Print

[JNev]

That's correct. It's easiest to see on the outside and even so it's very subtle.  It's much harder to see on the inside.  Doesn't make sense to me either.

Really odd - one more dang mystery here.

[Mark Samuels]

Isn't that evidence on the outside of the patch, not inside, where one would think?

That's correct. It's easiest to see on the outside and even so it's very subtle.  It's much harder to see on the inside.  Doesn't make sense to me either.

Not as subtle as one might think.  Can you point me to a pic of the inside of the patch?

[Mark Samuels]

It's much harder to see on the inside.  Doesn't make sense to me either.

Yes sir, it is harder to see on the inside, from the attached posted in 'The Question of 2-2-V-1 post 204.  Is it possible that it is only on the exterior of the patch for whatever reason?  I am taken by the different coloration on many pictures of 2-2-V-1 throughout the different threads.

You have the advantage of seeing both sides with the naked eye.  Is it possible to get a high resolution image of both sides of the artifact with the same camera, lighting and settings?

[Tim Collins]

Is the vertical marking an actual indentation or merely superficial suggesting something layed across the metal effecting the corrosion/encrustation in that spot and in that pattern?

[Jeff Carter]

The clad in alclad is very soft, just pure aluminum.  I might guess the indentation is in the clad.  The clad should only be roughly 5% if I recall correctly.  I forget if its 5% on each side or 2.5% on each side.

[Mark Samuels]

If it protrudes on the outside and not the inside, wear may be more evident on the outside than the inside.

Mr. Daspit, I don't think you can have it both ways unfortunately.  If there is a 'protrusion' on the outside of an .032 sheet or patch of aluminum, there should be a corresponding visual 'depression' on the inside.  Short of there not being one on the inside, it seems more likely that the vertical lines on the outside are the result from a different source.  That in itself will not rule out the provenance of the artifact, nor prove it.  Maybe Mr. Gillespie will clear this up.

[Ric Gillespie]

Is it possible to get a high resolution image of both sides of the artifact with the same camera, lighting and settings?

Here are two sets of photos showing the exterior and interior surfaces of the artifact. Each set was taken with the same camera, lighting and settings.  The first set was taken aboard R/V Acania in 1991 immediately after the artifact was first brought aboard.  The second set was taken in 2002.

[Ric Gillespie]

Maybe Mr. Gillespie will clear this up.

As best I can tell, what we see on the exterior surface are two parallel rows of shallow bumps that have been made more apparent because, being on the convex side of the artifact,  they get scuffed and dirty when the artifact lies on a flat surface.  The bumps are dents on the concave side but they are much harder to see because, being on the concave side and being dents instead of bumps, when the artifact lies on a flat surface they don't touch the surface and don't get scuffed or dirty.

[Mark Samuels]

The clad in alclad is very soft, just pure aluminum.  I might guess the indentation is in the clad.  The clad should only be roughly 5% if I recall correctly.  I forget if its 5% on each side or 2.5% on each side.

Alclad T4 aluminum core material is copper, manganese, magnesium alloy, all non ferrous metals.  If there is an indentation in the material,  it is usually throughout not just in the aluminum clad.  An indentation on the inside most generally causes a protrusion on the outside surface.  A scrape, scratch or wear from rubbing on the outside is a different issue.  Alclad T4 is also heat treated and the aluminum clad is substantially tougher than "very soft" since it is used in aircraft construction.

[Monty Fowler]

At least now we can say, with a certain degree of safety, that the Great Font Debate of 2014 tends to support 2-2-V-1 as being The Patch as opposed to a part of the factory-built aircraft. So does Alcoa's assertion that the marking we can make out on 2-2-V-1 indicate that it was from reserve or spare stock.

LTM, who has never tried to stack stocked stockings in his life,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP


corrected catalog name of this artifact

[Ric Gillespie]

So does Alcoa's assertion that the marking we can make out on 2-2-V-1 indicate that it was from reserve or spare stock.

The whole issue of the labeling remnants visible on the surface of the artifact remains unresolved.


corrected catalog name of artifact in the quote

[Mark Samuels]

Maybe Mr. Gillespie will clear this up.

As best I can tell, what we see on the exterior surface are two parallel rows of shallow bumps that have been made more apparent because, being on the convex side of the artifact,  they get scuffed and dirty when the artifact lies on a flat surface.  The bumps are dents on the concave side but they are much harder to see because, being on the concave side and being dents instead of bumps, when the artifact lies on a flat surface they don't touch the surface and don't get scuffed or dirty.

Thank you for the images.  Can I assume, (damn I hate that word) that the discoloration is due to time and being out of the elements?  The vertical lines do not appear to be prominent or at all on the lighter images.  Do you and Mr. Glickman find that as well?  The darker images appear to show the vertical lines on the outside surface.  After a cursory examination using hue, saturation and color balance as I did in my overlay down thread I could not identify it on the inside of the artifact.  I'll burn out more of my corneas trying to bring it up if it is there, at least from what I now have to work with.  Thanks again and back to the regularly scheduled programming whilst I go find my eye drops.

[Mark Samuels]

At least now we can say, with a certain degree of safety, that the Great Font Debate of 2014 tends to support 2-2-V-1 as being The Patch as opposed to a part of the factory-built aircraft. So does Alcoa's assertion that the marking we can make out on 2-2-V-1 indicate that it was from reserve or spare stock.

LTM, who has never tried to stack stocked stockings in his life,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP

Maybe, maybe not!  In 1935 Lockheed changed from a Sans Serif to a Serif font.  The font on NR16020 in 1936 was Serif.  From what I see on the artifact, it is a Sans Serif Font.

Scroll down to 'Earhart's Electra'.

http://aluminummarkings.wordpress.com/2014/04/06/1930s-alcoa-markings/

http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/earhart/id/344

[Ric Gillespie]

Can I assume, (damn I hate that word) that the discoloration is due to time and being out of the elements?

I don't think the color has changed much, if any. The difference you see is due to bright outdoor intense Pacific light versus indoor fluorescent light and a flash.

  The vertical lines do not appear to be prominent or at all on the lighter images.  Do you and Mr. Glickman find that as well?

I don't see them on the lighter images.  I can't speak for Glickman.  I don't think he has looked for them on the lighter images.  Here is another set of photos, These were taken under low angle lighting to accentuate bends, dents and bumps.

  The darker images appear to show the vertical lines on the outside surface.

I agree.  There is no question that the lines are there.

  After a cursory examination using hue, saturation and color balance as I did in my overlay down thread I could not identify it on the inside of the artifact.

Okay.

[Mark Samuels]

Here is another set of photos, These were taken under low angle lighting to accentuate bends, dents and bumps.

Did you have 'senior moment' and forget to attach the other set of photos?