Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 08:35:07 -0500

Author: Wolfgang Rueckner

Subject: Re: PHA (and/or MCA)


We haven't taken any action since my last communication (bottom of this
e-mail). We're still using the EG&G board and it's been fine.
-- Wolfgang

On Dec 9, 2004, at 12:01 PM, Paul Nord wrote:

> Wolfgang,
> Old thread here... What did you end up deciding?
> Canberra
> SpecTech
> Ortec
> other
> We've got approval to replace our cards. I'd like to go with the
> Canberra USB NIM modules (the MultiPort). The hangup is that their
> software is licensed through a dongle. That seems pretty primitive...
> and inconvenient.
> The SpecTech option looks to be a good buy when you factor in the cost
> of amplifiers and HV supplies. Though I've already got amplifiers and
> supplies. 2k channels may be enough for most of our needs. (Whoever
> designed the 2004 Pasco catalog knew nothing about spectroscopy. Look
> at the screenshot they put in! That's supposed to make we want to buy
> it?)
> The catalog pages from Ortec look pretty outmoded. They don't have a
> standalone USB product except for the NaI base. They have only a
> thinwire ethernet interface. I need more versatility than just NaI
> inputs. I will call them.
> Others?
> Paul
> On Wednesday, February 4, 2004, at 09:53 AM, Richard Flarend wrote:
>> We use the SpecTech USB-MCA (USC20 is their name). At $3000 it is a
>> great buy (2K channels). When I looked a few years ago, I actually
>> decided to wait for this product to be released because it would be
>> portable from one computer to the next over the years (there was a
>> recent post to Tap-L concerning internal boards which required a type
>> of slot which is no longer commonly available). I would believe that
>> USB is going to be around for a long time. The external box type is
>> also easily movable from one lab to another and easily used with a
>> laptop without having to cart around a (dedicated) computer.
>> The software is also quickly progressing with the SpecTech. At first
>> we had lots of problems (we had one of the first), but those have
>> been solved and many new features are being added to the software.
>> In fact the company is very receptive of new software features from
>> its users.
>> Richard Flarend
>> Penn State Altoona
>> Wolfgang Rueckner wrote:
>>> We've been phasing out our stand-alone multi-channel analyzers over
>>> the years and replacing them with boards in a computer. Some are
>>> strictly multi-channel scalers (MCS), others pulse-height analyzers
>>> (PHA), and some do both. Our present PHA board is a Trump-2K, made
>>> by EG&G. It's been working well but I have heard from other sources
>>> that (when it fails) EG&G charges $750 just to evaluate what's wrong
>>> with the board. Before we buy more, it might be a good idea to
>>> learn what else is out there worth considering. My question is:
>>> What PHA boards are you using in your labs, and are you happy with
>>> them (pros and cons). Thank you. Wolfgang
From Fri Dec 10 08:54:14 2004