Recent Posts
- Do absolute encoders need calibration?
- What’s the difference between accuracy and precision?
- How do you determine MTBF?
- What are large hadrons, and why should we make them collide?
- How does an RTD work?
- What’s the best way to sense electric current for control applications?
- Can SMP computing help predictive maintenance?
- Can smart instruments help predictive maintenance?
- What’s holding up use of hydrogen as a fuel?
- How do I find/choose a system integrator for a mechatronics project?
Recent Comments
- David Neal, P.E on Do absolute encoders need calibration?
- sillyblindharper on What’s the difference between accuracy and precision?
- Matt on How old is the RCA connector standard?
- Sen Can on What’s holding up use of hydrogen as a fuel?
- WILL DELSMAN on What’s the best way to sense electric current for control applications?
Most Commented On
- For a fail-safe 24 V dc auxilary supply, is it better to use 12 batteries of 2 V each, or two 12 V batteries? (3)
- How old is the RCA connector standard? (3)
- What is the ideal background for a mechatronics engineer? (2)
- What’s holding up use of hydrogen as a fuel? (2)
- What’s the best way to sense electric current for control applications? (2)
Archives
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
Blog
Is the energy reaching a gamma-ray level sensor really inversely proportional to the level?
September 3, 2007
This question came up internally at
Strictly speaking, the relationship is not inversely proportional, but an inverse, or decreasing, exponential. When looking through most fluids, however, it is correct to a very good approximation. To see why, we need to start with what happens when gamma rays—or any electromagnetic radiation for that matter—travels through a semi-transparent medium.
First, recognize that the article points out that the gamma-ray beam used in such level measurement applications is collimated. That means all of the rays are, to a very good approximation, parallel. Beam divergence (or spread) is negligible over the distance involved.
If you think about it, you’ll realize that the amount of energy (more properly power, but we’ll let that slide in the interest of not being persnickety) pulled out of the beam as it travels a distance Δx has to depend on the beam’s intensity I:
where δ is the gamma-ray density of the material and x is the distance traveled. Otherwise, the same power would be pulled out of a “bright” beam as a “dim” one, or, for that matter, out of no beam at all! That wouldn’t be real.

Doing all the usual math things to get a derivative, then solving for the constant gives:
![]() |
A little Calculus 102 gives

where t is the distance the beam has to travel through the material.
Integrating and solving for It gives

So, strictly speaking, the function is a decreasing exponential.
Assuming that it is small compared to one, we expand it in a Maclaurin series (which is just a

This is a linear function, so the gamma-ray intensity at the detector is inversely proportional to the fill level to within the linearization error.
Posted by Charlie Masi on September 3, 2007 | Comments (0)




