| Status |
ExpNbr |
Date |
Author |
Type |
Category |
Target-Source |
Subject |
| Fixed | TEST |
Mon Mar 4 16:24:51 2019 |
valerian marlène | GRIT | General | | RUN52 3 alpha source 4MUST2 no pedestal |
RUN52
3 alpha source run with only 4MUST2 (in MUVI3) with pedestal suppression at 13 deg. |
| Attachment 1: HV_MUST2_during_run52.png
|
|
| Attachment 2: HV_MUST2_afternightrun52.png
|
|
| Attachment 3: 3alpha_source_4MUST2_nightrun52.png
|
|
| Fixed | TEST |
Mon Mar 18 18:31:18 2019 |
valerian marlène | GRIT | General | 3-alpha | RUN 20 (com2019) 3 alpha overnight |
RUN20
Run with double 3alpha source MUST2+MG1_7+MG11
temperature -4 deg on both cooling
Acquisition with VAMOS+MUGAST coupled (com2019)
Time range =600ns
pedestal aligned and suppressed
run start at 18h23 monday 18
run stop at 8h34 tuesday 19
about 12Go of data |
| Attachment 1: RUN20_HV_MG_3lapha.png
|
|
| Attachment 2: RUN20_3alpha_HV_MUST2.png
|
|
| Fixed | e744s |
Fri Apr 12 08:01:12 2019 |
valerian | RUN | General | CH2 | run 88 screenshots |
|
| Attachment 1: TAC_run88.png
|
|
| Attachment 2: CATS_XY_run88.png
|
|
| Attachment 3: MG_ToF_run88.png
|
|
| Attachment 4: MM_DeE_run88.png
|
|
| Attachment 5: MM_ToF_run88.png
|
|
| Attachment 6: MGIMPACT_MATRIX_run88.png
|
|
| Attachment 7: MMIMPACT_MATRIX_run88.png
|
|
| Attachment 8: MUVI3_Scaler_run88.png
|
|
| Attachment 9: MUVI2_Scaler_run88.png
|
|
| Attachment 10: U2M_Scaler_run88.png
|
|
| Attachment 11: MUVI1_Scaler_run88.png
|
|
| Fixed | e768s |
Sat Jul 27 21:12:47 2019 |
teodora & beyhan | OTHER | Hardware | | cout rate with no beam & water level check |
Around 9 pm, we observed an average count rate of 30kHz on the "or agata" scaler rates panel of GECO. The other count rates were ok.
In the agata acquisition monitoring the rate was given about 8k. one of the detector was showing a rate in red.
We decided to stop : (1) to check the rates with no beam, (2) to check the water level in collection boxes and (3) the beam intensity.
Conclusions :
- The agata rate with no beam is about 4.5kHz. The rest seems ok.
- The level of water in the collection boxes did not change since 3 pm. So it should be ok for the night (see pictures)
- The beam profile and intensity are similar to what we got before
- The rate after we got the beam looks normal now.
So everything is going well 
PS : there is also a piscture about the water collection tank to empty the boxes if needed
|
| Attachment 1: scalers-run154-nobeam.png
|
|
| Attachment 2: IMG_3511.jpg
|
|
| Attachment 3: IMG_3512.jpg
|
|
| Attachment 4: IMG_3513.jpg
|
|
| Attachment 5: IMG_3514.jpg
|
|
| Attachment 6: scalers-run154-with_beam.png
|
|
| Fixed | e768s |
Sat Jul 27 22:22:21 2019 |
teodora & beyhan | VAMOS | Hardware | | FP_DC_Wi1 tripped -->Fixed |
FP_DC_Wi1 tripped. We set back power supply on the wire
=> fixed |
| Ongoing | e775s |
Sat Feb 29 10:34:31 2020 |
mugast ; valerian irene | OFFLINE | Software | CD2-Au | Issues in the EX reconstruction |
We are currently working on the EX reconstruction which is off for detector 1, 3 and 7... One of our guess might be that there is an issue with the position of the detectors which gives error in theta... As the energy calibration is ok. Joined are :
- the Excitation energy for good detectors compared to all detectors,
- the theoretical kinematic line for the 3.57 state for each detectors,
- the excitation energy as a function of the laboratory angle (for this last spectra a clear dependency is visible for telescopes 1,3 and 7)
- the 3D view, which doesn't show clear problem in position... |
| Attachment 1: Comparison_all_and_best_detector.png
|
|
| Attachment 2: Kinematics_for_each_detectors.pdf
|
|
| Attachment 3: ExvsTheta_each_detectors.pdf
|
|
| Attachment 4: MUGAST_3D.pdf
|
|
| Ongoing | e775s |
Sat Feb 29 17:18:02 2020 |
mugast ; Valerian, Marlène , Pierre | OFFLINE | Software | CD2-Au | Issues in the EX reconstruction |
| mugast ; Valerian wrote: |
| mugast ; Valerian wrote: |
| mugast ; valerian irene wrote: | We are currently working on the EX reconstruction which is off for detector 1, 3 and 7... One of our guess might be that there is an issue with the position of the detectors which gives error in theta... As the energy calibration is ok. Joined are :
- the Excitation energy for good detectors compared to all detectors,
- the theoretical kinematic line for the 3.57 state for each detectors,
- the excitation energy as a function of the laboratory angle (for this last spectra a clear dependency is visible for telescopes 1,3 and 7)
- the 3D view, which doesn't show clear problem in position... |
Testing changing the beam impact :
-Kine for beam impact = (0,0,0) for reference
-Kine for beam impact = (0,0,-5mm)
-Kine for beam impact = (0,0,+5mm)
-Ex vs ThetaLab for beam impact = (0,0,0) for reference
-Ex vs ThetaLab for beam impact = (0,0,-5mm)
-Ex vs ThetaLab for beam impact = (0,0,+5mm)
Red lines corresponds to Ex = 3.570 MeV and Ex = 4.070 MeV
To try to correct the problem i also offseted the beam in X and Y, but this doesn't solve the problem quite the opposite as it make the result worse for other detectors also... The fact that it is better at lower angle and worse at higher angle might mean that the detectors angles are tilted compared to the
surveyors measurments... I also tried to use the CAO positions for MG3 (see Detectors/mugast.detector) but it didn't solve the problem. |
By looking at the EnergyCalibrator.C, I saw that the extrapolation used to find the dead layer of aluminum is commented... This might be an answer to the problem... |
WE HAVE A SOLUTION!!! It seems that the order of the detectors in mugast.detector matters!! Now we start with a dummy MG8, then MG1, MG2, ... And everything is fine!! We think that is because it was taking the wrong calibration files (to be checked).
