I'm so consistently impressed by the rigor and thoroughness of the investigations here. Certainly no one else has demonstrated the x-ray induced scintillation of gagg, or examined its fluorescence spectrum before, and yes I'd definitely like to see more on the other scintillator's behavior. I'm disappointed by their decision to truncate the output at 20KeV but I suppose there is some understandable reason for it. If I can make a suggestion about our robot overlord, perhaps he can be gotten a little coked up at his next visit to the brothel pink LED emporium and his TTS synthesizer speed increased by, say 25%?
@@antonkristensen6665 I didn't say no one's measured it. I said no one's demonstrated its x-ray induced fluorescence on video as seen here, because they haven't.
@Muonium1 Are you sure? GAGG is a decently old detector technology so I'm quite sure that dosimetrological facilities have studied GAGG's response to XRAY sources in depth.
I have the 102 model and it is certainly good enough for casual or hobby users. Smoke detectors with an Americium detector show up as very active sources if you want a handy test source around the home. Radium coated watch hands and faces are probably the most active sources commonly available and give a very complex pattern of decay products. Hunting locally, I found increased background levels close by a high voltage power transformer. Whether this is due to x-ray radiation generated by extremely high voltages or contamination of the cooling oil is still under investigation. Being in a highly frequented public place it is difficult to take discrete readings! While the 103 and 103G models are improvements over earlier models, I would suggest that any of the models will prove to be suitable for a hobbyist and give years of satisfactory performance. The case design is brilliantly discrete and the phone software outstanding. All of the devices need practice and experience to get the best out of them. I agree totally with the conclusions in this video.
Thanks for the great comment. Another factor that you should not discount is the high amount of EMI that will be in and around such a power transformer. The analog circuitry of the SiPM is REALLY sensitive to electrical noise. If you find that you just get a general increase in background but can't localize it, then this might be the reason...
I have 102 too and totally agree. It is sensitive enough to measure easily what part of bed I sleep in (within reasonable time) and to identify that it is due to K-40 in sweat. I have seen lots of uranium decay chains all around, radon decay chain products in a poorly ventilated cellar etc. Mobile app is very good and allows identifying source on spot in case I happen to have 102 with me and run into something. Great for hobby use, easy to carry with (tiny) and battery lasts very long time. For anything very serious, lot more resolution and smaller FWHM would be needed and for very low count measurement nothing beats a much bigger crystal.
When I first got my 103G, I was playing around with it at work, and leaving it on in my pocket at various hospitals. We were in an ED when an X-ray tech on the far side of the ED took two X-rays. The Radiacode alarmed, and it kept alarming because it was in continuous mode. I had to fumble around with it for a while before I got it to shut up. This resulted in a discussion later with my crew as to whether just stepping outside of the room when an X-ray is taken is sufficient.
Very good in depth review Anyway regarding neutron problem: The very strange fact I noticed is that the little bump at 30-40kev (33:53) appears only when moderating and is higher with respect to the other peak that instead decreases in energy. Also this small peak is certainly not fluorescence of cerium, it is in such a low concentration that is undetectable probably even by normal xrf. In my opinion, this might be the only possible proof of neutron detection, even if I wouldn't bet a lot on this fact. Another proof of this is the fact that when the source is turned into nonemitting, the small bump does not appear at all. For more about this argument see the article:Investigation into the potential of GAGG:Ce as a neutron detector. Taggart et al The other high energy peaks are hard to identify but are probably unrelated to neutron, regarding the peak at 340keV at 33:03, it might be due to the decay of Pa233whichch originates from the decay of Np237 which is the main decay product from Am241 so maybe your source of Am241 is visible from where it is stored by this high energy gamma photon? in the end it is not good to detect neutron reliably, also usually neutron detector use pulse shape discrimination in order to distinguish them from gamma rays. In the end, i don't think I would pay 250€ more for a marginal increase in resolution and the inability to detect xray, that might be a problem for someone interested in doing experiments in the low energy region.
The peak at the beginning of the spectrum around 38 keV is most likely X-ray fluorescence of lanthanum-138 in very small quantities present in GAGG crystals. That's the model we're using. There are other models out there, but they have worse resolution. But the peak at 350 keV is a mystery to me, I am trying to figure it out, but so far I have not been able to find any information or compare it. About the small peak with polyethylene between the horns of X-ray fluorescence - most likely this is the response from the reaction of slow neutrons with the crystal.
I'm currently writing a thesis on detecting neutrons using (plastic) scintillators. It doesn't surprise me if you didn't see anything. Consider using a material that gets activated (Li6 or B9 if I remember), and then use the neutron stimulated gamma emissions from those isotopes to indirectly detect neutrons. That way you can characterize your neutron source setup, and from there try to detect neutrons directly with GAGG (might be easier to see recoil nuclei from fast neutrons than some random signal from thermal neutrons. Anyways, nice set of scintillators you have there! If you have a decently fast oscilloscope then I can make a quick design of a simple SiPM board so you can have your own detector. JLCPCB has MicroFJ SiPMs for like 20€ a piece so it isn't even THAT expensive. Use PTFE tape for wrapping.
Thanks for the feedback, very interesting. I have been looking at SiPMs anyway, mostly the Chinese JoinBon products, but I will certainly take a look at the OnSemi versions you suggest. I'm still not sure about the small peak at 34 KeV. This only happened when moderation was present, even without any change in the geometry of the experiment... With the second experiment, ie the un-moderated situation, there really isn't anything much to consider. I have also considered Carbon Boride as a possible moderation media, but not sure of the advantages over HDPE.
@@project-326 Did you do any simulations or calculations to check that your amount of moderation is correct? If you have too much moderation then you block all neutrons, and if you have too little then they will still be fast.
As soon as I saw the selfie stick in the video I got excited, but no go on the website. I was hopefully that I could use the discount code to grab one, but at least I know they have produced one. The 103G is expensive but I still love it, despite being fairly ignorant to all the tests I can do with it. I still can't get over the fact that because of your channel I purchased it, and then discovered that the idiots in my local government put radioactive waste in the roadways I commute on. Funny how small beginnings can grow into paths never before thought about.
I don't get the complaints regarding the design. The fact that it looks like a glucose meter or something of that sorts is actually an advantage - you can take it out in public, read the display, freely navigate the menu with the buttons and you will not be bothered by some nosy random bystander, security guy, a passenger a seat next to you or a flight attendant, etc. Also, this form factor is amazingly convenient - it fits any pocket. Secondly, the comparison to Gamma Scout is IMHO wrong - we all know that the design language of the GS is the least of their problems (not that it is not a problem at all). If something works well why change it? So there is an opportunity to break it? Or am I the only Radiacode user that is actually happy with the current design?
Agreed, I really like the design, and think they didn't change it because it didn't need changing. It's so small you can put it on a stick to scan, as shown in the video. He comments on the design in an earlier video at 12:08 "DON'T buy a Geiger counter, until you see this..."
