Dean,
I agree with George, Joyce and Andy.  When Joyce and I were at BB we had two
Fischer XDAL machines. Totally agree with Andy with regards to not reaching
0.001% accuracy.  Generally I would say +/- 5% if you are talking about ENIG
gold thickness and +/- 10% if you are talking about ENIG nickel thickness.
Can't remember results for % composition results.

Most machines can do U down to, crap! I can't remember the lower limit. But
I do know if you want to do elements like F and lower you would need a
machine that can be evacuated.  Sure adds to the price!

Now I will go on my usual rant against handheld machines.
1) Aperture is such that you would need a pile of chip caps to get a reading
rather than say one lead of 20 mil width, which is all you need for a good
machine from Fischer, Oxford or Horiba.
2) easy to drop
3) easy to lose (or have stolen)
4) In some jurisdictions the licensing is onerous.

Regards,
Bev


-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stadem, Richard D.
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 2:49 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [TN] XrF systems

I am considering requesting capital for an additional or replacement XrF
system, but would like to go in armed with a short list of particular models
and costs and be confident of their performance records and capabilities.
The least important factor is cost, so don't hold back from sending me a
confidential email on your choice.
The machine should be able to accurately determine the percentage of gold,
silver, tin, nickel, lead, copper, etc., down to the .001% level in order to
confirm that the plating on incoming component leads meets the component
print or requirements.
It should also be able to accurately determine the metallurgic make-up of
any given metal sample. Is that asking a lot? I don't know.
I prefer a hand-held, but if what I am looking for is only available in a
base machine package, then that will have to work.
No information you folks provide will be shared. Feel free to send me an
email at either [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> or
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>.
I sincerely appreciate any information you can share with me.

Thanks
R. Dean Stadem