| Status |
ExpNbr |
Date |
Author |
Type |
Category |
Target-Source |
Subject |
| Fixed | e768s |
Mon Jul 22 17:54:49 2019 |
Christian and Jeremie | AGATA | General | LiF | Comparison EGamma 19Ne, Q8 vs Q9 |
1) Beam velocity from VAMOS for AGATA doppler correction. Beta is understandable for the three main charge states seen (with Q9 and Q10 as the transfer states, and centroid shifted higher for Q10 state, possibly because of reduced acceptance for the very high-lying states.
2) Entire doppler corrected gamma-ray spectrum. Blue is transfer (Q9), red is fusion evaporation (Q8). 1880 keV line only seen in fusion evaporation as expected, 13/2+ state.
3) Zoom at the region around 2.5 MeV. Note that |
| Attachment 1: 15.png
|
|
| Attachment 2: 59.png
|
|
| Attachment 3: 27.png
|
|
| Fixed | e768s |
Mon Jul 22 08:23:02 2019 |
Christian - Bertrand, Sylvain, Frank, Francois | BEAM | General | LiF | Beam adjustment notes |
| Adjustment of beam position, moved up by approximately 15mm on VAMOS FP, down by 2mm on target. AGATA rate reduced to normal, about 4k after 5 min equilibration, no substantial satellite seen in direct beam on VAMOS FP. See separate entry for detailed discussion. Note, however that while beam intensity measurement is 2.1e7, VAMOS trigger on reaction setting is approximately 1100. |
| Attachment 1: 26C24EB9-097B-4078-8E8F-95BB07B0847A.jpeg
|
|
| Fixed | e768s |
Sat Jul 20 11:33:01 2019 |
Christian | OTHER | General | | Previous Papers - gamma decays from states in the 4-MeV region |
This search was triggered by our lack of seeing the 3958keV line at the expected level. 2689 keV line observed (runs 112,115,116) as 55-60 counts. Expected yield in 3958 keV line based on 80:20 branching and 1.5:1.0 efficiency is 10 counts. We see (at most) 2 in the full photo-peak for this line. (Theses two counts are also lower than expected by about 20 keV.)
The 4.20 MeV to 0.24MeV line in the attached spectrum (p. 2 of J.M.Davidson & M.L.Roush) is one of three spectra by them, on which this branching ratio was based. With the level of detail in these spectra, I think it is fair to question this result. NNDC and TUNL data for branching ratios of this state is entirely based on this paper.
Action: other branching ratios in this region should be checked in this paper to see whether there could be other dubious branchings. |
| Attachment 1: 1-s2.0-0375947473901541-main.pdf
|
|
| Fixed | e768s |
Sat Jul 20 12:06:00 2019 |
Christian | OTHER | General | | Previous Papers - gamma decays from states in the 4-MeV region |
| Further to the previous post on gamma-ray lines, attached is Kanungo's paper on doppler-attenuation measurement of the 4033 line for lifetime measurement. The lower-energy lines are, however, not included in the figures. |
| Attachment 1: Phys.Rev.C_2006_Kanungo.pdf
|
|
| Fixed | e768s |
Sat Jul 20 12:57:41 2019 |
Christian | OTHER | General | | Previous Papers - gamma decays from states in the 4-MeV region |
2019 paper by Hall, Bardayan, et al., gamma decays of 4.14 and 4.20 states, g-g-t triple coincidences.
Abstract:
The 15O(α,γ)19Ne reaction is responsible for breakout from the hot CNO cycle in Type I x-ray bursts. Understanding the properties of resonances between Ex = 4 and 5 MeV in 19Ne is crucial in the calculation of this reaction rate. The spins and parities of these states are well known, with the exception of the 4.14- and 4.20-MeV states, which have adopted spin-parities of 9/2− and 7/2−, re- spectively. Gamma-ray transitions from these states were studied using triton-γ-γ coincidences from the 19F(3He,tγ)19Ne reaction measured with GODDESS (Gammasphere ORRUBA Dual Detectors for Experimental Structure Studies) at Argonne National Laboratory. The observed transitions from the 4.14- and 4.20-MeV states provide strong evidence that the Jπ values are actually 7/2− and 9/2−, respectively. These assignments are consistent with the values in the 19F mirror nucleus and in contrast to previously accepted assignments.
