Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Potassium Argon Sensitivity Analysis
Engineer
Member (Idle past 5516 days)
Posts: 65
From: KY, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 1 of 64 (498763)
02-13-2009 5:46 PM


Hello to all. I am a registered mechanical engineer with a solid background in metrology, material science, nuclear physics, and material phase transformations. I am currently employed in a manufacturing industry.
I don't have a big dog in this fight over the age of the earth but I would like to perform a sensitivity analysis on the potassium-argon methodology. I liken it to a glass-manufacturing problem where you have to deal with gasses trapped inside molten silica and atmospheric contamination driven by partial pressure.
As I see it I would like to evaluate the following variables for a sensitivity analysis, plugging into the radioactive decay formula:
1) How much atmospheric argon can be absorbed into molten silica over a long period of time at atmospheric pressure, and the temperature slightly above the melting point? I need this in ppm.
2) What is the range of K40 in current year magma samples in ppm and the corresponding A40 for the same samples with no atmospheric contamination?
I will use the decay formulas and any other assumptions or correction factors deemed appropriate, and excess argon. I'll use the following methodology from Bureau Laboratories:
http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/labs/argon/Methods/home.html
PS: I think the assumption of zero captive argon in a lava sample is not a good assumption. I do not know how much this affects the result but I will evaluate that as a sensitivity.
thanks to all

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Chiroptera, posted 02-13-2009 6:30 PM Engineer has replied

  
Engineer
Member (Idle past 5516 days)
Posts: 65
From: KY, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 4 of 64 (498772)
02-13-2009 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Chiroptera
02-13-2009 6:30 PM


quote:
I'm not sure, but I think that the isochron method is commonly used in K-Ar dating. In that case, the amount of initial ratio of argon to potassium is irrelevant. The people at the labs you contact might also be able to fill you in on the basics of radiometric dating methods.
The isochron method is based on variations in concentrations of the parent, the radioactive daughter, and the non-radioactive daughter in various minerals within the same sample.
This is a little more involved, and I'm willing to take it on. The problem with the isochron method appears to be the assumption about proportional homogeniety of the different mineral mixtures relative to atmospheric argon.
Apparantly another sample of "known age" must be used for comparison.
http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/labs/argon/Methods/home.html#
"In order for an age to be calculated by the 40Ar/39Ar technique, the J parameter must be known. For the J to be determined, a standard of known age must be irradiated with the samples of unknown age. Because this (primary) standard ultimately cannot be determined by 40Ar/39Ar, it must be first determined by another isotopic dating method. The method most commonly used to date the primary standard is the conventional K/Ar technique. The primary standard must be a mineral that is homogeneous, abundant and easily dated by the K/Ar and 40Ar/39Ar methods. Traditionally, this primary standard has been a hornblende from the McClure Mountains, Colorado (a.k.a. MMhb-1)."
According to this laboratory, this is a foundational assumption that is necessary for using the original potassium argon method to be usable:
"No non-atmospheric 40Ar was incorporated into the rock/mineral during or after its formation."
Hence we are back to revisiting the assumptions of the "known standard," which must be validated by the originally proposed A40/K40 method applied to hornblende from Colorodo.
So if atmospheric A40 enterred the system of the "known standard", I'm not so sure the original method or the isochron method can handle this very well, and would like to evaluate it.
This is why I'd like to get a better handle on the solubility of atmospheric air into liquid glass. It must work something like oxygen diffusing into liquid water, which is sensitive to temperature, pressure, and time of exposure.
quote:
Why are you asking for this on an internet message board? I would think that a research lab connected to a university or large company would be a better source.
I have friends in a university geology department that I plan to use as resources. I'd like to see a good sensitivity analysis as I do in engineering. If you happen to see one on the internet, I'd greatly appreciate you sharing it.
Edited by Engineer, : added additional info on isochron method.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Chiroptera, posted 02-13-2009 6:30 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Engineer
Member (Idle past 5516 days)
Posts: 65
From: KY, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 6 of 64 (498786)
02-13-2009 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by JonF
02-13-2009 8:45 PM


quote:
The assumption that the radiogenic 40Ar was zero at solidification is well established and checked for rationally selected samples.
Most Argon is 40Ar, whether in the earth or in the air. If argon is boiling off from inside the earth and then expelling itself with lava, how can it be assumed to be zero in the lava sample at the time of solidification?
In glass manufacturing there is a considerable problem with gases in the molten silica, causing bubbles and loss of clarity. The gases want to disolve into the melted silica based on partial pressure, temperature, and solubility.
If the gas would just expel itself to zero it would reduce chemical additions and process controls. Some of the clarity enhancing chemicals are rather toxic like arsenic. The cost savings would be nice, and safety would be improved.
So how does the natural gas expulsion process benefits molten lava but not the glass manufacturing industry where gases want to enter the liquid silica. Maybe the quantities we are talking about here are orders of magnitude below a significant error. I can't know without making comparisons.
What am I missing here?
I think I need to be looking at concentrations of the trapped gases in ppm versus the amount of A40 produced by decay.
PS: Thanks for the articles. I will study them.
Edited by Engineer, : No reason given.
Edited by Engineer, : No reason given.
Edited by Engineer, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by JonF, posted 02-13-2009 8:45 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Engineer, posted 02-13-2009 11:12 PM Engineer has not replied
 Message 9 by JonF, posted 02-14-2009 9:32 AM Engineer has replied

  
Engineer
Member (Idle past 5516 days)
Posts: 65
From: KY, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 7 of 64 (498791)
02-13-2009 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Engineer
02-13-2009 10:19 PM


I notice that Helium is a good fining agent for removing bubbles from glass:
http://www.freshpatents.com/...dt20070802ptan20070175241.php
Argon probably aids this as well. Interesting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Engineer, posted 02-13-2009 10:19 PM Engineer has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Coragyps, posted 02-13-2009 11:22 PM Engineer has not replied

  
Engineer
Member (Idle past 5516 days)
Posts: 65
From: KY, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 10 of 64 (498851)
02-14-2009 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by JonF
02-14-2009 9:32 AM


quote:
You're missing the big picture, and you're missing a lot of knowledge about what's been done already.
I'm not an expert yet on dating methods, and it really doesn't bother me that the earth is over 4 billion years old.
quote:
You're looking for a systemic error in one family of methods.
Actually I'm looking at this like any other engineering problem where I verify assumptions with data. I am quite familiar with the concept of closed systems, and I'm looking at those assumptions in the dating methods. I'm also pretty intimate with the concepts of arrhenius diffusivity in the process industries.
Arrhenius equation - Wikipedia
attached is an example of how CO2 invades polyethylene through diffusion:
Page not found – Composite Agency polymer analysis
One might assume polyethylene is a closed system but it is not, and it absorbs and releases gases and humidity in a matter of days. It can also be penetrated by liquid solution which carries chemicals with it.
The only real difference I see between the outside surface of the earth and the inside of the earth is temperature, pressure, and solar radiation. Of course the outside also has an atmosphere and some chemical differences, but much if not all of it came from inside at some point in time.
Perhaps I should be looking at another dating method. I've looked at the isochron method, and some of the theory behind it. I totally agree with physics -- the thing I question is assumptions and their basis going into the physics models. I don't think the rates of decay changed or anything like that. I'm more interested in validating closed system assumptions, before, during, and after a sample magma sample is deposited.
quote:
The other families (U-Pb concordia-discordia, Pb-Pb isochron, Sm-Nd isochron, Rb-Sr isochron. Re-Os isochron, stratigraphy, fission tracks, thermoluminescence, electron spin resonance, infra-red stimulated luminescence, ...) essentially always agree with that family when applied to the same rocks. There are three possibilities:
quote:
The dates are correct.
If the assumptions are consistent then the results should be consistent as well, regardless of the validity of the assumptions. The physical equations are correct, and should produce results that are equally valid to the assumptions going into them.
quote:
There is a systemic error that affects all methods equally.
quote:
There are multiple independent systemic errors that coincidentally always affect all methods equally.
Having an independent method to verify a result is always good.
What I really need to see is the data.
How much of the chemicals for each testing method are present in pristine magma inside the earth today, and inside magma that erupts?
Edited by Engineer, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by JonF, posted 02-14-2009 9:32 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by RAZD, posted 02-14-2009 1:53 PM Engineer has not replied
 Message 12 by JonF, posted 02-14-2009 2:10 PM Engineer has replied

