| Status |
ExpNbr |
Date |
Author |
Type |
Category |
Target-Source |
Subject |
| Fixed | e768s |
Fri Jul 26 11:21:19 2019 |
OttoRun | RUN | General | LiF | Run150 |
*************************
Run : 150
*************************
Start at 2019-07-26 11:20:46.797360
Stable 15N beam @ ~ 1-2e8 pps
Brho = 0.556 Tm
target LiF thick number 1
Trigger:1100
MUGAST 1500
VAMOS %30 4500
BaF2 %100
DT 20%
15O run tunning of VAMOS
Stop at 2019-07-26 12:16:09.408851
Stop comment: |
| Fixed | e768s |
Fri Jul 26 12:21:50 2019 |
OttoRun | RUN | General | LiF | Run151 |
*************************
Run : 151
*************************
Start at 2019-07-26 12:18:19.935601
15O beam @ ~ 1.5e7 pps (profiler)
Brho = 0.556 Tm
target LiF thick number 1
Trigger:
FAG 190
MUGAST 180
VAMOS %30 680
BaF2 %100 119
DT ??? (pb with pulser settings)
Stop at 2019-07-26 15:28:24.237536
Stop comment: stop because VAMOS division changed |
| Fixed | e768s |
Fri Jul 26 13:48:41 2019 |
Marlène, Faïrouz, Bertrand & Nicolas | BEAM | General | | G1 profiler & VAMOS efficiency |
Factor of two between the profiler and VAMOS FP determination of incident beam is now understood.
Several effects were at work simultaneously and checked at 2 beam intensities (9e3 pps and 5e4 pps):
1. Profiler is using energy loss of the crossing beam particles to deduce the beam intensity. But the profiler was set to 15N instead of 15O.
We checked that for the same beam intensity of 15O the profiler gives 1.2e4 pps / 9e3 pps when tuned on 15N / 15O respectively. This amouts for 75% difference
2. Profiler tends to overestimate the real beam intensity by about 20% when compared to CATS1
Profiler / CATS1: 9e3 pps / 7.3e3 pps (81%)
Profiler / CATS1: 5e4 pps / 3.9e4 pps (78%)
3. VAMOS counting rates are lower than CATS1 by 20% which is consistent with the charge state distribution q(8+)/q(7+) = 80% calculated from LISE++
CATS1 / VAMOS: 7.5e3 pps / 5.8e3 pps (78%)
CATS1 / VAMOS: 3.9e4 pps / 3.0e4 pps (77%)
4. VAMOS PPAC efficiency was checked to be 100%: the PPAC logic signal is always present when triggerd by the drift chamber logic signal
Results:
By combining all previous factors and for 15O beam at the beginning of the experiment we obtain between the profiler and VAMOS FP a reduction factor of: 0.75 * 0.81 * 0.78 = 47%, CQFD!
Discussion:
This factor of two explains the difference we always observed when comparing estimated and measured g-ray yields. |
| Fixed | e768s |
Fri Jul 26 14:06:33 2019 |
mugast | ONLINE | General | LiF | Screenshots run 151_1 |
|
| Attachment 1: SCALERS_run151_1.png
|
|
| Attachment 2: Tab_10_run151_1.png
|
|
| Attachment 3: Tab_9_run151_1.png
|
|
| Attachment 4: Tab_8bis_run151_1.png
|
|
| Attachment 5: TAC_run151_1.png
|
|
| Attachment 6: MG_ToF_run151_1.png
|
|
| Attachment 7: MM_DeE_run151_1.png
|
|
| Attachment 8: MM_ToF_run151_1.png
|
|
| Attachment 9: MG_INPACT_MATRIX_run151_1.png
|
|
| Attachment 10: NN_INPACT_MATRIX_run151_1.png
|
|
| Attachment 11: Tab_8_run151_1.png
|
|
| Attachment 12: REC_run151_1.png
|
|
| Attachment 13: TACS_run151_1.png
|
|
| Attachment 14: IC_run151_1.png
|
|
| Attachment 15: MW_run151_1.png
|
|
| Attachment 16: DC_E_run151_1.png
|
|
| Attachment 17: DC_Y_run151_1.png
|
|
| Attachment 18: DC_X_run151_1.png
|
|
| Attachment 19: IC_IC_run151_1.png
|
|
| Attachment 20: Scalers_run151_1.png
|
|
| Fixed | e768s |
Fri Jul 26 15:33:49 2019 |
OttoRun | RUN | General | LiF | Run152 |
*************************
Run : 152
*************************
Start at 2019-07-26 15:32:47.731907
15O beam @ ~ 1.5e7 pps (profiler)
Brho = 0.556 Tm
