Main -> Dating -> Newport Tower (Rhode Island) - phelangun.com

Newport Tower (Rhode Island) - phelangun.com

08.07.2019 0 Comments

Secrets of Newport Tower

Hertz insists that it was modeled after the 17th century Chesterton Mill in Warwickshire, England, and points out that a survey by Hugh Hencken and William S. Godfrey found indisputably colonial artifacts at the bottom of a trench that surrounds the foundations. According to HJ, their tests indicate that the Tower was built not earlier than AD, and most likely in the range Carlson argues that Chesterton Mill was in fact built as an observatory, and only much later converted to use as a mill. She points out that the trench discovered during the survey makes sense as part of a colonial repair of a pre-existing tower for use as a windmill, after an earlier mill blew down in Furthermore, this trench does not work as part of the original construction, because it lacks any evidence of the presence of the staging that would have been necessary to have supported the arches. Instead, its backfill contains thousands of mortar fragments, as would be expected if it were opened as part of a repair operation.

Furthermore, this trench does not work as part of the original construction, because it lacks any evidence of the presence of the staging that would have been necessary to have supported the arches. Instead, its backfill contains thousands of mortar fragments, as would be expected if it were opened as part of a repair operation. I have had a little chemical training as an undergraduate at Caltechand some prior familiarity with dendrocalibration, which is an important complication in the HJ paper.

Perhaps they or someone else will be able to correct me, but my reading of their paper is that although the C results are certainly consistent with a 17th century colonial origin for the tower, they by no means conclusively rule out a pre-Columbian origin. This is first combined with some water to make calcium hydroxide, or slake lime.

At the time of construction, additional water and sand are added to the slake lime, allowing it to absorb carbon dioxide from the air and to set into crystalline calcium carbonate. Some of the atmospheric carbon dioxide would contain radioactive C rather than inactive C or less common C, much as photosynthesis captures C from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. However, C dating of tree rings of known age subsequently demonstrated that this is not strictly true.

Standard "dendrocalibration" curves have been constructed to compensate for this variation in atmospheric radiocarbon e. Stuiver and Kra,and these curves are used by HJ. The surface of the mortar sets up quickly - in as little as a few hours.

Newport tower carbon dating

The interior portions of the mortar will ordinarily set up eventually, but this requires carbon dioxide to diffuse through pores in the mortar, either in gaseous form, or in solution in the water that has been added to the slake lime. Depending on how easy it is for the gas to find such pores and work its way through them, this could take a considerable time.

Because of this slow absorption, the estimated date will not reflect the actual date of construction, but some weighted average of later dates, even if at the time of testing the reaction appears to have been complete. Surprisingly, HJ do not report having even tested the Newport Tower samples for residual alkalinity.

Newport Tower (Rhode Island)

It is well known that the calcium carbonate in bone is not very reliable for C dating, because the original carbonate ions may exchange with carbonate in the groundwater that might be either too old - if it represent dissolved limestone - or too young - if it contains atmospheric carbon dioxide dissolved in rainwater.

For this reason, the preferred method of dating bone is to isolate the bone collagen, which contains carbon, but in a more stable form. Similarly, lime mortar that is exposed to rain on a regular basis may contain carbonate that dates not from when the mortar first set up, but from much later rainstorms that may have drenched the structure.

In this case, the surface mortar might be colonial, while only the deeper mortar, well inside the joints, would reflect the true date. According to Hertz p. Nevertheless, some of the samples HJ took were in fact "prized out as whole pieces of mortar, and marked as surface samples. These whole samples HJ themselves make no mention that the other samples were taken with a care to avoid repairs. These will remain as calcium carbonate in the mortar, but will contain essentially no C, and make the sample appear older than it really is.

These particles are harder than the mortar, and react more slowly with acid. In order to minimize their effect, HJ take the trouble to separate the carbon dioxide that is released from the mortar into two fractions. They argue that the first fraction should contain little if any of the fossil carbonate, and indeed the second fractions of the drilled samples give dates that are older, by as much as years.

