[meteorite-list] XRF Test results UNWA First try

From: Jim Wooddell <jimwooddell_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 14:01:19 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTin2En-QA6O=ewmsBZL+pZ6L3giN5Q_at_mail.gmail.com>

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, <cdtucson at 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 <jimwooddell at 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, ?<cdtucson at 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 <jimwooddell at 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
>> >> ______________________________________________
>> >> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
>> >> Meteorite-list mailing list
>> >> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>> >> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>> >
>
Received on Thu 30 Jun 2011 05:01:19 PM PDT