Frenemies of TalkRational:
Nontheist Nexus |  Rants'n'Raves |  Secular Cafe |  Council of Ex-Muslims |  The Skeptical Zone |  rationalia |  Rational Skepticism |  Atheists Today | 
TalkRational  

FAQ Rules Staff List Calendar RSS
Go Back   TalkRational > Discussion > Life Science Discussions

Life Science Discussions Biology, Natural History, etc.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-06-2010, 09:37 PM   #958927  /  #601
Loechelt
Senior Member
 
Loechelt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 674
Loechelt
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jet Black View Post
it would be nice if we could get farley here.
Probaby unlikely. I tried contacting him years ago. He was lied to by young-earth creationists and is quite disgusted. He just wants to go on with life and scientific research. Any involvement in this debate would be viewed by him as an annoyance. Anything that is of any importance has already been published in the scientific literature.
Loechelt is offline   topbottom
Old 06-06-2010, 09:39 PM   #958930  /  #602
Loechelt
Senior Member
 
Loechelt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 674
Loechelt
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinM View Post
Or even just get a copy of Farley's report for the later dataset; the one including the low temperatures. It's rather strange that Humphreys would publish the earlier report but only paraphrase the later one.
Strange or a cover-up? You are assuming honesty and integrity. If you take the opposite assumption, then his behaviors are rather predictable.
Loechelt is offline   topbottom
Old 06-06-2010, 09:42 PM   #958934  /  #603
Loechelt
Senior Member
 
Loechelt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 674
Loechelt
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loechelt View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
Why doens't it work at the lower temps? And why do people like Farley do experiments like this and carry the temps down low if they are not going to get meaningful results?
Dave,

As I pointed out in an earlier post (It is late so I will not look up the reference), Farley, Reiners and company do not carry the temperatures down this low in their own published works! That should tell you something. This did it in this case because Humphreys explicitly told them to. It is a case of the amateur telling the expert what to do, but because they were paying for the study, they could ask for whatever they wanted.
Why don't they carry the temps down this low?
That is my whole point. Perhaps there is a lesson to learn from here.
Loechelt is offline   topbottom
Old 06-06-2010, 10:01 PM   #958950  /  #604
Loechelt
Senior Member
 
Loechelt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 674
Loechelt
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
Another question for Dr. Loechelt ... it seems that Humphreys is actually the one who takes two domains into account, not you, since he extrapolates data from the LRD part of the curve and you only extrapolate data from the HRD. Am I missing something here?
How does the HRD enter into his calculations? Show me where? If he actually takes it into account, then you should be able to show mathematically how it impacts his answers. Show me where Dave? If you are right in your claim, then you must answer this question. If you cannot answer this question, then you must admit to being wrong.

Regarding your second statement, I want to point out your circular reasoning. I first make claims that I can model the diffusion properly by using a multi-domain diffusion model which explicitly does use both the high-temperature and low-temperature data in its formulation. Please see equations (6) and (7) of my technical paper. Then you question this multi-domain stuff and ask me to construct a simpler model. When I do so, I have to take the HRD data because it is the dominant diffusion mode. Now you question that.

Can you see the circles you are walking in? If you want to use the whole dataset, then you have to accept a multi-domain model. If you want to use a single-domain model, then you have to use the high-temperature data. You have not given any compelling argument why one should use the combination of a single-domain model and the low-temperature data. You claim that Humphreys' did not do this, but in fact he did. If you still think otherwise, then answer my question above.
Loechelt is offline   topbottom
Old 06-06-2010, 10:06 PM   #958954  /  #605
VoxRat
Senior Member
 
VoxRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 40,799
VoxRat has disabled comments
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loechelt View Post
...
How does the HRD enter into his calculations? Show me where? If he actually takes it into account, then you should be able to show mathematically how it impacts his answers. Show me where Dave? If you are right in your claim, then you must answer this question. If you cannot answer this question, then you must admit to being wrong...
Hmmm...
I can imagine at least one more option: simply ignoring this question (and all other inconvenient questions).
Quote:
You are assuming honesty and integrity. If you take the opposite assumption, then his behaviors are rather predictable.
Might be worth considering in this context, too.
VoxRat is offline   topbottom
Old 06-06-2010, 10:16 PM   #958958  /  #606
Loechelt
Senior Member
 
Loechelt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 674
Loechelt
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike PSS View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinM View Post
Yes. Humphreys uses a one-domain model with a non-linear relationship between inverse temperature and log D. As I understand it, everyone else uses either a) a one-domain model with a linear relationship between inverse temperature and log D, fitted using the high-temp data only, or b) a two-domain model in which each domain exhibits a different linear relationship between inverse temperature and log D, with the parameters fitted using all the data.
It's a bit more complex than this, but you are generally correct.