For this reason they discard the second fraction dates, except for the surface samples, for which mechanical separation of limestone particles was feasible. The date they obtain is consistent with its known date of construction, and so they conclude that their date on the Tower must be accurate as well. Although testing this house was a sensible and useful control, there are three problems with its interpretation.

Because of coal burning during the Industrial Revolution, tree rings known to date from approximately to contain very similar amounts of carbon today, and hence dates in this period are very difficult to differentiate.

son always goes

Thus, although the WLH House gives a point estimate date that can be dendrocalibrated to AD, the same raw C content also dendrocalibrates, using HJ's Figure 2, to approximately,or even ! In other words, the WLH House contains mortar whose carbonate could have set at any time between its known date of construction and the midth century. If the method has a bias due to slow absorption, this control therefore tells us nothing about it. The Tower, on the other hand, would have been open to the elements for centuries before its colonial conversion to a windmill, if indeed it is medieval, and in any event has been again exposed to the weather in recent times, since at leastaccording to Hertz.

In order to demonstrate that their test results rule out a pre-Columbian Norse date for the Newport Tower, they should have also provided one or more controls known to have approximately the alleged pre-Columbian date of the Tower, and which were exposed to the same sort of weather the Tower would have received. However, on p. They therefore are not true controls. And even if their true ages were known, the samples were taken from the interior, protected portions of these churches, which apparently have been continuously roofed since their construction.

See HJ, Figures 3 and 4. These tests therefore tell us nothing about the rate of substitution from rainwater that may have occurred in the case of the Newport Tower.

Some historians suggest that Arnold saw the Chesterton Windmill as a child and then duplicated the design when he went to build his own stone windmill after he'd emigrated to America. In the construction date of the newport tower was estimated to be between to , based on carbon dating of the mortar. years ago as a resource to help Newport Tower Carbon Dating guys be more successful with dating. Iíve been in the dating and mating game for over Newport Tower Carbon Dating 30 years now. Over time, I gained a reputation for being the "go-to" guy when Newport Tower Carbon Dating it came to tips and techniques for attracting women/ Top Places in Newport. While the tower was a relic in the s, carbon dating of the mortar from the stones has placed the construction of the site sometime in the s. Despite the continued scientific evidence, there are those who hold onto the belief that the tower is evidence of some unknown, pre-Columbian design.

However, they do not explain what is present, if not calcium carbonate. If the difference is primarily unreacted calcium hydroxide, there is a serious slow reaction problem that potentially affects all the dates.

killed the cat

On the other hand, if the other material is primarily inert silica sand, there is no particular indication that the remaining calcium carbonate is in any way contaminated, and these samples should be no worse than any of the others.

Since Accelerator Mass Spectrometry AMS methods are being used to measure the amount of C, valid results can often be obtained with even very small amounts of carbon. Small sample size might result in a large standard error, and therefore could be a valid criterion for forgoing the expense of a test, but is not per se a valid criterion for rejecting test results once they have been performed, so long as the standard error is not unusually large as a result.

Why Carbon Dating Might Be in Danger

Thus, two samples contained 2. However, sample 8 from the fireplace was tested despite containing only 5. Because atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons since has made recent decades appear to be far in the future before calibration, this does not literally mean that the mortar tested in had atmospheric carbon from the 21st century. However, it does indicate, after calibration, that the carbon was from some date afterlong after the Tower is known to have been built.

HJ make no comment on this impossible date for the construction, but instead merely drop it from consideration on the inappropriate criterion of the low carbonate concentration per se. In fact, sample 8 appears to exhibit a more severe case of substitution bias than I would have imagined possible, despite Hertz's assurancesp.

This sample was tested twice, in two preparations of the same mortar sample. The first sample, 2. However, the later carbon dioxide consistently gives older dates for the drilled samples, due to slower dissolution of particles of unburnt limestone that remained in the lime, whence HJ's preference for the first fraction, so that if anything this difference should make the first sample appear younger than the second.

