Re: Mystery wire
¿ªÔÆÌåÓýHi Dud, ? Thanks for the very detailed analysis of the mystery wire.? I see in the description that you call it ¡®insulated wire¡¯.? Was the insulation still on the wire when you ran the analysis, or had the insulation been removed?? I don¡¯t know for certain, but suspect the insulation might possibly be Teflon, or something of similar nature.? If the analysis was performed with the insulation still on the wire, could that account for some of the low-energy (LE) response, potentially from the Carbon, Chlorine, and Fluorine, etc. if the insulation was indeed Teflon? ? I¡¯ll have to pull out Geo¡¯s results and see how they compare, although I don¡¯t recall that he quantified percentages of each of the metals in the mix. Again, many thanks for your analysis of the wire.? ? Have a great weekend. ? 73s? --? Ken ? ? From: Dude
Sent: Friday, February 7, 2020 04:05 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [XRF] Mystery wire ? Ken, Attached are the results of your Mystery Wire. The data were taken with an Olympus DP4050 pXRF. As I don¡¯t have an ALLOY calibration for this gun I used the Mining Mode to get the percentage of elements present The set up used a 50kV 11 uA x-ray beam with a live time of 30 secs obtaining account rate of 9505 cps from the SDD detector. ? Mn was identified but it has an interference from Cr and Fe, probably there but not confirmed V is not present Co is not present Fe interference Ti is not there, interference from Si escape peak Zn is not confirmed LE are the Low Energy elements ? ? ? ? ? |
