Welcome
Username or Email:

Password:


Missing Code




[ ]
[ ]
Online
  • Guests: 13
  • Members: 0
  • Newest Member: omjtest
  • Most ever online: 396
    Guests: 396, Members: 0 on 12 Jan : 12:51
Members Birthdays:
No birthdays today

Next birthdays
05/27 Daniel Davis (53)
05/29 Zonalklism (33)
05/29 Dr Hankenstein (67)
Contact
If you need assistance, please send an email to forum at 4hv dot org. To ensure your email is not marked as spam, please include the phrase "4hv help" in the subject line. You can also find assistance via IRC, at irc.shadowworld.net, room #hvcomm.
Support 4hv.org!
Donate:
4hv.org is hosted on a dedicated server. Unfortunately, this server costs and we rely on the help of site members to keep 4hv.org running. Please consider donating. We will place your name on the thanks list and you'll be helping to keep 4hv.org alive and free for everyone. Members whose names appear in red bold have donated recently. Green bold denotes those who have recently donated to keep the server carbon neutral.


Special Thanks To:
  • Aaron Holmes
  • Aaron Wheeler
  • Adam Horden
  • Alan Scrimgeour
  • Andre
  • Andrew Haynes
  • Anonymous000
  • asabase
  • Austin Weil
  • barney
  • Barry
  • Bert Hickman
  • Bill Kukowski
  • Blitzorn
  • Brandon Paradelas
  • Bruce Bowling
  • BubeeMike
  • Byong Park
  • Cesiumsponge
  • Chris F.
  • Chris Hooper
  • Corey Worthington
  • Derek Woodroffe
  • Dalus
  • Dan Strother
  • Daniel Davis
  • Daniel Uhrenholt
  • datasheetarchive
  • Dave Billington
  • Dave Marshall
  • David F.
  • Dennis Rogers
  • drelectrix
  • Dr. John Gudenas
  • Dr. Spark
  • E.TexasTesla
  • eastvoltresearch
  • Eirik Taylor
  • Erik Dyakov
  • Erlend^SE
  • Finn Hammer
  • Firebug24k
  • GalliumMan
  • Gary Peterson
  • George Slade
  • GhostNull
  • Gordon Mcknight
  • Graham Armitage
  • Grant
  • GreySoul
  • Henry H
  • IamSmooth
  • In memory of Leo Powning
  • Jacob Cash
  • James Howells
  • James Pawson
  • Jeff Greenfield
  • Jeff Thomas
  • Jesse Frost
  • Jim Mitchell
  • jlr134
  • Joe Mastroianni
  • John Forcina
  • John Oberg
  • John Willcutt
  • Jon Newcomb
  • klugesmith
  • Leslie Wright
  • Lutz Hoffman
  • Mads Barnkob
  • Martin King
  • Mats Karlsson
  • Matt Gibson
  • Matthew Guidry
  • mbd
  • Michael D'Angelo
  • Mikkel
  • mileswaldron
  • mister_rf
  • Neil Foster
  • Nick de Smith
  • Nick Soroka
  • nicklenorp
  • Nik
  • Norman Stanley
  • Patrick Coleman
  • Paul Brodie
  • Paul Jordan
  • Paul Montgomery
  • Ped
  • Peter Krogen
  • Peter Terren
  • PhilGood
  • Richard Feldman
  • Robert Bush
  • Royce Bailey
  • Scott Fusare
  • Scott Newman
  • smiffy
  • Stella
  • Steven Busic
  • Steve Conner
  • Steve Jones
  • Steve Ward
  • Sulaiman
  • Thomas Coyle
  • Thomas A. Wallace
  • Thomas W
  • Timo
  • Torch
  • Ulf Jonsson
  • vasil
  • Vaxian
  • vladi mazzilli
  • wastehl
  • Weston
  • William Kim
  • William N.
  • William Stehl
  • Wesley Venis
The aforementioned have contributed financially to the continuing triumph of 4hv.org. They are deserving of my most heartfelt thanks.
Forums
4hv.org :: Forums :: Electromagnetic Radiation
« Previous topic | Next topic »   

What sort of detector to check safety of baggage X-ray machine?

