Very Strange/Intriguing Observations About "War" Nickels; Looking For Info

I suggest reporting in this thread - that way we have the history at hand to review.

I'd keep it in this thread. The whole story is here. Might as well stay here. A search will be more beneficial that way.

An update -- I have representative samples of War Nickels in hand, and an appointment at the University for XRF analysis on June 11. I look forward to it!

Steve

Crazyb0 --

Thanks for that info. I'll make sure to speak with the person helping me with the analysis regarding limitations of the results. It will be a PhD student working for a high-ranking professor in the Geology department, and the professor speaks highly of this person. I know that this student has substantial experience testing samples with the XRF equipment, and I get the impression it's good equipment.

Thanks,

Steve

OK everyone, I had the XRF analysis done. Unfortunately, it was not nearly as conclusive as I had hoped. At the University lab I had the testing done at, they are set up to test shale samples, with an eye toward oil exploration. So, they use "calibrations" and voltages that are suited for looking for certain elements within those samples. So, we were guessing a bit at what voltage to run, on the nickels, to get a reasonable reading, and what calibration to use. As it turns out, after the testing was complete and the person who did the samples for me ran through the raw data, we found that there was no measurement at all made for silver; if I understand correctly, the fact that they aren't usually LOOKING for silver in their samples was a part of why it wasn't even one of the elements measured for. SO -- there is no data on silver content. ALSO, the tests measure "parts per million" of an element, and the "parts per million" depend upon what voltage and what calibration you chose, and so it's not truly a "component analysis." Bottom line, there is apparently a specific voltage and a specific calibration that should be used, and it differs for each metal. And since this lab does not have interest in the metals I was interested in, they do not have proper calibrations, or proper knowledge of what voltages should have been used.

SO -- bottom line, the BEST that could be done, as far as I can tell, with the data I have, is to compare RELATIVE amounts of each metal, between the four nickel samples I used. In other words, if nickel "a" has 100,000 ppm copper, but nickel "b," using the same voltage and same calibration, only showed 50,000 ppm copper, we can deduce that there is less copper (and thus more of some "other" metal) used in the alloy of one of the nickels, versus the other.

WITH ALL THAT SAID, what I see in the data is that indeed, some of the nickels have half as much copper as others. None had any nickel, so that makes sense. Amounts of manganese differed, as well; a couple of interesting things were that some samples contained what appeared to be non-trivial amounts of aluminum, some with zinc, and one even had a non-trivial amount of iron show up in the sample!

But, again -- these results are not what I was hoping, i.e. that I would actually have a reasonably accurate measurement of the metals used in each coin, and the percentage of each of these metals.

What it appears to me is that the alloys used varied SIGNIFICANTLY, from sample to sample -- which is right in line with the fact that I used four nickels that each read very differently on a metal detector -- two on the "higher" end of the spectrum, and two on the "lower end." So, my theory that the "cause" of these detector readings is due to different alloy compositions being used appears to be correct. HOWEVER, it remains a mystery as to exactly what metals, and in what percentages, were actually used...and it appears that perhaps some metals were used in some of the coins that I've never seen mentioned as having been used in these nickels -- aluminum, zinc, and possibly even iron/steel...

So, that's where we stand. One last note is, they DID tell me that someone who knows proper calibrations for the specific metals I'm looking for would be able to do a better job of analyzing the coins, in terms of giving me the type of results I'm looking for. But, for now, I don't know "who" that person or entity would be, and so I'm at a bit of a dead end. I think I have enough info to conclude that my basic theory that there are substantial variations in alloys used in these nickels, alloys that deviate SUBSTANTIALLY from the "official" alloy, is correct. But, beyond that, there is still no way to quantify amounts of each metal in the different sample coins, nor am I certain (given my inexperience) that I can conclude with CERTAINTY that zinc, aluminum, and possibly iron were used in some of the coins...

Steve

Does the one with the steel in it, attract to a magnet? You might have one of the counterfeit Henning nickels. If so they are worth more than the real nickels. So you might pursue the date of that one to see what they looked like to see if it is a match? Get a little something back for your effort.
https://www.courierpostonline.com/s...it/26070351/

coop --

I will check, to see about the magnetism, on the nickel that showed some iron content...

Pete -- I don't know enough about XRF to say for sure; essentially all I know was learned within that hour or so I spent with the person doing the scan. But having said that, I'm having a hard time figuring out how you could get "accurate" percentages of metals contained in a sample, based on how things were explained to me. It seems to me that what it's better at doing is detecting IF there is a particular metal in a sample. In other words, as I understood things, if I wanted to find out if there was any, say, aluminum, in one of the coins, then if the person doing the scan knows the "proper" voltages to use to detect aluminum, and the proper calibration to use, then they could run the test, and tell me if there was aluminum in the sample. HOWEVER, if you pick the voltage and calibration for aluminum, that would likely NOT be the best choice for copper, or silver, or manganese, or whatever. So, while you would likely still detect the copper and silver and manganese using a setup that was "tailored" for aluminum, the "amount" would be incorrect -- as the test was not optimized for those metals since you optimized it for aluminum. Does that make sense? So from that perspective, I have no idea how you could get accurate percentages of multiple metals within one single sample, using XRF analysis. I may be wrong, but this is the impression I was getting in talking to the person doing the testing...

Steve