ASSESSMENT COMMENTS ON METALLURGICAL ANALYSIS AURORA, TX ALUMINUM SAMPLE Anonymous, PA, 2008
1.1 Introduction In 1973, samples from a mass of aluminum were sent by John F. Schluesser to several metallurgical labs for analysis. From the photographs it appears to be an irregular chip-like mass approximately 3 cm x 2 cm by 1 cm. In the published documents, it is claimed to have been received from Bill Case of Dallas, TX on June 19, 1973. Mr. Case reportedly found it beneath 4 inches of soil in a field in Aurora TX, lodged against a limestone rock face.Figure 1. Photographs of aluminum sample obtained from B. Case, 1973. Numbers on top scale correspond to 0.1 inch. As this was an amateur investigation, there is no documentation of proof that the sample came from this location. Furthermore, as its provenance is associated with Mr. Schuessler and Mr. Case, both associated with studies of paranormal phenomena and hoaxes, it is highly questionable that this sample was found in the location stated. There is no information regarding the age of the sample. Nonetheless, the sample did exist in 1973, and was subjected to seemingly valid metallurgical analysis. It is on these results that we comment.
1.2 Analytical ResultsFigure 2. Sketch of sample and its sectioning into multiple samples for analysis (Schuessler documentation 1973)
The sample was apparently sectioned and sent to several analysis labs. The results are tabulated below.
1.2.1 EDAX Analysis Robert J. Danmeller, Marion Russo, (organization not given) In the documentation, it states this organization was given sample #2, but from their sketches, however, it appears they may have been sent sample #1. Analysis was conducted using SEM imaging and EDAX composition analysis.Runs 1-4 were taken from the face of a surface exposed by the sectioning, and correspond to the interior of the sample. EDAX specra indicates strong Al peak with 2 secondary peaks labeled Fe. Run 5 was taken from an exterior surface region.Material Peak Actual (keV) Run 1interior Run 2interior Run 3interior Run 4interior Run 5surface Reported(keV) Mg Ka1 1.254 -- -- -- -- -- Mg K-edge 1.303 -- -- -- -- -- Al Ka1 1.487 4000* 4000* 4000* 4000* 4000 1.45 (Al) Al K-edge 1.560 -- -- -- -- -- Si Ka1 1.740 -- -- -- -- 304 1.70 (Si) Si K-edge 1.840 -- -- -- -- -- S Ka1 2.308 -- -- -- -- -- Pb Ma1 2.346 -- -- -- -- 194 2.35 (Pb) Bi Ma1 2.423 -- -- -- -- -- S K-edge 2.470 -- -- -- -- -- Cl Ka1 2.622 -- -- -- -- 122 2.65 (Cl) K Ka1 3.314 -- -- -- -- 161 3.30 (K) K K-edge 3.608 -- -- -- -- -- Ca Ka1 3.692 -- -- -- -- 168 3.70 (Ca) Ti Ka1 4.511 -- -- -- -- 615 4.50 (Ti) Ti K-edge 4.965 -- -- -- -- 137 4.95 (Ti) Cr Ka1 5.415 -- -- -- -- -- Mn Ka1 5.899 -- -- -- -- -- Cr K-edge 5.989 -- -- -- -- -- Fe Ka1 6.404 100* 200* 1400* 100* 217 6.40 (Fe) Mn K-edge 6.538 -- -- -- -- -- Fe K-edge 7.111 -- 30* 200* -- 66 7.05 (Fe) Ni Ka1 7.478 -- -- -- -- -- Cu Ka1 8.048 -- -- -- -- -- Cu K-edge 8.980 -- -- -- -- -- Zn Ka1 8.639 -- -- -- -- -- Zn K-edge 9.661 -- -- -- -- -- Pb La1 10.55 -- -- -- -- 54 10.55 (Pb) Bi La1 10.84 -- -- -- -- -- Table 1. Peak intensities from EDAX analysis on metallurgical sample taken at 4 interior locations (Runs 1-4) and one location on the exterior surface (Run 5). Data in rightmost column are peak locations reported, along with the material they were indexed to. (*) indicates estimate from EDAX screen shots
Energy dispersive X-ray (EDAX) is useful for identifying the presence of elements in an alloy, but quantitative composition measurement requires careful calibration to known standards. Nonetheless, there is no observable Cu or Zn found anywhere in the sample. This suggests the sample is a pure Al-Fe alloy, with some surface contamination.
1.2.2 MDRL Laboratory Ronald A. Weiss, Sr. Group Engineer, McDonnell-Douglas Research Laboratory The analysis was conducted by J.E. Holliday using X-Ray fluorescence and soft X-Ray spectroscopy. It is stated they were given sample #1Material XRay fluorescence Soft X-Ray spectroscopy Al 0.95 0.98 Fe 0.05 0.01-0.02
Table 2. Composition of metallurgical sample determined by x-ray analysis
In this analysis, Holliday reports the presence of cavities often associated with shrinking, and an overall microstructure consistent with solidification processing. He identifies small crystals of Fe-Al intermetallic compound. It is noted they are more numerous near the outer surface than in the interior. The percentage of Fe is higher in the XRF signal because it samples the enitre cut surface, while the soft X-ray spectroscopy samples only a 1mm x 3mm spot on the cut surface, initially located in the interior of the sample. The second phase inclusions are described as needle-like, but their sizes are not given.
1.2.3 Spectro-Chemical Research Laboratories 3300 West Lawrence Avenue, Chicago IL 60625, Bernard B. HauserThis analysis by an independent lab appears to have been ordered by Art Bethke, (Motorola?). It is not clear if this sample is from the same where this sample was cut from. Bethke later reported the composition most closely matched the 2011 alloy. The standard composition range for this alloy is shown for comparison the Table below.
Material Sample Alloy 2011 Al balance balance Cu 5.68 5.0-6.0 Zn 0.02 0.30 max Fe 0.38 0.7 max Si 0.26 0.40 max Mn 0.02 (