We close the arc inside and straight section inside scrapers to narrow and cut the 70Se line.
Then look what the other lines left of 70Se will do.

1st series with E01DS_HI
 -58  - intensity as before
 -52  - still as before
 -50  - still full
 -45  - less intensity but about same width
 -40  - almost gone 
   0  - gone
 -58  - back to old position

2nd series with EEXDS1HG
 16.0 - full
 15.0 - full
 12.5 - less
 10.5 - less intensity
  9.7 - appears only sometimes
  8.2 - gone
 10.8 - middle intensity and more narrow, measure for a while

The change of the source happens now

The gas bottle has been changed and the beam is back.

We see a drop in beam intensity from 7E9 to 2E8 between 01:30 and 01:43

The latest recorded tdms files:
 p:\E143\sc\SC_2021-06-30_23-27-45\0000360
 p:\E143\iq\IQ_2021-06-30_23-27-34\0001759
2. The rest space on the drive "p:\" : 28TByte

We see that intensity stabalized at 9E8 which is smaller then before. 
We neticed this at 2:50, keep observing.

And the intensity is back again to 5E9 at 03:20

The latest recorded tdms files:
 p:\E143\sc\SC_2021-06-30_23-27-45\0000338
 p:\E143\iq\IQ_2021-06-30_23-27-34\0001651
2. The rest space on the drive "p:\" : 28,4TByte

The latest recorded tdms files:
 p:\E143\sc\SC_2021-06-30_23-27-45\0000405
 p:\E143\iq\IQ_2021-06-30_23-27-34\0001978
2. The rest space on the drive "p:\" : 27.1TByte

So the "isomers" pop up at ~-600 Hz and +580 Hz... is the -600 Hz on the left the 378 keV isomer (21 min) and the +580 Hz on the right the g.s.?

Looks like there is a bit less beam now in the ring. I just looked at one spectra from before the gas bottle change and after...

No, everything okay! Must have had a very good earlier run to compare.

> Looks like there is a bit less beam now in the ring. I just looked at one spectra from before the gas bottle change and after...

> 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... :-)

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... :-)

Same as before but for 4-5am on 410 MHz detector. Peak visible.


> 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... :-)

Same as before for 5-6 am.
Peak still there, maybe a bit less than before.


> Same as before but for 4-5am on 410 MHz detector. Peak visible.
> 
> 
> > 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... :-)

> Run E143-245 MHz-2021.05.09.01.17.42.265.tiq is the first run of the experiment on 52Mn.


And Run E143-410MHz-2021.05.09.03.27.37.368.tiq	from 2021-05-09 03:27 is the first run on the 410 MHz detector. Started a bit later than the 245 MHz detector.
 

Short update from Yuri: these are not our isomers. These are 45Sc (left, 12 keV isomer not resolvable) and 75Br (center), and the right-most peak of the triplet is a satellite (has a different line shape, much narrower).




> So the "isomers" pop up at ~-600 Hz and +580 Hz... is the -600 Hz on the left the 378 keV isomer (21 min) and the +580 Hz on the right the g.s.?

This might have been answered before but I looked at one png file and one tiq file from the same run that was stored on the server. There seems to be an offset of 2.2 s. The png file from the server (right) shows the injection at ~5s, whereas when I look at the tiq file in the GUI (left), the injection is at ~2.8 s???? Is the looper introducing this offset?

Attached is a summed spectra of all files taken between 1:17am and 1:59am (on the 245 MHz detector).

python3 e143_analyzer.py -s 5.1 -t 0.5 /home/dillmann/E143/e143-scripts/sparc-daq-02.gsi.de/E143-245MHz/E143-245MHz-2021.05.09.01.* -o Not_52Mn_245MHz_May09_1-2am
(Might need to adapt the skip time and read-in time, thou... used the same as for the 72Ge runs...)