Humphreys used a "D=D0 + D1" type of diffusion equation to model his results. Where D0 is the tightly-bound He diffusion prevelent at high temperatures and D1 is the loosely-bound He diffusion prevelent at low temperatures (or, at least, that's how his paper reads; Humphreys isn't as specific to reveal HOW he derives his model). Farley and Reiners used the linear line through the high-temperature diffusion region to derive D.

Loechelt's multi-domain model isn't just the different diffusivities but a package of OTHER variables like temperature, zircon dimension, etc. All of these variables are "free" in his model because he interrelated their values through appropriate equations. That's why in his message he said (bolded red)....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loechelt
3. Loechelt model. This is the "kitchen sink" model documented in my technical paper. It has all the stuff -- multi-domain diffusion model, production rate of helium with an accurate exponential decay, and self-consistent modeling of alpha particle emission.

Some things to note. First, I used a constant temperature of 85 C for all three models per your request. Therefore, the real thermal history of the Fenton Hill site does not come into this comparison. Second, I made a correction for alpha particle emission (55% immediate loss). For models #1 and #2, this was done post processing, after the model calculations. For model #3, this was done self-consistently during the simulation. Finally, even though I am sending to you the spreadsheet with all the math and calculations, the curves for models #1 and #2 were not generated from the spreadsheet. I used a simplified version of my model instead. If you check the numbers in the spreadsheet, they match the graph. (I am not trying to play any tricks on you here!) The reason for not using the spreadsheet numbers in the graph is that I wanted a double check on my computer program. If I had some error in the code like a bad units conversion or dropping a factor of 2 somewhere, the double check should have caught it.
To simplify the Loechelt model to a single-domain model like Farley, or Reiners, or Humphreys you just need to change your "free" variables to a fixed value and the model ignores the equation-based relationships for that variable and instead justs chugs out an answer for the fixed value.

Dr. Loechelt can correct my reasoning here as needed.
If I'm off the mark entirely then I would like to know.
Mike, it is a pretty good summary. I would like to add one point, though. The equation

D = Do + D1

is fundamentally inappropriate for modeling diffusion of a two component system. The more appropriate form is to start with an equation involvling the particle fluxes, not the diffusivities themselves.

F = Fo + F1

Each flux term should have its own diffusivity, concentration gradient, etc. Adding the diffusivities is only a valid approximation if all of the driving forces behind diffusion are the same. When different driving forces are in play, then you have to combine fluxes, not diffusivites. I did similar work on the B/Si/Ge system years ago.
Loechelt is offline   topbottom
Old 06-06-2010, 10:41 PM   #958997  /  #607
Loechelt
Senior Member
 
Loechelt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 674
Loechelt
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike PSS View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Species8472 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by RAFH View Post

You fit into the list with everyone else who is wrong, he's just not sure how. But he is sure you are wrong, if for no other reason than your work does not support his assertions and assumptions.
As a YEC, Dave would most likely label anyone who disagree with him as inherently wrong simply due to the fact that their conclusions do not coincide with his theological interpretation of Genesis. To him it is purely a matter of finding where they are wrong and that is, again, purely a matter of searching long enough.

This is why you can never get anywhere in a debate with a YEC as long as the person remains a YEC. Abandoning their interpretation of Genesis is in their mind comparable to, or even directly implies, abandoning their faith in God. That is a very hard barrier to breach through, and I don't think you can break most YECs by scientific argument.
What's sad here is that Humphreys has brought up this issue (He diffusion in zircons) as a "wedge" issue to try and force-fit a 6,000 year old earth into the data.

But as you investigate further you find that Humphreys work is either amatuer or deceptive and requires correction. When properly corrected the answer fits all of the presently known science regarding the age of the earth.

So Humphreys has NOW enlightened many people on both sides of the issue to the fact that He diffusion ALSO supports an old earth. Where this type of data would otherwise be treated as so much hand-waved bunk by the creationists otherwise.

They have some skin in the game now since RATE spent a couple million dollars. And they are faced with not only seeing the CORRECT result as supporting an old earth but also overturning a (known incorrect) result that someone (Humphreys) had said gives a young earth answer.

