Lab Book 2014_08_14 Hamilton Carter
New to the experiment? Scroll to the bottom for background.
Low Gain linearity
run
Bias
|
1100 V
|
Gate Wind0ow
|
0.5 uS
|
Threshold
|
1.5mV
|
Attenuation
|
6 dB
|
Data set
|
HBC_0005
|
Source
|
Cs 137 taped to window
|
Start Time
|
8:58 AM
|
Stop Time
|
11:02 AM
|
Date
|
2014_08_14
|
x-y scope V/div
|
1, 0.5
|
Shielded?
|
Yes
|
Tube
|
Harshaw B-
|
The source is taped directcly to the window of the
detector. This will give the maximum
number of particles from the source impacting the detector. The counts from these runs will be used to
determine the number of counts per second from the source.
Picture of the spectrum
This spectrum had to be patched to account for the overflow
in the 662 peak channels as can be seen above.
The patched spectrum is shown below.
The slope voltage per channel was calculated again. The results are shown below
channel
|
Count
|
Voltage
|
107
|
5633
|
184000
|
266
|
9656
|
662000
|
|
|
|
|
rise
|
478000
|
|
run
|
159
|
|
slope
|
3006.289
|
|
offset
|
-137673
|
|
|
|
|
107 test
|
184000
|
|
|
|
|
plateaue test
|
207.7887
|
In this case, the Compton edge energy that was used for the
‘plateau test’ was 478 keV as reported at http://nsspi.tamu.edu/media/141586/cs-137%20spectra.jpg
Yesterday’s troublesome question has become even stranger…
maybe. The original run that had a
higher count on the K line was done at the same bias. The only difference is that there was no
shielding present. Consequenlty, we have
from the 12th with no shielding:
Notice that the K line is almost as tall as the 662 keV
line. On the 13th, with
shielding we have:
Here’s another hint.
On the 12th, the source was not taped to the window. This should account for the difference in
counts in the 662 keV peak shown below for the shielded run on the 13th
There are several things to take note of in the above. First, the counts for the source are
increased. This would be expected
because of the source placement as mentioned above. Second, notice that the plateau signal isn’t
reduced by much. This is an indicator
that its noise, as suspected. We still
don’t have an answer for why the k line count goes down relative to the 662 keV
line however.
Run from Dewar Source Distance
Bias
|
1400 V
|
Gate Wind0ow
|
0.5 uS
|
Threshold
|
1.5mV
|
Attenuation
|
6 dB
|
Data set
|
HBC_0005
|
Source
|
Cs 137 Placed 2 9/16” from center of window to center of source.
|
Start Time
|
1:32 PM
|
Stop Time
|
2:34 PM
|
Date
|
2014_08_14
|
x-y scope V/div
|
1, 0.5
|
Shielded?
|
Yes
|
Tube
|
Harshaw B-
|
Is there a different 32 keV peak here? I thought I had eliminated the pedestal, but
looking at the entire spectrum, the pedestal and what might be two peaks show
up.
Analysis of the ‘new’
32 keV peak
By blowing up the y axis on yesterday’s data, the ‘new’ peak
at near 150 on today’s data can be seen near 140. This roughly corresponds with the observed
peak at 150 today. Here’s the plot
It can be seen that neither peak gives a line equation that
correctly predicts the Compton plateau edge
Choosing a 32 keV peak
|
||||||
channel
|
Count
|
Voltage
|
channel
|
Count
|
Voltage
|
|
86
|
5633
|
32000
|
150
|
5633
|
32000
|
|
995
|
9656
|
662000
|
995
|
9656
|
662000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rise
|
630000
|
|
rise
|
630000
|
|
|
run
|
909
|
|
run
|
845
|
|
|
slope
|
693.0693
|
|
slope
|
745.5621
|
|
|
offset
|
-27604
|
|
offset
|
-79834.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
150 test
|
76356.44
|
|
150 test
|
32000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
plateaue test
|
742.5
|
|
plateaue test
|
760.2778
|
Here’s the same plat as above, from the Dewar distance
source test that shows the two predicted Compton edge channels. They’re both too large.
A Co 60 run was taken in hopes of making use of the 75 keV
Pb X-ray.
Bias
|
1400 V
|
Gate Wind0ow
|
0.5 uS
|
Threshold
|
1.5mV
|
Attenuation
|
6 dB
|
Data set
|
HBC_0007
|
Source
|
Co 60 Taped to window
|
Start Time
|
3:07 PM
|
Stop Time
|
3:50 PM
|
Date
|
2014_08_14
|
x-y scope V/div
|
1, 0.5
|
Shielded?
|
Yes
|
Tube
|
Harshaw B-
|
Picture of spectrum
It’s debatable whether or not the 75 keV peak can be seen
above or not. The spectrum looks
identical to the background only spectrum.
I’m running an overnight spectrum to get a cleaner signal.
Co 60 specctrum:
Background spectrum
The 75 keV peak in Co 60 can be seen in this spectrum
Hirsch's theory of hole superconductivity proposes a new
BCS-compatible model of Cooper pair formation when superconducting materials
phase transition from their normal to their superconducting state[1]. One
of the experimentally verifiable predictions of his theory is that when a
superconductor rapidly transitions, (quenches), back to its normal state, it
will emit x-rays, (colloquially referred to here as H-rays because it's
Hirsch's theory).
A superconductor can be rapidly transitioned back to its normal state by placing it in a strong magnetic field. My experiment will look for H-rays emitted by both a Pb and a YBCO superconductor when it is quenched by a strong magnetic field.
A superconductor can be rapidly transitioned back to its normal state by placing it in a strong magnetic field. My experiment will look for H-rays emitted by both a Pb and a YBCO superconductor when it is quenched by a strong magnetic field.
This series of articles chronicles both the experimental lab
work and the theory work that’s going into completing the experiment.
The lab book entries in this series detail the preparation and execution of this experiment… mostly. I also have a few theory projects involving special relativity and quantum field theory. Occasionally, they appear in these pages.
The lab book entries in this series detail the preparation and execution of this experiment… mostly. I also have a few theory projects involving special relativity and quantum field theory. Occasionally, they appear in these pages.
*Call for Input*
If you have any ideas, questions, or comments, they're very
welcome!
*References*
1. Hirsch, J. E.,
“Pair production and ionizing radiation from superconductors”, http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0508529
Comments
Post a Comment
Please leave your comments on this topic: