180 CPM as Minimum Background radiation

How to build the perfect shield for your measurements? Discuss it here!
User avatar
mickrose
Posts: 4
Joined: 25 Oct 2017, 21:49

180 CPM as Minimum Background radiation

Post by mickrose » 03 Dec 2017, 05:50

Hi!
Background radiation in my place is ~2000 CPM, using a Scintillation crystal NaI.
I could reach 180 CPM after designing/testing an amateur Lead Castle (bricks + plates).
What's stopping my progress?

50 Kg of Lead not enough?
Muons?
Pb210 of recent unpure Lead ? (I am working on a spectrogram of this noise)

thanks a bunch!

User avatar
sgt_bear
Posts: 117
Joined: 16 Jan 2017, 07:06

Re: 180 CPM as Minimum Background radiation

Post by sgt_bear » 03 Dec 2017, 06:48

Hi!

Could you provide some information about your detector model and voltage?
A Spectrum of the shielded background would be helpful.

User avatar
mickrose
Posts: 4
Joined: 25 Oct 2017, 21:49

Re: 180 CPM as Minimum Background radiation

Post by mickrose » 03 Dec 2017, 08:30

Sure!
Portable 25x25 NaI(Tl) FWHM 10% resolution at 662keV
http://www.rhelectronics.net/store/port ... scopy.html

Regards from Geneva

MaxGaspa
Posts: 17
Joined: 11 Sep 2017, 21:54

Re: 180 CPM as Minimum Background radiation

Post by MaxGaspa » 04 Dec 2017, 02:42

The answers are...yes , yes and yes. Moreover there are other sources of gamma background....

You got a shielding factor of 10 that is the expected shielding factor for an amateur shield of few centimeters. My DIY shield was made using 83 kg of lead (commercial) , 3.5 cm thick. It has a shielding factor (ratio of total counts) of 18 against my "normal" natural background using a 30x10 mm NAI and an Hamamatsu R9420.

You should consider that "professional" shields made by Camberra or Ortec are using much more lead..... thousands of Kg......50 kg is just an amateur shield. Anyway a factor of 20 or 10 is already a good result and helps the gamma spectroscopy a lot.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Geoff
Posts: 141
Joined: 01 May 2015, 12:21

Re: 180 CPM as Minimum Background radiation

Post by Geoff » 04 Dec 2017, 07:34

Not to mention that your lead is likely contributing to your shielded background. Contamination in commercial lead is not uncommon.

User avatar
Sesselmann
Posts: 1392
Joined: 27 Apr 2015, 11:40

Re: 180 CPM as Minimum Background radiation

Post by Sesselmann » 04 Dec 2017, 10:11

I think it is unrealistic to achieve a near zero background, almost everything around us has traces of radioactive isotopes. The glass in the PMT is likely to contain some K40, then there is the lead itself, and I am pretty sure that some random electrons will cascade down the PMT even with no photons striking the cathode.

180 CPM should be considered a pretty good result, and I think spending time and money on a copper/tin lining is going to be more rewarding than adding more lead.

luuk
Posts: 313
Joined: 01 May 2015, 21:00

Re: 180 CPM as Minimum Background radiation

Post by luuk » 04 Dec 2017, 20:01

Hi Mike,
You should try 5 to 10mm copper inside your leadcastle then a 10mm perspex layer that will reduce bgrnd to a minimal reachable.
Luuk

stamasd
Posts: 102
Joined: 29 Oct 2017, 02:12

Re: 180 CPM as Minimum Background radiation

Post by stamasd » 05 Dec 2017, 05:38

My background averaged over a long time (a couple of hours) is 10.75CPS. That's with a lead castle made of 170 pounds commercial lead (77Kg) 3cm thick in all directions and lined with 0.7mm copper inside. The detector is a 2.5*2.5" NaI(Tl). Without the castle the background count is 80-90cps depending on time of the day and weather. I think it's pretty OK for shielding; maybe I'll add some tin later on, perhaps some thicker copper (I still see the Pb XRF lines through this amount of copper)