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 <[email protected]> >Sent: Jun 30, 2011 2:01 PM >To: [email protected] >Cc: Meteorite List <[email protected]> >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, <[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 ______________________________________________ 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
