XRF Wiki

Welcome to the XRF Wiki. This Wiki is a repository of information contributed by members of [email protected]. Members can view and edit the pages. The pages are currently not viewable by the public. The pages below represent a rough overview of the technology and techniques associated with X-Ray Florescence Spectroscopy as well as serving as a place for members to organize the spectra that they have contributed to the forum.?

As a starting point, the pages will be populated by information taken from member posts from the past few years - with references/attribution. Perhaps in time, these pages can be edited by members to make them more complete and less choppy. Members can also edit this page, making the structure of the content more organized.?

Pages can contain information about a particular topic, links to relevant resources (such as manuals, research papers, etc.), links to relevant forum discussions on the topic, book titles, or anything that might be useful.

What follows is very much a work in progress.

Adding to the Wiki

For those unfamiliar with the Wiki phenomenon, it is basically a user editable encyclopedia. The idea is that there are pages with different articles, which the user can read and also choose to edit if desired. If a piece of information is incorrect, a link outdated, or the presentation choppy or unclear, the user can just click "Edit Page" at the bottom and then fix the mistake. There is also a "Page History," so if you a user were to make a mistake or maliciously destroy a page (which wouldn't happen here) an editor can come along and restore the page to a previous version.?

If you have used MediaWiki (the engine that runs behind the scene of Wikipedia.org) you will be familiar with a certain style of creating an article. There are tags that one uses to change the formatting of the parts of the article. The Wiki on Groups.io uses a different background engine and so the standard MediaWiki syntax does not apply here. Rather, the page is edited using the same tools as one would use to compose a message on the forums. If you are a programmer or someone who likes using the tagged syntax directly, you can access the underlying page source code, be activating the advanced editing toolbar (the icon with three lines on the far right of the basic toolbar) and then clicking on the source code icon <> on the far right of the Advance Editing Toolbar. You will immediately notice that the underlying source code is HTML. Most things can be done just by using the various icons, but advanced features like table can only be implemented by manually writing the source code. (Although there are website available that will generate the source code for you through a graphical interface.)

Here are some useful resources from Groups.io:?

Wiki Guide for Users and Editors

Message Composition Tips and Tricks

Overview of XRF

Terminology

X-Ray Florescence vs. X-Ray Diffraction

Hardware

This section describes the hardware used for XRF. We will describe the basic theory of operation of each stage in the processing tool chain and then present different commercial systems that are available as these systems are often integrated together.

[Editor note: General theory needs to be in an independent page separate from specific manufacturer information.

[Editor note - question: Should this be arranged by category, e.g detectors, preamps, etc or by manufacturer with the manufacturers product line on one page. Perhaps it's best to put a list of products with theory but the details of the products on a manufacture page...]

Detectors?- what's available, theory of operation, tradeoffs

Detector Cooling?- keeping detectors cool to avoid thermal noise and keeping the TEC from overheating

Preamps?- theory of operation, brief summary of what out there (and what not to do - such as trying to use a PMT preamp for a SiPIN diode...)

Pulse Processing Theory - high level overview of the stages of going from detector pulse to channel peaks on the computer

Commercial Systems - many commercial systems are integrated so it seems to make sense to present, for example all Amptek products together. [question: are their other affordable integrated systems besides Amptek?]

NIM Modules

Amptek XRF System

Activation Sources - what do you use to make the sample fluoresce (that's within the amateur budget and doesn't require special licensing)

Exempt Isotopes

X-Ray Sources

Power Supplies

Hardware Schematics

Software

Device Control Software - what do you use to collect the data from the detector system
XRF Analysis Software - what do you use to analyze the data, especially for quantitative measurements (composition percentages, thin film measurement)
Free Software Tools

Note: there may be software packages that possess some or all of these characteristics.

Materials Spectra

Minerals Spectra

Metals Spectra

Historic/Archeological Spectra

Reference Materials Spectra

Household Objects Spectra

Resources

XRF Charts

Videos

Books

Articles

Websites

Non-XRF Techniques

Gamma Spectroscopy

Raman Spectroscopy

FTIR - Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy

Atomic Emission Spectroscopy

Inductively Coupled Atomic Emission Spectroscopy

Spark Emission Spectroscopy

Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy

LIBS - Laser Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy

Photoacoustic Spectroscopy

Re: Trinitite

#1225
Edited

Another bummer. Been trying to load DECAY_v4 since last night. No go. Install program insists the program be loaded to PROGRAM FILES, but WIN10 wont let me mess with that folder, even tho logged in as administrator. Had same issues when first loaded WIN 10 into all the notebooks.

Pictured attached this post is from Pu-238_? pdf in FILES, shows all the different L X-Rays. When added together the sum is approx. what DECAYv3 says. But we know the energies are slightly different than the one listed in V3.

Thanks for Decay4.zip, will load that into a folder other than PROGRAM FILES, to see will it run from there. That's how we had to do V3 too. Perhaps I need V3 removed?

Also perhaps we could swap out the relative tables in V3 with V4 tables?

Geo

EDIT- Finally got DECAYv4 loaded and working. Way different than DECAYv3. Much more info but in a different format- will probably keep both.

Geo

Re: Si pin xrf ..1st go

#1224

Probably not much on the metal surface helping heat, because there there are rubber feet on the bottor to allow airflow on the bottom surface.

You can however place a goodly chunk of aluminum on the top of the main box, like I do on the one inside the graded shield, about 1" thick Al scrap piece. Copper even better. All for heat transfer, not rad shielding

Show quoted text

From: "taray singh via groups.io" <sukhjez@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, September 28, 2020 10:40:30 AM
Subject: Re: [XRF] Si pin xrf ..1st go

Geo
Ok will do it ...
As you can see in the pic,I placed the detector on a ?metal surface
I hope it also acts as a heatsink?
Taray

Re: Si pin xrf ..1st go

taray singh

#1223

Geo
Ok will do it ...
As you can see in the pic,I placed the detector on a ?metal surface
I hope it also acts as a heatsink?
Taray

Re: Si pin xrf ..1st go

#1222

Your sensor box and RAPCAP (AmX6 ring) are in good geometry. The case of the GEO-1-2-3 is also a heat sink so make sure there is airflow around it.No blower needed, just natural air. The case gets warm like a puppy, not hot.

Try this-The 1-2-3 does not have to be connected or turned on for this:

On your selenium scan-

Bring up the saved .mca file by using

FILE; OPEN FILE function. If no other files are loaded, it will appear as Live_Data2.

Press F6 to show SPECTRA LIST drop down (if it is not on the screen already).

Click on? title Live_Data2, there will be a drop down menu, one of the options is MODIFY- select that. Within the page that comes up, you can rename the scan, maybe Se-1_Septxx2020

When that's done ,select the selenium scan, and change one setting on that- in the RANGE boxes at the bottom change the first box from 0 to 3 and the second one change from 133 to 62.

This will eliminate the noise at the bottom (far left) and spread out the data more and give much more detail on the screen. This is the main useful range of Si-PIN sensors. I include 62 in all my scans to preserve 59.5 as a calibration point.

Later you will want to examine even smaller groups of? peaks, so you can then change the RANGE boxes to say maybe 2 and 25 or whatever range contains the details you want to investigate at that moment.

By the way for all members using this same device, my recent posts on Trinitite were made with one, notice some scans are from January-February 2020 and some are from Sept2020. These are all made with same sensor s/n and still use same calibration factors after being turned off for 6+ month! No drift.?

have fun

Geo

Show quoted text

From: "taray singh via groups.io" <sukhjez@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, September 28, 2020 6:00:07 AM
Subject: [XRF] Si pin xrf ..1st go

Hi guys

Using 6 Am241 /ludlum??lead disc??glued to cardboard box

Si pin??near orifice

Due to the shape of detector and fear of samples potentially damaging Be window,I opted for this way

Anyway it is only a prototype.

Accidentally glued one the Am buttons upside down and it is really stuck

Will fix it next time..

Samples as follows?

1 Selenium

Was discussed in the old forum

My sample is a centrifuged suspension of selenium sulphide(selsen) in a??plastic sample container .It has remained the same since preparation about 2 years ago

It sticks like a coating so without a container,alpha is active.

2 X ray apron polymer

Nowadays they are lead free and consist of polymers mixed??with antimony,tungsten or bismuth etc to make it light weight?

I always thought there was antimony present in my sample from my previous xrf experiments.It appears to Tin here??

3 Bipp a bismuth iodine medical paste

4 Mn 99.7% purity in a plastic container?

Thanks

Taray

Re: Si pin xrf ..1st go

#1221

Super work Taray. We look forward to your work because you have access to samples we usually don't see here!