I appreciate the same form factor between products. But I hope the company doesn’t limit product ability to fit within existing form factor tho. Thats a trade off that’s rough (unless certification of a design is big $ - which I doubt)
Another excellent video, and a different approach to the Radiacode product review than other RUclipsrs have taken. I will be watching this at least two more times. Thank you for doing what you do!!
An alternative for those costly welding rods is old gas light mantles. You usually get at least 0.2 microsieverts per mantle, more if you burn them and compact the ashes. . Mantles from before the middle of the 80´s contain thorium with a very high certainty.
Thought now for black Friday I can get it even cheaper thanks to your discount code, but behold, the prices showed in the video ( 37:39 ) are no longer available, but all prices have been increased 😢
That’s a great comparison! Looks like 103G has performance similar to Raysid although, 1 cm3 GAGG vs 5 cm3 CSI(Ti) still may make a difference, especially in higher energy levels. GAGG photo response to radiation seems to be quite high and rapid.
Raysid should be around 4x more sensitive (or more) due to detector volume (if you buy version with the same resolution). So “similar performance” sounds a bit strange.
@ GAGG has different response characteristics than CsI(Ti), clearly it responds better. There probably has been done measurements to compare performance of those products, I’m just a hobbyist that gives an opinion, based on some my tests.
@@PatrickOnEngineering GaGG it is up to 30-50% more sensitive than CsI of the same dimensions at high energies (> 1 MeV). You will clearly see gain on Co-60, for instance. But on normal background it will have gain of around 15% on the total cps for the whole spectrum (due to shape of the spectrum). + usually sensitivity of crystals increases faster than volume, if volume is 5x - gain in high energy band will be more than 5x. I’ve heard that GaGG is specific material, it is hard to create useful crystal of high volume (it absorbs own light). I’ve also heard thar resolution of crystal itself could reach 5.5%. Not clear why 103G has only 7.5 However, with 1 cm3 of CsI it could have 6.5%, probably MCA is not perfect.
@@maxbartoshik interesting! I’m now getting a bigger scintilator with 65 cm3 of NaI(Tl) with hardware compatible with Theremino Software. I’ll compare RC 103 with this one and can potentially play around with GaGG although it’s expensive. I guess that’s why RC has a lower grade (and still small) crystal.
Current cost on their website, (US) $555.00 Their (not as accurate?) 102 model costs (US) $275.00. There is a mid price 103 model also. The units do not seem to be waterproof. Radioactive Drew did a video about the difference between the 102 and 103 models. The company is located in Cyprus.
all true and very fair, if you don't mind me saying so. But, except about the accuracy, basically all gamma ray spectrometers are as accurate as their calibration (assuming that they have energy compensation). Sensitivity and accuracy are separate issues. I have 2 x RC102's and their are my mainstay spectrometers, I love the product to bits, when they sent me a new unit for review, I was over the moon, but just because now more of my family can have access to one of these cool devices (the kids love them). Gotta share the love and share the learning. You are also 100% correct about the location, this is a former Russian company that up'd-sticks and moved their whole team to Cyprus, there is also an implied message in that statement too. Anyway, thanks for the feedback!
@@project-326 Agreement Accuracy was the wrong word. Lack of detail in screen resolution is more accurate. I personally prefer ruggidized units that can take a little water and mildly rough handling. I started on a calibrated Victoreen CD 715 and loved that it didn't mind a little rain. It only reads Alpha and Beta of course, but it also survives (so far) bouncing (it is somewhat braced) around in my car''s trunk when I go look at rocks. Forty years later I have a KC761A (soon to get their B model probabl, but they may have an even better model inside the next yeary) and I truly like that I don't have to baby it too much.
It may just be the relative strength of our Am-241 source, but I've definitely found that the common rule of thumb of a piece of paper or a few cm of air for shielding isn't enough to actually stop the Alpha particles completely. I've been able to detect from several inches, and through paper (although definitely greatly reduced. The Kapton tape is probably more than enough to attenuate the alpha before hitting beryllium though, since you were already expecting very few neutrons, if you were able to detect them at all.
i have had my 102 placed about 40 cm away from a smoke detector Am-241 source that had its steel plate housing in place, on a 6 day integration and with subtraction of the background, the twin peaks from the am-241 were visible.
Hi and thanks for the comment. standard "light water" is a pretty terrible moderator, it needs a much greater thickness (or whatever dimension you want to consider) than something like HDPE to achieve the same of moderation. Boron Nitride is one other moderator that I have considered...
@@project-326 Yes, the HDPE is good. We used about 30cm of it in the port of a "neutron howitzer". The plutonium/beryllium source was in the center of a barrel of paraffin. Anyway, at least you know the energy you are expecting when it comes to binding energy of the deuteron. Do you know what the solid state "photomultiplier" is? A large area diode with a high bias voltage?
I have a friend who works at a hospital and isn't sure about nuclear radiation safety on their setup. I'm pretty sure it's okay, but which device do you think would be better for her to carry around, to ensure radiation safety on a consumer product budget on that environment?
Please forgive me if I am somewhat non-committal on this particular issue, this is a thorny topic! Normally, in most countries, there are very strict limits on emissions from Radiography equipment, typically the testing and monitoring systems take up as much of the budget as the x-ray generation equipment. That said, I don't know what country you are discussing here. From my own perspective, being based in China, I have recently tried to test any leakage from CT equipment. My 10 year old daughter recently needed a CT scan, which is a fairly long duration, high energy measurement. She wanted to take the RC102 with her. From just outside of the shielded chamber that she received her scan within, there was zero detection of anything above the background level. What I mean by this is that normally radiography departments have pretty strict limits and fairly robust monitoring. From the perspective of the medical equipment industry, there is a strong desire to keep exposure limits a strict as possible, because all that monitoring equipment, calibration equipment (and even calibration equipment for the calibration equipment) is supplied by them. Stricter limits means that they sell more equipment and the radiography equipment itself can be more expensive as a result. Dental x-ray equipment is a different story, this is a much less regulated market. Normally there are limits on the x-ray photon energy level, typically equipment in this category rarely exceeds 80 kVp, so the photons are far less penetrating. That said, carrying a small personal dosimeter is probably not a terrible idea either, if only for extra peace of mind (I would).
@@leandroebner1405 Thank you! But after watching several videos on the 101, 102, 103 and now 103G I will stay with my original model. Who knows maybe it will be collectible someday? Probably not (sigh). Peace!
Loved your video ! 'm really confused between Radiacode 103 and 103G. I want Radiacode for rock hunting and finding radioactive things at antique shops. What will you recommend sir ?
if you can afford it without it hurting, get the G model if you want an easier time to identify what you are pointing it at. Frankly they are all good products and I still use my 102 all the time...
Your neutron yield will be almost non existent from your source. The way to get yield is to mix VERY finely powdered (atomized) materials and compress them under very high pressure. (Not recommended at home!) The atoms must be closely in contact in order to produce neutrons effectively. Another good gamma test source is thoriated tungsten welding rods from any welding supply shop.
Greetings! For more effective registration of neutrons it is necessary to apply the source directly to the device, and around it to place polyethylene and the more the better. The behavior of neutrons is a bit inconsistent with the world picture after the experiments with gamma radiation).
