Pared down from PC-journal to focus on fixed angles only to get intensities for uncertainties -gel39 fixed, beam at y=235, 41% of the way from h3 to h4 --h3, y=216, area 773.165, sw 30 --h4, y=262, area 876.725, sw 30 -gel40 fixed, beam at y=189, 39% of the way from h2 to h3 mosaicity unsignificant --h2, y=171, area 3585.15, sw 20 --h3, y=217, area 1063.68, sw 20 -gel41 fixed, beam at y=190, 41% of way from h2 to h3 --h2, y=171, area 3721.82, sw 20 --h3, y=217, area 1084.93, sw 20 -gel42 fixed, beam at y=198, 56% of way from h2 to h3 --h2, y=172, area 2156.62, sw 30 --h3, y=218, area 798.451, sw 30 26 sept 2017: -gel43 fixed beam for h1 and h2 but h1 is overexposed -gel44 same! Can we try to replace the negative pixels using intrapolation? Can cause error since they contribute a lot to the intensity. -gel45 fixed, beam at y=284, 46% of way from h4 to h5 --h4, y=263, area 967.268, sw 30, intensity 59003.3 --h5, y=309, area 120.900, sw 20, intensity 4956.90 -gel46 fixed, beam at y \in [326, 331], 38-49% of way from h5 to h6 --h5, y=308.6, area , sw --h6, y=354.3, area , sw -gel47 bridge from h5 to h7 fixed, beam at y=354.1, 49% of way from h5 to h7 --h5, y=308.8, area 3697.68, sw 40, intensity 299512 --h7, y=400.4, area 2171.08, sw 40, intensity 175857 ratio I7/I5 0.59 NEW TECHNIQUE: when making baseline, zoom a lot in y direction for more precision 2 oct 2017 Monday: -gel46 fixed, beam at y \in [326, 331], 38-49% of way from h5 to h6 --h5, y=308.6, area 1741.97, sw 40, intens 141100 --h6, y=354.3, area 197.384, sw 35, intens 14014.3 I5/I6=10.07 -gel39 how to correct uncentered? 41% of the way from h3 to h4 use -gel48 bridge from h7 to h9 fixed, beam at y=449, 52% of way from h7 to h9 --h7, y=400.4, area 4498.07, sw 60, intensity 544266 --h9, y=493.3, area 4821.90, sw 60, intensity 583450 ratio h9/h7 1.07 3 oct 2017 Tuesday: -gel48 bridge from h7 to h9 fixed, beam at y=449, 52% of way from h7 to h9 --h7, box 15 179 366 425, intensity 544266, const=-259 mean of box 200 220 390 410 --h9,box 15 179 461 514, intensity 630921, const=-281.0 mean of box 200 220 483 503 ratio h9/h7 1.16 changing y backround, boxes bad -gel40 --h2, box 30 156 151 184, I 160269, const -99.6 mean of 160 180 160 180 --h3, box 40 146 200 231, I 47897.1, const -99.5 mean of 160 180 200 220 I2/I3=3.35 --h2, area=3716.56, sw=20, I=152379 --h3, area=1130.22, sw=20, I=46339.0 I2/I3=3.29 -gel41 --h2, box 30 156 154 185, I 159659, const -98.6 mean of 160 180 160 180 --h3, box 40 146 200 231, I 48077.5, const -99.0 mean of 160 180 200 220 I2/I3=3.32 --h2, area=3697.99, sw=20, I=151618 --h3, area=1141.28, sw=20, I=46792.5 I2/I3=3.24 -gel42 --h2, box 30 156 156 185, I 134649, const -99.1 mean of 160 180 160 180 --h3, box 40 146 204 235, I 50089, const -99.4 mean of 160 180 200 220 I2/I3=2.69 --h2, area=2086.57, sw=30, I=127281 --h3, area=810.885, sw=30, I=49464.0 I2/I3=2.57 40 41 42 differences due to the reflection bump of h2 -gel45 --h4, box 30 156 240 275, I 62973.8, const -98.5 mean of 175 195 255 275 --h5, box 60 126 291 320, I 5353.64, const -99.3 mean of 130 150 300 320 I4/I5=11.76 -gel46 --h5, box=20 166 289 320, I=157741, const=-116.2 mean of 160 180 300 320 --h6, box=50 136 344 365, I=15027.6, const=-118.3 mean of 160 180 345 365 I5/I6=10.50 -gel47 bridge from h5 to h7 fixed, beam at around y=354, ~49% of way from