AIDA GELINA BRIKEN nToF CRIB ISOLDE CIRCE nTOFCapture DESPEC DTAS EDI_PSA 179Ta CARME StellarModelling DCF K40
  nTOFCapture, Page 2 of 4  ELOG logo
ID Date Author Subject
  45   Mon Aug 28 14:07:23 2023 Michael DonnachieEAR2 Experiment vs Simulated Amplitude Spectrums

Attatched are the overlayed compton edges for the calibrated experimental and the GEANT4 simulations. Note p1 and p2 denotes the lower and higher energy compton edges for Yttrium. 

The experimental and simulated histograms are shifted in quite a few of these plots suggesting the calibration was not fully successful. The compton edge for AmBe was difficult to locate and may have contributed to the poor calibration. 

Attachment 1: YP2_STED5_Experiment_vs_Simulated.pdf
YP2_STED5_Experiment_vs_Simulated.pdf
Attachment 2: YP2_STED6_Experiment_vs_Simulated.pdf
YP2_STED6_Experiment_vs_Simulated.pdf
Attachment 3: YP2_STED7_Experiment_vs_Simulated.pdf
YP2_STED7_Experiment_vs_Simulated.pdf
Attachment 4: AmBe_STED1_Experiment_vs_Simulated.pdf
AmBe_STED1_Experiment_vs_Simulated.pdf
Attachment 5: AmBe_STED2_Experiment_vs_Simulated.pdf
AmBe_STED2_Experiment_vs_Simulated.pdf
Attachment 6: AmBe_STED3_Experiment_vs_Simulated.pdf
AmBe_STED3_Experiment_vs_Simulated.pdf
Attachment 7: AmBe_STED4_Experiment_vs_Simulated.pdf
AmBe_STED4_Experiment_vs_Simulated.pdf
Attachment 8: AmBe_STED5_Experiment_vs_Simulated.pdf
AmBe_STED5_Experiment_vs_Simulated.pdf
Attachment 9: AmBe_STED6_Experiment_vs_Simulated.pdf
AmBe_STED6_Experiment_vs_Simulated.pdf
Attachment 10: AmBe_STED7_Experiment_vs_Simulated.pdf
AmBe_STED7_Experiment_vs_Simulated.pdf
Attachment 11: Cs_STED1_Experiment_vs_Simulated.pdf
Cs_STED1_Experiment_vs_Simulated.pdf
Attachment 12: Cs_STED2_Experiment_vs_Simulated.pdf
Cs_STED2_Experiment_vs_Simulated.pdf
Attachment 13: Cs_STED3_Experiment_vs_Simulated.pdf
Cs_STED3_Experiment_vs_Simulated.pdf
Attachment 14: Cs_STED4_Experiment_vs_Simulated.pdf
Cs_STED4_Experiment_vs_Simulated.pdf
Attachment 15: Cs_STED5_Experiment_vs_Simulated.pdf
Cs_STED5_Experiment_vs_Simulated.pdf
Attachment 16: Cs_STED6_Experiment_vs_Simulated.pdf
Cs_STED6_Experiment_vs_Simulated.pdf
Attachment 17: Cs_STED7_Experiment_vs_Simulated.pdf
Cs_STED7_Experiment_vs_Simulated.pdf
Attachment 18: YP1_STED1_Experiment_vs_Simulated.pdf
YP1_STED1_Experiment_vs_Simulated.pdf
Attachment 19: YP1_STED2_Experiment_vs_Simulated.pdf
YP1_STED2_Experiment_vs_Simulated.pdf
Attachment 20: YP1_STED3_Experiment_vs_Simulated.pdf
YP1_STED3_Experiment_vs_Simulated.pdf
Attachment 21: YP1_STED4_Experiment_vs_Simulated.pdf
YP1_STED4_Experiment_vs_Simulated.pdf
Attachment 22: YP1_STED5_Experiment_vs_Simulated.pdf
YP1_STED5_Experiment_vs_Simulated.pdf
Attachment 23: YP1_STED6_Experiment_vs_Simulated.pdf
YP1_STED6_Experiment_vs_Simulated.pdf
Attachment 24: YP1_STED7_Experiment_vs_Simulated.pdf
YP1_STED7_Experiment_vs_Simulated.pdf
Attachment 25: YP2_STED1_Experiment_vs_Simulated.pdf
YP2_STED1_Experiment_vs_Simulated.pdf
Attachment 26: YP2_STED2_Experiment_vs_Simulated.pdf
YP2_STED2_Experiment_vs_Simulated.pdf
Attachment 27: YP2_STED3_Experiment_vs_Simulated.pdf
YP2_STED3_Experiment_vs_Simulated.pdf
Attachment 28: YP2_STED4_Experiment_vs_Simulated.pdf
YP2_STED4_Experiment_vs_Simulated.pdf
  44   Mon Aug 28 12:21:09 2023 Michael DonnachieEAR2 STED Calibration Parameters

