Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Biotech Science

Petrified Wood In Days, Not Millions Of Years 76

Posted by timothy from the wood-rocks dept.
prostoalex writes "Any petrified wood enthusiast would tell you that a quality product takes millions of years to mature, following Mother Nature's course, which, of course, is very frustrating for anyone experimenting. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory now managed to get the process in few days, USA Today says. The scientific achievement will be beneficial for "separating industrial chemicals, filtering pollutants and soaking up contamination"."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Petrified Wood In Days, Not Millions Of Years More

Petrified Wood In Days, Not Millions Of Years

Comments Filter:

  • Natalie Portman (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 25, 2005 @06:58PM (#11474930)
    A piece of wood in the shape of Natalie Portman... naked and petrified!

  • Carbon Dating (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Does this word exactly replicate petrified wood? Have they tried carbon dating the samples? Could this lead to some debate about how accurate our picture of the world based on carbon dating really is?

    • Re:Carbon Dating (Score:5, Interesting)

      by pv2b ( 231846 ) on Tuesday January 25, 2005 @07:24PM (#11475192)
      Heh. I don't think whatever process they're using will change the half-life of carbon-14. That's a nuclear process, not a chemical one.

      It would be cool though, if you could accellerate radioactive decay that easilly. You could just blast your nuclear waste with it and not have to store any more nuclear waste far underground.
      • Ah, but you would have other problems blasting your nuclear waste. When it decays, it gives off radioactivity (hence the problem). But that is what lets it decay. If you could accelerate it, wouldn't you simply be causing a large burst of radioactive energy when you did it? Couldn't that be worse than buring it encased in lead in some anicent salt mines?
        • Without thinking this though properly -- i think that you could just encase the whole setup that would blast the nuclear waste in lead during the procedure. Any energy should then go towards heating up the lead, which in itself is harmless.
        • No. It would be good. Nuclear decay (also known as fission) produces energy. "Accelerate" that energy release rate enough and you can use it to generate power.

          There would be hell of a lot less nuclear "waste" if they only reprocessed it. I think only 1% or so of uranium is "burned" (decays) in nuclear reactor. A nuclear reactor only generates a few pounds of actual waste per year.

      • Re:Carbon Dating (Score:3, Informative)

        by Stroman Rebar ( 567206 )
        The process they are using will not (shouldn't anyway) affect the isotopic distribution of the carbon, so technically you could probably still "carbon date" it. But, since they were using boards bought at a local lumberyard, it wouldn't tell them much.

        If you want more on the specifics of carbon dating, check the Wikipedia:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating

        As far as accelerating radioactive decay, there is some interesting research out there about bombarding fission products with accelerated

      • Re:Carbon Dating (Score:3, Interesting)

        by NonSequor ( 230139 )
        Well, you could take a sample of naturally occurring carbon and separate its isotopes. Then you could make a mixture of isotopes to fudge the data for the appropriate age. After this, you react your carbon with oxygen to form carbon dioxide. Now here's the tricky part: you have to grow your tree in an enclosed environment containing only the carbon you've altered to have the desired ratio. The room will have to be sterilized to remove any organisms with the naturally occurring ratio of carbon in their cells
        • however given that possibility could work... it would be really interesting to see if it could be done in a sterile lab environ, or if there are other processes going on that would screw up the result.

        • Re:Carbon Dating (Score:3, Informative)

          by k98sven ( 324383 )
          Well, you could take a sample of naturally occurring carbon and separate its isotopes.

          No need for that. Just grab some mined coal. That stuff has been underground for a number of million years and has no C-14 left in it.

          From the posts here, I guess it's not so well-known, but radiocarbon dating is pretty much useless for the modern era for exactly this reason: We've been burning so many fossil fuels that we've screwed up the natural ratio of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere.
      • Due to their differing masses, C12 and C14 behave slightly differently in chemical reactions. This can be enough to cause natural fractionation of various kinds.

        However, you don't need to change the half-life of C14 to radically alter the numbers you get out of C-ratio dating. AMS dating did it all in one hit by simply counting the atoms correctly, 4eg, and any one of a dozen known natural processes (to say nothing of the preparation samples go through before analysis) can also alter the ratios on the fly.
        • While it is true that bombarding fission products (or any other radiological waste) does in fact create more waste, the half lives of the transmuted wastes is *generally* shorter then that of some of the more long-lived wastes.

