Originally posted by Dietrich
Cheers.
Peter
-
How about that unknown RK that Detlev showed us. That should be a excellent candidate.
Cheers.
Peter -
And what if we finaly can set this L15, i can send my EK and i think we can have more than 10 that will share the cost for it!
MikaelComment
-
Great stuff Tom, thanks!Regards,
DaveComment
-
Tom
BRAVO!!!!
MarcComment
-
Here is some of the raw data from the RK frame. The columns are a bit screwed up, but the first column is the element, The K ED is a point of scan, and the third and fourth columns are the relative % of that element, with the second column weighted relative to atomic weight. It is the third column that we are interested in.
1. First note the RHODIUM. rhodium clearly is used in the "frosting" in a compostion of approx 23% rhodium with 40 % silver and 31% nickle. This was scanned on a part of the beading where the "frosting" was intact. The photos ( I have to figure out how to access these) clearly show that it is applied in a layered fashion or plated on the cross.
2. Secondly not the silver content of the core of the frame- This was scanned over an area where the frosting was worn off. Here there is a much higher content of silver than we would expect on "800" silver- 92%. Perhaps the "800" relates to a minimum purity which may be higher. Another possibility is that alloys are not uniform, but have micro small areas of relatively higher and lower amounts of silver with Nickle and copper trace alloys making up the balance.
TH RK frame 1000x-1
Elmt Spect. Element Atomic
O K ED 3.59 19.73
Ni K ED 1.83 2.75
Cu K ED 0.53* 0.73
Rh L ED 1.78 1.53
Ag L ED 92.27 75.27
Total 100.00 100.00
TH RK frame 1000x-2
Elmt Spect. Element Atomic
O K ED 5.65 23.85
Ni K ED 31.25 35.93
Cu K ED 0.14* 0.15
Rh L ED 22.63 14.84
Ag L ED 40.33 25.23
Total 100.00 100.00
TH RK frame 1000x-3
Elmt Spect. Element Atomic
O K ED 4.73 20.44
Ni K ED 33.15 39.03
Cu K ED 0.01* 0.02
Rh L ED 23.06 15.49
Ag L ED 39.04 25.02
Total 100.00 100.00Comment
-
Tom,
There is nothing more that I can add to what all the others have said!
ChetZinc stinks!Comment
-
Very interesting stuff
This is very interesting but having messed about with this technology in other fields I would pose some questions.
In the manufacture of an alloy no batch is ever exactly the same as another under close analysis so unless all frames were derived from the same ingot can we generalize these findings to all RK's?
Did all RK manufacturers use the same metal for their frames so can we generalize K&Q results to "rounders" or S&L with flaws?
I would pose the same question about the paint. Were all batches chemically identical and did all manufactureres obtain their enamal from the same source? Was there deterioration of the product as the war went on? The paints used for aircraft and armor certainly did.
Granted this is the technology that is at hand and I applaud the achievement and enterprise shown here but is this the best method of testing for the money. One other test that is excellent for detecting items manufactured before the era of atmospheric atomic bomb tests is radiation of trapped gases in the manufacturing process. The bad part is that for some of these assays some small amount of material must be sacrificed.
Again, I don't want to put a damper on this project, I feel it has tremendous value to our community of collectors but I am curious about these questions.
Congratulations on fine work.
MikeComment
-
Here is a partial reply to this. This is the elemental composition of the EK2 by K&Q compared to the RK. Pretty damn close and I would say an identical match. It appears as though they did not change brands during the war. There will be rust, but the SEM can scan to areas where there is no Fe contamination to get an assessment of what the paint has. Wear will actually help in the elemental composition with regard to analysis, as if there was a coating applied, this would impair analysis.
TH EK2-1 ctr-1 500x
Elmt Spect. Element Atomic
O K ED 50.09 70.47
Si K ED 0.39 0.31
P K ED 13.89 10.09
S K ED 0.81 0.57
K K ED 0.05* 0.03
Ca K ED 28.45 15.98
Fe K ED 6.32 2.55
Total 100.00 100.00
TH RK ctr paint 500x
Elmt Spect. Element Atomic
O K ED 52.01 71.90
Si K ED 0.43 0.34
P K ED 13.16 9.40
S K ED 1.00 0.69
Cl K ED 0.55 0.34
K K ED 0.15* 0.09
Ca K ED 27.53 15.19
Fe K ED 5.17 2.05
Total 100.00 100.00Comment
-
Now that is some genuine (and original) research... Wow.
--ChrisComment
-
Tom,
You have a CUTTING EDGE article here. I expect to see this in Scientific American - screw just a militaria magazine!!!
I only wish I was there with you. Did your son attend?
Now, you need to test other RK makers and a fake. But let me not jump ahead before the findings are digested.
MarcComment
-
I vote this the best information on the forum!
Tom, So you are saying that there is no difference in the composition of an iron cross to a knights cross. This is very interesting information and finaly many long argued questions can be answered.
I will be willing to pay part of the cost for a badge that I have. PM me for more info.
Thanks,Comment
-
Well done Tom!
The community is indebted to you.
RoyComment
-
Marc- Drew was pulled out at the last minute by my wife because the roads were icy. She thought losing me would be okay, but not one of the boys. He will be able to go next time. I think submitting this to the Military Advisor would be fun. It is right up their alley.
Michael- Yes the paint used on the EK2s and RKs for K&Q appear to be the same, but that is what I would expect. The really interesting thing was the rhodium coating for the frosting and the fact that some areas of the RK had a higher than 800 silver content. Further, I think we are one step ahead of the fakers here to use this tool to ID any existing fakes.Comment
-
Tom,
When you are able to submite examples for analyses let me know I have a very interesting piece. I will also be willing to pay the cost for my badge and for other (bagde or cross).
Thank you,Comment
-
Tom,
I have done a lot of research in my time, but it doesn't get any better than your efforts on behalf of the forum members. Well done lad.
StephenComment
Comment