Talk:Roentgen (unit)

message: In the section on background radiation, I believe that there is an error in the conversion from R to mSv.  The average lifetime dose is stated as 16 R or 160 mSv implying a conversion factor of 10mSv/R.  This is close enough to the accepted value of 9.33 mGy/R to satisfy me.  However, the range is quoted as 0.17 μR/h to 11 μR/h (1.5 to 100 mSv/a).  Taking the first figure; 1.5 mSv/a = 1.5/10 = 150 mR/a = 150/365/24 = 17 μR/h.  That is, a factor of 100 different from the stated value.  The upper limit is out by a similar factor.  The figures in SI units agree with the Wiki article on background radiation (average 2.4 mSv/a) and the Uranium Information Centre (http://www.uic.com.au/ral.htm) figures.  I am therefore assuming it is the figures in Röntgen that are in error.  I will make the appropriate edit to the main article.  I hope no one objects.
Spinningspark 17:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Conversion error

message: Rent'ken, short e, short e; not sure that that's correct, but it's closer than I mangled it earlier today. htom (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  pronounciation 

message: When was this unit superseded in favor of the sievert? I have an old gamma ray detector and it's calibrated in R/Hr, so it would be interesting to know.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.238.106 (talk) 10:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  date of use 

message: in the image on the bottom right it says that 9.8 microR per hour is about 150 milliR per year. Unless there is some other conversion involved (energy compensation?), 9.8 uR/hr = 235.2 uR/day = 85848 uR/year = 85.8 mR/year. Unless I am incorrect, could someone change this? 24.240.36.218 (talk) 20:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you are right. I changed the text to read 86 mR per year. Binksternet (talk) 22:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  unit conversion in image 

message: Non-experts may be curious about the relationship between the two units (if any), just what is measured and which unit is used and why.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.101.166 (talk) 20:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty much the only relation between those two is that both are non-SI and shouldn't be used. Roentgen is "charge/mass", curie is "counts/time". 1 R = 2.58×10−4 C/kg and 1 Ci = 3.7×1010 Bq. ospalh (talk) 16:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curies - Roentgens 

message: I cannot fathom the logic behind deleting this. The edit summary was Deleted "Exposure" section...Exposures should be expressed in sieverts. As the "Explanation" says..  First of all, this article is about the unit Roentgen, so giving examples of exposure in that unit makes perfect sense.  It does not matter that the SI do not approve of Roentgens, our task is to give our readers information about the subject of the article, not to defend the SI from "foreign" units - they are perfectly capable of doing that themselves.  Example exposures allow the reader to get an idea of the scale of the unit.  Secondly, roentgens cannot directly be converted to sieverts and if the suggestion is to use them here then I cannot quite see how that would work. SpinningSpark 16:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Section should stay. Binksternet (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exposure section 

message: This section refers to the "IRC roentgen".  Earlier in the article the ICR is mentioned but no IRC.  Not knowing the topic myself, I wonder if the IRC referes to something different or just a simple misspelling? 204.120.173.252 (talk) 13:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  GOST definition section 

message: what the gosh darn doodley whim does legacy mean in "legacy unit of measurement"???  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:3003:2005:40B:3DDA:7B39:9A0F:E200 (talk) 18:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  legacy