Calibration parameters for each STED detector: With function f=p0+p1*x+p2*x*x

Detector

p0 Value  p0 Error p1 Value p1 Error p2 Value p2 Error

STED 1

5.67257E-02
1.26442E-02
2.98739E-03
7.35717E-05
5.53612E-09
6.80573E-08
STED 2
3.28429E-02
8.70646E-03
3.65244E-03
6.73960E-05
-1.00906E-07
7.35018E-08
STED 3
4.94516E-02
9.74176E-03
3.09050E-03
6.48451E-05
4.55854E-08
5.55624E-08
STED 4
5.28963E-02
9.01234E-03
3.72607E-03
7.13115E-05
8.07590E-08
7.71976E-08
STED 5
5.72747E-02
9.19542E-03
2.91606E-03
6.10110E-05
9.73475E-08
5.75051E-08
STED 6
6.56951E-02
7.56334E-03
3.15511E-03
5.22840E-05
3.41401E-08
5.06241E-08
STED 7
4.66976E-02
8.08261E-03
3.12827E-03
5.32355E-05
7.80229E-09
5.79147E-08

A quadratic function was fitted to the reference point channel (from experimental histogram) and reference point energy (from simulation histogram). The reference point 'r' was r=mean+(FWHM/2) for a gaussian fitted to each compton edge. A quadratic function was used as it fitted the higher energy AmBe reference point better than a linear function. This is highlighted by the comparisson of "STED 2 Calibration" and "STED 2 Example Linear Fit Calibration" plots below. The p0 error is quite large and p2 error very large (larger than the parameter value in STED1) - however the parameters are highly correlated which may have inflated the error. 

CmC histograms were not used as the compton edge could not be located. 

For reference the STED 1 correlation matrix:

  p0 p1 p2
p0 1 -0.92473 0.78779
p1 -0.92473 1  -0.91714
p2 0.78779 -0.91714 1

 

Attachment 1: Example_STED2_calibration.pdf
Example_STED2_calibration.pdf
Attachment 2: STED1_calibration.pdf
STED1_calibration.pdf
Attachment 3: STED2_calibration.pdf
STED2_calibration.pdf
Attachment 4: STED3_calibration.pdf
STED3_calibration.pdf
Attachment 5: STED4_calibration.pdf
STED4_calibration.pdf
Attachment 6: STED5_calibration.pdf
STED5_calibration.pdf
Attachment 7: STED6_calibration.pdf
STED6_calibration.pdf
Attachment 8: STED7_calibration.pdf
STED7_calibration.pdf
  43   Fri Aug 4 10:45:05 2023 AnnieZn Plots: Normalised Spectra, Ratio Plots, Integral/Protons vs Cut (all dets)

All plots in the ratios all look pretty contstant. Zn1 for all detectors seems to have some strange spike in the integral, and a dip in the SILI measurements (and therefore in the SILI/PKUP ratio). 

Det1 & Det4 dont look great for the Integral/Proton plots, im planning to make these plots with the PKUP protons and SILI and then comapre all of those errors and ratios that come from those, so we'll see what that comparison brings. 

