Fixed, e744s, Tue Apr 16 17:51:33 2019, Fairouz & Marlène, RUN, General, Carbon, Log and scalers RUN 134 @ 17h52 20x
|
|
|
Fixed, e793s, Thu Mar 11 21:14:26 2021, Fairouz & Franco, OFFLINE, General, CD2, Plots run 51-56
|
Top left: kinematic plot with the main levels observed. The orange lines are (d,p), (d,t), (d,d) and (12C,12C) reactions by 47Ti. The yellow line is 47K(p,p), the green line 47K(d,d).
Top right: in black Ex spectrum with gate on VAMOS, in red with also the gate on a gamma and scaled by a factor 3 for better comparison.
Bottom left: Egamma vs Ex with gate on VAMOS.
Bottom right: Egamma with gate on VAMOS. |
|
Fixed, com2019, Fri Apr 5 23:32:29 2019, Fairouz, CATS, General, CD2, Electronic changes
|
CATS detectors were removed.
For the MUVI stop, we send now HF propre.
The CATS1 signals sent to different TACS are now the HF signal |
|
Fixed, e793s, Mon Mar 15 11:45:42 2021, Emmanuel, Chloé, OFFLINE, General, CD2, 48K level scheme from gg analysis
|
|
|
Ongoing, e793s, Fri Mar 12 12:58:10 2021, Emmanuel C, OFFLINE, General, , Gamma Gamma Analysis 7x
|
|
|
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 |
|
Ongoing, e793s, Wed Mar 17 15:17:39 2021, Emmanuel C, OFFLINE, General, , New gamma gamma analysis
|
The level scheme is based on coherent check of
1- gamma gamma
2- gamma gated by Ex
3- Ex gated by gamma |
|
Fixed, e793s, Thu Mar 18 16:25:56 2021, Emmanuel C, OFFLINE, General, , Efficiency gamma AGATA --- real measurement run70
|
| 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, e768s, Sat Jul 13 16:28:30 2019, Diego Ramos, OTHER, General, N/A, Proton ToF from VAMOS ToF reconstruction
|
Comparison between the Proton ToF measured directly with the TAC between MUST and CATS (left) and the one recontructed from the time diference between the time MUGAST-VAMOS and the time Target-VAMOS (recontructed from the Brho) (right)
The resolution of the recontructed time looks slightly degraded with respect to the direct measurement but it is certainly much better than using the HF. Still, the resolution of the reconstructed time may be improved with a fine alignment of the different sections of the PPAC and with a better selection of the M/q in VAMOS. |
|
Fixed, e768s, Fri Jul 19 15:15:47 2019, Diego Ramos, OFFLINE, General, LiF, 19Ne identification in VAMOS together with MUGAST
|
|
|
Fixed, e768s, Fri Jul 19 15:18:38 2019, Diego Ramos, OFFLINE, General, LiF, Position of 19Ne in dE:E in VAMOS
|
| Conclusion: IC pressure not needed to be reduced. |
|
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, e744s, Thu Apr 11 06:38:12 2019, Diego, VAMOS, Hardware, , TACS modification
|
+300 ns of delay in the HF validated signal that gives the STOP of T_FPMW_HF && T_CATS2_HF.
