MUST2 SAMURAI_2018 S3-LEB-LPC SUPERNEMO MUGAST EXPAND SCALP GALATRON HiCARI VELO
  MUGAST, Page 11 of 132  Not logged in MUGAST
 Find |  Login 
 Full | Summary | Threaded | Show attachments  Show only new entries   2636 Entries 
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12 ... 130, 131, 132   Next  
Status ExpNbr Date Author Type Category Target-Source Subjectdown
Fixede768s Wed Jul 24 14:41:09 2019 mugastRUNGeneralN/AVAMOS divison 30
VAMOs division is set to 30
Fixede768s Tue Jul 23 16:19:14 2019 MarlèneOTHERHardware VAMOS division
VAMOS division was set 10 instead of 100.
CATS 1 & CATS2 scalers are sent to the two last channels of the scaler
Fixede768s Fri Jul 26 15:47:17 2019 mugastVAMOSHardwareLiFVAMOS division
New VAMOS division : 10.
Fixede744s Thu Apr 11 02:36:15 2019 Daniele, AndreaVAMOSGeneralN/AVAMOS cfg
VAMOS BRO= 0.64050 Phi= 45 Dtrans= 0.66m T-xFoc=7.995m
Objects Name Settings Actual
VAMOS_FAIS_IN VAMOS_BRO_IN 0.640500 0.0
VAMOS_W_IN 4.934969 3.258E+36
VAMOS_ION_A 14.000 3.336E+36
VAMOS_ION_AM_IN 14.003074 0.0
VAMOS_ION_Q 7.00 0.0
VAMOS_ION_Z 7.00 0.0
G1_Q41 G1.G.Q41 170.713 170.776
G1_Q41_G -1.643 -1.643
G1_Q42 G1.G.Q42 251.022 251.112
G1_Q42_G 0.732 0.732
G1_DVFW G1.G.DVFW 0.00.0
G1_FW_HTPG1.G.FW.HTP 0.0 0.002
G1_FW_HTNG1.G.FW.HTN 0.0 0.002
G1_DVFW_HALL G1.G.DVFW.HALL 0.00.0
G1_D41G1.G.D4.P215.598216.160
G1.G.D41.RMN 3249.6303249.630
Fixede793s Wed Mar 17 07:18:39 2021 Laetitia, CharlieONLINEGeneralCD2VAMOS acquisition stopped
The acquisition on Vamos get stucked at 6h49. At 07:18, we stopped and started a new run (run 64)
Fixede793s Wed Mar 17 07:25:24 2021 Laetitia, CharlieONLINEGeneralCD2VAMOS acquisition stopped
Vamos acquisition get stucked at 6h49 (with 2 Gbit). We stopped and started a new run at 07h18 (Run #64)
Fixede768s Sat Jul 20 23:57:34 2019 DiegoOFFLINEGeneral VAMOS acceptance, comparison between 9+ and 10+ states
Figures above, simulation of VAMOS acceptance for 10+ and 9+ 19Ne charge states. Ratio between them quite big (0.58)
Figures below, comparison of the states with offline data. Ratio much smaller.
It seems like acceptance doesn't cut the 10+ charge state too much, but 10+ is less produced than 9+.
Fixede786s Sun Jun 23 09:06:29 2019 Daniele MVAMOSGeneralN/AVAMOS SETTINGS
attached the energy measured in CIME and the calculated VAMOS settings
Pinnede744s Wed Apr 10 11:57:37 2019 A. LemassonOFFLINESoftware VAMOS Conversion HowTo

HOW TO convert a run in VAMOS
  • Do : source $HOME/GoToVamosAna
  • To Convert a Run : MyVAna -d2Ar <RunNr>
  • Otherwise, If you want to convert a single file : MyVAna -d2Ar -f <Infile> <OutFile>
  • Output Root rile is written to : ./RootA/

If you encounter the error on Brho "Could not find the BrhoRef for the run <RunNr> ", Update the ./Calibs/ListBrho.dat file with relevant Brho for RunNr
Fixede786s Tue Jun 25 15:33:40 2019 A LemassonVAMOSGeneral VAMOS Analysis - Brho
VAMOS Analysis :
VAMOS PID with attached SetAlias.C

Suggestion to change Brho from 1.05 to 0.95 based on the distribution of K ions to optimize acceptance on the K
ions
Fixede768s Wed Jul 24 17:21:27 2019 DiegoOTHERGeneral VAMOS Acceptance with different positions of the beam in the target
Fixede793s Sun Mar 14 15:20:47 2021 AdrienOFFLINEGeneralCD2Updated Angular distribution macro
The angular distribution macro has been updated and now produce TWOFNR calculation on the fly.
Feel free to add new plots and play around with the parameter.
MakePlot will produce the distribution using Ex and sigmaEx of the state and Eg and sigmaG of the gamma. Efficiency is automatically taken into account using the efficiency provided by manu.
FIT will perform the TWOFNR calculation using The energy of the state, l and j of the transferred nucleon and J of the formed states. Once the calculation done, it does the fit to the data and extract the C2S.

I found the number strangely small so I suspect we do something wrong.

