Quite right drron, except I would question 'accurate'.
@Quickstatus - Field XRFs should only be used for a quick indication of the grade of a core or even a rock. Is it >0.5% copper or >0.5 g/t gold? Does that quartz vein carry
anything? In which case send of for a traditional sample analysis (but if I was the geo, I'd trust my own judgement more than a field XRF). And/or phone the director of exploration! For a very good result, put urgent on it. At Western Mining, I could get a 'hot' sample sent from Darwin to Victoria and analysed in 2-3 days.
Two ways for field XRF. Hand-held - which gives a spot reading. Or on a mount where the core is moved underneath the beam (or vice versa) and an average produced.
But neither should be relied upon. The depth of penetration into the core might only be a few mm into a 5cm diameter core. The deeper it does go, the greater the back-scatter and decrease in accuracy. For instance, if the gold is nuggety, it may not be detected at the spot(s) or at the depth of the mineral grain. For any reportable analyses, need as large a sample as can be obtained (usually 1/2 core over 0.5m length or greater, a kilo or so at minimum) and send of for crushing, homogenisation and traditional analysis - usually not XRF but solution based, usually AA.