Re: [meteorite-list] pendulum waves
The period of a pendulum depends on only two factors: the strength of gravity and the length of the suspending arm, string, wire, whatever. So you can use a pendulum to measure time accurately but only in one place, or you can transport a pendulum to different locations and altitudes to measure the strength of local gravity. Works either way: clock or gravimeter. The first gravity measurement by pendulum was done in 1672, and it was still the most accurate method up until the 1930's. If you look at the pendulums in this example, you'll see that each pendulum is suspended by two strings of slightly different length, each carefully calculated to produce a period precisely longer than the pendulum to its left by a certain amount. The periods are calculated so that a given time amounts to an integer multiple of swings of each pendulum, but a different integer multiple for each. And just to make dam sure it works, every ball is suspended by two strings, one connected to the next ball right and left of it, so as to produce a coupled oscillator, not by a rigid connection but only a slight influence. In 1665 Huygens made a curious observation about pendulum clocks. Two clocks had been placed on his mantelpiece, and he noted that they had acquired an opposing motion. That is, their pendulums were beating in unison but in the opposite direction; 180° out of phase. Regardless of how the two clocks were started, he found that they would eventually return to this state, thus making the first recorded observation of a coupled oscillator... the two pendulums were affecting each other through slight motions of the supporting mantelpiece. Of course, I was lying when I said pendulums were the simple result of gravity and arm-length, but it's a useful simplification. In reality, the physics of pendulums is a complete bird's nest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendulum_%28mathematics%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendulum Sterling K. Webb -- - Original Message - From: Richard Montgomery rickm...@earthlink.net To: 'Meteorite-list List' meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 10:32 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] pendulum waves Hello Listhere is something for you astronomical and physical mathematicians to explain in all-of-the-rest-of us termsanxious to see what you say, Richard K! http://wimp.com/pendulumwaves/ It's a pretty grand visual! Richard Montgomery __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Rocks from Space Picture of the Day - June 30, 2011
www.rocksfromspace.org/June_30_2011.html __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Home, Home on La Grange!
Hi Sterling and thanks for the reply! I am sorry I can't respond as much as I wish now (some emergencies came up), but please let me summarize: Anaxagoras and the anti-Earth concept: Completely disagree that Anaxagoras was mixed up buying into that. As you also say, it was Pythagoras' students who looked for the geometrical balancing of things. Anaxagoras was not a believer in perfection and balance which spawned the Anti-Earth concept. Aristotle was and blackballed him and he was eventually kicked out Dodge for his heresy against the harmonic order of things. Anaxagoras was Greece's foremost meteoriticist and was incorrectly believed at the time to have predicted the fall of an iron meteorite which was widely witnessed 2500 years ago. It is clear he studied the iron, but the part about him predicting the fall is highly likely to have been misunderstood by the masses - the prediction was more likely that space rocks could fall. One fell and that led to the misattribution of prediction vs. theory, since the press was as crazy then as it is today. Anaxagoras' pupil, Diogenes of Apollonia explicitly defined what we now call meteoroids, and today we have diogenites since some kind modern folks recognized this. However, Anaxagoras' work was basically lost and it is more than my gut feeling that it was actually he who formed Diogenes' beliefs on the subject. In today's terms, Anaxagoras would likely have been the first author on the paper. Anaxagoras went on to hypothesize that the Sun was made from iron. This was based on the flames produced by the meteorite that was witnessed. It's difficult to say for sure who's idea was what but I tend to believe we are less willing to give them credit for ideas than was the actuality. That is another thing about meteorites that hasn't changed in three millennia. OK, Kordylewski Clouds - Yes I was referring to the same concept but not by name. I hope my fellow Poles will forgive me. I avoided the name since it is surrounded by some debate as you noted and I just wasn't up to that debate since the point is not to worry about what is visible or not since the tones we are after are invisible from here anyway (and the clouds are documented visible from earth with the naked eye under Vesta naked eye opposition visibility conditions - sometimes). The point I'm after is not what we can or cannot see. This is a region we simply have a deficit of information and is very useful to staging missions or even colonizing as I suspect you remember the hubbub a while back, from the new title you gave the post. For the benefit of those others interest in this thread, this is the chorus of the L5 song (the interesting part), named after most likely destinations of a Lagrangian mission to collect space rocks La Grangian / libration points 4 5 = L4 L5, not to be confused with the ordinary chondrites) -- (The L5 song, by Higgins and Gehm) Home, home on Lagrange, Where the space debris always collects, We possess, so it seems, two of Man's greatest dreams: Solar power and zero-gee sex. They are referring to the fact that no energy is required to park in the Lagrangian points, and the escape velocity is very minimal. Most importantly :-), they are basically the equivalent of desert blowouts in space and ripe for meteorxxx hunting. Best wishes Doug OK, meeting the goal of answering your post and now returning to lurking status as promised. -Original Message- From: Sterling K. Webb sterling_k_w...@sbcglobal.net To: Richard Kowalski damoc...@yahoo.com; MexicoDoug mexicod...@aim.com; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Wed, Jun 29, 2011 12:59 am Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Home, Home on La Grange! Doug, I believe Anaxagoras was referring to the Anti-Earth, a body thought possible (in either a geocentric or a heliocentric system) that was always behind the Sun from the viewpoint of Earth, hence never seen by us. It's an idea that doesn't go away (like it should): http://files.ncas.org/condon/text/appndx-e.htm But it was Pythogoras, the first to call the earth round and not the center of the universe, a word he invented, BTW: cosmos or universe. And he had that Theorem thingee, too. Yes, the Anti-Earth was his idea... So, he missed one. But, when I read your post, Doug, I thought you meant the Kordylewski clouds --- large concentrations of dust that may exist at the L4 and L5 Lagrangian points of the Earth-Moon system. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kordylewski_cloud The existence of a photometrically confirmable concentration of dust at the libration points was predicted by Professor J. Witkowski in 1951. The clouds were first seen by Kordylewski in 1956. Between 6 March and 6 April, 1961 he succeeded in photographing two bright patches near the L5 libration point. During the observation time the patches hardly appeared to move relative to L5... In 1967, J. Wesley Simpson made
[meteorite-list] Happy Birthday Nakhla
Hi Everyone Happy Birthday Nakhla. 100 years old (+1.3 Billion of course) and still going strong. I am assuming the telegraph from the Queen somehow got lost in the post! By an extraordinary coincidence, I was actually installing the Nakhla into its new case in our soon to be re-opened galleries here at the National Museums Scotland. I did raise a chorus of Happy Birthday and held a minute's silence for the dog. When those nice young men in white coats didn't appear, I assumed it was safe to continue. Hope everyone who went to Ensisheim had a great time. The photos I have seen look good - how did Graham Ensor get in so many? See you all in Denver Cheers Peter Davidson Curator of Minerals Department of Natural Sciences National Museums Collection Centre 242 West Granton Road Edinburgh EH5 1JA Scotland tel: 0131 247 4283 e-mail: p.david...@nms.ac.uk Airshow, Saturday 23 July, at the National Museum of Flight. New air displays for 2011. www.nms.ac.uk/airshow National Museums Scotland, Scottish Charity, No. SC 011130 This communication is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the addressee please inform the sender and delete the email from your system. The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of National Museums Scotland. This message is subject to the Data Protection Act 1998 and Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. No liability is accepted for any harm that may be caused to your systems or data by this message. __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Large Bolides / Meteors Reported
