You are usually very good at critical analysis of these types of documents.
I highly recommend the document posted earlier by Avry
>I Am trying to understand this process of sampling
> and testing, and I think you're right about "
> the language guide of the conversation hints that
> the testing is to confirm prior marked Historic
> timeline as per dynasty in Egypt."
It is staggering the chemical pretreatment associated with samples.
"Earlier Egyptian dating projects on similar sample materials
demonstrated that the integrity of charcoal was strongly degraded by all but the weakest concentrations
of chemical reagents."
"At the ETH the samples were given the traditional acid-base–acid treatment (0.5 M HCl at 60 °C for
1 hr, 0.1 M KOH at 60 °C for 1 hr and 0.5 M HCl at 60 °C for 1 hr). Between the steps, the material
was rinsed to pH 7 with ultrapure, distilled water and then dried in an oven at 60 °C. The samples
were then combusted to CO2 for two hours at 950 °C in evacuated and sealed quartz tubes together
with copper oxide and silver wire. Finally, the purified carbon dioxide was reduced in a hydrogen
atmosphere to filamentous graphite over a cobalt catalyst as described by Vogel et al. (1987, 1984).
The resulting graphite-cobalt mixtures were pressed onto copper discs which were used as targets in
the ion source."
>> I was surprised to learn that the inventor of C14
> testing, Willard Libby, used 3 ancient Egyptian
> samples with "known" dates for his first tests.
> The test was considered a success because the
> dates matched. This seems to still be the
> undercurrent and I get the impression that if any
> test did not produce dates in line with the
> established by 'other means' dates, that the test
> would be considered inaccurate while the
> established dates remained unquestioned.
"Radiocarbon dating of dynastic monuments in Egypt goes back to the very beginning of this dating
method. W F Libby included three Old and Middle Kingdom samples in his initial set of known-age
samples as a test of the method (Arnold and Libby 1949). In the following twenty years, numerous
laboratories have followed Libby’s lead and analyzed similar samples. From the published results it
became apparent that close agreement with the historical chronology was often lacking. A closer
study of this disagreement was needed."
Check out the table of the results!!!
Meidum and Khufu samples vary by 1000 years
Userkef temple pre dates his pyramid by over 1000 yrs
Some samples taken from the same mud brick vary over 500 years
But at least they have the integrity to highlight which tests must have been wrong indicating too old and too young!
You are better at digging the detail.
All it means to me is it is so unreliable and so manipulated it is worthless!