Analysis discussion meeting

→ Europe/Zurich
https://psich.zoom.us/j/64223995890?pwd=b0RJMmdQQytMdnlDOW9wd0YrLy9WUT09

https://psich.zoom.us/j/64223995890?pwd=b0RJMmdQQytMdnlDOW9wd0YrLy9WUT09
Hide

Michael:

Filtering data:

Running analyzer --> 5.6 ns summed time resolution (sigma) at 932 keV prompt peak

Reformed output tree into more convenient tree with flags: 

  • PP: [-5; +3] µs
  • Electron veto: [-500; +500] ns (very broad, save electron-germanium time difference so that cuts can be made at a later time)
  • Muon veto: [-10; +10] ns
  • Electron from decay: [muontime; germanium time] (seemingly no improvement there)

Very slight slope in ELET. Time offset drops with about 5ns at 6 MeV (was optimized around 1-2 MeV, so to be expected)

Prominence and signal suggest ideal time window [-50; +500] ns

 

Looking back at gold and barium:

Increased statistics and reduced uncertainties

For the graphite sputter targets: ~36% higher signal; ~18% reduction in absolute error (so 40% reduction in relative error!)

For MP: Both finestructure peaks visible in all spectra --> p3/2-p1/2 ratio is about 1.5

For DoD: Tried rebinning to see something --> Maybe a very small peak for 50 and 25 µg samples, but still unclear

 

Stella:

On the data analysis:

Is that data baseline restored?

Yes, but with the "simple" function. Not with the MAW/RAW things. Is this needed for this data (not as high rates)?

 

Frederik:

Upcoming beamtimes:

Decide which detectors to use and how to arrange switching time. 

TUM detector might have to go back this summer for administration purposes

Maybe we can have some clover detectors for the campaigns

  • muX --> Aimed at high energy (Ra)
  • ReferenceRadii --> No changes to muX array
  • OMC4DBD --> Quite possibly some changes (extra BEGe's perhaps)
  • QUARTET --> Low energy focus

committee was not convinced by the importance of radii measurements at low-to-medium Z

For error reduction on Vud, how much improvement?

There are minutes attached to this event. Show them.