HJ make no comment on this inconsistency, but instead treat 2. If this is true, there is something wrong with the chemical model being used that ought to be investigated.

wants heaven but

Isotopic fractionation occurs because C atoms are heavier than ordinary C atoms, and therefore carbon dioxide molecules containing C move about more slowly at any given temperature. This means that calcium hydroxide will have a higher probability of reacting with molecules containing C than with those containing C, even if these were present in the same proportions. Photosynthesis, which the dendrocalibration curve is based on, will similarly fractionate C differently than C, but possibly at a different rate than the mortar reaction.

Furthermore, molecules containing C will diffuse through the pores in the mortar more slowly, and hence will reach its interior to react in reduced proportions.

The Newport Tower is a round stone tower located in Touro Park in Newport, Rhode Island, the remains of a windmill built in the midth century. It has received attention due to speculation that it is actually several centuries older and would thus represent evidence of pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact. Carbon dating shows this belief to be phelangun.com location: Newport, Rhode Island. He extensively discusses the recent carbon dating of the mortar by Jan Heinemeier and Hogne Jungner (HJ, ). According to HJ, their tests indicate that the Tower was built not earlier than AD, and most likely in the range

The point estimate dendrocalibrates to AD, but also to approximatelyas well asby their Figure 2. Two of the dates used were from a surface sample that may have represented a colonial or even later repair to an earlier structure.

The inappropriately excluded post date on one of the samples tested demonstrates that rainwater substitution is an important factor. The Wanton-Lyman-Hazard House does nothing to demonstrate that the slow reaction and substitution biases are not a problem, because of the flatness of the dendrocalibration curve since AD on the one hand, and the fact that its sample was not exposed to the weather on the other hand.

The second problem with this control is that the sample obtained from it was apparently from its interior in the basementwhere it would have been protected from the elements, and thus not prone to carbonate substitution from rainwater. The Tower, on the other hand, would have been open to the elements for centuries before its colonial conversion to a windmill, if indeed it is medieval, and in any event has been again exposed to the weather in recent times, since at leastaccording to Hertz.

The third problem with the WLH House as a control is that it only tells us that the mortar method correctly dates late 17th century structures. In order to demonstrate that their test results rule out a pre-Columbian Norse date for the Newport Tower, they should have also provided one or more controls known to have approximately the alleged pre-Columbian date of the Tower, and which were exposed to the same sort of weather the Tower would have received.

However, on p.

before pleasure

They therefore are not true controls. And even if their true ages were known, the samples were taken from the interior, protected portions of these churches, which apparently have been continuously roofed since their construction.

See HJ, Figures 3 and 4. These tests therefore tell us nothing about the rate of substitution from rainwater that may have occurred in the case of the Newport Tower.

When we scrutinize HJ's Table 1, we find some further problems with their dates. However, they do not explain what is present, if not calcium carbonate. If the difference is primarily unreacted calcium hydroxide, there is a serious slow reaction problem that potentially affects all the dates. On the other hand, if the other material is primarily inert silica sand, there is no particular indication that the remaining calcium carbonate is in any way contaminated, and these samples should be no worse than any of the others.

the Gods love

Since Accelerator Mass Spectrometry AMS methods are being used to measure the amount of C, valid results can often be obtained with even very small amounts of carbon. Small sample size might result in a large standard error, and therefore could be a valid criterion for forgoing the expense of a test, but is not per se a valid criterion for rejecting test results once they have been performed, so long as the standard error is not unusually large as a result.

Thus, two samples contained 2. However, sample 8 from the fireplace was tested despite containing only 5. It is very significant that the preferred first fraction of carbon extracted from the inappropriately excluded sample 8 gives a negative uncalibrated C date of BP, or in other words, AD! Because atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons since has made recent decades appear to be far in the future before calibration, this does not literally mean that the mortar tested in had atmospheric carbon from the 21st century.

However, it does indicate, after calibration, that the carbon was from some date afterlong after the Tower is known to have been built.

