1 / 32

The problem with double event patterns (M. Brusa, K. Dennerl – MPE) EPIC CAL/OPS meeting - MPE

The problem with double event patterns (M. Brusa, K. Dennerl – MPE) EPIC CAL/OPS meeting - MPE. Classification of doubles. SAS 2 Right. SAS 3 Forward. SAS 4 Left. SAS 1 Backward. readout direction. split backward (SAS: „1“). Forward/Backward doubles :

garrison-leach
Download Presentation

The problem with double event patterns (M. Brusa, K. Dennerl – MPE) EPIC CAL/OPS meeting - MPE

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. The problem with double event patterns (M. Brusa, K. Dennerl – MPE) EPIC CAL/OPS meeting - MPE

  2. Classification of doubles SAS 2 Right SAS 3 Forward SAS 4 Left SAS 1 Backward readout direction split backward (SAS: „1“) Forward/Backward doubles: superposition of “true” doubles and “false” doubles (re-emission during read-out)  cause shifts in energy calibration split right (SAS: „2“) split left (SAS: „4“) split forward (SAS: „3“)

  3. SAS 2/4: (Left/Right doubles) resemble singles in illumination • SAS 1/3: (Forward/Backward doubles) different illumination  the amount of forward and backward doubles vary across the detector

  4. Q0 Q1 • 11 CALCLOSED observations (PN + FF + expo > 20 ks) spanning ~1000 revolutions from #84 to #1105 • Spectra extracted in 120 different positions (30x4 quadrants) for - SINGLES (PATTERN=0) - DOUBLES (PATTERN=1-4) • XSPEC: fit of the MnKα line (5.896 keV) and Al line (1.486 keV) tested against: - different matrices or models used - singles vs. doubles - backward vs. forward - MnKα vs. Al Q2 Q3

  5. Examples of spectra (MnKα, Rev. #572, Q1) Singles (black) D-backward (red) D-forward (green) readout direction

  6. Singles, Q1Single gaussian fit to MnKα REV #84 Mn line (5.896 keV)

  7. Singles, Q1 REV #125 Mn line (5.896 keV)

  8. Singles, Q1 REV #249 Mn line (5.896 keV)

  9. Singles, Q1 REV #429 Mn line (5.896 keV)

  10. Singles, Q1 REV #981 Mn line (5.896 keV)

  11. Singles: different MATRICES used Singles: different MATRICES used • Best fit energy line does not depend on the actual matrix used REV #84

  12. Singles: different MODELS used • Best fit energy line does not depend on the model used REV #84

  13. Singles vs. Double (1 – backward) • REV #84 • Systematic trend • Position of SAS”1” inconsistent with values for the singles Singles (blue) D-backwards (red) readout direction

  14. Singles vs. Double (1 – backward) • REV #125 • Systematic trend • Position of SAS”1” inconsistent with values for the singles Singles (blue) D-backwards (red) readout direction

  15. Singles vs. Double (1 – backward) REV #572 Singles (blue) D-backwards (red) readout direction

  16. Singles vs. Double (1 – backward) REV #857 Singles (blue) D-backwards (red) readout direction

  17. Singles vs. Double (1 – backward)- “detector representation” - REV #84 “Curved shape” wrt singles Singles (blue) D-backward (red)

  18. Singles vs. Double (1 – backward) REV #125 Systematic in all observations

  19. Singles vs. Double (1 – backward) REV #249 Systematic in all observations

  20. Singles vs. Double (1 – backward) REV #309 Systematic in all observations

  21. Singles vs. Double (1 – backward) REV #429 Systematic in all observations

  22. Singles vs. Double (1 – backward) REV #572 Systematic in all observations

  23. Singles vs. Double (1 – backward) REV #605 Systematic in all observations

  24. Singles vs. Double (1 – backward) REV #709 Systematic in all observations

  25. Singles vs. Double (1 – backward) REV #857 Systematic in all observations

  26. Singles vs. Double (1 – backward) REV #981 Systematic in all observations

  27. Singles vs. Double (1 – backward) REV #1105 Systematic in all observations

  28. Singles vs. Double (backward) vs. Double (left) Singles (blue) D-backward (red) Singles (blue) D-left (red) REV #125

  29. Singles vs. Double (backward) vs. Double (forward) Singles (blue) D-backward (red) Singles (blue) D-forward (red) REV #125 No clear trend seen!

  30. Al lineSingles vs. Double (1 - backward) Singles (blue) D-backward (red) REV #125

  31. Mn vs. Al lines (singles vs Double 1- backward) REV #125 Al line MnKα line Smaller amplitude ..but similar shape!

  32. Conclusions/Future developments • Singles: - Mn & Al line energy quite stable (in single observation) - Matrices/models adopted does not affect energy determination • Doubles: - most of problems caused by BACKWARD (systematic trend wrt to singles) - LEFT/RIGHT: similar to singles - FORWARD: no systematic trend… • Amplitude in Al line smaller than in Mn line - Energy AND spatial corrections needed

More Related