[ RadSafe ] Fwd: Recommendations for data-logging ion chamber
achris1999 at gmail.com
Sat Apr 23 09:57:36 CDT 2016
The problem is that the 451P falls short, at the high end, by two (2)
orders of magnitude of where he wants to be (500 R/h). But, in what
aspects of performance did you find the 9DP deficient?
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Thomas Johnston <tjohnstn at gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 12:22 AM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Recommendations for data-logging ion chamber
I might recommend the Fluke 451P. Although the Ludlum 9DP seems
promising, field testing proved unacceptable for what I needed in an
'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,
> -Chamber sealed, but not pressurized to HAZMAT levels
> -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.
More information about the RadSafe