement, I am not making any claims about
your motives.
The full section of the relevant text from Carlson's article 'Tilting
at Windmills' is:
"Jan Heinenicier and Hogne Jungner published their report with an
English translation by the authors in Arkaeologiske Udgravninger i
Danmark 1994 (Archaeological Excavations in Denmark 1994). In
addition to taking samples from the tower, control samples were
taken from the neighboring Wanton-Lyman Hazard House (1680s).
From the report it appears that 15 samples were taken from the
tower, at a depth ranging from surface to 17cm and a height range
from 20cm to 55cm from the ground, 4 from the fireplace and the
rest from the columns. Four were excluded because of insufficient
carbon content.
Table 1 (p. 6) presents a simplified summary of these results from
years before present (B.P.), using 1950 as B.P. By plotting these
results in a wonderfully circuitous manner and eliminating
post-colonial dates, the authors arrive at a 95% certainty of the
tower's age: 1659 AD. I invite those of you more statistically
inclined to plot this and get the same results. I remain
skeptical. In my non-scientific way, I wonder how it is possible
to take the two dates from the Wanton-Lyman-Hazard House (built
between 1677 and 1698) and carbon-dated to a range of 1730 to
1970, and conclude: "The weighted mean C14 of the two fractions of
the whole mortar sample (H23) from the Wanton Lyman-Hazard House
is 139+51, i.e. not significantly different from that of the
tower. Calibration of this C14 age by its intercept with the
calibration curve yields a calendar age of 1689 A.D. calibrated."
Try the math on that one! So we have a range of dates from 1410
to 1970 and a known error of 283 years. Why not subtract the 283
from 1410, which gives us 1127? Followers of the Bishop Erie
Gnupsson Theory will appreciate that bit of wizardry, but I fail
to understand the wizardry of the Cl4 dating used by Jan
Heinemeier and Hogne Jungner".
You will see that she is discussing yet another article containing
tabulated data and procedures the exact details of which are known to
neither of us. You may be right, that she does not understand the
procedure, but until I know and understand what is meant by
"calibration curve" I will **continue** to withold comment. I very
much doubt that she means the C14 curve to which you have previously
referred. In view of the known problems of dating concrete I expect
that the curve she is referring to expresses the relationship between
the C14 dated age and the actual age. How you can get a reliable curve
from only the two samples from the Wanton-Lyman-Hazard house is beyond
me, especially if it does not even use the same type of mortar as that
used in the tower.
>
>And the reason I asked if you were calling me a liar is because you deny that
>the report I have has tables and figure. I assure you it is not that inadequate.
I am getting fed up with this. I am not calling you a liar. I have
never made any claims or denials about what it does or does not
contain. After all, how can I? I have never seen the report you have
so cannot possibly know whether it contains tables or figures. If you
wish to prove me wrong please find the relevant quote and I will
apologise.
The situation is:
1. Carlson argues for a non-colonial origin for the tower.
2. You argue for a colonial origin for the tower.
3. Hertz and others have produced a series of reports describing work
they did in dating the tower.
4. Carlson seems to have got hold of all the various reports both in
the original Danish and English translations. She has criticised a
number of aspects of the reports.
5. You have seen none of the reports which Carlson is criticising.
You have read only a single abreviated report written by Hertz
(only one of the several authors of the original reports) and use
this as justification for criticism of Carlson's criticisms of the
reports **which you have never seen**.
6. I am criticising your attack on Carlson's article on the grounds
that you lack the articles which she is criticisng. Until you know
exactly what she is criticising, you lack sufficient data to
determine whether your criticism of her is justified or not.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>In article <d7td1tsp27dcujguq...@4ax.com>, este...@ip.co.nz
>says...
>[SNIP]
>> Still arguing that prime sources are not really necessary? That
>> selected quotes from a abreviation written for popular consumption by
>> only one of the authors of the original report are quite sufficient?
>> Naah - can't be.
>>
>>
>I am discussing what Carlson wrote herself, not a quote from Herz.
>
>You refuse to discuss what she wrote for some reason while still defending her
>knowledge of C14 dating. Instead you want to discuss the adequacy of an article
>you haven't read.
You have several times claimed that I am defending Carlson. I have
several times said I am not defending Carlson but that I cannot reach
any conclusion about what she has written until I have more
information. I do not know how I can make this point more clearly.
You have accused me of calling you a liar. I have never called you a
liar but I will have to do so if you continue to claim that I am
defending Carlson.
Doug Weller
>
>You have accused me of calling you a liar. I have never called you a
>liar but I will have to do so if you continue to claim that I am
>defending Carlson.
You haven't called me a liar explicitly, no. But you appear to be denying that I could
have the information that's sitting here on my desk. Which is why I asked you IF you were
calling me a liar.
You appear to be defending Carlson. I accept your statement that you don't mean to be
defending Carlson. But you write things such as:
" You may be right, that she does not understand the
procedure, but until I know and understand what is meant by
"calibration curve" I will **continue** to withold comment. I very
much doubt that she means the C14 curve to which you have previously
referred."
You won't make a comment but you carry on and make one which looks supportive of her. Can
you see how that looks as though you are defending her?
Doug
Harald Henkel
"Doug Weller" <dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:71lf1tk9c90q1d57i...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 19 Nov 2000 20:16:59 +1300, in sci.archaeology, Eric Stevens
wrote:
This discussion is becoming a kindergarden argument.
Just mho, of course.
Harald Henkel
Doug Weller
says...
> This discussion is becoming a kindergarden argument.
>
> Just mho, of course.
>
Harald Henkel
"Doug Weller" <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:MPG.14820b46d...@news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> In article <8v8qqk$3u04b$1...@ID-56141.news.dfncis.de>,
Har...@Henkel.DAH.UUnet.DE
> says...
> > This discussion is becoming a kindergarden argument.
> >
> > Just mho, of course.
> >
> Actually I think I know what you mean. :-)
Doug, I hope so.
Just to make sure: I didn't mean an argument between a kindergarten
(nursery-school) teacher and a child.
Harald Henkel
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
[...]
>You will see that she is discussing yet another article containing
>tabulated data and procedures the exact details of which are known to
>neither of us. You may be right, that she does not understand the
>procedure, but until I know and understand what is meant by
>"calibration curve" I will **continue** to withold comment.
If you don't know what is meant by 'calibration curve', you don't know
enough about C-14 dating to be arguing.
> I very
>much doubt that she means the C14 curve to which you have previously
>referred. In view of the known problems of dating concrete I expect
>that the curve she is referring to expresses the relationship between
>the C14 dated age and the actual age. How you can get a reliable curve
>from only the two samples from the Wanton-Lyman-Hazard house is beyond
>me, especially if it does not even use the same type of mortar as that
>used in the tower.
You don't get the curve from the samples, of course; you refer them to
the known curve to convert raw to calibrated dates.
[...]
>6. I am criticising your attack on Carlson's article on the grounds
> that you lack the articles which she is criticisng. Until you know
> exactly what she is criticising, you lack sufficient data to
> determine whether your criticism of her is justified or not.
