Talk:Geiger–Müller tube

Untitled

The following comments copied from Talk:Alpha particle. Vsmith 14:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Alpha Penetration and Detection

I was recently reading a discussion on a Yahoo group which led me here due to difficulty reconciling what Geiger-Müller tubes can detect vs. what alpha particles can penetrate. According to the GM tube article, "The usual form of tube is an end-window tube. [...] The mica window type will detect alpha radiation but is more fragile." But, according to this article, "Because of their charge and large mass, alpha particles are easily absorbed by materials and can travel only a few centimeters in air. They can be absorbed by tissue paper or the outer layers of human skin (about 40 micrometres, equivalent to a few cells deep)". If alphas are stopped by tissue paper, how can they possibly penetrate mica? One poster in the Yahoo discussion asserts that since alpha emitters are also gamma emitters, that what GM tubes detect from alpha sources is really only the gamma radiation. Another theory is that they can detect alphas only indirectly, if an alpha impact happens to knock loose an electron (beta particle) from the inside surface of the window. If either of these assertions is true, then I believe a correction to the GM tube article is in order.

The mica window is very thin and for this reason very expensive. In the literature, sectional densities of 1.0 to 1.5 mg/cm^2 are given. For simplicity, if you figure mica has density 2.8 g/cm^3, and use a sectional density of 1.4 mg/cm^2 (half that), then the thickness is 1/2000th of a cm = 5 micrometers. If (epidermal) skin is 50 micrometers (st the thinnest-- over the eyelids) and tissue paper 30 microns thick, then it's not completely crazy that they might stop alphas, but a mica window of 3 times the density that is 1/6th or 1/10th as thick, will not. Air has a density of roughly 1.3 kg/m^3 = 1/2000th that of mica. A stopping power of 2 cm in air corresponds then to 1/1000 cm = 10 micrometers in mica. I would suppose that's how they picked 5 microns. SBHarris 18:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Howzit

Alpha particles leave very small holes upon collision with mica. This is a fact. In fact, if you don't believe me, get some radium, put it near some mica and then boil the mica in NaOH. The holes will get bigger. It's a plain, simple fact. Bochum 08:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

OK - got a reference for that plain, simple fact? Vsmith 14:23, 6 August 2007

(UTC)

He just DID--an experiment can be proof. Try it Yourself before armchair-slashing... Bochum: Perhaps you should do a control experiment: Take some of the same mica, but don't expose it to alpha. Then pickle the same way in NaOh. Look and see if the holes are already there or not.68.231.189.108 (talk) 01:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC).68.231.189.108 (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm posting this here because I don't know where such a suggestion should be posted in relation to the GM tube article, because the discussion page there just says something about "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics..." with nothing about how/where to go about posting a message such as this one.

Will someone please clarify the last part about alpha particles in computer engineering?

Perhaps the definition should be separated from various subtopics such as hisotircal references and reasoning for the nomenclature. Perhaps using subheadings whereby the concept is defined before it's history is described.

As from studied alpha particles have a charge of +2 but the beta particle has a charge of -1, but respectively the gamma particle has a charge of 0.58.107.129.188 08:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC) Dr Mena(MBS) cambridge press

Update 2012

The article has now been updated with additional diagrams and text. Alpha particles do penetrate the end window, but end window tubes are not the only ones in common use. The article has been expanded to cover the many types of tube and the different particle interactions. The article on the G-M counter has a link to the UK HSE site which describes the uses that GM tubes can be put to. The article on alpha particles contains much useful information including the Bragg curve and peak for alpha. Dougsim (talk) 12:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

catalan

please, add Tub Geiger-Müller as a interwiki. Thanks!

Mistake needs correction (original source needed)

Hi everyone. The paragraph "Quenching and dead time" features the sentence: "This effectively causes a loss of counts at sufficiently high count rates and limits the G-M tube to a count rate of between 10^4 to 10^5 counts,[4] depending on its characteristic."

A rate is counts per time. I can't just add "1/s" without consultion a source. (Hope i'm using the discussion feature the right way - doing this the first time) Regards, Martin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orby1 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Sources for the typical operating characteristics of G-M tubes

Can someone find some sources for the typical operating characteristics of G-M tubes? (ie. The current vs voltage plot under steady radiation source.)

