Carbon Dating...

[crptcblade]

Anybody know where you could get this done? Like semi-cheaply?

[parksie]

What are you planning on carbon dating? Trust me, no matter how old those flares are they'll never be classics

[SteveCRM]

semi cheap is probably high hundreds to thousands

[crptcblade]

Actually, my dad and I were going through some of his old junk, and found a horse shoe he found when he was a kid. It looks like 1700's kind of old, and I was thinking about finding the approximate age. But that brings up another question...is there a limit to how young something can be to get carbon dated? Like, you can carbon date a fossil, which is pretty damn old, But is 200-300 years not old enough? Probably not, but, never hurts to ask right?

[crptcblade]

Originally posted by SteveCRM
semi cheap is probably high hundreds to thousands

That's nothing! I'm could due it right now with the money I have in my wallet.

[SteveCRM]

I don't think you can actually carbon date it. It is still it's original form. Dinosaurs can be carbon dated because they have turned into minerals over time and they check the mineral content (carbon)...so I think it has to be pretty much fosilized to do it

[crptcblade]

D'oh. Well...any suggestions on getting the DOB for it?

[Bjwbell]

To do carbon dating the substance must still have some Carbon 14 in it which is radioative.
The way they use carbon dating is to compare the amount of carbon 14 in the subance and the amount of carbon 14 an the atmosphere, since Carbon 14 decays at a precise rate you can find out how old the subtance by finding the difference between the two amounts and using some math.
So you can't carbon date a horse shoe.

[chrisjk]

why not take it to some antique dealer or some other specialist. If there any identifiying marks they may be able to tell you, they may even be able to tll from style, materials etc. Carbon Dating is for well-old stuff like bones from the middle-ages etc.

[NotLKH]

There are ways to date forged metal, though.
Especially things made of iron.

For example, the structure of iron over time changes, where
the "cells" forming the "lattice" of the iron merge at a pretty regular
rate. {Its been a while since I've been in materials science,
so my terminology might be off, so perhaps a metallurgist out there could put in his .02 cents}
Thus, checking its structure can determine its age.

Also, determining the amount of iron oxide contained in it is also
a factor that can narrow down its age.

And one other thing. When a peice of iron just sits around
buried, as it remains immobile, it tends to pick up the magnetic
field of the surrounding area, where the cells line up more and more. So, if it started out without a magnetic field, analysing the
magnetic properties of the metal can help determine how long
its been buried.

So, there are ways to determine its age instead of carbon-dating.

-Lou

[filburt1]

Originally posted by crptcblade
Anybody know where you could get this done? Like semi-cheaply?

How old is whatever you want to date (you guess)? I mean, several years or thousands of years? Carbon-14 radioactive decay can't be measured TOO precisely.

[crptcblade]

Originally posted by filburt1


How old is whatever you want to date (you guess)? I mean, several years or thousands of years? Carbon-14 radioactive decay can't be measured TOO precisely.

Yeah, I figured that. So I think I'll be heading to an antiques guy or a metallurgy guy

Thanks

[filburt1]

Found some dino bones in your backyard, did you?

[crptcblade]

Nah, if you look up a little...it was a horse shoe that my dad found when he was a kid.

[filburt1]

Me no can read.

Yeah, Carbon-14 probably won't have worked that well on it, and I believe it requires organic material to work. You'd find the age of the horse instead.

[cypherx]

Originally posted by NotLKH
There are ways to date forged metal, though.
Especially things made of iron.

[snip]

So, there are ways to determine its age instead of carbon-dating.

The best thing to do is to take the object to an antiques dealer who specializes in such objects. By looking at the horseshoe and the techniques used, the approx. dating would be possible. However, horseshoes were a disposable product and so not a lot of care went into their production, at least not like a china bowl or something, and they were often made by hand individually, so your horseshoe may be to nondescript or generic to be dated with any reliability. Of course, I am not an expert in horseshoes and there might be very distinct features which would help to place it more precisely in the timeline.

Metallurgy may be a possiblity as the process of iron-making may identify the time and place of manufacture, e.g. the amount and type of impurities found in the iron due to the manufacturing process or the type of ore used to produce it. Of course, a more 'manufactured' metal like steel is better dated by this method.

Carbon-dating only works with materials that are organic and once _living_ (e.g. respirating) and still have organic components, not completely mineralized fossils (which are not bones but rocks which took the shape of the bones). So, carbon-dating a horseshoe (other than a horseshoe crab) is not possible.

--cypherx

[cypherx]

Originally posted by Bjwbell
To do carbon dating the substance must still have some Carbon 14 in it which is radioative.
The way they use carbon dating is to compare the amount of carbon 14 in the subance and the amount of carbon 14 an the atmosphere, since Carbon 14 decays at a precise rate you can find out how old the subtance by finding the difference between the two amounts and using some math.
So you can't carbon date a horse shoe.

This is very close. The amount of Carbon 14 with respect to normal carbon in the atmosphere is a fixed ratio, or rather believed to be a fixed ratio over time (I'm not sure what makes it a fixed ratio so I am unclear on this, perhaps it is necessarily a fixed ratio). When an animal or plant respires it draws in both types of carbon and the Carbon 14 ratio approximates that of the atmosphere. Once it stops respiring (i.e. dies), then the amount of Carbon 14 diminishes due to decay and the fact that it is no longer being replenished by respiration. The reduction in Carbon 14 is a known process due to the extreme regularity of radioactive decay (that is why atomic clocks are so accurate). By comparing the Carbon 14 ratio it does have to what it would have it was alive right now and computing the half-lives it would take to get to that ratio, you can tell how long ago it was that it last respired with a certain degree of accuracy.

--cypherx

[parksie]

extreme regularity of radioactive decay

Isn't radioactive decay random at the quantum level?

[cypherx]

Originally posted by parksie
Isn't radioactive decay random at the quantum level?

Yeah, but random at the quantum level would only make a diff at a seriously far-out decimal place, like one sample decaying 50.0000000000000% and another 50.0000000000001%. (This is just an example, the real difference would probably be infinitesimally smaller.) There is a big diff between quantum effects and macro effects, pun intended.

That is one reason why there is an inaccuracy factor in atomic clocks. However, the latest clock loses only one second in 15 billion years which is just the current age of the universe. So, quantum randomness has very little to absolutely no effect in the aggregate, at the statistical level. Now whether this particular cesium atom will decay in this second or in one thousand years is a random event, so we don't know with any statistical certainty which half of the cesium will decay, but with almost absolute certainty that half of it will.

--cypherx

[parksie]

Hmm ok I thought there must have been a catch somewhere

PS: awful pun

[NotLKH]

PS: awful pun


I like awful puns, but where is it?
cypherx said it?


-Lou

[cypherx]

big difference between quantum effects & macro effects. Get it?

cypherx

[NotLKH]

Quantum:

a : any of the very small increments or parcels into which many forms of energy are subdivided

b : any of the small subdivisions of a quantized physical magnitude (as magnetic moment)

Macro:

1 : being large, thick, or exceptionally prominent

2 a : of, involving, or intended for use with relatively large quantities or on a large scale

Pun:

: the usually humorous use of a word in such a way as to suggest two or more of its meanings or the meaning of another word similar in sound

There is a big diff between quantum effects and macro effects, pun intended

Wheres the pun?

{I must be REALLY slow if this is a pun and I can't see it! Forgive me!}