| Nickel | Relative Ratios | ||
| Element | Atomic Mass |
Natural Abundance |
RR3 |
| Ni | 59.93 | 84.20 | 64.70 (*) |
| Ni | 60.93 | 4.02 | 11.77 (*) |
| Ni | 61.93 | 11.78 | 23.53 (*) |
| Zinc | Relative Ratios | ||
| Element | Atomic Mass |
Natural Abundance |
RR3 |
| Zn | 63.93 | 63.74 | 30.56 (**) |
| Zn | 65.93 | 36.26 | 69.44 (**) |
| Silver | Relative Ratios | ||
| Element | Atomic Mass |
Natural Abundance |
RR3 |
| Ag | 106.91 | 51.35 | 33.34 |
| Ag | 108.90 | 48.65 | 66.66 |
I had an error in the calculated relative ratios. The error was due to my haste in setting up the Excel spread sheet and 'pasting down' the math functions on data lines that were offset from each other.
The raw data gave values of "26.645", "4.845" and "9.69" for Ni 60, 61 and 62 respectively which is reflected in the values of 64.70, 11.77 and 23.53 posted here now. The data I erronously presented were 40.26, 29.08 and 30.67.
The raw data gave values of "53.295" and "121.125" for Zn 64 and 66 respectively which is reflected in the values of 30.56 and 69.44 posted here now. The data I erronously presented were 54.61 and 45.38.
Silver
The raw data gave values of "19.38" and "38.755" for Ag 107 and 109 respectively. There was no error in this calculation.
I appologize or this mistake and am again reminded in the need for peer review!
| Silicon | Relative Ratios | ||
| Element | Atomic Mass |
Natural Abundance |
RR3 |
| Si | 28 | 92.18 | 26.55 |
| Si | 29 | 4.71 | 43.28 |
| Si | 30 | 11.78 | 30.16 |
| Germanium | Relative Ratios | ||
| Element | Atomic Mass |
Natural Abundance |
RR3 |
| Ge | 70 | 20.52 | 0 |
| Ge | 72 | 27.43 | 94.46 |
| Ge | 73 | 7.76 | 3.28 |
| Ge | 74 | 36.54 | 2.11 |
| Ge | 75 | 0 | 0.11 (***) |
| Ge | 76 | 7.76 | 0.04 |
| (***) There has been much made about the fact that this isotope would not be present in any object that had been around for more than just a few days. I did not personally analyze this data, since this presentation I have had the opportunity to review the analysis in some detail and the only reasonable assumption is that the mass peak at 75 is arsenic. In fact, the Mass Spectroscopist who analyzed the material does not mention Ge 75 at all. That information, and all of the other SIMS data, was provided to me by the person who had ordered the work done. | |||
In fact, this whole analysis - upon which I based the lion's share of my analysis of the material as requiring the 'should be considered as extraterrestrial' label - is suspect. This exact analysis is being repeated along side silicon isotopic standards. I'll have more when that data becomes known to me. In any case, check out the more-info.html page.
For the past year and a half, I have been privately involved (without any support or involvment of UCSD) in the testing and analysis of the material provided by Derrel Sims. Here are the laboratory test results and analysis conducted, so far, on this material by scientists throughout the United States.
From the tests that have been completed, these include Inductively Coupled Plasma - Mass Spectroscopy and Secondary Ion Mass Spectroscopy, we have determined that this material shows significant variations from the normal isotopic compositions found on the Earth and should be considered extraterrestrial in origin. Further, using Inductively Coupled Plasma - Optical Emission Spectroscopy it has been determined that this material should be considered as manufactured as it is not naturally occurring.
I personally conducted the first set of isotopic ratio tests using Inductively Coupled Plasma - Mass Spectroscopy or ICP/MS for short. ICP/MS is useful for determining elemental composition and isotopic ratios for an extremely wide array of elements. In the case of this material, the sample was dissolved in a mixture of nitric acid and hydrofluoric acids. Then the material was sprayed into an argon plasma which creates separate atomic ions. The ions are accelerated into a mass spectrometer for separation and detection. You are, in effect, counting the numbers of atomic nuclei that correspond to a specific isotope.
All of the isotopes of which I happened to chose to analyze were present only in trace amounts. The analysis I conducted uncovered the following isotopic anomalies, let's begin with nickel.