Geo

Show quoted text

From: "taray singh via groups.io" <sukhjez@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, September 28, 2020 6:00:07 AM
Subject: [XRF] Si pin xrf ..1st go

Hi guys

Using 6 Am241 /ludlum??lead disc??glued to cardboard box

Si pin??near orifice

Due to the shape of detector and fear of samples potentially damaging Be window,I opted for this way

Anyway it is only a prototype.

Accidentally glued one the Am buttons upside down and it is really stuck

Will fix it next time..

Samples as follows?

1 Selenium

Was discussed in the old forum

My sample is a centrifuged suspension of selenium sulphide(selsen) in a??plastic sample container .It has remained the same since preparation about 2 years ago

It sticks like a coating so without a container,alpha is active.

2 X ray apron polymer

Nowadays they are lead free and consist of polymers mixed??with antimony,tungsten or bismuth etc to make it light weight?

I always thought there was antimony present in my sample from my previous xrf experiments.It appears to Tin here??

3 Bipp a bismuth iodine medical paste

4 Mn 99.7% purity in a plastic container?

Thanks

Taray

Re: Si pin xrf ..1st go

taray singh

#1220

Oops
Error in BIPP pic
Here it is ..
Also managed to correct Am241 orientation and added 2 more.
These exciters are flat-top unlike the regular button like regular ones I used before.
Really sticks well due to wider surface area.

D6111D32-D9C0-4337-B80C-FDBD8056449F.jpeg

Si pin xrf ..1st go

taray singh

#1219

Hi guys

Using 6 Am241 /ludlum??lead disc??glued to cardboard box

Si pin??near orifice

Due to the shape of detector and fear of samples potentially damaging Be window,I opted for this way

Anyway it is only a prototype.

Accidentally glued one the Am buttons upside down and it is really stuck

Will fix it next time..

Samples as follows?

1 Selenium

Was discussed in the old forum

My sample is a centrifuged suspension of selenium sulphide(selsen) in a??plastic sample container .It has remained the same since preparation about 2 years ago

It sticks like a coating so without a container,alpha is active.

2 X ray apron polymer

Nowadays they are lead free and consist of polymers mixed??with antimony,tungsten or bismuth etc to make it light weight?

I always thought there was antimony present in my sample from my previous xrf experiments.It appears to Tin here??

3 Bipp a bismuth iodine medical paste

4 Mn 99.7% purity in a plastic container?

Thanks

Taray

18CE68BB-AD90-4E3F-870F-93FAFBBD4FFE.jpeg

82CBF5EF-A4A5-4A6B-89B6-D329F29B79DA.jpeg

28675474-CC86-48E8-A709-D861E96BB824.jpeg

E955A797-3B2A-4200-9002-37700EFA901D.jpeg

C9D0DD76-3895-49DD-9D05-9454A7105851.jpeg

2BF2AFAC-8DDB-47BE-9FFE-872BBF2CB2C4.jpeg

F7F27AC1-3154-47A9-B8F8-2CD0907D7B18.jpeg

Re: Trinitite

#1218

开云体育

Ver 3 is out of date and has errors in it. Use Ver 4.

Dud

Show quoted text

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of GEOelectronics@...
Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2020 5:37 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [XRF] Trinitite

My version is 3.0, 1999 I find it easier to use.

We're talking about Pu-239 correct?:

Photon Emission Products: Pu-239
Fraction? ? Energy(MeV)
0.000476? ? 0.112910
0.044141? ? 0.013600

----- Original Message -----
From: Dude <dfemer@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sun, 27 Sep 2020 19:34:02 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [XRF] Trinitite

margin: 0.0in;
font-size: 12.0pt;
font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;
}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {
color: blue;
text-decoration: underline;
}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {
color: purple;
text-decoration: underline;
}
p {
margin-right: 0.0in;
margin-left: 0.0in;
font-size: 12.0pt;
font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;
}
span.EmailStyle18 {
font-family: Arial , sans-serif;
color: black;
}
*.MsoChpDefault {
font-size: 10.0pt;
}
div.Section1 {
page: Section1;
}
/*]]>*/

What
version?

贬补肠办别谤’蝉
Rad Decay Ver 4 shows these yields much lower 238 = La 3.79, 239 La 1.57. Other
references also support the lower yields.