Dear List, Recent activity: Texas Red Meteor Fireball 29JUN2011 Maryland Meteor Fireball 29JUN2011 El Paso, Texas White/Red Meteor Fireball Witnessed and Captured 28JUN2011 Sweden / Finland / Estonia Green Bolide Meteor Fireball 27JUN2011 Morgan, Utah Bright Orange-colored Meteor 27JUN2011 Rowlett, Texas Bright Slow Meteor Fireball ~5:20am 27JUN2011 New Zealand Meteor 27JUN2011 Pretoria, South Africa Meteor Report 27JUN2011 Bedfordshire, UK Meteor 26JUN2011 Yuba City, California Meteor Captured on Camera 26JUN2011 Lexington, KY Orange-red Meteor Fireball 25JUN2011 Romania Meteor 25JUN2011 Peyia, Cyprus Meteor Fireball 24JUN2011 http://lunarmeteoritehunters.blogspot.com/ Best Regards, Dirk Ross...Tokyo __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] XRF Test results UNWA First try
Hi all! I sent a sample UNWA (for her to keep) to a person that had never tested meteorites before with her Niton XL3t gun with a 50kv x-ray tube. She normally test other types of environmental testing with her gun and is very good at it. She return a standard report using two different methods of testing. Table 1 is Test All mode and Table 2 is Metals Minerals. The results are in Parts Per Million. I was wondering if I may ask for comments and suggestions on this report? You can see it here: http://desertsunburn.no-ip.org/57gUNWA.jpg Thanks Jim Wooddell __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Large Bolides / Meteors Reported
Well, I think the MD fireball is just an observation of the launch of a Minotaur rocket from Wallops Island. The rocket was carrying the ORS-1 satellite. Launch occurred at 11:09pm. There were some (low) clouds in the area so it would have seemed to 'disappear'... I viewed the launch from Alexandria, VA... There were several hundred if not thousands of folks watching the launch from DE down to NC, so if there was an actual fireball, I would think we would have seen more reports... And it was very red at first and seemed to disappear very momentarily which I attribute to low clouds... http://www.nasa.gov/centers/wallops/missions/orsinfo.html http://www.nasa.gov/centers/wallops/news/release-11-18.html http://sites.wff.nasa.gov/webcast/ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43556260/ns/technology_and_science-space/ my 'video' https://picasaweb.google.com/adastragrl/RocketLaunches Clear Skies! Elizabeth On 6/30/2011 8:37 AM, drtanuki wrote: Dear List, Recent activity: Maryland Meteor Fireball 29JUN2011 __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] ULAS J1120+0641: the brightest object yet in the early universe
hi lists, british and german astronomers have detected the youngest quasar ever found in space. The object came into being only 770 million years after BIG BANG. Look at : http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43580955/ns/technology_and_science-space/ m42protosun Postfach fast voll? Jetzt kostenlos E-Mail Adresse @t-online.de sichern und endlich Platz für tausende Mails haben. http://www.t-online.de/email-kostenlos __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Buyers BEWARE!!!! *** update ***
I bought several of the displays mentioned. ALL were well under half the listed weight. And there were made and from an IMCA member. Greg Catterton www.wanderingstarmeteorites.com IMCA member 4682 On Ebay: http://stores.shop.ebay.com/wanderingstarmeteorites On Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/WanderingStarMeteorites --- On Tue, 6/28/11, MexicoDoug mexicod...@aim.com wrote: From: MexicoDoug mexicod...@aim.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Buyers BEWARE *** update *** To: Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Tuesday, June 28, 2011, 11:29 PM Dan, You are 100% right about everything surrounding authenticity and I completely agree with your effort to make things right - as does your seller who now has the daunting problem and expressed an attitude to address it. It was his honest mistake as you see. Dealing in meteorites is really hard work. It is easy to empathize with your seller as everyone has been in a position where something hasn't worked out. When evaluating honesty it is good to give them a chance to make things right and if they do, casting them in a positive light. That sends all the right messages about buying and selling meteorites to the 'public'. Reputation is everything in the meteorite world and I just felt bad for a guy living near Kennedy Space Center - your seller. Anything related to KSC is dear to me for nostalgic reasons. Now that the Space Shuttle program is dying down the place will essentially turn into relatively minor operation. Gone is Apollo, crash are our spirits in Florida and no major NASA workhorse program is seriously in the works. The rocket garden is on its was to being the rusty rocket headstones. Chalk it up to being too sentimental and hoping you get a satisfactory conclusion but without any heads rolling except with smiles, Kindest wishes Doug -Original Message- From: Dan Furlan danfur...@gmail.com To: MexicoDoug mexicod...@aim.com Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tue, Jun 28, 2011 11:01 pm Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Buyers BEWARE *** update *** Dear Sir, The seller still never checked the items before he re-sold them, yes this is an honest mistake but very irresponsible and he sold hundreds of these mounts with the incorrect weight and the people who bought them paid triple the price of what they are worth retail.. If i was him, i would of done exactly what I did today upon receiving the items and bust a few of the mounts open and actually weigh the specimens before selling hundreds of them.. And if i didn't own a scale i would put it on the top of my shopping list ASAP especially before selling any lunar material with weights in the milligrams. I don't feel i dragged anybody through the dirt, all i did was report that he was selling 24mg mounts that actually weighed 7-10mg. thanks to me he is able to correct this mistake and hopefully he learns a lesson. Furthermore people from met-list who may have purchased these mounts can seek resolution as well. I cannot stress the importance of double checking anything you buy to re-sell or even for personal collection. I am sorry we do not see eye to eye on this. How would you like to buy something that has a certain weight associated with it and when you check it yourself you realize that the reason it weighs 2 thirds less then the stated weight is because the seller never bothered to weigh it?? If you wouldn't be slightly disappointed then I am sorry to say there is something fundamentally wrong with you. I am not here to baby sit sellers and understand their mistakes, I am here to do business with professionals who i can trust will deliver on their word. Like i mentioned in my previous update i am happy to see this seller take action and revise his listings and offer resolutions. I do not regret making my original post one bit because there are hundreds of people out there who purchased lunar and mars material for top dollar and didn't get what they paid for and they are entitled to know about it. You may think I was being inconsiderate by making the original post but in reality i was being responsible to my fellow meteorite collectors and dealers who may have purchased these mounts in the past assuming the weight was correct as well as any potential buyers who had active bids on them as well. This is the price you pay when you do business and mess up.. I am a very trusting person, and i believe what people tell me.. but when i spend a lot of money on something i wish to re-sell I will guarantee you 100% I am going to double check everything to make sure it's is o.k. before i put it on the market with my name on it. Daniel Furlan On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 9:35 PM, MexicoDoug mexicod...@aim.com wrote: I was eager to see your reply, Dan. I also corresponded with your seller today. He is really a conscientious guy with excellent feedback and
[meteorite-list] MRO HIRISE Images - June 29, 2011
