|
MUST2
SAMURAI_2018
S3-LEB-LPC
SUPERNEMO
MUGAST
EXPAND
SCALP
GALATRON
HiCARI
VELO
|
| MUGAST, Page 106 of 132 |
Not logged in |
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed, e768s, Tue Jul 23 19:21:50 2019, Nicolas, OTHER, Social, N/A, Waiting end of canicule (and beam!) 
|
|
|
Fixed, e768s, Wed Jul 24 16:24:18 2019, Nicolas, OTHER, General, , 19Ne / 19F analog connections
|
|
|
Fixed, e768s, Sun Jul 28 16:23:48 2019, Nicolas, RUN, General, , Update on possible restart
|
| Same situation as before lunch, the beam is still in C0 and not yet in CSS1. We may have beam in late evening.... |
|
Ongoing, e768s, Sun Jul 28 19:58:57 2019, Nicolas, RUN, General, , Update on possible restart
|
| Beam is now at the exit of CSS2 though We may have beam around midnight.... |
|
|
Fixed, e768s, Sun Jul 28 21:59:43 2019, Nicolas, RUN, General, , Update on possible restart
|
| Beam is in G1 with 3e6 pps. PCP will optimize for about 1-1,5h before we take the beam. |
|
Fixed, e768s, Tue Jul 30 15:47:46 2019, Nicolas, BEAM, General, , Beam stopped since 11h30
|
| vacuum problem in CSS1 |
|
Pinned, e775s, Thu Feb 27 12:44:37 2020, Nicolas, OFFLINE, Software, , How to produce control spectra
|
| In /home/mugast/analysis/nptool/Projects/MUGAST/e775s directory there is the Control.C macro which draws: Ex, Ex vs Eg and Elab vs thetalab for each run (run number must be given in argument) or for chained runs (argument must be 0) |
|
Pinned, e775s, Thu Feb 27 16:35:26 2020, Nicolas, OFFLINE, Software, , How to produce control spectra
|
| Nicolas wrote: | | In /home/mugast/analysis/nptool/Projects/MUGAST/e775s directory there is the Control.C macro which draws: Ex, Ex vs Eg and Elab vs thetalab for each run (run number must be given in argument) or for chained runs (argument must be 0) |
A new file has been created to look into the CD2 target runs : Control_CD2.C |
|
Fixed, e793s, Sun Mar 14 18:13:28 2021, Miguel, Wilton, Nishu, Dieter, Ablaihan, RUN, General, CD2, run62 screenshots at 18h14 10x
|
|
|
Fixed, e793s, Sun Mar 14 20:11:17 2021, Miguel, Wilton, Nishu, Dieter, Ablaihan, RUN, General, CD2, run62 screenshots at 20h00 10x
|
| Beam progressively down from 5 to 4 10^5. Went to PCP, they were losing intensity in the primary beam, from 500 to 400 nA. Working on it (21:30)... |
|
Fixed, e793s, Sun Mar 14 22:01:04 2021, Miguel, Wilton, Ablaihan,nishu, RUN, General, CD2, summary of run 62@22:00hrs 9x
|
|
|
Fixed, e793s, Sun Mar 14 17:16:01 2021, Miguel, Wilton, Ablaihan, BEAM, Hardware, CD2, Beam went down for a couple of minutes at 17:13. Now it is ok, screenshot attached.
|
Beam went up to 2x10^6 pps in CATS.
Then it went down to 0 for a couple of minutes at 17:13.
Now it is ok, screenshot attached. |
|
Fixed, e768s, Tue Jul 23 14:33:03 2019, Marlène, Yorick, Faïrouz & Nicolas, BEAM, General, , Cheking beam transmission from G1 profiler to VAMOS
|
Goal:
Estimate beam transmission from profiler to VAMOS (FP)
We question whether the factor of two found yesterday (VAMOS/Profiler ~ 0.5) could be due:
1. to an incorrect measurement of the beam intensity with the profiler
2. a charge state equilibration in the target (LISE++ calculation indicates 8+/7+ = 85%/15%)
Same conditions as yesterday:
1. Beam intensity is reduced with the pepper pot 1/9 and by closing slits after the 15O target production and the accelerators so that the beam quality (emittance, etc...) is not affected.
2. VAMOS plate is removed to allow the direct beam detection
Results:
We measure in VAMOS with the LiF target and with the target ladder totally removed. In the latter case, direct beam 15O(8+) is sent in VAMOS and no charge state effect enter into the game.
1. Beam intensity at G1 profiler ~ 6.5e4 pps
VAMOS (FP) + no target ~ 3.8e4 pps
2. Beam intensity at G1 profiler ~ 3.8e4 pps
VAMOS (FP) + thick LiF (nb 1) ~ 2.0e4 pps
Discussion:
We find the same results as yesterday, e.g. a factor of two attenuation between the profiler and VAMOS. If part of this loss would happen in the pipe/target/MUST2 mask, this should be observed in AGATA which is not the case. Could it be that the PPAC in VAMOS is not as efficient as announced at the beginning of the campaign (98%)? This must be checked when we get beam back later on.
