NukeWorker Forum
Reference, Questions and Help => Nuke Q&A => Instrument Q&A => Topic started by: UncaBuffalo on May 14, 2011, 08:58
-
Okay, maybe I'm just being a dinosaur, but I liked the analog versions of most meters better than I am liking their digital counterparts. My battle with the new version of the teletector is an example:
http://www.nukeworker.com/forum/index.php/topic,26242.msg145019/topicseen.html#new
If the meter manufacturers are reading this, here are some things I'd like on the next generation of digital meters:
1. Do NOT auto-scale! (I want to know what scale I'm on. Is that 4 mR/hr? ...or 4 R/hr!!! Don't make me stand there in a dose field trying to figure it out.)
2. Make the numbers big enough to read...in a misted bubblesuit...with foggy safety glasses...and poor lighting...and old(er) eyes.
3. Make the backlight BRIGHT! We use these things in sub-optimal lighting situations a lot...
4. Give me a way to switch from slow response to fast response. If I'm doing a routine, I'd like slow response so I can get a precise, steady number. If I'm pulling equipment out of the cavity, I want fast response so I get that particle before it gets me.
5. If you have multiple detectors in the instrument, do NOT auto-switch between detectors! The 6112M is useless for midrange point sources...whereas the old 6112B was great.
I'm sure there are other ways they can improve...help me out with your ideas.
Thanks! :)
-
Okay, maybe I'm just being a dinosaur, but I liked the analog versions of most meters better than I am liking their digital counterparts.
From a pre-dinosaur:
1 - 4
I think I've said this before, but many years ago the instrument reps would come in and not want to talk to the RPM/RSO (guy in charge), but to the field techs. They would ask what do you want to see in our next generation. However; over time this became, "that's not what you need" - "We" have the perfect instrument for what you need - trust us!
5
On the origional Teletector (and other multiple detector instruments), I knew where the detectors were located and could mechanically compensate for detector to source, but with autoswitching - who can compensate with some of the new "field optimised instruments" without staying longer than is ALARA!
-
As another old dinosaur, I agree with you UncaBuffalo - usable and readable! Your list is pretty comprehensive in my book.
I've had some good luck with the 6112M but still prefer the 6112B. For field use, I've learned to ignore the digital read-out and rely more on the psuedo-analog indicators built into most of the digital instruments. A little field dampening on that digital read-out would go a long way to making them more usable on the lower scales instead of watching the read-out jump back and forth. Other than critical usages, such as shipping and some posting, the nearest half-mr is more than adequate.