Kerr Watch

Elapsed time since Richard Kerr failed to inform his Science readers of the confirmation of nanodiamonds at the YDB: 6 years, 2 months, and 2 days

University of Arizona confirms spherule concentration in lower YDB sediments at famed Clovis site Blackwater Draw

 

LPLfull_Lockup_Endorsed_ALTERNATE
blacwater draw

Blackwater Draw

The presence of a high number of the hollow magnetic microspherules can be used for identification of the LYDB. Although some scientists failed to find any microspherules at all along the LYDB in the BWD-1 site (Surovell et al. 2009), others reported strongly elevated concentrations of the magnetic microspherules here (Firestone et al. 2007; LeCompte et al. 2012). Our observations confirm those made by Firestone et al. (2007) and LeCompte et al. (2012). In spite of the failure to find microspherules along the LYDB, Surovell et al (2009) reported a number of magnetic microspherules in sediments located above the LYDB (not as a discrete microspherule rich layer though). Such a distribution of the microspherules can be explained by redeposition in younger sediments of the microspherules delivered from along the LYDB. It is appropriate to suggest that Surovell et al. (2009) just failed to sample the microspherule-rich layer because it is visually featureless in the BWD-1 site and is very difficult to identify in the field.

Screenshot 2016-02-27 19.39.23

Alex Andronikov

 

Download (PDF, 1.49MB)

Download (PDF, 2.15MB)

2011 Poster

  • Steve Garcia

    There were a LOT of books in that library on hydrogen in metals.

    When I got to the 10 million psi thing, I left it at that. I knew that if the internal lattice pressure got to 10 million, fusion was taking place. On the microscopic level.

  • Trent Telenko

    Steve Garcia,

    You missed the best part of the article at the link —

    “Prof. Price tells the story of a remarkable demonstration just concluded in Florida where a megawatt of cold fusion power has been used in an industrial plant for more than 1 year!

    Not only have the physicists been proved wrong theoretically, they have just had their field’s professional reputation destroyed.

  • Steve Garcia

    Very good. Metallurgists forever!

    Actuall, I had not expected anyone to be able to size up the effect to industrial levels (it seemed too feeble, too low of energy density). I am glad to be wrong!

    Very cool.

    My laptop crashed yesterday, and I am doing this on my mew, first, smart phone. I may be less at contributing, but I will try…

  • Steve Garcia

    Trent… Okay. Finished the whole article now. Nothing in conflict with what ‘my’ metallurgists described. That seems a good thing to me.

    I am not surprised that they are floundering in trying to explain what is really going on. They may NEVER be able to get inside the lattice to see what is going on.

    They did mention “cracks in metals”, if you notice. THAT is soecifically why so many metallurgists study ‘hydrogen in metals’ – the hydrogen causes ’embrittlement’, which makes the metals fragile instead of strong. Metals are strong specifically (and “complicatedly”) because of the bonds within the crystalline lattices. Hydrogen somehow messes with the bonds and results in weak shear planes in microscopic zones. What is going on is the subject of all the eesearch. This is important in industrial applications, because designs using metals totally need to be able to depend on metals being as strong as published figures show. Otherwise designs fail, equipment fails, and mechanical design stands on uncertain feet.

    So, this ‘Rydberg material’ is not explained or really even described. Not in English, anyway. The graphic – maybe take that with a grain of salt for the moment, since they are floundering with their understanding. I can see tie-ins with ‘my’ metallurgists’ thinking (as I recall and understand), but it seems to not be quite right.

    BTW, all the metallurists in our R&D facility were in their 60s, so by now they are in their upper 80s by now, if they are even alive. The point ther being how open they were to a new ‘effect’, whereas so many academics are ossified in their thinking long before their 60s. I think that dealing with the real world affords industrial R&D scientists to know that there are surprises out there.

    As to the assertion about the 1 Mw plant, it did not say where and what company (unless I missed that). If not, that raises my own inner skeptic up a couple of notches. While I’ve always wanted this all to work out and become a really solid technology someday, I also do not want any more bad press and especially no more ridicule. Better to have fans pushing for super solid proofs than to go blithely along and get laughed at again in public.

    Time now to cogitate on it. . .

  • Trent Telenko

    Steve G.

    It looks real.

    Rough order performance for the E-Cat Cold fusion plant is 200 KW in to activate the generators that gets 1.2 to 1.5 MW out for a net of 1 MW output at a 1/100th the cost of coal electrical power generation.

    A lot has to be ironed out by engineers — we have no idea of the nuclear waste disposal problems for example — but we are looking at a 20-year transition of 70% of the fossil fuel market to Cold fusion electrical plant.

    This is an industrial infrastructure change to rival that of going from stream powered industrial and propulsion plants to electrical ones.

    See:

    https://alphilipson.wordpress.com/tag/cold-fusion/

    October 16, 2014

    Cold fusion reactor verified by third-party researchers, seems to have 1 million times the energy density of gasoline

    “Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat — the device that purports to use cold fusion to generate massive amounts of cheap, green energy – has been verified by third-party researchers, according to a new 54-page report. The researchers observed a small E-Cat over 32 days, where it produced net energy of 1.5 megawatt-hours, or ‘far more than can be obtained from any known chemical sources in the small reactor volume’.”

    The researchers couched their announcement and analysis with a lot of “weasel words”, probably bearing in mind the debunking of a previous “cold fusion” claim a few years ago.

