Originally posted by Ross 54
,,, It seems that if meteoric derived metals were distributed this way, it would have frequently been noticed to skew the normal isotope ratios on
Earth. Apparently, these are actually fairly consistent; and are expected to vary much less than this.
I don't know...that's why I asked if it is likely, or even possible.
This seems to be the data in question:
table excerpted from the OP's article
The argument for this sample not being manufactured on earth is that the ratio of
26Mg to
24Mg seems to be greater than
expected -- i.e. greater than what is found in nature (or the "Abundance - Observed" versus the "Abundance - Natural").
26Mg is supposed to occur naturally in a ratio of 11.3% of
26Mg and 78.6% of
24Mg. However, the sample
tested was 10.8% of
26Mg and 79.1% of
24Mg. It seems that the author of the article in the OP was saying that this
overabundance of 26Mg when compared to what is expected in nature is the evidence that this aluminum was not manufactured
on Earth.
...HOWEVER, there was also a stated statistical error of +/- 0.5%. The "Abundance - Observed" of the sample tested
was within that +/-
0.5% range of error when compared to the "Abundance - Natural".
Unless I'm missing something here, I don't see a smoking gun that tells me that the ratio in the sample had extraordinarily too much
26Mg in it.
By the way, this testing lab states that the natural abundance ratio of
24Mg is 78.6% and
26Mg is 11.3%. However, a
source I found states the natural ratio is:
78.99%
24Mg to 11.10% of
26Mg, along with 10.00% of
25Mg
(source =
Berkeley Laboratory Isotope Project)
and another source that has the natural occurring ratios at:
78.7% of
24Mg to 11.17% of
26Mg, along with 10.13% of
25Mg
(source =
Oak Ridge National Laboratory)
...both of these sources show the ratio in the sample to be even closer to the ratio occurring in nature, and both -- along with the natural abundance
stated in the article -- are within the stated error of the test in the OP's article.
Again, if I'm reading this information right (although I'm not an expert), it seems to me that this ratio of the Mg isotopes in the sample is
normal (at least within range of the error of the testing). If I'm not reading this right, can someone set me straight?
edit on 7/13/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)
edit on 7/13/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because:
(no reason given)