Joined are (for run 128,137,138,139,151,152,153):
-Ex vs ThetaLab
-Ex for all detectors
-Egamma vs Ex |
| Attachment 1: ExvsTheta_each_detectorsOK.pdf
|
|
| Attachment 2: Ex_GOOD.pdf
|
|
| Attachment 3: EgvsEx_GOOD.pdf
|
|
| Ongoing | e775s |
Sat Feb 29 14:27:48 2020 |
mugast ; Valerian | OFFLINE | Software | CD2 | Issues in the EX reconstruction |
| mugast ; valerian irene wrote: | We are currently working on the EX reconstruction which is off for detector 1, 3 and 7... One of our guess might be that there is an issue with the position of the detectors which gives error in theta... As the energy calibration is ok. Joined are :
- the Excitation energy for good detectors compared to all detectors,
- the theoretical kinematic line for the 3.57 state for each detectors,
- the excitation energy as a function of the laboratory angle (for this last spectra a clear dependency is visible for telescopes 1,3 and 7)
- the 3D view, which doesn't show clear problem in position... |
Testing changing the beam impact :
-Kine for beam impact = (0,0,0) for reference
-Kine for beam impact = (0,0,-5mm)
-Kine for beam impact = (0,0,+5mm)
-Ex vs ThetaLab for beam impact = (0,0,0) for reference
-Ex vs ThetaLab for beam impact = (0,0,-5mm)
-Ex vs ThetaLab for beam impact = (0,0,+5mm)
Red lines corresponds to Ex = 3.570 MeV and Ex = 4.070 MeV
To try to correct the problem i also offseted the beam in X and Y, but this doesn't solve the problem quite the opposite as it make the result worse for other detectors also... The fact that it is better at lower angle and worse at higher angle might mean that the detectors angles are tilted compared to the
surveyors measurments... I also tried to use the CAO positions for MG3 (see Detectors/mugast.detector) but it didn't solve the problem. |
| Attachment 1: Kinematics_for_each_detectorsBeamZ0.pdf
|
|
| Attachment 2: Kinematics_for_each_detectorsBeamZminus5.pdf
|
|
| Attachment 3: Kinematics_for_each_detectorsBeamZplus5.pdf
|
|
| Attachment 4: ExvsTheta_each_detectorsZ0.pdf
|
|
| Attachment 5: ExvsTheta_each_detectorsZminus5.pdf
|
|
| Attachment 6: ExvsTheta_each_detectorsZplus5.pdf
|
|
| Ongoing | e775s |
Sat Feb 29 15:53:12 2020 |
mugast ; Valerian | OFFLINE | Software | CD2-Au | Issues in the EX reconstruction |
| mugast ; Valerian wrote: |
| mugast ; valerian irene wrote: | We are currently working on the EX reconstruction which is off for detector 1, 3 and 7... One of our guess might be that there is an issue with the position of the detectors which gives error in theta... As the energy calibration is ok. Joined are :
- the Excitation energy for good detectors compared to all detectors,
- the theoretical kinematic line for the 3.57 state for each detectors,
- the excitation energy as a function of the laboratory angle (for this last spectra a clear dependency is visible for telescopes 1,3 and 7)
- the 3D view, which doesn't show clear problem in position... |
Testing changing the beam impact :
-Kine for beam impact = (0,0,0) for reference
-Kine for beam impact = (0,0,-5mm)
-Kine for beam impact = (0,0,+5mm)
-Ex vs ThetaLab for beam impact = (0,0,0) for reference
-Ex vs ThetaLab for beam impact = (0,0,-5mm)
-Ex vs ThetaLab for beam impact = (0,0,+5mm)
Red lines corresponds to Ex = 3.570 MeV and Ex = 4.070 MeV
To try to correct the problem i also offseted the beam in X and Y, but this doesn't solve the problem quite the opposite as it make the result worse for other detectors also... The fact that it is better at lower angle and worse at higher angle might mean that the detectors angles are tilted compared to the
surveyors measurments... I also tried to use the CAO positions for MG3 (see Detectors/mugast.detector) but it didn't solve the problem. |
By looking at the EnergyCalibrator.C, I saw that the extrapolation used to find the dead layer of aluminum is commented... This might be an answer to the problem... |
| Ongoing | e775s |
Sat Feb 29 07:35:21 2020 |
mugast : Valerian | AGATA | General | CD2 | AGATA is not responding |
| Since ~4:30am AGATA is not responding, everyhting was frozen. Unclear if it comes from disk problem or other... |
| Fixed | e775s |
Sat Feb 29 14:32:39 2020 |
mugast : Valerian | GRIT | Hardware | N/A | Scheme of the Mugast position in the nptool referential |
| The detectors with a cross show the problematic detectors |
| Attachment 1: EEDD6F02-7FF9-41B0-BB0B-673611AF018D.jpeg
|
|
| Fixed | e744s |
Thu Apr 11 17:38:24 2019 |
mugast (beyhan) | BEAM | General | | 14O8+ beam characteristics |
Brho 14O8+ = 0.69186 Tm
update Adrien:
La dream team de Division (non) Opération n'arrive pas a mesurer l’énergie en sortie de CIME (WTF??!!)