Noteworthy is that they also don't observe the 3.96MeV transition from the 4.20MeV state, consistent with our observations.
No data is given on the 4.033 MeV state [potentially see further discussion in the corresponding PhD thesis].
From the data, however, it would seem that the (3He,t) reaction does not really populate the 4033 state [otherwise, the 4033 transition should have been seen in Figure 4]. |
| Attachment 1: 1904.00603.pdf
|
|
| Fixed | e768s |
Sun Jul 21 10:58:39 2019 |
Christian | AGATA | General | LiF | 13c resync |
13c resync at 10.57
lost 5 min agata data |
| Fixed | e768s |
Sun Jul 21 17:57:08 2019 |
Christian | OTHER | General | | Previous Papers - gamma decays from states in the 4-MeV region |
In comment to previous entry (see thread), on the 2019 Hall paper on 19Ne transitions:
Note that Fig 4.c is described as: Gated on the 238-keV 5/2+ to ground-state transition. The 3897.5-keV transition from the 4141.8-keV state is observed for the first time. This means the spectrum is designed such that it wold not show the 4033 transition. Therefore, whether they are sensitive to this is an open question. See also PhD thesis of Hall for further details? |
| 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. |
| Attachment 1: IMG_1065.JPG
|
|
| Attachment 2: IMG_1064.JPG
|
|
| Fixed | e768s |
Mon Jul 22 10:10:02 2019 |
Christian | OTHER | General | | Previous Papers - alpha-branching ratios for states in the 4-MeV region |
Branching ratio data overview from Tan et al. (PRL 2007, attached):
Ex/MeV B_alpha
4.03 2.9(21)e-4
4.14/4.20 1.2(5)e-3
4.38 1.2(3)e-3
4.55 0.07(2)
In the spectra so far, we are very clearly seeing the 4.14/4.20 MeV doublet. We may also be seeing some indication of the 4.38, 4.55 and/or 4.60 MeV states above 4 MeV (4.14, 4.27, and 4.36 MeV respectively, as dominant lines). Note that we have no alpha-branching-ratio data for the 4.60MeV state, and that most likely the gamma-ray events we currently see above 4MeV are the 4.14MeV and 4.36MeV lines (4.38 and 4.60 MeV states).
Comments to lifetimes from Mythili et al., (PRC 2008, attached). The relevant lifetimes are for the states between 4.14 and 4.55. Only dominant errors are given, for details, see attached table:
Pre-2008 Mythili
Ex/MeV lifetime/fs lifetime/fs
4.14 18(+2/-3) 14(4)
4.20 43(+12/-9) 38(+20/-10)
4.38 5(+3/-2) <5.4 (95% CL)
4.55 15(+11/-5) 19(4)
In combination:
4.38 MeV: Branching ratio is fairly well known. Lifetime is very poorly known, if at all. We have 7 counts so far (provisional), in the 4.14 MeV peak after about 3 days of beam on target.
4.55 MeV: Branching ratio is fairly well known. Lifetime is fairly well known, but it is not clear that we see this decay.
4.14/4.20: Lifetimes is known reasonably well for 4.14, poorly for 4.20, and differ by about a factor of 2-4 (within error). Branching ratio is only known in combination between the two. This complicates normalisation to these two states greatly, as we would in principle have to assume any combination of this contribution from 4.14, 4.20, or combined. In their paper (Tan 2007), they do state for this measurement that: "The measured􏰑 peak [in the alpha-spectrum] seems to be lower in energy than the simulated one, indicating that these decay events are more likely from the 4.14-MeV state.". Looking at the spectrum they refer to, however, I would not say that this is in any way a clear cut argument (and they do state it with some hesitation).