MARS RECONNAISSANCE ORBITER HIRISE IMAGES June 29, 2011 o Active Gullies in Crater Dune Field, Southern Polar Region http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/ESP_022255_1095 These dune gullies are located in an unnamed crater just north of the Richardson Crater, which also contain dune gullies. o Lobate Flow Feature in Eastern Hellas http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/ESP_022494_1385 Similar flow features are found in many other craters throughout the Southern mid-latitudes of Mars, particularly in this region east of Hellas. o Terraced Eastern Wall along the Middle Reach of Ma http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/ESP_022848_1595 In this HiRISE image, numerous trough-like channels on the lower wall and terrace region suggest that water flowed in Ma'adim Vallis in the ancient past. All of the HiRISE images are archived here: http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/ Information about the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter is online at http://www.nasa.gov/mro. The mission is managed by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a division of the California Institute of Technology, for the NASA Science Mission Directorate, Washington, D.C. Lockheed Martin Space Systems, of Denver, is the prime contractor and built the spacecraft. HiRISE is operated by the University of Arizona. Ball Aerospace and Technologies Corp., of Boulder, Colo., built the HiRISE instrument. __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] NASA Completes Mirror Polishing For James Webb Space Telescope
June 30, 2011 Trent Perrotto Headquarters, Washington trent.j.perro...@nasa.gov 202-358-0321 Mary Blake Northrop Grumman, Redondo Beach, Calif. mary.bl...@ngc.com 310-812-6291 RELEASE: 11-210 NASA COMPLETES MIRROR POLISHING FOR JAMES WEBB SPACE TELESCOPE WASHINGTON -- Mirrors are a critical part of a telescope. The quality is crucial, so completion of mirror polishing represents a major milestone. All of the mirrors that will fly aboard NASA's James Webb Space Telescope have been polished so the observatory can see objects as far away as the first galaxies in the universe. The Webb telescope is comprised of four types of mirrors. The primary one has an area of approximately 25 square meters (29.9 square yards), which will enable scientists to capture light from faint, distant objects in the universe faster than any previous space observatory. The mirrors are made of Beryllium and will work together to relay images of the sky to the telescope's science cameras. Webb's mirror polishing always was considered the most challenging and important technological milestone in the manufacture of the telescope, so this is a hugely significant accomplishment, said Lee Feinberg, Webb Optical Telescope manager at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. The mirrors were polished at the L3 Integrated Optical Systems - Tinsley in Richmond, Calif. to accuracies of less than one millionth of an inch. That accuracy is important for forming the sharpest images when the mirrors cool to -400°F (-240°C) in the cold of space. The completion of the mirror polishing shows that the strategy of doing the hardest things first has really paid off, said Nobel Prize Winner John C. Mather, Webb's senior project scientist at Goddard. Some astronomers doubted we could make these mirrors. After polishing, the mirrors are being coated with a microscopically thin layer of gold to enable them to efficiently reflect infrared light. NASA has completed coating 13 of 18 primary mirror segments and will complete the rest by early next year. The 18 segments fit together to make one large mirror 21.3 feet (6.5 meters) across. This milestone is the culmination of a decade-long process, said Scott Willoughby, vice president and Webb Telescope Program manager for Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems. We had to invent an entire new mirror technology to give Webb the ability to see back in time. Northrop Grumman Corp. in Redondo Beach, Calif. is the telescope's prime contractor. As the successor to the Hubble Space Telescope, the Webb telescope is the world's next-generation space observatory. It is the most powerful space telescope ever built. More than 75 percent of its hardware is either in production or undergoing testing. The telescope will observe the most distant objects in the universe, provide images of the first galaxies ever formed and study planets around distant stars. NASA, the European Space Agency and the Canadian Space Agency are collaborating on this project. For related images and more information about the mirrors, visit: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/universe/features/webb-mirrors-done.html To view the Behind the Webb: Wax on, Wax Off video explaining the mirror polishing process, visit: http://webbtelescope.org/webb_telescope/behind_the_webb/10 For more information about the James Webb Space Telescope, visit: http://www.jwst.nasa.gov -end- __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Mars Rover Opportunity Update: June 23-28, 2011
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/status.html#opportunity OPPORTUNITY UPDATE: Opportunity Is Just Over a Mile From Crater Rim - sols 2635-2640, June 23-28, 2011: Opportunity is making excellent progress towards Endeavour crater with only about 2 kilometers (1.2 miles) to go before the first landfall on the rim, a place called Spirit Point. The rover drove on Sols 2635 and 2637 (June 23 and 25, 2011), covering 138.8 (455 feet) and 126.4 meters (415 feet), respectively. A drive planned for Sol 2640 (June 28, 2011), did not occur because a Deep Space Network (DSN) station outage prevented the uplink of the two-sol plan. The rover, instead, safely executed her on-board runout sequence. The planned drive will be recovered in the subsequent plan. A Quick Fine Attitude (QFA) was performed on Sol 2638 (June 26, 2011), to remove accumulated drift in the rover's inertial measurement unit (IMU or gyros). The Alpha Particle X-ray Spectrometer (APXS) performed a measurement of atmospheric argon on Sol 2639 (June 27, 2011). The improved energy situation has permitted some early morning ultra-high frequency (UHF) relay passes to return additional science data. AM relay passes were performed early on the morning of Sols 2637 and 2639 (June 25 and 27, 2011). As of Sol 2640 (June 28, 2011), solar array energy production was 476 watt-hours with an atmospheric opacity (Tau) of 1.11 and a solar array dust factor of 0.648. Total odometry is 31,468.54 meters (31.47 kilometers, or 19.55 miles). __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Happy Birthday Tunguska Event
Happy Birthday to one of the biggest blammers ever! Tunguska! _ Phil Whitmer __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] XRF Test results UNWA First try
Hello Carl, If you have links to XRF test result data on meteorites, can you please provide them to me? Thank you Jim Wooddell On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 10:14 AM, cdtuc...@cox.net wrote: Jim, Scientists, List, I 'd like to hear more on this topic as well. Preferably from a qualified Scientist as far as where exactly this test ends up taking us? I have personally had several of these tests done on dozens of prospect rocks. . In my mind I thought I could easily use this chemical data to compare my data with known meteorites and determine based on like chemistry what I might have. This way no scientist is bothered by me until I had something to show them. At the end of the day. The results have turned out to be less telling than I expected. My madness was based on the fact that nearly all if not all rare meteorites that are classified as a particular classification are plotted on little charts and graphs to show that they plot with other known material of the same classification. And states the case that since known meteorite A plots in all of these areas and meteorite B plots right with them, then it too is the same classification. I know O tests are also needed but that is not in question here. What I question is; that this test in and of itself evidently proves nothing? In fact it seems that Scientists already know this? So, these tests have proven to be a complete and utter waste of time money and energy when done by laymen? This because I ended up having several rocks with the correct chemistry to plot EXACTLY on the Mars and Lunar charts right with the known meteorites. (to add to this confusion, there are also known meteorites that do not plot perfectly on these charts so, they are simply left off the chart but, acknowledged with a different color plot mark.). I thought this would be an easy home test. Simply go to Randy's site and copy all of his amazing charts and plot your results directly onto the same charts he