sci.archaeology
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Anatase

Subject: Re: Anatase
From: "IE J"
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 13:20:30 GMT
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
Russell,
no misunderstanding here - look at the first posts before I entered the
debate and presented the historic facts from experiments made in 1700's.

Inger E

"Russell Sheptak" <nospam@xxxxxx> skrev i meddelandet
news:nospam-8E76BE.11243016032006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> In article <RP_Rf.48430$d5.204640@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>  "IE J" <inger_e.johansson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > "bernard" <bernard_connor11@xxxxxxxxxxx> skrev i meddelandet
> > news:1142446393.030717.306890@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > Uwe Müller wrote:
> > > "bernard" <bernard_connor11@xxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > > news:1142407737.340088.247910@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >
> > > > snip >
> > >
> > > >My mistake was to use the banned seven letter word axxxxxe to
describe
> > > >an ore of titanium dioxide.
> > > >
> > > > Mea culpa.
> > >
> > > >Galileo muttered under his breath (But it does move).
> > >
> > > The mistake was not, at least according to my taste, the mentioning of
> > > anatase. The mistake was to present the presence or absence of anatase
as
> > an
> > > argument for the Vinland map, when in fact the argument was about
particle
> > > size, form and size distribution, which all do not occur naturally but
> > only
> > > in industrial manufactured products. Nobody doubted the natural
occurrence
> > > of anatase, in a form, that can be easily distinguished from the
> > industrial
> > > produced product.
> > >
> > > As this had been done before, your remark was interpreted as taking
side
> > > with those, that lied about the argument being presented. This mistake
has
> > > been pointed out to you a number of times, but you elected to ignore
the
> > > help.
> > >
> > > Now it really does not matter, wether this argument is true or not, if
> > > someone is not able to address a counter argument, and has to resort
to
> > > faking and lying about it instead, he/she deserves every bit of
criticism
> > > he/she might get.
> > >
> > > Not being able to concede that you misunderstood and misrepresented
the
> > > argument, lets your credibility decrease enormously. Pointing to
Galileo
> > and
> > > muttering under your breath, doesn't help you either, it only makes
you
> > look
> > > silly.
> > >
> > > have fun
> > >
> > > Uwe Mueller
> >
> > I did not take sides. I referred to the presence of axxxxxe as being a
> > factor in the discussion. How others interpreted my comment is their
> > own business.
> >
> > Bernard.
> >
> > Bernard,
> > and apart from you not taking sides, which of course is your own
business,
> > we for several years here in group been told that anatase didn't exist
in
> > nature, could have existed in any circumstances before 1930's.
> >
> > Who said that? Among others those who goes crazy at the word anatase
after
> > the Danish scholars specialist in restauration and caretaking of old
> > handwritten parchment didn't come to the of the anti-VM side assumed
> > conclusion.
> >
> > Problem with Anatase in the discussion around VM is that in 1430's in
Vreta
> > Kloster as well as in the monestries in mid-Europe Anatase was used for
same
> > purpose as the Romans used it coloring. Coloring of pages in handwritten
> > books many times took place in same room as the copying of the text did.
> > Thus it in itself makes a usage of the Anatase as an argument against VM
> > unvalid. Not to mention the glue found on VM which was used from mid
20th
> > centuries up to early 1990's in some cases to 'preserve' the documents.
That
> > VM and the other had had one or two 'conservation'works done showed the
> > Danish analyse.
> >
> > BUT of course the word anatase as well as referring to the Danish
> > specialists analyse here is stricktly 'forbidden' by some.
> >
> > Inger E
>
> Inger
>
> This is a complete misrepresentation.  No post that I've seen has
> claimed that anatase didn't exist in nature prior to the 1920's.  Rather
> the disputed claim is that the alleged uniformity in size and shape of
> the anatase crystals in the sample from the VM, in the opinion of the
> investigator, indicated to them that they were the result of the
> industrial process that produces commerical anatase as used in pigments,
> a process which really began in the 1920s.  No other investigator has
> looked at the anatase crystals on the VM and agreed (that I know of, but
> I have no interest in the topic and haven't looked) and Seppo has posted
> that the photomicrographs in the article don't seem to agree with the
> investigator's conclusions.
>
> It should be no surprise that anatase shows up in pigements.  Its not as
> common in nature as another form of titanium oxide, rutile (which can be
> made from anatase by heating) but they do co-occur, and both would be
> used to make yellows and browns.
>
> There's no problem specifically with anatase showing up on the VM.
> There would be a problem if the anatase could be shown to be the result
> of industrial processing rather than a naturally occurring form such as
> if TiCL4, an unstable titanium compound generated as an intermediate
> product of the industrial conversion of anatase to rutile,  were found
> in traces on the VM.
>
> rus



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>