| ID |
Date |
Author |
Type |
Category |
Subject |
|
84
|
Thu Jul 16 14:46:52 2009 |
Damien Gallop | | | 16O7+ survey |
A/q = 2.2857 Field = 708.0G FC6 = 70epA (noisy)
No emittance scan possible. |
|
85
|
Thu Jul 16 14:50:38 2009 |
Damien Gallop | | | 18O7+ survey |
A/q = 2.5714 Field = 751.1G FC6 = 40epA
No emittance scan possible. |
|
86
|
Thu Jul 16 15:11:16 2009 |
Damien Gallop | | | 16O6+ survey |
A/q = 2.6667 Field = 764.7G FC6 = 3.0nA |
|
87
|
Thu Jul 16 15:22:51 2009 |
Damien Gallop | | | 18O6+ survey |
A/q = 3 Field = 811.2G FC6 = 1.6nA
Not quite enough beam for an emittance scan. |
|
88
|
Thu Jul 16 15:38:58 2009 |
Damien Gallop | | | 16O5+ survey |
A/q = 3.2 Field = 837.7G FC6 = 14.5enA |
|
89
|
Thu Jul 16 15:41:35 2009 |
Damien Gallop | | | 18O5+ survey |
A/q = 3.6 Field = 888.6G FC6 = 6.2enA |
|
90
|
Thu Jul 16 15:49:46 2009 |
Damien Gallop | | | 16O4+ survey |
A/q = 4 Field = 936.7 FC6 = 54.0enA |
|
91
|
Thu Jul 16 15:58:53 2009 |
Damien Gallop | | | 18O4+ survey |
A/q = 4.5 Field = 993.5G FC6 = 20enA |
|
92
|
Thu Jul 16 16:15:39 2009 |
Damien Gallop | | | 16O3+ survey |
A/q = 5.3333 Field = 1081.6G FC6 = 110nA |
|
93
|
Thu Jul 16 16:33:28 2009 |
Damien Gallop | | | 18O3+ survey |
A/q = 6 Field = 1147.2 FC6 = 39.3enA |
|
94
|
Thu Jul 16 16:40:11 2009 |
Damien Gallop | | | 16O2+ survey |
A/q = 8 Field = 1324.8G FC6 = 172enA |
|
95
|
Thu Jul 16 16:50:41 2009 |
Damien Gallop | | | 18O2+ survey |
A/q = 9 Field = 1405.0G FC6 = 55enA |
|
96
|
Thu Jul 16 17:05:29 2009 |
Damien Gallop | | | 16O1+ survey |
A/q = 16 Field = 1873.4G FC6 = 204enA |
|
97
|
Thu Jul 16 17:09:52 2009 |
Damien Gallop | | | 18O1+ survey |
A/q = 18 Field = 1987.1 FC6 = 161nA |
|
98
|
Thu Jul 16 17:15:50 2009 |
Damien Gallop | | | 16/18On+ survey summary |
Here is a summary of emittances gleaned from the aforementioned elog entries.
18O4+ restored onto FC6 ~20enA, which seems slightly low. |
|
99
|
Fri Jul 17 09:33:09 2009 |
Damien Gallop | | | Supernanogan epilogue |
There are the last couple of hours of Supernanogan Development for this set. Our run plan included 17On+ studies. Time will not permit it this time around. Also, the emittance numbers of 16O and 18O are not distinctive enough as they stand to warrant studies of the in-between mass. Keerthi will run the emittance data files through his software during post-analysis, and we'll develop our next run plan based on his conclusions.
This morning I will redo a couple of emittance scans that were not optimal yesterday. We'll start with an 18O4+ emittance check, then 18O8+, where, though I don't expect an emittance scan, I do expect to see beam. A vacuum trip on Wednesday evening probably compromised source vacuum and therefore the ability to generate the higher charge states. Here we go.
18O4+ emittance checks well. |
|
100
|
Fri Jul 17 09:47:16 2009 |
Damien Gallop | | | 18O8+ recheck |
Go fishing in the range 2.24-2.26, but no fish in this pond this time. However, there is a relatively strong beam at 2.3.
A/q = 2.3 Field = 711.2 FC6 = 110enA
No emittance scan possible.
I did a check at A/q = 2, and found a strong peak at 2.04 field 668.8 18enA, suggesting that the A/q panel calibration is slightly off for the lower masses, and in the right direction for the above to indeed be 18O8+. Good stuff.
Next stop: 18O6+. |
|
101
|
Fri Jul 17 10:03:07 2009 |
Damien Gallop | | | 18O6+ recheck |
A/q = 3 Field = 813.9G FC6 = 2.2enA
I tweaked the adjustment of the displayed A/q calibration to fit this one. |
|
102
|
Fri Jul 17 10:28:09 2009 |
Damien Gallop | | | 18O7+ recheck |
A/q = 2.571 Field = 753.5 FC6 = 50epA |
|
103
|
Fri Jul 17 10:30:27 2009 |
Damien Gallop | | | 16O7+ recheck |
A/q = 2.2857 Field = 710.5G FC6 = 100pA |