Difference between revisions of "LB Feb Nickel Consistency Check"
Line 66: | Line 66: | ||
|- | |- | ||
||Ratio With Front Foil || 0.85 +/- 0.07 || 0.64 +/- 0.03 || 0.59 +/- 0.03 || 0.57 +/- 0.04|| 0.50 +/- 0.03 || 0.68 +/- 0.03 || 0.95 +/- 0.07 || 0.67 +/- 0.06 || 0.66 +/- 0.07 || 0.46 +/- 0.08 || 0.64 +/- 0.17 | ||Ratio With Front Foil || 0.85 +/- 0.07 || 0.64 +/- 0.03 || 0.59 +/- 0.03 || 0.57 +/- 0.04|| 0.50 +/- 0.03 || 0.68 +/- 0.03 || 0.95 +/- 0.07 || 0.67 +/- 0.06 || 0.66 +/- 0.07 || 0.46 +/- 0.08 || 0.64 +/- 0.17 | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | |} | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | ==Thin Window Method== | ||
+ | |||
+ | It would seem according to [[Se170063 Thin Window Analysis]], the thin window method can give answers that we would expect, so I will try that here to see if I can get the ratio of the front and rear nickel foils to be 1. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Below is a table for the front foil information: | ||
+ | |||
+ | {| border="3" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" | ||
+ | || || 2/14/17 (r5924) || 2/15/17 (r5932) || 2/17/17 (r5990) || 2/18/17 (r6009) || 2/19/17 (r6027) || 2/21/17 (r6063) || 2/22/17 (r6081) || 2/23/17 (r6114) || 2/24/17 (r6139) || 2/25/17 (r6147) || 2/26/17 (r6157) | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | ||Thin Window | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | ||Original Window || | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | ||Expanded Window || | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | ||Maximum of Histogram || | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | ||Original Background || | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | ||Expanded Background || | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | ||Signal Background (Take Larger Error) || | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | ||Integrated Background || | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | ||Signal in Thin Window (Hz)|| | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | ||Background Subtracted Signal || | ||
|- | |- | ||
|} | |} |
Revision as of 17:49, 9 November 2017
This analysis was done on Inv # 170010 which was irradiated in February 2017 with a rotating sample holder. This was a 50% mix of Se and Soil. The mass of the front nickel foil was 0.27 grams and the mass of the rear nickel foil was 0.25 grams. The histograms made were weighted by the time of the run and the mass of the nickel foil.
Below is a table for the front nickel foil:
Below is a table for the rear nickel foil:
Since the efficiency is unknown I will plot the ratio of the activities so the efficiency cancels out. Below is a table of rations that will be entered into a .dat File after correcting for time to make sure that they are the activities at the same time. The decay constant for Ni-57 is
r5924 | r5932 | r5990 | r6009 | r6027 | r6063 | r6081 | r6114 | r6139 | r6147 | r6157 | |
Time elapsed (Sec) | 751 | 761 | 681 | 835 | 630 | 657 | 731 | 981 | 976 | 1337 | 1297 |
Original Activity | 195.99 +/- 9.47 | 290.69 +/- 8.97 | 365.74 +/- 12.01 | 224.17 +/- 9.30 | 274.4 +/- 7.68 | 342.25 +/- 8.00 | 153.54 +/- 8.38 | 147.03 +/- 8.18 | 100.92 +/- 6.76 | 89.94 +/- 13.04 | 34.83 +/- 7.77 |
Corrected Activity (Hz) | 204.12 +/- 9.86 | 302.91 +/- 9.35 | 379.46 +/- 12.46 | 234.53 +/- 9.73 | 283.91 +/- 7.94 | 354.63 +/- 8.29 | 159.73 +/- 8.72 | 155.04 +/- 8.62 | 106.39 +/- 7.13 | 96.69 +/- 14.02 | 37.36 +/- 8.33 |
Ratio With Front Foil | 0.85 +/- 0.07 | 0.64 +/- 0.03 | 0.59 +/- 0.03 | 0.57 +/- 0.04 | 0.50 +/- 0.03 | 0.68 +/- 0.03 | 0.95 +/- 0.07 | 0.67 +/- 0.06 | 0.66 +/- 0.07 | 0.46 +/- 0.08 | 0.64 +/- 0.17 |
Thin Window Method
It would seem according to Se170063 Thin Window Analysis, the thin window method can give answers that we would expect, so I will try that here to see if I can get the ratio of the front and rear nickel foils to be 1.
Below is a table for the front foil information:
2/14/17 (r5924) | 2/15/17 (r5932) | 2/17/17 (r5990) | 2/18/17 (r6009) | 2/19/17 (r6027) | 2/21/17 (r6063) | 2/22/17 (r6081) | 2/23/17 (r6114) | 2/24/17 (r6139) | 2/25/17 (r6147) | 2/26/17 (r6157) | |
Thin Window | |||||||||||
Original Window | |||||||||||
Expanded Window | |||||||||||
Maximum of Histogram | |||||||||||
Original Background | |||||||||||
Expanded Background | |||||||||||
Signal Background (Take Larger Error) | |||||||||||
Integrated Background | |||||||||||
Signal in Thin Window (Hz) | |||||||||||
Background Subtracted Signal |