For Rotations: (x1,y1) lower order peak, (x2,y2) higher order peak rotation is (x1-x2)/(y2-y1), positive angle => rotate counterclockwise For Integrating: A swathsize S is taken large enough so that the entire stops are covered. It is also taken as small as possible, to limit errors, sometimes not taking all the mosaicity (usually unsignificant and hard to extract correctly). The plot with swath is taken in origin to substract the backround baseline. Hypothesis is made that the backround doesn't change in x direction (nfit). The plot is then integrated around the desired order (giving area A). To get the intensity (integral over the order) I=(2S+1)A. This works because, the swath takes the mean of 2S+1 pixels in the x direction, which is like integrating and then dividing by 2S+1 This technique makes it possible to substract a backround changing in the y direction. Refection spots: Sometimes there are unwanted reflection spots underneath the order (usually when rotating.) Using the same technique with a much smaller swathsize it can be integrated. Then subtract it from the intensity. -------------------------- 21 sept 2017: -gel30 BAD BECAUSE 2 D SPACINGS --h3 area, sw60: 1457.54 area reflection bump at y=204, sw4: 922.651 final intensity: 168058 bump is 4.7% --h4 area, sw70: 1959.73 area reflection bump at y=249, sw4: 1001.09 intensity 267312 bump is 3.2% -------------------------- 22 sept 2017: -gel31 --h3 area, sw70: 4299.70 --h4 area, sw70: 5799.20 reflective bumps insignificant -gel32 --h3 mosaicity is approx 1% of the total intensity, so negligeable area, sw70: 2922.89 int=412127.49 --h4 area, sw70: 3929.12, int=554005.92 I4/I3=1.344 -gel33 reflective bumps/mosaicity unsignificant --h3: area 1277.75, sw 80 --h4: area 1753.95, sw 80 -gel37 (1rst analysis) reflective bumps/mosaicity unsignificant --h3: area 866.498, sw 60 --h4: area 1402.44, sw 60 -------------------------- 25 sept 2017: -gel38 reflective bumps ~ 4% mosaicity unsignificant --h3: area 620.182, sw 40, int=50234.7 --h4: area 909.374, sw 40, int=73659.3 -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 -------------------------- 27 sept 2017 Wednesday: g28 to g31 found in intensities_old.ods, but they were first tries so might be bad. -gel28 radiation damage? low intensity higher uncertainty --h3: area 88.4370, sw 40 box 50 130 195 226, intensity 6102.66, const=-102 --h4: area 127.108, sw 40 box 50 130 240 280, intensity 9310.03, const=-102 -gel29 low intensity, high error --h3 area 130.975, sw 40, intensity=10609.0 box 50 130 195 228, intensity 7795.63, const=-102 --h4 area 146.794, sw 40, intensity=11890.3 box 50 132 240 280, intensity 9309.51, const=-102 I4/I3SwInt=1.12 I4/I3Box=1.19 -gel30 --h3 box 20 180 195 228, intensity 190314, const=-150 --h4 box 20 180 239 277, intensity 288417, const=-150 -gel31 --h3 box 20 180 195 228, intensity 632004, const=-150 --h4 box 20 180 239 277, intensity 845570, const=-150 -gel37 (2nd analysis) --h3: area 829.789, sw 60, int=100404 --h4: area 1304.24, sw 60, int=157813 I4/I3=1.57 -gel37 (3rd analysis) --h3: area 1619.22, sw 30, int=98772.4 --h4: area 2547.58, sw 30, int=155402 I4/I3=1.57 -------------------------- 28 sept 2017 Thursday: constants determined using the mean of a "backround box" 180 199 250 177 -gel32 --h3 box 20 180 195 228, intensity 439406, const=-131 --h4 box 20 180 239 277, intensity 601704, const=-131 I4/I3=1.37 -gel33 --h3 box 20 180 195 228, intensity 229051, const=-115 --h4 box 20 180 239 277, intensity 294746, const=-115 --h3 box 20 180 195 228, intensity 218491, const=-117 --h4 