  
Engineer
Member (Idle past 5516 days)
Posts: 65
From: KY, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 13 of 64 (498865)
02-14-2009 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by JonF
02-14-2009 2:10 PM


quote:
Tell you what, send me a 100 petabyte USb hard drive and I'll see what I can dig up for you.
I don't need a ton of data. The data I originally asked for is in ppm for parent, daughter, etc.
Isn't A40 like 1 x 10 exp-14 moles/mole in a typical volcanic rock sample or something like that? I'm sure it can vary, but how about an average sample such as something to be tested. This is the kind of data I'm talking about.
We have a mass spectrometer at my quality lab. Also, I have to use optic devices to measure dust in the air that's less than 50 ppm. I work with this kind of data rather frequently, so it's not a big deal to me.
By the way, I am a six sigma black belt and a certified quallity engineer, so I'm qualified to validate measurement and testing methods regardless of who is using them. Though I might not be well versed in geology, I am well versed in metrology and how it is used to make measurements. I consider geochemistry just another chemistry problem.
In the end there is typically a "gold standard" somewhere for verifying results, and that's what I'm looking for as well as the equivalent of a certification which typically documents all of the methodology, its uses and known limitations, and a set of procedures that might read something like this:
step 1 -- take geologic sample under CFR 123.4
step 2 -- prepare example in lab under procedure CFR 456.7
step 3 -- set up mass spectrometer using procedure CFR 8910.11
etc etc etc
I think I will take your advice and look at U-Pb concordia-discordia method instead. It sounds like you are proposing it as the gold standard.
Edited by Engineer, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by JonF, posted 02-14-2009 2:10 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Engineer, posted 02-14-2009 4:08 PM Engineer has not replied
 Message 15 by JonF, posted 02-14-2009 5:09 PM Engineer has replied

  
Engineer
Member (Idle past 5516 days)
Posts: 65
From: KY, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 14 of 64 (498868)
02-14-2009 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Engineer
02-14-2009 3:34 PM


OK so I'm looking at the Uranium-Lead method which has assumptions about lead and uranium in zirconia crystals.
Interesting. I used to work in a vibration lab that used piezo materials in their vibration transducers. Lead zirconate titanate is a good piezo material:
Lead zirconate titanate - Wikipedia
I think the lead is right in there with the zirconium as a chemical compound. It appears to be. It appears to take an extremely high pressure to "push" lead into this structure.
Edited by Engineer, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Engineer, posted 02-14-2009 3:34 PM Engineer has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Coragyps, posted 02-14-2009 6:47 PM Engineer has replied

  
Engineer
Member (Idle past 5516 days)
Posts: 65
From: KY, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 17 of 64 (498886)
02-14-2009 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Coragyps
02-14-2009 6:47 PM


quote:
Sorry, no put-it-in-the-box-and-turn-the-crank-and-the-right-answer-pops-out. That's why I'm saying you don't have the knowledge to analyze the data. You need to know the background, not just what's written in the manual. You could run and maintain the equipment just fine, but you don't understand what you'd be doing.
Mechanical and electrical engineers design your dating equipment. We know what we are doing. We have to understand the process and the physical material to design the measuring equipment. It doesn't mean we understand it as well as the expert in that field, but we need a certain level of understanding of both capability and limitation.
I'm thrown into a lot of problems where "I don't have a background" -- what's new for an engineer? You might be right about this one with dating where I've finally met my technical match, but currently I have two projects "not in my field", one belonging to a civil engineer and another belonging to an electrical engineer. I've also had to do nuke engineering and inferential statistics.
On the civil engineering side, I have to figure out what causes floor coatings to fail on concrete. I've got the answer but it sure took a while. I've never taken a course in concrete mechanics. If you think concrete physics and chemistry is simple, think again. It's not. If you can design a floor coating that won't fail, then you will be quite wealthy.
If you want to see a phase diagram that's totally whack, try taking a look at a solidus-liquidus graph in degrees baume for sulfuric acid -- not taught in mechanical engineering, that's for sure
As far as molecular lattice and interstituals, it's not such a big stretch for someone with a materials science background. I'll look at the zirconium, which doesn't want interstitial lead for some apparent reason. I only had one course in phase transformations and lattice structures, so admittedly I'm a little weak there.
As I said before, I want to see data, and I will look at whatever is provided. I think I am intelligent enough to evaluate it. It will, however, take time.
I appreciate the resources, but just talking about it isn't enough. If some technical person in another discipline askes me about failure mechanics, I'd have a way to explain it with technical information.
So often I've heard it said in my profession -- if someone can't explain something to a technically minded audience, then they really don't understand it themselves. If they understood it then they could explain it. I'm not saying that about the people on this forum, but I've always had to work with information that's "not in my field". The "you're to dumb to understand" approach, usually means someone has an agenda in my experience.
I think I can understand anything given the time. Just give me the time to digest what's been provided.
thanks.
Edited by Engineer, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Coragyps, posted 02-14-2009 6:47 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Engineer, posted 02-14-2009 10:17 PM Engineer has not replied