    See also more recent — http://ecat.com/

    Ah, as usual it’s not quite what I remembered, but here it is:

    MIAMI, April 6, 2016 /PRNewswire/ — Leonardo Corporation announced today that on March 29, 2016, Leonardo Corporation received independent third party validation of the overwhelmingly positive results of a nearly yearlong test of Leonardo’s 1MW Energy Catalyzer (“E-Cat”). According to the inventor, Andrea Rossi, the E-Cat generates a low energy nuclear reaction (“LENR”) which produces excess heat energy at a cost substantially below more traditional energy sources. According to the independent third party report, over the 352 day test period, the E-Cat consistently generated energy at a rate in excess of six (6) times the amount of energy consumed by the plant, often generating energy exceeding fifty (50) times the amount of energy consumed during the same period. According to Andrea Rossi, Leonardo Corporation considers the results of the third party test to be “an overwhelming success” and that “the world is one step closer to the realization of a commercially available new, clean and efficient energy source.”

    And finally see this for background —

    This is Google’s cache of https://storiesbywilliams.com/2013/12/09/the-future-of-fusion-1-mw-cold-fusion-plant-now-available/.

    December 9, 2013 760 Words
    The Future of Fusion: 1-MW Cold Fusion Plant Now Available!

    fusion_energyIt’s actually here: the world’s first fusion power plant that is capable of generated a single megawatt of power and is available for pre-order. It’s known as the E-Cat 1MW Plant, which comes in a standard shipping container and uses low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR) – a process, often known as cold fusion, that fuses nickel and hydrogen into copper – to produce energy 100,000 times more efficiently than combustion.

    E-Cat, or Energy Catalyzer, is a technology (and company of the same name) developed by Andrea Rossi – an Italian scientist who claims he’s finally harnessed cold fusion. For just $1.5 million, people can pre-order an E-Cat and expect delivery by early 2014. With this news, many are wondering if the age of cold fusion, where clean, abundant energy is readily available, is finally upon us.

    E.Cat1 Cold fusion, as the name implies, is like normal fusion, but instead of producing fast neutrons and ionizing radiation that decimates everything in its path, cold fusion’s Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) produce very slow, safe neutrons. Where normal fusion requires massive, expensive containment systems, it sounds like E-Cat’s cold fusion can be safely contained inside a simple, pressurized vessel.

    And while normal fusion power is generated by fusing hydrogen atoms, cold fusion fuses nickel and hydrogen into copper, by way of some kind of special catalyst. Despite the rudimentary setup, though, cold fusion still has the massive power and energy density intrinsic to atomic fusion. In short, it produces far more energy than conventional chemical reactions – such as burning fossil fuels. The only challenge is, the massive amounts of power that are usually required to initiate the reaction.
    e.cat2According to E-Cat, each of its cold fusion reactors measures 20x20x1 centimeters (7.8×7.8×0.39 inches) and you stack these individual reactors together in parallel to create a thermal plant. The E-Cat 1MW Plant consists of 106 of these units rammed into a standard shipping container. Based on the specs provided by Rossi, the fuel costs works out to be $1 per megawatt-hour, which is utterly insane. Coal power is around $100 per megawatt-hour.

    But before anyone gets too excited about the commercialization of cold fusion, it should be noted that Rossi is still being incredibly opaque about how his cold fusion tech actually works. The data sheet for the 1MW Plant shares one interesting tidbit: Despite producing 1MW of power, the plant requires a constant 200 kilowatts of input power — presumably to sustain the reaction.
    E.Cat5_-1030x858The spec sheet also says that the fuel (specially treated nickel and hydrogen gas) needs to be recharged every two years. One of the science community’ biggest sticking points about Rossi’s cold fusion devices is that he hasn’t proven that his LENR is self-sustaining. Despite a huge amount of output energy, the device still needs to be connected to the mains.

    What’s more, due to a lack of published papers, and thus peer review, and a dearth of protective patents, the scientific community in general remains very wary of Rossi’s claims. And of course, we should all remember that this is not the first time that researchers have proclaimed victory in the race to make cold fusion happen. Whenever the words “cold fusion” are raised in conjunction, the case of the Fleischmann–Pons experiment immediately springs to mind.

    NASA_coldfusionFor those who remember, this case involved an experiment made in 1989 where two researchers claimed to have achieved cold fusion using palladium rods and heavy water. Initially, the scientific community treated the news with exciteent and interest, but after numerous labs were unable to reproduce their experiment, and a number of false positives were reported, their claims were officially debunked and they relocated their lab to avoid any further controversy.

    At the same time, however, one must remember that some significant changes have happened in the past three decades. For one, NASA’s LENR facility has been working on producing cold fusion reactions for some time using an oscillating nickel lattice and hydrogen atoms. Then there was the recent milestone produced by the National Ignition Facility in California, which produced the first fusion reaction using lasers that produced more energy than it required.
    Who’s to say if this is the real deal? All that is known is that between this most recent claim, and ongoing experiments conducted by NASA and other research organizations to make LENR cold fusion happen, a revolution in clean energy is set to happen, and will most likely happen within our lifetimes.

    Addendum: Just been informed by WordPress that this is my 1400th post! Woot-woot!
    Sources: extremetech.com, ecat.com

  • Tom Holsinger

    Given that shipborne electrical power generation is THE limiting factor on the Navy’s projected medium-tern future beam energy weapons, and the reported cargo container size of this 1 MW cold fusion generator, I find it hard to believe that DARPA is not funding some of this research. This unit would make it very easy to retrofit existing warships with the power supply for such beam weapons.