Note:
While doing the above measurement, we observed a factor of 3 loss between profiler AR.Gaz13 and G1.Gaz31. Numbers follows:
L3.GAZ42 AR.GAZ13 G1.GAZ31
2.1e4 1.5e4 4.1e3
1.4e5 1.0e5 2.5e4
??? 1.8e5 6.5e4 |
|
Fixed, e768s, Mon Jul 15 19:59:30 2019, Marlène, Nicolas, Serge, RUN, General, N/A, Run10 - fsc
|
*************************
Run : 10
*************************
Start at 2019-07-15 19:57:41.031967
fsc / calibT run
GMT: MUGAST (square detector not biased) + MUST2
Time calibrator:
range -> 640 ns
freq. -> 20 ns |
|
Fixed, e768s, Mon Jul 15 20:18:07 2019, Marlène, Nicolas, Serge, RUN, General, N/A, Run13 - fsc
|
*************************
Run : 13
*************************
Start at 2019-07-15 20:18:02.650063
fsc / calibT run
internal pulser frequency now set to 300 Hz (was about 1 kHz before)
GMT: MUGAST (square detector not biased) + MUST2
Time calibrator:
range -> 640 ns
freq. -> 20 ns
Stop at 2019-07-15 20:23:54.304478
Stop comment: type your message here |
|
Fixed, TEST, Wed Feb 12 16:24:52 2020, Marlène, Freddy & Franco, MUST2, Hardware, , Modifications on the electronic scheme
|
We cleaned the electronic scheme.
Now the HF CLEAN VAMOS is taken directly from VAMOS and not re-cleaned by us.
TACs are all ok. Inspection lines have been checked and labeled.
GMT and Scalers are like below.
GMT:
1 - MUVI 1 (MG1, MG3, MG4, MG5)
2 - MUVI 2 (MG7, MG2, MG6, MG11)
3 - MUVI 3 (MM1, MM2, MM3, MM4)
4 - MUVI 4 (MG9 90-deg MUST2)
5 - COINCIDENCE VAMOS-AGATA
6 - VAMOS DIV
7 - MUST2 DIV
8 - broken
9 - SQUARE DIV
10 - AGATA DIV
11 - VAMOS
12 - empty
13 - empty
14 - empty
15 - broken
16 - empty
SCALERS:
1 - FAG
2 - OR MUGAST
3 - AGATA
4 - VAMOS
5 - empty
6 - DEAD TIME MUGAST
7 - 100 Hz PULSER
8 - DEAD TIME
9 - MUVI 1 (MG1, MG3, MG4, MG5)
10 - MUVI 2 (MG7, MG2, MG6, MG11)
11 - MUVI 3 (MM1, MM2, MM3, MM4)
12 - MUVI 4 (MG9 90-deg MUST2)
13 - empty
14 - empty
15 - CATS2
16 - FINGER |
|
Fixed, e768s, Mon Jul 22 11:42:22 2019, Marlène, François D, Franck, BEAM, General, LiF, Beam profile and intensity
|
Intensity = 1.8e7 pps
Slight shifts in x and y compared to this morning 8:30
x : -1.1 mm
y : +1.7 mm |
|
Fixed, e768s, Mon Jul 22 16:54:33 2019, Marlène, Franck, François & Nicolas, BEAM, General, , Cheking beam transmission from G1 profiler to VAMOS
|
Goal:
Estimate beam transmission from profiler to VAMOS (FP)
Method:
1. Beam intensity is reduced with the pepper pot 1/9 and by closing slits after the 15O target production and the accelerators so that the beam quality (emittance, etc...) is not affected.
2. VAMOS plate is removed to allow the direct beam detection
3. LiF (1.25 mg/cm2, number 1) is in position
Results:
1. beam intensity at G1 profiler ~ 4e4 pps
2. VAMOS FP ~ 2e4 pps
Discussion:
1. There is a factor of two loss between the profiler and VAMOS. Taken this factor into account in the g-ray yield estimate (see post ..) the numbers of 1297- and 1340-keV g-rays is in line with what is expected from cross-section calculation.
2. Loosing a factor of two means a substantial amount of 15O is implanted in the pipe/target frame/MUST2 masks. A dedicated AGATA activation measurement could be performed to cross-check this factor of two. |
|
Fixed, e768s, Mon Jul 22 17:07:39 2019, Marlène, Franck, François & Nicolas, BEAM, General, , Profiler conditions for measuring beam intensity
|
| We checked that the measured beam intensity (present case 1.5e7 pps) is independent on the voltage on the profiler. Values from 93 V up to 177 V gave similar results. |
|
Fixed, e768s, Fri Jul 26 02:27:48 2019, Marlène, Faïrouz, Franck, Bertrand, Sylvain, Diego, Nicolas, BEAM, General, , G1 profiler efficiency
|
G1 profiler efficiency was checked against CATS1 for two beam intensities. Agreement between the two measurements is within 20%
Profiler -> CATS1
2.3e4 pps -> 1.8e4 pps
1.4e5 pps -> 1.16e5 pps
Conclusion:
G1 profiler is measuring correctly the beam intensity for these intensities |