All of your radiation detection equipment are geiger counters except the better geiger s-1. The radex and gmc-500+ are geiger counters! If you're wondering why they read on the side, the geiger muller tube is on the side! :)

@PraxisAdventures

3 ай бұрын

Thanks for confirming that. After I shot and recorded that video (which was rushed a bit because a viewer knew I was working on it and was eagerly awaiting my testing results), I dug into the specs again and noticed what you said about the better being the only scintillator. I appreciate your taking the time to confirm that too. KZread is a great way to share info!

@venomstorm53

3 ай бұрын

@@PraxisAdventures You're welcome! :D

@The-One-and-Only100

Ай бұрын

The gmc 500+ also has a high range tube on the other side designed for preppers and people that find high activity items like old radium aircraft instruments and compasses

Good video I agree with your assessment. I have over a dozen different Geiger counters, in the event of a nuclear disaster where I had to get out and stay light I want my " better Geiger" and my GQ GMC 600 which has a pancake probe similar to the inspector it's just a cheaper version (not lab grade)

@PraxisAdventures

3 ай бұрын

I'm glad you found it useful. Hopefully we never need to use these in a real emergency!

BetterGeiger S1 It has energy compensation (it is not calibrated for one isotope), therefore the measurement results from BetterGeiger are closest to the real radiation threat :)

@PraxisAdventures

3 ай бұрын

That's my take as well. Thanks for sharing that perspective.

@The-One-and-Only100

Ай бұрын

I beg to differ since the radiacode scintillation detectors have more features and are truly energy compensated, as shown in radioactive Drew's video comparing a bunch of radiation detectors and sources including a calibrated cesium 137 disk source (1 uCi) and the Bettergeiger showed lower readings and was less accurate kzread.info/dash/bejne/n5eryc-Gj6jYnKQ.htmlsi=3YBySl4D3vEeFl_K

@PraxisPrepper

Ай бұрын

@@The-One-and-Only100 Thanks for the link. This is something I'm always eager to learn more about.

A bit more research on this devices would have been nice. Only one of them (better Geiger) is a scintillator. Rest are Geigermüller tube detectors. The two are more sensitive on the side because the tube is sitting there. For a good comparison those informations are important too. I also think handeling radium from clocks with bare hands is kinda dangerous cause particles can get easily on to your skin and in the next step into your body.

@PraxisAdventures

24 күн бұрын

More information (research) is always a good thing. So I agree there. Sometimes it's also useful to look more at how well things work vs knowing all the intricacies of how they work technically. I feel this video gives people a basic understanding of the differences in sensitivities between all these different meters, what each might be more or less useful for, and some thoughts about best units for different circumstances. But I agree that more knowledge is always nice too - as long as it's not presented to a degree that people find overwhelming. that was the line I was hoping to ride in this video. I 100% agree on the care that is due to the task of handling radium. That stuff isn't used anymore in consumer products for a very good reason.

Thanks for the video and love the T shirt 🤘

@PraxisAdventures

2 ай бұрын

You bet! :)

I'm shocked at the difference between the inspector's readings and the others.

@PraxisAdventures

21 күн бұрын

They're meters made for different purposes. For testing for small amounts of radiation in samples, the inspector is most appropriate, but for navigating a radioactive and dangerous environment, the better geiger style is going to be more useful. It's sort of like seeing what's around you with or without sunglasses. One isn't better than the other - they're for different situations. Sunglasses at night wouldn't work very well for the user - in the same way that walking across a glacier at high noon on a blazingly sunny day would be problematic without any sunglasses at all. That's why I think the two pair well with each other.

