|
HOME
ESR
EXPERIMENTS
LABS etc
|
|
E121
E127
E132
E125
E143
laser_cooling_2021
E142
Ê128
E146
E0052
E0018
E0028
E0038
|
| nuclear two-photon decay |
Not logged in |
 |
|
|
 Sun May 9 17:39:21 2021, Guy, Analysis, Comparison between 72Ge: 7th 19h vs 8th 21h 
|
 Mon May 10 04:08:13 2021, Iris (Chris C., Jeff C.), Analysis, Comparison between 72Ge: 10th 1-2am on 245 MHz
| |
Mon May 10 05:25:29 2021, Iris (Chris C., Jeff C.), Analysis, Comparison between 72Ge: 10th 1-2am on 410 MHz 8x
| |
Mon May 10 06:22:15 2021, Iris (Chris C., Jeff C.), Analysis, Comparison between 72Ge: 10th 1-2am on 410 MHz 9x
| |
Mon May 10 07:13:20 2021, Iris (Chris C., Jeff C.), Analysis, Comparison between 72Ge: 10th 5-6am on 410 MHz 9x
|
|
|
Message ID: 127
Entry time: Mon May 10 04:08:13 2021
In reply to: 108
Reply to this: 128
|
| Author: |
Iris (Chris C., Jeff C.) |
| Category: |
Analysis |
| Subject: |
Comparison between 72Ge: 10th 1-2am on 245 MHz |
|
|
> Following Xiangcheng Chen's analysis, I analysed 11 ms time slices separated by 25 ms to see the evolution of the potential isomer across the injection.
>
> Attachment 1: Data from May 7th 19h-20h. -t 11ms progression from -s=5 to -s=5.175
> Attachment 2: Data from May 8th 21h-22h. -t 11ms progression from -s=5 to -s=5.175
>
> The extra resolution gained on the 8th (and potentially other settings too) make the isomer visible where it wasn't present on the 7th.
Hi, attached is the sum of all spectra from 1-2am on May 10th, on the 245 MHz detector. Takes me forever to download everything...
I used the same parameters as Guy and Xiancheng: LFRAMES = 512 (in analyzer); -t 0.011 (= 11 ms) -s 5 ... 5.175 s.
Resolution looks good... :-) |
|
|