Nothing has been seperated by dedicated or paracitic beam yet, so those comparisons need to be made too. 

Attachment 1: Norm_spec_zn3_det4_singles.pdf
Norm_spec_zn3_det4_singles.pdf
Attachment 2: Norm_spec_zn3_Det3_singles.pdf
Norm_spec_zn3_Det3_singles.pdf
Attachment 3: Norm_spec_zn3_det2_singles.pdf
Norm_spec_zn3_det2_singles.pdf
Attachment 4: Norm_spec_zn3_det1_singles.pdf
Norm_spec_zn3_det1_singles.pdf
Attachment 5: Norm_spec_zn2_det4_singles.pdf
Norm_spec_zn2_det4_singles.pdf
Attachment 6: Norm_spec_zn2_det3_singles.pdf
Norm_spec_zn2_det3_singles.pdf
Attachment 7: Norm_spec_zn2_det2_singles.pdf
Norm_spec_zn2_det2_singles.pdf
Attachment 8: Norm_spec_zn2_det1_singles.pdf
Norm_spec_zn2_det1_singles.pdf
Attachment 9: Norm_spec_zn1_det4_singles.pdf
Norm_spec_zn1_det4_singles.pdf
Attachment 10: Norm_spec_zn1_det3_singles.pdf
Norm_spec_zn1_det3_singles.pdf
Attachment 11: Norm_spec_zn1_det2_singles.pdf
Norm_spec_zn1_det2_singles.pdf
Attachment 12: Norm_spec_zn1_det1_singles.pdf
Norm_spec_zn1_det1_singles.pdf
Attachment 13: Ratio_plot_zn3_det4.pdf
Ratio_plot_zn3_det4.pdf
Attachment 14: Ratio_plot_zn3_det3.pdf
Ratio_plot_zn3_det3.pdf
Attachment 15: Ratio_plot_zn3_det2.pdf
Ratio_plot_zn3_det2.pdf
Attachment 16: Ratio_plot_zn3_det1.pdf
Ratio_plot_zn3_det1.pdf
Attachment 17: Ratio_plot_zn2_det4.pdf
Ratio_plot_zn2_det4.pdf
Attachment 18: Ratio_plot_zn2_det3.pdf
Ratio_plot_zn2_det3.pdf
Attachment 19: Ratio_plot_zn2_det2.pdf
Ratio_plot_zn2_det2.pdf
Attachment 20: Ratio_plot_zn2_det1.pdf
Ratio_plot_zn2_det1.pdf
Attachment 21: Ratio_plot_zn1_det4.pdf
Ratio_plot_zn1_det4.pdf
Attachment 22: Ratio_plot_zn1_det3.pdf
Ratio_plot_zn1_det3.pdf
Attachment 23: Ratio_plot_zn1_det2.pdf
Ratio_plot_zn1_det2.pdf
Attachment 24: Ratio_plot_zn1_det1.pdf
Ratio_plot_zn1_det1.pdf
Attachment 25: zn_res3_vs_protons.pdf
zn_res3_vs_protons.pdf
Attachment 26: zn_res2_vs_protons.pdf
zn_res2_vs_protons.pdf
Attachment 27: zn_res3_vs_protons.pdf
zn_res3_vs_protons.pdf
  42   Mon Jul 31 12:00:02 2023 Nikolay SosninEAR2 Silicon Samples
Attachment 1: EAR2_30Si.JPG
EAR2_30Si.JPG
Attachment 2: EAR2_Sinat_Closeup.JPG
EAR2_Sinat_Closeup.JPG
Attachment 3: Goodfellow_Sinat_Sample.JPG
Goodfellow_Sinat_Sample.JPG
Attachment 4: Laser_Alignment.JPG
Laser_Alignment.JPG
  41   Fri Jul 28 12:19:10 2023 Michael DonnachieEAR2 consistency checks, PKUP BCT SILI and normalised counts

The EAR2 ratios of BCT/PKUP, BCT/SILI and PKUP/SILI plotted for each run for samples Si, Sinat, Au20, Au22 and Dummy. 

