Talk:Scintillation counter

Physics Mid‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Spectroscopy (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spectroscopy, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.SpectroscopyWikipedia:WikiProject SpectroscopyTemplate:WikiProject SpectroscopySpectroscopy articles

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

Untitled

I've moved this from the scintillometer entry to scintillation counter here which is the much more frequently used term and because a scintillometer is also a totally unrelated scientific instrument used to measure air turbulence and heat transfer etc.

Maybe there should be a disambiguation page instead. Most of the manufacturers of scintillation counters in North America (I worked for one of them for ten years) refer to them as scintillometers. Altaphon (talk) 05:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somethings hinky about the line "Scintillation counters are the most sensitive-known radiation detectors." In a way they are particle dedectors however large scale particle dedectors are much more accurate and complex. Someone who is savvy in this field fix this please.--Slicky 20:27, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Hinky indeed. Take a look at my fix. I've worked with these guys for 30 years, and the author of the standard reference text cited is a good friend whom I've helped give courses on the subject, so I think I'm qualified to write this... Bill-on-the-Hill 04:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On looking more at this, it is not obvious that there is any need for this page given the more complete and accurate one already available for scintillator. What to do to consolidate them? Bill-on-the-Hill 04:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

scintillator is focused on the sciintillation processes and materials, I don't think they should be merged. Sergio Ballestrero 19:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this tagged as a pharmacology stub?Ian Glenn 23:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is now 5 years since the de-stub proposal, nobody has commented and I cannot see any reason why it is a pharmacology stub. I have removed the template. Dougsim (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update 2012

The scintillation counter in my experience is an industrial instrument type in wide nuclear industry use, so I think the article stands on its own. I have done some text cleanup and added an image, and it could well be improved in the future to give examples of practical types.

I have now created a category called "ionising radiation detectors" to cater for the day to day radiation instruments which are used for radiation protection, rather than for lab and research work, which is more in the realm of "particle detectors". This now covers the range of geiger, prop counters, ion chambers, etc.

Dougsim (talk) 07:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SI photon units

I would suggest that the inclusion of the table of SI photon units is not appropriate in the article as it stands. There is no obvious link between the table and the text. The table is best suited to stay in the article "Photon counting" which is linked from this article, and is a new stub article, which I think with some more work will be very useful for referencing from a number of radiation articles. I would suggest the SI photon units table is removed from the scintillation counter article. Dougsim (talk) 17:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having received no comment, I have removed the tableDougsim (talk) 08:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Particle-Wave Duality?

Schematic of a scintillating crystal combined with a photomultiplier.

When I first saw the illustration on the right something struck me as odd. We see a pretty transverse sinus waveform enter the scintillating crystal and about halfway it seems to transform into a particle, and continues to travel in straight line. Or, perhaps it is not a particle at all, but a longitudinal wave, and the pretty sinus is mistaken... 67.206.161.133 (talk) 16:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 December 2014

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. This has been here for ages, and the query regarding the fact that the current title is more common has not been conclusively answered.(non-admin closure) — Amakuru (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scintillation counter → Scintillation detector – More general term 217.21.43.22 (talk) 08:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – "Scintillation counter" is a much more common term, per books n-grams. Are we sure the extra generality of the other term makes it preferable? I'd like to hear arguments. Dicklyon (talk) 03:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Counter is a device and can only measure single quantities, i.e. dose, dose rate. It counts particle. Detector instead can be used in a complex detecting system. For example in a spectrometer wich is obviously not a counter. --217.21.43.22 (talk) 07:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not an expert on this, but my impression is that "scintillation" implies a process that generates discrete events that are detected, and usually counted. Does the article talk about alternatives to this, where scintillation detectors can use a strategy better than or other than counting? Dicklyon (talk) 07:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Scintillation counter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091207201314/http://www.drct.com/survey_meters/MicroR_Meter.htm to http://www.drct.com/survey_meters/MicroR_Meter.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spectrometry

This article is about scintillation counters, is it appropriate to have spectrometry? This is covered in any case in gamma spectrometry. Suggest deleting this section, which is not written very clearly in any case. .