  
Engineer
Member (Idle past 5516 days)
Posts: 65
From: KY, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 18 of 64 (498887)
02-14-2009 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Engineer
02-14-2009 10:08 PM


quote:
That's nice. Lead zirconate titanate is also as chemically distinct from zircon, which is zirconium silicate, as sodium chloride is from sodium cyanide. Lead won't fit in a zirconium silicate crystal lattice, and sodium cyanide doesn't belong on your pretzels.
They don't have the same lattice structure. That's a sufficient answer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Engineer, posted 02-14-2009 10:08 PM Engineer has not replied

  
Engineer
Member (Idle past 5516 days)
Posts: 65
From: KY, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 19 of 64 (498888)
02-14-2009 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by JonF
02-14-2009 5:09 PM


quote:
Why are you so insistent on retracing 60+ year old footsteps? This has been establsihed and tested and reviewed and re-establsihed and re-tested and re-reviewed and ...
If you have a better way for me to get the information I'm all ears. I don't think the internet is going to cut it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by JonF, posted 02-14-2009 5:09 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Coyote, posted 02-14-2009 10:47 PM Engineer has replied
 Message 22 by JonF, posted 02-15-2009 9:21 AM Engineer has replied

  
Engineer
Member (Idle past 5516 days)
Posts: 65
From: KY, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 20 of 64 (498889)
02-14-2009 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by JonF
02-14-2009 5:09 PM


quote:
That's the difference between science and engineering. You're qualified to run a mass spec ... what would you do in this guy's shoes? A zircon that predates the universe.
Here's the answer: A zircon that predates the universe 2.
Just from reading his short discription, I wouldn't know the answer for certain, and I haven't run a mass spectrometer since college.
Given that he has some answers that make sense I'd say he's either measuring the wrong element and he thinks it is the Thorium or something is wrong with the equipment settings. The easiest mistake is to misinterpret what the element or compond is. Elements and compounds can look so similar in a spectrometer analysis and yet be completely different in the diagnostic catalogue.
As I said, I don't have enough information to say this with any certainty because I know nothing about how this particular test was performed.
Edited by Engineer, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by JonF, posted 02-14-2009 5:09 PM JonF has not replied

  
Engineer
Member (Idle past 5516 days)
Posts: 65
From: KY, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 23 of 64 (498919)
02-15-2009 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Coyote
02-14-2009 10:47 PM


Re: 60+ year old footsteps?
To answer your point, I will always be a deist because of my own personal experiences that predate my choice of a religion and relate to my own personal conscience and experience.
My choice of a religion is based on what I consider to be the best, though primitive, explanation of who the metaphysical entity is. Our predecessors have no words or even a conceptual understanding of nuclear decay or science, but prior to the birth of our universe these concepts aren't very useful either.
Obviously our universe is finite on the time scale, and obviously it is highly ordered. On the otherhand I think a lot of "intelligent design" is nothing more than an attempt to rebutt science which in the end is destined to lose.
When I get to the end of the study which will take a while, I will probably find out that the dating methods are contiguous.
Consider the daunting task I had ahead of me, a mere mechanical engineer, to become a certified sig sigma black belt. Take a look at design of experiments (DOE) sec 7, and ANOVA in sec 6:
http://www.asq.org/certification/six-sigma/bok.html

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Coyote, posted 02-14-2009 10:47 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 02-15-2009 10:12 AM Engineer has not replied