Also included is the normalised counts (counts/BCT) with 7 detectors on one plot (STED8 was ommited).  'counts' for Si was integreated over the Si resonance, for Au it was integrated over the largest resonance. For Dummy and Sinat the counts were integrated over a large range of 1e+4 to 1e+6ns. The Sinat resonance was too small for adequate statistics to only integrate over the resonance hence why a large range was used. The C6D6 normalised counts were not plotted as there seems to be issues with this detector in EAR2. 

 

Attachment 1: Au20_Ratios.pdf
Au20_Ratios.pdf
Attachment 2: Au20_STED_normalised_counts.pdf
Au20_STED_normalised_counts.pdf
Attachment 3: Au22_Ratios.pdf
Au22_Ratios.pdf
Attachment 4: Au22_STED_normalised_counts.pdf
Au22_STED_normalised_counts.pdf
Attachment 5: Dummy_Ratios.pdf
Dummy_Ratios.pdf
Attachment 6: Dummy_STED_normalised_counts.pdf
Dummy_STED_normalised_counts.pdf
Attachment 7: Si_Ratios.pdf
Si_Ratios.pdf
Attachment 8: Si_STED_normalised_counts.pdf
Si_STED_normalised_counts.pdf
Attachment 9: Sinat_Ratios.pdf
Sinat_Ratios.pdf
Attachment 10: Sinat_STED_normalised_counts.pdf
Sinat_STED_normalised_counts.pdf
  40   Fri Jul 28 12:07:33 2023 Michael DonnachieEAR2 C6D6 timeshift issues

There seems to be issues with the EAR2 C6D6 T histograms. For Au the earlier run seems to be shifted for detector 2 compared to the rest. 

For Si plotted is 3 different runs 216123, 216128 and 216135 for both detectors. The histogram is messy but highlights that there is a problem. The single Si resonace should be around 20 000ns and this is only the case for run216128. 

Apologies for no legend on plots. 

Au22
det1 run216158 black
det1 run216109 red
det2 run216158 green
det2 run216109 blue

Au22
det1 run216157 black
det1 run216108 red
det2 run216157 green
det2 run216108 blue
 

Attachment 1: Au20_C6D6_both_det_timeshift.pdf
Au20_C6D6_both_det_timeshift.pdf
Attachment 2: Au22_C6D6_both_det_timeshift.pdf
Au22_C6D6_both_det_timeshift.pdf
Attachment 3: Si30_C6D6_bothdet_3runs.pdf
Si30_C6D6_bothdet_3runs.pdf
  39   Mon Jul 24 10:32:39 2023 Michael DonnachieConsistency Checks BCT PKUP SILI

The EAR1 ratios of BCT/PKUP, BCT/SILI and PKUP/SILI plotted for each run for samples Si, Sinat goodfellow, Au20, Au22, Empty and Dummy. 

Attachment 1: Si_Ratios.pdf
Si_Ratios.pdf
Attachment 2: Au22_Ratios.pdf
Au22_Ratios.pdf
Attachment 3: Au20_Ratios.pdf
Au20_Ratios.pdf
Attachment 4: Dummy_Ratios.pdf
Dummy_Ratios.pdf
Attachment 5: Sinat_Goodfellow_Ratios.pdf
Sinat_Goodfellow_Ratios.pdf
Attachment 6: Empty_Ratios.pdf
Empty_Ratios.pdf
  38   Fri Jul 21 10:45:22 2023 Michael DonnachieConsistency Checks BCT PKUP comparrisons

The ratios for BCT/PKUP for Si, Au20, Au22, Dummy, Empty and Sinat goodfellow have been plotted. Also included is the normalised counts (counts/BCT) with all 4 detectors on one plot. Apologies there is not a legend, however det1 is red, det2 is green, det3 black and det4 blue. 'counts' for Si was integreated over the Si resonance, for Au it was integrated over the largest resonance. For Dummy, Empty and Sinat the counts were integrated over a large range of 1e+5 to 1e+7ns. The Sinat resonance was too small for adequate statistics to only integrate over the resonance hence why a large range was used. 

