FT-IR

[Brian S]

Can we get some perspective here on what we expect from FTIR on RKs, EKs? How it's done, how "conclusions" are arrived? Dirt? Database of paints?

I'm looking for Infrared by the way, I am not sure what Infared is.

I appreciate input from anyone if it doesn't turn into nasty personal insults and insinuations. To most of us it is searching for answers rather than paying for pre-conceived conclusions.

[Dietrich Maerz]

That's a very good idea! Maybe Tom can explain what he discussed with the lab, how he lined them up to get the quotes and what they told him the results will and can be.


Dietrich

[Dietrich Maerz]

This is what I found so far:


Infrared spectroscopy can also be used to identify generic paint types as these also have distinct infrared spectra. This information may be required for the purpose of over painting with a compatible paint system, selecting a suitable paint stripper to remove multiple layer paint systems or for the purposes of obtaining data for historical records. Due to the requirement of a small sample size, individual layers of paint can be analysed using infrared spectroscopy within a multiple layered paint system, provided they can be separated. As in the case of sealants the instrument is capable of detecting very slight differences between resins and figure 3 shows the infrared spectra of alkyd resins variously modified.

[George Stimson]

It would be nice to know what kind of analysis technique we are dealing with, what results it provides, and what the interpretation of those results means, before we are presented with such information in the context of a completed test....

[tom hansen]

Can we get some perspective here on what we expect from FTIR on RKs, EKs? How it's done, how "conclusions" are arrived? Dirt? Database of paints?

I'm looking for Infrared by the way, I am not sure what Infared is.

I appreciate input from anyone if it doesn't turn into nasty personal insults and insinuations. To most of us it is searching for answers rather than paying for pre-conceived conclusions.

Nothing like starting out nasty and derisive ! "Paying for pre-concieved conclusions"! Brian- I would watch that one, as this is a professional chemical analysis buisness. They will be objective and will report their results faithfully. You just may not like the results ! IR spec is a tried and true means of chemical analysis and is the gold standard for compound identification. We used mass spec and IR spec at Merck commerically for identification of antibiotics compunds, so I have a "little" experience with this. There will be no wiggle room and means to deride this test, as it and mass spec are THE TOOLS of academics and industry for identification of chemical compounds. Good luck picking this one apart . It may take going back and re-writing the laws of physics.

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache...analysis&hl=en

[Brian S]

Lots of great stories on the Net about "FTIR". In the right hands this is a powerful tool.

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=8 width=300 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD bgColor=black><CENTER>The Proof is in the Spectrum
</CENTER></TD></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#ffcc33>The ability to identify and verify relics is critical to the appraisal process. In some cases, this is easy to do. A collector could save thousands of dollars just by paying enough attention to realize that his recently purchased love letter from Napoleon to Josephine was written in English. In other cases, verification can be more difficult and long in coming. A painting of four Plains Indian chiefs, signed by the artist and dated 1875, was recently shown to contain a synthetic pigment patented in 1905—thus invalidating its supposed date. (Whether or not the artist was involved in an attempted fraud is a matter that historians can now debate.) </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[Dave Kane]

Brian, that last post prior to your causing the thread to be shut down was infair


Obvisously, the poster thought better of it and 'edited' it......the intention, I suspect not for publication.

Should I now, offer the content of your PM's in public Forum???

[George Stimson]

I wish that everybody here would focus on militaria and not on stupid personality conflicts. If you want to endlessly badger someone into submission in order to prove something to whoever, please direct that urge elsewhere and stop turning this Forum into an embarrassing puddle of pi$$.

[tom hansen]

George- The issue with Brian is a sidelight. He cannot discredit a techniques that has been used for scientific analysis of compounds for decades. It is used extensively in academics as well as industry. Attacking this technique is so laughable it would be like attacking the elemental basis of matter. It is a joke, completely non-scientific, and should only be recognized as a frail attempt at deiversion from the truth. Sometimes the truth hurts and those with an agenda will be desperate to look for "loopholes" in the truth. I am sure there is an internet site that Brian can site deriding this technique. It will be referenced in the "Weekly World News". This is a proven scientfic means of analysis that has met the scrutiny of decades of investigation. Do we take Brian's word for it, or the cumulative knowledge of analytical chemistry over the last four decades ? Who has a "tall tale" to hide here- Brian or the cumulative science of analytical chemistry ?