This has nothing to do with the Bible, or YEC, or anything else for that matter. It is pure pride to attempt to hold up Humphreys and his spent dollars. As seen in this thread by myself, Jet Black, JonF, Loechelt, Febble, MartinM, ericmurphy, OA, Steviepinhead, DeanW, Black5 and almost every other poster (even Dave at one point); ALL of us have admitted a mistake whether minor or otherwise while looking at this issue. And some have had to change their initial statements totally (they got it wrong). So I wonder to a YEC mind what makes Humphreys any different? Is he now part of the Bible and cannot be altered? Talk about pride.
The other thing that is very damaging to the young-earth position is the fact that most of their arguments are static. The second RATE book is probably the last we will hear about helium diffusion in zircon that contains any new data. Everything in the last five years has been reruns. No new research. No new data.

However, the world still turns. The entire helium dating field has blossomed in the last decade, and as practicing scientists continue to do research, the evidence mounts against the RATE hypothesis. Consider this recent paper.

Quote:
Zircon (UTh)/He thermochronometry in the KTB drill hole, Germany, and its implications for bulk He diffusion kinetics in zircon

Melissa R. Wolfe ⁎, Daniel F. Stockli

Earth and Planetary Science Letters 295 (2010) 6982
The abstract pretty much says it all.

Quote:
This study presents new down-hole zircon (UTh)/He (ZrHe) ages, laboratory He diffusion measurements, and numerical thermal modeling of ZrHe ages from the Continental Deep Drilling Project (KTB) in Germany to investigate He diffusion kinetics in zircon in nature over geologic timescales and to test to applicability of laboratory-derived He diffusion kinetics. Single grain laser (UTh)/He ages, calculated using standard alphaejection correction procedures assuming homogenous parent-nuclide distribution, display a systematic decrease in ZrHe ages from ∼112 to b1 Ma with increasing depth. Down-hole ZrHe results display consistent ages of ∼8515 Ma down to ∼4.7 km, in agreement with rapid Cretaceous cooling documented by previous thermochronometric studies from the KTB drill hole. Below ∼5 km, ZrHe ages systematically decrease in age and are completely reset (b1 Ma) below ∼7.2 km. The temperature range (∼130200 C) in which ZrHe ages systematically decrease defines a well-behaved zircon helium partial retention zone (HePRZ). In addition, this study presents new, cycled step-heating experiments on zircon samples from the KTB drill hole. Results from these new KTB zircon diffusion experiments indicate an activation energy (Ea) of 160 kJ/mol and a frequency factory (Do) of 0.03 cm2 s−1 with an estimated closure temperature (Tc) of 181 C, which are in excellent agreement with published He diffusion kinetics for zircon. To compare the ZrHe results and bulk diffusion kinetics, we modeled diffusion parameters using the well-established thermal history of the KTB drill hole. The computed zircon HePRZ for the KTB drill hole is consistent with observed down-hole ZrHe ages and published and KTB-specific laboratory-derived He diffusion kinetics. Our results from ZrHe analysis from the KTB drill hole suggest that He diffusion of zircon in nature may not be controlled by anisotropic diffusion behavior, but rather behaves in accordance with laboratory-derived diffusion kinetics. The observed ZrHe ages from the KTB drill hole are in excellent agreement with predicted ZrHe age data and underscore the validity and applicability of ZrHe dating as a reliable thermochronometer.
In other words, the "Fenton Hill" study was repeated in Germany and the results support the conventional age of the earth. No excessive amounts of helium were found. No evidence for accelerated nuclear decay was discovered. Humphreys' model failed to predict data from a new experiment, which is the ultimate test for any scientific theory.
Loechelt is offline   topbottom
Old 06-06-2010, 10:50 PM   #959005  /  #608
Dave Hawkins
Senior Member
 
Dave Hawkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kansas City, MO Area
Posts: 15,482
Dave Hawkins
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loechelt View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jet Black View Post
it would be nice if we could get farley here.
Probaby unlikely. I tried contacting him years ago. He was lied to by young-earth creationists and is quite disgusted. He just wants to go on with life and scientific research. Any involvement in this debate would be viewed by him as an annoyance. Anything that is of any importance has already been published in the scientific literature.
Pretty harsh accusation from a guy who doesn't like others to even insinuate evil of him, much less come right out and accuse him.
__________________
The modern literature is full of funny ideas about the state of the natural sciences in antiquity. Those funny ideas can only come up if somebody does not study very carefully ... " --Dieter Lelgemann, Researcher at the Institute for Geodesy and Geoinformatics, Technical University of Berlin.
Dave Hawkins is online now   topbottom
Old 06-06-2010, 10:55 PM   #959011  /  #609
Dave Hawkins
Senior Member
 
Dave Hawkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kansas City, MO Area
Posts: 15,482
Dave Hawkins
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loechelt View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
Another question for Dr. Loechelt ... it seems that Humphreys is actually the one who takes two domains into account, not you, since he extrapolates data from the LRD part of the curve and you only extrapolate data from the HRD. Am I missing something here?
How does the HRD enter into his calculations? Show me where? If he actually takes it into account, then you should be able to show mathematically how it impacts his answers. Show me where Dave? If you are right in your claim, then you must answer this question. If you cannot answer this question, then you must admit to being wrong.

