| ID |
Date |
Author |
Category |
Subject |
Year |
|
Draft
|
Tue Apr 21 22:25:00 2020 |
Jan | Analysis | | |
|
|
274
|
Wed Apr 8 23:02:24 2020 |
Laszlo | General | lmd to measurement pairing list | |
I use the following list of lmd files combined to a single root file for each measurement.
It is very important to highlight that sometimes the trigger==1 data got corrupted,massive number of trigger==2 like events appear on the detector as trigger==1 signal, because the gas jet target didn't switch off after its normal phase (gas jet remains ON during injection. Maybe some gas jet issue, maybe some bug in the pattern :/ ). To correct for this, one has to cut out these parts from the data. I did these cut outs by hand while looking at the event number vs I_ESR & density gas jet plot (see below). Probably this can be done also in a more automatized way, but I think this is not necessary. In the "124Xe with Scraper" data set it is only 1 time like this, in the 118Te data set 3 times. The other data sets seem fine to me.
-124Xe with scraper:
run090_0001.lmd run091_0001.lmd run092_0001.lmd run094_0001.lmd run095_0001.lmd run096_0001.lmd run098_0001.lmd run099_0001.lmd
if(!(i>1634880 && i<1652240)){do analysis} - (this if condition is valid only if one combines the lmd in numerical order)
(2. Xray calibration parameters)
-124Xe without scraper:
run100_0001.lmd run101_0001.lmd run102_0001.lmd run104_0001.lmd
if(true){do analysis}
(2. Xray calibration parameters)
-118Te with scraper:
run051_0001.lmd run053_0001.lmd run055_0001.lmd run057_0001.lmd run059_0001.lmd run064_0001.lmd run066_0001.lmd
run052_0001.lmd run054_0001.lmd run056_0001.lmd run058_0001.lmd run060_0001.lmd run065_0001.lmd run067_0001.lmd
Changing Xray cables!
run068_0001.lmd run070_0001.lmd run072_0001.lmd run074_0001.lmd run076_0001.lmd run078_0001.lmd run080_0001.lmd run082_0001.lmd run084_0001.lmd run086_0001.lmd
run069_0001.lmd run071_0001.lmd run073_0001.lmd run075_0001.lmd run077_0001.lmd run079_0001.lmd run081_0001.lmd run083_0001.lmd run085_0001.lmd run087_0001.lmd
For Xray analysis:
1. dataset:
Xray[2] = 90 degree Xray[1]=145degree. The timing is switched:
if(!(i>1801830 && i<1807810) && !(i>2348370 && i<2355110)){
if(t_Xray[2]>0) Xray[1] ->Fill();
if(t_Xray[1]>0) Xray[2] ->Fill();
}
(1. Xray calibration parameters --> invalid!)
2. dataset:
if(!(i>5488450-2507171 && i<6125720-2507171)){do analysis}
(2. Xray calibration parameters)
For Si analysis:
if(trigger==1 && !(i>1801830 && i<1807810) && !(i>2348370 && i<2355110) && !(i>5488450 && i<6125720) ){do analysis}
(1. Xray calibration parameters)
-124Xe with scraper - low rate measurement
run046_0001.lmd run047_0001.lmd run047_0003.lmd run048_0002.lmd run049_0002.lmd run050_0001.lmd
run046_0002.lmd run047_0002.lmd run048_0001.lmd run049_0001.lmd run049_0003.lmd run050_0002.lmd
if(true){do analysis}
(1. Xray calibration parameters --> invalid!)
Regarding the gain matching, I assumed that the same 2*16 factors can be used for all data sets, since we didn't change bias voltage (the current remained roughly also the same) and also the detector didn't get any serious radiation damage (this needs to be confirmed!).
A more detailed anaylsis will come on the gain matching after the Easter holiday.
|
|
273
|
Wed Apr 8 20:06:10 2020 |
Laszlo | Calibration | Counts in the K-REC peaks | |
3 datasets were investigated:
-124Xe with Scraper (2. Xray calibration parameters needed)
-124Xe without Scraper (2. Xray calibration parameters needed)
-118Te with Scraper (1. Xray calibration parameters needed)
I looked all the 35°, 90° and 145° detector spectra:
-For both Xe measurements all 3 detector signal can be evaluated
-For Te beam one can see only in the 145° detector spectra the Kalpha and K-REC peaks (with high uncertainty). For the 35° probably the detector was simply not sensitive enough for such low beam intensities. For the 90° case, I am much surprised, the peaks supposed to be there the most prominent of all. In the spectra, I maybe can recognize a peak at ~27,8keV, but this is even in best case only the Kalpha peak. At the range of the expected K-REC (~40keV), there is a bit of increase in the background overlying the peak. This background increase is also in the background spectra. Also probably this twisted cables issue between 90° and 145° didn't help much. I think anyhow, that maybe this must have some noise related origin. I can remember that the cables (despite all of our and Uwe's tries) were not well grounded, the noise level was kind of floating.