Range of TAC FPMW_CATS2 increased to 1us. |
|
Fixed, e744s, Fri Apr 12 22:00:42 2019, Diego, TARGET, General, , very different target thickness
|
|
|
Fixed, e744s, Sat Apr 13 20:16:05 2019, Diego, VAMOS, General, , Vamos Efficiency
|
***************************************RUN 118************************************************
Forward (condition by before)
IC 0 95.6667%
IC 1 95.4542%
IC 2 95.513%
IC 3 93.2396%
----------------------
Backward (condition by after)
IC 1 95.9352%
IC 2 94.2267%
IC 3 96.2866%
IC 4 83.0393% //not reliable
----------------------
DC (condition by IC[0])
DC 0 93.0557%
DC 1 92.6187%
DC 2 88.9858%
DC 3 96.6774%
----------------------
DC X (condition by IC[0])
DCX0 93.707%
DCX1 93.0192%
DCX2 94.2166%
DCX3 94.1586%
----------------------
Xf (condition by IC[0])
Xf 95.0046%
----------------------
***************************************RUN 119************************************************
Forward (condition by before)
IC 0 95.2904%
IC 1 95.071%
IC 2 94.9271%
IC 3 93.1055%
----------------------
Backward (condition by after)
IC 1 95.0696%
IC 2 91.6524%
IC 3 90.644%
IC 4 81.9769% //not reliable
----------------------
DC (condition by IC[0])
DC 0 90.7155%
DC 1 90.3863%
DC 2 87.0165%
DC 3 94.7584%
----------------------
DC X (condition by IC[0])
DCX0 88.1504%
DCX1 87.6396%
DCX2 88.7515%
DCX3 88.2139%
----------------------
Xf (condition by IC[0])
Xf 83.22%
----------------------
***************************************RUN 122_0************************************************
Forward (condition by before)
IC 0 95.2443%
IC 1 95.2177%
IC 2 94.8111%
IC 3 92.0637%
----------------------
Backward (condition by after)
IC 1 95.3114%
IC 2 91.8716%
IC 3 90.9907%
IC 4 79.8954% //not reliable
----------------------
DC (condition by IC[0])
DC 0 87.9765%
DC 1 87.8112%
DC 2 83.8229%
DC 3 93.3538%
----------------------
DC X (condition by IC[0])
DCX0 86.4654%
DCX1 86.8069%
DCX2 87.0654%
DCX3 86.5511%
----------------------
Xf (condition by IC[0])
Xf 80.1623%
----------------------
***************************************RUN 122_1************************************************
Forward (condition by before)
IC 0 94.9153%
IC 1 94.9217%
IC 2 94.5962%
IC 3 91.8891%
----------------------
Backward (condition by after)
IC 1 95.0787%
IC 2 91.7874%
IC 3 91.1441%
IC 4 79.9685% //not reliable
----------------------
DC (condition by IC[0])
DC 0 87.4807%
DC 1 87.3732%
DC 2 83.3638%
DC 3 92.8772%
----------------------
DC X (condition by IC[0])
DCX0 85.8206%
DCX1 86.2137%
DCX2 86.5489%
DCX3 85.9571%
----------------------
Xf (condition by IC[0])
Xf 79.0635%
----------------------
There is a continuous decrease of efficiency in the Drift Chamber. The efficiency of IC is also not optimal. I suspect that with this beam intensity (5x10^4 in VAMOS) detectors may start to suffer some damage. If the efficiency keeps decreasing we need to consider to reduce the beam intensity.
In order to check the efficiency, there is a script in /home/mugast/Analysis_e744 called EffCheck.C
Open a root file: root -l RootA/r0XXX_XXXa.root
Load the script: .L EffCheck.C
Launch the script: EffCheck() (the calculation is automatic) |
|
Fixed, e744s, Sat Apr 13 22:40:00 2019, Diego, VAMOS, General, , Saturation in the WIRES of Drift chamber due to Pile-Up
|
| There is Saturation in the Energy of the WIRES due to the Pile-up, it is not urgent to correct it because these parameters are not needed for the reconstruction. Tomorrow morning, when stopping the run, we should change the offsets in NUMEXO in order to better allocate the amplitude of the signals. |
|
Fixed, e768s, Sat Jul 20 23:57:34 2019, Diego, OFFLINE, General, , 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+. |
|
Fixed, e768s, Wed Jul 24 17:21:27 2019, Diego, OTHER, General, , VAMOS Acceptance with different positions of the beam in the target
|
|
|
Fixed, e768s, Sun Jul 21 09:10:50 2019, Didier & Nicolas, BEAM, General, N/A, Beam intensity check
|
| Jenn & Franck wrote: | OR Vamos: 1300 /s
Vamos gas profiler: 1.7x10^7 pps |
OR VAMOS: ~ 1280 Hz
VAMOS gas profiler: 1.7e7 pps |
|
|
|