Regarding your second statement, I want to point out your circular reasoning. I first make claims that I can model the diffusion properly by using a multi-domain diffusion model which explicitly does use both the high-temperature and low-temperature data in its formulation. Please see equations (6) and (7) of my technical paper. Then you question this multi-domain stuff and ask me to construct a simpler model. When I do so, I have to take the HRD data because it is the dominant diffusion mode. Now you question that.

Can you see the circles you are walking in? If you want to use the whole dataset, then you have to accept a multi-domain model. If you want to use a single-domain model, then you have to use the high-temperature data. You have not given any compelling argument why one should use the combination of a single-domain model and the low-temperature data. You claim that Humphreys' did not do this, but in fact he did. If you still think otherwise, then answer my question above.
"How does the HRD enter into his calculations?" He plotted values from the HRD ... they the first 3 data points on Fig 16 of the Uniformitarian Model (Rate Book, vol 2, p. 62). See how steep their slope is?
__________________
The modern literature is full of funny ideas about the state of the natural sciences in antiquity. Those funny ideas can only come up if somebody does not study very carefully ... " --Dieter Lelgemann, Researcher at the Institute for Geodesy and Geoinformatics, Technical University of Berlin.
Dave Hawkins is online now   topbottom
Old 06-06-2010, 10:56 PM   #959013  /  #610
Dave Hawkins
Senior Member
 
Dave Hawkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kansas City, MO Area
Posts: 15,482
Dave Hawkins
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loechelt View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loechelt View Post

Dave,

As I pointed out in an earlier post (It is late so I will not look up the reference), Farley, Reiners and company do not carry the temperatures down this low in their own published works! That should tell you something. This did it in this case because Humphreys explicitly told them to. It is a case of the amateur telling the expert what to do, but because they were paying for the study, they could ask for whatever they wanted.
Why don't they carry the temps down this low?
That is my whole point. Perhaps there is a lesson to learn from here.
It's not good enough for me to simply not answer the question. Do you not KNOW why they didn't carry the temps down?
__________________
The modern literature is full of funny ideas about the state of the natural sciences in antiquity. Those funny ideas can only come up if somebody does not study very carefully ... " --Dieter Lelgemann, Researcher at the Institute for Geodesy and Geoinformatics, Technical University of Berlin.
Dave Hawkins is online now   topbottom
Old 06-06-2010, 11:01 PM   #959017  /  #611
Dave Hawkins
Senior Member
 
Dave Hawkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kansas City, MO Area
Posts: 15,482
Dave Hawkins
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loechelt View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike PSS View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Species8472 View Post

As a YEC, Dave would most likely label anyone who disagree with him as inherently wrong simply due to the fact that their conclusions do not coincide with his theological interpretation of Genesis. To him it is purely a matter of finding where they are wrong and that is, again, purely a matter of searching long enough.

This is why you can never get anywhere in a debate with a YEC as long as the person remains a YEC. Abandoning their interpretation of Genesis is in their mind comparable to, or even directly implies, abandoning their faith in God. That is a very hard barrier to breach through, and I don't think you can break most YECs by scientific argument.
What's sad here is that Humphreys has brought up this issue (He diffusion in zircons) as a "wedge" issue to try and force-fit a 6,000 year old earth into the data.

But as you investigate further you find that Humphreys work is either amatuer or deceptive and requires correction. When properly corrected the answer fits all of the presently known science regarding the age of the earth.

So Humphreys has NOW enlightened many people on both sides of the issue to the fact that He diffusion ALSO supports an old earth. Where this type of data would otherwise be treated as so much hand-waved bunk by the creationists otherwise.

They have some skin in the game now since RATE spent a couple million dollars. And they are faced with not only seeing the CORRECT result as supporting an old earth but also overturning a (known incorrect) result that someone (Humphreys) had said gives a young earth answer.