Dud

From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of GEOelectronics@...
Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2020 3:50 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [XRF] Trinitite

Using
"Prof. C. Hacker's DECAY program",
same one as always since day 1. If you see it elsewhere, please reference the
source.

Geo

-----
Original Message -----

From: Dude <dfemer@...>

To: [email protected]

Sent: Sun, 27 Sep 2020 16:37:34 -0400 (EDT)

Subject: Re: [XRF] Trinitite

margin: 0.0in;

font-size: 12.0pt;

font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;

}

a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {

color: blue;

text-decoration: underline;

}

a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {

color: purple;

text-decoration: underline;

}

p {

margin-right: 0.0in;

margin-left: 0.0in;

font-size: 12.0pt;

font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;

}

span.EmailStyle18 {

font-family: Arial , sans-serif;

color: black;

}

*.MsoChpDefault {

}

div.Section1 {

page: Section1;

}

/*]]>*/

Geo,

Double

check those yields. They look to be about 3x too high. Which program were you

using?

Dud

From:
[email protected]

[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of GEOelectronics@...
Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2020 12:31 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [XRF] Trinitite

From Prof. C. Hacker's DECAY

program,?

the likelihood of Pu-238 decay producing a Ka1 X-Ray from

it's progeny U-234 is 11.57%

Photon Emission Products: Pu-238

Fraction? ?Energy(MeV)

0.000473 0.055303

0.115750 0.013600

the likelihood of Pu-239 decay

producing a Ka1 X-Ray from it's progeny U-235 is 4.414% per decay:

Photon Emission Products: Pu-239??

Fraction Energy(MeV)

0.000476 0.112910

0.044141 0.013600

the likelihood of Pu-240 decay producing a Ka1 X-Ray from

it's progeny U-236 is 11%

Photon Emission Products: Pu-240

Fraction Energy(MeV)

0.000525 0.054327

0.110120 0.013600

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

? ? ??

There are other paths to U daughters but their decay chain longevity is pretty

long so not included

on this list but will be considered after discussion.

Geo

raddecay_v4.zip

Re: Trinitite

#1217

The other resource doesn't even list X-Rays on the newest scans of Pu-238 or 339:

Bummer.

Show quoted text

----- Original Message -----
From: Dude <dfemer@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sun, 27 Sep 2020 19:34:02 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [XRF] Trinitite

What
version?

贬补肠办别谤’蝉
Rad Decay Ver 4 shows these yields much lower 238 = La 3.79, 239 La 1.57. Other
references also support the lower yields.

Dud

From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of GEOelectronics@...
Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2020 3:50 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [XRF] Trinitite

Using
"Prof. C. Hacker's DECAY program",
same one as always since day 1. If you see it elsewhere, please reference the
source.

Geo

-----
Original Message -----

From: Dude <dfemer@...>

To: [email protected]

Sent: Sun, 27 Sep 2020 16:37:34 -0400 (EDT)

Subject: Re: [XRF] Trinitite

margin: 0.0in;

font-size: 12.0pt;

font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;

}

a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {

color: blue;

text-decoration: underline;

}

a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {

color: purple;

text-decoration: underline;

}

p {

margin-right: 0.0in;

margin-left: 0.0in;

font-size: 12.0pt;

font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;

}

span.EmailStyle18 {

font-family: Arial , sans-serif;

color: black;

}

*.MsoChpDefault {

}

div.Section1 {

page: Section1;

}

/*]]>*/

Geo,

Double

check those yields. They look to be about 3x too high. Which program were you

using?

Dud

From:
[email protected]

[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of GEOelectronics@...
Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2020 12:31 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [XRF] Trinitite

From Prof. C. Hacker's DECAY

program,?

the likelihood of Pu-238 decay producing a Ka1 X-Ray from

it's progeny U-234 is 11.57%

Photon Emission Products: Pu-238

Fraction? ?Energy(MeV)

0.000473 0.055303

0.115750 0.013600

the likelihood of Pu-239 decay

producing a Ka1 X-Ray from it's progeny U-235 is 4.414% per decay:

Photon Emission Products: Pu-239??

Fraction Energy(MeV)

0.000476 0.112910

0.044141 0.013600

the likelihood of Pu-240 decay producing a Ka1 X-Ray from

it's progeny U-236 is 11%

Photon Emission Products: Pu-240

Fraction Energy(MeV)

0.000525 0.054327

0.110120 0.013600

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

? ? ??