Thanks for the comment, the second part of the experiment had exactly that situation, however the the concept of lots of moderation and 'close to the detector' are not necessarily compatible. :-)
@@project-326 for the sake of registering a couple of tens of neutrons per second with another detector, I used 6 5-liter tanks of water, the count rate increased more than 2 times from the boron-10 reaction.
Huge thanks for stiring up my inner nerd system. I still have to play more with the little garden to justify a new acquisition. One question remains: Naomi Wu claims rather unverified benefits for her cheap uv light. What are your comments for her claims?
I have seen these excimer lamps here in China for some time now, they are not new and Ms Wu seems to have just gone to a factory that already makes these products to get her own branded one made. I have not really been through this properly, but perhaps I should. The 'eye-safe' claim might be true, its a very narrow line, so the total energy contained in UV is far less than for more wide-band UV sources. That said, if the total energy is less, I would assume it is going to be a lot less disruptive to the DNA of microbes as well. Might be worth an experiment to check these claims at some point...
Thank you for this highly informative video! I do have the 102 and the 103 and between them there's about the same quality difference as in the 102 to 103g. I've been gnawing on this subject of selling the two and buying one 103 G but I do not think the improvement is worth the hassle and the money. 7.5% resolution isn't so much better in the end. So, thank you for helping me not spend more money! I would expect a lesser drift over time, some less recalibration needs and a longer lifetime? Maybe? The lack of xray detection is a bummer for me. The whole matter of bremsstrahlung, xray and moderation is a quite interesting subject to me so please keep us informed about this 340 kev peak and it's origins! I do envy your collection of sources... Is there a way to get in contact outside the comments? I'd like to ask about the Chinese device, maybe you could get on the producers nerve and press for necessary software development action😁?
I already get on their nerves a LOT!!! In the channel page description, click "more", the channel email address is there behind a bot shield. I had to kill the last channel email address because I published it in the comments and it got sucked up by spam/scam bots.
Very cool video, as usual! If RadiaCode people see this I would like to say, that as an amateur, home user, I think my 101 is quite good for what I do with it. I used to pay top dollar to be "cutting edge". What makes this model cost so much more? The GAGG crystal? Or just the popularity of it? Peace and gamma rays!
I didn't mention it in the video, but I did take a look at the relative prices for GAGG verses CsI, and there is a major difference. I know that they buy their scintillation crystals here in CN. The GAGG crystal is going to be 3 to 5 times the price of CsI, apparently its much harder to process due to the hardness. Clearly, there is more 'chemistry' in the mix too. As far as I can tell, the 103G is just a crystal swap from the standard 103.
DIY Integrating Sphere from a canon ball mold or other? I also forgot to mention for the spectrophotometer, doing a polarization range sweep for more info maybe? Was a plan maybe using a HD actuator and some mechanism to mount and rotate for the sweep. COTS device parts thoughts?
Reminded me there is some old huge RadScout or something like that. Wondering what the specs are of that compared to the little 103G or related smaller packaged?
on the face of it, the Raysid is a nice device, we have been trying to get one to test for quite a while now, but it seems that these are hand made by the creator himself, so supply is always difficult. On the face of it, a 5cm3 scintillation crystal might sound like it is 5x more sensitive that a 1cm3 crystal, but there are other factors in the manufacturing of the crystals that also effect sensitivity. My beloved Measall KV761B has 2.54 cm3 of CsI and does achieve about the same ratio in raw sensitivity over the RC102 in many test I have done. It is one of the reasons I would really like to run a full test of the Raysid and put it next to my other spectrometers in a 1:1 test to see the true picture. I'm pretty sure many of our viewers would also like to see that too.
great review and the real question could be if 103G does provide justified detection improvement over 103? The comparison should be how fast can each of them automatically detect isotopes? At this case it has been tested on pure isotopes, where energy resolution does not add much to detection, but may be more significant in the mixture of isotopes, where energy peaks may be close. the second compare to 103 may be additional step. The KC761-b shows that the resolution may even be better on high purity CsI(Tl) then GAGG, that also gives advantage in better detection of x-rays and higher count rate on lower energy isotopes. So to the conclusion it appears that it was a nice try to make additional product in the same housing. If they applied to large size sensor like common standard of CsI(Tl) of 25.4 x 10 mm or 25.4 x 25.4 mm that requires larger housing. Design of this device is actually very attractive, as it is small size, nice fit. NaI(Tl) may be also used for better resolution over CsI(Tl) but is know to be more hygroscopic and fragile, so is less desired for out of the lab application.
@project-326 As usual, brilliant content again! I see many parallel to visual spectrography, but X-rays havesome additional complexity due alpha, beta particles and decays, and a lot more security measurements needed. I had checked for GAGG crystals before, and found them simple to understand (a flash counter), but expensive to buy. What I really don't understand- this little device has something similar to a diffraction grating or prism inside, so it can split the incoming x-rays by the KiloElectronVolt it get's hit, right? But that is not the GAGG crystal- that's just used as flash generator that a photodiode can count- so what's doing the spectroscopy part here? And KeV is not a frequency dimension, right? It's a density/energy dimension ? But probably that's somehow related? I have a bit problems of changing my mindset from nanometers (what you use for light frequencies) towards KiloElectronVolts- I have not seen any vacuum tube when you opened the device, so I wonder where the magic happens to get this KeV measured and kept apart. Also, would be interested to learn once about your security setup to keep this radiating stuff safely at home. Like you, I was not able to measure even strong fluorescence in the visible range with little garden's spectroscope. I was wondering, if I could somehow concentrate this light, to make it easier to measure- I would need an reflective, hollow ball, with only a little hole so that the fluorescent light could only escape there. And a 2nd hole to get some external excitation source into that ball.
Funny pronouncing of german word "Bremsstrahlung" what says "brake radiation", not knowing if that makes sense in radiation topic. Tx, for review, still thinking about purchasing Radiocode just for fun.
I am looking to upgrade from my GQ GMC 320 I want to take accurate measurements which model should I get? Thx Btw really entertaining video keep up the good work ❤
@@project-326 thanks for the review and the discount code. Took advantage of it and bought the 103 today. Tried to find a video on the selfie stick homemade hold, but couldn’t find it.
the thing that irks me the most with the 102 is how the calibration drifts. If i have the device in a pocket and take it along hiking, it will lose its calibration within a week.
The issue with scintillation crystals is that they are very temperature sensitive, the smaller they are, like in the RadiaCode products, they have less thermal mass. Perhaps this is the issue? I have noticed on the two RC102 devices that I have, that the temperature displayed is usually different by a couple of degrees. If the temperature sensor on the older models is less accurate, it will effect the temperature compensation...
@@project-326 The problem is related to the capsule design, it needs some time to stabilize the position of the crystal and feu and to distribute the gel inside. We could glue the crystals, but this would increase the price and reduce the number of devices.
