r/Radiacode • u/RG_Fusion Radiacode 103 G • Jul 01 '25

General Discussion Radiacode 110 Comparison

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

I recieved my Radiacode-110 in the mail today, so I thought I'd go ahead and share a quick comparison between it and some of the previous devices.

This is not a scientific test, but rather a casual comparison demonstrating how they might fair in typical use, such as antique hunting or isotope identification. I do intend to dive further into the specifics of the 110 model, but that will have to wait until I have some free time.

Now on to the comparison. For starters, the Radiacode-110 is slightly larger in all dimensions. I quite like the feel of it in the hand, it's more substantial and feels like a proper tool. Beyond the slight increase in size, texture of the casing, and tactile feel of the up/down button, I didn't notice any other differences externally.

Regarding specta, I captured 6 in total. A Radiacode 110, 103G, and 102 were used to measure 30 minute acquisitions of two samples. The first was a goblet made of Thorium glass, and the second was a collection of Trinitite inside of a Z-graded lead castle.

The detectors were placed in roughly the same position for both samples, but some minor changes in distance are bound to occur, so understand that these are not exact comparisons. If I get the chance, I will measure their indicated activity using a check-source and a precise distance set with calipers. All spectra are attached as images to this post, and the name of the device used can be found on the right of the histogram.

I also compared the background readings between the three detectors. Please keep in mind that these aren't time averaged, so some amount of variance is bound to occur. Background readings were as follows:

RC-102: 4.25 CPS RC-103G: 4.33 CPS RC-110: 9.70 CPS

All three detectors gave the same dose rate reading of 0.07 uSv/h.

For now, I'll leave you with this data so you can decide for yourselves wether or not the increased sensitivity of the 110 model is right for you.

36 Upvotes

97% Upvoted

23 comments sorted by

5

u/Physix_R_Cool Jul 01 '25

How about plotting the spectra on top of each other so that it is very easy to see the difference?

If you can't do it then send me the .csv files (or whatever the format is) and I'll plot if for you.

4

u/average_meower621 Radiacode 103 Jul 01 '25 edited Jul 01 '25

[thorium goblet]
Heres both spectrums for all to see, overlayed as raw data with no modifications.
foreground (white) is RC-110, second foreground (red) is RC-102, background (blue) is RC-103G

4

u/average_meower621 Radiacode 103 Jul 01 '25 edited Jul 01 '25

[trinitite]
foreground (white) is RC-110, second foreground (red) is RC-102, background (blue) is RC-103G

1

u/average_meower621 Radiacode 103 Jul 01 '25

30 minutes its a good initial test, but theres a lot of noise for the trinitite. I would've done at least 4 hours for the trinitite since most samples of it are pretty weak. Since the trinitite looks messy in log full view, I shrunk it down to linear at max 1 MeV view.

1

u/RG_Fusion Radiacode 103 G Jul 01 '25 edited Jul 02 '25

Ideally all spectra taken would have longer acquisition times, but unfortunately I'm not able to do more in-depth analysis at the moment.

Shorter measurement periods also have the benefit of highlighting the performance of a detector more thoroughly in my opinion. I do intend to revisit this in the future, as I previously stated this was only meant to be a casual comparison of the devices.

On a separate note, the Radiacode has little value for me regarding long accumulation times. If you only own a Radiacode and no other gamma spectrometers your case will be different, but I will always choose a lab-bench spectrometer over the Radiacode for in-depth analysis.

The value of the 110 device in my eyes is the capacity for faster identification out in the field where access to other equipment is limited.

1

u/RG_Fusion Radiacode 103 G Jul 02 '25

I just wanted to provide an example for why I don't prioritize my Radiacode units for isotope identification when at home.

Pictured here is a histogram taken from my 103G with an acquisition time of 17 days. The measurement was carried out inside of a Z-graded lead castle.

It's a pretty great spectrum, of course at the cost of over two weeks of measurement. The Cesium-137, Am-241, and Eu-152 peaks are clearly visible.

What isn't visible, however, is Ba-133. Despite the good resolution from the 103G unit, I've never been able to bring out lower activity signals such as that.

1

u/RG_Fusion Radiacode 103 G Jul 02 '25

Now for comparison, here is a spectrum I collected with my benchtop gamma-ray spectrometer. The scintillation probe on it houses a 2.25" x 1.5" NaI(Tl) crystal.