Umm... Geiger counters don't measure dose rates. They measure count rates of individual decay events. In detecting events a Geiger Muller tube discharges and loses all information on energy. If you want to measure dose properly you need a ion chamber or a scintillator that measures energy. Dose rates given by Geiger counters are estimates based on a single type of source (usually Cs-137) by assigning a dose amount for each count detected. The exception is an energy compensated GM tube that sacrifices sensitivity to give a more accurate estimate (but not a true measurement) for different types of sources. As a result you lose a portion of the ability to detect weak sources of radiation and contamination that Geiger counters excel at. If you want to compare geiger counters you compare counts per minute or counts per second over the back ground count as this is how you will detect the presence of radiation.

@PraxisAdventures

2 ай бұрын

At first when I was reading your comment, i was thinking it was the usual troll internet tripe, but as I read, I realized, you know what you're talking about. Yeah, I agree, I over-simplified it here. The Dose Rate approach DOES make assumptions about the source of the radiation that might very well not be accurate. I touched briefly on that pointing the video when I discussed how some meters are tuned to capture a broad spectrum of radiation, and others were tuned for specifically gamma radiation, and how knowing which is which is rather important in terms of assessing the level and type of risk being presented. But you're right that I glossed over the nitty gritty a little bit in favor of keeping it rather simple. It's a hard topic (I think) to simplify for people to understand without losing (occasionally) critical details. I did the best I could here. Thanks for your feedback. I don't disagree with you.

@connclark2154

2 ай бұрын

@@PraxisAdventures A better comparison would be to see which one you can noticeably detect an increase in counts the furthest distance away.or which one can detect the weakest source. This is how you really use a Geiger Counter. Note the better Geiger will not do as well as it trades sensitivity for does rate accuracy.

@PraxisAdventures

2 ай бұрын

@@connclark2154 I think I somewhat covered the ability of each to detect weaker sources (The Inspector wins there), but I didn't do the test at increasing distances. That would have been useful as well. I agree. The Better Geiger DOES have that trade off you suggested. That's why I suggested that I felt that having only one of these would leave someone blind in some area and suggested that a combination of something like the better Geiger and the Inspector would be an ideal pairing so as to be able to detect very faint radiation (with the inspector) but then to also have a unit what would give usable info in an environment with much more radiation that would likely max out other units. Again, thanks for your feedback here. If I ever do a revisit to this topic, I'll definitely take some of what you said into account in that future video.

Guessing people said it here but the reason the inspector was getting much more radiation is because of the fact it can detect alpha radiation unlike the other counters which can only detect beta and gamma radiation.

@PraxisAdventures

Ай бұрын

The Better Geiger is blocking alpha and beta, but the other two (non Inspector) units were picking up alpha and beta I believe. Some of the sources that I used for testing were alpha and beta only emitters, so if the units were picking them up, they're picking up alpha and beta.

@The-One-and-Only100

Ай бұрын

​@PraxisAdventures a good test to show that the gmc 500+ isn't detecting alpha is use a button of americium 241 from a smoke detector it's an alpha and gamma emitter and when used on the inspector it will scream showing you insane counts

10 usv/h is fine! I have a sample that gets up to 70 microsieverts per hour and it's not dangerous to handle! :) Just letting you know! Edit: (In beta radiation)

@PraxisAdventures

3 ай бұрын

You're 100% right there. I was mostly doing that rock thing to demonstrate shielding a little in the video. But you're right, the level of "caution" I was showing in this video wasn't really required. That said... my personal personality would lead me to do that even without the demonstration aspect. I'm a bit compulsive about reducing emf and radiation. Good comment though. I agree with you.

@WR3ND

Ай бұрын

@@PraxisAdventures Speaking of emf, I recently got an infrared camera phone attachment. It's cool seeing our bodies glowing under their own heat. Cheers.

@PraxisAdventures

Ай бұрын

@@WR3ND Yeah those ARE cool devices. I have one for my phone too and it's been pretty useful in tracking down areas of my home that could benefit from additional insulation. Also, in my pantry, I've been using it to track down sources of heat that are unwelcome. Very useful to be able to see in that wavelength! :)

@The-One-and-Only100

Ай бұрын

Is it strontium 90 from an old Soviet era geiger counter like the dp63a