There are other paths to U daughters but their decay chain longevity is pretty

long so not included

on this list but will be considered after discussion.

Geo

Re: Trinitite

#1216

My version is 3.0, 1999 I find it easier to use.

We're talking about Pu-239 correct?:

Photon Emission Products: Pu-239
Fraction? ? Energy(MeV)
0.000476? ? 0.112910
0.044141? ? 0.013600

Show quoted text

----- Original Message -----
From: Dude <dfemer@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sun, 27 Sep 2020 19:34:02 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [XRF] Trinitite

What
version?

贬补肠办别谤’蝉
Rad Decay Ver 4 shows these yields much lower 238 = La 3.79, 239 La 1.57. Other
references also support the lower yields.

Dud

From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of GEOelectronics@...
Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2020 3:50 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [XRF] Trinitite

Using
"Prof. C. Hacker's DECAY program",
same one as always since day 1. If you see it elsewhere, please reference the
source.

Geo

-----
Original Message -----

From: Dude <dfemer@...>

To: [email protected]

Sent: Sun, 27 Sep 2020 16:37:34 -0400 (EDT)

Subject: Re: [XRF] Trinitite

margin: 0.0in;

font-size: 12.0pt;

font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;

}

a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {

color: blue;

text-decoration: underline;

}

a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {

color: purple;

text-decoration: underline;

}

p {

margin-right: 0.0in;

margin-left: 0.0in;

font-size: 12.0pt;

font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;

}

span.EmailStyle18 {

font-family: Arial , sans-serif;

color: black;

}

*.MsoChpDefault {

}

div.Section1 {

page: Section1;

}

/*]]>*/

Geo,

Double

check those yields. They look to be about 3x too high. Which program were you

using?

Dud

From:
[email protected]

[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of GEOelectronics@...
Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2020 12:31 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [XRF] Trinitite

From Prof. C. Hacker's DECAY

program,?

the likelihood of Pu-238 decay producing a Ka1 X-Ray from

it's progeny U-234 is 11.57%

Photon Emission Products: Pu-238

Fraction? ?Energy(MeV)

0.000473 0.055303

0.115750 0.013600

the likelihood of Pu-239 decay

producing a Ka1 X-Ray from it's progeny U-235 is 4.414% per decay:

Photon Emission Products: Pu-239??

Fraction Energy(MeV)

0.000476 0.112910

0.044141 0.013600

the likelihood of Pu-240 decay producing a Ka1 X-Ray from

it's progeny U-236 is 11%

Photon Emission Products: Pu-240

Fraction Energy(MeV)

0.000525 0.054327

0.110120 0.013600

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

? ? ??

There are other paths to U daughters but their decay chain longevity is pretty

long so not included

on this list but will be considered after discussion.

Geo

Re: Trinitite

#1215

开云体育

What version?

贬补肠办别谤’蝉 Rad Decay Ver 4 shows these yields much lower 238 = La 3.79, 239 La 1.57. Other references also support the lower yields.

Dud

Show quoted text

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of GEOelectronics@...
Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2020 3:50 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [XRF] Trinitite

Using "Prof. C. Hacker's DECAY program", same one as always since day 1. If you see it elsewhere, please reference the source.

Geo

----- Original Message -----
From: Dude <dfemer@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sun, 27 Sep 2020 16:37:34 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [XRF] Trinitite

Geo,

Double
check those yields. They look to be about 3x too high. Which program were you
using?

Dud

From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of GEOelectronics@...
Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2020 12:31 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [XRF] Trinitite

From Prof. C. Hacker's DECAY
program,?

the likelihood of Pu-238 decay producing a Ka1 X-Ray from
it's progeny U-234 is 11.57%

Photon Emission Products: Pu-238

Fraction? ?Energy(MeV)

0.000473 0.055303

0.115750 0.013600

the likelihood of Pu-239 decay
producing a Ka1 X-Ray from it's progeny U-235 is 4.414% per decay:

Photon Emission Products: Pu-239??

Fraction Energy(MeV)

0.000476 0.112910

0.044141 0.013600

the likelihood of Pu-240 decay producing a Ka1 X-Ray from
it's progeny U-236 is 11%

Photon Emission Products: Pu-240

Fraction Energy(MeV)

0.000525 0.054327

0.110120 0.013600

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ??

There are other paths to U daughters but their decay chain longevity is pretty
long so not included

on this list but will be considered after discussion.