It seems that the GAGG crystal is more sensitive in the mid to high energy regions of the spectrum and the majority of the Ra-226 and Th-232 strong lines are in the sub-500 KeV range. At least that's my take on this, please feel free to suggest some other possibilities...
@@project-326 according to LSRM software model the difference in sensitivity is: 1) 0.05-0.5 MeV: 10% gain 2) 0.5-1 MeV: 50% gain 3) 1-2 MeV: 72% gain 4) 2-3 MeV: 78% gain 5) 0.05-3 MeV: 21% gain
@@maxbartoshik Thanks, that is great information. It does kind of bear out the results that I got. Those ratios might be correct but the absolute sensitivity that you need to multiply through depends upon a lot of factors controlled by the manufacturing of each crystal, even of the same basic type. For example, if comparing a lower quality CsI with the same size of a higher quality GAGG crystal, those ratios might be multiplied by 2 or 3.
@@project-326 I don’t think so. This software calculates probability of “full interaction” (not sure term is correct, when all energy is absorbed by crystal material). It doesn’t even depend on detector resolution (otherwise activity measurement would be a much more complicated thing). As for Cs spectrum, not all counts go to peak, probably half of them is in compton part. Background was around 15 cps, GaGG reached around 30, or 15 above. In the best possible case CsI should give around +10, but due to compton presence on the spectrum, gagg gain should be less than 50%. I watched that part once again and think that probably 102 just didn’t have enough time to adjust value on the screen. I bet with more time 102 would show around 25 cps in the same geometry.
@@maxbartoshik Thanks for the feedback. Your point is entirely valid, however that does not discount the absolute quality of the crystal manufacturing processes, playing a part. There is a considerable difference in the sensitivity in different quality of CsI crystals but the data your are working from only assumes one particular case, which might not even be achievable for a given manufacturing process. The RadiaCode guys told me that they had tested many different variants of GAGG crystal before selecting the current one that is used in the 103G. A good example might be the testing that people have done on the Raysid and the RC102. The Raysid crystal has 5 times the volume of the RC102 and uses the same basic technology (ie CsI) but does not achieve 5x the count rate, even allowing for measurement geometry. BTW, I ran the Cs-137 measurement for about an hour. Now I have some lead blocks, I might make a shielded measurement of Cs137 to see what I get. Thanks!
Does it have EMP shielding? I'd have no interest in a radioactivity detection device that couldn't survive an EMP and would be useless if a nuke went off somewhere
But when you produce neutrons you are creating different isotopes inside your gamma spectrometer!! You are contaminating your counter by radiating it with neutrons! You can not just detected neutrons with a gamma spectrometer!!
you are correct but it is a question of scale. Based upon the Am-241 activity, the efficiency of the beryllium neutron conversion rate, the geometry of the experiment, the probability of an interaction in the 1cm3 crystal, we are talking about 2 neutrons giving intersections per minute. Of those interactions, there is a very low chance that one will cause a transmutation, most will result in a gamma ray emission. Given the number of atoms in 1cm3 of GAGG, I could run this experiments for several thousand years and it would still not give a noticeable chance in the performance of the device. Actually there are a lot of experiments that have detected neutrons with RadiaCode products, here is one such video from a good friend of mine. ruclips.net/video/rdQ3B0B9vF0/видео.html
The raysid has a bunch of flaws and is homemade by one person. There's not even an ios app. It has a body made on a 3D printer - what is there to talk about.
I agree that it is a home made device, so the manufacturing process that can be expected from mass produced device will not be as good, but I feel duty bound to point out that the "little garden" optical spectrometer is also a product of a 'cottage industry' and manages to get great results. Personally I would love to test the Raysid device and put all of our spectrometers side-by-side with it to get a 1:1 comparison. Sadly, the creator has not yet been able to spare one for us to test (I have reached out a couple of times). So, yes I can see both side of this discussion, but until I can test this device myself it is hard to take side int his. Would be great to do a video on the Measall KC761A/B RC102/3G and the Raysid side by side, a sort of 'spectrometer run-off'.
Their team is in Cyprus and have been for several years. Their banking is also in the EU, which should be evident from the fact that you can pay in either Euros or US dollars. Main components are sourced from China and final assembly/testing is in Cyprus.
I'm so consistently impressed by the rigor and thoroughness of the investigations here. Certainly no one else has demonstrated the x-ray induced scintillation of gagg, or examined its fluorescence spectrum before, and yes I'd definitely like to see more on the other scintillator's behavior. I'm disappointed by their decision to truncate the output at 20KeV but I suppose there is some understandable reason for it. If I can make a suggestion about our robot overlord, perhaps he can be gotten a little coked up at his next visit to the brothel pink LED emporium and his TTS synthesizer speed increased by, say 25%?
I will pass on your idea to my overlord, not sure he will mind the chemical enhancement.
Are you joking about no one havibg measured xrays with GaGG?
@@antonkristensen6665 I didn't say no one's measured it. I said no one's demonstrated its x-ray induced fluorescence on video as seen here, because they haven't.
@Muonium1 Are you sure? GAGG is a decently old detector technology so I'm quite sure that dosimetrological facilities have studied GAGG's response to XRAY sources in depth.
@@antonkristensen6665 I'm sure they have. They haven't recorded it on a yt video.
I have the 102 model and it is certainly good enough for casual or hobby users. Smoke detectors with an Americium detector show up as very active sources if you want a handy test source around the home. Radium coated watch hands and faces are probably the most active sources commonly available and give a very complex pattern of decay products. Hunting locally, I found increased background levels close by a high voltage power transformer. Whether this is due to x-ray radiation generated by extremely high voltages or contamination of the cooling oil is still under investigation. Being in a highly frequented public place it is difficult to take discrete readings! While the 103 and 103G models are improvements over earlier models, I would suggest that any of the models will prove to be suitable for a hobbyist and give years of satisfactory performance. The case design is brilliantly discrete and the phone software outstanding. All of the devices need practice and experience to get the best out of them. I agree totally with the conclusions in this video.
Thanks for the great comment. Another factor that you should not discount is the high amount of EMI that will be in and around such a power transformer. The analog circuitry of the SiPM is REALLY sensitive to electrical noise. If you find that you just get a general increase in background but can't localize it, then this might be the reason...
I have 102 too and totally agree. It is sensitive enough to measure easily what part of bed I sleep in (within reasonable time) and to identify that it is due to K-40 in sweat. I have seen lots of uranium decay chains all around, radon decay chain products in a poorly ventilated cellar etc.
Mobile app is very good and allows identifying source on spot in case I happen to have 102 with me and run into something.
Great for hobby use, easy to carry with (tiny) and battery lasts very long time. For anything very serious, lot more resolution and smaller FWHM would be needed and for very low count measurement nothing beats a much bigger crystal.
When I first got my 103G, I was playing around with it at work, and leaving it on in my pocket at various hospitals. We were in an ED when an X-ray tech on the far side of the ED took two X-rays. The Radiacode alarmed, and it kept alarming because it was in continuous mode. I had to fumble around with it for a while before I got it to shut up. This resulted in a discussion later with my crew as to whether just stepping outside of the room when an X-ray is taken is sufficient.