provided. If they plot with Randy's plots then , they are from the moon. Go to a number of other sites and print out these same charts from Mars and plot your results right with theirs. This method actually worked out for Calcalong Creek. The first Lunar found outside of Antarctica. Bonyton, Hill and Haag saw a meteorite that looked Lunar so, they broke down it's chemistry and determined that since it's ratios were similar to the known moon's ratios. (yes, there were also like minerals) . Therefore it is Lunar. This determination was made prior to having Oxygen isotopic studies done on the material. (which as we all now know is important). In fact the formal presentation of this amazing little meteorite not only declares it has a Lunar origin but, it also reemphasizes the fact that these chemical ratios are actually definitive of origin. Therefore any meteorite that matches these ratios must originate from the same parent body. Which In that case was the Earth's moon. Again, I have found this is either not the case for the layman or the testing is flawed? Blaine knows his testing gun pretty well by now and he feels his numbers are pretty accurate and it seems to me they must be at least as good as the Mars probes and other remote sensing devises are that we use and trust? This said because I also have rocks that plot exactly with some of the ones the Mars probes sniffed. They too are charted and graphed so it is very easily to plot your own results right on the same charts generated by other scientists. I have spent Hours working on these charts and yet no matter how close they plot to other known material. If the rock did not fall from the sky and hit you on the head and leave fusion crust embedded in your skull. Then it is not worthy of study so these XRF tests are virtually useless??? So, the question is ; what have ratios to do with this after all? It seems to me that a test that proves a rock was in space available to the public is the only real way to determine origin unless you are a Scientist working in the field. Home tests just don't seem to work out. Do they? Carl Meteoritemax -- Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. Jim Wooddell jimwoodd...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all! I sent a sample UNWA (for her to keep) to a person that had never tested meteorites before with her Niton XL3t gun with a 50kv x-ray tube. She normally test other types of environmental testing with her gun and is very good at it. She return a standard report using two different methods of testing. Table 1 is Test All mode and Table 2 is Metals Minerals. The results are in Parts Per Million. I was wondering if I may ask for comments and suggestions on this report? You can see it here: http://desertsunburn.no-ip.org/57gUNWA.jpg Thanks Jim Wooddell
Re: [meteorite-list] XRF Test results UNWA First try
Hi! I am not trying to compare. All I need is a go - no go. Then it's off to a lab for classification. I had sent this lady a list for elements. She is going to see if she can do them when she get home. Her gun is one of the better higher end units. So I will add Cr Mn and Na, thank you. I had so far Ca Cr Si Ni Mg Ga Al Fe Mn Ti Na Thanks Jim On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 1:14 PM, cdtuc...@cox.net wrote: Jim, My posts are moderated so, they do not post in real time but , until Art releases them. Please excuse these delays. I don't know of any such links with XRF generated data. I only had my own data that I paid Blaine to produce from my own rocks. In order to compare data with that of known meteorites you have to have data for a few certain elements. Not the info you got from your XRF results. All of the published needed data that is used to plot these charts with are basically the same. the data you got for your UNWA is arbitrary in that nobody really uses much of what you were given for much of anything. The elements you do need data for are at a minimum is the following; Si, Ti, Al, Cr if possible because Cr is very telling , Fe, Mn, Mg, Ca,Na, Ni, With this data you can then go to published meteorite classifications and compare your numbers with theirs as reflected both in print form and on charts and graphs. This is the info that Blaine furnishes with his XRF gun services he provides. It should be useful to use to plot charts with but, this is the question that remains unanswered. What good does having this info really do if nobody acknowledges the comparisons as significant or relevant? Carl meteoritemax Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. Jim Wooddell jimwoodd...@gmail.com wrote: Hello Carl, If you have links to XRF test result data on meteorites, can you please provide them to me? Thank you Jim Wooddell On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 10:14 AM, cdtuc...@cox.net wrote: Jim, Scientists, List, I 'd like to hear more on this topic as well. Preferably from a qualified Scientist as far as where exactly this test ends up taking us? I have personally had several of these tests done on dozens of prospect rocks. . In my mind I thought I could easily use this chemical data to compare my data with known meteorites and determine based on like chemistry what I might have. This way no scientist is bothered by me until I had something to show them. At the end of the day. The results have turned out to be less telling than I expected. My madness was based on the fact that nearly all if not all rare meteorites that are classified as a particular classification are plotted on little charts and graphs to show that they plot with other known material of the same classification. And states the case that since known meteorite A plots in all of these areas and meteorite B plots right with them, then it too is the same classification. I know O tests are also needed but that is not in question here. What I question is; that this test in and of itself evidently proves nothing? In fact it seems that Scientists already know this? So, these tests have proven to be a complete and utter waste of time money and energy when done by laymen? This because I ended up having several rocks with the correct chemistry to plot EXACTLY on the Mars and Lunar charts right with the known meteorites. (to add to this confusion, there are also known meteorites that do not plot perfectly on these charts so, they are simply left off the chart but, acknowledged with a different color plot mark.). I thought this would be an easy home test. Simply go to Randy's site and copy all of his amazing charts and plot your results directly onto the same charts he provided. If they plot with Randy's plots then , they are from the moon. Go to a number of other sites and print out these same charts from Mars and plot your results right with theirs. This method actually worked out for Calcalong Creek. The first Lunar found outside of Antarctica. Bonyton, Hill and Haag saw a meteorite that looked Lunar so, they broke down it's chemistry and determined that since it's ratios were similar to the known moon's ratios. (yes, there were also like minerals) . Therefore it is Lunar. This determination was made prior to having Oxygen isotopic studies done on the material. (which as we all now know is important). In fact the formal presentation of this amazing little meteorite not only declares it has a Lunar origin but, it also reemphasizes the fact that these chemical ratios are actually definitive of origin. Therefore any meteorite that matches these ratios must originate from the same parent body. Which In that case was the Earth's moon. Again, I have found this is either not
Re: [meteorite-list] XRF Test results UNWA First try