    This sort of retrofit issue first arose, in the modern era, in the early dreadnought period more than 100 years ago. Dreadnought fire control accuracy rose so fast in the ten-year period from launching of the first dreadnought in 1906 to Jutland in 1916 that ships were effectively obsolete 7-8 years after commissioning.

    Refitting dreadnoughts with newer fire control systems was not possible due to the much higher electric power demands of such systems and the paucity of electric power on older dreadnoughts. Major rebuilding of older ships with new electric power cable runs piercing bulkheads and armor would have been required, such that investment in newer ships was more cost-effective.

    The US Navy is very aware of this issue concerning its projected medium-term future beam weapons, and has publicly been looking for a solution. I am very skeptical of this cold fusion development.

  • Trent Telenko

    Tom,

    DARPA would not be the place to look for US Navy cold fusion money.

    NB: Currently “Black world” military procurement dollars now outnumber “White world” procurement in the US Defense budget.

  • Cevin Q

    Tom, Trent,

    Fusion is a lot further along than most anyone is willing to admit, because it’s gone black.
    There are several lines of evidence that lead me to that conclusion.
    First Lockheed’s skunk works anounced that they had made a break through in fusion and openly talked about something they are doing. The Skunk works never talks about what they do. Secondly if you watch Lockheeds little promo vid about the fusion projec, very closely, in one photo of the lab you can see a device on the table that sure looks a lot like the Navy’s polywell prototype.
    The Navy had a program running out of San Diego, to build a polywell reactor. They built 2 prototype vessels before the project was defunded,and essentially vanished in 2009.
    And I think the second prototype is the apparatus in the vid.
    And shortly before Lockheed made its announcement, Boeing’s x37b just came back from a nearly two year secret mission.
    A month later Boeing files for a patent on a fusion rocket drive.
    There is talk that direct heat to electricity conversion has been done.
    Lockheed says their system will be 500Mw in the footprint of a large jet engine.
    I believe that the x37 was carrying the first working prototype, now they are working on scaling it up.
    What better place to test something like that, than space.

  • Trent Telenko

    >>Lockheed says their system will be 500Mw in the footprint of a large jet engine.

    That certainly puts the cats among the pigeons.

    Energy densities that high with direct heat to electricity conversion means

    1) Cold Fusion and

    2) We are into Science fiction made fact, AKA Imperial Star Destroyer class energy beams.

    My children may well see the slopes of Olympus Mons with their own eyes in 50 years time.

  • Steve Garcia

    Trent, I would quibble with the “1/100th the cost of coal”. Once overunity is reached, the subsequent input should come free, meaning no cost. Zero divided by coal costs would be 0/100th.

  • Cevin Q

    There have been a couple of other notable developments in the last couple of years. A private firm in LA has achieved ignition and got out more heat than they put in, in lab sized device. Another group has reported that anuetronic fusion seems to be easier to achieve in smaller devices.
    And
    The British project has achieved ignition as well.
    But ignition seems to be easy, it’s containment that is the killer, and that’s where some of the smaller programs seem to be getting a leg up on the larger national programs, like the national ignition facility.
    Several teams, including L/M, have found that high current electrical fields will contain the plasma a little easier than high intensity magnetic fields will.

    Given that Boeing and Lockheed/Martin have been collaborating a great deal lately, the writing on the wall, patents and what not, seems to show they are on to something.

    When you mention “star destroyer”
    class energy beams, we might already be there, on a limited scale.
    There was a series of events at Dugway Proving Grounds thru the mid 2000’s, that some online motorcycle acquaintances witnessed.
    In the middle of the night a beam or column of light, would eminate from the heart of the PG and would pierce the clouds and light up the night sky. Witnesses reported effects that are attributable exposure to gamma rays and xrays, and that’s from 20 miles away, and shielded by a mountain range.

  • Steve Garcia

    The fact that the unit needs to be connected to the mains and ndoes not have some of its output routed back is very troubling for me. If this is truly over unity, this should be a prominent selling point – to disconnect from the grid altogother. Whatever this Rossi guy has, itcannot be true overunity as I know it. Something else is going on.

    I don’t care what the numbers say, keeping energy coming in from the grid sends up big red flags in my mind. No true over unity device would need that.

  • Trent Telenko

    The direct conversion of heat to electricity seems common to both the E-Cart Cold fusion and the L-M hot fusion projects.

    If that facet is separable from either fusion, we have a industrial revolution right there if the heat-to-electricity conversion efficiency factor is over 42 percent.

    Wild A** guess — This may be where the need for E-Cart’s outside power comes from.

  • Tom Holsinger

    I agree with Steve. This cold fusion claim has “The dog did not bark in the night” issues.

    Cevin’s comment about direct conversion of heat to electricity has its own possibilities though. That means the fuel cost of coal-fired plants would be reduced by much more than half. Given that natural gas-fired plants tend to be combined cycle with fuel effciency in the 50-60% range, compared to 33% for coal and oil fueled plants, coal as an energy source would suddenly be price-competitive again.

    Plus the cost of generating electricity of fossil-fuel plants in general, and the pollution created by coal-fired ones, would decrease dramatically.

  • Trent Telenko

    The E-Cart cold fusion demonstration collapsed into law suit hell.