Very good in depth review
Anyway regarding neutron problem:
The very strange fact I noticed is that the little bump at 30-40kev (33:53) appears only when moderating and is higher with respect to the other peak that instead decreases in energy. Also this small peak is certainly not fluorescence of cerium, it is in such a low concentration that is undetectable probably even by normal xrf. In my opinion, this might be the only possible proof of neutron detection, even if I wouldn't bet a lot on this fact. Another proof of this is the fact that when the source is turned into nonemitting, the small bump does not appear at all. For more about this argument see the article:Investigation into the potential of GAGG:Ce as a neutron detector. Taggart et al
The other high energy peaks are hard to identify but are probably unrelated to neutron, regarding the peak at 340keV at 33:03, it might be due to the decay of Pa233whichch originates from the decay of Np237 which is the main decay product from Am241 so maybe your source of Am241 is visible from where it is stored by this high energy gamma photon? in the end it is not good to detect neutron reliably, also usually neutron detector use pulse shape discrimination in order to distinguish them from gamma rays.
In the end, i don't think I would pay 250€ more for a marginal increase in resolution and the inability to detect xray, that might be a problem for someone interested in doing experiments in the low energy region.
The peak at the beginning of the spectrum around 38 keV is most likely X-ray fluorescence of lanthanum-138 in very small quantities present in GAGG crystals. That's the model we're using. There are other models out there, but they have worse resolution. But the peak at 350 keV is a mystery to me, I am trying to figure it out, but so far I have not been able to find any information or compare it.
About the small peak with polyethylene between the horns of X-ray fluorescence - most likely this is the response from the reaction of slow neutrons with the crystal.
I'm currently writing a thesis on detecting neutrons using (plastic) scintillators. It doesn't surprise me if you didn't see anything. Consider using a material that gets activated (Li6 or B9 if I remember), and then use the neutron stimulated gamma emissions from those isotopes to indirectly detect neutrons. That way you can characterize your neutron source setup, and from there try to detect neutrons directly with GAGG (might be easier to see recoil nuclei from fast neutrons than some random signal from thermal neutrons.
Anyways, nice set of scintillators you have there! If you have a decently fast oscilloscope then I can make a quick design of a simple SiPM board so you can have your own detector. JLCPCB has MicroFJ SiPMs for like 20€ a piece so it isn't even THAT expensive. Use PTFE tape for wrapping.
Thanks for the feedback, very interesting. I have been looking at SiPMs anyway, mostly the Chinese JoinBon products, but I will certainly take a look at the OnSemi versions you suggest.
I'm still not sure about the small peak at 34 KeV. This only happened when moderation was present, even without any change in the geometry of the experiment...
With the second experiment, ie the un-moderated situation, there really isn't anything much to consider. I have also considered Carbon Boride as a possible moderation media, but not sure of the advantages over HDPE.
do you have a link for the JLCPCB that you mentioned?
@@project-326 Did you do any simulations or calculations to check that your amount of moderation is correct? If you have too much moderation then you block all neutrons, and if you have too little then they will still be fast.
As soon as I saw the selfie stick in the video I got excited, but no go on the website. I was hopefully that I could use the discount code to grab one, but at least I know they have produced one. The 103G is expensive but I still love it, despite being fairly ignorant to all the tests I can do with it. I still can't get over the fact that because of your channel I purchased it, and then discovered that the idiots in my local government put radioactive waste in the roadways I commute on. Funny how small beginnings can grow into paths never before thought about.
The discount codes given during the lecture and in the summary are different uu/u. Great test, thank you very much.
Definitely interested in a scintillation crystal video. ...and a tritium video. This channel rocks!
I don't get the complaints regarding the design. The fact that it looks like a glucose meter or something of that sorts is actually an advantage - you can take it out in public, read the display, freely navigate the menu with the buttons and you will not be bothered by some nosy random bystander, security guy, a passenger a seat next to you or a flight attendant, etc. Also, this form factor is amazingly convenient - it fits any pocket. Secondly, the comparison to Gamma Scout is IMHO wrong - we all know that the design language of the GS is the least of their problems (not that it is not a problem at all). If something works well why change it? So there is an opportunity to break it? Or am I the only Radiacode user that is actually happy with the current design?
Agreed, I really like the design, and think they didn't change it because it didn't need changing. It's so small you can put it on a stick to scan, as shown in the video. He comments on the design in an earlier video at 12:08 "DON'T buy a Geiger counter, until you see this..."
I couldn't care less about the design. Looks fine to me
I agree with sza that the design is fine. It’s the device specs and accompanying software that ☢️counts☢️.
I appreciate the same form factor between products.
But I hope the company doesn’t limit product ability to fit within existing form factor tho. Thats a trade off that’s rough (unless certification of a design is big $ - which I doubt)
Nice units. Imo the design is very much spot on what I prefer except I would like the battery to be user replaceable.
Another excellent video, and a different approach to the Radiacode product review than other RUclipsrs have taken. I will be watching this at least two more times. Thank you for doing what you do!!
Much appreciated!
I have a 103G and love it. All Radiacode are stupid sensitive though.
for a pocket device, they are awesome!
It would be great if they had a "theramin" mode that adjusted a tone's pitch based on radiation level.
Get some 2% thoriated tungsten welding rods. They make the 101 go nuts.
nice, mine are much lower concentration so the "negative ion" pendant is a better source for us.
@@project-326 You wouldn't happen to have a link for these "negative ion" pendants would you?? I'm curious!
An alternative for those costly welding rods is old gas light mantles. You usually get at least 0.2 microsieverts per mantle, more if you burn them and compact the ashes. . Mantles from before the middle of the 80´s contain thorium with a very high certainty.
Thought now for black Friday I can get it even cheaper thanks to your discount code, but behold, the prices showed in the video ( 37:39 ) are no longer available, but all prices have been increased 😢
That’s a great comparison! Looks like 103G has performance similar to Raysid although, 1 cm3 GAGG vs 5 cm3 CSI(Ti) still may make a difference, especially in higher energy levels. GAGG photo response to radiation seems to be quite high and rapid.
Raysid should be around 4x more sensitive (or more) due to detector volume (if you buy version with the same resolution). So “similar performance” sounds a bit strange.
@ GAGG has different response characteristics than CsI(Ti), clearly it responds better. There probably has been done measurements to compare performance of those products, I’m just a hobbyist that gives an opinion, based on some my tests.
@@PatrickOnEngineering GaGG it is up to 30-50% more sensitive than CsI of the same dimensions at high energies (> 1 MeV). You will clearly see gain on Co-60, for instance. But on normal background it will have gain of around 15% on the total cps for the whole spectrum (due to shape of the spectrum). + usually sensitivity of crystals increases faster than volume, if volume is 5x - gain in high energy band will be more than 5x.
I’ve heard that GaGG is specific material, it is hard to create useful crystal of high volume (it absorbs own light). I’ve also heard thar resolution of crystal itself could reach 5.5%. Not clear why 103G has only 7.5
However, with 1 cm3 of CsI it could have 6.5%, probably MCA is not perfect.