Jim, My posts are moderated so, they do not post in real time but , until Art releases them. Please excuse these delays. I don't know of any such links with XRF generated data. I only had my own data that I paid Blaine to produce from my own rocks. In order to compare data with that of known meteorites you have to have data for a few certain elements. Not the info you got from your XRF results. All of the published needed data that is used to plot these charts with are basically the same. the data you got for your UNWA is arbitrary in that nobody really uses much of what you were given for much of anything. The elements you do need data for are at a minimum is the following; Si, Ti, Al, Cr if possible because Cr is very telling , Fe, Mn, Mg, Ca,Na, Ni, With this data you can then go to published meteorite classifications and compare your numbers with theirs as reflected both in print form and on charts and graphs. This is the info that Blaine furnishes with his XRF gun services he provides. It should be useful to use to plot charts with but, this is the question that remains unanswered. What good does having this info really do if nobody acknowledges the comparisons as significant or relevant? Carl meteoritemax Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. Jim Wooddell jimwoodd...@gmail.com wrote: Hello Carl, If you have links to XRF test result data on meteorites, can you please provide them to me? Thank you Jim Wooddell On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 10:14 AM, cdtuc...@cox.net wrote: Jim, Scientists, List, I 'd like to hear more on this topic as well. Preferably from a qualified Scientist as far as where exactly this test ends up taking us? I have personally had several of these tests done on dozens of prospect rocks. . In my mind I thought I could easily use this chemical data to compare my data with known meteorites and determine based on like chemistry what I might have. This way no scientist is bothered by me until I had something to show them. At the end of the day. The results have turned out to be less telling than I expected. My madness was based on the fact that nearly all if not all rare meteorites that are classified as a particular classification are plotted on little charts and graphs to show that they plot with other known material of the same classification. And states the case that since known meteorite A plots in all of these areas and meteorite B plots right with them, then it too is the same classification. I know O tests are also needed but that is not in question here. What I question is; that this test in and of itself evidently proves nothing? In fact it seems that Scientists already know this? So, these tests have proven to be a complete and utter waste of time money and energy when done by laymen? This because I ended up having several rocks with the correct chemistry to plot EXACTLY on the Mars and Lunar charts right with the known meteorites. (to add to this confusion, there are also known meteorites that do not plot perfectly on these charts so, they are simply left off the chart but, acknowledged with a different color plot mark.). I thought this would be an easy home test. Simply go to Randy's site and copy all of his amazing charts and plot your results directly onto the same charts he provided. If they plot with Randy's plots then , they are from the moon. Go to a number of other sites and print out these same charts from Mars and plot your results right with theirs. This method actually worked out for Calcalong Creek. The first Lunar found outside of Antarctica. Bonyton, Hill and Haag saw a meteorite that looked Lunar so, they broke down it's chemistry and determined that since it's ratios were similar to the known moon's ratios. (yes, there were also like minerals) . Therefore it is Lunar. This determination was made prior to having Oxygen isotopic studies done on the material. (which as we all now know is important). In fact the formal presentation of this amazing little meteorite not only declares it has a Lunar origin but, it also reemphasizes the fact that these chemical ratios are actually definitive of origin. Therefore any meteorite that matches these ratios must originate from the same parent body. Which In that case was the Earth's moon. Again, I have found this is either not the case for the layman or the testing is flawed? Blaine knows his testing gun pretty well by now and he feels his numbers are pretty accurate and it seems to me they must be at least as good as the Mars probes and other remote sensing devises are that we use and trust? This said because I also have rocks that plot exactly with some of the ones
Re: [meteorite-list] XRF Test results UNWA First try
Anyone on List like to smarten me up as to what one of these XRF guns cost and where one could be purchased? Count Deiro IMCA 3536 -Original Message- From: Jim Wooddell jimwoodd...@gmail.com Sent: Jun 30, 2011 2:01 PM To: cdtuc...@cox.net Cc: Meteorite List meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] XRF Test results UNWA First try Hi! I am not trying to compare. All I need is a go - no go. Then it's off to a lab for classification. I had sent this lady a list for elements. She is going to see if she can do them when she get home. Her gun is one of the better higher end units. So I will add Cr Mn and Na, thank you. I had so far Ca Cr Si Ni Mg Ga Al Fe Mn Ti Na Thanks Jim On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 1:14 PM, cdtuc...@cox.net wrote: Jim, My posts are moderated so, they do not post in real time but , until Art releases them. Please excuse these delays. I don't know of any such links with XRF generated data. I only had my own data that I paid Blaine to produce from my own rocks. In order to compare data with that of known meteorites you have to have data for a few certain elements. Not the info you got from your XRF results. All of the published needed data that is used to plot these charts with are basically the same. the data you got for your UNWA is arbitrary in that nobody really uses much of what you were given for much of anything. The elements you do need data for are at a minimum is the following; Si, Ti, Al, Cr if possible because Cr is very telling , Fe, Mn, Mg, Ca,Na, Ni, With this data you can then go to published meteorite classifications and compare your numbers with theirs as reflected both in print form and on charts and graphs. This is the info that Blaine furnishes with his XRF gun services he provides. It should be useful to use to plot charts with but, this is the question that remains unanswered. What good does having this info really do if nobody acknowledges the comparisons as significant or relevant? Carl meteoritemax Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. Jim Wooddell jimwoodd...@gmail.com wrote: Hello Carl, If you have links to XRF test result data on meteorites, can you please provide them to me? Thank you Jim Wooddell On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 10:14 AM, cdtuc...@cox.net wrote: Jim, Scientists, List, I 'd like to hear more on this topic as well. Preferably from a qualified Scientist as far as where exactly this test ends up taking us? I have personally had several of these tests done on dozens of prospect rocks. . In my mind I thought I could easily use this chemical data to compare my data with known meteorites and determine based on like chemistry what I might have. This way no scientist is bothered by me until I had something to show them. At the end of the day. The results have turned out to be less telling than I expected. My madness was based on the fact that nearly all if not all rare meteorites that are classified as a particular classification are plotted on little charts and graphs to show that they plot with other known material of the same classification. And states the case that since known meteorite A plots in all of these areas and meteorite B plots right with them, then it too is the same classification. I know O tests are also needed but that is not in question here. What I question is; that this test in and of itself evidently proves nothing? In fact it seems that Scientists already know this? So, these tests have proven to be a complete and utter waste of time money and energy when done by laymen? This because I ended up having several rocks with the correct chemistry to plot EXACTLY on the Mars and Lunar charts right with the known meteorites. (to add to this confusion, there are also known meteorites that do not plot perfectly on these charts so, they are simply left off the chart but, acknowledged with a different color plot mark.). I thought this would be an easy home test. Simply go to Randy's site and copy all of his amazing charts and plot your results directly onto the same charts he provided. If they plot with Randy's plots then , they are from the moon. Go to a number of other sites and print out these same charts from Mars and plot your results right with theirs. This method actually worked out for Calcalong Creek. The first Lunar found outside of Antarctica. Bonyton, Hill and Haag saw a meteorite that looked Lunar so, they broke down it's chemistry and determined that since it's ratios were similar to the known moon's ratios. (yes, there were also like minerals) . Therefore it is Lunar. This determination was made prior to having Oxygen isotopic studies done on the material. (which as we all now know is important). In fact the formal
Re: [meteorite-list] XRF Test results UNWA First try
