ELOG MUGAST

MUST2 SAMURAI_2018 S3-LEB-LPC SUPERNEMO MUGAST EXPAND SCALP GALATRON HiCARI VELO

MUGAST, Page 12 of 132

Not logged in

Find | Login

Full | Summary | Threaded | Hide attachments

2636 Entries

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 11, 12, 13 ... 130, 131, 132 Next

Sat Jul 20 23:32:44 2019

Sylvain Fairouz

OFFLINE

General

Trying to understand AGATA g-ray yields

Marlene, Nicolas, Christian, Fairouz wrote:

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?)?

We have investigated quickly the 15N(7Li,t)19F reaction based on run 0072. (gamma spectrum corresponding to all run data and with doppler correction with beta 0.08 can be found in /data/mugastX/mugast/acquisition/root/Run72_19Fe_8p.root)

To simplify the analysis the TS were restricted from 46000s to 52000s (/data/mugastX/mugast/acquisition/root/Run72_19Fe_8p_TSGate.root). The beam intentisty was assumed constant and equal to 1.e8 pps (for a total of 6.e11 beam like particle)

The 3/2+ and 3/2- states in 19F produce respectively 1356keV and 1348keV gamma. Counts were estimated roughly with double gaussian fit to be equal to
I(1348) = 21.9 counts
I(1256) = 16.4 counts

Assuming all others parameters are comparable with the previous analysis the counting obtained seems consistent with the measured Salpha=0,2 in previous experiment, Everything seems ok based on this very rough first analysis

Fixed

TEST

Tue Mar 10 11:05:40 2020

Trip in the cooling system after e775s experiment

In the weekend after the experiment e775s (7-8 March 2020) a problem with the cooling system of Mugast occurred. In particular, in the morning of Saturday 7th around 12h the cooling system tripped and some detectors remained switched on until Monday 9th in the morning. After a check, it looks like all Mugast detectors are ok except MG6, which cannot be biased anymore.
The alpha calibration run of the weekend (run_0193) is divided into 55 runs. Runs from .0 to .11 can be safely used for the post-experiment alpha calibration, those from .12 to .54 are probably useless to this aim.
In the first attachment is the evolution of the DSSD energy (of all telescopes together because it's the calibrated energy) for run .12, that started on Saturday 7th at 11.43 and ended at 12.55. At the end of the run it is evident that something wrong is going on with the detectors. In the following runs this behaviour is confirmed and going even worse.
In the second attachment is the evolution of the DSSD energy for MG6 and for MG1 in run .13, so right after the cooling system tripped, showing that MG6 immediately "suffered" much more the heating-up.
In the last 2 attachments are the raw energies for X and Y of MG11 in run 0524 done on Monday 9th afternoon after we re-biased the detectors compared with run 0193 (from .9 to .11) before the cooling system tripped. It looks like the part of MG11 X from strip 35 to 50, that before the heating was having the 4-peaks behaviour, now behaves normally, while the Y is still the same, with 3 missing strips.

Attachment 1: run0193_12_heat.png

Attachment 2: run0193_13_heat_MG6vsMG1.png

Attachment 3: run_0524_MG11XYraw.png

Attachment 4: run_0193_9_19_11_MG11XYraw.png

Fixed

e744s

Thu Apr 11 07:00:17 2019

ToDo List and plan for today

To Do/Understand
1) T_Vamos_Cats1 in Mugast and T_FPMW_CATS2 in Vamos are not working. I suspect it is the same reason, meaning stop arrives before start. Longer delay or inverse putting Cats2-Fag validated.
2) MM3_E_TOF there is a 5 MeV threshold see below?

For today:
1) We give the beam back to them at 10 am.
2) Analyse the data from RUN 74 & 75 to see the excitation function for 1H(14N,p)
3) If we have the beam back, take more data merged with Agata. Intensity around 2e+5 pps to protect CATS2.
4) If Vamos/Mugast need debugging for reconstruction/validation they have priority.