Nope: it's obvious to anyone who knows anything at all about the
calibration of radiocarbon dating that she's completely at sea.
(Dishonesty is also possible, I suppose, but it seems much less
likely.)
Brian M. Scott
Jonathan Stone
Brian M. Scott <sc...@math.csuohio.edu> wrote:
>On Sun, 19 Nov 2000 20:16:58 +1300, Eric Stevens <este...@ip.co.nz>
>wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>tabulated data and procedures the exact details of which are known to
>>neither of us. You may be right, that she does not understand the
>>procedure, but until I know and understand what is meant by
>>"calibration curve" I will **continue** to withold comment.
>
>enough about C-14 dating to be arguing.
Obviously. But since when has that stopped Eric?
>> I very
>>much doubt that she means the C14 curve to which you have previously
>>referred. In view of the known problems of dating concrete I expect
>>that the curve she is referring to expresses the relationship between
>>the C14 dated age and the actual age. How you can get a reliable curve
>>from only the two samples from the Wanton-Lyman-Hazard house is beyond
>>me, especially if it does not even use the same type of mortar as that
>>used in the tower.
>
>You don't get the curve from the samples, of course; you refer them to
>the known curve to convert raw to calibrated dates.
Aw, shush. Next thing, you'll have Eric complaining that all the
calibrated dates are really since 1950, and thus the age of the tower
must be adjusted by 50 years.
Steve Marcus
>
<snip>
>
> The ages of the C14 samples from the tower and house chimney, as given
> in the original Danish report and as published in Carlson's paper, have
> been given several times under this subject, including in my attempt at
> re-calibration detailed in my posting of 11 November. On several
> occasions, I have asked that anyone post herein any data different from
> the data previously published herein. No such data has been posted. I
> have also asked for specific suggestions as to how to improve my method
> used to re-calibrate such lab data to a known sample date. No such
> suggestions have been forthcoming.
Yes they have. You are either ignoring them or you aren't
reading them because you've killed me. That's fine. But your
attempt to re-calibrate is fundamentally flawed. You have simply
related already *calculated* dates of the control to the already
*calculated* dates of the Newport Tower samples. This is
meaningless manipulation of the data. What do you accomplish by
making the *calculated* dates of the control a function of the
*calculated* dates of the unknown (Newport Tower)? The only
rational method is to:
1. plot the data obtained from the control samples on the
standard C14 curve.
2. calculate the dates from the control sample data
3. re-calibrate the C14 curve to adjust the standard C14 curve
for the known date of the control samples
4. then plot data obtained from the "unknown" (Newport Tower)
samples on the re-calibrated curve.
5. calculate the dates for the "unknown".
6. apply appropriate mathematical techniques (not merely
"averaging") to the dates obtained to obtain a range of dates for
the "unknown". See:
http://www.c14dating.com/agecalc.html
and especially the section entitled "Standard Error"
>
> Such alternate data or suggestions would be consistent with moving
> forward in a scientific manner. To criticize Carlson for disagreeing
> with a previous re-calibration, about which we know no details, is
> foolish.
>
> To suggest that any lab would give to its client sample dates that have
> not been calculated and calibrated to the best of its ability (based on
> all information known to it at the time), is absolute foolishness. That
> any lab would take eleven such calibrated sample dates ranging from an
> earliest date of 1410 A.D. to a latest date of 1930 A.D. and suggest
> that all eleven would re-calibrate to 1687 A.D., would be engaging in a
> practice so foolish as to be suicidal.
>
You obviously don't understand that the standard C14 curve, as
"given" or as re-calibrated based upon a known sample, or known
factors such as the inclusion of non-atmospheric C14 much may
yield results that are "too young" or "too old" *is* a cuirve,
and isn't linear. A spread of dates is not necessarily widely
disparate, and as they are the results of a relationship which
isn't linear (the % of C14 to C12 in the sample), are not merely
"averaged". They are related by very complex calculations, often
requiring a computer. See:
and the various links therein.
> It is such a re-calibration by someone that was the subject of Carlson's
> criticism. The name of the person, the method, and the sample by sample
> results have not been posted herein. When such information is posted,
> it can be criticized. Until then, it is of no meaning.
>
> In the meantime, the details of my method could be criticized, as should
> be done if it is wrong.
It has been done. Feel free to continue to ignore it. But at
least some of the other readers here will be reading this and
will know that your "method" is worthless.
>
> Regards, Larry Athy, P.E.
Steve
--
The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice,
because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and
should not be construed as either. This posting does not
represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal
view.
Jonathan Stone
Eric Stevens <este...@ip.co.nz> wrote:
>On Sun, 19 Nov 2000 00:12:21 GMT, Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <d7td1tsp27dcujguq...@4ax.com>, este...@ip.co.nz
>>says...
>>[SNIP]
>>> Still arguing that prime sources are not really necessary? That
>>> selected quotes from a abreviation written for popular consumption by
>>> only one of the authors of the original report are quite sufficient?
>>> Naah - can't be.
>>>
>>>
>>I am discussing what Carlson wrote herself, not a quote from Herz.
>>
>>You refuse to discuss what she wrote for some reason while still defending her
>>knowledge of C14 dating. Instead you want to discuss the adequacy of an article
>>you haven't read.
>
>You have several times claimed that I am defending Carlson. I have
>several times said I am not defending Carlson but that I cannot reach
>any conclusion about what she has written until I have more
>information. I do not know how I can make this point more clearly.
So, translating from Eric-speak.... "I havent read what Carlson
wrote, only a secondary source; and I dont understand the field well
enough to comment; but I'm going to say, repeatedly,that I cannot
reach any conclusion, and insult anyone who does know enough about the
field to comment".
i
>You have accused me of calling you a liar. I have never called you a
>liar but I will have to do so if you continue to claim that I am
>defending Carlson.
Eh? Did Dough acutally say Eric was lying, or is this Eric's
paraphrase of the comment that he is "discussing the adequacy of
an article he hasn't read"?
Jonathan Stone
Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Sun, 19 Nov 2000 20:16:59 +1300, in sci.archaeology, Eric Stevens wrote:
>
>>
>>liar but I will have to do so if you continue to claim that I am
>>defending Carlson.
>
>have the information that's sitting here on my desk. Which is why I asked you IF you were
>calling me a liar.
Doug, I think you're making Eric look like a twit, and he's denying
*that*. If so, then the fact that you've actually read Carlson's
article and he hasn't; and that you understand C14 dating and
calibration and he doesn't, is largely immaterial.
>You appear to be defending Carlson. I accept your statement that you don't mean to be
>defending Carlson. But you write things such as:
>
>" You may be right, that she does not understand the
>procedure, but until I know and understand what is meant by
>"calibration curve" I will **continue** to withhold comment. I very
>much doubt that she means the C14 curve to which you have previously
>referred."
>
>You won't make a comment but you carry on and make one which looks supportive of her. Can
>you see how that looks as though you are defending her?
No. He can't. Really, he cant. We've been through this same issue
before, with the random Web pages and cargo-cult science articles
Eric cites.