This has nothing to do with the Bible, or YEC, or anything else for that matter. It is pure pride to attempt to hold up Humphreys and his spent dollars. As seen in this thread by myself, Jet Black, JonF, Loechelt, Febble, MartinM, ericmurphy, OA, Steviepinhead, DeanW, Black5 and almost every other poster (even Dave at one point); ALL of us have admitted a mistake whether minor or otherwise while looking at this issue. And some have had to change their initial statements totally (they got it wrong). So I wonder to a YEC mind what makes Humphreys any different? Is he now part of the Bible and cannot be altered? Talk about pride.
The other thing that is very damaging to the young-earth position is the fact that most of their arguments are static. The second RATE book is probably the last we will hear about helium diffusion in zircon that contains any new data. Everything in the last five years has been reruns. No new research. No new data.

However, the world still turns. The entire helium dating field has blossomed in the last decade, and as practicing scientists continue to do research, the evidence mounts against the RATE hypothesis. Consider this recent paper.

Quote:
Zircon (U–Th)/He thermochronometry in the KTB drill hole, Germany, and its implications for bulk He diffusion kinetics in zircon

Melissa R. Wolfe ⁎, Daniel F. Stockli

Earth and Planetary Science Letters 295 (2010) 69–82
The abstract pretty much says it all.

Quote:
This study presents new down-hole zircon (U–Th)/He (ZrHe) ages, laboratory He diffusion measurements, and numerical thermal modeling of ZrHe ages from the Continental Deep Drilling Project (KTB) in Germany to investigate He diffusion kinetics in zircon in nature over geologic timescales and to test to applicability of laboratory-derived He diffusion kinetics. Single grain laser (U–Th)/He ages, calculated using standard alphaejection correction procedures assuming homogenous parent-nuclide distribution, display a systematic decrease in ZrHe ages from ∼112 to b1 Ma with increasing depth. Down-hole ZrHe results display consistent ages of ∼8515 Ma down to ∼4.7 km, in agreement with rapid Cretaceous cooling documented by previous thermochronometric studies from the KTB drill hole. Below ∼5 km, ZrHe ages systematically decrease in age and are completely reset (b1 Ma) below ∼7.2 km. The temperature range (∼130–200 C) in which ZrHe ages systematically decrease defines a well-behaved zircon helium partial retention zone (HePRZ). In addition, this study presents new, cycled step-heating experiments on zircon samples from the KTB drill hole. Results from these new KTB zircon diffusion experiments indicate an activation energy (Ea) of 160 kJ/mol and a frequency factory (Do) of 0.03 cm2 s−1 with an estimated closure temperature (Tc) of 181 C, which are in excellent agreement with published He diffusion kinetics for zircon. To compare the ZrHe results and bulk diffusion kinetics, we modeled diffusion parameters using the well-established thermal history of the KTB drill hole. The computed zircon HePRZ for the KTB drill hole is consistent with observed down-hole ZrHe ages and published and KTB-specific laboratory-derived He diffusion kinetics. Our results from ZrHe analysis from the KTB drill hole suggest that He diffusion of zircon in nature may not be controlled by anisotropic diffusion behavior, but rather behaves in accordance with laboratory-derived diffusion kinetics. The observed ZrHe ages from the KTB drill hole are in excellent agreement with predicted ZrHe age data and underscore the validity and applicability of ZrHe dating as a reliable thermochronometer.
In other words, the "Fenton Hill" study was repeated in Germany and the results support the conventional age of the earth. No excessive amounts of helium were found. No evidence for accelerated nuclear decay was discovered. Humphreys' model failed to predict data from a new experiment, which is the ultimate test for any scientific theory.
This study is about (U-Th)/He Chronometry ... an entirely different thing than He Diffusion dating. Please read Humphreys Endnote ii on p. 94.
__________________
The modern literature is full of funny ideas about the state of the natural sciences in antiquity. Those funny ideas can only come up if somebody does not study very carefully ... " --Dieter Lelgemann, Researcher at the Institute for Geodesy and Geoinformatics, Technical University of Berlin.
Dave Hawkins is online now   topbottom
Old 06-06-2010, 11:01 PM   #959018  /  #612
Loechelt
Senior Member
 
Loechelt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 674
Loechelt
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BelindaP View Post
The fact that his data replicates Humphreys is good. It means that Humphreys was at least honest enough not to cook the data. The data are correct. They just aren't valid for modeling wild.
Sadly, I wish that even this innocent statement was true. A reliable source of mine has studied the Magomedov data and concludes that Humphreys did "cook the data" by distorting the Magomedov data to fit his model. I would share more details, but I would rather let this person publish the findings himself in his own forum.
Loechelt is offline   topbottom
Old 06-06-2010, 11:04 PM   #959021  /  #613
Loechelt
Senior Member
 