    See:

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a20454/in-cold-fusion-20-whos-scamming-whom/

  • Steve Garcia

    I am not surprised Rossi is having the problems he is having. I ran across his E-Cat claims maybe 3 or 4 years ago. Maybe more.

    He struck me as a Tesla wannabe, from his claims and showmanship.

    Each specific cold fusion tech stands or falls on its own success or failure, just as all science/tech is tested for falsification every time it is used. Some process or principle either works or it doesn’t. Once it is shown to work reliably, it’s turned over to engineers and product designers, and a product line is born, marketed, and sold.

    As an example, the LED lamps currently overtaking fluorescent bulbs. 11 or so years ago, this was an accidental discovery. Today I can buy them in the center of Mexico that screw right into regular lamp bulb sockets. They work or they don’t. They do. Solid science FACT, even if the discovery was serendipitous.

    The test is to screw them in and turn on the switch. Do they light up? Yes or no.

    There is a simple test for cold fusion: Does the thing work when you turn it on?

    That is very true for thorium LFTR reactors. All the documentation and history of the reactor at Oak Ridge back in the 1960s exist. The reactor was so unique that they would turn it off on Fridays and switch it back on, on Monday mornings. A toaster simple appliance, in a way.

    My misgivings about cold fusion thus far is that I still have yet to hear that anyone has consulted any metallurgists about the isotope sensitivity of the effect. No one has checked to see if different isotopes give different results.

    An analogy would be heavy water in nuclear research. No one questions that regular water and heavy water give vastly different results. If my metallurgists were right, then all of the reliability problem comes from exactly what my metallurgists predicted: Some would use the wrong isotopes and get nothing, while others would accidentally use the rihht isotope and get results. The offshoot is that both sides think the other side are idiots.

    Here we are nearly 30 years later, and n9 progress has been made.

    Pathetic.

  • Trent Telenko

    A re-Clovis site was found in Florida.

    See link and summary below.

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/05/160513151221.htm

    Pre-Clovis civilization in Florida; settlement 1,500 years earlier than previously believed

    Date: May 13, 2016

    Source: Florida State University

    Summary: The discovery of stone tools alongside mastodon bones in a Florida river shows that humans settled the southeastern United States as much as 1,500 years earlier than scientists previously believed, according to a new research. This site on the Aucilla River — about 45 minutes from Tallahassee — is now the oldest known site of human life in the southeastern United States. It dates back 14,550 years.

  • Trent Telenko

    I find this bit on the Florida pre-Clovis site interesting.

    So much for the mega-fauna over kill theory.

    http://michaelruggeriancientamericas.tumblr.com/

    May 13, 2016

    Pre-Clovis Find in Florida

    Radiocarbon dating at the Page-Ladson sinkhole site in Florida has shown that ancient tools, including a knife, alongside extinct animal bones were Pre-Clovis, dated to 14,550 years ago. They found a mastodon tusk with cut marks made by humans using stone tools. This proves that these extinct mastodons were not wiped out by human hunters as quickly as believed, but lived alongside of them for 2000 years. The artifact dating, stratigraphy dating and other scientific dating is unequivocal for Pre-Clovis. 71 samples of wood all matched at being 14,500 years old and they were found in the dated stratigraphy layers as matching.

    The Daily Mail has good photos with the story;
    http://dailym.ai/228WaDy

    The LA Times includes a video with the story;
    http://lat.ms/1Wx6SEp

    Mike Ruggeri’s Pre-Clovis and Clovis World
    http://bit.ly/11wqze5

    Mike Ruggeri’s Pre-Clovis and Clovis World Magazine
    http://bit.ly/1uAWdvk

  • Trent Telenko

    Even better, see this link —

    http://mikeruggerispreclovisnews.tumblr.com/

  • CevinQ

    Hey trent,
    The old vero man site is a fascinating site.
    Im certain there will eb even older finds there.
    I’ve got some issues with how this has been reported.
    How can they possibly say, “oldest known site of human life in the southeastern United States. It dates back 14,550 years.”, when Topper in South Carolina predates it by a min. of 1.5k years and a likely by more than 6.5 k years.
    And all the hoopla on how this find will ” re-write the history of the peopleing of the americas”
    It will do nothing of the thing, since there is plenty of evidence for people in the new world, both north and south america, going back at least 50k years.

  • Trent Telenko

    CevinQ,

    More evidence of humans before Clovis is useful, whatever the hype.

  • Steve Garcia

    CevinQ –

    That is why people who really are interested in such things can’t just take popular science articles as their only sources of science news. The author of this obviously did not do due diligence before writing that the Florida site was the oldest in the SE. Now, did he pluck that out of his (deficient) memory? Or did the paper’s researcher lie to him about that? I can’t imagine that anyone researching pre-Clovis in the SE could possibly not know about Topper, LONG AGO.

    Of course – LOL – the author(s) may not think of S Carolina as SE USA. In which case he/they are too sloppy to have knowledgeable people accept their work in the future. Anyone who doesn’t know that SC is in the SE USA – how much would YOU trust what they say? I’d start with skepticism.

    This KIND of error is part of my own overall general skepticism. I’ve seen so many glaring misstatements and misrepresentations and cherry picking that in each paper or article, I kind of am mentally challenging every sentence, comparing to what I’ve learned elsewhere. If there is ONE conflict with past information, they get a more severe vetting from that point on.

