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
 Comparison of GQ's M4011 tube with the SBM20 tube

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
ullix Posted - 06/21/2017 : 08:00:50
The sensitivity of the tubes is still a bit of a mystery to me, and with rumors abound about a much better SBM20, I decided to get one (from Ukraine via ebay) and test it. This is not a new tube, but several years old, however, supposed to have not been used yet.

Image Insert:

353279 bytes
The picture shows a size comparison of the tubes and the test setup. The SBM20 is 2.0 cm longer than the M4011 (10.8 vs 8.8 cm) so the SBM20 does not fit into the unmodified holding caps in the case (though there are additional soldering points on the circuit board, which may(?) allow a repositioning of the clips to accommodate the SBM20). The diameter of both tubes is 10mm, plus the 5 circular bumps on the SBM20 increasing its diam to 10.8mm.

I preferred not to make any changes to the circuit board and choose the connection via crocodile clips. A bit to my surprise the long test leads did not seem to damage the signal, as I got same results with tube in-situ or extended via cable. (though I did not have an oscilloscope to verify signal shape). But now I could make sure that the two tubes were really seeing the same environment, and differences were not due to difference in distance and/or orientation to the source.

I measured
(done with GeigerLog, http://www.gqelectronicsllc.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=4522):

Image Insert:

114327 bytes

BACKGROUND: While the numbers show a 3% higher background for the SBM20, I think this is within the uncertainty. So, no difference in background.

Image Insert:

54246 bytes

K and Th: Note that the Y-axis is logarithmic to display the 10fold difference in count rate for K of CPM=200...300 vs Th of CPM=2000...3000! Very clearly, the SBM20 does show a 40+% higher count rate!

Both sources are both beta and gamma emitter, but both are predominantly beta emitter. For K it is 90% beta, 10% gamma, but for Th it is not known. It depends on the age since last chemical purification of Th, which then resulted in the build-up of the decay chain over some years. However, testing with several thin sheets of steel inserted between source and detector and observing damping of count rate has confirmed that it is also a strong beta emitter, but does have some gamma component.

Overall, the SBM20 has the same background as the M4011, but is 40+% more sensitive to counts as long as the source has a strong beta component. Whether the difference extends to gamma is not known and cannot be told with these experiments.
3   L A T E S T    R E P L I E S    (Newest First)
ptalev Posted - 11/06/2020 : 12:49:58
But wich is true,high sensitivity sbm20 or m4011
quote:
Originally posted by ullix

The sensitivity of the tubes is still a bit of a mystery to me, and with rumors abound about a much better SBM20, I decided to get one (from Ukraine via ebay) and test it. This is not a new tube, but several years old, however, supposed to have not been used yet.

Image Insert:

353279 bytes
The picture shows a size comparison of the tubes and the test setup. The SBM20 is 2.0 cm longer than the M4011 (10.8 vs 8.8 cm) so the SBM20 does not fit into the unmodified holding caps in the case (though there are additional soldering points on the circuit board, which may(?) allow a repositioning of the clips to accommodate the SBM20). The diameter of both tubes is 10mm, plus the 5 circular bumps on the SBM20 increasing its diam to 10.8mm.

I preferred not to make any changes to the circuit board and choose the connection via crocodile clips. A bit to my surprise the long test leads did not seem to damage the signal, as I got same results with tube in-situ or extended via cable. (though I did not have an oscilloscope to verify signal shape). But now I could make sure that the two tubes were really seeing the same environment, and differences were not due to difference in distance and/or orientation to the source.

I measured
(done with GeigerLog, http://www.gqelectronicsllc.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=4522):

Image Insert:

114327 bytes

BACKGROUND: While the numbers show a 3% higher background for the SBM20, I think this is within the uncertainty. So, no difference in background.

Image Insert:

54246 bytes

K and Th: Note that the Y-axis is logarithmic to display the 10fold difference in count rate for K of CPM=200...300 vs Th of CPM=2000...3000! Very clearly, the SBM20 does show a 40+% higher count rate!