Doug Weller
[SNIP]
> Doug, I think you're making Eric look like a twit, and he's denying
> *that*. If so, then the fact that you've actually read Carlson's
> article and he hasn't; and that you understand C14 dating and
> calibration and he doesn't, is largely immaterial.
>
Norsist article, which I haven't read.
But it is can be hard discussing with someone who doesn't understand something -
- somehow that can give them an edge.
Doug Weller
> In article <etue1t4rhkomu48pu...@4ax.com>,
[SNIP]
> Eric Stevens <este...@ip.co.nz> wrote:
> >On Sun, 19 Nov 2000 00:12:21 GMT, Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk>
> >wrote:
> >liar but I will have to do so if you continue to claim that I am
> >defending Carlson.
>
> paraphrase of the comment that he is "discussing the adequacy of
> an article he hasn't read"?
I asked if he was calling me a liar. He appeared to be saying that I couldn't
have the figures I claim I have as they weren't published in an English version.
Doug Weller
says...
> On Sun, 19 Nov 2000 18:11:31 GMT, sc...@math.csuohio.edu (Brian M.
> Scott) wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 19 Nov 2000 20:16:58 +1300, Eric Stevens <este...@ip.co.nz>
> >wrote:
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >>tabulated data and procedures the exact details of which are known to
> >>neither of us. You may be right, that she does not understand the
> >>procedure, but until I know and understand what is meant by
> >>"calibration curve" I will **continue** to withold comment.
> >
> >enough about C-14 dating to be arguing.
>
>
> If you think there is only one, you don't understand the problem.
>
In the case of the Carlson quote there is only one, the 1993 one I cited.
Doug
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
>In article <59bg1tk74u06asfvq...@4ax.com>, este...@ip.co.nz
>says...
>> On Sun, 19 Nov 2000 18:11:31 GMT, sc...@math.csuohio.edu (Brian M.
>> Scott) wrote:
>>
>> >On Sun, 19 Nov 2000 20:16:58 +1300, Eric Stevens <este...@ip.co.nz>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >[...]
>> >
>> >>You will see that she is discussing yet another article containing
>> >>tabulated data and procedures the exact details of which are known to
>> >>neither of us. You may be right, that she does not understand the
>> >>procedure, but until I know and understand what is meant by
>> >>"calibration curve" I will **continue** to withold comment.
>> >
>> >If you don't know what is meant by 'calibration curve', you don't know
>> >enough about C-14 dating to be arguing.
>>
>> Which calibration curve?
>>
>> If you think there is only one, you don't understand the problem.
>>
>In the case of the Carlson quote there is only one, the 1993 one I cited.
I suppose that you could get another if you included Larry's exercise
in futility, but that's certainly no calibration curve in the usual
sense!
Brian M. Scott
Eric Stevens
<dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Sun, 19 Nov 2000 20:16:59 +1300, in sci.archaeology, Eric Stevens wrote:
>
>>
>>You have accused me of calling you a liar. I have never called you a
>>liar but I will have to do so if you continue to claim that I am
>>defending Carlson.
>
>You haven't called me a liar explicitly, no. But you appear to be denying that I could
>have the information that's sitting here on my desk. Which is why I asked you IF you were
>calling me a liar.
I am not denying that you have a copy of the article by Hertz in the
Newport Journal. After all, you have said as much and I have no reason
to doubt you. I also understand from your writings that you do not
have a copy of Hertz's full report published by the Danish National
Museum. Nor do you have a copy of the original Danish or the English
translation (sans tables and figures) of the critical report on the
dating carried out by Heinemeir and Jungner.
Hertz took no part in the dating as far as I know. He merely
paraphrased or selected extracts of the Heinemeir and Jungner report
for inclusion in his report to the museum. Later, he produced an
abbreviated article for the Newport journal. I presume but cannot be
certain that it was the original Danish National Museum report that he
abbreviated.
Suzan Carlson has read all of the reports in both English and the
original Danish and, as she makes quite clear in the 'Tilting at
Windmills' article, when she is discussing dating, she is discussing
the Heinemeir and Jungner report. You have seized on her comments on
dating and used them to attack her. Such an attack may well be
justified but not on the basis of Hertz's article in the Newport
Journal, which article will, at best, contain an abbreviation of
paraphrased or selected extracts of the Heinemeir and Jungner report.
>
>You appear to be defending Carlson. I accept your statement that you don't mean to be
>defending Carlson. But you write things such as:
>
>" You may be right, that she does not understand the
>procedure, but until I know and understand what is meant by
>"calibration curve" I will **continue** to withold comment. I very
>much doubt that she means the C14 curve to which you have previously
>referred."
>
>You won't make a comment but you carry on and make one which looks supportive of her. Can
>you see how that looks as though you are defending her?
It only looks like that if you insist that anyone who is not against
Carlson must be for her.
Eric Stevens
Scott) wrote:
>On Sun, 19 Nov 2000 20:16:58 +1300, Eric Stevens <este...@ip.co.nz>
>wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>You will see that she is discussing yet another article containing
>>tabulated data and procedures the exact details of which are known to
>>neither of us. You may be right, that she does not understand the
>>procedure, but until I know and understand what is meant by
>>"calibration curve" I will **continue** to withold comment.
>
>If you don't know what is meant by 'calibration curve', you don't know
>enough about C-14 dating to be arguing.
Which calibration curve?
If you think there is only one, you don't understand the problem.
>
>> I very
>>much doubt that she means the C14 curve to which you have previously
>>referred. In view of the known problems of dating concrete I expect
>>that the curve she is referring to expresses the relationship between
>>the C14 dated age and the actual age. How you can get a reliable curve
>>from only the two samples from the Wanton-Lyman-Hazard house is beyond
>>me, especially if it does not even use the same type of mortar as that
>>used in the tower.
>
>You don't get the curve from the samples, of course; you refer them to
>the known curve to convert raw to calibrated dates.
When dealing with concrete samples taken from depth you have to
calibrate carbonation time with depth as well as C14/C12 ratio with
age. Hence my refrence to two calibration curves.
>
>[...]
>
>>6. I am criticising your attack on Carlson's article on the grounds
>> that you lack the articles which she is criticisng. Until you know
>> exactly what she is criticising, you lack sufficient data to
>> determine whether your criticism of her is justified or not.
>
>Nope: it's obvious to anyone who knows anything at all about the
>calibration of radiocarbon dating that she's completely at sea.
>(Dishonesty is also possible, I suppose, but it seems much less
>likely.)
I have no reason to accuse her of dishonesty. I have every reason to
suspect she may not understand the statistics behind dealing with
uncertainty and error. That's part of the reason why I have in the
past referred to all kinds of mathematics going on in the background.
Its also why, before I reach any conclusion, I want to get hold of the
original report (by Heinemeir and Jungner) to find out exactly what it
was they did and how they did it.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>In article <59bg1tk74u06asfvq...@4ax.com>, este...@ip.co.nz
>says...
>> On Sun, 19 Nov 2000 18:11:31 GMT, sc...@math.csuohio.edu (Brian M.
>> Scott) wrote:
>>
>> >On Sun, 19 Nov 2000 20:16:58 +1300, Eric Stevens <este...@ip.co.nz>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >[...]