          I think that was the gist of the research that I have read. Sorry, but I couldn't find a citing.

          • ...I've been well aware of it from the start, but on the other hand bombardment also massively increases the bulk of the waste (turns the substrate and container into waste also) and to a certain extent "randomises" the quantity and nature of the byproducts. Admittedly, it's hard to imagine something more poisonous than Pu.

        • Due to their differing masses, C12 and C14 behave slightly differently in chemical reactions. This can be enough to cause natural fractionation of various kinds.

          Thereby giving believers in young-earth creation a valid excuse to doubt radiocarbon dating results.

      • Heh. I don't think whatever process they're using will change the half-life of carbon-14. That's a nuclear process, not a chemical one.

        It can be a chemical process too, instead of a nuclear one, if you set it up right.

        You just need to get the desired ration of C-14 into the food chain. With mice you can feed them on yeast or algae pills made, at least partially, in an artificial environment. With a pine tree however, you'd have to operate a sealed 20m - 30m tall environmental chamber for 30 to 40 ye

    • Re:Carbon Dating (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Tarq666 ( 545095 )
      There is a small problem with your question. Actually you cannot carbon date petrified wood as it is not wood, rather it is stone. The organic material of the wood has been slowly replaced by minerals which creates a stone with the appearance of wood. C-14 dating itself only works for organic remains up to around 60,000 years, after that, the amount of C-14 is too small to give an accurate measurement of the age of the material. As petrified wood is usually aged in the millions of years, then you would n
      • On top of that, you have odd cases like pieces of non-petrified wood sticking up out of the ground in France or embedded in Hawkesbury sandstone in Australia. These have all been carbon-dated and returned answers in the thousand-of-years range, which seems to indicate either that some of the assumptions about initial conditions are badly wrong, or ideas about how rapidly landforms find themselves reshaped are badly wrong.

        • Or, of course, it wasn't actually wood. Or whatever it was had modern contamination. You can look it up here. [gondwanaresearch.com]

          • ...lots of it is genuine wood, and whether or not it was contaminated at the surface is irrelevant. The showstopper is that it is wood, which just does not preserve as wood for anything like millions of years.

            That puts a ceiling on the phenomenon of maybe tens of thousands of years, possibly at a stretch hundreds of thousands. Unfortunately, orthodox geography will not admit to a landscape changing that fast.

            • Unfortunately, orthodox geography will not admit to a landscape changing that fast.

              Yes it does. The Orthodox Church and other Christian organizations have endorsed a belief that the earthquakes that triggered the Great Flood of 1656 (after creation) changed the landscape and the environment to the point of unrecognizability.

              • ...orthodox geology.

                It turns out that his boat is just the right size (550 feet long) to ride out tsunami-sized waves. Any longer, she'd break; any shorter, she'd tip. Evidently somebody knew a lot about nautical engineering. It seems that the bilges were even self-pumped by the wave motion. Leonardo couldn't have done better.
    • I agree, this was my thought. They have already proven that the deposits in layers can be caused in a very short time frame with forces of a flood.

      The whole wood and fossils thing, and carbon dating, I think carbon dating is wierd. Isn't there old aged carbon just floating around everywhere? How does it stay yound and fresh, so when it gets trapped it gets all old?

      What life did it start at to measure its half life (i.e. you know the rate of decay, but you don't KNOW the start point? the element, it might
      • Fossils can't be carbon dated, as pointed out above. Only organic material can be carbon dated, and in fact, you DO know the starting point. All life on earth (while it's alive anyway) has a carbon-14 content within extremely narrow confines. Bacteria collected in the upper atmosphere, locked up in rocks two miles down, worms off the bottom of the ocean, or just skin scraped off some guy on the street has a c-14 content within narrower confines than could be tested until relatively recently. It's just about
  • And queue the hordes of unbelieveably improbable scenario spinning creationist kooks...nnnnnnnow!

  • Great... (Score:1, Funny)

    by vbdrummer0 ( 736163 )
    Now I can build that petrified wood computer case I've always wanted!
  • Sounds like a definite candidate for this year's Ig Noble prize in biology.