In general, I would also remark that we can see some peaks >60keV in the background, but these luckily don't disturb us.
To evaluate the Xray spectra I used the following algorithm:
1, for each type of beams I used the list of event numbers in the next entry (to exclude "bad" events)
To get the Kalpha and K-REC and other peaks I used the condition trigger==1 (jet ON)
To get the background spectra, I used trigger==2 (Jet OFF). The background spectra is only used to see that there is no underlying peak structure below K-REC. To subtract count, the background histo was NOT in use.
2, While using a well-suiting number of bins, I plot the JetON and JetOFF histos.
By eye I choose the range of the K-REC peak and the range for the background fit on the JetON histo. Ofc range_bckgnd > range_peak.
Simultaneously, I check on the JetOFF histo that both, in the fit-range and in the peak-range, there should not be any peak structure visible.
3, For the fit-range in JetON histo, excluding the peak-range, I fit a linear function, m*x+b. For each bin in the fit-range I subtract m*bin_center+b value from the bin content. After the subtraction I check if I got spectra looking like a single peak sitting on a zero
line.
4, To get the K-REC counts, I sum together all the bin values for each bin of the subtracted histo within the peak-range. For the error calculation, I use Gaussian error prop. The uncertainty of the JetON histo counts = sqrt(counts). Also for the subtraction I make the
error like delta(m*bin_center+b)= sqrt(m*bin_center+b) instead using the uncertainty of the fit parameters. This second one wont make much sense, since the slope of the linear fit is usually close to 0 --> the errors grow unrealistically big.
Based on the algorithm above I got the following counts:
-124Xe with Scraper:
35°: 174 +/- 15
90°: 21299 +/- 150
145°: 2104 +/- 52
-124Xe without Scraper:
35°: 65 +/- 9
90°: 7792 +/- 91
145°: 728 +/- 31
-118Te_part1 with Scraper:
35°: -
90°: 427 +/- 40
145°: -
-118Te_part2 with Scraper:
35°: -
90°: 741 +/- 48
145°: -
-124Xe_lowRate with Scraper:
35°: -
90°: 2121 +/- 52
145°: - |
|
272
|
Mon Apr 6 23:00:51 2020 |
Laszlo | Calibration | beam energies for 124Xe and 118Te measurements | |
"The e- cooler settings were the same for the 124Xe and 118Te beams" - Sergey --> speed of the ions is the same --> same MeV/u
E_beam = 10.0606MeV/u
The uncertainty on the cooloer values should be asked from Markus/Regina |
|
271
|
Mon Apr 6 04:39:19 2020 |
Laszlo | Calibration | 2. Xray energy calibration | |
30angle: E[keV] = 0.015898 *ch-1.91
90angle: E[keV] = 0.0211075*ch-2.39
145angle: E[keV] = 0.01663 *ch-1.758 |
|
270
|
Sun Apr 5 20:34:42 2020 |
Laszlo | Calibration | Xray energies - 1. calibration | |
30angle: E[keV] = 0.0158507 *ch-2.07456
90angle: E[keV] = 0.01950*ch-2.76
145angle: E[keV] = 0.017988 *ch-1.809
I could identify 2 peaks in the 241Am spectra and 4 peaks in the 133Ba. These peaks are fitted with a gaussian to get their position --> linear energy calibration for the combined (Am+Ba) data sets for each detector. The function I used: E(ch) [keV] = m*ch+b |
|
269
|
Thu Mar 26 12:05:22 2020 |
Laszlo | Calibration | measurement of collimators | |
The measurements were taken by using a caliper ruler, with precision of +/-0.05mm |
|
268
|
Wed Mar 25 15:06:09 2020 |
Laszlo | Analysis | quick summary of the run numbers | |
|
|
267
|
Wed Mar 25 14:26:22 2020 |
Laszlo | Calibration | run111 - Xray90 calib Am241, distance 167.5mm - LESS NOISE | |
Detector: 90
Source: 241Am
Distance: 167.5mm
.Start time: ? 23.03.2020
Stop time:
file name: run111_xxxx.lmd
avrg. rate: 444Hz
dead-time: 5%
Uwe reduced the noise on the 90 degree detector (see elog entry) |
|
266
|
Tue Mar 24 10:59:18 2020 |
Jan | Calibration | Sources - Specifications | |
We used the following sources:
Am241 (OM666) [GSI - Uwe]
Reference Activity: 430 kBq
Uncertainty: 3%
Reference Date: 19.09.2006
Ba133 hi (AN-5868) [GSI - Kozuharov]
Reference Activity: 438 kBq
Uncertainty: 3%
Reference Date: 01.06.2019
Ba133 low (OL 918) [GSI - Angela]
Reference Activity: 39.7 kBq
Uncertainty: 3%
Reference Date: 08.09.2006
Pb210 (2015-1552) [GUF - Rene]
Reference Activity: 7.42 (15) kBq
Uncertainty: 0.15/7.42 = 2%
Reference Date: 01.01.2016 |
|
265
|
Tue Mar 24 10:20:26 2020 |
Laszlo | Calibration | Pictures of the xray calibration | |
|
|
264
|
Tue Mar 24 00:11:35 2020 |
Laszlo | Calibration | run116 - Xray35 calib AM241, distance 334mm | |
Detector: 35
Source: 241Am
Distance: 334mm
Start time: 00:11:03 24.03.2020
Stop time: 10:01:4224.03.2020
file name: run116_xxxx.lmd
avrg. rate: 20Hz
dead-time: 0% |
|
263
|
Mon Mar 23 22:25:41 2020 |
Laszlo | Calibration | run115 - Xray35 Ba133 d=334mm, Xray90 Lead source, d=167.5mm | |
Simultaneous measurement of Xray35 and Xray90. The dead-time is <3%
Detector: 35
Source: 133Ba - strong source
Distance: 334mm
Detector: 90
Source: Lead source
Distance: 167.5mm: the lead source was measured 3mm width with the source in the middle. Therefore, I set the paper zylinder to ~169mm distance.