@@maxbartoshik interesting! I’m now getting a bigger scintilator with 65 cm3 of NaI(Tl) with hardware compatible with Theremino Software. I’ll compare RC 103 with this one and can potentially play around with GaGG although it’s expensive. I guess that’s why RC has a lower grade (and still small) crystal.
@@maxbartoshik the GAGG crystal has almost 50% greater density, why is it strange for it to perform similarly, esp. at higher energy levels?
Current cost on their website, (US) $555.00 Their (not as accurate?) 102 model costs (US) $275.00. There is a mid price 103 model also. The units do not seem to be waterproof. Radioactive Drew did a video about the difference between the 102 and 103 models. The company is located in Cyprus.
all true and very fair, if you don't mind me saying so.
But, except about the accuracy, basically all gamma ray spectrometers are as accurate as their calibration (assuming that they have energy compensation). Sensitivity and accuracy are separate issues.
I have 2 x RC102's and their are my mainstay spectrometers, I love the product to bits, when they sent me a new unit for review, I was over the moon, but just because now more of my family can have access to one of these cool devices (the kids love them). Gotta share the love and share the learning.
You are also 100% correct about the location, this is a former Russian company that up'd-sticks and moved their whole team to Cyprus, there is also an implied message in that statement too.
Anyway, thanks for the feedback!
@@project-326 Agreement Accuracy was the wrong word. Lack of detail in screen resolution is more accurate.
I personally prefer ruggidized units that can take a little water and mildly rough handling. I started on a calibrated Victoreen CD 715 and loved that it didn't mind a little rain. It only reads Alpha and Beta of course, but it also survives (so far) bouncing (it is somewhat braced) around in my car''s trunk when I go look at rocks. Forty years later I have a KC761A (soon to get their B model probabl, but they may have an even better model inside the next yeary) and I truly like that I don't have to baby it too much.
@@kenibnanak5554 The761 B model is a LOT better on resolution than the older one. It also works down to 9 KeV, which is a major improvement.
It may just be the relative strength of our Am-241 source, but I've definitely found that the common rule of thumb of a piece of paper or a few cm of air for shielding isn't enough to actually stop the Alpha particles completely. I've been able to detect from several inches, and through paper (although definitely greatly reduced.
The Kapton tape is probably more than enough to attenuate the alpha before hitting beryllium though, since you were already expecting very few neutrons, if you were able to detect them at all.
We did a video on alpha spectroscopy that you might find interesting.
ruclips.net/video/9VqtumUDaO8/видео.html
Try some cardstock paper. Thickness of a business card. Normal paper is not quite thick enough.
i have had my 102 placed about 40 cm away from a smoke detector Am-241 source that had its steel plate housing in place, on a 6 day integration and with subtraction of the background, the twin peaks from the am-241 were visible.
For neutrons maybe use water to thermalize the neutrons and look for the gamma from the binding energy of deuterium.
Hi and thanks for the comment.
standard "light water" is a pretty terrible moderator, it needs a much greater thickness (or whatever dimension you want to consider) than something like HDPE to achieve the same of moderation. Boron Nitride is one other moderator that I have considered...
@@project-326 Yes, the HDPE is good. We used about 30cm of it in the port of a "neutron howitzer". The plutonium/beryllium source was in the center of a barrel of paraffin. Anyway, at least you know the energy you are expecting when it comes to binding energy of the deuteron.
Do you know what the solid state "photomultiplier" is? A large area diode with a high bias voltage?
I have a friend who works at a hospital and isn't sure about nuclear radiation safety on their setup. I'm pretty sure it's okay, but which device do you think would be better for her to carry around, to ensure radiation safety on a consumer product budget on that environment?
Please forgive me if I am somewhat non-committal on this particular issue, this is a thorny topic!
Normally, in most countries, there are very strict limits on emissions from Radiography equipment, typically the testing and monitoring systems take up as much of the budget as the x-ray generation equipment. That said, I don't know what country you are discussing here.
From my own perspective, being based in China, I have recently tried to test any leakage from CT equipment. My 10 year old daughter recently needed a CT scan, which is a fairly long duration, high energy measurement. She wanted to take the RC102 with her. From just outside of the shielded chamber that she received her scan within, there was zero detection of anything above the background level.
What I mean by this is that normally radiography departments have pretty strict limits and fairly robust monitoring. From the perspective of the medical equipment industry, there is a strong desire to keep exposure limits a strict as possible, because all that monitoring equipment, calibration equipment (and even calibration equipment for the calibration equipment) is supplied by them. Stricter limits means that they sell more equipment and the radiography equipment itself can be more expensive as a result.
Dental x-ray equipment is a different story, this is a much less regulated market. Normally there are limits on the x-ray photon energy level, typically equipment in this category rarely exceeds 80 kVp, so the photons are far less penetrating.
That said, carrying a small personal dosimeter is probably not a terrible idea either, if only for extra peace of mind (I would).
Another excellent video. Thanks!
I have the first model, now I wish they did trade-ins! Cool viddy!
I know that feeling so well!
There are several people willing to take your RC101 in exchange of a partial refund :)
@@leandroebner1405 Thank you! But after watching several videos on the 101, 102, 103 and now 103G I will stay with my original model. Who knows maybe it will be collectible someday? Probably not (sigh). Peace!
@@DonnyHooterHootit's still a very very good instrument! Good enough for almost everything!
@@DonnyHooterHoot As i understand it, the scintillator crystal slowly deteriorates with time, be it in use or not.
Thanks god you got rid of that another guy. I like this format a loooot more. Thank you 😊😊😊
Very cool video.
Loved your video !
'm really confused between Radiacode 103 and 103G. I want Radiacode for rock hunting and finding radioactive things at antique shops. What will you recommend sir ?
if you can afford it without it hurting, get the G model if you want an easier time to identify what you are pointing it at. Frankly they are all good products and I still use my 102 all the time...
@@project-326 Got my answer 😊
Your neutron yield will be almost non existent from your source. The way to get yield is to mix VERY finely powdered (atomized) materials and compress them under very high pressure. (Not recommended at home!) The atoms must be closely in contact in order to produce neutrons effectively. Another good gamma test source is thoriated tungsten welding rods from any welding supply shop.
Greetings! For more effective registration of neutrons it is necessary to apply the source directly to the device, and around it to place polyethylene and the more the better. The behavior of neutrons is a bit inconsistent with the world picture after the experiments with gamma radiation).
Thanks for the comment, the second part of the experiment had exactly that situation, however the the concept of lots of moderation and 'close to the detector' are not necessarily compatible.
:-)
@@project-326 for the sake of registering a couple of tens of neutrons per second with another detector, I used 6 5-liter tanks of water, the count rate increased more than 2 times from the boron-10 reaction.
Huge thanks for stiring up my inner nerd system. I still have to play more with the little garden to justify a new acquisition. One question remains: Naomi Wu claims rather unverified benefits for her cheap uv light. What are your comments for her claims?
