Its also interesting the on-device readout for the new alloy does not show a tungsten peak. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChUsy8gWwvo&feature=youtu.be&t=241 h

Its also interesting the on-device readout for the new alloy does not show a tungsten peak. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChUsy8gWwvo&feature=youtu.be&t=241 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChUsy8gWwvo&feature=youtu.be... The printout shows it, but is ~.08% off from 100%, which I assume is the Mg peak. But its a pretty big swing to go from no Tungsten to .106% Tungsten. I'm inclined to believe its a misread due to sandpaper or the coating (tungsten carbide coating on aluminum is very much a thing). I know metallography is expensive, but its weird to me to have such cool gizmo for XRF and to have a lab do such analysis and not do something simple like hardness testing. That is cheap and fast. Well, fast anyway. I can't comment on lab larbor costs. Instead of a lab, hitting up your local university materials lab for a grad student to do a quick hardness test and tensile testing would give very nice information and a basic guess as to type of material. XRD would also be more accurate than XRF I think, with proper preparation. Also, you would never test the cases as-is. The structural variable is small but important. A flat sample is better.