Summary of the night :
1) Measured the target thicknesses for the targets: 1) Hole 2) CH2 105 um 3) CH2 100 um 4) C 70 um 5) CH2 73 um
2) The C target was not very homogeneous, meaning that was dramatically spreading the momentum distribution of the beam charge states.
3) Vamos debugging went forward, transmission was 95% with Cats2 in with 2e+4 pps beam intensity
4) At 4h30 started the statistic run with Vamos setted at a Brho of 0.437 Tm to completely remove 14N7+ and all others from the focal plane. The beam spot was about 50 mm pied a pied ... This makes imposible the use

Attachment 1: run275_tacs_mugast.png

Fixed

com2019

Sun Mar 31 18:11:28 2019

To do list for the commissioning (please edit!)

Here is a to do list of thing we should do ahead of the commissioning. Please self assigned task by putting your name next to it. Don't hesitate to ask for help, or clarification or anything you might need.

Timing:
We need to established the timing for CATS and MUST2 and prepare the inspection line to be able to check it during beam time (NO ONE ATTRIBUTED)

Provide the CATS1/2 to target length (mÃ©canic or surveyor): xxx mm
The TOF of the beam from CATS1 To target is: ZZZ ns
The TOF of the beam from CATS2 To target is: ZZZ ns
Send a pulser to SYNTEST on MUST2 and CATS and measured the electronic delay between the two
Add the physical delay and check the signal are aligned in G1
Check the signal are aligned outside the room (any joke with patch panel cable being of different length )
Label the patch panel, we will need to adjust this timing at the beginning of the exeperiment

Do the same for the VAMOS/ MUST2 timing (NO ONE ATTRIBUTED)

Analysis:
Prepare macro for near line analysis: (Padova group) [X]

4 panels (d,p): ELab:ThetaLab, Ex with relevant 017 states indicated,Ex-Edc plot, Edc with relevant 017 gammas indicated
4 panels (d,d)/(p,p): ELab:ThetaLab, Ex with relevant 016 states indicated,Ex-Edc plot, Edc with relevant 016 gammas indicated
4 panels (d,t): ELab:ThetaLab, Ex with relevant 015 states indicated,Ex-Edc plot, Edc with relevant 015 gammas indicated

*** Prepare level scheme with gamma rays for (d,p)17O (d,t)15O and (d,d)16O. Add Sn and Sp, add them to the blog and print them (Cyril Lenain started)

Add agata/vamos branches to MUGAST project (Freddy)

MUGAST :
Do a time calibrator in running conditions with 20-30 ns delay between start and stop (A.Matta/V Alcindor)

take data: DONE
analyse them and add calibration to the analysis.

Fixed

TEST

Sat Mar 23 15:26:06 2019

FSC:

Autoconf programme to set all regular parameter (PAC gain, TAC range, ORD, no mask, no pulser)

Sentinel:

Making the program
Preparing start script
Preparing stop script
Preparing init script

Online/offline:

Look into ZMQ to replace GRU
Datum through zmq
Switch NPSpectraServer/Client to ZMQ and datum
CsI Calibration with db scan
3-alpha calibration using NPCalibration

HV:

Remote read
Auto logging
Alert on trip
Bt/HV/sector on/off

Fixed

e744s

Thu Apr 11 18:20:27 2019

Timing issue between vamos and mugast

A cut is seen on the TAC between MUGAST and the focal plane multiwire of VAMOS when one select XF or DC0_Y>-1500

Edit: This must be a reconstruction problem as it is not seen in the Raw files (using DC0_X for example)

Edit: This is not only a reconstruction problem as the cut appear again if one select DC0_Y

Edit: We changed VAMOS FAG validation window from 500ns to 800ns

Attachment 1: T_MUGAST_FPMW.png

Attachment 2: T_MUGAST_FPMW1.png

Fixed

e786s

Mon Jun 24 13:57:46 2019

Timing change: -50 ns on CATS stop

We removed 50 ns of delay to the CATS signal used for the stop of the TOF (CATS-MUGAST/MUST) because we were at the edge of the FAG.
See the attached picture for the current situation:
Green: MUGAST/MUST2 ORD
Pink: FAG
yellow: CATS2
blue: CATS validated by FAG

Attachment 1: TimingCATSMUGAST.jpg