Start time: 22:25:22 23.03.2020
Stop time: 00:04:49 24.03.2020
file name: run115_xxxx.lmd
avrg. rate35: 75Hz
avrg. rate90: 55Hz
dead-time: 2%
Uwe reduced the noise on the 145 degree detector as well.
During measurement the oscilloscope remained connected! |
|
262
|
Mon Mar 23 21:47:40 2020 |
Laszlo | Calibration | run114 - Xray145 calib Ba133, distance 305mm - LESS NOISE | |
Detector: 145
Source: 133Ba - strong source
Distance: 305mm
Start time: 21:47:20 23.03.2020
Stop time: 22:04:06 23.03.2020
file name: run114_xxxx.lmd
avrg. rate: 950Hz
dead-time: 11%
Uwe reduced the noise on the 145 degree detector as well.
During measurement the oscilloscope remained connected! |
|
261
|
Mon Mar 23 20:52:37 2020 |
Laszlo | Calibration | run113 - Xray145 calib Am241, distance 305mm - LESS NOISE | |
Detector: 145
Source: 241Am
Distance: 305mm
Start time: 20:01:43 23.03.2020
Stop time: 21:43:34
file name: run113_xxxx.lmd
avrg. rate: 220Hz
dead-time: 2.5%
Uwe reduced the noise on the 145 degree detector as well. |
|
260
|
Mon Mar 23 19:32:53 2020 |
Laszlo | Calibration | run112 - Xray90 calib Am241, distance 200mm - LESS NOISE | |
Detector: 90
Source: 241Am
Distance: 200mm
Start time: 20:01:43 23.03.2020
Stop time:
file name: run112_xxxx.lmd
avrg. rate: 444Hz
dead-time: 5%
Uwe reduced the noise on the 90 degree detector (see elog entry) |
|
259
|
Mon Mar 23 18:17:27 2020 |
Laszlo | Calibration | run110 - Xray90 calib Ba133, distance 167.5mm -low rate - LESS NOISE | |
Detector: 90
Source: Ba133 - weak source
Distance: 167.5mm
Start time: 18:14:50 23.03.2020
Stop time:
file name: run110_xxxx.lmd
avrg. rate: 160Hz
dead-time: 2%
Uwe reduced the noise on the 90 degree detector (see previous elog entry) |
|
258
|
Mon Mar 23 18:15:55 2020 |
Laszlo | General | noisy 90degree Xray det | |
Uwe found out, that there was some common ground effect between 90 and 145 degree detectors. after moving the grounds, we could record much more nicer (Gaus
shaped) peaks in the spectra. Now we continue with this settings |
|
257
|
Mon Mar 23 17:40:33 2020 |
Laszlo | Calibration | run109 - Xray90 calib Ba133, distance 167.5mm -low rate | |
Detector: 90
Source: Ba133 - weak source
Distance: 167.5mm
Start time: 17:40:11 23.03.2020
Stop time:
file name: run109_xxxx.lmd
avrg. rate: 170Hz
dead-time: 2% |
|
256
|
Mon Mar 23 17:32:42 2020 |
Laszlo | Calibration | run108 - Xray90 calib Ba133, distance 167.5mm - high rate - deadtime too high! | |
Detector: 90
Source: Ba133 - strong source
Distance: 167.5mm
Start time: 17:32:11 23.03.2020
Stop time: 17:35:34
file name: run108_xxxx.lmd
avrg. rate: 2.7kHz
dead-time: 26% |