>> >
>> >>You will see that she is discussing yet another article containing
>> >>tabulated data and procedures the exact details of which are known to
>> >>neither of us. You may be right, that she does not understand the
>> >>procedure, but until I know and understand what is meant by
>> >>"calibration curve" I will **continue** to withold comment.
>> >
>> >If you don't know what is meant by 'calibration curve', you don't know
>> >enough about C-14 dating to be arguing.
>>
>> Which calibration curve?
>>
>> If you think there is only one, you don't understand the problem.
>>
>In the case of the Carlson quote there is only one, the 1993 one I cited.
>
Which is one of the reasons I want to find what was actually done and
how before I reach a final conclusion.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>In article <8v98tq$dgi$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>, jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU says...
>[SNIP]
>> Doug, I think you're making Eric look like a twit, and he's denying
>> *that*. If so, then the fact that you've actually read Carlson's
>> article and he hasn't; and that you understand C14 dating and
>> calibration and he doesn't, is largely immaterial.
>>
>I've read one of Hertz's articles and he hasn't. He's got Suzanne Carlson's
>Norsist article, which I haven't read.
The relevant Carslon article which I have in my possession is 'Tilting
at Windmills: The Newport Tower" published in the NEARA journal Vol
XXX, 3 & 4.
>
>But it is can be hard discussing with someone who doesn't understand something -
>- somehow that can give them an edge.
We both seem to have that problem. :-)
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>In article <8v98mb$dfa$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>, jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU says...
>> In article <etue1t4rhkomu48pu...@4ax.com>,
>[SNIP]
>> Eric Stevens <este...@ip.co.nz> wrote:
>> >On Sun, 19 Nov 2000 00:12:21 GMT, Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk>
>> >wrote:
>> >#[SNIP]
>> >You have accused me of calling you a liar. I have never called you a
>> >liar but I will have to do so if you continue to claim that I am
>> >defending Carlson.
>>
>> Eh? Did Dough acutally say Eric was lying, or is this Eric's
>> paraphrase of the comment that he is "discussing the adequacy of
>> an article he hasn't read"?
>
>I asked if he was calling me a liar. He appeared to be saying that I couldn't
>have the figures I claim I have as they weren't published in an English version.
That's a new twist. My objection is much more fundamental. I say you
haven't read the Heinemeyer and Junger report so you are not equipped
to properly evaluate Suzan Carlson's criticism of it. The fact that
you may have a quotation from it by Hertz is not sufficient.
I see you are responding to Jonathon Stone. You may remember that he
once felt he was equipped to denigrate the various contributions to
the 'Bronze Age Catastrophes' publication on the basis of having read
the outline on the webpage. It is to be expected that he should not
consider reference to the original document to be necessary on this
occasion either.
Doug Weller
> On Sun, 19 Nov 2000 22:40:33 GMT, Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <59bg1tk74u06asfvq...@4ax.com>, este...@ip.co.nz
> >says...
> >> On Sun, 19 Nov 2000 18:11:31 GMT, sc...@math.csuohio.edu (Brian M.
> >> Scott) wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Sun, 19 Nov 2000 20:16:58 +1300, Eric Stevens <este...@ip.co.nz>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >[...]
> >> >
> >> >>You will see that she is discussing yet another article containing
> >> >>tabulated data and procedures the exact details of which are known to
> >> >>neither of us. You may be right, that she does not understand the
> >> >>procedure, but until I know and understand what is meant by
> >> >>"calibration curve" I will **continue** to withold comment.
> >> >
> >> >If you don't know what is meant by 'calibration curve', you don't know
> >> >enough about C-14 dating to be arguing.
> >>
> >> Which calibration curve?
> >>
> >> If you think there is only one, you don't understand the problem.
> >>
> >In the case of the Carlson quote there is only one, the 1993 one I cited.
> >
> Which is one of the reasons I want to find what was actually done and
> how before I reach a final conclusion.
>
Doug
Jonathan Stone
This is an outright lie. I had not simply "read the outline on the web
page"; i had read the *abstracts* of the papers in the Proceedings of
the second SIS conference. Based purely on the *abstracts*, and on
*abstracts* (and reviews, and in some cases quotes) of *other* work by
the authors of some of the papers in that Proceedings, it is possible
to conclude that *some* of the authors have at best flimsy support for
their hypotheses; moreover, they have *no* reason to suspect cometary
castastrophism over the *other* hypotheses put forward in their
previous papers.
Eric's kookiness is getting more and more evident, but this wholesale
re-wirting of history is a bit much, even for him.
>It is to be expected that he should not
>consider reference to the original document to be necessary on this
>occasion either.
Uh, say *what*?
Martha or Larry Athy
Some people posting on this subject do not seem to understand the
difference between the original calibration of test data to calendar
dates, as done by a lab, and re-calibration of such dates to adjust all
such dates to the known date or dates of specific samples.
There are good reasons to question the lab methods used and sample
results of the N.T. C14 dating, but Carlson did not do so. She
questioned the later re-calibration method used by Heinemeier and
Junger.
The tower had been repointed several times prior to the major
refurbishing ca. 1850. Thus, the calibrated lab dates published by
Carlton should vary considerably from one another, as they do. She is
simply pointing out that the oldest date is considerably older than
1675. To average the dates from samples that were poured at various
times is a foolish thing for anyone to do. I should learn much more
about all of this when I get a copy of the original report and other
information that I have been told is on the way to me.
The problem here is to try to adjust all calibrated sample dates as
would be appropriate to take into account the difference between the
calibrated sample dates and the known date of the chimney mortar. I
tried to do just that in my re-calibration proposal posted on the 11th.
I have invited meaningful criticism and suggestions, but nothing even
remotely relating to the specifics of my proposal has been forthcoming.
There is no existing re-calibration curve that would be appropriate to
all circumstances. If we had had additional samples from another mortar
source in the area and it had been poured considerably later, such as
ca. 1800, I could construct an even better re-calibration curve - since
I would have had two known points to work with.
Regards, Larry Athy, P.E.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
We are getting well off the beaten track. As I explained, one needs
not only the conventional calibration curve for C14/C12 ratios for
dating purposes but we need to calibrate the concrete/mortar for time
for carbonation vs depth. One gets a C14 reading, extrapolates it back
to the selected C14 curve (and hopes it does not hit one of the
anomalies) and THEN one must correct the carbon dated age of the
sample for the time taken for carbonation to be achieved at that
depth. There are no doubt other possibilities including the correction
of the old/new CO2 contents etc etc. This isn't magic but it is not
straightforward.
Doug Weller
says...
> On Mon, 20 Nov 2000 05:54:06 GMT, Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk>
> wrote:
[SNIP]
>
I'm discussing Carlson at the moment, you want to discuss something else.
> As I explained, one needs
> not only the conventional calibration curve for C14/C12 ratios for
> dating purposes but we need to calibrate the concrete/mortar for time
> for carbonation vs depth. One gets a C14 reading, extrapolates it back
> to the selected C14 curve (and hopes it does not hit one of the
> anomalies) and THEN one must correct the carbon dated age of the
> sample for the time taken for carbonation to be achieved at that
> depth. There are no doubt other possibilities including the correction
> of the old/new CO2 contents etc etc. This isn't magic but it is not
> straightforward.
