| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Bobakman |
Posted - 07/09/2023 : 10:30:26
When are you going to update this software? Last update was 2020, many of us have paid for it but it's features are far surpassed by the free GeigerLog software?
For instance there are now 6 calibration points in the latest firmware of my 600+ why is #6 point greyed out in the Pro software?
Bob
 |
| 5 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Bobakman |
Posted - 07/21/2023 : 12:40:41
I am hoping GQ support will chime in here with at least a plausible answer LOL!
|
| ullix |
Posted - 07/21/2023 : 05:36:48
I dug a bit deeper into this nonsense. Find the details here:
https://sourceforge.net/p/geigerlog/discussion/general/thread/06ba7342a5/
My summary: The "Pro" software uses fake data. Possibly testing data which GQ's expert programmers forgot to remove.
GeigerLog does find the intended data, but ignores them anyway. For a good reason, I think.
|
| ullix |
Posted - 07/19/2023 : 00:24:51
:-)) |
| Bobakman |
Posted - 07/18/2023 : 20:45:50
I just noticed a difference in the calibration settings in the standard viewer software and what is showing up in the Pro software can you explain why they are different?
Bob
 |
| ullix |
Posted - 07/10/2023 : 04:17:30
There are more miracles than meets the eye!
The "6 calibration points" shown above, read-out from a 600+ counter with the "GQ Pro software", yield interesting but nonsensical data.
I am calculating the tube Sensitivity from these values, which results simply from the division of CPM by µSv/h, so e.g. for the calibrate point #1: 60 / 0.30 = 200 CPM / (µSv/h). Likewise for the other points; I show all in the table.
If you take the inverse of sensitivity, you end with what GQ is using as a "calibration" factor.
First note that you need Dose-rates, thus it should not be "µSv" but "µSv/h". Perhaps obvious only to scientists.
Then all 5 value-pairs (where is the 6th, which was previously declared to be so essential?) code for the same 200 CPM/(µSv/h). So essentially you don't need 6, nor 5, nor 3 calibration points - but just a single one!
Then the magnitude of the sensitivity is a surprise. The firmware as recent as 2.42 had this at 420!!!
Now this expensive tube has become 2.1 fold worse, being almost on par with the much cheaper M4011 tube?
And before the 420, GQ had the very same tube firmware-defined at 379.
And this while the tube manufacturer had never changed their specification of the tube, which had been and still is 348 CPM/(µSv/h)
https://www.lndinc.com/products/geiger-mueller-tubes/7317/
So while before GQ, by some magic, claimed a higher sensitivity than even the tube-manufacturer, now they are claiming a much worse sensitivity. Sure, this is possible. All you have to do is build such a lousy case for the latest GMC-600 that all sensitivity is ruined!
But it would be a miracle if GQ could build a counter, by any means, with a HIGHER sensitivity than the tube-manufacturer had determined.
Is it fair to say that these GQ-numbers share a light on GQ's understanding of their Geiger counters?
@GQ: What is the true sensitivity value in your opinion?
And in which firmwares do we find which "calibration 2 points, and at which locations? It certainly is NOT present in what you gave as the lastets firmware for a GMC-320+V5 RRe 5.63 (https://www.gqelectronicsllc.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=10234&SearchTerms=CalibrationCPMHiByte_0)
At least 24 bytes config memory will be needed for the 3 new extra "calibration" points.
|
|
|