Du coup ils ont mis une énergie fausse mais avec une super précision de 1.8 Mev/A dans la fiche.
#onlyatganil |
| Attachment 1: image1.jpeg
|
|
| Attachment 2: IMG_1581.jpg
|
|
| Fixed | e768s |
Fri Jul 12 17:51:06 2019 |
mugast (Sylvain, Chloe, François, Marlène, Nicolas) | OTHER | General | | Monitoring of beam profile with BAF2 |
In order to provide a efficient way for PCP to monitor beam profile a new TAC measurement has set up.
A BAF2 detector has been inserted close to the reaction chamber (in position 7 of AGATA structure frame). Operating voltage of BaF2 is 1800V and the typical signal amplitude is above 100 mV.
The output signal is sent to a TFA (with gain =1). No additional delay was used. The BAF2 trigger signal is made from CFD and used as a start a TAC. TAC range was chosen to 1us.
The trigger signal was also sent to GMT trough input nb 5.
|
| Fixed | e793s |
Fri Mar 12 09:52:01 2021 |
mugast (Sarah, Louis) | OFFLINE | General | CD2 | Offline analysis run up to 56 8am |
1) A high energy gamma has been identified at 3505 keV by gating on 3-5 MeV range in excitation energy. This transition is unknown so far
2) preliminary angular distribution has been extracted for the p states(<1MeV) and the f states (3-5MeV) corrected from geometrical efficiency. Angular distribution with gate on the 3.5 MeV gamma was also extracted. Too few statistics to tell anything. Need at least 4 time more statistics to have a proper angular distribution. |
| Attachment 1: AngDisrtib.png
|
|
| Attachment 2: 3MeV_gamma.png
|
|
| Attachment 3: AWBA.png
|
|
| Ongoing | e793s |
Wed Mar 10 21:09:25 2021 |
mugast (Adrien, Nigel et co) | BEAM | General | | Primary beam issues |
The secondary beam intensity has been fluctuating around 4 - 5 x 10**5 Hz most of the evening. 15 mins ago it was realised that it had dropped off to only 1 x 10**5 Hz. As suspected, PCP confirmed that primary beam intensity has dropped off. They are investigating ...
It would be good to have the TI (primary beam intensity) available to monitor here in the daq room. |
| Fixed | com2019 |
Tue Apr 2 18:39:55 2019 |
mugast | GRIT | General | N/A | Targets |
Targets : in the order of the scaler
1- CD2 5.5 mg/cm2
2- CD2 0.5 mg/cm2
3- CD2 1 mg/cm2
4- mask
5- hole
6- CD2 1 mg/cm2
There are spacers to put on the target loader which height correspond each to one target position. If no spacer is used, the target is the 1st one (5.5mg/cm2). |
| Fixed | com2019 |
Wed Apr 3 15:49:39 2019 |
mugast | GRIT | Hardware | N/A | Time calibration files for Mugast and MUST2 |
Time calibration for Mugast and MUST2 has been done using Calimero run 173 to 178. Path for files is
/home/mugast/analysis/nptool/Projects/calibration/Time/Coeff/ |
| Fixed | com2019 |
Thu Apr 4 08:31:58 2019 |
mugast | RUN | General | N/A | Run 129 |
Run 129 overnight vamos calibration.
Multiple trip of FP_CATSXXX between and 5.09 and 6.35 |
| Fixed | |
Thu Apr 4 22:48:57 2019 |
mugast | GRIT | General | N/A | 16O beam tuning PCP |
|
| Attachment 1: photo_1.JPG
|
|
| Attachment 2: photo_2.JPG
|
|
| Fixed | com2019 |
Fri Apr 5 14:54:09 2019 |
mugast | CATS | Hardware | N/A | CATS high voltage lowered by 20V |
| CATS high voltage lowered by 20V from 580V to 560V (on request of J. Pancin) |