I understand that numerous texts provide similar explanations. But here at Wikipedia, we need to cite which they are. (I don't have access to Knoll and the other book I came across isn't of very high quality as source for this article.) And preferably, we can find the paper(s) which experimentally characterize the operation of G-M tubes.

冷雾 (talk) 16:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

As well, Geiger counter is not usually associated with proportional counters. What are the sources that show G-M tubes can be used to measure radiation energy? We need to keep in mind that "proportional" means count current proportional to incident radiation energy, not to applied voltage.

冷雾 (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Glenn F. Knoll's 3rd edition textbook is the primary source in this article. Knoll is an extremely well-regarded author/researcher and the same goes for his textbooks. If you weren't aware, Knoll's entire 3rd edition textbook appears to be freely available at https://archive.org/details/RadiationDetectionAndMeasurementGlennF.Knoll3rdEd1999 [note: I am not 100% certain that copyright has expired but anything on archive.org usually has expired copyright or some form of wavier, and I was not the one to upload it so I have no idea if it was legally uploaded or not]. You will want to read through chapters 6 and 7 as they cover the most important information that you wanted citations on.

I have edited the article to fix some issues and remove your notations on the "Geiger plateau" section. I will edit it again and may leave another talk page comment as well with more details if I can resolve the issue of dead time sourcing - I am uncertain where exactly that figure was obtained from and will attempt to verify that. I do know that it is approximately correct with respect to currently manufactured LND G-M tubes as I have checked that in the past and just checked it again. Garzfoth (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

On the specific topic of proportional counters - notice that the article says "as the tube tries to act as a proportional counter" (for too-low voltages). This is a crucial distinction, as the tube is not truly acting as a proportional counter - it is merely in the range where it would attempt to act as one, but obviously the tube is not optimized for this and the circuitry on a Geiger counter is unable to obtain entirely useful data from a tube operating in this region (crucially it cannot under any circumstance obtain the energy as this is never a function of a Geiger counter in normal operation, but other factors would also likely interfere with operation). It is possible to obtain a G-M tube that is more-or-less equally capable of operating as a G-M counter or a proportional counter, however Knoll says that replacement of the fill gas would be recommended for optimal performance and that these "dual-use" designs are unusual to begin with (see 3rd edition textbook page 210 (PDF page 222)).

I have located the original quote for the G-M tube dead time:

"Immediately following the Geiger discharge, the electric field has been reduced below the critical point by the positive space charge. If another ionizing event occurs under these conditions, a second pulse will not be observed because gas multiplication is prevented. During this time the tube is therefore "dead" and any radiation interactions that occur in the tube during this time will be lost. Technically, the dead time of the Geiger tube is defined as the period between the initial pulse and the time at which a second Geiger discharge, regardless of its size, can be developed. In most Geiger tubes, this time is of the order of 50–100 µs [microseconds]. In any practical counting system, some finite pulse amplitude must be achieved before the second pulse is recorded, and the elapsed time required to develop a second discharge that exceeds this amplitude is sometimes called the resolving time of the system. In practice, these two terms are often used interchangeably and the term dead time may also be used to describe the combined behavior of the detector-counting system. The recovery time is the time interval required for the tube to return to its original state and become capable of producing a second pulse of full amplitude."

See 3rd edition textbook pages 207-208 (PDF pages 219-220).

I will be briefly editing the article to reflect this (since the value is confirmed accurate after all).

