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 <[email protected]> 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 <[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
