Luminescence Dating - Science method

In any OSL phosphor we require optical energy more that the thermal trap depth of that trap for optical stimulation. For example in case of Al2O3:C we require 2.6 eV photon to detrap the electron from the trap having 1.12 eV thermal trap depth. How are they related to each other?

When we understand dating methods as being based on models (i.e. representations of some portions of reality), we shall ask ourselves whether those models are linear deterministic, non-linear deterministic, stochastic, or hybrid. I am under the impression that often archaeologists expect dating methods to behave in a linear deterministic way, while they most often behave stochastically or in a hybrid way. It looks like this misconception may be particularly problematic when combinig the results of different dating methods (scientific, archaeological, historical) to obtain a general chronological framework for a site or a period. What do you think? Which examples would you provide to illustrate the deterministic, stochastic and/or hybrid models used in archaeological chronometry?

We found a historic cathode-ray oscilloscope manufactured by Trüb Täubner in Zurich Switzerland 1946. This device is equipped with a radium 226 source and I would like to understand what the purpose of this source is. Was it common to use radioactive sources in such devices for high voltage analysis?

I have ~5mm thick potsherds which are of archaeological importance. I want to date them using OSL. What steps should I follow during sample preparations and after sample preparation should I target feldspar or quartz or polymineral? 

I am interested in compiling a list of all the REVIEW papers for luminescence dating and dosimetry, going back to at least 1980. I realize there are literally over a 100 such papers (possibly 200 such papers), but I would like to know of any articles in journals I may not read routinely (i.e. anything starting with the word Quaternary). I have already checked the bibliography lists in Ancient TL but I think that there are probably more than a couple I am missing because they might have been published in medical or space journals. If you read this message and want me to know about your favorite review paper please send me a message . Thank you.

We are inquiring about the potential archaeological applications of OSL dating. More specifically, we are trying to determine if OSL (or, perhaps, another non-invasive, absolute-dating technique) would be able to determine the date at which the cortex of quartzite cobble was fractured. Recently, we were handed a roughly football-sized quartzite cobble, which has been in a private citizen's collection of artifacts for decades. The cobble is totally unprovenienced and has been totally rinsed clean of whatever sediments originally encased it. However, of note, the cobble is incised with what is unmistakably the profile of a woolly mammoth. This incised drawing could easily be a 19th- or 20th-century forgery of some kind. On the other hand, it may be a piece of Paleoindian art. So, we are trying to determine if there's a non-invasive, absolute dating technique that could determine when the cortex of this particular quartzite cobble was pecked/incised through, to render the mammoth illustration. We look forward to your feedback on this matter. We have already thought about cosmogenics (Beryllium) but that is very destructive. We would destroy the very thing we wish to date.

When we estimate the equivalent dose of soil samples in 3-6 meters depths we find 400-500 Gy using exp+lin or double exp fit procedures in growth curves. Are these results reliable?

In case of TT-OSL the electron can be transfered to any trap by heating and then those traps will also give OSL. While in case of TAOSL the temperature assists the electron within the same trap and OSL come from that trap only.

dating of Pliocene fluvial sediments in Danube Basin, Central Europe