Hello Count The one we are playing with now is a Niton XL3t. It's about $30k but don't quote me on that. Google Niton XRF and you'll find it. A few people have responded and we are going to see if we can add to the element list. Kind Regards, Jim Wooddell On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Count Deiro countde...@earthlink.net wrote: Anyone on List like to smarten me up as to what one of these XRF guns cost and where one could be purchased? Count Deiro IMCA 3536 -Original Message- From: Jim Wooddell jimwoodd...@gmail.com Sent: Jun 30, 2011 2:01 PM To: cdtuc...@cox.net Cc: Meteorite List meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] XRF Test results UNWA First try Hi! I am not trying to compare. All I need is a go - no go. Then it's off to a lab for classification. I had sent this lady a list for elements. She is going to see if she can do them when she get home. Her gun is one of the better higher end units. So I will add Cr Mn and Na, thank you. I had so far Ca Cr Si Ni Mg Ga Al Fe Mn Ti Na Thanks Jim On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 1:14 PM, cdtuc...@cox.net wrote: Jim, My posts are moderated so, they do not post in real time but , until Art releases them. Please excuse these delays. I don't know of any such links with XRF generated data. I only had my own data that I paid Blaine to produce from my own rocks. In order to compare data with that of known meteorites you have to have data for a few certain elements. Not the info you got from your XRF results. All of the published needed data that is used to plot these charts with are basically the same. the data you got for your UNWA is arbitrary in that nobody really uses much of what you were given for much of anything. The elements you do need data for are at a minimum is the following; Si, Ti, Al, Cr if possible because Cr is very telling , Fe, Mn, Mg, Ca,Na, Ni, With this data you can then go to published meteorite classifications and compare your numbers with theirs as reflected both in print form and on charts and graphs. This is the info that Blaine furnishes with his XRF gun services he provides. It should be useful to use to plot charts with but, this is the question that remains unanswered. What good does having this info really do if nobody acknowledges the comparisons as significant or relevant? Carl meteoritemax Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. Jim Wooddell jimwoodd...@gmail.com wrote: Hello Carl, If you have links to XRF test result data on meteorites, can you please provide them to me? Thank you Jim Wooddell On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 10:14 AM, cdtuc...@cox.net wrote: Jim, Scientists, List, I 'd like to hear more on this topic as well. Preferably from a qualified Scientist as far as where exactly this test ends up taking us? I have personally had several of these tests done on dozens of prospect rocks. . In my mind I thought I could easily use this chemical data to compare my data with known meteorites and determine based on like chemistry what I might have. This way no scientist is bothered by me until I had something to show them. At the end of the day. The results have turned out to be less telling than I expected. My madness was based on the fact that nearly all if not all rare meteorites that are classified as a particular classification are plotted on little charts and graphs to show that they plot with other known material of the same classification. And states the case that since known meteorite A plots in all of these areas and meteorite B plots right with them, then it too is the same classification. I know O tests are also needed but that is not in question here. What I question is; that this test in and of itself evidently proves nothing? In fact it seems that Scientists already know this? So, these tests have proven to be a complete and utter waste of time money and energy when done by laymen? This because I ended up having several rocks with the correct chemistry to plot EXACTLY on the Mars and Lunar charts right with the known meteorites. (to add to this confusion, there are also known meteorites that do not plot perfectly on these charts so, they are simply left off the chart but, acknowledged with a different color plot mark.). I thought this would be an easy home test. Simply go to Randy's site and copy all of his amazing charts and plot your results directly onto the same charts he provided. If they plot with Randy's plots then , they are from the moon. Go to a number of other sites and print out these same charts from Mars and plot your results right with theirs. This method actually worked out for Calcalong Creek. The first Lunar found outside of Antarctica. Bonyton, Hill and Haag saw a meteorite that looked Lunar
[meteorite-list] Micromounts and weights - Standards Vary
Hi Listees and Micronauts, There has been some discussion recently about people buying micromounts from a vendor on eBay and not getting the weights they were promised. I thought I would throw out some thoughts on micros, since those are my bread and butter. First, the definition of micromount is relative. There is no set-in-stone size bracket for what defines a micromount. It seems to me that the general consensus is that micromounts are in the 1g range for the more common types and sub-gram in weight for the rare types. Very rare falls or planetaries are commonly sold by the milligram. Rockhounds tend to equate meteorite micromounts with mineral thumbnails. But generally speaking, most micromounts on the market today are in the sub-gram (1g) range. Ideally, a micromount should be visually appealing (such a well polished, thin part slice with good surface area to weight ratio) and big enough to identify the lithology of the type/fall, while at the same time being cheap enough to afford on a limited budget. The more preparation that goes into making a given micromount, the higher the price, generally speaking. At some point, it's not financially viable to put a lot of cutting and polishing work into piece of common find that is only worth a buck or two a gram. Smaller micros are difficult to work with during preparation, for obvious reasons, so many of the micromounts seen on the market are unpolished, rough, or broken. What motivates a person to collect micromounts varies from person to person, but the most commonly cited reason for buying micros is to temporarily fill a void in a type collection. It could be a petrologic type, a find from a given geographic area, a fall from a specific date, etc. Often a micromount is a temporary measure until a nicer specimen can be acquired, or until the needed finances to buy a larger piece can be saved up. For the very rare types and planetaries, a micromount might be the best hope for a collector on a restricted budget. There are a couple of schools of thought when it comes to dealing and selling micromounts - some dealers sell specimens by weight (by milligram, even for specks) or some dealers offer specimens by the piece (by eye/photo). For the most part, I am of the latter school that sells micros by the piece. That means I don't weigh each and every micromount, unless it is a very rare and valuable meteorite such as a planetary or historical fall. Each dealer has their own methods for handling micromounts and we those aren't really relevant to the discussion at hand. When weighing micromounts, one must use an accurate scale that is sensitive to 1 milligram - the good ones are used by diamond and gem dealers. There are many brands of these scales which range in quality and accuracy. When dealing with small specks that weigh a milligram or two, the readings can vary from unit to unit when weighing the same specimen. If a buyer pays for and is promised a micro that weighs 100mg, it better weigh 100mg and not 50mg or 80mg. Sometimes a buyer gets an added bonus because their personal scale is more accurate than the seller's scale and a promised 100mg micro might weigh 120mg or 150mg. If the seller is not sticking to a strict pricing scheme ($/g or $/mg), then ultimately what matters is if the buyer is happy with their micromount. From a collector's standpoint, it pays to shop around for micromounts. Unless it's a very rare meteorite, it's easy to find several dealers offering similar-sized specimens for widely-varying prices. One must also pay close attention to the reputation of the seller and the provenance of rare specimens. Because micros tend to be small (some are downright tiny), it would be easy for an unscrupulous seller to misrepresent specimens as something more valuable than what they truly are. Chances are, if you are reading this mailing list, you are one of those people who can find a reputable source and who does their homework before sending payments across oceans on fiber-optic cables. My own personal meteorite collection (the pieces I keep in my cabinet and are not traded on my website) are mostly micromounts and I keep the majority of them stored in 1.25 gemjars with paper labels inside the bottom, under the foam. Some people prefer membrane boxes, small Riker boxes, or other storage and display methods, but that is the subject of an entire debate of it's own. The most commonly-seen container on the micromount market is the gemjar, and thus it is a general rule of thumb that if a specimen will fit into a gemjar, then that specimen could/should be called a micromount. Best micro-regards, MikeG -- - Galactic Stone Ironworks - Meteorites Amber (Michael Gilmer) Website - http://www.galactic-stone.com Facebook - http://tinyurl.com/42h79my News Feed - http://www.galactic-stone.com/rss/126516 Twitter - http://twitter.com/galacticstone EOM