h5 to h7 --h5, y=308.8, box=20 166 290 323, I=331506, const=-153.3 mean of 170 190 300 320 --h7, y=400.4, box=20 166 377 423, I=195489, const=-164.8 mean of 170 190 390 410 ratio I5/I7=1.70 -gel49 bridge from h7 to h9 fixed, beam at y\in[435,446] 38-50%, best estimate y=441, 44% of way from h7 to h9 --h7, y=399.9, area 11578.5, sw 75, intensity 1748353.5 --h9, y=492.4, area 10746.7, sw 75, intensity 1622751.7 ratio I7/I9=1.08 -gel50 h10 very dim fixed, y\in[516,521] 55-66%, of way from h9 to h10 --h9, y=489.9, area 31788.6, sw 80, intensity 5117965 --h10, y=537, area 1104.16, sw 40, intensity 89437.0 ratio I9/I10=57.22 -------------------------- 10 oct 2017 Tuesday: -gel50 --h9, box=20 166 465 515, I=4.59711e+06, const=-1476.8 mean of 190 210 480 500 --h10, box=50 136 528 548, I=68866.7 , const=-1581.5 mean of 130 150 528 548 ratio I5/I7= 19 Oct 2017 Thursday NEW TECHNIQUE talk w/ Pr Nagle, found a new peak integration method: light backround substracts polynomial fit from a surrounding backround box. Does this line by line so manages well with a backround changing in y direction. Fits to 0, 1, 2,.. degree so also manages the x changing backround. -gel39 --D=60.80, chi2=0.00024 b1=13 180 50 500, b2=13 390 50 500, fit 0 --h2, b=13 180 144 192, int=73255.7 not useful though --h3, b=13 180 193 230, int=50582.7 --h4, b=13 180 243 283, int=60460.2 I4/I3=1.1952 -gel40 --D=60.72, chi2=0.00029 b1=13 180 50 500, b2=13 390 50 500, fit 0 --h2, b=13 180 150 184, int=162618, I2/I3=3.3199 --h3, b=13 180 199 237, int=48982.8 --h4, b=13 180 238 283, int=35701.4, I4/I3=0.7288 testing the b2 change not useful with smaller b2: b1=13 180 50 500, b2=13 250 50 500, fit 0 --h2, b=13 180 150 184, int=161842, I2/I3=3.3078 --h3, b=13 180 199 237, int=48926.7 --h4, b=13 180 238 283, int=35936.7, I4/I3=0.73450 testing the b2 change not useful fit 2 unstable in this image changing the b2 barely changes anything (fit 0) -gel41 --D=60.58, chi2=0.00014 b1 13 190 50 500, b2 13 300 50 500, fit 0 23 Oct 2017 Monday TECHNIQUE use a small sw for finding peak for D, also for light backround integ -gel41 (continuation from friday) --h2, b=13 190 153 185, int=160001, I2/I3=3.2352 --h3, b=13 190 200 237, int=49455.6 lightbackround -verify with xplot that b1 is going far enough in x, use small sw -fit of polynomial 2 is too unstable, it's better with fit=0 -gel42 --D=60.84, chi2=0.000169 b1=13 180 50 500, b2=13 300 50 500, fit 0 --h2, b=13 180 156 192, int=136946, I2/I3=2.5802 --h3, b=13 180 203 239, int=53075 -gel45 --D=60.64, chi2=1.18e-05 b1=13 180 50 500, b2=13 300 50 500, fit 0 --h4, b=13 180 237 277, int=63714 , I4/I5=12.2329 --h5, b=13 180 296 322, int=5208.42 -gel46 --D=60.93, chi2=0.00022 b1 13 200 50 500, b2 13 260 50 500, fit 0 --h5, b=13 180 287 323, int=161440 , I5/I6=8.9585 dont keep --h6, b=13 180 342 371, int=18020.9 REDO b1 13 200 50 325, b2 13 250 50 325, fit 0 --h5, b=13 200 50 325, int=157869, I5/I6=8.7815 b1 13 160 325 500, b2 13 240 325 500, fit 0 --h6, b=13 160 342 371, int=17977.4 -gel47 --D=60.98, chi2=0.00096 (dont count h3 it is probably skewed due to mosaicity) b1 13 180 311 354, b2 13 240 311 354, fit 0 b1 13 200 50 311, b2 13 290 50 311, fit 0 --h5, b=13 200 289 334, int=341799, I5/I7=1.7288 b1 13 180 354 500, b2 13 240 354 500, fit 0 --h7, b=13 180 372 430, int=197705 -gel48 start of rad