Move Thread LAN_403
mikeselectricstuff
Fri Sept 14 2012, 10:21PM Print
mikeselectricstuff Registered Member #311 Joined: Sun Mar 12 2006, 08:28PM
Location:
Posts: 253
I just acquired an old EG&G Linescan baggage X-ray machine.
What sort of detector/counter would be suitable to check for safe leakage levels - tube is 145kv.

How necessary would it be to have something that is calibrated ? i.e what sort of difference is there between levels of "detecting nothing, so safe", "Detecting a little but but still safe", "Detecting unsafe levels", and "extreme levels due to detector placed in beam path to check that it's working"

I have a pre-delivery inspection sheet showing a test level of 0.7uSv/h

Back to top
Conundrum
Sat Sept 15 2012, 08:15AM
Conundrum Registered Member #96 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 05:37PM
Location: CI, Earth
Posts: 4059
I'd ensure the counter works before even thinking about powering the machine, X-ray leakage is likely if the machine's shielding is damaged in any way.
Back to top
Proud Mary
Sun Sept 16 2012, 09:29AM
Proud Mary Registered Member #543 Joined: Tue Feb 20 2007, 04:26PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4992
mikeselectricstuff wrote ...

I have a pre-delivery inspection sheet showing a test level of 0.7uSv/h

That figure will be the background radiation in the place where the equipment was tested.

Baggage and mail X-ray machines should have no detectable X-ray leakage*, as operators will be exposed continuously throughout their working period, and annual permitted dose rates must not be exceeded.

* with ordinary X-ray survey instruments, at least.
Back to top
mikeselectricstuff
Sun Sept 16 2012, 10:57AM
mikeselectricstuff Registered Member #311 Joined: Sun Mar 12 2006, 08:28PM
Location:
Posts: 253
Proud Mary wrote ...

mikeselectricstuff wrote ...

I have a pre-delivery inspection sheet showing a test level of 0.7uSv/h

That figure will be the background radiation in the place where the equipment was tested.

Baggage and mail X-ray machines should have no detectable X-ray leakage*, as operators will be exposed continuously throughout their working period, and annual permitted dose rates must not be exceeded.

* with ordinary X-ray survey instruments, at least.


The sheet shows a background level of "<0.2uSv/h", presumably the limit of the equipment used.


1347792787 311 FT144498 Scan10010

1347792787 311 FT144498 Scan10013


What I'm concerned about is whether a normal gieger counter is sufficent to check that I'm not going to nuke myself during a few hours of x-raying anything I can get my hands on, before I get bored, strip the thing down, do a teardown video, weigh in the lead at the local scrappie, put the tube on the mantelpiece as a cool ornament and see how long the 160kv PSU can pull an arc before self-destructing...!
Back to top
Proud Mary
Sun Sept 16 2012, 07:34PM
Proud Mary Registered Member #543 Joined: Tue Feb 20 2007, 04:26PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4992
The Mini Instruments 900D is specified as follows:


"Type D:

Uses partially compensated G-M tube to obtain an extended low energy response
Scaled over the range of 0.5 to 1000µSvh-1 (0.05 to 100mR/h)
Useful energy range: 30keV to 1.5MeV but response is maintained down to at least 17keV
Suitable for measuring radiation from X-ray apparatus operating at or above 45kVp"


The test engineer seems to have interpolated his figures by eye right at the bottom of the scale. How he determined that the background count was
0.2μSv/hr with this single range instrument is unclear.

A survey meter with a 0 - 3 μSv/hr FSD range would have been far more suitable for measuring the low dose rates likely to be encountered in a leakage survey of professionally designed equipment.
Back to top

Moderator(s): Chris Russell, Noelle, Alex, Tesladownunder, Dave Marshall, Dave Billington, Bjørn, Steve Conner, Wolfram, Kizmo, Mads Barnkob

Go to:

Powered by e107 Forum System
 
Legal Information
This site is powered by e107, which is released under the GNU GPL License. All work on this site, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License. By submitting any information to this site, you agree that anything submitted will be so licensed. Please read our Disclaimer and Policies page for information on your rights and responsibilities regarding this site.