  • Steve Garcia

    Trent –

    Yes, and the more Clovis and pre-Clovis in the SE are reported, people can begin to understand that the main areas of human habitation in the Americas was in fertile places, not in deserts like Blackwater Draw.

    It has been odd as hell that damn near everywhere early people are found in the Old World, the sites are along waterways and shores, but in the USA somehow people have been seen to have preferred hunting out in the Great Plains (also known as the Great American Desert in the past) or deserts. It is as if arkies think people got instantly dumber once the hit America. I know, given some of our politics on recent years, that is an easy bridge to cross, but it’s at least a bit illogical.

  • it’s me

    wow I just looked at that and wow such pretty and sterile moon dirt that was left there in that spot, I had expected that the moon dirt would have been mostly on top of the dead and dieing animals and animal debris, and yes with some dead being above the moon dirt because of how some of the dead and dying which had not been landed on and crushed by the moon directly by landing on them . These who had not been landed on but were with in the re-waters flow had had to have washed over the moon dirt also as the moon pushed us like a keel of a boat in water . so tell guys is there dead animals below and above the gray sterile moon layer ? and where ecactly is the most dead things under the sterile moon dirt layer … because that should prove where the moon hit us . what do they call the bones or the age when it is below the sterile gray moon layer?

    BUT boy that is a perfect moon layer right there , just dirt so foreign burnt and sterile like nothing alive ever lived on it , maybe because nothing ever did.

  • Trent Telenko

    Steve Garcia knew this —

    Asteroids might not be as dangerous as you think! Most space rocks are weaker than those on Earth and crumble on entry

    •Space rocks fall to Earth as meteorites all the time, but few are recovered
    •Scientists usually reluctant to crush them, so use Earth rocks for tests
    •But a team in the US has tested samples of meteorites for their strength
    •Found they are almost as brittle as concrete and likely to break apart

    By Abigail Beall For Mailonline

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3604482/Asteroids-not-dangerous-think-space-rocks-weaker-Earth-crumble-entry.html

  • it’s me

    probably just” the Atlantic ocean”.

  • it’s me

    wow I found it ..http://www.postandcourier.com/20160521/160529887/topper-site-find-reveals-people-were-here-long-before-previously-thought
    and just look at all that sterile moon dirt > yes it appears the stuff under the moon dirt is being falsely dated to 50000 years old and the stuff on top is being dated to about 12000 years ago and it really all happened exactly the same day about time, times and half time ago ( ps that means less than 3500 years ago) at the bronze age collapse and that isn’t even Noah’s Flood but just the Re-waters and they got it that wrong. That event which has been memorialized as Serpent Mound here and on the Rhinestones by the PICT’s and as Mr Bard points out as the dragons chasing the orb(? moon?) by the Chinese and just way too many other nations stories to name them all. my guess is that the Orb was the moon , it has to be the moon I mean the moon left it’s footprint and it now our footprint is all over the face of the moon . have fun guys I think it is coming out of Serpentarius/Ophiuchus… might I suggest you get whatever it was that you all get what Shadrach , Meshach and abendigo had that you don’t . ISA. 23 and 24… is the round two.

  • Trent Telenko

    Returning to the subject of the YDB, we seem to have new support via research at the LLNL, of all places.

    See —

    Shock compression research shows hexagonal diamond could serve as meteor impact marker

    Date: March 14, 2016

    Source: DOE/Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

    Summary: In 1967, a hexagonal form of diamond, later named lonsdaleite, was identified for the first time inside fragments of the Canyon Diablo meteorite, the asteroid that created the Barringer Crater in Arizona. Since then, occurrences of lonsdaleite and nanometer-sized diamonds have been speculated to serve as a marker for meteorite impacts, having also been connected to the Tunguska explosion in Russia, the Ries crater in Germany, the Younger Dryas event in sites across Northern America and more.

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160314111359.htm

  • Steve Garcia

    Trent –

    They actually claim to have found remnants of the body that created Barringer?

    Really???

    Why am I skeptical about such a claim?

    Because everything I’ve read until now asserted that no meteorite was found in Barringer Crater. In reading so far, I can’t find anything that explains why they tie Canyon Diablo materials with Barringer. Assertions that they are connected, yes. Assertions are not evidence.

    I am willing to be convinced, but at least mildly skeptical.

  • CevinQ

    steve,

    “At the time of first discovery by Europeans, the surrounding plains were covered with about 30 tons of large oxidized iron meteorite fragments. “

  • Steve Garcia

    CevinQ – I don’t consider ScienceDaily a source. It’s science for the masses and is not required to meet any standards.

  • Steve Garcia

    They also don’t say who or when. What century? What decade? Any names? “30 tons” sounds like a lot of exact measurements over a lot of time, with Europeans mostly passing through. Who compiled the totals?

    “The first discovery by Europeans” means nothing to me. Was it Spanish conquistadors? If so, how would they have known that they were meteor fragments, since rocks falling from the sky was not accepted by science till about 1810?

    I would also ask that if that assertion is true, then why did Barringer fail so miserably in finding anything after so many years? He certainly would have had his ear to the ground about finds in the area.

  • CevinQ

    The reason they tie canyon diablo frgments to the crater, is because fragments were found on the rim of the crater, come on man.