damage (maybe not) --D=60.93, chi2=4.93e-05 b1 13 200 300 449, b2 13 240 300 449, fit 0 -h7, b=13 200 368 430, int=597621 b1 13 200 449 600, b2 13 240 449 600, fit 0 -h9, b=13 200 460 530, int=656138, I9/I7=1.0979 ------------------------- 24 Oct 2017 Tuesday -gel49 --D=61.09, chi2=1.9e-05 b1 13 200 300 440, b2 13 240 300 440, fit 0 -h7, b=13 200 370 429, int=1.87782e+06 b1 13 210 440 600, b2 13 240 440 600, fit 0 -h9, b=13 210 457 557 bad! takes h10 as well -h9 redo, b=13 210 457 530, int=1.89787e+06, I9/I7=1.01068 -gel50 --D=61.22, chi2=0.0065 b1 13 180 535 600, b2 13 210 535 600, fit 0 b1 13 200 510 535, b2 13 240 510 535, fit 0 b1 13 220 400 510, b2 13 260 400 510, fit 0 -h9, b=13 220 447 513, int=4.70153e+06, I9/I10=41.185 -h10, b=13 210 525 554, int=114156 TECHNIQUE: fit 2 is better if have points on both sides! for intrapolation not extrapolation -gel51 -D=61.34, chi2=0.0040 b1 40 180 529 600, b2 13 300 529 600, fit 2 b1 20 190 500 529, b2 13 210 500 529, fit 0 -h10, b=20 190 522 544, int=121568 NOT GOOD -h11, b= REDO b1 40 200 500 600, b2 13 300 500 600, fit 2 NOT GOOD -h10, b=40 200 525 547, int=136400, I10/I11=1.7430 -h11, b=40 200 575 596, int=78253.6 REDO b1 35 200 534 600, b2 13 300 534 600, fit 2 THIS IS THE BEST b1 25 200 500 534, b2 13 300 500 534, fit 2 -h10, b=25 200 526 546, int=132061, I10/I11=1.8675 -h11, b=35 200 573 596, int=70714.3 ------------------------- 25 Oct 2017 Wednesday -gel52 -D=61.43, chi2=0.0014 b1 35 170 541 600, b2 13 300 541 600, fit 2 b1 20 200 500 541, b2 13 350 500 541, fit 2 -h10, b=20 200 526 553, int=345236, I10/I11=1.2783 -h11, b=35 170 569 600, int=270066 26 Oct 2017 Thursday measuring theta 1/2 angles. ------------------------- 27 Oct 2017 Friday -gel46 --D=61.030 not counting the h=3, it seems to have a problem (mosaicity badly oriented, and doesnt aligh well find other peaks) -gel47 --D=60.935 not counting the h=4, it seems to have a problem (mosaicity badly oriented, and doesnt aligh well find other peaks) ------------------------- 30 Oct 2017 Monday The angle model is not taking into account the fact that their are little mismatches random. So the approximated theta_{actual h+1/2} will be a little off. Using gel40 gel41 and gel42 compute R_{2,3} = I2/I3(theta_mis)=2.92-8.04*theta_mis R/R0 = 1 - 2.76 theta Using gel43 and gel44 cannot compute because I1 overexposed. Using gel39 and the mean R_{3,4} so far: need compute R_{3,4} using sum of intensities, so let's make that excell sheet ------------------------- 31 Oct 2017 Tuesday Mosaicity using gel39 and the R_{3,4} for gel31,gel32,gel33,gel37,gel38 R_{3,4}=0.730 = I3/I4(theta_mis=0) also I3/I4(theta_mis=-0.044)=0.8366 I3/I4(theta_mis)=0.730-2.42*theta_mis R/R0 = 1 -3.32 theta We can try to fing slopes with R_{4,5}!, not the ones over because we dont have the theta_mis. using gel31,gel32,gel33,gel37,gel38 R_{4,5}=I4/I5(theta_mis=0)=10.1 I4/I5(theta_mis=-0.022)=12.2329 in gel45 I4/I5 = 10.1-96.95*theta_mis R/R0 = 1 - 9.60*theta_mis Possible reasons why it doesnt work: -the peak of the specular for computing theta_mis is noisy, theta_mis can vary from single to double -R_{45} computed with the rotating sample has intrinsical offset so it doesnt work to fit the line 1 Nov 2017 Wednesday Which D spacing to use? mean D spacing during the experiment? use intensities as weights? or can we just