Dating the Newport Tower At a recent NEARA (New England Antiquities Research Association) conference held in Newport, RI (November , ), an announcement was made concerning the carbon-dating of mortar found during the Chronognostic Research Foundation's dig at Author: David Brody. Those found within the Newport Tower have been dated in the broad range of - However, some specific features narrow the range to the late 's.'' -Pete Cummings. Newport Tower, by Suzanne O. Carlson. Apparently carbon dating done by jan. Carlson also states that creepy neighbor. While the newport tower or radiocarbon dating and time, and old stone newport tower was an exact science. Is a team had the tower's mortar. Carbon testing of lime containing carbon dating of the s, the tower was. Fueling the newport since the mid 17th century.

HJ make no comment on this impossible date for the construction, but instead merely drop it from consideration on the inappropriate criterion of the low carbonate concentration per se. In fact, sample 8 appears to exhibit a more severe case of substitution bias than I would have imagined possible, despite Hertz's assurancesp.

grass always

A second problem in their dates involves Sample 2 from Pillar 7. This sample was tested twice, in two preparations of the same mortar sample.

The first sample, 2.

However, the later carbon dioxide consistently gives older dates for the drilled samples, due to slower dissolution of particles of unburnt limestone that remained in the lime, whence HJ's preference for the first fraction, so that if anything this difference should make the first sample appear younger than the second.

HJ make no comment on this inconsistency, but instead treat 2. A third anomaly in their data comes from the carbonate concentration they report for the WLH House sample. If this is true, there is something wrong with the chemical model being used that ought to be investigated. One additional factor that may affect the results, is the possibility that the lime mortar reaction may not fractionate C at the same rate that photosynthesis does.

Isotopic fractionation occurs because C atoms are heavier than ordinary C atoms, and therefore carbon dioxide molecules containing C move about more slowly at any given temperature. This means that calcium hydroxide will have a higher probability of reacting with molecules containing C than with those containing C, even if these were present in the same proportions.

the hand

Photosynthesis, which the dendrocalibration curve is based on, will similarly fractionate C differently than C, but possibly at a different rate than the mortar reaction. Furthermore, molecules containing C will diffuse through the pores in the mortar more slowly, and hence will reach its interior to react in reduced proportions.

In the end HJ apparently use five dates - two dates on the questionable surface sample from the flue, the contradictory dates from the two preparations of sample 2 from pillar 7 first fraction onlyand the first fraction of sample 12, from pillar 6 - to date the Tower.

The point estimate dendrocalibrates to AD, but also to approximatelyas well asby their Figure 2.

A Review of CABAL OF THE WESTFORD KNIGHT by the Ohio Record-Courier

Although HJ conclude from their results that the Newport Tower could not have been built beforeI regard this as inconclusive evidence against an earlier date for construction, for several reasons:. Two of the dates used were from a surface sample that may have represented a colonial or even later repair to an earlier structure.

The inappropriately excluded post date on one of the samples tested demonstrates that rainwater substitution is an important factor. The Wanton-Lyman-Hazard House does nothing to demonstrate that the slow reaction and substitution biases are not a problem, because of the flatness of the dendrocalibration curve since AD on the one hand, and the fact that its sample was not exposed to the weather on the other hand.

The two Finnish churches do little to verify the Tower date, since the true dates of these churches are unknown, and since the samples were taken from the interior of the churches, where they were not exposed to the weather and potential carbonate substitution.

Indeed, the fact that a few of the samples taken from them were still alkaline indicates that slow reaction may be a serious problem of mortar dating in general. There are several inconsistencies in the results and unanswered questions that remain to be addressed.

To be sure, none of these considerations proves that the Newport Tower is any older than I am merely returning a provisional "Scotch verdict" of "not proven colonial. Carlson, Suzanne. Hertz, Johannes. Redwood Library and Athenaeum.

known the company

Berry, Mark. White, Robert. Baaf's Abby, Ghent. Drag your cursor left and right, up and down, to move viewpoint.

0 thoughts on “Newport tower carbon dating”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *