Level gauge selection

Indeed, using quality measurement is a relatively good option

Could you be more detailed about the operating conditions? How large and tall are the devices, what is the medium used, etc.? It seems that nuclear radiation might be necessary to determine the liquid level.

The operating temperature can reach over 300 degrees; high viscosity may cause deposits to block the radar wave emission port, so the radar might not work properly.

Given the high-temperature viscosity you mentioned, consider a radioactive level gauge; weighing is also an option. You can describe the specific circumstances……

It is also recommended to use a radioactive level gauge. I have not used weight-based measuring devices myself, so I don’t dare to give an opinion on them; however, I personally feel that in terms of long-term stability and accuracy, radioactive sensors are more reliable

Dude, you can promote your instruments on the forum, but you shouldn’t slander others’ instruments just to promote yours – as if only your instruments are the best in the world. I believe you’re an expert in terms of technology, but experts should behave like such; it’s not right to spread slander everywhere just to push your own products. I’ve been using radioactive type instruments for 6 years now, and they’ve detected mineral slurry without any of the issues you mentioned. As for weight-based instruments, I haven’t used them, but I’m just sharing my opinion – is it really necessary to exaggerate your instruments and claim they’re the best in the world? @qugd @Xiāoyáo Ténglóng @Qiu Gege Bàqì

Well, radiation measurement is certainly suitable for conditions of high temperature and high viscosity. Weighing, on the other hand, has certain limitations; factors such as the basic mass (steel thickness and stability), the way in which the tank is installed (vibrations, mixing, and pipelines), and even the manufacturer of the sensors (Toraydo or… Toraydo) can all have an impact. In terms of cost, it’s lower because maintenance is simpler and less harmful compared to radioactive methods; however, when it comes to stability and failure rate, radioactive methods are indeed superior. This is just my personal opinion; please forgive me if it’s wrong. We discuss issues on the forum; if something seems right, we take a look at it, and if not, we simply ignore it. Everyone follows this approach in professional interactions as well – if something doesn’t seem right, just ignore it without damaging good relations. What he means is that domestic low-end factories are not as good as his own, but that doesn’t apply to companies like Yokogawa or Rosemount. Sometimes his wording isn’t very precise, so don’t pay too much attention to it……

For this operating condition, only a nuclear radiation level gauge is available. You can consult the ethylene plant; their high-pressure polyethylene separation towers and low-pressure polyethylene separation towers both make use of nuclear radiation.

Nuclear radiation level gauges are not used very often; over the past few years they have been employed a few times in environments with high viscosity as well as high temperature and pressure. The feedback from clients has been that these level gauges are reliable and that they are satisfied with the measurement results, but their management does present some difficulties. There are a great variety of types of level measurement devices, and each one has its own advantages and disadvantages; it’s not possible to make generalizations. A higher initial investment is not much compared to the repeated doubts, repairs, and hassle that come later on; reliability is what truly matters… I’ve seen too many examples of people saving a little money now only to end up spending much more later.