Reagarding IR spec, please read the link I provided. Every rational person even a high school degree can understand the use and appplication of this process. Again- there is no wiggle room. No "high quality beading", No"high level of construction", no fake provenance and tales. It is raw data with a time line. Those who live in the subjective and like tales will hate this. Unfortuntely, they will be cold facts with time frames.

When this information comes out and some cry and rant about the facts, let everyone look at the facts and then come to a conclusion about the piece itself and if the reported "provenance" is fake or not. I do not care, really. I am just tired of having tales accepted as the gospel truth and not analyzed. We owe this to collectores who may decide to purchase such a piece based on these "tall tales".

[Brian S]

Lots of great stories on the Net about "FTIR". In the right hands this is a powerful tool.

I quote myself. What on Earth are you babbling on about?

George- The issue with Brian is a sidelight. He cannot discredit a techniques that has been used for scientific analysis of compounds for decades. It is used extensively in academics as well as industry. Attacking this technique is so laughable it would be like attacking the elemental basis of matter. It is a joke, completely non-scientific, and should only be recognized as a frail attempt at deiversion from the truth. Sometimes the truth hurts and those with an agenda will be desperate to look for "loopholes" in the truth.

[Brian S]

Brian, that last post prior to your causing the thread to be shut down was infair


Obvisously, the poster thought better of it and 'edited' it......the intention, I suspect not for publication.

Should I now, offer the content of your PM's in public Forum???

You go girl, this thread has run its course and exposed you both for what you are.

[Dave Kane]

Ok! Now, just to keep things in their proper place and following the Moderator's suggestion.....


Since this subject continues to be personalized , I hope that if the compounds are determined to be pre-1968 the individuals who have publicly and repeatedly scoffed at Brian's story will just as publicly apologize for their unfounded doubts.
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->__________________
George


Brian, please tell us again (without any plaintiff) nonsense, the story of Stalingrad, un-named hero (uncle) and aunty who palmed you this Rounder.

You petitioned Tom to explain his knowledge of this IR 'science' so I'm now asking you to set forth the 'history' of your Rounder.... just so we have nothing but the facts when the (test) results are in.

Will you do it...?

[tom hansen]

This is hilarious-


George- If the compounds are pre- 1968, but post 1945, I will pubically say, without reservations, that the rounder is a fake and Brian was telling the truth.


Conversely, if the compounds are post 1968, I would like for you to publically state the obvious- that Brian made up the whole damn thing and it is an outright lie. You seem to take the side of the rounder,with no evidence, time and time again. For ONCE, be objective, the results will be clear. State the obvious and stop hiding tales. It is destrtuctive to the analysis and investigation of questionable pieces to give a fee pass to unsubstantiated tall tales. By stating that they are real, you are as culpable as the teller in creating this confusion.


Brian- As Dave has stated, retell the auntie story so that we can document the details. These dates will be importnat, as a time line can be scientifically established. If the compounds are post 1945, but pre 1968, you are just an unsuspecting collector, decieved by a devious aunt. If the compounds are post 1968, well then..... the auntie is not such a bad gal after all.

[Brian S]

Simply, I feel dirty being in the same room with you two.

[Dave Kane]

Then bathe!!!


Come on Brian, relate the story as you know it today NOT as you have told it in the past!

This way we all understand the genesis of the aquisition of your Cross and there won't be any possibility of 'story telling' by others in this regard......

Not relating the story allows a great area of interpretation and allows others to relate what has been posted by you previously to be brought forth ( you can't assume the posts weren't kept )....albeit contradicting what you have asserted most recently.

Brian, I'd love to be wrong in my suspicions and observations....collectors would get a 'lottery winner' as I think most of these Crosses were bought in the $1k range. Help rather than hinder, obstruct or otherwise promulgate 'tales'!