Any further questions? I have another textbook and the 4th edition of Knoll's book which I eventually intend to eventually read and incorporate into this article, but as I am the most familiar and comfortable with his 3rd edition textbook I haven't started doing that yet. BTW citing a textbook is perfectly fine unless you can find a review article (NOT a primary source) that covers the topic of varying G-M tube dead time. I will of course update the value in the article and add the additional ref if I find different information when I read the 4th edition or the other textbook. I am not too interested in digging up a review article right now though, so if you want to use one as a ref here, please go find one first. Until then there is no fault with the current information, although it could probably be expanded a little bit (however as we are not here to mirror information in textbooks wholesale some relatively significant level of simplification is utterly unavoidable). Garzfoth (talk) 00:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

In defence of using Knoll

Many Thanks Garzforth for your stout defence of Glenn F Knoll as a source. I introduced the bulk of Knoll references to this page and he has to be widely used because there is precious little written about this topic in any detail in a coherent fashion elsewhere. He is widely used by practitioners and educators in the Ionising detection community. A classic example is the paucity of written explanation of energy compensation on the English language internet. I think even now the only relevant sources which pop up are Knoll and this page.

Knoll contains a huge amount of condensed information about Ionising radiation detection which many other text books ignore, or only briefly allude to, or do not properly explain in any depth. This annoyance with the lack of easily obtainable information about this fundamentally important radiation instrument led to me to embark of a large re-write of both the GM set of articles, and others, such as prop detectors, etc - not forgetting getting Sievert and dose quantities on the way - into a coherent and cited body of work. Part of all this has been the creation of graphics for Wikimedia Commons, as these speak a thousand words, and many are after illustrations in Knoll.

In summary, Knoll is rich food full of nuggets which stem from his university lectures, where he could provide detail and interpretation. We have to replicate this here. Dougsim (talk) 06:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Change nav template

Suggest change nav template to - more appropriate than electronic devices. It will then be with the other rad detectors Dougsim (talk) 08:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Does this invention belong to any country?

Not asking your opinion. See WP:NOR.

I'm asking if you can cite multiple quality sources that agree unambiguously that "X was a German invention" (or whatever country). If the sources don't say it, then it's just your opinion. This has been in dispute for some time, and the solution to any such dispute is to cite sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The G-M tube is. But the G-M counter, an additional device and a separate article, is British. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201206/physicshistory.cfm

"A key element of that experiment was the invention of a reliable device capable of measuring alpha radiation, by Rutherford’s lab assistant, Hans Geiger."

"To probe the structure of the atom, Rutherford wanted to devise an experiment to measure the electric charge of a stream of alpha particles hitting a target and scattering, hoping to demonstrate that alpha particles carry a double positive charge. Working with one of Rutherford’s undergraduates, Ernest Marsden, Geiger came up with an ingenious device that fired alpha particles through gold foil onto a screen, where they could be detected as scintillations."

"Geiger still thought there had to be a better way to measure the scintillations, and in 1911 he invented a device to count radioactive alpha particles automatically in normal light. It used a Crooke’s tube as one electrode, with a thin wire running through the middle of the tube as a second electrode. When a voltage was applied, any alpha radiation passing through ionized the gas, giving rise to an avalanche of electrons. An electrometer would then register each passing particle."

"In 1914, Geiger returned to Germany, initially to take charge of radiation research at the country’s National Institute for Science and Technology. But the outbreak of World War I put a damper on science: he served as an artillery officer with the German army instead. The harsh conditions in the trenches on the front lines took their toll: Geiger developed painful rheumatism, which plagued him for the rest of his life. After peace returned, Geiger returned to research, finding positions at the University of Kiel and the University of Tübingen before landing the position of physics chair at the Technische Hochshule in Berlin in 1936."

"It was during his stint at Kiel that Geiger collaborated with one of his doctoral students, Walther Muller, on improving his original Geiger counter device, making it more efficient, responsive, durable and portable. Unlike the earlier version, which could detect only alpha particles, the new improved Geiger-Muller counter could detect many different kinds of ionizing radiation. He used his new toy to confirm the existence of light quanta in 1925, and later to discover cosmic ray showers, which would claim his scientific attention for the remainder of is career."

Thus, we can firmly attribute the invention of the G-M tube/counter to Hans Geiger and Walther Muller, both of whom are Germans. Note that List of German inventions and discoveries ascribes both inventions (tube and counter) to them.

