In this process however, the conversion of vaporized carbon into the ion beam isn't perfect, and some of that carbon vapor is going to re-solidify and coat the inside machine as a layer of crud that gradually builds up. In the case of C14 dating, what's happening is that you're vaporizing the sample and turning it into an ion beam which is then analyzed for relative carbon isotopes. We would then subtract this background signal from all the real samples we were testing to get the actual signal. You ALWAYS got a teeny signal even with the blank because the machine was just picking up ambient background radiation. For example, I used to work with a machine that tests samples for radiation, and you routinely had to test it with a blank that had no radioactive isotopes in it to calibrate properly for the background signal. There's going to be what's called a "background signal," which is the statistical noise that the instrument picks up even when a sample is entirely blank (this is the whole basis for a negative control sample). Here's what's happening: In any sort of laboratory instrument that provides a readout, a sample with zero percent of the compound you're testing for is never really gonna give you a perfect readout of zero. You can immediately see from the title itself that this was entirely off-base from what AiG claimed. ![]() ![]() Southon, “Use of Natural Diamonds to Monitor 14C AMS Instrument Backgrounds,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 259 (2007): 282–287. Well, me being an actual researcher, I actually looked up the paper they cited making this claim, which was this:
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |