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, <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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, <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 >> >> ______________________________________________ >> >> Visit the Archives at >> >> http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html >> >> Meteorite-list mailing list >> >> [email protected] >> >> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list >> > > ______________________________________________ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
