ELOG MUGAST

The Ex distributions gated on the different MG detectors show large differences, up to 500 keV. In the attached figure I show as an example the comparison between two nearby detectors, MG3 and MG4.
I tried a rough alignment of the Ex by shifting it manually and setting the first main peak at Ex=0 (essentially taking MG5 as the reference, since his first peak is at 0).
These are the shifts applied:
MG1 -> -580 keV
MG2 -> -280 keV
MG3 -> -550 keV
MG4 -> -100 keV
MG5 -> 0 keV
MG7 -> -400 keV
The resulting Ex distribution is plotted in the second attachment, compared with the original below. The resolution of the first peak (assuming there's a single level there) is 420 keV FWHM.
I think it would be worth having the position of the MUGAST detectors re-measured.

Attachment 1: detectors_disalignment_Ex.png

Attachment 2: Ex_aligned_vs_unaligned.png

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	Fri Mar 19 09:54:58 2021	Adrien, Freddy and Franco	GRIT	General	3-alpha	Alpha calibration and noise on MG3 and MG4 after the experiment
While starting the alpha source runs after the experiment we found unexpected noise on MG3 and MG4 which cannot be excluded just by masking some Y mates (The X mates were already masked for both of them). We cannot figure out the origin of this noise. Run 652 and 653 -> alpha runs without pedestal suppression Run 655 -> alpha run during the night with pedestal suppression. Here MG3 and MG4 are not in the trigger. Run 658 -> alpha run after an attempt to mask some noisy strips. The number of ORD is anyway high (some 10^4) but we see some alphas on MG3 and MG4. Run 660 -> same as 658 but with higher thresholds on X (8250) and Y (7600 on MG3 and 7950 on MG4) to write less on disk but actually nothing changes. Therefore we are writing about 2.7 GB per hour. The other runs (654, 656, 657 and 659) can be discarded.
Fixed	e793s	Mon Mar 22 16:35:46 2021	OttoRun	RUN	General	N/A	Run67
*********************** Run : 67 *********************** Start at 2021-03-22 16:34:11.552975 run67. Time calibrator in TDC VAMOS PERIOD: 80 ns Trigger VAMOS Raw Data: /data/mugastX/e793s/acquisition/run/run_0067.dat.22-03-21_16h34m11s Raw RootFile: /home/mugast/Analysis_e793s/RootR/r0067_000r.root
Fixed	e793s	Mon Mar 22 18:15:50 2021	mugast	RUN	General	N/A	TACS calibration - run 662
TACS: FAG-CATS2 (range 500 ns) VAMOS-AGATA (range 500 ns) CATS2-CATS2 (not in modular label) (range 500 ns) AGATA-CATS2 (range 200 ns) Time calibrator settings: 640 ns range 20 ns steps
Fixed	e793s	Mon Mar 22 19:04:55 2021	mugast	RUN	General	N/A	TACS calibration - run 653
TACS: MUGAST-AGATA (range 2 us) MUGAST-CATS2 (range 1 us) MUGAST-CATS2b (range 2 us) MUGAST-VAMOS (range 2 us) VAMOS-CATS2 (range 2 us) Time calibrator settings: 2.56 us range 80 ns steps
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
Attachment 1: effi.png

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 130, 131, 132

ELOG Home Page