| Emmanuel C wrote: |
TF1 *fit_1 = new TF1("fit_1","TMath::Exp([0]+[1]*TMath::Log(x)+[2]*pow(TMath::Log(x),2.0)+[3]*pow(TMath::Log(x),3.0)+[4]*pow(TMath::Log(x),4.0))",10,5000); //NRJ traite en keV et efficiency en %
Data
40.000000 3.404000 0.070000
45.000000 6.512000 0.150000
121.782997 14.250000 0.300000
244.692001 11.880000 0.270000
295.938995 11.870000 0.500000
344.276001 11.170000 0.240000
411.114990 9.926000 0.330000
443.976013 11.050000 0.290000
778.903015 8.007000 0.180000
867.388000 7.562000 0.240000
964.130981 7.492000 0.180000
1085.800049 7.110000 0.160000
1112.115967 6.956000 0.150000
1212.949951 6.113000 0.190000
1408.010986 6.157000 0.130000
p0 -9.87216e+01
p1 6.98517e+01
p2 -1.78362e+01
p3 2.00526e+00
p4 -8.41808e-02 |
| Fixed | e793s |
Tue Mar 23 10:22:48 2021 |
Emmanuel C | OFFLINE | General | | Efficiency gamma AGATA --- real measurement run70 |
I have been working on the high energy response.
The point is that we do not have source measurement beyond 2 MeV to constrain the fit.
In the attached file, the experimental points are the measured from run 70 in 152Eu source. The fit is then extrapolated up to high energy.
I have simulated the efficiency at 3.5 MeV in GEANT4 including real geometry, missing channels, unefficiency of capsules etc.... The overall agreement was checked on the 1408 line. The 3.5 MeV simulated point is shown. It disagrees strongly with the extrapolation. The blue fit includes the simulated point. It doesn't change the efficiency evaluation < 1.5 MeV but correct the high energy response.
Below, updated parameters
p0 -6.34543e+01
p1 4.24746e+01
p2 -1.00304e+01
p3 1.03468e+00
p4 -3.97076e-02
TF1 *fit_1 = new TF1("fit_1","TMath::Exp([0]+[1]*TMath::Log(x)+[2]*pow(TMath::Log(x),2.0)+[3]*pow(TMath::Log(x),3.0)+[4]*pow(TMath::Log(x),4.0))",10,5000); //NRJ traite en keV |
| Fixed | e793s |
Sat Mar 13 18:37:01 2021 |
Emmanuel C | OFFLINE | General | | Efficiency gamma AGATA |
TF1 *fit_1 = new TF1("fit_1","TMath::Exp([0]+[1]*TMath::Log(x)+[2]*pow(TMath::Log(x),2.0)+[3]*pow(TMath::Log(x),3.0)+[4]*pow(TMath::Log(x),4.0))",100,5000); //NRJ traite en keV et efficiency en %
p0 -7.84071e+00
p1 6.44921e+00
p2 -1.42899e+00
p3 1.37921e-01
p4 -5.23947e-03
***********
NRJ [keV] Efficiency error
121.783 0.143761475 0.005
244.692 0.122798778 0.005
295.939 0.131862526 0.005
344.276 0.114579644 0.005
411.115 0.104552282 0.005
443.976 0.115191953 0.005
778.903 0.084839908 0.005
867.388 0.080134749 0.005
964.131 0.078317829 0.005
1085.8 0.076984012 0.005
1112.116 0.07509105 0.005
1299.124 0.068999483 0.005
1408.011 0.066932321 0.005 |
| Pinned | e793s |
Tue Mar 9 09:35:18 2021 |
Adrien | OTHER | General | N/A | E793s proposal |
| Attached is the proposal of the experiment. |
| Fixed | e744s |
Mon Apr 8 08:30:50 2019 |
iulian | OTHER | General | N/A | E744s to-do list , proposal and other relevant documents |
To do list
- ask final beam energy for the 14O beam (include CATS removal)-> E=7.60 MeV/u Done
- Mount CATS timing (much thinner) at Cats1 position -> no need -> Cats stay as they are
- make a hole target, diameter = 7 mm, thick target (Al?) Done
- dismount targets with gloves due to the contamination done
- mount targets (list ..… + hole target)
Target list ( Hole Target, 104 um CH2 , 100 um CH2, C target 75 um, 104 um CH2 ) done
- remove the Vamos entrance DCs done
- install the VAMOS finger, larger one, no need to change finger, stay as it is
- Id plots with Vamos
- to mount / or not a MCP -> we stay with cats
- Prepare Agata Or - HFpropre and Agata 52 – HFpropre for beam intensity monitoring.
- Solve the MM3 EY problems (see previous elog entry)
- Understand Vamos (40% efficency) (advances) and Agata efficiency (5% efficiency Agata instead of 10%) (seams that maximum efficiency is 8%-9%, despite having 10 % for Europium) for 2H(16O,p)17O
- Make an acq run with Mugast in air to understand if detectors contaminated done with conclusion ??