To run it:
Open a terminal
$> lpcgrit
$> npp MUGAST
$> cd e793s
$> root AngDist.C
Fixede768s Sun Jul 28 08:20:38 2019 Sylvain & FrancoRUNGeneral Update on possible restart
The problem that caused the interruption was due to a failure in the cooling system.
The last update we've had is that we might have the beam back not before late afternoon.
We will keep you updated.
Fixede768s Sun Jul 28 16:23:48 2019 NicolasRUNGeneral 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....
Ongoinge768s Sun Jul 28 19:58:57 2019 NicolasRUNGeneral Update on possible restart
Beam is now at the exit of CSS2 though We may have beam around midnight....
Fixede768s Sun Jul 28 21:59:43 2019 NicolasRUNGeneral Update on possible restart
Beam is in G1 with 3e6 pps. PCP will optimize for about 1-1,5h before we take the beam.
FixedTEST Wed Mar 11 18:12:40 2020 Marlène & FrancoGRITHardwareN/AUpdate on Mugast
(Probably) final update of the status of the detector before the experiment:

- MG5 does not trigger on Y (no pulser, no alpha source). This can explain why in the last experiment we could not run the time calibration of its Y.
- We changed kapton on MG7 but we still miss the same part of the detector. This points to a problem of the board...
- There is nothing we can do for the moment for MG11, the re-bounding would take too long. We will keep it like this.
- MUST2 detectors have higher current than usual but the signals from alpha source are fine.
- MM1 was changed but still shows the problem of the fluctuation of current. We also tried to change the HV supply (now it's on MG6) but nothing changes. This also seems to point to a problem of the board...
- We noted that, with circulation of alcool-water liquid (but no cooling), the temperature of MG7 is around 45 degrees, about 20 degrees higher than the other Mugast detectors.
Fixede786s Wed Jun 26 07:04:06 2019 FreddyCATSGeneralN/AUpdate of CATS calibrations
New calibrations in :
/home/mugast/analysis/nptool/Projects/calibration/cats/CATS2_X.vamos2019_e786s.npt
/home/mugast/analysis/nptool/Projects/calibration/cats/CATS2_X.vamos2019_e786s.npt

Calibration.txt was modified accordingly.
Attached are the CATS positions for run 56 and 58 (after the central strip problem)
Fixede793s Tue Mar 9 10:22:16 2021 mugastDAQHardwareN/AU2M scaler configuration
U2M

1-FAG
2-OR MM-MG
3-OR AGATA
4-TRIG VAMOS
5-CATS CLEAN
6-DT && OR MM-MG
7-100 Hz
8-100 Hz & DT
9-MUVI1
10-MUVI2
11-MUVI3
12-MUVI4
15-CATS2 direct
16- FINGER (unused)
Fixede768s Sat Jul 20 19:21:56 2019 Marlene, Nicolas, Christian, FairouzOFFLINEGeneral Trying to understand AGATA g-ray yields
goal: we want to check whether the yields of the 1297.7 keV (from 19Ne 1536, 3/2+, l=1 state) and 1340 keV (from 19Ne 1615, 3/2-, l=2 state) g-ray lines is compatible with what we expect from x-sec calculations

conditions: we consider runs 112, 115 and 116

observations:
N(1297) = 17 g-rays
N(1340) = 23 g-rays

remarks:
Given x-sec from mirror nucleus (Francois 15N(7Limt) paper) we expect N(1340) >~ N(1297)

ingredients:
1. beam normalization
We use the TAC_FPMW_HF as a proxy. During the same time we integrate the prompt peak and compare the integrated OR VAMOS scaler, we find Scaler(OR VAMOS)/N(TAC) = 193.
We use the comparison of the OR VAMOS (pps) and the beam profiler (pps), we find profiler/OR VAMOS = 1e4
We obtain (2.17e5 + 6.44e4 + 3.52e5)*193*1e4 = 1.2 e12 15O incident particles (at profiler position!)

2. target thickness -> known to be 1.25 mg/cm2 of LiF (RBS measurement)
N(Li) = 1.25e-3 / (19+7) * 6.02e23 at/cm2

3.efficiencies
AGATA @ 1.3 MeV -> 7.5 %
VAMOS intrinsic -> 67 % (Eff_Check.C macro applied to run 116)
MUGAST -> 50 % (lab, geometry), needed because MUGAST is the main trigger

4. 19Ne charge state
we assume 40 % for 9+

5. g-ray branching ratio -> taken from NNDC

6. cross-section
we calculate differential cross section for the 1536-keV 19Ne state (FRESCO, FR-DWBA)
-> at 0 deg, ds/dW =
-> integrated x-sec in VAMOS acceptance (4 deg (lab) -> 20 deg (cm)) = 445 micro barn (C2Sa = 1)
-> taking into account know spectroscopic factor form analog state -> 89 micro barn

Conclusion:
for the 1536-keV 19Ne state we obtain 30 g-rays, instead of 17.

Discussion:
This factor of two could be well within the mirror symmetry assumption. However it seems it is also the case for the 1615-keV 19Ne state, so would not it be a systematic error with a factor of two missing somewhere (beam transmission between the profiler and the target? deficiencies?)?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12 ... 130, 131, 132   Next  

ELOG Home Page