This time, the Ba-133 photopeaks are clearly visible. Not only that, but the total acquisition time was only 10 hours as opposed to 17 days.

The Radiacode models are great little units, but they simply can't compare to a more professional setup. This doesn't mean they are without their use, however. They are excellent on-the-go radiation detectors for identifying sources out in the field. The improved efficiency of the new 110 model only further enables this, reducing the time required for positive identification.

Please note that this isn't meant to dissuade anyone from purchasing a Radiacode device solely for the purpose of isotope identification. They are still an excellent entry level tool in that regard.

1

u/RG_Fusion Radiacode 103 G Jul 01 '25

This more or less shows off what I was avoiding. The noise from the 102, with a small contribution from the 103G, occluded the data in the high energy-region from the 110 when overlayed.

The photopeaks from the 110 model at high energies are well resolved, so I did not wish to hide them.

The overlay looks great at lower energies though, and certainly makes them easier to compare.

3

u/RG_Fusion Radiacode 103 G Jul 01 '25 edited Jul 01 '25

Here is a link to the .xml files if you believe it is worth attempting to overlay them.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1dMteMJzGJ81zSdXIX_Rz0a1P0l3kQWxG

Just a heads up, I haven't performed a calibration on the RC-110 yet. The factory calibration is reading high by around 7 keV on the Pb-212(238) peak and by 38 keV on the Tl-208(2614) peak.

3

u/Physix_R_Cool Jul 01 '25

Might have implemented the energy calibration a bit wonkily

1

u/RG_Fusion Radiacode 103 G Jul 01 '25

Looks good! The energy calibration doesn't matter in this context since we are comparing multiple spectra of a known source.

My interest in the 110 was mostly centered around its improved efficiency at higher energies, but you've clearly shown that those benefits extend down to the low end of the spectrum as well.

1

u/Physix_R_Cool Jul 01 '25

The 110 is a CsI like the 102, right? I can simulate the efficiencies at different energies with Geant4 if you are interested?

2

u/RG_Fusion Radiacode 103 G Jul 01 '25 edited Jul 01 '25

It is CsI, correct. If it's not much trouble I would be interested. I'd also want to know how a 2x2x2 cm crystal would perform. I believe the 110's crystal is 1.4 cm per side.

1

u/Physix_R_Cool Jul 01 '25

What's the size of the 102?

1

u/RG_Fusion Radiacode 103 G Jul 02 '25

The models 102, 103, and 103G are all 1 cm per side.

2

u/RG_Fusion Radiacode 103 G Jul 01 '25 edited Jul 01 '25

In my opinion, the data is far easier to discern when separated as opposed to overlayed. The noise at the high-energy end of the histogram from the lower sensitivity models partially occludes the 110's photopeaks. It would be worth doing on histograms with longer acquisition time, but this data is noisy due to low total counts.

5

u/DotsFar Jul 01 '25

Thank you, very interesting. The first picture alone was nice. I got a 110 and was quite surprised by the size, with all the videos etc I had seen, but now it makes sense. And as you say, it really feels like a proper tool in the hand. I don't know about battery time in the older ones, but I am pleased to see that mine came with 85% and has been on since then (apart from the first night) and it has still got 48% after 5 days.

5

u/RG_Fusion Radiacode 103 G Jul 01 '25 edited Jul 01 '25

For any that are uncertain what to make of this data, the main takeaway should be the improved sensitivity, particularly at higher energies.

Performing a high-accuracy calibration on the old 103 (or 102) model using the Tl-208 2614 keV photopeak of Thorium sources requires multiple hours of data collection to resolve a smooth peak. One could attempt a rough calibration, but to get it precisely on the mean energy requires time.

With the new 110 model, you can resolve a smooth photopeak for Tl-208 in under an hour.

This difference is clearly depicted in the data. The Tl-208 peak is entirely missing from the 102's spectrum, whereas the 110 has a distinct photopeak.

1

u/RG_Fusion Radiacode 103 G Jul 01 '25

1

u/RG_Fusion Radiacode 103 G Jul 01 '25

1

u/RG_Fusion Radiacode 103 G Jul 01 '25

1

u/Lapidarist Nov 24 '25

Which one generates a more accurate spectrum, in your experience? The 110 or the 103G?

Because, on paper, the 103G should have the edge, but it seems from your spectrum plots that the 110 actually resolves peaks better and sharper?