I can understand you are interested in this, that's fine. If I have something
useful to say on the issue at any point I'll say it. My point was Carlson's lack
of understanding of the report she read.
Doug Weller
says...
[SNIP]
> My point still is that you cannot properly conclude from her comments
> upon it that Carlson does not understand a report which you have never
> seen. It does not matter that you have Hertz's abbreviation of that
> part of the original Heinemeir and Jungner report included in the
> annual report of the Danish National Museum. You have not seen the
> actual Heinemeir and Jungner report upon to which Carlson has been
> directing her comments.
>
I am not commenting on anything other than the quote from the HERTZ article that
she cites and her comments on the paragraph in question. That was self-contained
enough to reveal a severe lack of understanding on her part. She wasn't
commenting on what Heinemeir and Jungner wrote, remember, but what Hertz wrote.
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
[...]
>My point still is that you cannot properly conclude from her comments
>upon it that Carlson does not understand a report which you have never
>seen. [...]
And you're wrong. Her lack of understanding is so obvious that
failure to recognize it is a clear indication of ignorance of the
subject, not the report.
Brian M. Scott
Martha or Larry Athy
Another typical example of Doug and his hit men shooting the messenger
rather than the message!
Suzanne Carlson was discussing the 1994 report by Heinemeier and Jungner
and a 1995 paper by Hertz. Carlson's "Tilting at Windmills" paper was
published in 1996. The Hertz paper to which Doug has been referring was
published in 1997.
Doug would have us believe that Carlson was discussing in 1996 a paper
not published until 1997. I am sure that I am detecting much thick
black smoke from the very lowest levels of a well. I think that it is
strange that Doug and henchmen never search for 'the' truth, only
'their' truth.
Since Doug has attacked Suzanne personally and accused her of being
wrong, it seems that he should tell us exactly what she said that is
wrong, exactly why it was wrong, exactly what had been said by others
that was right, and exactly what was right about what they said. I
suggest that for him to do so would be much too scientific and not
enough political.
I think I can see signs of much more dark political smoke on the
horizon!!!!!!!!!!!
Regards, Larry Athy, P.E.
P.S.: When I speak of such political people who stretch the truth in
this day and age, they should be honored and not offended. The leader
of my country for many years has been a dishonest politician who is
surrounded by such henchmen, one of whom may well take his place.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>In article <7fck1tg6qgab97evv...@4ax.com>, este...@ip.co.nz
>says...
>> On Mon, 20 Nov 2000 05:54:06 GMT, Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>[SNIP]
>> >But that has nothing to do with my comment on Carlson.
>>
>> We are getting well off the beaten track.
>
>I'm discussing Carlson at the moment, you want to discuss something else.
>
>> As I explained, one needs
>> not only the conventional calibration curve for C14/C12 ratios for
>> dating purposes but we need to calibrate the concrete/mortar for time
>> for carbonation vs depth. One gets a C14 reading, extrapolates it back
>> to the selected C14 curve (and hopes it does not hit one of the
>> anomalies) and THEN one must correct the carbon dated age of the
>> sample for the time taken for carbonation to be achieved at that
>> depth. There are no doubt other possibilities including the correction
>> of the old/new CO2 contents etc etc. This isn't magic but it is not
>> straightforward.
>
>I can understand you are interested in this, that's fine. If I have something
>useful to say on the issue at any point I'll say it. My point was Carlson's lack
>of understanding of the report she read.
>
My point still is that you cannot properly conclude from her comments
upon it that Carlson does not understand a report which you have never
seen. It does not matter that you have Hertz's abbreviation of that
part of the original Heinemeir and Jungner report included in the
annual report of the Danish National Museum. You have not seen the
actual Heinemeir and Jungner report upon to which Carlson has been
directing her comments. Never mind. I have set the wheels in motion to
track all of these down and obtain copies. I expect this will take
some weeks.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>In article <ajjl1tkk48858ifuo...@4ax.com>, este...@ip.co.nz
>says...
>[SNIP]
>
>> My point still is that you cannot properly conclude from her comments
>> upon it that Carlson does not understand a report which you have never
>> seen. It does not matter that you have Hertz's abbreviation of that
>> part of the original Heinemeir and Jungner report included in the
>> annual report of the Danish National Museum. You have not seen the
>> actual Heinemeir and Jungner report upon to which Carlson has been
>> directing her comments.
>>
>I am not commenting on anything other than the quote from the HERTZ article that
>she cites and her comments on the paragraph in question. That was self-contained
>enough to reveal a severe lack of understanding on her part. She wasn't
>commenting on what Heinemeir and Jungner wrote, remember, but what Hertz wrote.
We are at cross purposes partly because I cannot identify a quote from
an article by Hertz to which her comments in 'Tilting at Windmills'
(TAW) relate. I have quoted several sections from the TAW article. Are
any of these the quote from the Hertz article to which you refer? In
any case, could you please identify the text to which you refer.
Doug Weller
says...
>
> We are at cross purposes partly because I cannot identify a quote from
> an article by Hertz to which her comments in 'Tilting at Windmills'
> (TAW) relate. I have quoted several sections from the TAW article. Are
> any of these the quote from the Hertz article to which you refer? In
> any case, could you please identify the text to which you refer.
>
>
Table 1 (p. 6) [see above EES] presents a simplified summary of
these results from years before present (B.P.), using 1950 as B.P.
By plotting these results in a wonderfully circuitous manner and
eliminating post-colonial dates, the authors arrive at a 95%
certainty of the tower's age: 1659 A.D. I invite those of you more
statistically inclined to plot this and get the same results. I
remain sceptical. In my non-scientific way, I wonder how it is
possible to take the two dates from the Wanton-Lyman-Hazard House
(built between 1677 and 1698) and carbon-dated to a range of 1730
to 1970, and conclude: "The weighted mean C14 of the two fractions
of the whole mortar sample (H23) from the Wanton-Lyman-Hazard House
is 139+51, I.e. not significantly different from that of the tower.
Calibration of this C14 age by its intercept with the calibration
curve yields a calendar age of 1689 A.D. calibrated." Try the math
on that one! So we have a range of dates from 1410 to 1970 and a
known error of 283 years. Why not subtract the 283 from 1410,
which gives us 1127? Followers of the Bishop Erie Gnupsson Theory
will appreciate that bit of wizardry, but I fail to understand the
wizardry of the C14 dating used by Heinenmeir and Jungner.
We can ignore the first few sentences (which again combine insult with
ignorance) and concentrate on the section beginning with 'In my non-scientific
way' and ending with 'Try the math on that one!' as the next three sentences,
confusingly, relate to the tower, not the house. The bit in quotation marks is,
as I've said several times, from Hertz. It exists word for word in the article
I have (which is, despite your comments, a primary source as it is written by
one of the original researchers).