use them each seperately? but then what uncertainty to use? -gel51 actually 9 and 12 b1 13 210 400 560, b2 13 250 400 560, fit 0 -h9, b=13 210 435 526, int=5.22791e+06, I9/I12=4.0605 b1 13 200 570 700, b2 13 220 570 700, fit 0 -h12, b=13 200 604 658, int=1.2875e+06 the solpes are making it difficult to get the correct baseline substraction, ------------------------- 7 Nov 2017 Tuesday --gel52 D=61.33 b1 13 200 400 570, b2 13 240 400 570, fit 0 -h9, b=13 200 437 528, int=6.60685e+06, I9/I12=3.5222 b1 13 190 570 700, b2 13 220 570 700, fit 0 -h12, b=13 190 606 664, int=1.87579e+06 for no rotations 48 and 49 are to be taken together since they have the same nominal angle (I48,7+I49,7)/(I48,9+I49,9)=0.96924 the average of their mismatches are (0.005+0.014)/2= 0.0095 same for 51 and 52 for R10,11 (I51,10+I52,10)/(I51,11+I52,11) = 1.400600 average mismatch of 0.024 and 0.047 is 0.0356 same for 51 and 52 for R9,12 (I51,9+I52,12)/(I51,9+I52,12) = 3.741282 same average mismatch ------------------------- 17 Nov 2017 Friday --gel46 redoing because there seems to be an error when comparing to rotating -D=60.83, y0=80.48, y_theta_mis=326-330.9 b1 13 200 270 390, b2 13 320 270 390, fit 0 -h05, b=13 200 293 323, int=154511 -h06, b=13 200 345 372, int=14985.4 boxes too big, the slope goes up b1 13 200 270 390, b2 13 280 270 390, fit 0 -h05, b=13 200 293 323, int=155547 -h06, b=13 200 345 372, int=16342 I5/I6=9.5182352 the mistheta2 is clearly not 0, so I guessed what it could approximately be 328 (midpoint between the 2 small peaks that make up the specular) ------------------------- 21 Nov 2017 Tuesday --gel76 cannot see the specular at h=10.5 -D=62.82 b1 13 200 430 534, b2 13 240 430 534, fit 0 b1 50 160 534 600, b2 13 190 534 600, fit 0 -h10, b=13 200 515 534 and 13 180 534 546, int=1.25554e06 + 95787.8 = 1351327.8, I10/I11=3.67505 -h11, b=40 160 554 597, int=367703 second technique: fit 2 b1 25 220 450 533, b2 13 400 450 533, fit 2 KEEP THIS b1 40 160 533 600, b2 13 350 533 600, fit 2 -h10, b=13 240 510 549, int=1.88172e+06 -h11, b=40 160 549 599, int=501562, I10/I11=3.75171 --gel77 Radiation damage -D=61.56, big uncertainty, better to use previous D or average with surrounding b1 30 160 520 603, b2 13 350 520 603, fit 2 -h11, b=30 160 549 587, int=190999 b1 13 165 600 700, b2 13 205 600 700, fit 0 warning, not 'same technique' here fit 0 not 2 b1 40 150 540 594, b2 20 170 540 594, fit 0 -h11, b=40 150 553 588, int=117169 b1 13 180 594 700, b2 13 200 594 700, fit 0 -h12, b=13 180 600 645, int=292268, I12/I11=2.49441 Not convinced by the precision of this one --gel78 We can see specular. -D=62.32 b1 35 180 520 596, b2 13 350 520 596, fit 2 -h11, b=35 180 547 593, int=507657 b1 13 190 596 639, b2 13 230 596 639, fit 0 b1 13 160 639 665, b2 13 200 639 665, fit 0 b1 13 135 665 700, b2 13 155 665 700, fit 0 -h12, b=13 190 605 639 and 18 160 639 665 and 40 135 665 677, int=938239 + 639828 + 100965 = 1679032, I12/I11=3.3074142 DONT KEEP BAD fit 0 --gel76 again with subtration of gel75, DO NOT KEEP THIS ONE b1 20 210 500 600, b2 13 400 500 600, fit 2 -h10, b=20 210 509 547, int=1.66866e+06, I10/I11=4.198256 -h11, b=20 210 553 595, int=397465 --gel77 again with subtraction of gel75 it doesnt work, intensities are too small --gel78 again with subtraction of gel75 DONT KEEP b1 40 200 535 593, b2 13 350 