Geiger-Müller Detector and Counting Statistics

Purpose
To understand how a Geiger-Müller detector works and, by counting radiation events, to test
the model that the Binomial, Poisson and Gaussian probability distributions describe, in
different regions of parameter space, the statistics of counting experiments. We will also use
an investigation of the electronic workings of the detector as a vehicle for learning the
operation of an oscilloscope, an important tool used in many areas of physics.

References. Read before starting the experiment.

Melissinos(1966) Chapter 5 on Radiation and particle Detectors
Tait Chapter 7 on Gas Counters; especially “Geiger-Mueller Counters” on pp. 191-193.
The following sections of Review of Particle Properties
Section 32.4 of http://pdg.lbl.gov/2014/reviews/rpp2014-rev-passage-particles-matter.pdf
Section 36.6 of http://pdg.lbl.gov/2014/reviews/rpp2014-rev-particle-detectors-accel.pdf
Section 37.4 of http://pdg.lbl.gov/2014/reviews/rpp2014-rev-probability.pdf
Section 38 http://pdg.lbl.gov/2014/reviews/rpp2014-rev-statistics.pdf

Introduction
In this experiment we could potentially use α, β, γ, and µ radiation. (The last of these are more
widely known as “muons”.) Since α particles have a very short penetration depth and there is no
easily available source of muons, we will restrict our interest to β and γ. The sources we have
available are 55Fe, 60Co, 137Cs, 133Ba, 14C, 22Na and 204Tl. Research the type of emission, energy and
half-life associated with each source. Be sure to cite any references used in preparing these
descriptions. Have any of these sources lost a significant fraction of their activity since purchase?
(Dates of manufacture are on each source.) In the Introduction of your report, be sure to describe
“ionizing radiation” as it applies to this experiment. In the Theory section, review the properties
of the Binomial, Poisson and Gaussian distributions and their areas of applicability as well as
expectations of the circumstances in which each apply in this experiment. Give the theoretical
expression for the mean and standard deviation for each distribution.

Theory
In addition to analysis of the results, there is a lot of good physics to be seen in the construction of
the Geiger- Müller tube itself. Assume the G-M tube is a cylindrical capacitor whose dimensions
are given in the spec sheet and/or measured by you in the lab. Calculate the capacitance and
compare to the value in the manufacturer’s specification sheet (Fig.1). From Gauss’s Law,
calculate the electric field inside the G-M tube. According to Tait, what determines the rise time
for the pulse? Calculate the rise time for your tube. (This does not require physics more
advanced than sophomore, but does include a numerical integration.) Does the rise time depend
on the supply voltage or another parameter you control? Compare to your measurements.
Melissinos claims (p. 177) that “…the whole gas becomes ionized, and a discharge takes place.”
Estimate the number of electrons and ions in the tube if this occurs. (Use the Ideal Gas Law;
assume the neon pressure is 75 Torr.) Compare to the number of electrons you measure in a
P a g e 1 | 11
typical pulse. (How will you estimate the number of electrons in a typical pulse?) Will this be a
topic for discussion in your report? (This task is repeated later in conjunction with analysis of how
a pulse propagates through the circuit. You need do it only once.)

Available Equipment
1. Radiation Sources Geiger-Müller Tube
2. Electronics board for pulse processing
3. Junction box: High voltage to G-M tube and pulse output (gray chassis box)
4. High voltage power supply
5. Oscilloscope
6. Computer with automated Counting Software Digital voltmeter

Figure 1 Geiger Experiment General Layout

Experimental Setup
Familiarize yourself with the setup, starting with a comparison between the physical detector (Fig.
1 and 2) and the schematic diagram (Fig 3.). How does a Geiger- Müller detector work? What is its
basic construction? How does it produce a “pulse” to signal the passage of radiation? See
Appendices 1 and 2 as well as the Wikipedia article “Geiger-Muller Tube” for details. If you
incorporate information from any of these sources in your report you must cite them! (To
paraphrase Barack Obama: “You didn’t think up these words and concepts yourself.”)
P a g e 2 | 11
The operation of an oscilloscope is explained in many locations on the internet. Think of the
oscilloscope as software: you learn how it works by playing with it. Your report should contain
several paragraphs describing the operation of the oscilloscope: enough information so that the
next time that you have to use one you can use your report as a reference. This portion (like all
others) should also contain sufficient detail to convince the grader that you understand how an
oscilloscope works.

Figure 2 Geiger Experiment Electronics Board

Figure 3 Geiger Counter Circuit Diagram

P a g e 3 | 11
What does the initial pulse look like? How do the pulse shape and height depend on power
supply (anode – cathode) voltage? In sophomore physics you learned about the RC time constant
of a resistor-capacitor combination. (Series or parallel? Does it matter?) Exactly how does the
charge collected from the ionized neon atoms in the G-M detector work its way through the initial
parts of the circuit (up to the op amp)? Are the pulse rise time and duration related to circuit
components? How? Do your calculations based on your “circuit analysis” agree with
measurements from your ‘scope trace?

Investigate some characteristic times in the pulse generation system. Measure the pulse
duration. (It will be some microseconds.) Calculate (estimate) the amount of charge in a typical
pulse. (The oscilloscope measures the voltage across what? How do you get a current, and
subsequently charge, from this?) It is claimed that all of the gas in the G-M tube is ionized by the
passage of a “particle” of ionizing radiation. Do your data support or contradict this “model”? At
the percent level or within an order of magnitude?

Follow the pulse with the oscilloscope as it travels through the circuit. How does the signal
change throughout the circuit? Include images in your report. For a given source-detector
configuration, are all pulses alike? What pulse parameters change with supply voltage?
Document the pulse appearance as it goes through the circuit. Note that the oscilloscope has [at
least] six menu buttons that change the options available on the right of the screen. Items that
appear on the right of the screen are changed by pressing the buttons to their right. An important
option for investigating the long-term behavior of the Geiger counter is found under the
“Display” menu: Set the “Persist” option to “Infinite” with a sweep time of several hundred µsec
and watch the signal develop over several minutes. In this configuration the ‘scope will give you
information about the dead time of the system. In principle you can investigate the source of the
dead time by changing Rs; in practice, since the supply voltage appears across Rs, this must be
done with extreme care or your personal “dead time” will begin very soon and last very long!)
How does the appearance of pulses as seen on the oscilloscope screen depend on the trigger
threshold setting? (Does “threshold voltage” refer to an adjustment on the Geiger circuit, the
oscilloscope or both?) Record for inclusion in your report the pulse shape coming from (a) the G-
M tube, and (b) the counter input. How does the number of counts measured under fixed
conditions of the radiation source and G-M tube juxtaposition, depend on your setting of the
comparator threshold voltage? How should the number of counts depend on this setting? Find
the average of 100 measurements of the count rate when the threshold voltage is 1.0, 5.0 and
10V. Discuss in your report. Your report should include at least a brief description of what an
oscilloscope does and why/how it gives information and why we should trust your operation of
the device. How did you decide on values of important operating parameters for both the
oscilloscope and the Geiger counter circuit? (“That’s the way it was set up when we got here” is
P a g e 4 | 11
not an acceptable explanation!). In this experiment we use model 712 G-M tubes from LND Inc.
Their specifications are given below.

Figure 4: Geiger tube specifications (712)

P a g e 5 | 11
Experimental Procedure

For a description of the operation of the Labview data collection program, see Appendix 1.

1. Establish an operating point for the GM detector. Figure 5 shows an artist’s conception of
the Geiger-Müller counter output count rate as a function of applied supply potential, Vs.
The “plateau” region lies in the range, where the output count rate remains
approximately constant independent of . The operating point

Figure 5: Response curve of Geiger-Mueller counter

OP should be in the plateau region, far removed from the “knee” of the curve and from the
region of spontaneous ionization. How will you determine the plateau region? This is
actually a very important exercise in both particle physics and general experimental design.
Assume that for a given source – Geiger tube configuration you can select a counting time
that gives you about 500 counts. Assume that your plateau region is 150 V wide. (This is a
number you will determine, but let’s start with this guess; it is certainly within a factor of
two.) The manufacturer’s specification on the slope of the plateau is “less than 6% per 100
V, so you would expect to see a maximum increase of 45 counts across the 150 volt plateau.
Obviously if the uncertainty in your measurement of the number of counts at a given
voltage is ± 50 counts, you are going to have a credibility issue trying to claim that you know
the slope is less than 6% per 100 volts. How about ± 5 counts? If your data are described
by a Gaussian distribution, what will be their standard deviation…or is it the standard
deviation of the mean that is relevant? How many times will you have to repeat the
measurement to have 68% confidence that the mean of your measurements lies within 5
counts of the value you would get if you took an infinite number of readings at each
voltage? This is not a trivial concept, but the ability to do the calculation is very important.

P a g e 6 | 11
 Being able to do calculations like this has a huge significance for experimental design. These
considerations are not unique to particle physics: the cutting edge of nearly all experimental
physics is determined by noise in your measuring apparatus; that noise contributes the
same uncertainty as random variations in particle counts. Optical measurements in nano-
physics are often done with single photon counting systems.

First consideration before starting serious data-taking: which source to use and which side
should be facing the detector? We have about a dozen sources available. One day all were
investigated with the same detector at the same supply voltage. The number of counts
measured one day in a certain window varied between 3.8 and 1300. Is the inherent activity
of the source relevant to any consideration in your experiment? If so, you may want to
investigate several options for the source you choose and the side of the source you place
nearest the detector.

DO NOT OPERATE THE DETECTOR OVER 600V, even if you have NOT reached the upward
swing located after V2 on the graph. We have routinely ruined Geiger-Mueller tubes before
the onset of spontaneous ionization. Is there a difference in count rate depending on which
side of the sample faces up or down? To revisit a consideration mentioned above, the
manufacturer specifies a maximum slope for the plateau region. How does this
specification compare to your data? Explain what is meant by “6%/100V”. If you simply
plot your data and fit it, is the slope of your fit equal to this? Explain.

Next issue. It is generally considered to be a scientific faux pas to publish results which are
characteristic of the measuring apparatus rather than the physical system being studied. One
opportunity for checking such a possibility is to measure the count rate of your source as a
function of the time window for which you measure the number of counts. Obviously the
emission rate of the source could care less for how long you take data. Calculate the
emission rate from a sample in a specific configuration for different measuring times. Do
you always get the same answer? How certain are you that your measurements are
different or the same?

2. Detection of radiation from an active source

For a given radioactive source, measure the count rate numerous times (at least 100) to
create a good distribution of values. Appendix 1 explains how to use the computer to take
data for this part of the experiment. Be sure to record the length of time for which the
detector counts. Adjust the counting time and source-detector distance so that you get
several hundred counts in each measurement. Plot the results in a histogram. Which type

P a g e 7 | 11
 of statistics do you think best describe this distribution? Try fitting it with the different
statistical distributions. Remember that the statistical distributions describe probability
densities. Refer to Appendix 2 for a suggestion on how to establish bin widths. Was your
prediction correct? What is the reduced χ2 of the fit? Do the data support the model or
not? (Obviously if you have one set of data and three different models, not all will be
applicable!) You should be able to determine v , σ ν and σ ν for each of the fits. How do
they compare to the values of v , σ ν and σ ν that you obtain by straight calculation? Also
observe v , σ ν and σ ν as a function of the amount of data you take. Do this, e.g., for 2, 5,
10, 20, 50, 100, 200, 500 and 1000 measurements. You are also encouraged to take one
dataset overnight or even over a weekend with a very large number of measurements (like
20,000). Discuss how your results vary as functions of how many data points you take.

3. Detection of background radiation

In the absence of a source, your Geiger-Müller counter will detect background radiation at a
rate of a count every few seconds. Measure the count rate numerous times to create a good
distribution of values for the background radiation rate. Plot the results in a histogram.
Which type of statistics do you think can be used to describe this distribution? Try fitting it
with the different possible statistical distributions. Remember that the statistical
distributions describe distributions of probability densities. Was your prediction correct?
What is the χ2 of the fit? You should be able to determine v , σ ν and σ ν from the fits. How
do they compare to the v , σ ν and σ ν you obtain by straight calculation?