Re: [meteorite-list] Micromounts and weights - Standards Vary
A little perspective on milligrams: There are a lot of meteorite mg weights out there that not accurate. We can thank these new, cheap Chinese digital scales that promise accuracies of +/- 1mg or less, which are a complete joke. I bought one in Tucson to test it out against my high-end calibrated machine and it was off by about 10 mg on average for pieces 50 to 100 mg and 5 mg on average for pieces 10 to 50 mg. Anything fewer than 10 mg - forget about it. The calibration weights it came with were even more laughable... In reality, in order to be able to accurately measure mg, you need a machine that has been recently leveled and calibrated in-situ. I have a recently leveled/calibrated mechanical scale whose tare changes by the hour due to changes in the weather. It even picks up the subtle vibration of the dishwasher downstairs. Bottom line - a $100 mg scale isn't going to get you the accuracy needed to accurately measure true mg. Since most people can't afford the hundreds to thousands it costs for an accurate mg scale, I don't expect most mg weights advertised to be truly accurate. They're close... Just my 2 mg worth (+/- 1mg)... -- Mike Bandli Historic Meteorites www.HistoricMeteorites.com and join us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/Meteorites1 IMCA #5765 --- -Original Message- From: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Michael Gilmer Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 4:17 PM To: Meteorite List Subject: [meteorite-list] Micromounts and weights - Standards Vary Hi Listees and Micronauts, There has been some discussion recently about people buying micromounts from a vendor on eBay and not getting the weights they were promised. I thought I would throw out some thoughts on micros, since those are my bread and butter. First, the definition of micromount is relative. There is no set-in-stone size bracket for what defines a micromount. It seems to me that the general consensus is that micromounts are in the 1g range for the more common types and sub-gram in weight for the rare types. Very rare falls or planetaries are commonly sold by the milligram. Rockhounds tend to equate meteorite micromounts with mineral thumbnails. But generally speaking, most micromounts on the market today are in the sub-gram (1g) range. Ideally, a micromount should be visually appealing (such a well polished, thin part slice with good surface area to weight ratio) and big enough to identify the lithology of the type/fall, while at the same time being cheap enough to afford on a limited budget. The more preparation that goes into making a given micromount, the higher the price, generally speaking. At some point, it's not financially viable to put a lot of cutting and polishing work into piece of common find that is only worth a buck or two a gram. Smaller micros are difficult to work with during preparation, for obvious reasons, so many of the micromounts seen on the market are unpolished, rough, or broken. What motivates a person to collect micromounts varies from person to person, but the most commonly cited reason for buying micros is to temporarily fill a void in a type collection. It could be a petrologic type, a find from a given geographic area, a fall from a specific date, etc. Often a micromount is a temporary measure until a nicer specimen can be acquired, or until the needed finances to buy a larger piece can be saved up. For the very rare types and planetaries, a micromount might be the best hope for a collector on a restricted budget. There are a couple of schools of thought when it comes to dealing and selling micromounts - some dealers sell specimens by weight (by milligram, even for specks) or some dealers offer specimens by the piece (by eye/photo). For the most part, I am of the latter school that sells micros by the piece. That means I don't weigh each and every micromount, unless it is a very rare and valuable meteorite such as a planetary or historical fall. Each dealer has their own methods for handling micromounts and we those aren't really relevant to the discussion at hand. When weighing micromounts, one must use an accurate scale that is sensitive to 1 milligram - the good ones are used by diamond and gem dealers. There are many brands of these scales which range in quality and accuracy. When dealing with small specks that weigh a milligram or two, the readings can vary from unit to unit when weighing the same specimen. If a buyer pays for and is promised a micro that weighs 100mg, it better weigh 100mg and not 50mg or 80mg. Sometimes a buyer gets an added bonus because their personal scale is more accurate than the seller's scale and a promised 100mg micro might weigh 120mg or 150mg. If the seller is not sticking to a strict pricing scheme ($/g or $/mg), then ultimately what matters is if the buyer is happy with
Re: [meteorite-list] Micromounts and weights - Standards Vary
For that price shipping could be lower. Chris Spratt (Via my iPhone) __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Milligram Scale
Hi List. Can anyone recommend a decent scale that will read in milligrams. No cheapies please but rather something that is + - 2 milligrams, good quality and consistently accurate and I don't have to sell a lung on eBay to afford one. Doesn't have to exceed 20gms. Somewhere in the $150-250 range? Any thoughts to those that I see selling specimens in the milligram range. Thank you Sincerely Don Merchant __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Milligram Scale
Yes, I have poor luck with almost everything made in China these days but you have to look carefully for the made in China stickers in order to avoid being taken. I just had an Igloo bar refrigerator fail in less than 8 months. After reading the warranty carefully, I found out that only the power cord and door handle was warrantied for life and not the rest of the refrigerator so I was out of luck. I thought Igloos were American made but I was wrong and will never purchase one of their products again. Almost anything I have ever purchased that was made in China has turned out to be garbage, failing within a year or two if you are lucky. I know somebody who almost died because the generic made in China medications they were taking were not up to par or counterfeited. I only purchase German, Japanese or U.S. made electronics these days if I can find them which brings me to a good scale. It is a Japanese made Tanita. The Tanita scale that I use is so accurate, it must be recalibrated every time you go through an altitude change. It is so sensitive that a 50 milligram specimen will register less weight at 500 feet than it will at sea level. Be careful, even the Scales USA brand is made in China. Best Regards, Adam __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Micromounts and weights - Standards Vary