You've done something similar by writing "But even then, how much can
we trust them if we have a C14 dating of 1770-1970 and 1730-1850 for
the chimney of the Wanton-Lyman-Hazard House which is known to have
been built between 1677 and 1698? There is something distinctly wacky
here."
The 'C14 dating' you refer to above is, despite Larry Athy's claims, the raw
uncalibrated dating and thus cannot be used to date the chimney without
calibration -- and I use the word 'calibration' in the way it is used in radio-
carbon dating, not in any other way. It is only when you plot such dates using
a calibration curve that you can get calendar dates -- C14 dates are not
calendar dates, they are C14 dates.
I repeat, the quote you use from Carlson is a combination of insult and
ignorance. She doesn't understand it at all, but in her 'non-scientific way' she
thinks she can condemn it.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>In article <55sl1t0ce7pp9ck1m...@4ax.com>, este...@ip.co.nz
No wonder we are at cross purposes. The text which you have quoted is
specifically directed at the Heinemeier and Junger report and has
absolutely nothing to do with anything written by Hertz. You have
confirmed that the situation is exactly what I have already supposed.
Further, the Hertz article in the Newport Journal upon which insist
upon relying was not written until a year after Carlson wrote the text
above.
>
>You've done something similar by writing "But even then, how much can
>we trust them if we have a C14 dating of 1770-1970 and 1730-1850 for
>the chimney of the Wanton-Lyman-Hazard House which is known to have
>been built between 1677 and 1698? There is something distinctly wacky
>here."
I have said there is something distinctly wacky - true - but I have
not attempted to use this conclusion to denigrate anyone's competence
without better information.
>
>The 'C14 dating' you refer to above is, despite Larry Athy's claims, the raw
>uncalibrated dating and thus cannot be used to date the chimney without
>calibration -- and I use the word 'calibration' in the way it is used in radio-
>carbon dating, not in any other way. It is only when you plot such dates using
>a calibration curve that you can get calendar dates -- C14 dates are not
>calendar dates, they are C14 dates.
>
>I repeat, the quote you use from Carlson is a combination of insult and
>ignorance. She doesn't understand it at all, but in her 'non-scientific way' she
>thinks she can condemn it.
She does have the advantage of having read the papers which she has
been criticising. On the other hand, you labor under the disadvantage
of not having read the papers which you are defending.
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Nov 2000 06:12:46 GMT, Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk>
>wrote:
>>In article <55sl1t0ce7pp9ck1m...@4ax.com>, este...@ip.co.nz
>>says...
>>It is this:
>No wonder we are at cross purposes. The text which you have quoted is
>specifically directed at the Heinemeier and Junger report and has
>absolutely nothing to do with anything written by Hertz. You have
>confirmed that the situation is exactly what I have already supposed.
>Further, the Hertz article in the Newport Journal upon which insist
>upon relying was not written until a year after Carlson wrote the text
>above.
Are you saying that the sentence in quotation marks is in fact *not*
by Hertz?
>>You've done something similar by writing "But even then, how much can
>>we trust them if we have a C14 dating of 1770-1970 and 1730-1850 for
>>the chimney of the Wanton-Lyman-Hazard House which is known to have
>>been built between 1677 and 1698? There is something distinctly wacky
>>here."
>I have said there is something distinctly wacky - true - but I have
>not attempted to use this conclusion to denigrate anyone's competence
>without better information.
Of course not, because the person on whose competence your statement
casts doubt is you.
>>The 'C14 dating' you refer to above is, despite Larry Athy's claims, the raw
>>uncalibrated dating and thus cannot be used to date the chimney without
>>calibration -- and I use the word 'calibration' in the way it is used in radio-
>>carbon dating, not in any other way. It is only when you plot such dates using
>>a calibration curve that you can get calendar dates -- C14 dates are not
>>calendar dates, they are C14 dates.
>>I repeat, the quote you use from Carlson is a combination of insult and
>>ignorance. She doesn't understand it at all, but in her 'non-scientific way' she
>>thinks she can condemn it.
>She does have the advantage of having read the papers which she has
>been criticising. On the other hand, you labor under the disadvantage
>of not having read the papers which you are defending.
And she obviously labors under the disadvantage of not understanding
calibration of radiocarbon dates. I don't, and I suspect that Doug is
more knowledgeable than I. Again: if you can't see this, you're not
significantly better off than she is.
Brian M. Scott
Doug Weller
says...
> specifically directed at the Heinemeier and Junger report and has
> absolutely nothing to do with anything written by Hertz. You have
> confirmed that the situation is exactly what I have already supposed.
> Further, the Hertz article in the Newport Journal upon which insist
> upon relying was not written until a year after Carlson wrote the text
> above.
The text which I quoted and which Carlson quotes above was written by Hertz. I
have it in my copy of the History Journal. I'm fascinated that you know when he
wrote it. Did he tell you personally? Yes, the publication date is 1997, just
as the Danish report's publication date is 1995, not 1994. But I have no idea
when he wrote it. Since Carlson quotes it in a 1996 article, wouldn't you agree
that suggests that he wrote that quote before 1997? If there is an earlier
Hertz article (which there apparently is, although I have no citation for it),
this is probably simply another version of it specifically adapted for the
journal.
> >You've done something similar by writing "But even then, how much can
> >we trust them if we have a C14 dating of 1770-1970 and 1730-1850 for
> >the chimney of the Wanton-Lyman-Hazard House which is known to have
> >been built between 1677 and 1698? There is something distinctly wacky
> >here."
>
> I have said there is something distinctly wacky - true - but I have
> not attempted to use this conclusion to denigrate anyone's competence
> without better information.
She has denied her competence already, remember? And since you don't understand
the problem doesn't it occur to you that the information might actually be
sufficient?
> >The 'C14 dating' you refer to above is, despite Larry Athy's claims, the raw
> >uncalibrated dating and thus cannot be used to date the chimney without
> >calibration -- and I use the word 'calibration' in the way it is used in radio-
> >carbon dating, not in any other way. It is only when you plot such dates using
> >a calibration curve that you can get calendar dates -- C14 dates are not
> >calendar dates, they are C14 dates.
> >
> >I repeat, the quote you use from Carlson is a combination of insult and
> >ignorance. She doesn't understand it at all, but in her 'non-scientific way' she
> >thinks she can condemn it.
> She does have the advantage of having read the papers which she has
> been criticising. On the other hand, you labor under the disadvantage
> of not having read the papers which you are defending.
I repeat, I have the paper I am defending. I also have a recent report by the
other two authors, as you know. I have enough in the Hertz article which
contains the quote she uses to comment on her statements on the Hertz quotation.
I also have table which has the dates she uses, another table showing the
calibration curve and the dates, etc.
Harald Henkel
"Martha or Larry Athy" <marth...@webtv.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1343-3A1...@storefull-251.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
>
> Another typical example of Doug and his hit men shooting the messenger
> rather than the message!
>
> Suzanne Carlson was discussing the 1994 report by Heinemeier and Jungner
> and a 1995 paper by Hertz. Carlson's "Tilting at Windmills" paper was
> published in 1996. The Hertz paper to which Doug has been referring was
> published in 1997.