  • Any petrified wood enthusiast

    A what now? Those exist?!
    • I'll be there's a magazine dedicated to petrified wood. Hell, there's a WALKING MAGAZINE!!!!
    • There are in fact some of those around. We're the ones who show up at some public doings in a bolo (string) tie, and the clip has a hunk of 'Tiger Eye' as the decorator. Tiger Eye is in fact petrified wood, with a semi-translucent grain pattern that changes drasticly with the light and viewing angle, usually a golden tan in general color. Rather highly prized by me, I grab a new piece everytime I get a chance. Its also made into rings, but its soft enough that it wears rather dull if not repolished freq
      • No, that is absolutely NOT tiger's eye. What you are talking about does indeed exist, but it is entirely wrong to label it tigers eye.

        Tiger's eye and Bird's eye both come from a particular type of diseased maple trees. The difference between Tiger's and Bird's eye is whether wood is cut across the grain, or with the grain. (Across giving Bird's eye, with giving Tiger's eye)

        • I've seen raw, uncut tiger eye for sale. Its is definitely a stone of petrified wood origin, and not that brightly golden colored in the raw. Many years ago at a rock show, I could have bought a hunk that was nearly a board foot if measured like wood. But I didn't have the required sheckles in the pocket at the time. The guy wanted about 200 1966 dollars for it. He got it before the day was over too. There is a limited supply, so I'd expect that except for the small pieces available today in the grab
          • You are all wrong.

            Tiger eye is a form of quartz, pseudomorphous after asbestos (crocidolite in Tiger's eye, riebeickite in the case of Falcon's eye) It it the partially replaced asbestos fibres which give the woodlike sheen. Could probably find a reference at http:\\mindat.org if I wasn't feeling so lazy.
            • Unforch, the link you quoted does not resolve.

              And if its a quartz, why is it so soft?

              --
              Cheers, Gene
              • Sorry, looks like I forgot the www, so the link would be http://www.mindat.org
                Also of possible utility is www.rockhounds.com

                On topic though, petrified wood can look very similar to Tiger's eye if the grain is well preserved (I have some stashed away in my collection somewhere like this to work on when I retire). Also: petrified wood can be found in various stages of replacement, I've seen some that could probably be turned on a lathe successfully. The replacement mineral in petrified wood can be varied:
          • I've recently started to get into bolo ties, but I've been having trouble with finding quality plaques on line. You don't happen to have any links to places that will sell them online, do you? Most of what I've seen online is crap.
            • I have to agree. The last time I found anything worth picking up, it was 5 bucks for a little black velvet bag, you fill it from the bins, in a tourist trap just west of Grand Junction CO on I-70 a year ago when I was last out in that neck of the woods doing a temporary Chief Engineers job for the KREX-tv complex in GJ. I was able to sort out a few pieces of tiger eye big enough for necklaces, earrings and pendants, but nothing big enough for a tie unforch. I did get some very nice amythyst though, and a

        • "Tiger's Eye" "Bird's Eye" diseased maple -- no match

          "Tiger's Eye" "Bird's Eye" maple -- plenty of matches, here's a good image of Bird's Eye maple [oldtowneureka.com] (with a reference to Tiger's Eye). Most of the Tiger's Eye examples seem to be in guitars or hi-fi consoles, but there's a reference to a cruise ship with a "tiger's eye maple" table (at playboy.com). There's a barrette for sale [blueheronwoods.com], but the Tiger's Eye in it is the stone, not the wood.

          Lots of references to Tiger's Eye stone, but the only references to it and pe

    • Yes, they exist [drizzle.com] - and your favourite hobbies might appear as totally bizarre to them (amongst others) as to you. Some petrified wood is opalescent [milosh.net] and quite beautiful when polished up. I'm not specifically a fan of it, but dear old Dad is a rock-hound and has some breath-taking pieces in his collection.
    • Whether or not they exist, clearly the submission was meant as a joke, judging from such lines as "which, of course, is very frustrating for anyone experimenting". Obviously, experimenting with petrification is impossible if it takes millions of years.

  • Look Buddy (Score:4, Funny)

    by Deliveranc3 ( 629997 ) <<deliverance> <at> <level4.org>> on Tuesday January 25, 2005 @08:47PM (#11475859) Journal
    I'm still waiting for my fake/real diamonds! $5 a carrat my ASS!

    Frigging diamond cartels! I wanna cut some glass!
    • You can get diamond for $5 a carat no problem...

      Oh, wait... You want that all in one piece?

    • Re:Look Buddy (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I'm still waiting for my fake/real diamonds! $5 a carrat my ASS!

      There are people working very hard on this. I think the show Nova did [pbs.org] on creating diamond synthetics is one of their best.