I have a cheap Chinese scale for which I paid under $20. I never thought to question its accuracy since I've never been in a position where 5mg either way made a difference. But, let me propose a solution for the occasional user who doesn't have hundreds of dollars burning a hole in their pocket for something they may not use as frequently as some of the dealers (who may need a calibrated scale for trade) and isn't keen on loading up on gadgets for their Swiss beauty. And who is up for some muted MacGyverish fun. I just cut 23.5 cm X 30 cm of aluminum foil. Mine was from Walmart, likely the lightest normal weight standard. It weighs 3.1 grams. That 3100 milligrams. It works out to 4.4 mg per square cm. So you can make your own set of standards that will be plenty accurate for these purposes. Calculate the areas of your standard set and consider it a primary standard (do use a decent scale if your repeat what I did for a sheet of your own aluminum foil. But don't get too worried: if mine were 3.0 grams instead of 3.1 grams it would still be 4.3mg/cm2. Now the fun part which you've figured out by now. Use that cheap scale and put approximately what the scale says the specimen weighs in standards on the scale. I.e., if you have a supposed 12 mg specimen, just put 12/4.4= 2.73 square cm, so put whatever you have that's close to 3 cm2 or just use a razor to trace around your scale cube bottom if you are in a hurry to make 1 cm2 cutouts. If you put exactly 3 cm2 in this example on the scale and it says 15 mg, you know your scale is 2 mg too high so just subtract 2mg to normalized the weight to your standard. Don't worry about the decimals - there rounding anyway and a ten-thousandth of a gram is a useless measure to you, anyway. As a matter of fact a mg or two, or even more depending, is iffy depending on the temperature, humidity etc etc. etc. Lots of splainin' above but it is really a cinch. A whole lot easier for me than dealing with a sensitive analytical balance under most circumstances. Analytical balances are cool but they have to be treated with incredible respect to be kept in calibration. The element on the cheapo scales responds to weights in that range so if you do something like this you will do just as well for the vast majority of purposes and you can go to WalMart and buy your custom standards for a buck or so, if you can't raid the pantry for them. Have fun using the heavier oven gauge foil if you are in a higher weight range - like 50-100 mg. The only drawback is humidity on the foil so keep it dry! Don't forget, a specimen in the 10 mg range can easily pick up 20% extra weight in water, etc. So if you are worried about that accuracy, you ought to be sticking your specimens in the oven and weighing them hot. Any analytical chemists here will remember the gravimetric determination of nickel - same idea. Good luck Doug out -Original Message- From: Mike Bandli fuzzf...@comcast.net To: 'Michael Farmer' m...@meteoriteguy.com Cc: 'Meteorite List' meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Thu, Jun 30, 2011 8:11 pm Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Micromounts and weights - Standards Vary Yes, and for those serious about weights, I would highly recommend a refurbished Mettler unit similar to this one: http://tinyurl.com/3dz8udc -- Mike Bandli Historic Meteorites www.HistoricMeteorites.com and join us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/Meteorites1 IMCA #5765 --- -Original Message- From: Michael Farmer [mailto:m...@meteoriteguy.com] Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 4:55 PM To: Mike Bandli Cc: Michael Gilmer; Meteorite List Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Micromounts and weights - Standards Vary I use a multi-thousand dollar scale, you are right about the cheap scales, have bought several for the field, they are worthless. Wanna sell the small stuff, make the investment to do it right. Michael Farmer Sent from my iPad On Jun 30, 2011, at 4:52 PM, Mike Bandli fuzzf...@comcast.net wrote: A little perspective on milligrams: There are a lot of meteorite mg weights out there that not accurate. We can thank these new, cheap Chinese digital scales that promise accuracies of +/- 1mg or less, which are a complete joke. I bought one in Tucson to test it out against my high-end calibrated machine and it was off by about 10 mg on average for pieces 50 to 100 mg and 5 mg on average for pieces 10 to 50 mg. Anything fewer than 10 mg - forget about it. The calibration weights it came with were even more laughable... In reality, in order to be able to accurately measure mg, you need a machine that has been recently leveled and calibrated in-situ. I have a recently leveled/calibrated mechanical scale whose tare changes by the hour due to changes in the weather. It even picks up the subtle vibration of the dishwasher downstairs. Bottom line - a
Re: [meteorite-list] XRF Test results UNWA First try
All, I work with a hand-held Niton XRF on a regular basis, and they are amazing machines if one recognizes their proper applications and limitations. The first limitation is that they can't measure anything lighter than sodium (or more realistically, sulfur) unless you buy a super expensive helium-purged unit. The light elements present their own set of problems even then. For example, a significant part of the signal return would be from the air, not the sample, unless you undertake the measurements in a vacuum. However, the inability to measure the light elements has a few benefits. You can measure directly through low molecular weight substances, so plastic bags or surface coatings are no problem. Detection limits vary from element to element and sample to sample depending on spectral interference from other elements present. One must always consider results in light of the detection limit, which is reported for every reading. It is common to see results like 5ppm +/- 150ppm (in which case the 5 ppm is utterly meaningless), so an analytical report that doesn't include the detection limits can be entirely misleading. (The unit allows one to configure the reporting format such that detection limits are included). Some elements, such as gold, can only be resolved from interfering wavelengths at high concentrations, so the machine becomes quite useless when dealing with more typical ppb concentrations of gold. So, some of the elemental ratios of the lighter rock-forming elements that are often cited in chondrite classifications are not going to be measured with a portable XRF. For the heavier elements like iron and nickel, it is pure magic. The machine can be set to automatically average multiple readings so that inhomogeneities in the sample are averaged. When working with flat slabs, you can even paint the sample window back and forth while the reading is in progress to get better representations of the average composition. The units come from the factory able to directly recognize a range of industrial metal alloys. You could quite certainly develop your own standards so that the read-out could actually be campo or sikhote rather than a list of elements! The bottom line is that, like every tool, one must understand what it can and cannot do. Then work with the strengths and avoid the weaknesses. The last unit my employers purchased a few months ago was priced at $29,900 plus another $2300 for a portable analytical chamber (in which you can get good readings on a medium-sand-sized particle). The operating costs are virtually nil, but the x-ray tube does have a finite life (around 10,000 measurements), after which the unit must be returned to the factory for a replacement tube (I haven't had to replace one yet, but I think the cost is in the $10,000 range). There are licensing requirements that vary from state to state and country to country. Cheers, Norm www.tektitesource.com - Original Message From: Jim Wooddell jimwoodd...@gmail.com To: Meteorite List meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Fri, July 1, 2011 2:00:36 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] XRF Test results UNWA First try Hello Count The one we are playing with now is a Niton XL3t. It's about $30k but don't quote me on that. Google Niton XRF and you'll find it. A few people have responded and we are going to see if we can add to the element list. Kind Regards, Jim Wooddell On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Count Deiro countde...@earthlink.net wrote: Anyone on List like to smarten me up as to what one of these XRF guns cost and where one could be purchased? Count Deiro IMCA 3536 -Original Message- From: Jim Wooddell jimwoodd...@gmail.com Sent: Jun 30, 2011 2:01 PM To: cdtuc...@cox.net Cc: Meteorite List meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] XRF Test results UNWA First try Hi! I am not trying to compare. All I need is a go - no go. Then it's off to a lab for classification. I had sent this lady a list for elements. She is going to see if she can do them when she get home. Her gun is one of the better higher end units. So I will add Cr Mn and Na, thank you. I had so far Ca Cr Si Ni Mg Ga Al Fe Mn Ti Na Thanks Jim On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 1:14 PM, cdtuc...@cox.net wrote: Jim, My posts are moderated so, they do not post in real time but , until Art releases them. Please excuse these delays. I don't know of any such links with XRF generated data. I only had my own data that I paid Blaine to produce from my own rocks. In order to compare data with that of known meteorites you have to have data for a few certain elements. Not the info you got from your XRF results. All of the published needed data that is used to plot these charts with are basically the same. the data you got for your UNWA is arbitrary in that nobody really uses much of what you were given for much of anything. The elements
