Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;SPP Ottawa, post: 1565446, member: 39508&quot;]The instrument I use, is one used in my daily research, in a Canadian federal government research institution (see my profile). The instrument is entirely new as of April 2011, and I am held to the highest research standards, much like any academic research institute. I am bound by professional (registered) and research ethics, and I apply the same practice whether it is with my soil samples using aqueous chemistry or XRF analysis of my coins. I am bringing my research passion to numismatics.</p><p><br /></p><p>I routinely run registered calibration standards for each analysis. If the instrument passes the calibration standard, then it is accurate and precise. Why would I compare those results with a second instrument elsewhere, which may not have the same beam power, hardware/software setup and analytical protocols? I could send the coins for destructive analysis, but that tends to significantly reduce my investment and harshly impacts the grade of my error coins. :devil:</p><p><br /></p><p>If you want the gory details, I use an INNOV-X X-5000 Series Bench Top Instrument, with a 10 Watt X-ray tube, 50 keV, 200 μA (max) and a silicon drift detector. Analyses were conducted in “Alloy” mode, which analyzes a suite of elements in two beams (Beam #1: Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Hf, Ta, W, Re, Ir, Pt, Au, Pb, Bi, Zr, Nb, Mo, Rh, LE, Pd, Ag, Sn, Sb; Beam #2: Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co). The instrument was set up to run and repeat this two- beam analysis three times, for a total of 75 seconds, and results were generated from an average value of the three runs.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in