|
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
?
?
?
?
|
Thanks for that Dudley, when I get my own SDD going I can compare- it may be a while tho.
Geo
----- Original Message ----- From: Dude <dfemer@...> To: [email protected]Sent: Fri, 07 Feb 2020 15:59:56 -0500 (EST) 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 ? ? ? ?
|
Hi 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 ? ?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: DudeSent: 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 ? ?
? ?
|
"although I don’t recall that he quantified percentages of each of the metals in the mix."
Ken I don't have the program to do that. It is very costly. All I can do? is (to try to) identify elements.
The Mystery Wire insulation is very Teflon like, I haven't tried its melting point yet. We use all Teflon wire in the shop, some has a really high melting point. Because if the tiny little silver plated wires inside our hookup wire, we use a heat-stripper. It has adjustable temp and can be read with an IR thermometer.
Geo
----- Original Message ----- From: Ken Sejkora <kjsejkora@...> To: [email protected]Sent: Fri, 07 Feb 2020 18:37:56 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [XRF] Mystery wire
Hi 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 ? ? ? 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 ? ?
? ?
|
Ken,
Yes, the insulation was left on
the wire.? The low energy response is mostly noise although one could possibly conjure
up a Cl peak if one was reckless enough in the interp.? The high percentage is
the due to ?the fact that the efficiency in this energy range is so low that little
things blow up quickly unless you have a lot of material, count time and run a vacuum
or He fill.
The odd guy is the Cd. The 316 SS
has V, Ti and Nb whereas this wire doesn’t but has Cd and Zn
Geo, did you run yours with or
without the insulation?.
Dud
?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ken Sejkora
Sent: Friday, February 7, 2020 3:38 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [XRF] Mystery wire
?
Hi 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
?
?
?
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
?
?
?
?
|
bare wire, plastic clip holder.?
Geo
----- Original Message ----- From: Dude <dfemer@...> To: [email protected]Sent: Fri, 07 Feb 2020 22:21:47 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [XRF] Mystery wire
Ken, Yes, the insulation was left on
the wire.? The low energy response is mostly noise although one could possibly conjure
up a Cl peak if one was reckless enough in the interp.? The high percentage is
the due to ?the fact that the efficiency in this energy range is so low that little
things blow up quickly unless you have a lot of material, count time and run a vacuum
or He fill. The odd guy is the Cd. The 316 SS
has V, Ti and Nb whereas this wire doesn’t but has Cd and Zn Geo, did you run yours with or
without the insulation?. Dud ? ? Hi 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 ? ? ? 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 ? ?
? ?
|
|
|
For the reasons you mention, I use Si-PIN for everyday stuff. The SDD was acquired for its high count rate capability, and is intended for the cabinet XRF machine in the basement. It's a Hitachi Vortex-EX, has its own power supply, just a BNC cable over to the Amptek PX4 MCA, then USB to the notebook computer.
Geo
----- Original Message ----- From: Dude <dfemer@...> To: [email protected]Sent: Fri, 07 Feb 2020 22:38:29 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [XRF] Mystery wire
A Si Pin and a SDD aren’t that much different. Did you run it on a
Si-Pin or the Cd-Te detector? Dud ? ? Thanks
for that Dudley, when I get my own SDD going I can compare- it may be a while
tho.
|