  
Engineer
Member (Idle past 5516 days)
Posts: 65
From: KY, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 25 of 64 (498927)
02-15-2009 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by JonF
02-15-2009 9:21 AM


Jon F,
Congratulations on your advanced education. I was a candidate for the Georgetown Universiy NASA-Langly graduate program myself. I graduated magna cum laude in my undergrad curriculum.
One question here, just for the record. As a nuclear engineering professional I understand that radiation exposure speeds up nuclear reaction. This is fundamental to nuclear power plant operation.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/ral.htm
In the case of lava flow, we know that all surface substance is subject to radiation from the sun and other sources. Neutron bombardment speeds up nuclear reaction of the unstable isotopes. This fact allows us to generate heat in a nuclear reactor.
So what is the assumption for environmental radiation exposure over the past 4 billion years? Are you assuming it is a constant, or is this just a noise factor with small relative contribution anyway?
Edited by Engineer, : No reason given.
Edited by Engineer, : No reason given.
Edited by Engineer, : experimenting with html code
Edited by Engineer, : Nuclear irradiation does not speed up nuclear decay, it acclerates fission. My error.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by JonF, posted 02-15-2009 9:21 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by RAZD, posted 02-15-2009 12:44 PM Engineer has not replied
 Message 28 by NosyNed, posted 02-15-2009 12:48 PM Engineer has replied
 Message 31 by JonF, posted 02-15-2009 1:18 PM Engineer has replied

  
Engineer
Member (Idle past 5516 days)
Posts: 65
From: KY, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 26 of 64 (498929)
02-15-2009 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by JonF
02-15-2009 9:21 AM


quote:
OK, that's a good example, 'cause my undergraduate and graduate work was in that field. How would you teach someone about failure mechanics on this message board, starting from scratch? Not just explaining what it's about, teaching them enough evaluate a catastrophic bridge collapse on their own. Would you type out everything that's needed, including the equations, the figures, all the references? Or would you point them to good ways to learn it on their own?
This is a common problem I must endure everyday in my profession -- selling a highly technical project to a usually non-technical group of high level executives that hold the purse-strings for funding.
I would start out by telling the non-technical executives how failure mechanics is useful to humankind -- how many lives it could have saved in certain situations -- by how it can save them from catastrophe and loses that their company has experienced. I would provide technical case studies where it has done so.
Next, I would propose my plan to reduce such failures, their cost, and provide their proposed benefits. Then I would stand behind my promises with accountabilities that they can measure with financial results.
Usually the executives are some of the most technically ignorant people around. They, however, must make the ultimate decisions and hold accountability. That's how it works in my world: good communication, good research, a good business case, and measurable results.
I had to do something similar to this for my most recently funded project where we have concrete floor-coating failures that must be fixed or risk environmental contamination. The mid-level executives demanded the technical research to back my claims. Nobody has a satisfactory explanation in my opinion and I have to swag technical judgment into the solution. My reputation is always on the line, I have not been defeated yet, and I thank the creator for my successes. I am unrelenting, but I know when to quit.
Edited by Engineer, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by JonF, posted 02-15-2009 9:21 AM JonF has not replied

  
Engineer
Member (Idle past 5516 days)
Posts: 65
From: KY, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 30 of 64 (498933)
02-15-2009 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by NosyNed
02-15-2009 12:48 PM


Re: Numbers
quote:
As noted, independent methods arrive at consistent results in the vast majority of cases. If you conjure up possible problems you have to consider that the answer is that they aren't problems unless you can also explain why the problem is problematic across all methods.
I think the measurement systems will concur. I must prove it to myself. As an engineer I deal constantly with closed system and open system assumptions.
Solar radiation on the earth is not a closed system and potentially could affect all surface measurements in some way. It might be miniscule, and even neutrons have a penetration limit, so it would have less effect as you go deeper into the earth's surface.
K40 can change to A40 through irradiation as shown in this technical paper:
http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/labs/argon/Methods/home.html
Other chemicals are produced as well.
This is simply visiting the closed system assumption. Was the earth bombarded at one time, and would it even make a difference if it was? If it made a difference would it affect all measurement systems the same way? probably not.
I still have to look. I'm sure I'm not the first to ask.
Edited by Engineer, : added link

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by NosyNed, posted 02-15-2009 12:48 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024