    Heres is a list of the best known fragments found at the crater,

    “The biggest fragment ever found is the Holsinger Meteorite, weighing 639 kilograms (1,409 lb), now on display in the Meteor Crater Visitor Center on the rim of the crater. Other famous fragments:

    485 kilograms (1,069 lb), Canterbury Museum, Christchurch, New Zealand. The largest fragment outside the United States.[5]
    360 kilograms (790 lb), Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle (MNHN), Paris
    242.6 kilograms (535 lb), Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona[6]
    225.9 kilograms (498 lb), Academy of Natural Sciences of Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
    194 kilograms (427 lb), Beloit College, Beloit, Wisconsin.
    162 kilograms (357 lb), Meteorite Museum, University of California, Los Angeles [7]
    136 kilograms (300 lb), Franklin Institute, Philadelphia.[8]
    122 kilograms (269 lb), Griffith Observatory, Los Angeles, California. Fragment loaned by the Geology Department of Pomona College.
    179 kilograms (395 lb), Griffith Observatory, Los Angeles, California.
    100 kilograms (220 lb), California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco.
    54 kilograms (119 lb), Newark Museum, Newark, New Jersey.
    Basket Meteorite (22 kilograms (49 lb)), Meteor Crater Museum, Arizona.[9][10]”

    “They also don’t say who or when. What century? What decade? Any names? “30 tons” sounds like a lot of exact measurements over a lot of time, with Europeans mostly passing through. Who compiled the totals?

    “The first discovery by Europeans” means nothing to me. Was it Spanish conquistadors? If so, how would they have known that they were meteor fragments, since rocks falling from the sky was not accepted by science till about 1810?

    I would also ask that if that assertion is true, then why did Barringer fail so miserably in finding anything after so many years? He certainly would have had his ear to the ground about finds in the area.”

    With all due respect Steve, now your just being a tool.

    Berringer was looking for a 100 million ton chunk of iron, something that we now know doesnt exist, since the impactor was 300,000 tons and mostly vaporized.

    “In a new paper published by Nature Communications, a team of researchers, including scientists from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), provide new insight into the process of the shock-induced transition from graphite to diamond and uniquely resolve the dynamics of the phase change.”

    So a peer reviewed paper by some of the foremost material scientists in the world is “science for masses”

    I’ve actually read the paper in Nature, you might want to give it a try.

    “The shock-induced transition from graphite to diamond has been of great scientific and technological interest since the discovery of microscopic diamonds in remnants of explosively driven graphite. Furthermore, shock synthesis of diamond and lonsdaleite, a speculative hexagonal carbon polymorph with unique hardness, is expected to happen during violent meteor impacts. Here, we show unprecedented in situ X-ray diffraction measurements of diamond formation on nanosecond timescales by shock compression of pyrolytic as well as polycrystalline graphite to pressures from 19 GPa up to 228 GPa. While we observe the transition to diamond starting at 50 GPa for both pyrolytic and polycrystalline graphite, we also record the direct formation of lonsdaleite above 170 GPa for pyrolytic samples only. Our experiment provides new insights into the processes of the shock-induced transition from graphite to diamond and uniquely resolves the dynamics that explain the main natural occurrence of the lonsdaleite crystal structure being close to meteor impact sites.”

    http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2016/160314/ncomms10970/full/ncomms10970.html

  • Steve Garcia

    CevinQ –

    I am at a loss as to why the multiple things I’ve read about Barringer and his search did not mention the ejecta found outside the crater. Either I read sloppily or the sources were sloppy. I have no idea at this point.

    I don’t see that you’ve answered as to when or by whom. I will take it at this point that the “by whom” is not important, but I AM curious about the chronology of finding the fragments.

    As I read it, the paper discusses things other than what I was addressing. Still, I am happy to read the latest developments about the mechanics of diamond-forming in impacts. I like to understand these things in as much detail as possible (which is often where my questions come from). There is some very informative stuff in there.

    Wow, I got a surprise. As to the meteorites, in looking at the Holsinger Meteorite at http://cseligman.com/text/meteors/holsinger.jpg, I see the fusion crust of a DIRECTLY entering object. That surface to me looks exactly like a crust made prior to the meteorite slowing down. It is caused by ablation of the frontally exposed surface. Fusion crusts only form a few millimeters thick and would be/should be the most susceptible part of the object as it hit and formed a crater.

    From looking at it, I am virtually certain that that surface would not have survived in that condition if it was ejected out of the crater. At the pressures within the crater, that object would have been vaporized – or would have continued under the crater and buried itself deep.

    My guess? It was an accompanying fragment that never got to Barringer Crater itself. How an iron meteoroid/meteor with its inherent internal cohesiveness and density could break apart before impact I am not informed about, so it is a shot in the dark. But THAT meteor never saw the inside of Barringer, IMVHO. That fusion crust gives it away.

    So, basically, I am questioning the interpretation of this as an ejected piece of Barringer’s impactor.

  • Steve Garcia

    Jim Coyle emailed me about the Hoba Meteorite, which is the largerst meteorite of them all at 66 tons.
    http://geology.com/records/largest-meteorite/

    I thought others would be interested…

    They seem to see oddities in it, in good part because there is no crater. In looking at it, I see an object that can be explained with what I think I understand of meteors and ablation and aerodynamics. (The last of those I am weak on, but I THINK I can explain it,. if anyone cares to ask.) It’s a pretty cool object, in shape and characteristics.

