05/11/2011: Difference between revisions

From New IAC Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Shaproma (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Shaproma (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
 
(9 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
[https://wiki.iac.isu.edu/index.php/N%27s_detector_calibration Go Back]
Because is something wrong I decided to measure the counts rate as function of threshold energy. Maybe my threshold was incorrect.
Because is something wrong I decided to measure the counts rate as function of threshold energy. Maybe my threshold was incorrect.


Line 4: Line 7:


[[File:Det1 callibration.png | 1000 px]]
[[File:Det1 callibration.png | 1000 px]]
So it looks like my previous threshold value (-500 mV) was not good. Let's set it up the -200 mV. And let's see does the n's detector sensitive to the source. The same set up and distances as before.
{| border="1" cellspacing="0" style="text-align: center; width: 800px; height: 100px;"
! scope="col" width="50" |
! scope="col" width="50" | counts/sec (5 min test), no source
! scope="col" width="50" | counts/sec (5 min test), with source on the top of PS1
|-
!n's
|19.89<math>\pm</math>0.26  (total 5966 cnts) || 58.84<math>\pm</math>0.29  (total 17652 cnts)
|}
So now we see the source. The ratio are:
<math>\frac{Rate_{source}}{Rate_{w/source}} = \frac{58.84}{19.89} = 2.96 </math>

Latest revision as of 04:59, 12 May 2011

Go Back


Because is something wrong I decided to measure the counts rate as function of threshold energy. Maybe my threshold was incorrect.

Below are my results for n's detector with HAMAMATSU PMT (-1500 V):


So it looks like my previous threshold value (-500 mV) was not good. Let's set it up the -200 mV. And let's see does the n's detector sensitive to the source. The same set up and distances as before.

counts/sec (5 min test), no source counts/sec (5 min test), with source on the top of PS1
n's 19.89[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.26 (total 5966 cnts) 58.84[math]\displaystyle{ \pm }[/math]0.29 (total 17652 cnts)

So now we see the source. The ratio are:

[math]\displaystyle{ \frac{Rate_{source}}{Rate_{w/source}} = \frac{58.84}{19.89} = 2.96  }[/math]