I have seen these excimer lamps here in China for some time now, they are not new and Ms Wu seems to have just gone to a factory that already makes these products to get her own branded one made.
I have not really been through this properly, but perhaps I should. The 'eye-safe' claim might be true, its a very narrow line, so the total energy contained in UV is far less than for more wide-band UV sources. That said, if the total energy is less, I would assume it is going to be a lot less disruptive to the DNA of microbes as well.
Might be worth an experiment to check these claims at some point...
thanks for the information and the video. Sincerely, Antonio❤
other peaks, arose due to the bremsstrahlung radiation from the lead house. From the inside it should be covered with copper
Thanks for the feedback, which peaks are you referring to?
Thank you for this highly informative video! I do have the 102 and the 103 and between them there's about the same quality difference as in the 102 to 103g. I've been gnawing on this subject of selling the two and buying one 103 G but I do not think the improvement is worth the hassle and the money. 7.5% resolution isn't so much better in the end. So, thank you for helping me not spend more money! I would expect a lesser drift over time, some less recalibration needs and a longer lifetime? Maybe? The lack of xray detection is a bummer for me. The whole matter of bremsstrahlung, xray and moderation is a quite interesting subject to me so please keep us informed about this 340 kev peak and it's origins!
I do envy your collection of sources...
Is there a way to get in contact outside the comments? I'd like to ask about the Chinese device, maybe you could get on the producers nerve and press for necessary software development action😁?
I already get on their nerves a LOT!!!
In the channel page description, click "more", the channel email address is there behind a bot shield. I had to kill the last channel email address because I published it in the comments and it got sucked up by spam/scam bots.
But does it CLICK????
yup, it clicks!
Very cool video, as usual! If RadiaCode people see this I would like to say, that as an amateur, home user, I think my 101 is quite good for what I do with it. I used to pay top dollar to be "cutting edge". What makes this model cost so much more? The GAGG crystal? Or just the popularity of it? Peace and gamma rays!
I didn't mention it in the video, but I did take a look at the relative prices for GAGG verses CsI, and there is a major difference. I know that they buy their scintillation crystals here in CN. The GAGG crystal is going to be 3 to 5 times the price of CsI, apparently its much harder to process due to the hardness. Clearly, there is more 'chemistry' in the mix too. As far as I can tell, the 103G is just a crystal swap from the standard 103.
We are happy to do our best for you! The man from RadiaCode has seen you)
DIY Integrating Sphere from a canon ball mold or other? I also forgot to mention for the spectrophotometer, doing a polarization range sweep for more info maybe? Was a plan maybe using a HD actuator and some mechanism to mount and rotate for the sweep. COTS device parts thoughts?
Reminded me there is some old huge RadScout or something like that. Wondering what the specs are of that compared to the little 103G or related smaller packaged?
A few people have shown good and professional DIY integrating spheres on youtube. But my favorite is the one done on les's lab channel
@@hullinstruments Yeah, I second that.
Awesome review as usual! thank you :)
My pleasure!
Great video but I’m sticking with my RAYSID
on the face of it, the Raysid is a nice device, we have been trying to get one to test for quite a while now, but it seems that these are hand made by the creator himself, so supply is always difficult. On the face of it, a 5cm3 scintillation crystal might sound like it is 5x more sensitive that a 1cm3 crystal, but there are other factors in the manufacturing of the crystals that also effect sensitivity. My beloved Measall KV761B has 2.54 cm3 of CsI and does achieve about the same ratio in raw sensitivity over the RC102 in many test I have done. It is one of the reasons I would really like to run a full test of the Raysid and put it next to my other spectrometers in a 1:1 test to see the true picture. I'm pretty sure many of our viewers would also like to see that too.
Also sci hub very very useful thank you so much Sir!!!!
Most welcome
Your link seems to be broken ?
Thanks
which one?
@@project-326 The one to RadioCode ?
Thanks
@@KD0CAC I'm following up with them right now, thanks for the info.
God bless the radiacode
Awesome Absolutely.
Thank you kindly!
great review and the real question could be if 103G does provide justified detection improvement over 103? The comparison should be how fast can each of them automatically detect isotopes? At this case it has been tested on pure isotopes, where energy resolution does not add much to detection, but may be more significant in the mixture of isotopes, where energy peaks may be close. the second compare to 103 may be additional step. The KC761-b shows that the resolution may even be better on high purity CsI(Tl) then GAGG, that also gives advantage in better detection of x-rays and higher count rate on lower energy isotopes. So to the conclusion it appears that it was a nice try to make additional product in the same housing. If they applied to large size sensor like common standard of CsI(Tl) of 25.4 x 10 mm or 25.4 x 25.4 mm that requires larger housing. Design of this device is actually very attractive, as it is small size, nice fit. NaI(Tl) may be also used for better resolution over CsI(Tl) but is know to be more hygroscopic and fragile, so is less desired for out of the lab application.
@project-326 As usual, brilliant content again! I see many parallel to visual spectrography, but X-rays havesome additional complexity due alpha, beta particles and decays, and a lot more security measurements needed. I had checked for GAGG crystals before, and found them simple to understand (a flash counter), but expensive to buy. What I really don't understand- this little device has something similar to a diffraction grating or prism inside, so it can split the incoming x-rays by the KiloElectronVolt it get's hit, right? But that is not the GAGG crystal- that's just used as flash generator that a photodiode can count- so what's doing the spectroscopy part here? And KeV is not a frequency dimension, right? It's a density/energy dimension ? But probably that's somehow related? I have a bit problems of changing my mindset from nanometers (what you use for light frequencies) towards KiloElectronVolts- I have not seen any vacuum tube when you opened the device, so I wonder where the magic happens to get this KeV measured and kept apart. Also, would be interested to learn once about your security setup to keep this radiating stuff safely at home. Like you, I was not able to measure even strong fluorescence in the visible range with little garden's spectroscope. I was wondering, if I could somehow concentrate this light, to make it easier to measure- I would need an reflective, hollow ball, with only a little hole so that the fluorescent light could only escape there. And a 2nd hole to get some external excitation source into that ball.
Funny pronouncing of german word "Bremsstrahlung" what says "brake radiation", not knowing if that makes sense in radiation topic.
Tx, for review, still thinking about purchasing Radiocode just for fun.
I am looking to upgrade from my GQ GMC 320 I want to take accurate measurements which model should I get?
Thx
Btw really entertaining video keep up the good work ❤
I have never tested any of the GMC models, they seem quite pricey, especially when imported to China, where currently I live.
@ oh sorry I want to upgrade to a RadiaCode sorry for the unclear question
Sir i am thinking to buy radiacode will i have discount if i say the coupon you said??? Thanks in advance!
yes, the discount code will allow you to get the discount.
@@project-326 thanks you very much Sir and we expect to see future videos like this so nice !!!!
@@project-326sorry for the disturbance Sir i wrote partial code 4 project 326 and says "invalid code"
@@project-326i put the code and says "invalid code"
@@project-326 thanks for the review and the discount code. Took advantage of it and bought the 103 today. Tried to find a video on the selfie stick homemade hold, but couldn’t find it.
