[ RadSafe ] Recommendations for data-logging ion chamber
tjohnstn at gmail.com
Fri Apr 22 23:22:08 CDT 2016
I might recommend the Fluke 451P. Although the Ludlum 9DP seems promising,
field testing proved unacceptable for what I needed in an ion chamber.\
'not an endorsement approved by my employer'
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 8:07 PM, Carl Willis <carl.willis at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello RADSAFErs,
> I am looking for opinions on ion chamber instruments with the following
> criteria being especially relevant to my application:
> -Capable of logging data continuously, i.e. generating a doserate versus
> time record
> -Easy to clean, i.e. surface and operating controls easily decontaminated
> using soap/water
> -Chamber sealed, but not pressurized to HAZMAT levels
> -Capable of performing well in cool, high-humidity environments (mostly
> relates to how well the signal and chamber bias insulators are protected
> from ambient air)
> -Wide response range. Ideally, I would like an instrument that can measure
> from single mR/hr to approximately 500 R/hr. I think that's a tall order,
> but I'll throw it out in case there is an option someone knows about.
> -Backlit display that can be read in very poor light conditions
> In particular, the Ludlum 9DP-1 ticks most of these boxes, I think. Is
> anyone familiar with its data logging functions? Can it be set to
> automatically log as I have described, or must the user signal it to log a
> point every time? Major downside of that instrument seems to be its battery
> (heavy, and consumed at an atrocious rate even with the backlight off).
> Does anyone know how it behaves in fields that exceed 50 R/hr?
> Thanks for any assistance.
> Best regards,
> Carl Willis
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
More information about the RadSafe