 

Attachment 1: Au20NormalisedCounts.pdf
Au20NormalisedCounts.pdf
Attachment 2: Au22NormalisedCounts.pdf
Au22NormalisedCounts.pdf
Attachment 3: DummyNormalisedCounts.pdf
DummyNormalisedCounts.pdf
Attachment 4: EmptyNormalisedCounts.pdf
EmptyNormalisedCounts.pdf
Attachment 5: SinatgoodNormalisedCounts.pdf
SinatgoodNormalisedCounts.pdf
Attachment 6: SiNormalisedCounts.pdf
SiNormalisedCounts.pdf
Attachment 7: Sinat_Goodfellow_det1_Detector_Ratios.pdf
Sinat_Goodfellow_det1_Detector_Ratios.pdf
Attachment 8: Au20_det1_Detector_Ratios.pdf
Au20_det1_Detector_Ratios.pdf
Attachment 9: Au22_det1_Detector_Ratios.pdf
Au22_det1_Detector_Ratios.pdf
Attachment 10: Dummy_det1_Detector_Ratios.pdf
Dummy_det1_Detector_Ratios.pdf
Attachment 11: Empty_det1_Detector_Ratios.pdf
Empty_det1_Detector_Ratios.pdf
Attachment 12: Si_det1_Detector_Ratios.pdf
Si_det1_Detector_Ratios.pdf
  37   Mon Jul 17 14:49:16 2023 Nikolay SosninMounted Si-nat Sample

Goodfellow Si-nat mounted at EAR1. First run: 116551

Attachment 1: Sinat_Back.JPG
Sinat_Back.JPG
Attachment 2: Sinat_Front.JPG
Sinat_Front.JPG
Attachment 3: Sinat_Sample.JPG
Sinat_Sample.JPG
  36   Mon Jul 17 12:30:28 2023 Nikolay SosninSi-nat Goodfellow Sample Properties

Goodfellow sample has been deposited on a single Mylar foil and glue is drying.

mass = 2.932 g

diameter = 20.0 mm

thickness = 3.98 mm

Attachment 1: Sinat_Sample_Properties.JPG
Sinat_Sample_Properties.JPG
  35   Mon Jul 17 11:30:54 2023 ClaudiaProperties Silicon powder samples

30Si
Mass: 0.9925(1) g;    Diameter: 22.22(1) mm;    Thickness: 1.77(4) mm;

natSi
Mass: 1.0653(2)g;    Diameter: 19.94(2) mm;    Thickness: 1.91(3) mm;

Mass of sample pre-treatment (sintering ...)

natSi 1.0238 g
30Si:  0.75034 g

  34   Mon Jul 17 10:06:35 2023 Nikolay SosninState of the Union: Campaign Update 17.07.2023

EAR1: Si-nat sample fell off the holder during maintenance (before run 116544), appears intact and undamaged. Placed it back in-beam for further EAR1 measurements and subsequent transfer to EAR2.

EAR2: Replaced DUMMY with 30Si. Photo during alignment and photo of sample in holder attached.

Attachment 1: Sinat_PostFall.JPG
Sinat_PostFall.JPG
Attachment 2: EAR2_30Si_Alignment.JPG
EAR2_30Si_Alignment.JPG
Attachment 3: EAR2_30Si.JPG
EAR2_30Si.JPG
  33   Sat Jul 15 07:33:32 2023 Nikolay Sosnin30Si EAR2

8 sTED + 2 C6D6

C6D6: distance = 14 cm, angle = 135 degrees

sTED horizontal ring, distance for each detector from target = 4.5 cm. sTED labeled 8 in the DAQ is actually sTED #9 at n_TOF (actual sTED #8 showed no signal)

sTED1 809V, sTED2 793V, sTED3 813V, sTED4 779V, sTED5 785V, sTED6 800V, sTED7 791V, sTED8 837V