Geo

Pu-239.pdf

Pu-238.pdf

Re: Trinitite

#1214

Using "Prof. C. Hacker's DECAY program", same one as always since day 1. If you see it elsewhere, please reference the source.

Geo

Show quoted text

----- Original Message -----
From: Dude <dfemer@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sun, 27 Sep 2020 16:37:34 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [XRF] Trinitite

Geo,

Double
check those yields. They look to be about 3x too high. Which program were you
using?

Dud

From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of GEOelectronics@...
Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2020 12:31 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [XRF] Trinitite

From Prof. C. Hacker's DECAY
program,?

the likelihood of Pu-238 decay producing a Ka1 X-Ray from
it's progeny U-234 is 11.57%

Photon Emission Products: Pu-238

Fraction? ?Energy(MeV)

0.000473 0.055303

0.115750 0.013600

the likelihood of Pu-239 decay
producing a Ka1 X-Ray from it's progeny U-235 is 4.414% per decay:

Photon Emission Products: Pu-239??

Fraction Energy(MeV)

0.000476 0.112910

0.044141 0.013600

the likelihood of Pu-240 decay producing a Ka1 X-Ray from
it's progeny U-236 is 11%

Photon Emission Products: Pu-240

Fraction Energy(MeV)

0.000525 0.054327

0.110120 0.013600

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ??

There are other paths to U daughters but their decay chain longevity is pretty
long so not included

on this list but will be considered after discussion.

Geo

Re: Trinitite

#1213

Now on to quantification.?

It takes the calibrated sample ~3 times longer to reach the peak height of the
BLOB when using the 17.22 keV line.

(C)George Dowell
27SEP2020
Geo

blob_vs_Calibrated_Standard-C-.png

Re: Trinitite

#1212

开云体育

Geo,

Double check those yields. They look to be about 3x too high. Which program were you using?

Dud

Show quoted text

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of GEOelectronics@...
Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2020 12:31 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [XRF] Trinitite

From Prof. C. Hacker's DECAY program,?

the likelihood of Pu-238 decay producing a Ka1 X-Ray from it's progeny U-234 is 11.57%

Photon Emission Products: Pu-238
Fraction? ?Energy(MeV)
0.000473 0.055303
0.115750 0.013600

the likelihood of Pu-239 decay producing a Ka1 X-Ray from it's progeny U-235 is 4.414% per decay:

Photon Emission Products: Pu-239??

Fraction Energy(MeV)

0.000476 0.112910

0.044141 0.013600

the likelihood of Pu-240 decay producing a Ka1 X-Ray from it's progeny U-236 is 11%

Photon Emission Products: Pu-240
Fraction Energy(MeV)
0.000525 0.054327
0.110120 0.013600

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??

There are other paths to U daughters but their decay chain longevity is pretty long so not included

on this list but will be considered after discussion.

Geo

Re: Trinitite

#1211

From Prof. C. Hacker's DECAY program,?

the likelihood of Pu-238 decay producing a Ka1 X-Ray from it's progeny U-234 is 11.57%

Photon Emission Products: Pu-238
Fraction? ?Energy(MeV)
0.000473 0.055303
0.115750 0.013600

the likelihood of Pu-239 decay producing a Ka1 X-Ray from it's progeny U-235 is 4.414% per decay:

Photon Emission Products: Pu-239??

Fraction Energy(MeV)

0.000476 0.112910

0.044141 0.013600

the likelihood of Pu-240 decay producing a Ka1 X-Ray from it's progeny U-236 is 11%

Photon Emission Products: Pu-240
Fraction Energy(MeV)
0.000525 0.054327
0.110120 0.013600

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??

There are other paths to U daughters but their decay chain longevity is pretty long so not included

on this list but will be considered after discussion.

Geo

Re: Trinitite

#1210

Americium? vs. Plutonium via? Neptunium vs. Uranium Daughter XRF.

Part 3

Case study of decay prompted progeny XRF from "the blob" also known as 2-dot metal only sample of Atomsite.

Equipment used:
Amptek GEO-1-2-3 with integral DPP/PC5 electronics and Si-PIN detector with preamplifier, external Amptek 5V 2A switching power supply wall-wart for power.
Controlling computer is a 32 bit ACER ASPIRE ONE?NOTEBOOK with WIN10 running Amptek?DPPMCA control and analysis program, USB connected.
Source being tested, suspected Trinity debris suspected of containing a small amount of Am.