In summary: because of the overlap of the 4.14 and 4.20 states in the branching ratio data [which I should admit that I had missed when investigating the previous data and results earlier] it will be much harder than expected to cross check normalisation of the data based on the observed lifetimes and alpha branching ratios for 19Ne resonances.
|
| Attachment 1: Phys.Rev.Lett._2007_Tan.pdf
|
|
| Attachment 2: Phys.Rev.C_2008_Mythili.pdf
|
|
| Attachment 3: Screen_Shot_2019-07-22_at_10.24.24.png
|
|
| Attachment 4: Screen_Shot_2019-07-22_at_10.43.17.png
|
|
| Fixed | e768s |
Tue Jul 23 12:00:25 2019 |
Christian | BEAM | General | LiF | Profiler and beam current scaling since 11;10 |
| See also AGATA elog and run-log entry |
| Fixed | e768s |
Wed Jul 24 22:10:04 2019 |
Chloé, Yorick | ONLINE | General | LiF | Spectra Run 135 24/07/19 22:00 |
|
| Attachment 1: MG_ETOF_run135.png
|
|
| Attachment 2: MM_deE_run135.png
|
|
| Attachment 3: MM_ETOF_run135.png
|
|
| Attachment 4: MGimpact_run135.png
|
|
| Attachment 5: MMimpact_run135.png
|
|
| Attachment 6: Scalers-run135.png
|
|
| Fixed | e775s |
Fri Feb 28 00:35:02 2020 |
Chloé, Franck, Michal | ONLINE | General | CD2 | MUGAST Spectra |
|
| Attachment 1: RUN143_ana_Elab_Thetalab_0h32.png
|
|
| Attachment 2: RUN143_impact_0h30.png
|
|
| Attachment 3: RUN143_tac_0h32.png
|
|
| Attachment 4: RUN143_tof_0h31.png
|
|
| Fixed | e775s |
Thu Feb 27 19:29:24 2020 |
Chloé, Franck | ONLINE | General | CD2 | MUGAST Spectra |
|
| Attachment 1: RUN143_ana_Elab_Thetalab_19h23.png
|
|
| Attachment 2: RUN143_impact_19h24.png
|
|
| Attachment 3: RUN143_tac_19h25.png
|
|
| Attachment 4: RUN143_tof_19h26.png
|
|
| Fixed | e744s |
Sun Apr 14 00:06:05 2019 |
Chloé, Fairouz, Sylvain, Damien | RUN | General | CH2 | Log & Scalers -- Run 122 at 00:06 |
|
| Attachment 1: run122_1_scalers_v12.png
|
|
| Attachment 2: run122_1_Mugast_10_8.png
|
|
| Attachment 3: run122_1_Mugast_10_7.png
|
|
| Attachment 4: run122_1_Mugast_10_6.png
|
|
| Attachment 5: run122_1_Mugast_10_5.png
|
|
| Attachment 6: run122_1_Mugast_10_4.png
|
|
| Attachment 7: run122_1_Mugast_10_3.png
|
|
| Attachment 8: run122_1_Mugast_10_2.png
|
|
| Attachment 9: run122_1_Mugast_10_1.png
|
|
| Attachment 10: run122_Vamos10_11.png
|
|
| Attachment 11: run122_Vamos10_10.png
|
|
| Attachment 12: run122_Vamos10_9.png
|
|
| Attachment 13: run122_Vamos10_8.png
|
|
| Attachment 14: run122_Vamos10_7.png
|
|
| Attachment 15: run122_Vamos10_6.png
|
|
| Attachment 16: run122_Vamos10_5.png
|
|
| Attachment 17: run122_Vamos10_4.png
|
|
| Attachment 18: run122_Vamos10_3.png
|
|
| Attachment 19: run122_Vamos10_2.png
|
|
| Attachment 20: run122_Vamos10_1.png
|
|
| Fixed | e768s |
Tue Jul 16 21:30:19 2019 |
Chloe Fougeres | OTHER | General | LiF | PACE4 fusion-evaporation |
| Simulated yields with beams 15N and 15O (4.7 MeV/u) on target LiF. |
| Attachment 1: fusion_evaporation_7Li.png
|
|
| Attachment 2: fusion_evaporation_19F.png
|
|
| Fixed | e793s |