535 593, fit 2 -h11, b=40 160 552 586, int=398149 b1 17 210 593 700, b2 13 350 593 700, fit 2 -h12, b=17 210 600 677, int=2.29316e+06, I12/I11=5.75955232, DONT KEEP completely different from previous gel78, retry with fit 0 b1 13 190 593 700, b2 13 230 593 700, fit 0 -h12, b=20 190 598 678, int=2.37018e+06, just a test DONT KEEP --gel80 fixed, can see the deformed specular giving the limit for theta displacement could subtract (gel79-100)*0.5+100, but it doesnt change much -D=62.49 b1 20 210 430 611, b2 13 400 430 611, fit 2 -h09, b=20 210 455 516, int=3.89627e+06, I9/I10=3.514681 -h10, b=20 210 516 550, int=1.10857e+06 HAPPY THANKSGIVING!! --gel81 -D=62.56 fixed, can see the deformed specular giving the limit for theta displacement b1 20 210 340 530, b2 13 350 340 530, fit 2 -h07, b=20 210 350 423, int=5.07309e+06 -h09, b=20 230 447 513, int=2.92666e+06 --gel82 overexposed --gel83 beam stop too high --gel84 overexposed --gel85 -D=62.84 b1 20 230 260 340, b2 13 350 260 340, fit 2 -h05, b=20 230 279 325, int=4.67228e+06 b1 20 220 341 430, b2 13 300 341 430, fit 2 -h07, b=20 220 354 420, int=1.49893e+06 --gel86 overexposed --gel87 overexposed --gel88 -D=62.89 b1 20 240 270 340, b2 13 350 270 340, fit 2 -h05, b=20 240 280 330, int=3.92255e+06 b1 20 220 341 440, b2 13 300 341 440, fit 2 -h07, b=20 220 354 419, int=1.19523e+06 --gel89 -D=63.11 b1 20 250 249 333, b2 13 380 249 333, fit 2 b1 13 230 210 249, b2 13 280 210 249, fit 0 -h04, b=13 250 231 270, int=2.51074e+06 -h05, b=13 250 285 325, int=797766 The rest are overexposed :( ------------------------- 28 Nov 2017 Tuesday --gel78 with subtraction of gel75 b1 25 200 540 597, b2 13 300 540 597, fit 2 -h11, b=25 200 548 591, int=394329 b1 25 210 598 658, b2 13 300 598 658, fit 2 b1 30 170 658 700, b2 13 250 658 700, fit 2 -h12, b=25 210 600 658 and 30 170 658 684, int= 1.83865e+06 +400078 =2238728 BAD without subtraction of gel75 b1 25 180 540 597, b2 13 240 540 597, fit 2 h11, b=25 170 547 592, int=602070 THIS ONE SEEMS BETTER gel80 seems ok as is, others are probably good too ------------------------- 1 Dec 2017 Friday --gel76, y0=81.80 --gel78, D=62.79 (use h7 and h9), y0=81.50 --gel80, D=62.66 (use h7 and h9), y0=81.85 --gel81, D=62.69 (use h7 and h9), y0=77.54 --gel85, D=62.83 (use h5 and h7), y0=79.87 --gel88, D=62.90 (use h5 and h7), y0=80.13 --gel89, D=63.19 (use h4 and h5), y0=82.07 ------------------------- 4 Dec 2017 Monday In gel76, we can see a peak of intensity 50 pixels in +y direction of the h12 peak (y=665). It is the peak of h13! Unfortunately this means most of the previous measurements confused h12 with h13. They are very spread out and difficult to separate in other tifs. We can also see it in gel78. --gel78 without subtraction of gel75 b1 20 200 480 550, b2 13 270 480 550, fit 2 -h10, b=20 200 513 547, int=1.48514e+06 b1 25 180 540 597, b2 13 240 540 597, fit 2 -h11, b=25 170 547 592, int=602070 b1 20 180 598 642, b2 13 230 598 642, fit 2 b1 20 160 642 665, b2 13 210 642 665, fit 2 -h12, b=20 180 598 642 and 20 160 642 656, int=989502+297131=1286633 b1 40 140 665 672, b2 13 200 665 672, fit 2 b1 50 130 672 690, b2 13 200 672 690, fit 2 -h13, b=20 160 656 665 and 40 140 665 672 and 50 130 672 684, int=159640+76687.2+34731.7=271058.9 smaller uncertainties on fixed where hit ha+1/2 make new samplist, especially 73 74