开云体育

Final on the aluminum planchet source. 14400secs. But the source an positively be identified in 3 minutes. Geo

Hi Charles, close but no Am involved. The exciter is natural U-238, we are seeing the decay of the daughter Pa-234m (also known as UX2). We are essentially seeing only the birth of the U-234daughter

Try a longer PT and threshold setting see if the noise gets better. Also take off the plastic cap I don’t see any Ar yet. Dud Sent: Friday, October 30, 2020 5:37 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re:

I am not sure exactly what I am looking at here but I like the sharpness of the peaks and the low noise. Is this a scan with an Am241 exciter? See attached. Charles

25.6 like last run, but auto threshold adjust applied. 8500s update .mca below. Didn't help "noise" at low end, did noticeably improve definition of peaks above 3 keV. 3.3 yes it is Ka1 of

That run ended, reset the auto Threshold control, restarted, will report back over next 4 hours, already looks better tho. Geo To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, October 30, 2020 4:58:38 PM

Click on LINEAR view, looks pretty good to me, the L X-rays are the subject, but you are right I didn't do the threshold routine. Do you think 25.6 is too slow? I'm afraid if something with high count

It looks like the low energy electronic noise is a problem below 1.8 keV. You’ll need to try resetting the threshold filters or try a higher PT as noise counts are 10 times your signal Dud

This is real time an still counting but it accumulated 11,250 secs now. .mca below. Geo

Looks like Al at 1.4 keV and P at 2.01 but these need a MUCH longer count. K at 3.3. noise at 4.5? Cr at 5.42 and U Ll at 11.64 and Zn 8.64 and 9.57 keV Needs way more counts before I put my

Try this one when you can Dud. It's? a stronger sample on an aluminum planchet this time. Calibration spot on for U La1 and Lg1 Also was set up to try 25.6 peaking.

Got it. Thanks. Geo To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, October 30, 2020 1:02:37 PM Subject: Re: [XRF] 59.5keV spectrum cleanup It would come off of the ROI. The FWHM will change with energy so

It would come off of the ROI. The FWHM will change with energy so its specific to a peak. In DPPmca set an ROI on the peaks using the ^ peak like thing on the tool bar. Use the cursor and left click

Charles, I don’t see much difference either, Maybe just a very slightly lower count ratio of the 2 low energy peaks of the covered run. Your MCA files have no calibrates in them, that really has

' You’ll note that the 19.2 peaking time has a much better 13.6 keV FWHM resolution than the 4.8 (0.192 vs .396 FWHM)." Dud,THANKS for that update and analysis> is there a report log to

" Test everything! Yes I am gonna scan my x-ray exciter tube I have a X ray generating tube with unknown anode material Sort of like biting the hand that feeds you Taray" Easily

Geo, The 4.8 usec doesn’t have the filter fast thresholds set correctly as a result it has you seeing 3135 valid counts with a noise count of 128,980.While The 19.2 PT has 4534 valid counts with a

From what I know about XRD it requires careful preparation of the sample. I know grinding is involved. Interpreting the results is also not as straightforward as XRF. For now, the XRF is working

Geo The you tubers are overdoing it to score brownie points? Should do it for less than a min? Too long saturates iron residue diluting any other heavy metal present provided it is coming from