Help | Contact Us
NukeWorker.com
NukeWorker Menu Replacing RO-2's

Poll

Is anyone familiar with the Fluke SRM 451B?

happy with it myself
3 (60%)
heard someone else happy with it
1 (20%)
keep looking for solution
1 (20%)

Total Members Voted: 2

Author Topic: Replacing RO-2's  (Read 9445 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

cambrian

  • Guest
Replacing RO-2's
« on: Feb 06, 2007, 04:38 »
Looking for replacements for the aging RO-2's and RO-20's do not appear to be the solution... has anyone used the Fluke instrument?
« Last Edit: Feb 06, 2007, 04:41 by cambrian »

mmh1

  • Guest
Re: Replacing RO-2's
« Reply #1 on: Apr 18, 2007, 03:57 »
I have used the 451P and was real happy with it. I know others who have used the 451B and they like it, drawbacks are battery cover breaks easily and often, handle is absorbent. Great range for all purpose ion chamber 10 uR/hr to ~3R/hr.

metermaid

  • Guest
Re: Replacing RO-2's
« Reply #2 on: Apr 18, 2007, 04:55 »
Don't know if you have looked at the Ludlum Model 9 yet but we recently got some in.  The case is rugged and the electronics are well made, both better than the RO-2.  We've found two drawbacks so far.  You can't zero it in the field.  You have to be in a low background area on the 5 mR/hr scale to zero it.  The beta correction factor (CF) is around 6 so you lose some low end beta sensitivity compared to the RO-2's CF of ~4. 

We actually find having audio useful for finding hot spots on waste boxes.  We laughed at it at first but now we like that feature.

They seem just as stable in readings as an RO-2.  We have not had them long enough to drop one yet for that ruggedness test.

LaFeet

  • Guest
Re: Replacing RO-2's
« Reply #3 on: Apr 18, 2007, 06:27 »
 Intamtely familar with both the 451B and the Model 9.  Of the two I prefer the Model 9 mainly for its ruggedness.  It can survive outdoors in -20 to 120 degree weather when the techs seemingly can not.  It is a bit less low Beta sensitive, but the loud audible helps make up for this failing. And its easier to throw at people when .....
« Last Edit: Apr 18, 2007, 06:28 by LaFeet »

atomicarcheologist

  • Guest
Re: Replacing RO-2's
« Reply #4 on: Apr 18, 2007, 08:00 »
  And its easier to throw at people when .....

This is a primary consideration for choosing field instrumentation.  I prefer one that is of low enough mass so my shoulder doesn't get dislocated during the heave action.  Which creates a paradox when setting criteria for instrument durability.  Decisions, decisions, decisions.

jjordan

  • Guest
Re: Replacing RO-2's
« Reply #5 on: Apr 18, 2007, 08:32 »
Is that the red and yellow plastic one? We call it the McMeter here at Brunswick, because it looks like something you would get in a "Happy Meal" :P
JJ

LaFeet

  • Guest
Re: Replacing RO-2's
« Reply #6 on: Apr 19, 2007, 04:39 »
This is a primary consideration for choosing field instrumentation.  I prefer one that is of low enough mass so my shoulder doesn't get dislocated during the heave action.  Which creates a paradox when setting criteria for instrument durability.  Decisions, decisions, decisions.

I like to think of the greater mass - to an extent- is better for "knocking" some sense into someone.

Offline cincinnatinuke

  • Chemistry Technician CCNPP
  • Moderate User
  • ***
  • Posts: 210
  • Total likes: 0
  • Karma: 372
  • Gender: Male
  • Tell Recruiters to use NukeWorker.com
Re: Replacing RO-2's
« Reply #7 on: Apr 19, 2007, 09:29 »
Looking for replacements for the aging RO-2's and RO-20's do not appear to be the solution... has anyone used the Fluke instrument?

Yes I have used the Fluke, but I must concur that the model 9 from Ludlum is better.  I tend to prefer something with an analog display, though admittedly the Fluke's display is pretty stable once you hit a constant field and it seems to have adaptive filtering (dont quote me on this though).

BTW How do you make only post and get negative karma in the process?

LaFeet

  • Guest
Re: Replacing RO-2's
« Reply #8 on: Apr 20, 2007, 12:27 »
BTW How do you make only post and get negative karma in the process?

I dont know,   I managed to plummet since last spring on the karma scale,  and can not seem to get to sleep anymore without hitting me head with a good ol Ludlum Model 9.... :P

BulletDodger

  • Guest
Re: Replacing RO-2's
« Reply #9 on: Apr 20, 2007, 10:23 »
JJORDAN,
 Well I believe that the instrument that your referring too is a Victoreen made instrument;they call them the same thing at Comanche Peak.

cambrian

  • Guest
Re: Replacing RO-2's
« Reply #10 on: Apr 21, 2007, 10:38 »
 8) All, thanks for the feedback. Did recently have a chance to see the 451 at Comanche but my fears came true... that battery cover had to be duct taped closed. Have a problem with an instrument that comes with a roll of duct tape to hold it together. Looking at the Ludlum 9 and 17s right now as well as the Model 78 extending probe... I/Cs look good and strong, but techs having problems with the lack of tension on the extender and the floppiness of the self-uncoiling probe. Are you folks seeing any teletector replacements out there that you especially like? Will be looking at the 6112 'D' (digital) next week.


Offline Already Gone

  • Curmudgeon At Large
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1769
  • Total likes: 5
  • Karma: 3388
  • Gender: Male
  • Did I say that out loud?
Re: Replacing RO-2's
« Reply #11 on: Apr 22, 2007, 08:06 »
I have used the 451P and was real happy with it. I know others who have used the 451B and they like it, drawbacks are battery cover breaks easily and often, handle is absorbent. Great range for all purpose ion chamber 10 uR/hr to ~3R/hr.

Don't use it to doserate bags.  Pressing the meter against the bag (to find hot stuff in the bag that could find its way to the outer edge and change the contact doserate) causes the gas in the chamber to be compressed.  Therefore, the contact doserate on the bag is directly proportional to the force applied to the meter by the tech.  This, of course, is limited by the force required to snap the cheap plastic handle right off the thing.
"To be content with little is hard; to be content with much, impossible." - Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach

 


NukeWorker ™ is a registered trademark of NukeWorker.com ™, LLC © 1996-2021 All rights reserved.
All material on this Web Site, including text, photographs, graphics, code and/or software, are protected by international copyright/trademark laws and treaties. Unauthorized use is not permitted. You may not modify, copy, reproduce, republish, upload, post, transmit or distribute, in any manner, the material on this web site or any portion of it. Doing so will result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law.
Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | Code of Conduct | Spam Policy | Advertising Info | Contact Us | Forum Rules | Password Problem?