Re: Mineral identification in rocks that are also radioactive using various radiometric techniques.
|
The upper peaks did not want to line up well.? I think that is because calibration was only done up to 59.5.
Charles
On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 9:14 PM Dude < dfemer@...> wrote:
Charles can you do a comparison out to past the 185 cutoff. The
185 cut off is what one would expect for a uranium only composition. The tails
would indicate some self shielding.? Looks good for a natural
Dud
?
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Charles David Young
Sent: Monday, December 23, 2019 12:52 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [XRF] Mineral identification in rocks that are also
radioactive using various radiometric techniques.
?
I guess that accounts for most of those extra peaks in the
Am X 8 scans.
Here is the U acetate compared to the liebigite.? They
have basically the same peaks.
?
Yes there is a test scan posted? with the exciter (Am X
8 pellets) and only an aluminum target. That post mentions possible background
subtraction using that data Charles.
There is lead, brass (Cu +Zn) Iron and palladium in the
exciter.
|
