Seppo Renfors wrote:

Tom McDonald wrote:

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.


Are you ignoring completely what is written on that site? I refer you
to my reply to Gary for more details.



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.


I see..... so now you are actually editorialising about the
information given to you. You claim "accidentally melted" contrary to
what has been said. First of all "accidental" heating in a fire is not
possible as it doesn't get hot enough. So it requires a forced draught
for it to melt, and how the hell do you generate something
specifically built for melting as "accidental"?

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.


But only if you ignore claims made on that web site. There is a
considerable amount of common sense totally discarded as well - see
message by Dickman:


It is actually unlikely any melted copper is actually "pure", but in
reality is an alloy - most probably of silver. I have pointed out
these problems previously. They are ignored, and a make believe of a
cliff of pure copper exists that people come and hack a piece as big
as they want from it. See also:



This deals with what I said above. Again this point has been ignored
including by yourself - I have noted your replies still harping on
pure copper.


The other artifacts Mallery (and Connor) seem to think were
cast either weren't, or don't have sufficient diagnostic
information presented to decide.


Your "don't have sufficient diagnostic" does NOT eliminate one single
artefact from potentially being cast. Yet what I see is claims made by
researchers being discarded in favour of ignorance, and by the use of
ignorance, as that IS what rejecting something as cast on the basis of
"don't have sufficient diagnostic" amounts to.


You're funny, Seppo. Don't ever change.

Tom McDonald