C6D61 (labeled C6D6_M in HV log) 854V, C6D62 (labeled C6D6_N in HV log) 871V

Attachment 1: C6D6_sTED.JPG
C6D6_sTED.JPG
Attachment 2: sTED_Ring_Cs137.JPG
sTED_Ring_Cs137.JPG
Attachment 3: C6D6_sTED_Side.JPG
C6D6_sTED_Side.JPG
Attachment 4: Beam_Kapton_Setup.JPG
Beam_Kapton_Setup.JPG
Attachment 5: EAR2_Setup2.JPG
EAR2_Setup2.JPG
Attachment 6: EAR2_Setup.JPG
EAR2_Setup.JPG
  32   Thu Jul 13 14:19:37 2023 Claudiadead time 30Si run

Default TTOFSort dead time setting of 30 ns is ok.

Attachment 1: consecutiveau22.pdf
consecutiveau22.pdf
  31   Thu Jul 13 12:27:44 2023 Michael Donnachie, CLWCalibration Parameters

Calibration parameters for each detector:

detector y-intercept (value) y-intercept (error) gradient (value) gradient (error)
1
3.71330E-02
5.54684E-03
2.78468E-04
1.56343E-06
2
1.21071E-02
7.19950E-03
2.82656E-04
1.96751E-06
3
2.74746E-02
4.18331E-03
2.64094E-04
1.33883E-06
4
2.96214E-02
4.61155E-03
2.73633E-04
1.22941E-06

A linear function was fitted to the reference point channel (from experimental histogram) and reference point energy (from simulation histogram). The reference point 'r' was r=mean+(FWHM/2) for a gaussian fitted to each compton edge. 

 

The comparrisons between the calibrated experimental and simulation histograms has been attached. P1 (left) and P2 (right) on the Y88 hisograms indicate whether the histograms were scaled with respect to the leftmost or rightmost compton edge (only to allow easier comparrison). 

Broadening parameters applied to the simulations

float a1 = 0.004947965;
float b1 = 0.005227974;
float a2 = 0.007163802;
float b2 = 0.007549987;
float a3 = 0.001256462;
float b3 = 0.006410511;
float a4 = 0.003907402;
float b4 = 0.004033837;

sigma= sqrt(axE+bxE^2) 

Attachment 1: det1.pdf
det1.pdf
Attachment 2: det2.pdf
det2.pdf
Attachment 3: det3.pdf
det3.pdf
Attachment 4: det4.pdf
det4.pdf
Attachment 5: Ydet2p1.pdf
Ydet2p1.pdf
Attachment 6: Ydet2p2.pdf
Ydet2p2.pdf
Attachment 7: Ydet3p1.pdf
Ydet3p1.pdf
Attachment 8: Ydet3p2.pdf
Ydet3p2.pdf
Attachment 9: Ydet4p1.pdf
Ydet4p1.pdf
Attachment 10: Ydet4p2.pdf
Ydet4p2.pdf
Attachment 11: AmBedet1.pdf
AmBedet1.pdf
Attachment 12: AmBedet2.pdf
AmBedet2.pdf
Attachment 13: AmBedet3.pdf
AmBedet3.pdf
Attachment 14: AmBedet4.pdf
AmBedet4.pdf
Attachment 15: CmCdet1.pdf
CmCdet1.pdf
Attachment 16: CmCdet2.pdf
CmCdet2.pdf
Attachment 17: CmCdet3.pdf
CmCdet3.pdf
Attachment 18: CmCdet4.pdf
CmCdet4.pdf
Attachment 19: Csdet1.pdf
Csdet1.pdf
Attachment 20: Csdet2.pdf
Csdet2.pdf
Attachment 21: Csdet3.pdf
Csdet3.pdf
Attachment 22: Csdet4.pdf
Csdet4.pdf
Attachment 23: Ydet1p1.pdf
Ydet1p1.pdf
Attachment 24: Ydet1p2.pdf
Ydet1p2.pdf
  30   Thu Jun 29 09:21:13 2023 AnnieInfo on Samples

Both Au samples (20mm and 22mm) are single mylar.

