|
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: 128
Entry time: Mon May 10 05:25:29 2021
In reply to: 127
Reply to this: 130
|
| Author: |
Iris (Chris C., Jeff C.) |
| Category: |
Analysis |
| Subject: |
Comparison between 72Ge: 10th 1-2am on 410 MHz |
|
|
Same as before, but for 410 MHz detectors.
Peaks visible in the 3rd-5th slice.
> > 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... :-) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|