  • Barry Weathersby

    Visited Barringer crater not too long ago. There are lots of iron fragments on display and quite a bit of exploratory digging going on in the bottom looking for whatever. There is a story Barringer hoped to find large nickle deposits as they did in a crater in Canada but no nickle was found. Great tour and views of the crater. Great place for meteor fans to visit. Also, great RV park near the entrance if you RV.

  • Steve Garcia

    Hmm… Comment last night did not take…

    Again:

    The Canadian crater is Sudbury (generally accepted as ~1.7-1.8 billion years old), just above Lake Huron and almost on the same axis as Saginaw, with semi-close to the same alignment. LOTS of metals in Sudbury. In itself that makes it somewhat unique.

    While Sudbury was long thought to be a meteor crater, in 2014 a paper declared it to be from a comet. Either way, the metals seem to be assumed to come from the mantle’s magma.

    Vredefort Crater (2.0 billion years old) in S Africa is bigger but apparently has no such magmatic metals that were brought up and concentrated.

    I’ve been looking into Sudbury of late, and I am not convinced of the standard story on it. I don’t have an alternative answer, though.

    LOL – some of you may think I don’t believe anything. I just happen to notice inconsistencies. And inconsistencies to me suggest that someone is missing something that might might change the interpretation(s).

  • Barry Weathersby

    Steve… you may not believe anything but I have a really cool Meteor Crater T shirt!

  • Barry Weathersby
  • Steve Garcia

    I found this at WattsUPWithThat…

    Why did agriculture start 13,000 years ago? https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/06/25/why-did-agriculture-start-13000-years-ago/

    I don’t agree with Anthony Watts’ embarrassingly simplistic thinking, but we do need to think about the start of agriculture (and the domestication of animals, and the beginning of writing, and more) in its context with the YDB.

    Uniformitarian-think keeps using crowbars of all sorts to pry/force all sorts of things into the gradualist meme. We can’t blame them – that’s all they’ve got to work with (so they think). So everything has to be wrangled and bent and twisted, no matter how much, in order to fit it into uniformitarianism.

    In engineering we used to have a running joke – “Cramming 10 pounds of shit into a 5-pound bag.” That is what the crowbar tries to do. But it doesn’t fit.

    “If it does not fit, you must acquit.” (Johnny Cochran in the OJ Simpson trial…)

    We have a superior concept.

  • CevinQ

    Steve,

    The post you linked to is embarrassingly simplistic, and brings to mind a shirt I saw online this morning that said, “I might be a great welder, but I cant fix stupid”

    The first simplistic assumption is that all agriculture has its roots in the grass bearing anatolian uplands. Umm, NO, ancient people of south and south east asia were cultivating edible palms as far back a 40kish years ago, the people of east central and coastal asia were cultivating berries and acorns 25K years ago, and you can follow the spread of the fig from its native homelands in NE africa, as humans started to move out of there and into arabia and the levant starting about 200k years ago.
    In terms of near eastern roots of agriulture, it begins during the LGM 23kya,

    “Weeds are currently present in a wide range of ecosystems worldwide. Although the beginning of their evolution is largely unknown, researchers assumed that they developed in tandem with cultivation since the appearance of agricultural habitats some 12,000 years ago. These rapidly-evolving plants invaded the human disturbed areas and thrived in the new habitat. Here we present unprecedented new findings of the presence of “proto-weeds” and small-scale trial cultivation in Ohalo II, a 23,000-year-old hunter-gatherers’ sedentary camp on the shore of the Sea of Galilee, Israel. We examined the plant remains retrieved from the site (ca. 150,000 specimens), placing particular emphasis on the search for evidence of plant cultivation by Ohalo II people and the presence of weed species. The archaeobotanically-rich plant assemblage demonstrates extensive human gathering of over 140 plant species and food preparation by grinding wild wheat and barley. Among these, we identified 13 well-known current weeds mixed with numerous seeds of wild emmer, barley, and oat. This collection provides the earliest evidence of a human-disturbed environment—at least 11 millennia before the onset of agriculture—that provided the conditions for the development of “proto-weeds”, a prerequisite for weed evolution. Finally, we suggest that their presence indicates the earliest, small-scale attempt to cultivate wild cereals seen in the archaeological record.”

    http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0131422

    So just from that site alone the assertion that agriculture development is tied to C02 levels falls on its face.

    You are right that the widespread start of agriculture around the world is tied to the onset of the Younger Dryas, as the extreme change in climate patterns and wildlife habitats pushed people to new subsintance patterns.
    It shows in the new world,with the development of domesticated plants like corn, beans and squashes, in SE asia with the start of rice agriculture and of course in anatolia with the cereal grains and long term storage of said grains, all around 11kya.

  • Steve Garcia

    CevinQ –

    Hey, I DID say it was simplistic, too, didn’t I? The linked article is even shorter than Anthony’s.

    Thanks for your comments that add a lot to the picture. It’s a very good point that all human-assisted edible plants are not grains. Much of the world historically gets its carbs from taro

    —FYI, and whatever it might someday mean, your 200k date happens to match the age that the Berbers claim for their society in far NW Africa. (With sea levels so much lower prior to the YDB, according to present science, the Straits of Gibraltar would have been a walkable isthmus for most of that 200k, so they would have been contemporary in Spain and SW Europe with Neandertals.) Does it mean anything? In time, perhaps.

