Keyboard Shortcuts
Likes
Search
cyrtolite Little Patsy OT- XRF Bassetite under X-Ray tube
开云体育Geo, Something is wrong here. Is your E cal correct? The “Fe” is not centered and these peaks are too broad. I assume you’re using the new sample chamber. Where is ?this background coming from? Re-run a better rock and look at the difference.? I think you have a bad geometry setup between the sample, detector and the X-ray beam. Re run an old sample and compare the differences.? I’m confused on this. dud ? From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of GEOelectronics@...
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 8:25 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [XRF] cyrtolite Little Patsy OT- XRF Bassetite under X-Ray tube ? Sorry interruption, this is the Basserite scan for Charles,
plus a no-sample scan for background info- and there's a lot of background with
a full lead shield! |
|
Skip over to the "2020" thread for the latest Dud. By the way the telephone is on here if you need. Geo ----- Original Message ----- From: Dude <dfemer@...> To: [email protected] Sent: Mon, 27 Jan 2020 12:51:15 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [XRF] cyrtolite Little Patsy OT- XRF Bassetite under X-Ray tube Geo, Something is wrong here. Is your E cal correct? The “Fe” is not dud ? From: [email protected] ? Sorry interruption, this is the Basserite scan for Charles, |
|
Yeah, this confuses me as well.? Is this Si-PIN?? The cal is 4 points that are not linear and very different from the 2 point cal that I have been using with Si-PIN. Charles On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 11:47 AM <GEOelectronics@...> wrote:
|
|
On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 11:16 AM, Charles David Young wrote:
Yes Si-PIN, same exact unit as yours Charles. Calibration points depend on # of channels and especially gain settings. This is addressed in setup, because there is non standard. Sometimes you want 512 channels and want to examine 0-50 keV, other times you might want to examine 0-200 keV for full screen, with the same 512 channels. Or 8000 channels. Usually I make the scan cover twice the range I'm interested in, but also at twice the channels I think might be needed. Then only display those channels that have something interesting in them. This way resolution is maintained when "zooming in", up to a point at least. Upper range is limited by the sensor and its preamp. Max upper range for my CdTe head is 400 keV, but then the low end is chopped off. 0-200 is more practical and covers the 185 U-235 I want sometimes. Si-PIN is of course way lower, usually I set upper end to 45keV or a little more than 60 if using 59.5 as a calibration point. Then chop off the un needed upper end with the boxes below the scan marked as RANGE- left box being lower, right box is upper. Any such temporary customization is easily cancelled on the upper row of icons by tapping the <> icon, which means "Full Range Horizontal". Non of that affects the .mca file that you store from the raw data. Two different people can display the same data in many different ways. That's why I do so many pictures- to give a clue as to all the different settings made to show that particular scan in those terms. Geo |
开云体育Charles, It is a Si-Pin. You’ll note the 4 pt cal is very linear with deviations of 0, -0.15, 0.03 and 0.16 and the same when ?using a quadratic fit. Geo reran the cal and only shifted the 5.6 from 202 to 198 which didn’t change anything. The problem is the mineral is supposedly a very simple Fe, U phosphate. The Fe 6.4 line is located on the left shoulder of the strong peak located at 6.63. The U, although noisy, falls pretty much where it belongs. So what is the broad peak complex at 6.63 due to? Lots of rare earths fall in this region but I wouldn’t expect that much of a response and I don’t see anything lining up. I guess the best approach would be to re run this sample at a 4096 conversion gain and increase the beam flux and count time. Dud ? ?Behalf
Of Charles
David Young ? Yeah, this confuses me as well.? Is this Si-PIN?? The cal is 4 points that are not linear and very different from the 2 point cal that I have been using with Si-PIN. ? Charles ? On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 11:47 AM <GEOelectronics@...>
wrote:
|
开云体育
Dud, the veins at White Signal where Charles is digging around are also Au-Bi-Cu, in fact originally mined for gold. Locally Ag and Pb, too.
Steve?
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Dude <dfemer@...>
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2020 12:35 PM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [XRF] cyrtolite Little Patsy OT- XRF Bassetite under X-Ray tube ?
Charles, It is a Si-Pin. You’ll note the 4 pt cal is very linear with deviations of 0, -0.15, 0.03 and 0.16 and the same when ?using a quadratic fit. Geo reran the cal and only shifted the 5.6 from 202 to 198 which didn’t change anything. The problem is the mineral is supposedly a very simple Fe, U phosphate. The Fe 6.4 line is located on the left shoulder of the strong peak located at 6.63. The U, although noisy, falls pretty much where it belongs. So what is the broad peak complex at 6.63 due to? Lots of rare earths fall in this region but I wouldn’t expect that much of a response and I don’t see anything lining up. I guess the best approach would be to re run this sample at a 4096 conversion gain and increase the beam flux and count time. Dud ?
?Behalf Of
Charles David Young ? Yeah, this confuses me as well.? Is this Si-PIN?? The cal is 4 points that are not linear and very different from the 2 point cal that I have been using with Si-PIN. ? Charles ? On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 11:47 AM <GEOelectronics@...> wrote:
|