Loechelt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 674
Loechelt
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
If you can arrive at Gentry's retention data with a 1.5 Ga time scale and 85C using Reiners data, then I will think that Humphreys is probably wrong. I would obviously give him a chance to defend himself, but you would have swayed me significantly.
Dave, please comment. I spent Friday and Saturday nights assembling these data per your request. I would like to know your thoughts. Do you still honor your word?
Loechelt is offline   topbottom
Old 06-06-2010, 11:08 PM   #959022  /  #614
Loechelt
Senior Member
 
Loechelt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 674
Loechelt
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loechelt View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
Another question for Dr. Loechelt ... it seems that Humphreys is actually the one who takes two domains into account, not you, since he extrapolates data from the LRD part of the curve and you only extrapolate data from the HRD. Am I missing something here?
How does the HRD enter into his calculations? Show me where? If he actually takes it into account, then you should be able to show mathematically how it impacts his answers. Show me where Dave? If you are right in your claim, then you must answer this question. If you cannot answer this question, then you must admit to being wrong.

Regarding your second statement, I want to point out your circular reasoning. I first make claims that I can model the diffusion properly by using a multi-domain diffusion model which explicitly does use both the high-temperature and low-temperature data in its formulation. Please see equations (6) and (7) of my technical paper. Then you question this multi-domain stuff and ask me to construct a simpler model. When I do so, I have to take the HRD data because it is the dominant diffusion mode. Now you question that.

Can you see the circles you are walking in? If you want to use the whole dataset, then you have to accept a multi-domain model. If you want to use a single-domain model, then you have to use the high-temperature data. You have not given any compelling argument why one should use the combination of a single-domain model and the low-temperature data. You claim that Humphreys' did not do this, but in fact he did. If you still think otherwise, then answer my question above.
"How does the HRD enter into his calculations?" He plotted values from the HRD ... they the first 3 data points on Fig 16 of the Uniformitarian Model (Rate Book, vol 2, p. 62). See how steep their slope is?
Dave, that is not the HRD. It is just the results of his inverse modeling. What I am referring to is the high-temperature portion of the laboratory experiment.
Loechelt is offline   topbottom
Old 06-06-2010, 11:10 PM   #959026  /  #615
Loechelt
Senior Member
 
Loechelt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 674
Loechelt
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loechelt View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
Why don't they carry the temps down this low?
That is my whole point. Perhaps there is a lesson to learn from here.
It's not good enough for me to simply not answer the question. Do you not KNOW why they didn't carry the temps down?
I counted way too many negatives in this statement for it to make sense. Can you please articulate more clearly?
Loechelt is offline   topbottom
Old 06-06-2010, 11:16 PM   #959032  /  #616
VoxRat
Senior Member
 
VoxRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 40,799
VoxRat has disabled comments
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loechelt View Post

Dave, please comment. I spent Friday and Saturday nights assembling these data per your request. I would like to know your thoughts. Do you still honor your word?
"still"?

You're new to the traveling Dave circus, aren't you Dr. L ?
VoxRat is offline   topbottom
Old 06-06-2010, 11:20 PM   #959035  /  #617
Loechelt
Senior Member
 
Loechelt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 674
Loechelt
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
Quote:
This study presents new down-hole zircon (UTh)/He (ZrHe) ages, laboratory He diffusion measurements, and numerical thermal modeling of ZrHe ages from the Continental Deep Drilling Project (KTB) in Germany to investigate He diffusion kinetics in zircon in nature over geologic timescales and to test to applicability of laboratory-derived He diffusion kinetics. Single grain laser (UTh)/He ages, calculated using standard alphaejection correction procedures assuming homogenous parent-nuclide distribution, display a systematic decrease in ZrHe ages from ∼112 to b1 Ma with increasing depth. Down-hole ZrHe results display consistent ages of ∼8515 Ma down to ∼4.7 km, in agreement with rapid Cretaceous cooling documented by previous thermochronometric studies from the KTB drill hole. Below ∼5 km, ZrHe ages systematically decrease in age and are completely reset (b1 Ma) below ∼7.2 km. The temperature range (∼130200 C) in which ZrHe ages systematically decrease defines a well-behaved zircon helium partial retention zone (HePRZ). In addition, this study presents new, cycled step-heating experiments on zircon samples from the KTB drill hole. Results from these new KTB zircon diffusion experiments indicate an activation energy (Ea) of 160 kJ/mol and a frequency factory (Do) of 0.03 cm2 s−1 with an estimated closure temperature (Tc) of 181 C, which are in excellent agreement with published He diffusion kinetics for zircon. To compare the ZrHe results and bulk diffusion kinetics, we modeled diffusion parameters using the well-established thermal history of the KTB drill hole. The computed zircon HePRZ for the KTB drill hole is consistent with observed down-hole ZrHe ages and published and KTB-specific laboratory-derived He diffusion kinetics. Our results from ZrHe analysis from the KTB drill hole suggest that He diffusion of zircon in nature may not be controlled by anisotropic diffusion behavior, but rather behaves in accordance with laboratory-derived diffusion kinetics. The observed ZrHe ages from the KTB drill hole are in excellent agreement with predicted ZrHe age data and underscore the validity and applicability of ZrHe dating as a reliable thermochronometer.
This study is about (U-Th)/He Chronometry ... an entirely different thing than He Diffusion dating. Please read Humphreys Endnote ii on p. 94.
Please look at more than just the title. The abstract talks about helium diffusion. I have highlighted several key phrases. Please count how many times the word "diffusion" is used.
Loechelt is offline   topbottom
Old 06-06-2010, 11:25 PM   #959043  /  #618
Loechelt
Senior Member
 