    It is probably my latent and blatant skepticism, but I accept Israeli findings of “earliest agriculture” with a grain of salt, because they are specifically LOOKING for these things, while elsewhere around the world there is very little or no research into this topic. Yes, they are finding early, early indications of sedentary societies – because they are looking for them. I accept that they are finding them but think we aren’t finding them elsewhere because no one is looking. YET. I fully expect that in time earlier settlements will be found in various places.

    Just as you point out the non-grain plants, I suggest that even what they find can only be – SHOULD only be – seen as “earliest SO FAR and earliest only of THIS kind of food plants”.

    With the migration across southern Asia and even to Australia by at least 45kya, there were certainly thousands of locations that would have/could have been settled. Nomads don’t keep moving if the pickings locally are good. They have no “food reason” to move onward. And the Out of Africa meme does insist that people did stop along the way. Along that route alone should be found many early, early domesticated plant sites – once they begin looking for them. And given the climate along that Asian route, grains may not be the plants found.

    So, though these folks found the earliest locations SO FAR, the previous “so far” was eclipsed, and so will this one. We are only a short time in the research into this, so expect to see many cases were “so fars” are eclipsed.

    I would ask the question, in this particular case: “How did the climate allow for cultivation in this location? If the wind patterns at the LGM were the same as now (highly doubtful, but not taken into account yet), why would a place this far from the polar ice have a suitable climate? As far as that goes, the entire region?

    With no explanation for WHY ice (supposedly) ran as far south as northern Poland, there can not follow any explanation for why the Sea of Galilee was cultivatable, either. One cannot disconnect the two. Only by having Galilee closer to northern climate (or by changing the prevailing wind currents) can Galilee have changed from an emmer-growing location to the desert it is now (sans irrigation).

    The passage, “The archaeobotanically-rich plant assemblage demonstrates extensive human gathering of over 140 plant species and food preparation by grinding wild wheat and barley,” is startling. Gathering over one hundred species? Does this mean in the agricultural period, or in the hunter-gatherer period? Either way, it implies a SUPER long period for the accumulation of human knowledge about what is edible and what is not. It does not seem possible that this statement could mean cultivable plants. That they almost immediately mention “small-scale attempt to cultivate wild cereals” MUST indicate that this 140 is during the hunter-gatherer period. 140 is not small-scale.

    But then, do they talk about 140 in just THAT location? If so, that is even MORE remarkable. What place NOW has 140 different edible plants? What place now has even FORTY? I pretty sure I could not name 140 specific edible plants, even now. I’d begin slowing down after a few dozen.

    I see some of this as very strange.

    Let’s also take into consideration Gobekli Tepe. It is a fully-fledged, fully developed architecture. That alone indicates that sedentary societies existed for a very long time – certainly a few thousand years. Thus, anyone asserting that 13,000 years ago might have been the earliest of the early cultivated plants would be dead wrong, right off the bat. With 13kya ruled out, 23kya seems at least in the range of possibility. A bit early? Who knows? If we compare those 11,000 years from 23kya to 12kya (Gobekli Tepe) to OUR last 11,000 years, how far did OUR architecture develop after 13,000ya, up to 2,000 years ago? Gobekli Tepe stands in good/fair comparison to Roman architecture.

    The real question might not be how long ago, but how long did agriculture LAST at Galilee? When did it stop? My guess is at 13kya.

  • Trent Telenko

    I ran across this and it seems to apply to forgotten clovis technology —

    Researchers discover how rope was made 40,000 years ago
    Archaeologist from the University of Tübingen present a sophisticated tool carved from mammoth ivory that was used to make rope

    https://www.uni-tuebingen.de/en/newsfullview-landingpage/article/menschen-nutzten-schon-vor-40000-jahren-spezielles-werkzeug-zur-seilherstellung.html

    Video of the Ice Age technology: https://youtu.be/Z5B6ndWjKJg
    Video – How the ivory artifact was used to make rope: https://youtu.be/N1VSNKvzZEM
    Video – Researchers at the University of Liège making rope: https://youtu.be/4WedyatF_zY

  • trent telenko

    Hummm…gene identification technology is giving anthropologists what for.

    See:

    Homo sapiens interbred with THIRD species of hominin on way to Australia: DNA study finds mystery new ancestor
    •Scientists sequenced genomes of indigenous Australians, Papuans, people from the Andaman Islands and populations from mainland India
    •Found parts of their DNA did not match any hominin species on record
    •Questions findings that modern humans populated Asia in two waves

    By Mark Prigg For Dailymail.com

    Published: 17:36 EST, 25 July 2016

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3707766/Mystery-ancient-human-ancestor-DNA-Andamanese-tribe-Experts-say-previously-unknown-extinct-hominin-bred-human-migration.html

  • Steve Garcia

    trent –

    That articles concludes with:
    Professor Jaume Bertranpetit at Pompeu Fabra University in Spain made the discovery after looking at the genomes of indigenous Australians, Papuans, people from the Andaman Islands and from mainland India.

    They found parts of their DNA did not match any hominin species on record.

    FYI: A good friend, Lloyd Pye, before he died in 2014 was able to finally get his Starchild skull fully DNA tested. NEITHER nuclear DNA nor MtDNA matched any hominin species on record – NOR any other animal’s DNA on record. The Starchild skull was found in NW Mexico and C14 dated to about 900 years ago.

  • It’s in fact very complicated in this busy life
    to listen news on TV, therefore I only use internet for that
    purpose, and get the hottest information.