4. [Optional for 10 points extra credit] Binomial Distribution

It is widely known and accepted that the error in a binning experiment is given by the
square root of the number of measurement values in the bin. This follows from the fact
that the standard deviation of a Poisson distribution is given by σ = Np (1 − p ) and if the
probability of the event occurring is small, (1 − p ) >> p , so the square root reduces to
σ = Np . But Np is simply the average value of N, the distribution average, μ. To
investigate a distribution where approximating the error by the square root of the average
is a bad idea because the underlying assumption is incorrect, choose a time interval, T , for
measuring the arrival of background radiation such that the mean number of observed
background counts, μ, is significantly less than one, e.g. 0.2; your time interval will probably
be less than 1 sec. For a given counting configuration, the average number of counts in a
short time will be the same at the average for a long time, which can be determined either
with the manual start/stop and a stopwatch or with the computer. (There is actually a
function in Excel for counting the number of occurrences of some value.) According to the

P a g e 8 | 11
 Poisson probability distribution, you should observe zero counts about 82% of the time
under such circumstances.

Since the probability, p, of observing zero is not small, the statistics governing the number
of observed zeroes are claimed to be binomial, not Poissonian as one might expect.
To test this, perform the following procedure under the conditions listed above:
(a) Take 100 measurements of the rate. Record the observed number of zeroes.
(b) Repeat the above step 10 times.
(c) Compute the mean and standard deviation of the number of zeroes in your 10 sets of
measurements.
(d) Compare your observed standard deviation with the predictions of Binomial statistics
and Poisson statistics.
(e) Discuss why, despite the fact that this “experiment” is somewhat contrived, it illustrates
one common circumstances where one can err in accepting the “common knowledge” that
the square root of number of counts in a bin gives a good estimate of its error.

References

[1] J.R. Taylor, An Introduction to Error Analysis, 2nd Ed., University Science Books, Sausalito CA
(1997). Copy in the Undergrad Lab.

[2] D. Scott, “On optimal and data-based histograms”, Biometrika 66 605 (1979).

[3] C. Melissinos and J. Napolitano, Experiments in Modern Physics, Academic Press, San Diego,
CA (2003). Copy in the Undergrad Lab.

[4] W. H. Tait, Radiation Detection, Butterworths, London (1980). Copy in the Undergrad Lab.
Appendix 1: Automated data collection from Geiger Detector

One of the primary strengths of computers is to perform a series of actions repeatedly and
accurately. In the context of the Geiger counter experiments, this means automated data
collection of counts.

There are several computer programs to readout the Geiger Counter written in Labview. These
programs should be located on the PC in c:/LabViewVi/FTDI-Geiger. The front panel looks like
the image below. The 'total reads' is where to enter the desired number of periods to collect
data. The 'period (sec)' is where to enter the counting duration. The indicator boxes “current
count' and 'mean' display data as the program is run. To run the program, first enter desired
values in the total reads and period boxes then click the arrow button below the “Edit” menu.
The program will begin by asking you for a file name. Start by defining a sub-directory for you
and your lab partner, preferably not on the desktop but rather in the “users” directory. The
program will run and plot a histogram with bin width equal to one during data collection. The
counter board will flash one of the LED's during data transfer to the PC. The button labeled
'stop' stops the counting and proceeds to the data saving screen. When finished, a pop-up
window will ask where to save data. The resulting text file has 3 columns of data. There are the
histogram bin values, the counts in the bins, and then the raw numbers. These raw numbers
can then be used when plotting a histogram of the data.
Appendix 2: Selecting a bin width
As a guide to choosing your histogram bin size, Reference [2] suggests the prescription
3.49σ
W=
N 1/ 3 (4)
Where W is the bin width, σ, the standard deviation of the distribution and N the total number of
histogram entries (measurements). As a practical matter, it may be preferable to give an integer
width to your bins, close to the W recommended by the question. (In counting experiments this
is the only option that makes sense.)
An alternative procedure is provided below. This is clearly more work but should produce a
superior product.

Shimazaki and Shinomoto, Neural Comput 19 1503-1527, 2007

I. Divide the data range into bins of width . Count the number of events that
enter the i'th bin.

II. Calculate the mean and variance of the number of events as

and *
III. Compute a formula*,

IV. Repeat i-iii while changing . Find that minimizes .

*VERY IMPORTANT: Do NOT use a variance that uses N-1 to divide the sum of
squared errors. Use the biased variance in the method.

*To obtain a smooth cost function, it is recommended to use an average of cost

functions calculated from multiple initial partitioning positions.

Finally the procedure probably most commonly used: play with the bin size until your fit is to
your liking. The above option is a mathematical formalism for accomplishing the same task!

Enjoy!