Loechelt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 674
Loechelt
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VoxRat View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loechelt View Post

Dave, please comment. I spent Friday and Saturday nights assembling these data per your request. I would like to know your thoughts. Do you still honor your word?
"still"?

You're new to the traveling Dave circus, aren't you Dr. L ?
I am trying to expect the best out of people.
Loechelt is offline   topbottom
Old 06-06-2010, 11:30 PM   #959045  /  #619
BelindaP
Senior Member
 
BelindaP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 8,922
BelindaP
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loechelt View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by BelindaP View Post
The fact that his data replicates Humphreys is good. It means that Humphreys was at least honest enough not to cook the data. The data are correct. They just aren't valid for modeling wild.
Sadly, I wish that even this innocent statement was true. A reliable source of mine has studied the Magomedov data and concludes that Humphreys did "cook the data" by distorting the Magomedov data to fit his model. I would share more details, but I would rather let this person publish the findings himself in his own forum.
Now that's just...wrong. I hate people who feel like they need to lie for Jesus.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loechelt View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
If you can arrive at Gentry's retention data with a 1.5 Ga time scale and 85C using Reiners data, then I will think that Humphreys is probably wrong. I would obviously give him a chance to defend himself, but you would have swayed me significantly.
Dave, please comment. I spent Friday and Saturday nights assembling these data per your request. I would like to know your thoughts. Do you still honor your word?
He has never honored his word that I've seen. But, if it makes you feel any better, I really appreciate your efforts. They helped my understand the concepts a lot better.
__________________
We <3 SMS.
BelindaP is offline   topbottom
Old 06-07-2010, 12:50 AM   #959110  /  #620
JonF
Accoster of Tard
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,129
JonF
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loechelt View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by VoxRat View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loechelt View Post
Dave, please comment. I spent Friday and Saturday nights assembling these data per your request. I would like to know your thoughts. Do you still honor your word?
"still"?

You're new to the traveling Dave circus, aren't you Dr. L ?
I am trying to expect the best out of people.
A good place to start. I fear, alas, you will not end there.

But I'm enjoying this in all sorts of ways, mostly but not only the opportunity to learn more. Thanks for your efforts.
JonF is online now   topbottom
Old 06-07-2010, 01:33 AM   #959137  /  #621
JonF
Accoster of Tard
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,129
JonF
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loechelt View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loechelt View Post

How does the HRD enter into his calculations? Show me where? If he actually takes it into account, then you should be able to show mathematically how it impacts his answers. Show me where Dave? If you are right in your claim, then you must answer this question. If you cannot answer this question, then you must admit to being wrong.

Regarding your second statement, I want to point out your circular reasoning. I first make claims that I can model the diffusion properly by using a multi-domain diffusion model which explicitly does use both the high-temperature and low-temperature data in its formulation. Please see equations (6) and (7) of my technical paper. Then you question this multi-domain stuff and ask me to construct a simpler model. When I do so, I have to take the HRD data because it is the dominant diffusion mode. Now you question that.

Can you see the circles you are walking in? If you want to use the whole dataset, then you have to accept a multi-domain model. If you want to use a single-domain model, then you have to use the high-temperature data. You have not given any compelling argument why one should use the combination of a single-domain model and the low-temperature data. You claim that Humphreys' did not do this, but in fact he did. If you still think otherwise, then answer my question above.
"How does the HRD enter into his calculations?" He plotted values from the HRD ... they the first 3 data points on Fig 16 of the Uniformitarian Model (Rate Book, vol 2, p. 62). See how steep their slope is?
Dave, that is not the HRD. It is just the results of his inverse modeling. What I am referring to is the high-temperature portion of the laboratory experiment.
I bet Davie's referring to the points plotted as black squares at the bottom of that figure, towards the left. He may not even have noticed the white squares. Of course, that is not "entering into his caculations".