LOG scale, recalibrated to known Fe X-Ray and Am Gamma Ray lines 6.40 and 59.55 keV respectively. Highlighted by the cursor are one line at a time from lower to higher in?successive pictures. The purpose is to study the peak height relationship of the know Am contribution's progeny Np to the progeny U from unknow and unseen parent, assumed to be one or
more Pu-2xx. U progeny possible origin from other parents or processes will be ruled in or out in further testing at different energy ranges.

Fig. 1: The BLOB w/2 painted dots for ID.

Fig. 2: Low energy 0-61 keV Gamma Scan. LOG display selected, Fe highlighted by cursor. Using active XRF and other tests, the major element present in this sample was determined to be Fe
Atomsite Si-PIN-Iron_Base_Self_XRF.png

Fig. 3: Low energy 0-61 keV Gamma Scan. LOG display selected, Fe highlighted by cursor. Lowest of the 3
progeny X-Rays @? 13.61 and therefore labeled as U La1.
Atomsite Si-PIN-LOG-U-La1.png

Fig. 4: Low energy 0-61 keV Gamma Scan. LOG display selected, 17.22 highlighted by cursor. Next higher of the 3 predominant??progeny X-Rays @? 17.22 and therefore labeled as U Lb1
Atomsite Si-PIN-LOG-U-Lb1.png

Fig. 5: Low energy 0-61 keV Gamma Scan. LOG display selected, 20.16 highlighted by cursor. Next higher of the 3 predominant??progeny X-Rays @? 17.22 and therefore labeled as U Ly1.?? Atomsite Si-PIN-LOG-U-Ly1.png

Fig. 6: Low energy 0-61 keV Gamma Scan. LOG display selected, 59.55 highlighted by cursor.
This is Am-241 Gamma-Ray. It is one of the calibration points used to make the original scan and in shown in this series to indicate the relative pulse height on this articular sensor, as compared to the pulse height of the low energy X-Rays we are studying.

Atomsite Si-PIN-LOG-Am-y-Ray.png

Preliminary conclusions:
1) There is Am 241 present in the sample, therefore there are some Np-237 X-Rays in the sample.
? ? We know from previous tests with actual Am sources what the ratio of 59.5 to the X-Rays should? ? ? ? be. The ratio of 59.5 to the X-Rays we see here are not consistent with a pure Am-241 source.
? ? ?Therefore there is another source present that is overwhelming the actual Am-241 X-Rays with
? ? ? what I believe to be U L-line X-Ray, which are very close to the Np X-rays in energy.
2) We know from the presence of Am-241 that there was plutonium present when this metal was? ? ? ? ? ?melted.Pu-241 beta decays to Am-241
3) We know that many Pu isotopes alpha decay to uranium.? Examples are?Pu-239>U-235,?
? ? ?Pu-240>U-238, Pu-238>U-234.

Geo

2-Dots_Blob.jpg

Atomsite Si-PIN-Iron_Base_Self_XRF.png

Atomsite Si-PIN-LOG-U-La1.png

Atomsite Si-PIN-LOG-U-Lb1.png

Atomsite Si-PIN-LOG-U-Ly1.png

Atomsite Si-PIN-LOG-Am-y-Ray.png

Re: Trinitite

#1209

"I don't know, but it may be possible that two different elements may have an electron transition energy (optical or x-ray) that is the same for both."

There are some close together XRF but as far as I know every one is unique and are recorded in the X-Ray data book down to several decimal places.

(correction welcomed). Geo

Show quoted text

----- Original Message -----
From: Randall Buck <rbuck@...>
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Sent: Sat, 26 Sep 2020 23:19:34 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [XRF] Trinitite

Almost entirely Correct.
I don't know, but it may be possible that two different elements may have an electron transition energy (optical or x-ray) that is the same for both.
Even if true, the energies will differ in terms of the hyperfine transitions since they reflect the number of neutrons in the nucleus.

Randall

----- Original Message -----
From: GEOelectronics@...
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sat, 26 Sep 2020 16:09:53 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [XRF] Trinitite

"NOTE-electrons in all the elements occupy discreet energy bands. No two energy bands (electron shells) from different elements are the same.
Geo"

Does that sound more corrector or should I give up on that sentence altogether?

