2018 Mott Paper Working Area

From Ciswikidb
Revision as of 15:47, 9 December 2018 by Moser (Talk | contribs) (Request #7 -- Absolute Calibration of BCM0L02 to FC#2)

Jump to: navigation, search

General Links/Documents

  • Run 1
  • Online Analysis Spreadsheet : media:run1database.ods -- Spreadsheet compiled while gathering data during Run I. Can be used as look-up table to determine which runs were used for which study. Asymmetry and rate numbers contained within are from preliminary analysis that does not include cuts, background handling etc. and so should not be referenced as final numbers.
  • Asymmetry vs Foil Thickness Full Analysis Spreadsheet : media:06.01.17_Run1_ARC+Dilution.ods -- Final analysis numbers contained within, to be used and referenced in paper. ARC = Asymmetry, Rate, and Cuts; i.e. the full-detail analysis from raw ROOT file to final numbers.
  • Run 2
  • Online Analysis Spreadsheet : Media:Run2RawData.ods -- Spreadsheet compiled while gathering data. Can be used as look-up table to determine which runs were used for which study. Asymmetry and rate numbers contained within are from preliminary analysis that does not include cuts, background handling etc. and so should not be referenced as final numbers.
  • Asymmetry vs Foil Thickness Full Analysis Spreadsheet : media:06.01.17_Run2_ARC+Dilution.ods -- Final analysis numbers contained within, to be used and referenced in paper. ARC = Asymmetry, Rate, and Cuts; i.e. the full-detail analysis from raw ROOT file to final numbers.

Draft Punchlist

Request #1 -- Beam Current vs. Deadtime

We measured dependence of electronic dead time on the beam current at five different average beam currents from 0.245-4.1 uA on a 1um foil. He'd like a plot showing the five data points vs. beam current with their individual uncertainties, and then the average with it's uncertainty band.

ROOT deadtime asym v beamcurrent.gif
media:Deadtime vs beamcurrent.ods
Avg deadtime v beamcurrent.gif

Request #2 -- Measured Asymmetry vs. Beam Position on Target

We measured dependence of the physics asymmetry on the position of the beam on the target foil from two target foils: 0.225um and 1um. For each foil we measured 7 asymmetries (one at center and six others away from center). The details are described in the systematics TN on the wiki. He'd like a plot showing the measured physics asymmetries (weighted average of IN/OUT) vs. radial distance from the center (instead of using x/y values shown in the TN), and then the average with it's uncertainty band, for the two target foils.

Asym v beampos 1000.gif
Asym v beampos 225.gif
media:Asym v beampos final.ods

Request #3 -- Plot of Asymmetry vs. Target Thickness from SPIN 2000

Recreate Michael's Paper's Plot: Remaking of Figure 6: media:Au_targetMSteigerwald.gif. The lines are a fit ( asym = a / (1.0 + alpha . d) ). On the original figure, the lines were his calculations.

Au targetMSteigerwald.gif

Request #4 -- Example of FESEM Image

We need an imagine of a typical FESEM picture showing a gold foil on a silicon substrate, or maybe 2 or 4 of them arranged to show typical measured you used in the analysis.

=> Here are some examples of foil thickness, which set of foils would be interesting to use? => Media:foil_Thickness_status-5June2015B.pptx

Request #5 -- Comparison of FESEM thickness vs foil position

For two foils, two samples were prepared – one near the foil center and one near the edge, and each were measured. Where are those results (or FESEM images) ?

=> Here is the summary of the measurements where two foils have "edge" and "center" values, is this sufficient ? Media:Summary_all_foils_5June2015C.xlsx

Request #6 -- Ready for Review

The detectors are centered at theta=172.6. We should check if S is maximum there or not. => The answer is that the maximum for KE=5MeV Au is 173.1 per Xavier and 129.9 per Ketevi. I think we erred perhaps so that the solid angle intercepted S at the same value left/right, or something like that.

Request #7 -- Absolute Calibration of BCM0L02 to FC#2

Run I -- BCM0L02 calibrated against FC#2
https://logbooks.jlab.org/entry/3317350
https://logbooks.jlab.org/entry/3317351
https://logbooks.jlab.org/entry/3317359
https://logbooks.jlab.org/entry/3317361
https://logbooks.jlab.org/entry/3317362
To calibrate BCM 0L02 against Faraday Cup #2, current was stepped up from 0 to ~7uA observing the 0L02 BCM Channel B counts. These values were then plotted against Faraday Cup #2's absolute beam current measurement.

Run1 BCM0L02 v FC2.gif



For the final analysis, rather than use a subset of Mott runs during a given Run period to calibrate the Mott DAQ BCM VtoF, all runs in a given Run period were used. That is, all runs in a given Run period BCM VtoF were plotted again BCM0L02 in order to determine appropriate calibration values for the VtoF signal. Then this VtoF calibrated current measure is used in the final analysis when calculating rates.

Request #8 -- Comparison of Absolute Detector Rate to Measured Detector Rate

RunII NormalizedRates byDetector.gif RunII NormalizedRates Average.gif RunI DetectorRates v Thickness.gif RunII DetectorRates v Thickness.gif