Both sources are both beta and gamma emitter, but both are predominantly beta emitter. For K it is 90% beta, 10% gamma, but for Th it is not known. It depends on the age since last chemical purification of Th, which then resulted in the build-up of the decay chain over some years. However, testing with several thin sheets of steel inserted between source and detector and observing damping of count rate has confirmed that it is also a strong beta emitter, but does have some gamma component.

Overall, the SBM20 has the same background as the M4011, but is 40+% more sensitive to counts as long as the source has a strong beta component. Whether the difference extends to gamma is not known and cannot be told with these experiments.


ptalev Posted - 11/06/2020 : 05:16:27
Hi.Im new here, i have gq gmc320+v4 and looking for more info about sbm20 tube and convrersion ,find this on another forum.
Conversion rate for SBM-20 --> 0.0057 Calculations: uranium glass bead 238U : SBM-20 --> 290cpm * 0.0057 = 1.653µSv/h M4011 --> 1.653µSv/h / 245cpm = 0.0067469387755102 uranium ore 238U : SBM-20 --> 471cpm * 0.0057 = 2.6847µSv/h M4011 --> 2.6847µSv/h / 436cpm = 0.0061575688073394 smoke detector pellet 241Am : SBM-20 --> 896cpm * 0.0057 = 5.1072µSv/h M4011 --> 5.1072µSv/h / 790cpm = 0.0064648101265823 lantern mantle 232Th full size: SBM-20 --> 5253cpm * 0.0057 = 29.9421µSv/h M4011 --> 29.9421µSv/h / 4386cpm = 0.0068267441860465 Averaging: 0.0067469387755102 + 0.0061575688073394 + 0.0064648101265823 + 0.0068267441860465 = 0.0261960618954784 0.0261960618954784 / 4 = 0.0065490154738696 0.0065490154738696 <-- rounding to 4 digits behind the dot --> 0.0066 <-- Theoretical conversion rate for the M4011 after applying maths. :) Hope this helped out. :)

Best regards
Franglish9265 Posted - 05/20/2019 : 19:27:45
...bump...

quote:
Originally posted by ullix

The sensitivity of the tubes is still a bit of a mystery to me, and with rumors abound about a much better SBM20, I decided to get one (from Ukraine via ebay) and test it. This is not a new tube, but several years old, however, supposed to have not been used yet.

Image Insert:

353279 bytes
The picture shows a size comparison of the tubes and the test setup. The SBM20 is 2.0 cm longer than the M4011 (10.8 vs 8.8 cm) so the SBM20 does not fit into the unmodified holding caps in the case (though there are additional soldering points on the circuit board, which may(?) allow a repositioning of the clips to accommodate the SBM20). The diameter of both tubes is 10mm, plus the 5 circular bumps on the SBM20 increasing its diam to 10.8mm.

I preferred not to make any changes to the circuit board and choose the connection via crocodile clips. A bit to my surprise the long test leads did not seem to damage the signal, as I got same results with tube in-situ or extended via cable. (though I did not have an oscilloscope to verify signal shape). But now I could make sure that the two tubes were really seeing the same environment, and differences were not due to difference in distance and/or orientation to the source.

I measured
(done with GeigerLog, http://www.gqelectronicsllc.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=4522):

Image Insert:

114327 bytes

BACKGROUND: While the numbers show a 3% higher background for the SBM20, I think this is within the uncertainty. So, no difference in background.

Image Insert:

54246 bytes

K and Th: Note that the Y-axis is logarithmic to display the 10fold difference in count rate for K of CPM=200...300 vs Th of CPM=2000...3000! Very clearly, the SBM20 does show a 40+% higher count rate!

Both sources are both beta and gamma emitter, but both are predominantly beta emitter. For K it is 90% beta, 10% gamma, but for Th it is not known. It depends on the age since last chemical purification of Th, which then resulted in the build-up of the decay chain over some years. However, testing with several thin sheets of steel inserted between source and detector and observing damping of count rate has confirmed that it is also a strong beta emitter, but does have some gamma component.

Overall, the SBM20 has the same background as the M4011, but is 40+% more sensitive to counts as long as the source has a strong beta component. Whether the difference extends to gamma is not known and cannot be told with these experiments.



GQ Electronics Technical Support Forum © Copyright since 2011 Go To Top Of Page
Generated in 0.06 sec. Snitz's Forums 2000