Two of the isotopes of nickel present were masses 60 and 61. On the Earth, the natural abundance for these two nickel isotopes is 26.1 % and 1.13 % respectively. This is a ratio of about 23 to 1. In the sample tested, the ratio was diminished to 5 to 1, a 4 fold decrease. This is significantly different from the ratios for terrestrial nickel.
Two of the isotopes of zinc that were tested in this material were masses 64 and 66. On Earth, the natural abundance of zinc for these two isotopes is 48.6 % and 27.9 % respectively. That is a ratio of about 7 to 4. In the zinc tested, this ratio was reversed as 4 to 9. Again, this is significantly different from the terrestrial zinc.
Finally there were two stable silver isotopes present in the material, silver -107 and 109. The silver isotopes found on Earth are at an approximate ratio of 1 to 1. The silver ratio in the sample was 1 to 2. Once again this is a significant difference from the terrestrial silver isotopes.
Due to the size of the sample (0.1 mg and the elements I found that looked 'odd' were all very near the detection limit for the machine...) I was given to work with, and because the test was double blinded, in that I had no idea or the origin of the sample of its composition, I strongly suggested that more tests be conducted to corroborate these findings and further investigate the elemental composition of the material.
My original conclusions and recommendations led to a second set of tests. Secondary Ion Mass Spectroscopy, or SIMS, analysis was conducted by a colleague at another major west coast reseach university. With this method, a sample is bombarded with ions and the surface has material 'sputtered' away. This material is accelerated into a mass spectrometer for separation and detection. Again, you are, in effect, counting the numbers of atomic nuclei that correspond to a specific isotope.
This SIMS test corroborated the initial ICP/MS findings and uncovered further isotopic anomalies not detected in the first analysis. The sample, which we now know to be nearly pure silicon, shows a striking variation from natural abundance.
For example, Silicon 28 is 92 % abundant on the Earth. In this sample it is present in only 26 % abundance. The other two stable isotopes, silicon 29 and 30 are greatly enhanced at more than 10 times their terrestrial natural abundance.
A similar variation for Germanium was found with the mass 72 isotope dominating in the tested sample at 94 % of the total Germanium. Natural, terrestrial origin Germanium is only 27 % abundant in this isotope.
The Inductively Coupled Plasma - Optical Emission Spectroscopy or ICP/OES was conducted on the material by a private laboratory in Texas. It is from these tests that it was determined that the material was most likely manufactured and not naturally occurring. ICP/OES is useful for determining the elemental composition for an extremely wide array of elements. The sample is sprayed into an argon plasma which creates separate atomic ions. These atoms are excited by the energy of the plasma and emit electromagnetic radiation, or light, with wavelengths (colors) specific for each element. This instrument cannot differentiate between isotopes.
The composition of this material was found to be greater than 99 % silicon. (Silicon is not naturally ocuring - by itself - in an oxygen-rich atmosphere like on the earth.)
Therefore it should be considered that this material is both manufactured and extraterrestrial in origin
While the test results are astounding, the testing process is ongoing. Portions of the material has already been handed over to other members of the scientific community and the objective analysis continues. Currently, the raw data and conclusions from these tests are being compiled and will be submitted to a peer reviewed publication when the rest of the testing is completed.
As an aside:
I would like to mention a few points about the analysis of the material. 1st. The only sample I ever actually held was three very small grains of material. I was allowed to take one and it weighted 0.1 mg. The analysis I actually performed was on this piece. As I had no idea what it was made of (and was analyzing three other samples about which I knew nothing as well) I just guessed as to which isotopes to investigate. I found odd ratios in Zn, Ag, and Ni. I suggested to the provider of the material that my results be used to get some more analysis done. Three other labs have done work on the material.
I have not see a clean copy of the 'raw data' from any of these sources and presented their material on good faith. I still have no reason to doubt the truth of their conclusions.
There are a couple of questions that have come up. Please view the logic.html page.
** So, if you have some scientific expertise to offer. That is, if you can, and want to collaborate with some analysis, please contact me.
** I am not the best person to contact if you have an opinion, or an experience you just want to tell someone. At this point I am as interested as any of you in getting the whole truth of the material even if I am proven to be wrong.
Russell VernonClark, Ph.D.