Talk:Industrial radiography

Editing
So this is the other half of the radiography page. Hope more of the radiography people are looking at this and helping it. Should some of the comments from Talk:Radiography be put here? 82.93.133.130 19:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Note, I tried to add the external links from Radiography page to this one, but a robot deleted them (as well as my grammar corrections and spelling-- I hope someone can look at the history and bring the changes back). I believe the appropriate ones are:


 * NIST's XAAMDI: X-Ray Attenuation and Absorption for Materials of Dosimetric Interest Database
 * NIST's XCOM: Photon Cross Sections Database
 * NIST's FAST: Attenuation and Scattering Tables]
 * A lost industrial radiography source event
 * UN information on the security of industrial sources

not a bot, but those links are fine to add. sorry for their removal Hu12 19:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * reinserted them. Hu12

First Paragraph
Should the first paragraph, a summary, be one sentence of what IR is, and then a bunch of stuff about what it isn't? I don't like the looks of it, but want feedback first. 82.93.133.130 12:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Modify
Added "doesn't modify" sentence... thinking of moving paragraphs around. Right now, the middle chunk looks like it goes under Airport Security when I think that's just a sentence on its own somewhere. Dikke poes 20:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Original?
The section on radiography of welds reads like it was taken verbatim from a manual on the topic. "how to..." text is not the sort of writing that one would expect in an encyclopaedia. Michael Daly 21:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. Phlar (talk) 12:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Article merging proposal
I propose merging of the following two articles:
 * Radiographic testing
 * Industrial radiography

They deal with essentially the same subject and the content of each article is complementary to that of the other. SV1XV (talk) 10:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree. As there are Radiography and Medical radiography articles, Industrial radiography should be the destination for the merge. Absent objections, I will begin copying the unique elements of Radiographic testing into Industrial radiography, in preparation for doing a blank-and-redirect of Radiographic testing. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 13:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * As I shall be out of my office for the next two days, please go ahead. Also the section "Safety" needs some simplification. Have a look in this page for possible ideas: User:Sv1xv/Industrial_radiography . SV1XV (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It looks like you've made a start to the process, so proceed at will. I'll cheer from the sidelines. Or, let me know what you've already done so we won't duplicate our efforts. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 00:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Redundancies have yet to be resolved post-merge. For example, compare the first and last paragraphs of the section Inspection of welds. Phlar (talk) 13:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Industrial radiography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081207060745/http://www.lboro.ac.uk/library/new/Spotlighton-Archive.html to http://www.lboro.ac.uk/library/new/Spotlighton-Archive.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060212194310/http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/SealedRadioactiveSources/industry_lessons.html to http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/SealedRadioactiveSources/industry_lessons.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Page cleanup
I find that this page needs a bit of a cleanup. I just did a litterature review in that subject and I have plenty of references I will be adding. Feynstein (talk) 04:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed... This page needs some work. RadXman (talk) 07:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I removed the Beer-Lambert law part because I believe it applies more to visible light, as it is continuously interacting with it's medium, bouncing from atom to atom. That's why there is a refraction index with light but not with X-rays. In the case of X-rays it's simply the probability of interaction that's important (cross-section). The photons at this energy basically go through matter until they interact. I can't find a reference to it out of my head here, but I believe it's called radiation transport or something. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 02:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello
 * I don't mind that you removed it and it can be kept removed but you lack practice with x-rays and this comment makes me think that you have more a modeling background... Nobody in the industry or in the NDT world talks in term of cross section whereas the absorption coefficient (and the contribution of each interaction process to µ), resulting half value thickness are part of the basic trainings.
 * Beer Lambert law is fundamental in X-ray... See eg : this link but you can google "Beer Lambert Law".
 * I add that Beer Lambert takes thickness and material into account, which cross section does not...
 * RadXman (talk) 09:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding: 80 keV - 500 keV
 * Few people talks also in term of keV because we care about photons energy and not particle. And electron energy is only the maximum of the spectrum. For X-ray people refer to the kV of the generator that go typically from 20 to 450 kV. There are some units at 600 kV manufactured by Comet AG but not widely used.
 * As you wrote, after people must used linear particule accelerators starting 1 MeV to 15 MeV typically.
 * RadXman (talk) 10:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for your reply, this is exactly why I wrote here. I removed Beer-Lambert law maybe because I don't hear it often in my work and it reminded me of the refractive index attenuation with light. Like the fact that it has a different group velocity in different materials. I do agree that my work in ind. rad. is mainly R&D and that I don't do field work that often. I'm sorry if it was arbitrary, I tried to add details but maybe it was too specific. 80-500 was only a ballpark figure I introduced in order to start adding the kV-type information in. I know that most often in sources documentation it's written as kVp or kV. I have a personal preference for keV, because it better describe the electron interactions, but it might not have been appropriate. Let's try to find the middle ground between my very theoretical knowledge and your field experience then, I think that it's good to add a bit of R&D knowledge in that page also. Thanks for your input and keep on keeping on! :P PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 16:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem. Diversity is wealth. :-)
 * RadXman (talk) 20:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)