Davie, since I doubt you know, "entering into his calculations" means the numerical value of that slope being used in a calculation, or a variable representing that slope appearing in an equation, or something that would change the result of his calculations if the HRD changed. Not just plotting a few points on a graph that presents results that do not depend in any way on the HRD.
JonF is online now   topbottom
Old 06-07-2010, 02:23 AM   #959168  /  #622
Dave Hawkins
Senior Member
 
Dave Hawkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kansas City, MO Area
Posts: 15,482
Dave Hawkins
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loechelt View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by VoxRat View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loechelt View Post

Dave, please comment. I spent Friday and Saturday nights assembling these data per your request. I would like to know your thoughts. Do you still honor your word?
"still"?

You're new to the traveling Dave circus, aren't you Dr. L ?
I am trying to expect the best out of people.
Yet you accuse Humphreys of lying to Farley and cooking Magomedov's data?
__________________
The modern literature is full of funny ideas about the state of the natural sciences in antiquity. Those funny ideas can only come up if somebody does not study very carefully ... " --Dieter Lelgemann, Researcher at the Institute for Geodesy and Geoinformatics, Technical University of Berlin.
Dave Hawkins is online now   topbottom
Old 06-07-2010, 02:36 AM   #959174  /  #623
Dave Hawkins
Senior Member
 
Dave Hawkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kansas City, MO Area
Posts: 15,482
Dave Hawkins
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loechelt View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
If you can arrive at Gentry's retention data with a 1.5 Ga time scale and 85C using Reiners data, then I will think that Humphreys is probably wrong. I would obviously give him a chance to defend himself, but you would have swayed me significantly.
Dave, please comment. I spent Friday and Saturday nights assembling these data per your request. I would like to know your thoughts. Do you still honor your word?
Actually, I figured out how to do the calculations myself (with Voxrat's help) and the calculations you made were not what I asked for but that's OK. I've figured out that the only way your old earth model has a chance at working is if you have very low temps (like 85C) and you extrapolate the high temp data and ignore the low temp data. It seems doubtful to me that you can do this -- JonF has already admitted that vacuum testing is justified so this seems to mean that ANY data you get in a vacuum test is good ... you can't just cherry pick. As for Reiners and Farley not doing low temp testing, I'm guessing that there is some reason other than "it's not valid" ... I do know that they are interested in (U-Th)/He chronometry and I'm pretty sure they have NO interest in He diffusion dating so I'm thinking the reason they don't take their tests lower maybe has something to do with this. You apparently don't know the reason yet you seem to be sure that this data should be ignored. So my challenge now is to try to figure out why Reiners and Farley don't test at lower temps and see if it has any relevance to the present discussion. As for the abstract you posted, I guess I'm not following what your point was for posting it. Could you restate that?
__________________
The modern literature is full of funny ideas about the state of the natural sciences in antiquity. Those funny ideas can only come up if somebody does not study very carefully ... " --Dieter Lelgemann, Researcher at the Institute for Geodesy and Geoinformatics, Technical University of Berlin.
Dave Hawkins is online now   topbottom
Old 06-07-2010, 02:39 AM   #959178  /  #624
SomecallmeTim
That's no ordinary rabbit!
 
SomecallmeTim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Mt. View, CA
Posts: 5,279
SomecallmeTim
Default

You're back to being an arrogant prick again Dave.
__________________
"We measure heat in watts, dumbshit." - Schneibster

"You can think of Sanford as your mentally retarded cousin" - Dave Hawkins
SomecallmeTim is offline   topbottom
Old 06-07-2010, 02:44 AM   #959181  /  #625
Dave Hawkins
Senior Member
 
Dave Hawkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kansas City, MO Area
Posts: 15,482
Dave Hawkins
Default

My bad ... you did give me what I asked for ... I'll have a closer look ... but I have moved past this to the issues stated above.
__________________
The modern literature is full of funny ideas about the state of the natural sciences in antiquity. Those funny ideas can only come up if somebody does not study very carefully ... " --Dieter Lelgemann, Researcher at the Institute for Geodesy and Geoinformatics, Technical University of Berlin.
Dave Hawkins is online now   topbottom
Closed Thread

  TalkRational > Discussion > Life Science Discussions

Tags
"algebras, a cromulent discussion, could sanshou be the one?, dave the king of science, don't mention sanshou, how do they work?", wishful thinking, would sandshoe tea be fun

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2008 - 2014, TalkRational.org