Seppo Renfors wrote:

Tom McDonald wrote:

Gary Coffman wrote:


[..]

As I mentioned previously, surface blisters are not what we're
looking for in terms of the porosity characteristic of pure copper
casting. What we need to see is a foam of microscopic bubbles,
and clusters of tiny visible bubbles deep in the metal on the
radiographs. That's absent from the other radiographs on the
site.

Yes, that's why I was interested in your take on R666/55786.
If there were other good examples of melted copper, I'd have
expected that the web site would have presented them.


IT DOES!! It has been pointed to several times already. Your recent
posting is regurgitating what you have posted before. An apparent
casual visual inspection by the Museum curator, nothing more. Here is
the URL again - and don't forget to scroll down a bit!!

http://www.iwaynet.net/~wdc/copper.htm


Seppo,

As Gary has pointed out, only the item R666 (site report
artifact number), 55786 (Milwaukee Public Museum designation)
shows the characteristic porosity of melted copper; the other
copper artifacts on that page do not. My purpose in mentioning
Alex Barker's observation was merely to have an eye witness to
the artifact in question, to verify that it indeed does look
like a lump of accidentally melted or discarded copper, as
opposed to something that might have been, for instance, trimmed
off the cast after cooling. The other relevant facts about it
seem to have been adequately presented on Connor's web site.


As it is,
it looks as though I'll have to dig for other examples that
might show casting.


Listen if the seriousness of your "looking" is equal to your looking
on the web site - give it a miss. You wouldn't see anything anyway.


So far, at least as presented on this ng, the only copper
artifact that was certainly the result of melting is R666/55786.
The other artifacts Mallery (and Connor) seem to think were
cast either weren't, or don't have sufficient diagnostic
information presented to decide.

Tom McDonald