Analysis discussion meeting

Name: Analysis discussion meeting
Start: 2025-04-11T09:00:00+02:00
End: 2025-04-11T10:00:00+02:00
Location: No location set

Friday 11 Apr 2025, 09:00 → 10:00 Europe/Zurich

https://psich.zoom.us/j/67898862738?pwd=YzhWSC90Wm1BRTEyYm1OUmhFQjUwdz09

Hide

Marie

Rise-time correction:

performed correction based on risetime*energy
slide 18: fit is not perfect, Randolf suggested to use a spline instead to fit this with (with 5 or 6 regions) or maybe cut a bit more
Andreas: look at different slices in time and plot mean afo slice ID, to see how the mean varies uncorrected vs corrected
Experimental investigation of the risetime: use Co source as a reference (on a fixed point) and move Eu source around to see if risetime distribution changes

Stella

Re and Cm

NP and NnP in 185,187Re: Igor will do NP and Micha could maybe do a scaling for NnP
if the 2p-1s fitted charge radius is used to predict 3d-2p lines --> 12keV discrepancy
if opposite: 3d-2p is used to get charge radius, which is then used to predict the 2p-1s lines, there is also no match, but skin thickness variations up to 10% for fixed charge radius, cause up to 15keV shift in the charge radius extracted from the 3d-2p levels -> Up to 1/4th of the discrepancy could be solved --> Is it the model dependence that creates this discrepancy?
--> Constantin will to k and alpha calculation to translate charge radii into Barret radii --> V2 can be calculated from Pepijns BsKG --> New charge radii can be extracted and potentially this solves the discrepancy

Cascade code:

compared old and new code by loading in 2 exactly the same input cards
there is a discrepancy from 7p-1s onwards, which could be due to the numerical instabilities, due to the new code being compiled with all of these forced flags to make it work (as the new code shows a less smooth trend than the old code)
--> Old simulations should still be better, but we should use Z-1

There are minutes attached to this event. Show them.

Choose timezone