Geo
----- Original Message -----
From: Randall Buck <rbuck@...>
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Sent: Sat, 26 Sep 2020 18:42:51 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [XRF] Trinitite

Hi Geo,

Not too sure what you meant to say here: (clip)
NOTE- every electron in all the elements together occupy an individual and discreet energy band. No two electrons from the same or different elements are the same.
Geo
Of course, every  electron, per se, is exactly identical to every other electron.  
In an atomic context:
Electrons can, however, occupy discrete energy levels within any given atom of any given element.
Identical elements, in their ground energy state, have all their electrons occupying identical energy levels.
Identical elements in different  energy states will have one or more electrons that occupy different energy levels. 
Two electrons can occupy one atomic energy level only if their spin states are opposed.

Randall

Re: Trinitite

#1208

Almost entirely Correct.
I don't know, but it may be possible that two different elements may have an electron transition energy (optical or x-ray) that is the same for both.
Even if true, the energies will differ in terms of the hyperfine transitions since they reflect the number of neutrons in the nucleus.

Randall

Show quoted text

----- Original Message -----
From: GEOelectronics@...
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sat, 26 Sep 2020 16:09:53 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [XRF] Trinitite

"NOTE-electrons in all the elements occupy discreet energy bands. No two energy bands (electron shells) from different elements are the same.
Geo"

Does that sound more corrector or should I give up on that sentence altogether?

Geo
----- Original Message -----
From: Randall Buck <rbuck@...>
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Sent: Sat, 26 Sep 2020 18:42:51 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [XRF] Trinitite

Hi Geo,

Not too sure what you meant to say here: (clip)
NOTE- every electron in all the elements together occupy an individual and discreet energy band. No two electrons from the same or different elements are the same.
Geo
Of course, every  electron, per se, is exactly identical to every other electron.  
In an atomic context:
Electrons can, however, occupy discrete energy levels within any given atom of any given element.
Identical elements, in their ground energy state, have all their electrons occupying identical energy levels.
Identical elements in different  energy states will have one or more electrons that occupy different energy levels. 
Two electrons can occupy one atomic energy level only if their spin states are opposed.

Randall

Re: Trinitite

#1206

some information that will come in handy later:

Table 3.

Measured concentrations of?137Cs and?239Pu in Trinity nuclear debris, decay corrected to July 16, 1945

Sample	137Cs, atoms/g	239Pu, atoms/g
31–1	2.03(14) × 1012	1.72(4) × 1015
32–1	1.07(12) × 1012	1.64(4) × 1015
33–1	1.82(18) × 1012	1.50(3) × 1015
34–1	1.80(15) × 1012	1.64(4) × 1015
40–1	1.70(43) × 1011	1.56(4) × 1014

The uncertainties expressed represent expanded (k?= 2) values.

Table S4.

Plutonium isotopic measurements, decay corrected to July 16,1945

Sample	239Pu, atoms/g debris	240Pu/239Pu	241Pu/239Pu
31	1.72(4) × 1015	0.02426(8)	4.3(8) × 10?4
32	1.64(4) × 1015	0.02508(12)	5.2(6) × 10?4
33	1.50(3) × 1015	0.02432(12)	4.6(8) × 10?4
34	1.64(4) × 1015	0.02446(14)	4.8(8) × 10?4
40	1.56(4) × 1014	0.02476(20)	4.7(8) × 10?4

The uncertainties expressed represent expanded (k?= 2) values.

Source:

Geo

Re: Trinitite

#1205
Edited

Americium? vs. Plutonium via? Neptunium vs. Uranium Daughter XRF.

Part 2.2

Comparing known Am/Np and known U-234 X-Ray scans together.

Equipment used:
Amptek GEO-1-2-3 with integral DPP/PC5 electronics and Si-PIN detector with preamplifier, external Amptek 5V 2A switching power supply wall-wart for power.
Controlling computer is a 32 bit ACER ASPIRE ONE?NOTEBOOK with WIN10 running Amptek?DPPMCA control and analysis program, USB connected.
Source being tested, suspected Trinity debris suspected of containing a small amount of Am.

Comparing known Am/Np and known U-234 X-Ray scans together.

Maybe it's possible to measure the Am and subtract it's progeny's X-Rays to leave just the U X-Rays to calculate the Pu-239 load in Trinitite or atomsite?

Geo

Np_vs_U_X-Rays_Thesis-PUB-BAK.png

881 - 900 of 1832