      DeBeers [rotten.com] purposely hoardes diamonds to keep the price up ala OPEC. In fact, none of their executives can step foot inside the US as they would likely be arrested.

      Sadly, the Bush administration may let them off [buzzle.com] the hook on this.

      Only if there is honest and real competition in the diamond market (even with the synthetics)

      • Only if there is honest and real competition in the diamond market (even with the synthetics) will you see $5/carat diamonds As it stands now, many of the synthetics seem to cost as much as the real.

        As the patents on diamond manufacture start to run out in the 2020s, trust me that the bottom will fall out of the diamond market. Or do you claim that De Beers will hire Cher as the spokeswoman for a proposed patent term extension act [kuro5hin.org]?

  • At Last! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Rie Beam ( 632299 ) on Tuesday January 25, 2005 @10:55PM (#11476853) Journal
    My hope of having petrified wood delivered to my door in under a week is now closer to reality!

    • Re:At Last! (Score:3, Funny)

      by gstoddart ( 321705 )
      My hope of having petrified wood delivered to my door in under a week is now closer to reality!


      It's LOG!

      "What rolls down stairs
      and over the chairs
      and into your neighbor's dog?
      It fits on your back,
      It's good for a snack,
      Everyone knows it's log.
      It's log, it's log,
      It's big, it's heavy, it's wood.
      It's log, it's log, it's better than bad, it's good."

  • Full Text (Score:3, Informative)

    by Hoch ( 603322 ) <hochhech@y[ ]o.com ['aho' in gap]> on Wednesday January 26, 2005 @10:18AM (#11480147)
    Full Text in Advanced Materials [wiley.com]
    I love that you can always find the USA today equivalent on slashdot, but never anything more in depth, doesnt this site cater to nerds?
    • Didn't see any full text at the Wiley site, only an abstract. Complain all you want about the NYT wanting DNA samples to view their articles, they at least let you look for free.

    • Full Text in Advanced Materials

      From the page you linked:

      New users can register to purchase 24-hour access to this article.

      24-Hour Online Access to article US$ 25.00
      • Sorry that the link does not work for you. I am at a university, so it just worked without showing anything of that sort. I guess I should have known better than to blindly post that. It seems that most science journals have very expensive subscriptions. Lets all hope that this model continues to fall thanks to the internet and the cheap publishing and peer review that it povides.
  • So, where do I place my order fo a petrified log cabin?

    And would it be better to petrify the logs, then build the cabin, or build the cabin and then petrify it? Just slip a hug baggie over it, pump it full of gas...

  • Well I guess this is another use for Viagra.
  • "Any petrified wood enthusiast " I don't speak to people like that...
  • ... but doesn't wood always petrify in a matter of days/weeks. Otherwise it would rot before it petrified. Isn't this just an industrialized process that consistantly does what nature does?
    • I'm not sure this is right. I think it does have to be buried swiftly and anaerobically, though. The lack of oxygen kills most of the rotting processes (the same is true in landfills, by the way, if they process a reasonably high volume of trash daily).

      By the way, this means that most or all of petrified wood comes from a catastrophe, not from the "normal" course of events.

      • By the way, this means that most or all of petrified wood comes from a catastrophe, not from the "normal" course of events.

        No, it doesn't. There's a broad gulph between catastrophic and rapidly occuring events. Landslides for instance are quite fast enough to bury trees and preserve then. So are volcanic eruptions. As are floods and tsunamis. Some of those events may be considered "catastrophes" on a human scale, but they are ALL perfectly normal geological processes. Some, such as floods are more o
    • Well, yes, you are wrong. First there really is no time limit on mineralization processes or decay for that matter. The state the wood was in when it was buried, the climate, and ground water chemistry all affect the rate and outcome. Also, there is more than one form of "petrified" wood. Many pieces are really casts of wood fragments and retain only the external form.

      Typical replacement minerals are agate and opal, minerals that can be transported and deposited by cold water. However, there are areas
      • Update. SiC (Silicon carbide) doea occur in nature - in Nickel-Iron meteorites. It's mineral name is Moissanite (if I got the spelling correct) and it is extremely rare. In any case, it still won't serve as naturally occuring material for fossilization.

  • Maybe that could be used as the part of the process to pull the carbon out of natural circulation and reduce CO2 level in atmosphere?

Slashdot Top Deals

Trap full -- please empty.

Close