Radio carbon dating mistakes
Radio carbon dating mistakes
As with any physical measurement, things can go wrong and mistakes can be made.
This problem, known as the "reservoir effect", is not of very great practical importance for radiocarbon dating since most of the artifacts which are useful for radiocarbon dating purposes and are of interest to archaeology derive from terrestrial organisms which ultimately obtain their carbon atoms from the air, not the water.This Radiocarbon reference must originally have been translated from Russian and it is not unreasonable to suppose that there was some loss of descriptive clarity as a result.But it seems pretty clear that what is being described here is certainly not "Pennsylvanian coal".The AR-60 was available from 1935 up to 1940, an impressive five years of albeit limited production during which time a few hundred AR-60 receivers were built.This article will show the incredibly robust construction of the AR-60 and will provide performance details (including an alignment procedure) along with confirming (or debunking) all of the myths and rumors about RCA's fabulous AR-60. Rogers, January 2013 In 1935, RCA offered what must have seemed like the ultimate communications receiver.This is evident first of all by the fact that it is part of a date list which is broken into three parts: "geologic samples", "archaeological samples", and "fossil animals".
Clearly, Pennsylvanian coal would be listed as a geologic sample, but this sample of "coal" is listed as an archaeological sample. In the original reference the sample is described as "scattered coals in a loamy rock in deposits of a 26-m [river] terrace".There is, in fact, no indication anywhere in the original reference that these samples were from the "Pennyslvanian"; nor is there any hint that they were expected to be "300 million years old"; these appear to be purely apocryphal embellishments to the original account.Surely, what the Russians intended to convey (and what nearly everybody would understand), is that these samples were charcoal from a not too ancient campfire.(Aardsma, 1994, page 2.)The original reference [Trautman and Willis, page 200.] in the second case (natural gas) immediately reveals that both Whitelaw and The Answers Book have, unfortunately, neglected several very important " The sensitivity of the equipment used to make the radiocarbon measurements on these natural gas samples was limited to 30,000 to 34,000 years---the equipment was unable to measure back further. In this example, old radiocarbon dates from living clams or snails are given as evidence which discredits the reliability of radiocarbon dating. Aardsma addressed this issue in a 1989 article: The shells of freshwater clams can, and often do, give anomalous radiocarbon results.However, the reason for this is understood and the problem is restricted to only a few special cases, of which freshwater clams are the best-known example.Not much knowledge was ever gleaned by hams from first-hand experience and many based their knowledge on a flawed review from "RADIO" magazine.