Now obviously Hans Geiger came up with some of the absolute most basic underlying concepts while working for Rutherford in England, with an English assistant (but apparently little of Rutherford's assistance). So it is possible if not likely that some part of the most basic work could be attributed to that English assistant, although I don't know how much exactly, and no source has seen fit to quantify their contributions. That is not really an important point as this initial concept/design was very primitive and could only measure alpha particles. It was not until Geiger returned to Germany that further work took place, and it was not until his collaboration with Walther Muller before the modern concept of the Geiger-Muller tube was created (i.e. a tube that could measure more than just alpha particles).

Now obviously the modern G-M tube/counter is different from that initial innovation in a number of ways, having benefited from a number of other inventors along the way, but the basic principles established by Hans Geiger and Walther Muller remain the exact same.

As such, I don't see how we could possibly argue that this is not a German invention. The real question is if we could call it an English invention as well - was the contribution of that one English lab assistant to Hans Geiger significant enough for that to be considered true? Some historical accounts will summarize the initial invention as a production by Rutherford and Geiger (this particularly good account of Hans Geiger's life does that: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3228631/), but this is likely a simplification as the sources I was able to find that actually detailed this time period seemed to generally state that Rutherford's role was limited to asking Geiger to devise an experimentally useful counter, and later using said counter once Geiger and the assistant Rutherford had lent him had created the prototype. Irregardless of how much Rutherford actually assisted in the initial design of the first Geiger counter, it is clear that all subsequent work was primarily done by Hans Geiger and Walther Muller, likely with minor contributions from other people along the way (but none major enough to have ever been acknowledged clearly, which is noteworthy).

Honestly I don't care enough about this to get much more involved than this. If you feel that you absolutely must delete the invention categories, that's fine. But I think it's a bit stupid to have Wikipedia say one thing on List of German inventions and discoveries, something easily demonstrable (it is indisputable that the G-M counter/tube was primarily a German invention and I have now even provided additional sourcing to support this), then insist on not categorizing the invention's origin on the actual article's page. Have it your way though - as my edit history here demonstrates, I'm clearly quite a bit more interested in working on the article's content than on the article's categorization.

Geiger had little to do with the G-M tube. He'd already worked on simpler detectors when at Manchester. The G-M tube's novelty though is the use of the avalanche effect, which is what makes it so sensitive. That was Muller's work, when he was a doctoral student at Kiel. As his supervisor was Geiger, Geiger gets named on it.

The problem here is not about invention (The G-M tube is obviously German and always was), it's about a disruptive banned editor, Europefan (talk · contribs). They don't get to make any edits here. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Also: "Thus, we can firmly attribute the invention..."?

No, we can't. It's not our role to make attributions. Wikipedia forbids original research. We summarize facts that have been established by others in quality sources. We don't uncover facts or synthesize facts. The source here does not say "The Geiger counter is a German invention" or any words to that effect. If you want to say "X is a Y" then you need a source that says, "X is a Y". In the case of inventions, you need multiple sources which show a clear consensus that the invention is considered German. If the only such sources happen to themselves be German, well, is that reliable?

There is no inherent nationality to every invention. We do not go out of our way to tease a nationality out of the sources we find. We should be only assigning a nationality because the overwhelming consensus of our sources compels us to do so. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The Geiger counter isn't a German invention. If you don't know the difference between a G-M tube and a G-M counter, then it would be best if you just didn't edit the articles at all. Certainly you should not be adding that this is a German invention, as you and Europefan seem to want to do. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

sure the Geiger–Müller tube is a German invention. It was invented in Kiel during Geigers work at University of Kiel. --Tiokoao3255 (talk) 19:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Geiger didn't invent it, Müller did. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Anode and Cathode Mixed up?

From every other source I've read the cathode (positive) is in the centre...attracting the electrons. However in this article the anode is described as in the center in the "Principle of Operation" heading, consistently. In the accompanying diagrams, anode is marked as the positive charge, leading me to believe someone may have mixed the terms up? rich777300 (talk) 22:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

In all vacuum and gas-filled tubes, the cathode is negative and anode positive. From this one, the positive anode is in the center. Gah4 (talk) 00:45, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

More explanation is in this paper. The important part is gas multiplication, as more and more gas molecules ionize. That is near the center, where the field is highest. Gah4 (talk) 00:58, 28 January 2023 (UTC)