You might post this to Reddit's radiacode sub.
EDIT: Looks like someone posted it.
that's a good idea, but can't get verified for posting access via VPN from CN... Hopefully some kindly soul will help out...
;-)
Thanks!
Thank you very much for the contribution to the camera fund!
Very nice video Sir thanks!!!!
So nice of you
the thing that irks me the most with the 102 is how the calibration drifts. If i have the device in a pocket and take it along hiking, it will lose its calibration within a week.
Calibration should be in place, you probably need to contact tech support
The issue with scintillation crystals is that they are very temperature sensitive, the smaller they are, like in the RadiaCode products, they have less thermal mass.
Perhaps this is the issue? I have noticed on the two RC102 devices that I have, that the temperature displayed is usually different by a couple of degrees. If the temperature sensor on the older models is less accurate, it will effect the temperature compensation...
@@project-326 The problem is related to the capsule design, it needs some time to stabilize the position of the crystal and feu and to distribute the gel inside. We could glue the crystals, but this would increase the price and reduce the number of devices.
@@anon_226 The gel is used as optical coupler between the crystal and intensifier ?
@@juslitorYes, between the crystal and the photodetector, probably a translation error.
Why have you got such a big difference on Cs count rate? Ra and Th were pretty close
It seems that the GAGG crystal is more sensitive in the mid to high energy regions of the spectrum and the majority of the Ra-226 and Th-232 strong lines are in the sub-500 KeV range. At least that's my take on this, please feel free to suggest some other possibilities...
@@project-326 according to LSRM software model the difference in sensitivity is:
1) 0.05-0.5 MeV: 10% gain
2) 0.5-1 MeV: 50% gain
3) 1-2 MeV: 72% gain
4) 2-3 MeV: 78% gain
5) 0.05-3 MeV: 21% gain
@@maxbartoshik Thanks, that is great information. It does kind of bear out the results that I got. Those ratios might be correct but the absolute sensitivity that you need to multiply through depends upon a lot of factors controlled by the manufacturing of each crystal, even of the same basic type. For example, if comparing a lower quality CsI with the same size of a higher quality GAGG crystal, those ratios might be multiplied by 2 or 3.
@@project-326 I don’t think so. This software calculates probability of “full interaction” (not sure term is correct, when all energy is absorbed by crystal material). It doesn’t even depend on detector resolution (otherwise activity measurement would be a much more complicated thing). As for Cs spectrum, not all counts go to peak, probably half of them is in compton part. Background was around 15 cps, GaGG reached around 30, or 15 above. In the best possible case CsI should give around +10, but due to compton presence on the spectrum, gagg gain should be less than 50%. I watched that part once again and think that probably 102 just didn’t have enough time to adjust value on the screen. I bet with more time 102 would show around 25 cps in the same geometry.
@@maxbartoshik Thanks for the feedback. Your point is entirely valid, however that does not discount the absolute quality of the crystal manufacturing processes, playing a part. There is a considerable difference in the sensitivity in different quality of CsI crystals but the data your are working from only assumes one particular case, which might not even be achievable for a given manufacturing process. The RadiaCode guys told me that they had tested many different variants of GAGG crystal before selecting the current one that is used in the 103G.
A good example might be the testing that people have done on the Raysid and the RC102. The Raysid crystal has 5 times the volume of the RC102 and uses the same basic technology (ie CsI) but does not achieve 5x the count rate, even allowing for measurement geometry.
BTW, I ran the Cs-137 measurement for about an hour. Now I have some lead blocks, I might make a shielded measurement of Cs137 to see what I get.
Thanks!
Does it have EMP shielding? I'd have no interest in a radioactivity detection device that couldn't survive an EMP and would be useless if a nuke went off somewhere
Just store it in a metal container.
But when you produce neutrons you are creating different isotopes inside your gamma spectrometer!! You are contaminating your counter by radiating it with neutrons!
You can not just detected neutrons with a gamma spectrometer!!
you are correct but it is a question of scale. Based upon the Am-241 activity, the efficiency of the beryllium neutron conversion rate, the geometry of the experiment, the probability of an interaction in the 1cm3 crystal, we are talking about 2 neutrons giving intersections per minute. Of those interactions, there is a very low chance that one will cause a transmutation, most will result in a gamma ray emission.
Given the number of atoms in 1cm3 of GAGG, I could run this experiments for several thousand years and it would still not give a noticeable chance in the performance of the device.
Actually there are a lot of experiments that have detected neutrons with RadiaCode products, here is one such video from a good friend of mine.
ruclips.net/video/rdQ3B0B9vF0/видео.html
Nice.
Thanks!
Ultimate? For low lvl radiation detector RaysID beat its due to 5 times larger crystal .
The raysid has a bunch of flaws and is homemade by one person. There's not even an ios app. It has a body made on a 3D printer - what is there to talk about.
I agree that it is a home made device, so the manufacturing process that can be expected from mass produced device will not be as good, but I feel duty bound to point out that the "little garden" optical spectrometer is also a product of a 'cottage industry' and manages to get great results.
Personally I would love to test the Raysid device and put all of our spectrometers side-by-side with it to get a 1:1 comparison. Sadly, the creator has not yet been able to spare one for us to test (I have reached out a couple of times).
So, yes I can see both side of this discussion, but until I can test this device myself it is hard to take side int his.
Would be great to do a video on the Measall KC761A/B RC102/3G and the Raysid side by side, a sort of 'spectrometer run-off'.
It costs about US$500, with the discount. Very expensive.
The robot AI voice is awful - it gives the whole presentation an air of unbelievability.
Industrial designer? It's a Russian product. They hide that fact through a shell company in Cyprus but the devices are made in Moscow.
Radiacode is made in Cyprus and partly funded by the EU, this would not be possible if the product was linked to russia.
Their team is in Cyprus and have been for several years. Their banking is also in the EU, which should be evident from the fact that you can pay in either Euros or US dollars. Main components are sourced from China and final assembly/testing is in Cyprus.
@@Nuclear_Legacy RadiaCode-102/103/103G devices are manufactured in Cyprus, we even filmed a video from the production and put it on RUclips.
I think you should stop curse youtube algorithm and stroke it couple times a-la @PrintShootRepeat
I'm not convinced the YT algo is that smart...
But maybe you are right!
@@project-326 if you end up creating PSR style/level bangers it will be a win for community anyway 😂
@@rotors_taker_0h PSR?
@@project-326 yeah, the same channel I mentioned in the first comment, it's his short name
Check out his satirical music videos and video intros :)
This device is good, but it made in russia. For the money earned from wars and terror acrions in other countries
Company is based in Cyprus
Like the USA? Probably better to not engage in this.
Radiacode is made in Cyprus and partly funded by the EU, this would not be possible if the product was linked to russia.
RadiaCode-102/103/103G devices are manufactured in Cyprus, we even filmed a video from the production and put it on RUclips.
Thanks!
Another great video! Thanks and keep up the excellent work. I always get excited to see another pop up on the feed.
My sincerest gratitude!