target LiF thick number 1
Trigger:
FAG 190
MUGAST 180
VAMOS %10 580
BaF2 %100 119
DT 5%
Stop at 2019-07-27 10:50:59.108445
Stop comment: change run |
| Fixed | e768s |
Fri Jul 26 15:47:17 2019 |
mugast | VAMOS | Hardware | LiF | VAMOS division |
| New VAMOS division : 10. |
| Fixed | e768s |
Fri Jul 26 15:48:12 2019 |
Kseniia | AGATA | General | | Full stats with AGATA on 19F with the 15N beam |
Charge state 8 (plus zooms) and charge state 7;
Statistics of all the 15N runs combined;
Identification in VAMOS;
Alas, no clear peaks at 3908 and 2354. |
| Attachment 1: 19F_Q8_tot.png
|
|
| Attachment 2: 19F_Q8_zoom1.png
|
|
| Attachment 3: F19_Q8_tot_zoom2.png
|
|
| Attachment 4: 19F_Q7_total.png
|
|
| Fixed | e768s |
Fri Jul 26 16:06:18 2019 |
mugast | RUN | General | LiF | Run number 152_1 |
|
| Attachment 1: SCALERS_run152_1.png
|
|
| Attachment 2: Tab_8bis_run152_1.png
|
|
| Attachment 3: IC_IC_run152_1.png
|
|
| Attachment 4: REC_run152_1.png
|
|
| Attachment 5: TACS_run152_1.png
|
|
| Attachment 6: IC_run152_1.png
|
|
| Attachment 7: MW_run152_1.png
|
|
| Attachment 8: DC_E_run152_1.png
|
|
| Attachment 9: DC_Y_run152_1.png
|
|
| Attachment 10: DC_X_run152_1.png
|
|
| Attachment 11: Tab_10_run152_1.png
|
|
| Attachment 12: Tab_9_run152_1.png
|
|
| Attachment 13: Tab_8_run152_1.png
|
|
| Attachment 14: TAC_run152_1.png
|
|
| Attachment 15: MG_ToF_run152_1.png
|
|
| Attachment 16: MM_DeE_run152_1.png
|
|
| Attachment 17: MM_ToF_run152_1.png
|
|
| Attachment 18: MM_INPACT_MATRIX_run152_1.png
|
|
| Attachment 19: MG_IMPACT_MATRIX_run152_1.png
|
|
| Fixed | e768s |
Fri Jul 26 19:00:15 2019 |
mugast | ONLINE | General | | Run number 152_2 |
|
| Attachment 1: DC_X_run152_2.png
|
|
| Attachment 2: DC_Y_run152_2.png
|
|
| Attachment 3: DC_E_run152_2.png
|
|
| Attachment 4: MW_run152_2.png
|
|
| Attachment 5: IC_run152_2.png
|
|
| Attachment 6: TACS_run152_2.png
|
|
| Attachment 7: REC_run152_2.png
|
|
| Attachment 8: IC_IC_run152_2.png
|
|
| Attachment 9: Tab_8_run152_2.png
|
|
| Attachment 10: MM_INPACT_MATRIX_run152_2.png
|
|
| Attachment 11: MG_IMPACT_MATRIX_run152_2.png
|
|
| Attachment 12: MM_ToF_run152_2.png
|
|
| Attachment 13: MM_DeE_run152_2.png
|
|
| Attachment 14: MG_ToF_run152_2.png
|
|
| Attachment 15: TAC_run152_2.png
|
|
| Attachment 16: Tab_8bis_run152_2.png
|
|
| Attachment 17: Tab_9_run152_2.png
|
|
| Attachment 18: Tab_10_run152_2.png
|
|
| Attachment 19: GECCO_152_2.png
|
|
| Fixed | e768s |
Fri Jul 26 19:09:48 2019 |
Kseniia | AGATA | General | LiF | 135-149 run Gamma analysis |
| Gamma-gamma gated on 109-keV transition (and on VAMOS) |
| Attachment 1: gg190_19F_all.png
|
|
| Fixed | e768s |
Fri Jul 26 19:36:03 2019 |
Kseniia | AGATA | General | | 19Ne gammas, current full stat |
19Ne, VAMOS-identified
All runs from before + runs 151, 152part |
| Attachment 1: 19Ne_112to152part.png
|
|
| Fixed | e768s |
Fri Jul 26 19:47:18 2019 |
Andres & Franco | RUN | General | LiF | Check beam intensity and profile run152 h 19.30 |
|
| Attachment 1: IMG-20190726-WA0020.jpg
|
|
| Fixed | e768s |
Fri Jul 26 23:25:49 2019 |
mugast | ONLINE | General | LiF | Run number 152_3 |
|
| Attachment 1: GECCO_152_3.png
|
|
| Attachment 2: DC_X_run152_3.png
|
|
| Attachment 3: DC_Y_run152_3.png
|
|
| Attachment 4: DC_E_run152_3.png
|
|
| Attachment 5: MW_run152_3.png
|
|
| Attachment 6: IC_run152_3.png
|
|
| Attachment 7: TACS_run152_3.png
|
|
| Attachment 8: REC_run152_3.png
|
|
| Attachment 9: IC_IC_run152_3.png
|
|
| Attachment 10: Tab_8_run152_3.png
|
|
| Attachment 11: MM_INPACT_MATRIX_run152_3.png
|
|
