1 / 11

Buried cone, buried layer Titan, August 2008

Buried cone, buried layer Titan, August 2008. Buried cone buried layer comments. Is it possible laser didn’t hit bottom every time? Intrinsic prepulse -- 19s7, 21s5 - the latter has very well defined peak. Former much broader.

elmer
Download Presentation

Buried cone, buried layer Titan, August 2008

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Buried cone, buried layer Titan, August 2008

  2. Buried cone buried layer comments • Is it possible laser didn’t hit bottom every time? • Intrinsic prepulse -- 19s7, 21s5 - the latter has very well defined peak. Former much broader. • 50 mJ prepulse -- 21s3, 21s6, 21s7 have -- peak definition improves with later shots. • Some of the well-defined spots weren‘t in the center of the foil. The foils don’t seem to be offset that much - see 21s5,7. Need to work out relationship of x-radiographs to target images to check. • Foil is not much larger than peak - but checked measuring routine against lineouts, and find results OK.

  3. 19s7 Bur 50 m #1 • Target #1 • Image blurred by 30 pixels for peak measurement. • Foil 350 m across => 1 pixel = 3 m • Images 460 pixels across • Lineout suggests bkgnd 8 e2 FWHM X-radiograph 5 pixel blur 30 pixel blur Profile

  4. 20s6 Bur 100 m #1 • Image blurred by 30 pixels for peak measurement. • Foil 350 m across => 1 pixel = 3 m • Images 460 pixels across • Edge is noticeably lit up, but doesn’t have a significant number of counts • Linout suggests bkgnd 5.5 e2 FWHM X-radiograph 5 pixel blur 30 pixel blur Profile

  5. 21s1 Bur 50 m #2 • Image blurred by 30 pixels for peak measurement. • Foil 350 m across => 1 pixel = 3 m • Images 460 pixels across • Lineout suggests 5 e2 bkgnd FWHM X-radiograph 5 pixel blur 30 pixel blur Profile

  6. 21s2 Bur 50 m #3 • Image blurred by 30 pixels for peak measurement. • Foil 350 m across => 1 pixel = 3 m • Images 460 pixels across • Lineout suggests bkgnd 5 e2 FWHM X-radiograph 5 pixel blur 30 pixel blur Profile

  7. 21s3 Bur 50 m #4 • Image blurred by 30 pixels for peak measurement. • Foil 350 m across => 1 pixel = 3 m • Images 460 pixels across • Lineout suggests bkgnd 3 e2 FWHM X-radiograph 5 pixel blur 30 pixel blur Profile

  8. 21s4 Bur 50 m #5 • Image blurred by 30 pixels for peak measurement. • Foil 350 m across => 1 pixel = 3 m • Images 460 pixels across • Lineout shows 3 e2 foil intensity FWHM X-radiograph 5 pixel blur 30 pixel blur Profile

  9. 21s5 Bur 50 m #6 • Image blurred by 30 pixels for peak measurement. • Foil 350 m across => 1 pixel = 3 m • Images 460 pixels across • Lineout suggets bkgnd 7 e2 FWHM X-radiograph 5 pixel blur 30 pixel blur Profile

  10. 21s6 Bur 50 m #7 • Image blurred by 30 pixels for peak measurement. • Foil 350 m across => 1 pixel = 3 m • Images 460 pixels across • Lineout suggests bkgnd 6.5 e2 FWHM X-radiograph 5 pixel blur 30 pixel blur Profile

  11. 21s7 Bur 50 m #8 • Image blurred by 30 pixels for peak measurement. • Foil 350 m across => 1 pixel = 3 m • Images 460 pixels across • Lineout suggests bkgnd 7 e2 FWHM X-radiograph 5 pixel blur 30 pixel blur Profile

More Related