You will find:
E744s.pdf last infos about E744
Proposal__15F_6.pdf the proposal as it was for 2018 Lise run
time_request_E744.pdf time request for Vamos-Agata run |
| Fixed | e744s |
Mon Apr 8 15:17:28 2019 |
François | TARGET | General | | E744 Targets |
Targets mounted on holder
N°1 Hole Diam=7 mm
N°2 CH2 104 µm => 9.67 mg/cm2 (polyethylene density = 0.93 g/cm3) Georges@2018
N°3 CH2 100 µm Goodfellow (polyethylene)
N°4 Carbon 75 µm => 6.75 < thick < 9.75 mg/cm2 (Graphite flexible, density 0,9-1,3 g/cm3) Goodfellow
N°5 CH2 73 µm Georges@2019
N°6 CH2 104 µm Georges@2019 |
| Fixed | e744s |
Wed Apr 10 11:46:04 2019 |
iulian | BEAM | Social | N/A | E744 Status |
Refrigeration problem, beam stopped.
Optimistic estimation: they need 1 UT to setup CIME => 14N could be back around 20h.
Optimistic scenario still on track
Then need 2 UT's to set CSS1 -> 14O next day around 18h
No shifts until 24h00 (midnight) today.
Shift to resume 11/04 @00h00
18h30 14N beam is back. |
| Fixed | e744s |
Fri Apr 12 13:34:33 2019 |
iulian | OTHER | General | N/A | E744 Status |
1) Beam tuning during the night.
2) around 04h00 started runs at 4e+4
3) beam intensity decreased to 1e+4 @7h30 in the morning.
4) Vamos tuning at 8h
5) run low intensity at 12h30 et high intensity (1e+4) @13h.
6) @13h give the beam to PCP to increase the beam intensity. First IBE measurement
7) If beam I<5e+4 measure directly in Vamos
8) If beam I>5e+4 we have to cut in part the beam in Vamos or not use Vamos
|
| Fixed | e768s |
Thu Jul 18 11:52:59 2019 |
Marlčne | OTHER | Hardware | N/A | Division of SQUARE & MUST2 |
MUST2 DIV is now 10 (input 7 of GMT)
The OR of the squares is divided by 10 and goes to channel 9 of GMT. |
| Fixed | e744s |
Mon Apr 15 01:06:57 2019 |
Freddy | BEAM | General | N/A | Dipole trip |
| A dipole tripped somewhere on the line, the operators put it back to value very quickly. Interruption of the beam for 2 minutes at 1h06. |
| Fixed | e786s |
Fri Jun 28 09:56:59 2019 |
Bertrand, Valerian and Adrien | BEAM | General | N/A | Dipole stopped in the morning? |
| Dipole restart at 10. Shoudl be checked with time stamp. |
| Fixed | e768s |
Tue Jul 23 15:03:54 2019 |
Diego Ramos | OTHER | Hardware | N/A | Diamond threshold |
| The threshold of the Diamond was increased from ~50 mV to ~300 mV |
| Fixed | e768s |
Sun Jul 21 17:59:04 2019 |
Christian | VAMOS | Hardware | LiF | Diamond detector trigger level and rate dependency |
The diamond detector has tended to increase in rate when it is hot (peaking late afternoon) and decreasing when it is cold (with a minimum just before sun-rise). Some of the rate could therefore be temperature dependent noise levels rising above the trigger threshold.
We are currently triggering around 70mV, far below the peak signal value of 1.4V (by about a factor of 20). While we cannot expect to see most of them at the peak value because of poor resolution and potentially different particle energies, we should expect the vast majority of real heavy-ion signals to fall above 1/4 of the peak height. When we go into the vault on Tuesday, we should therefore raise the thresholds by about a factor of 5, to see whether this stabilises the rate.
Irrespective of this, with the beam deposited so far from the detector as is the case, we should only see halo and/or reaction products, and we would not be able to use this as a beam intensity monitor, irrespective of performance. At best as a beam-quality monitor. |
| Fixed | e768s |
Tue Jul 23 04:31:34 2019 |
Jenn & Christian | BEAM | General | | Diamond Scaler screenshot |
|
| Fixed | |
Fri Jan 25 17:02:25 2019 |
Marlčne | GRIT | General | | Detectors numbering |
|
| Fixed | |
Fri Feb 15 15:31:28 2019 |
Marlène | GRIT | General | N/A | Detectors bias |
|
| Fixed | TEST |
Thu Mar 12 10:14:02 2020 |
Marlčne & Franco | GRIT | Hardware | N/A | Debugging the cooling system |
We realized that the increase of temperature of MG7 and MG9 during run 600 (alpha calibration) was due to the fact that a loop of the cooling system was not working since the pipes were not properly connected. We re-connected them and switched on the low voltage without making the vacuum just to monitor the evolution of the temperature.
Temperature after 10 minutes from the LV switch on:
MG1 X = 20 deg; MG1 Y = 18 deg
MG3 X = 20 deg; MG3 Y = 19 deg
MG4 X = 19 deg; MG4 Y = 17 deg
MG5 X = 21 deg; MG5 Y = 19 deg
MG7 X = 20 deg; MG7 Y = 18 deg
MG2 X = 20 deg; MG2 Y = 19 deg
MG11 X = 20 deg; MG11 Y = 19 deg
MG9 X = 56 deg; MG9 Y = 26 deg --> We believe that we cannot really trust these values, they didn't change since yesterday evening and the board is cold (we touched it)
MM1 X = 18 deg; MM1 Y = 18 deg
MM2 X = 18 deg; MM2 Y = 18 deg
MM3 X = 18 deg; MM3 Y = 18 deg
MM4 X = 19 deg; MM4 Y = 18 deg |