>
> Doug would have us believe that Carlson was discussing in 1996 a paper
> not published until 1997. I am sure that I am detecting much thick
> black smoke from the very lowest levels of a well. I think that it is
> strange that Doug and henchmen never search for 'the' truth, only
> 'their' truth.
As to my limited understanding, the 1997 paper of Hertz contains a quote of
the 1996 paper of Carlson, where she comments / critizises the work / paper
of Heinemeier, Jungner and / or of Hertz.
For Doug (and others) it seems clear, from that quote given by Hertz, that
she didn't understand the scientific / technical method of carbon dating
used in the case of the NT.
For Eric, you and others, knowledge of all the original reports would be
required to make such a claim.
I don't understand enough of the details to go in either direction.
I tend to believe, that knowledge of the prime sources is usually required,
to see if a quote is ripped out of context.
But I admit, that this *might* not allways be the case.
Harald Henkel
Harald Henkel
"Harald Henkel" <Har...@Henkel.DAH.UUnet.DE> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:8vh4c0$4cjkh$1...@ID-56141.news.dfncis.de...
> As to my limited understanding, the 1997 paper of Hertz contains a quote
of
> the 1996 paper of Carlson, where she comments / critizises the work /
paper
> of Heinemeier, Jungner and / or of Hertz.
Sorry. Just read Dougs last postings on that.
Guess I got it wrong.
Harald Henkel
Doug Weller
says...
[SNIP]
> All you have in the end is a
> condensation of a condensation of an extract from the Heinemeier and
> Jungner report.
>
This is caricature and neither accurate nor helpful. And completely avoids any
serious discussion of what Carlson wrote.
Of course, if Carlson had actually given a proper citation for her quotation it
would have helped.
Hardly matters. Anyone who understands the issues will understand what Brian
Scott and I are saying.
Martha or Larry Athy
It is amazing that political assassins have been taking shots at Suzanne
Carlson because she disagreed with a previous re-calibration of the
published C14 sample dates. Those hit-men know nothing about the 1994
Heinemeier and Junger paper or the 1995 Hertz paper and are thus not in
any way qualified to comment on them or on Carlson's related statements.
She did indeed say that she was not qualified to make such
determinations and failed to indicate the basis for her conclusions,
even though she had one. Authors are rarely experts in everything
covered in their papers and frequently rely on input from others.
Jim Whittall, a now deceased architect, had been involved with the
Newport Tower for many years and was present at the taking of the total
of thirty C14 samples taken from ten locations in the tower. He
received copies of all reports and papers prior to the publication of
the 1994 and 1995 papers referenced above.
Whittall sent copies of all such material to three chemists who had
Ph.D.s in chemistry and many years of experience. All three indicated
to him that the basic lab procedures were seriously flawed. They also
considered the testing of all 30 samples but reporting of only 11
samples from 5 locations to be highly selective and subjective to a
purpose. They also considered the re-calibration by averaging to be
meaningless. Suzanne was aware of and influenced by such informed
expert opinions.
I have just talked to one of the three chemists referenced above. He
assures me that the sample date ranges given by Carlson are calibrated
dates. Thus any attempt to average the dates of mortars mixed at
various times could not possibly give the date of the earliest
construction mortar, a logical conclusion that should be obvious to
anyone of average intelligence.
He also says that Whittall became terminally ill before publishing on
the matter. He is sending supporting information to me right away. He
agrees that all samples were probably poured earlier than reported due
to setting times and breathing of the mortar, as previously suggested by
Eric Stevens and supported by the lab manager with whom I had a recent
discussion.
I asked him why the local Arnold people had worked with a lab in Denmark
rather than one of many much closer to Newport and why the Danes would
want a job in Newport rather than one of the very many other
possibilities closer to Denmark. He laughed and said that the reason
was obvious but that he would not comment further.
Thus the mortar samples may be of little or no value; however, if
sufficiently accurate to have some meaning, they would demonstrate
pre-colonial construction, since the earliest dates are much too old for
colonial. Re-calibration to adjust to the known chimney dates would
give an even older construction date by any reasonable method.
Regards, Larry Athy, P.E.
Eric Stevens
Scott) wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Nov 2000 21:48:29 +1300, Eric Stevens <este...@ip.co.nz>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 22 Nov 2000 06:12:46 GMT, Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>
>>No wonder we are at cross purposes. The text which you have quoted is
>>specifically directed at the Heinemeier and Junger report and has
>>absolutely nothing to do with anything written by Hertz. You have
>>confirmed that the situation is exactly what I have already supposed.
>>Further, the Hertz article in the Newport Journal upon which insist
>>upon relying was not written until a year after Carlson wrote the text
>>above.
>
>Are you saying that the sentence in quotation marks is in fact *not*
>by Hertz?
Hertz may have quoted it but from the preceding paragraph in TAW
(which I have previously quoted) Carslonn is discussing the Heinemeier
and Jungner report. That's why I keep coming back to the point that it
is not sound to judge Carlson's comments on Heinemeier and Jungner on
the basis of whatever Hertz may have written a year after Carlson.
>
>>>You've done something similar by writing "But even then, how much can
>>>we trust them if we have a C14 dating of 1770-1970 and 1730-1850 for
>>>the chimney of the Wanton-Lyman-Hazard House which is known to have
>>>been built between 1677 and 1698? There is something distinctly wacky
>>>here."
>
>>I have said there is something distinctly wacky - true - but I have
>>not attempted to use this conclusion to denigrate anyone's competence
>>without better information.
>
>Of course not, because the person on whose competence your statement
>casts doubt is you.
You are entitled to that opinion. I am entitled to the opinion that
you don't seem to need facts to reach a final conclusion.
>
>>>The 'C14 dating' you refer to above is, despite Larry Athy's claims, the raw
>>>uncalibrated dating and thus cannot be used to date the chimney without
>>>calibration -- and I use the word 'calibration' in the way it is used in radio-
>>>carbon dating, not in any other way. It is only when you plot such dates using
>>>a calibration curve that you can get calendar dates -- C14 dates are not
>>>calendar dates, they are C14 dates.
>
>>>I repeat, the quote you use from Carlson is a combination of insult and
>>>ignorance. She doesn't understand it at all, but in her 'non-scientific way' she
>>>thinks she can condemn it.
>
>>She does have the advantage of having read the papers which she has
>>been criticising. On the other hand, you labor under the disadvantage
>>of not having read the papers which you are defending.
>
>And she obviously labors under the disadvantage of not understanding
>calibration of radiocarbon dates. I don't, and I suspect that Doug is
>more knowledgeable than I. Again: if you can't see this, you're not
>significantly better off than she is.
I want to find out whether Heinemeir and Jungner used the older
methodolgy of calculation of the C14 date from the Libby equation
follwed by correction of the date via a calibration curve or whether
they used the more recent method of direct calculation of a date from
an atmospheric calibration curve.
