Amelia Earhart Search Forum > Artifact Analysis

New Artifact Report: A Freckle in Time

(1/18) > >>

Joe Cerniglia:
Our TIGHAR Research group, comprised of Bill Lockhart, Dr. Thomas King, Greg George and myself, are today releasing results of a year of research on the freckle ointment pot, which TIGHAR has generously published here. 

The full link is here:
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/freckleintime/FreckleInTime.html

In this report, we are sharing all our experiments and lab work.  We invite further research and analysis by you, all AE Forum members past, present and future who actively wrestle with this "poor little jar," and to whom this paper is respectfully dedicated.

Special thanks also honor Ric Gillespie and Pat Thrasher, for the hours they spent reviewing, editing and completing and to the EPAC, which provided the critique it needed at critical moments, and to the expeditionaries of Niku VI, who recovered and brought this artifact back from Nikumaroro.

We invite all comments.

Cheers,

Greg George, Joe Cerniglia, Bill Lockhart, and Thomas King
September 13, 2013

Laura Gridley:
Excellent!  Excited to read it.  Thank you for the effort and time spent doing this.  Off to read now...

Jeff Victor Hayden:
A very comprehensive report Joe, well done to the team. One point it does make very clear is that, until you have something physical and tangible in your hands then investigating and proving becomes extremely difficult. Images and photographs are open to opinion but, to have something in your hand that you can examine, test and investigate thoroughly is an advantage to say the least. Let's take this point on board and move on.

Doug Giese:
Excellent and very thorough job!

Jennifer Hubbard:
I've been lurking here for a while, but since I'm a scientist and not an aircraft researcher, never dreamed I would be posting.

My scientific background is relevant to this report, though, so here goes. This report is fascinating and thorough, and the conclusions are well thought-out.

I do see a couple of minor discrepancies having to do with the units reported on some of the analyses. These do not appear to affect any of the conclusions of the report, however, but I note them for clarity and also because I find it important to have correct units, because later researchers will often refer back to earlier reports and will rely on the units as reported.

The apparent discrepancies are:
Under "What did 2-9-S-1 contain?" this statement:
"The test results showed mercury in the interior at a level of 4 micrograms (µg) per 50 milliliters (ml) of solute."
The analytical reports by EAG show that the concentration in the liquid was 4 micrograms per liter. (The Coke bottle report by EAG shows it as 0.004 mg/L, which is the same as 4 ug/L.)
It appears, therefore, that there were 50 mL of leachate containing 4 ug/L of mercury, rather than 50 mL containing 4 ug of mercury. (4 ug in 50 mL would be 80 ug/L.)

The assumption that there were 50 mL containing 4 ug/L of mercury was used in the spreadsheet where this concentration was converted to a mass per surface area figure for comparison with background surfaces. On that spreadsheet, it appears that the units in cell A1 are ug/L, and in cell H1 should be ug Hg per cm2, not ug per liter per cm2. (The liters canceled out.)

Again, I think the numbers are correct, but if I'm following this then the units just need to be tweaked.

I'm now going to be away from computers for the next week. If I'm wrong here, please excuse me!

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page