Sat Mar 13 13:46:42 2021 |
Chloe F. | OFFLINE | General | CD2 | analysis gg |
> > Up to now data (run 46-51-52-53-55-56-60-61-62)
Decays seen from level scheme:
3- (451,280)keV
0- (1344,143)keV
2- (3522,143)keV
1- (1272,143)keV
? 997keV coin. with 143keV => apparent on second gate projection plot
? 3440keV coin. with 143keV ? |
| Attachment 1: gg_e793s_gat.png
|
|
| Attachment 2: gg_e793s_gat_2.png
|
|
| Fixed | e768s |
Mon Jul 29 02:45:22 2019 |
Chloe & Teodora | RUN | General | LiF | Screenshots run 156_1 |
|
| Attachment 1: Tab8_run156_1.png
|
|
| Attachment 2: IC_IC_run156_1.png
|
|
| Attachment 3: REC_run156_1.png
|
|
| Attachment 4: TACS_run156_1.png
|
|
| Attachment 5: IC_run156_1.png
|
|
| Attachment 6: MW_run156_1.png
|
|
| Attachment 7: DC_E_run156_1.png
|
|
| Attachment 8: DC_Y_run156_1.png
|
|
| Attachment 9: DC_X_run156_1.png
|
|
| Attachment 10: Tab_10_run156_1.png
|
|
| Attachment 11: Tab_9_run156_1.png
|
|
| Attachment 12: Tab_8_run156_1.png
|
|
| Attachment 13: Correlations_run156_1.png
|
|
| Attachment 14: TAC_run156_1.png
|
|
| Attachment 15: MG_ToF_run156_1.png
|
|
| Attachment 16: MM_DeE_run156_1.png
|
|
| Attachment 17: MM_ToF_run156_1.png
|
|
| Attachment 18: MG_IMPACT_MATRIX_run156_1.png
|
|
| Attachment 19: MM_IMPACT_MATRIX_run156_1.png
|
|
| Attachment 20: Scalers_run156_1.png
|
|
| Fixed | e768s |
Mon Jul 29 04:38:32 2019 |
Chloe & Teodora | RUN | General | LiF | Beam |
| Low beam intensity from 4h30 am. |
| Attachment 1: Scales_run156_2.png
|
|
| Fixed | e768s |
Mon Jul 29 07:16:39 2019 |
Chloe & Teodora | RUN | General | LiF | Screenshots run 156_2 |
|
| Attachment 1: Tab10_run156_2.png
|
|
| Attachment 2: Tab9_run156_2.png
|
|
| Attachment 3: Tab8_run156_2.png
|
|
| Attachment 4: Correlation_run156_2.png
|
|
| Attachment 5: TAC_run156_2.png
|
|
| Attachment 6: MG_ToF_run156_2.png
|
|
| Attachment 7: MM_DeE_run156_2.png
|
|
| Attachment 8: MM_ToF_run156_2.png
|
|
| Attachment 9: MG_IMPACT_MATRIX_run156_2.png
|
|
| Attachment 10: MM_IMPACT_MATRIX_run156_2.png
|
|
| Attachment 11: Tab_8_run156_2.png
|
|
| Attachment 12: IC_IC_run156_2.png
|
|
| Attachment 13: REC_run156_2.png
|
|
| Attachment 14: TACS_run156_2.png
|
|
| Attachment 15: IC_run156_2.png
|
|
| Attachment 16: MW_run156_2.png
|
|
| Attachment 17: DC_E_run156_2.png
|
|
| Attachment 18: DC_Y_run156_2.png
|
|
| Attachment 19: DC-X_run156_2.png
|
|
| Attachment 20: Scales_run156_ébis.png
|
|
| Fixed | e793s |
Fri Mar 12 19:15:19 2021 |
Charlie, Nigel (watched by Wilton) | RUN | General | CD2 | Beam alignment tuning |
During part of run #61, Nigel tuned the beam alignment (using the MUST2 hit pattern as the diagnostic). The beam had shifted after the restarting of the ISOL TIS. The beam came back at around 18:30 and tuning finished at 19:15.
** Disregard the data from this run between ~17:15 (beam lost) and 19:15 (tuning finished).
The run should be OK after 19:15.
** Don't tell Bertrand that Nigel used the d*p*le ... |