AFAIK the largest radio carbon lab in the world is Beta and from their
web site http://www.radiocarbon.com/calendar.htm you will find a
reference to:
"Our calibrations are calibrated using the newest calibration data
as published in Radiocarbon, Vol. 40, No. 3, 1998 using the cubic
spline fit mathematics as published by Talma and Vogel,
Radiocarbon, Vol. 35, No. 2, pg 317-322, 1993: A Simplified
Approach to Calibrating C14 Dates. It is always important to quote
the data source and mathematics with your interpretations"
I have been trying to find a URL of an image (which I have recently
seen) which illustrates the process. I am told the 'cubic spline'
relates to the equations expressing the actual C12/C14 content of the
atmosphere. This too is called the calibration curve, but it is quite
different. This method enables the direct calculation of an age
without the need to first calculate the C14 age.
Carlson seems to be off the rails if she is referring to the older
technique. Her remarks may make sense if she is referring to the more
recent method. I have already said she was wrong once and then been
forced to recant. I have no intention of repeating the process.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>In article <q41n1tc9rc8l8okse...@4ax.com>, este...@ip.co.nz
>says...
>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2000 06:12:46 GMT, Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <55sl1t0ce7pp9ck1m...@4ax.com>, este...@ip.co.nz
>> >says...
--- snip ---
>The text which I quoted and which Carlson quotes above was written by Hertz.
I've already quoted two successive paragrpahs from Carlson's TAW, the
second of which contains the text which you claim was written by
Hertz. However, it appears from TAW that Carlson was directly
addressing and quoting from the 1994 report by Heinemeier and Jungner.
This may have been quoted by Hertz in the 1995 repotr by the Danish
National Museum. It certainly was quoted by Carlson in TAW in 1996.
There is no reason why Hertz should not have quoted it in 1997. But
that does not mean that it was written by Hertz.
>I
>have it in my copy of the History Journal. I'm fascinated that you know when he
>wrote it. Did he tell you personally?
You are scratching the bottom of the barrel when you have to resort to
that kind of argument. It was not published in the Newport Journal
until 1997 and presumably Carlson would not have had access to that
artcile until a year after she wrote TAW.
>es, the publication date is 1997, just
>as the Danish report's publication date is 1995, not 1994. But I have no idea
>when he wrote it. Since Carlson quotes it in a 1996 article, wouldn't you agree
>that suggests that he wrote that quote before 1997?
How can you be so sure that Hertz wrote it all? The logical reading of
TAW suggests that it was written by Heinemeier and Jungner in 1994.
Neither of us know that for certain as we do not have the original
documents.
>f there is an earlier
>Hertz article (which there apparently is, although I have no citation for it),
>this is probably simply another version of it specifically adapted for the
>journal.
We have been over the history of the Hetz related reports previously.
>
>
>> >You've done something similar by writing "But even then, how much can
>> >we trust them if we have a C14 dating of 1770-1970 and 1730-1850 for
>> >the chimney of the Wanton-Lyman-Hazard House which is known to have
>> >been built between 1677 and 1698? There is something distinctly wacky
>> >here."
>>
>> I have said there is something distinctly wacky - true - but I have
>> not attempted to use this conclusion to denigrate anyone's competence
>> without better information.
>
>She has denied her competence already, remember? And since you don't understand
>the problem doesn't it occur to you that the information might actually be
>sufficient?
Yes it has. But for reasons I have given I will not be bullied into
conceding certainty when neither of us has complete information.
>
>> >The 'C14 dating' you refer to above is, despite Larry Athy's claims, the raw
>> >uncalibrated dating and thus cannot be used to date the chimney without
>> >calibration -- and I use the word 'calibration' in the way it is used in radio-
>> >carbon dating, not in any other way. It is only when you plot such dates using
>> >a calibration curve that you can get calendar dates -- C14 dates are not
>> >calendar dates, they are C14 dates.
>> >
>> >I repeat, the quote you use from Carlson is a combination of insult and
>> >ignorance. She doesn't understand it at all, but in her 'non-scientific way' she
>> >thinks she can condemn it.
>
>> She does have the advantage of having read the papers which she has
>> been criticising. On the other hand, you labor under the disadvantage
>> of not having read the papers which you are defending.
>
>I repeat, I have the paper I am defending.
That's a change of stance. Nobody has been attacking 'your' paper. I
certainly have't been. I've never seen the damned thing. What I have
been attacking is your reliance upon it to criticise the attack of
Carlson on Heinemeier and Jungner.
>I also have a recent report by the
>other two authors, as you know.
If its relevant, how about quoting from it?
>I have enough in the Hertz article which
>contains the quote she uses to comment on her statements on the Hertz quotation.
>I also have table which has the dates she uses, another table showing the
>calibration curve and the dates, etc.
But you lack the original report. All you have in the end is a
condensation of a condensation of an extract from the Heinemeier and
Jungner report. Your suspicions may well be right but they are not
enough to justify the certainty which you have assumed.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>In article <v4fo1t8hpt3vq2inc...@4ax.com>, este...@ip.co.nz
>says...
>[SNIP]
>> All you have in the end is a
>> condensation of a condensation of an extract from the Heinemeier and
>> Jungner report.
>>
>This is caricature and neither accurate nor helpful. And completely avoids any
>serious discussion of what Carlson wrote.
I accept I may have one condensation too many, but neither of us
actually know. I intend to continue avoiding any discussion of what
Carlson wrote until I obtain a copy of the document she was writing
about.
>
>Of course, if Carlson had actually given a proper citation for her quotation it
>would have helped.
She did. See the introdctory paragraph above and the list of
references.
>
>Hardly matters. Anyone who understands the issues will understand what Brian
>Scott and I are saying.
... and know the presently uncertain nature of your basis for saying
that.
Jonathan Stone
Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <v4fo1t8hpt3vq2inc...@4ax.com>, este...@ip.co.nz
>says...
>[SNIP]
>> All you have in the end is a
>> condensation of a condensation of an extract from the Heinemeier and
>> Jungner report.
>>
>This is caricature and neither accurate nor helpful. And completely avoids any
>serious discussion of what Carlson wrote.
>
>would have helped.
>
>Scott and I are saying.
Yep.
Jonathan Stone
Eric Stevens <este...@ip.co.nz> wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Nov 2000 23:15:10 GMT, Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk>
>wrote:
[.. snip discussion about citations ]
>>Hardly matters. Anyone who understands the issues will understand what Brian
>>Scott and I are saying.
>
>... and know the presently uncertain nature of your basis for saying
>that.
Eric, you're priceless. By your reasoning, you'd argue that if someone
writes a serious article where they display confusion between the
differential and the integral calculus, you'd say that there is only
an "uncertain" basis for concluding the author is confused about calculus?
Doug Weller
>On Wed, 22 Nov 2000 23:15:10 GMT, Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
[SNIP]
>>
>>Of course, if Carlson had actually given a proper citation for her quotation it
>>would have helped.
>
>She did. See the introdctory paragraph above and the list of
>references.
>>
I'm very surprised you find this sufficient. My understanding (as an academic,even if a
retired one), which is how I judge such things) is that a quotation has to be accompanied
by a citation, be it the Harvard method or whatever. Having a quotation in a paragraph
without a specific reference to what is being quoted is not 'a proper citation' and
doesn't let us know exactly what is being cited.
Doug