GQ Electronics Technical Support Forum Active Users: / Visits Today:
Highest Active Users:
GQ Electronics Technical Support Forum
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
 Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 GQ Electronics Forums
 2.GQ Geiger Muller Counter
 320s Display and Data Logger uSv/h Discrepancy

Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!

Screensize:
UserName:
Password:
Format Mode:
Format: BoldItalicizedUnderlineStrikethrough Align LeftCenteredAlign Right Horizontal Rule Insert HyperlinkInsert EmailInsert Image Insert CodeInsert QuoteInsert List Spell Checker
   
Message:

* HTML is OFF
* Forum Code is ON
Smilies
Smile [:)] Big Smile [:D] Cool [8D] Blush [:I]
Tongue [:P] Evil [):] Wink [;)] Clown [:o)]
Black Eye [B)] Eight Ball [8] Frown [:(] Shy [8)]
Shocked [:0] Angry [:(!] Dead [xx(] Sleepy [|)]
Kisses [:X] Approve [^] Disapprove [V] Question [?]

   Insert an Image File
 Check here to include your profile signature.
    

T O P I C    R E V I E W
Historical Tidbits Posted - 12/28/2023 : 14:59:19
I've checked the GQ data viewer and logger programs for the 320s Geiger Counter device and I have noticed that the onscreen device display figures do not remotely match the logged data, even in realtime mode.

For example, when measuring my radium dial:

The display is registering CPM 6755 and 41.88 uSv/h.

The GQ data logger and GQ data viewer software are registering CPM 6777 and 134.60uSv/h.

And I have measured this radium dial several times at long intervals (between 30 minutes to 1 hour) and received consistent results between the display figure and the logged data. But on the uSv/h, they aren't in agreement.

This is a significant and even worrying discrepancy. The datalogger is measuring three times higher uSv/h than what it displays on the device screen.

I'm not sure which figure can be trusted, if either. Can anyone shed some light on this discrepancy and which figure, the device display or the logged data is the more reliable data?

I do understand that these devices aren't accurate in general, but they do get into the ballpark rates and are still useful as an everyday device. But I am trying to figure out which is the more reliable data, the display or datalog (but also why there is a discrepancy at all).
2   L A T E S T    R E P L I E S    (Newest First)
Historical Tidbits Posted - 12/29/2023 : 08:34:10
quote:
Originally posted by ullix

The 320S uses a Geiger tube for which GQ sets a sensitivity of 161.54 CPOM/(µSv/h) into its firmware. Calculate, what you counter and software shows:

counter:     6755 / 41.88  = 161.29   --> close enough
GQ software: 6777 / 134.60 =  50.35   --> nonsense

Get GeigerLog for useful data!



Thanks for the response. Unfortunately, I have zero knowledge of python and find it a bit complicated to use. I'm already stuck on page 15 just trying to start the program.
ullix Posted - 12/29/2023 : 02:15:37
The 320S uses a Geiger tube for which GQ sets a sensitivity of 161.54 CPOM/(µSv/h) into its firmware. Calculate, what you counter and software shows:

counter:     6755 / 41.88  = 161.29   --> close enough
GQ software: 6777 / 134.60 =  50.35   --> nonsense

Get GeigerLog for useful data!

GQ Electronics Technical Support Forum © Copyright since 2011 Go To Top Of Page
Generated in 0.05 sec. Snitz's Forums 2000