| Attachment 12: MG_IMPACT_MATRIX_run152_3.png
|
|
| Attachment 13: MM_ToF_run152_3png
|
| Attachment 14: MM_DeE_run152_3.png
|
|
| Attachment 15: MG_ToF_run152_3.png
|
|
| Attachment 16: TAC_run152_3.png
|
|
| Attachment 17: Tab_8bis_run152_3.png
|
|
| Attachment 18: Tab_9_run152_3.png
|
|
| Attachment 19: Tab_10_run152_3.png
|
|
| Fixed | e768s |
Fri Jul 26 23:45:18 2019 |
Franco, Andres, Daniele | OFFLINE | General | LiF | ExEgamma spectra for 15O from run 112 to 152_0 |
|
| Attachment 1: 19Ne_112-152.png
|
|
| Fixed | e768s |
Fri Jul 26 23:58:08 2019 |
Andres & Franco | RUN | General | LiF | Check beam intensity and profile run152 h 23.40 |
|
| Attachment 1: IMG-20190726-WA0031.jpg
|
|
| Fixed | e768s |
Sat Jul 27 00:18:24 2019 |
Freddy, Sylvain | S1 | Hardware | N/A | Annular detector: Loss of channels |
| On the Annular |
| Fixed | e768s |
Sat Jul 27 01:50:28 2019 |
Freddy, Sylvain | S1 | General | N/A | Annular detector degradation |
By looking in details to the impact matrix of the annular detector, one can see that more segments than before are missing.
There was a clear degradation between run135 and run140.
HVmonitor summary of leakage current for MG11A:
*Wed Jul 24 21:44:44 2019 ---> 0.2 uA
*Thu Jul 25 06:53:15 2019 ---> 0.6 uA (run135 stop)
*Thu Jul 25 13:23:48 2019 ---> 1.4 uA (during run 140)
*Thu Jul 25 22:25:35 2019 ---> 1.3 uA
*Fri Jul 26 07:26:23 2019 ---> 1.9 uA
*Fri Jul 26 16:27:50 2019 ---> 1.9 uA
*Sat Jul 27 01:29:52 2019 ---> 1.9 uA
Attached is also the output of the HV monitor (~/HV_7.root) where the leakage current increase is visible. I just did not manage to draw it as a function of absolute time because the date stored in the file seems wrong. |
| Attachment 1: annular_r135_7.png
|
|
| Attachment 2: annular_r149_0.png
|
|
| Attachment 3: annular_r152_0.png
|
|
| Attachment 4: annular_diag_run135_7.pdf
|
|
| Attachment 5: annular_diag_run139_0.pdf
|
|
| Attachment 6: annular_diag_run140_0.pdf
|
|
| Attachment 7: annular_diag_run149_0.pdf
|
|
| Attachment 8: annular_diag_run152_0.pdf
|
|
| Attachment 9: HV7.pdf
|
|
| Pinned | e768s |
Sat Jul 27 04:12:57 2019 |
Sylvain & Freddy | BEAM | General | LiF | Run 152 - Scaler & screenshot + Beam profile |
|
| Attachment 1: Tab_8bis_run152_4.png
|
|
| Attachment 2: IC_IC_run152_4.png
|
|
| Attachment 3: REC_run152_4.png
|
|
| Attachment 4: IC_run152_4.png
|
|
| Attachment 5: MW_run152_4.png
|
|
| Attachment 6: DC_E_run152_4.png
|
|
| Attachment 7: DC_Y_run152_4.png
|
|
| Attachment 8: DC_X_run152_4.png
|
|
| Attachment 9: Tab_10_run152_4.png
|
|
| Attachment 10: Tab_9_run152_4.png
|
|
| Attachment 11: Tab_8_run152_4.png
|
|
| Attachment 12: MG_IMPACT_MATRIX_run152_4.png
|
|
| Attachment 13: SCALERS_run152_3.png
|
|
| Attachment 14: index.jpg
|
|
| Fixed | e768s |
Sat Jul 27 04:50:45 2019 |
Freddy | OFFLINE | General | N/A | Scaler summary since r120 |
run 120 - 152
/home/mugast/analysis/scalereader/out/Chain.C |
| Attachment 1: scaler_update.png
|
|
| Pinned | e768s |
Sat Jul 27 06:47:16 2019 |
Sylvain & Andrea | OTHER | General | LiF | Water tray of MUGAST air conditioner cooling system is almost full |
During a room inspection it was notice that the water tray used as an output of the fan system which is cooling MUGAST electronic crates is almost full of water. The floor is dry but the we suspect a leakage from the air conditioner. To avoid to flood the floor we took some of the water and put in in the water tray of the fan system located in front of VAMOS.
One would probably need during the day to investigate the origin of this water. |