Both Si30 (22mm) and natSi (20mm) are double mylar.

Empty is single mylar ONLY

Dummy is double mylar + glue 

Attachment 1: IMG_2242.JPG
IMG_2242.JPG
Attachment 2: IMG_2248.JPG
IMG_2248.JPG
Attachment 3: IMG_2247.JPG
IMG_2247.JPG
Attachment 4: IMG_2246.JPG
IMG_2246.JPG
  29   Thu Jun 22 10:37:39 2023 AnnieGold 22mm Sample Images

New 22mm sample compared to old 20mm sample used at the beginning of the campaign + picture of dummy target in the setup.

Attachment 1: IMG_2187.JPG
IMG_2187.JPG
Attachment 2: IMG_2186.JPG
IMG_2186.JPG
Attachment 3: IMG_2185.JPG
IMG_2185.JPG
  28   Thu Jun 15 09:57:01 2023 AnnieSi Set Up

Si Set up images and documentation.

Detector 1 - C6D6D: Distance= 9 cm, Angle= 135 deg relative to BL (check set up pdf for drawing if unsure), Voltage= 1550 V

Detector 2 - C6D6E: Distance= 9 cm, Angle= 135 deg relative to BL, Voltage= 1590 V

Detector 3 - C6D6H: Distance= 9 cm, Angle= 135 deg relative to BL, Voltage= 1450 V

Detector 4 - C6D6L: Distance= 9 cm, Angle= 135 deg relative to BL, Voltage= 1460 V

 

Note: Voltages were increased by 30V after the first few runs, these voltages are titled as "new voltages" in the DAQ when they were being tried out, and are now the final voltages.

 

 

Attachment 1: IMG_2101.JPG
IMG_2101.JPG
Attachment 2: IMG_2103.JPG
IMG_2103.JPG
Attachment 3: IMG_2109.JPG
IMG_2109.JPG
Attachment 4: IMG_2114.JPG
IMG_2114.JPG
Attachment 5: IMG_2116.JPG
IMG_2116.JPG
Attachment 6: IMG_2122.JPG
IMG_2122.JPG
Attachment 7: IMG_2122.JPG
IMG_2122.JPG
Attachment 8: IMG_2131.JPG
IMG_2131.JPG
Attachment 9: IMG_2132.JPG
IMG_2132.JPG
Attachment 10: IMG_2124.JPG
IMG_2124.JPG
Attachment 11: IMG_2120.JPG
IMG_2120.JPG
Attachment 12: Si_Set_Up_final.pdf
Si_Set_Up_final.pdf Si_Set_Up_final.pdf Si_Set_Up_final.pdf Si_Set_Up_final.pdf Si_Set_Up_final.pdf Si_Set_Up_final.pdf
  27   Tue Apr 11 14:07:43 2023 ClaudiaPhotos of the Zn68 measurement setup

Photos of the  68Zn(n,gamma) measuremement setup at n_TOF EAR-1.

Attachment 1: IMG_20180409_204846530_LL.jpg
IMG_20180409_204846530_LL.jpg
Attachment 2: IMG_20180409_204854032_LL.jpg
IMG_20180409_204854032_LL.jpg
Attachment 3: IMG_20180410_180042179_LL.jpg
IMG_20180410_180042179_LL.jpg
Attachment 4: IMG_20180411_140834699_LL.jpg
IMG_20180411_140834699_LL.jpg
Attachment 5: Zn68measurement.jpg
Zn68measurement.jpg
  26   Fri Jul 29 17:21:47 2022 RaganEnriched Si-30

Attached are the pictures of enriched Si-30 metal pieces.

Attachment 1: IMG_2692.jpg
IMG_2692.jpg
Attachment 2: IMG_2693.jpg
IMG_2693.jpg
ELOG V3.1.4-unknown