box 20 180 239 277, intensity 282586, const=-117 gives the same ratio -gel37 --h3 box 20 180 195 228, intensity 113317, const=-108 --h4 box 20 180 239 277, intensity 173029, const=-108 --h3 box 20 180 195 228, intensity 102757, const=-110 --h4 box 20 180 239 277, intensity 160869, const=-110 ratio changes from 1.53 to 1.57 -gel38 --h3 box 20 180 195 230, intensity 55333.6, const=-104 --h4 box 20 180 239 277, intensity 79903.6, const=-104 -gel28 --h3 box 20 180 195 230, intensity 9931.32, const=-101 --h4 box 20 180 239 277, intensity 13957.9, const=-101 -gel29 --h3 box 20 180 195 230, intensity 11582.8, const=-101 --h4 box 20 180 239 277, intensity 13019.3, const=-101 -gel30 --h3 box 20 180 195 230, intensity 218918, const=-145 --h4 box 20 180 239 277, intensity 318817, const=-145 -gel31 --h3 box 20 180 195 230, intensity 654585, const=-146.3 --h4 box 20 180 239 277, intensity 868066, const=-146.3 use different sw size to see if changes -gel32 --h3 area 3400.26, sw 60, intensity 411431 --h4 area 4762.73, sw 60, intensity 576290 sw 60 ratio: 1.40 3584.96 60 433780 4607.83 60 557547 1.29 bad baseline 3314.94 60 401108 4516.24 60 546465 1.36 <-- baseline is important! i will keep this one --h3 area 2486.12, sw 80, intensity 400265 --h4 area 3545.57, sw 80, intensity 570837 sw 80 ratio: 1.43 --h3 area 2287.72, sw 90, intensity 414077 --h4 area 3187.15, sw 90, intensity 576874 sw 90 ratio: 1.39 --h3 area 4104.83, sw 50, intensity 414589 --h4 area 5638.82, sw 50, intensity 569529 sw 50 ratio: 1.37 -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 -------------------------- 29 sept 2017 Friday: NEW TECHNIQUE: when making baseline, zoom a lot in y direction for more precision -gel33 --h3 area 1514.24, sw 70, intensity 213508 --h4 area 2000.84, sw 70, intensity 282118 ratio h4/h3 1.32 --h3 area 2083.14, sw 50, intensity 210397 --h4 area 2769.46, sw 50, intensity 279715 ratio h4/h3 1.33 --h3 area 1310.59, sw 80, intensity 211005 --h4 area 1767.27, sw 80, intensity 284530 ratio h4/h3 1.35 -gel32 --h3 area 2536.01, sw 80, intensity 408298 --h4 area 3565.76, sw 80, intensity 574087 ratio h4/h3 1.41 --h3 area 2895.62, sw 70, intensity 408282 --h4 area 4063.92, sw 70, intensity 573013 ratio h4/h3 1.40 -gel39 watch out for middle bump, change boxes --h3 box 20 180 195 227, intensity 52719.1, const=-99.2 --h4 box 20 180 245 277, intensity 60938.1, const=-99.2 ratio 1.16 -------------------------- 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 gel30 disregarded due to double D spacing -------------------------- 4 oct 2017 Wednesday: made latek document -------------------------- 5 oct 2017 Thursday: -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 -------------------------- 9 oct 2017 Monday: read intro of paper on mosaicity -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= -gel55 --h3, area=5990.95, sw=70, intensity=844724 --h4, area=8628.54, sw=70, intensity=1216624 --h5, area=822.794, sw=70, intensity=116014.0 I4/I3=1.44 I5/I3=0.14 -gel28 --h1, area=1039.45, sw=50, intensity=104984 --h2, area=154.262, sw=50, intensity=15580.5 --h3, area=85.9154, sw=50, intensity=8677.45 --h4, area=108.369, sw=50, intensity=10945.3 I1/I3=12.10 3 absorbers? where? I2/I3=1.80 I4/I3=1.26 -------------------------- 11 oct 2017 Wednesday: -gel33 --h3, area=1744.45, sw=60, intensity=211078 --h4, area=2319.88, sw=60, intensity=280705 I4/I3=1.33 -gel31 --h3, area=4371.47, sw=70, intensity=616377 --h4, area=5857.57, sw=70, intensity=825917 I4/I3=1.34 -------------------------- 12 Oct 2017 Thursday: read article -gel31 --h5, area=871.610, sw=45, intensity=79316.5, I5/I3=0.129 --h6, area=130.044, sw=45, intensity=11834.0, I6/I3=0.0192 --h7, area=568.199, sw=45, intensity=51706.1, I7/I3=8.39E-02 --h8 not visible --h9, area=1054.37, sw=45, intensity=95947.7, I9/I3=1.56E-01 --h10, not visible --h11, area=47.3382, sw=45, intensity=4307.77, I11/I3=6.99E-03 --h12, area=214.401, sw=45, intensity=19510.5, I12/I3=3.17E-02 -------------------------- 13 Oct 2017 Friday talking about report, Dspacing, mosaicity lambda=1.096angstrom S1=179.3mm pixelsize=0.07113 -------------------------- 16 Oct 2017 Monday estimate mos overlooked bmos=5737.76, b4=856591 Dspacings, error 0.015angstrom approx -gel31 --D=60.5198 x^2=? -gel32 --D=60.5672 x^2=? -gel33 --D=60.5757 x^2=? -gel37 --D=60.612497 x^2=0.000288 -gel38 --D=60.5936 X^2=7.14e-05 -gel39 --D=60.67396 X^2= ------------------------- 17 Oct 2017 Tuesday theoretical + problems GEL32 BADLY ROTATED, REDOING ------------------------- 18 Oct 2017 Wednesday -gel32 --D=60.5767 --h3, area=2927.74, sw=70, intensity=412811 --h4, area=4094.80, sw=70, intensity=577367, I4/I3=1.40 --h5, area=544.035, sw=50, intensity=54947.5 I5/I3=0.133 --h6, area=105.256, sw=50, intensity=10630.9 I6/I3=2.58E-02 --keep this --h7, area=443.264, sw=50, intensity=44769.7 I7/I3=1.08E-01 --keep this --h8, area=24.7491, sw=50, intensity=2499.66 I8/I3=6.06E-03 ----much clearer than sw30 --h9, area=715.696, sw=50, intensity=72285.1 I9/I3=1.75E-01 --h11, area=28.1802, sw=50, intensity=2846.20 I11/I3=6.89E-03 --keep sw30 invisible --h12, area=121.239, sw=50, intensity=12245.1 I12/I3=2.97E-02 --keep sw30 probably lower --h6, area=159.707, sw=30, intensity=9742.13 I6/I3=2.36E-02 --h7, area=661.221, sw=30, intensity=40334.5 I7/I3=9.77E-02 --h8, area=22.3453, sw=30, intensity=1363.0633 I8/I3=3.30E-03 --h12, area=173.569, sw=30, intensity=10587.709 I12/I3=2.56E-02 sw=30 is probably leaving some intensity out! it cannot be seen on xplot sw0 of NFIT REDO 31 ESPECIALLY h7!!! ------------------------- 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. ------------------------- 20 Oct 2017 Friday -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 -gel53 -D=61.16, chi2=6.1e-05 b1 20 190 250 377, b2 13 350 250 377, fit 2 b1 20 190 377 415, b2 13 280 377 415, fit 2 -h9 not measureable, there is a ring (from the isotropic material!) b1 25 200 503 700, b2 13 320 503 700, fit 2 -h5, b=20 190 290 325, int=292772, -h6, b=20 190 338 363, int=39250.6, -h7, b=20 190 377 413, int=171428 -gel54 -D= odd xplot at h=6 ------------------------- 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 -gel38 b1 13 180 0 900, b2 13 320 0 900, fit 0 -h1, b=13 180 100 150, int=643482, I1/I3=11.248 -h2, b=13 180 156 192, int=123582, I2/I3=2.1602 -h3, b=13 180 200 234, int=57206.3 -h4, b=13 180 239 292, int=82720.6, I4/I3=1.446 -h5, b=13 180 292 327, int=7708.53, I5/I3=0.1347 -h6, b=13 180 339 371, int=1419.75, I6/I3=0.024818 -h7, b=13 180 386 422, int=5159.29, I7/I3=0.090187 -h8, not visible -h9, b=13 180 470 522, int=6445.23, I9/I3=0.11267 -h10, b=13 180 523 450, int=5528.07, I10/I3=0.096634 NO ERROR IN THE BOX!! -h11, not visible -h12, not visible -gel37 b1 13 200 0 900, b2 13 300 0 900, fit 0 -h2, b=13 200 156 193, int=265106, I2/I3=2.2564 -h3, b=13 200 198 239, int=117492 -h4, b=13 200 239 285, int=179792, I4/I3=1.5302 -h5, b=13 200 292 325, int=18784.1, I5/I3=0.15988 -h6, b=30 170 342 369, int=1586.53, I6/I3=0.013503 -h7, b=13 200 380 426, int=12895.6, I7/I3=0.10976 -h8, int=0 -h9, b=13 200 474 530, int=19857.8, I9/I3=0.16901 -gel33 b1 13 190 0 900, b2 13 340 0 900, fit 0 -h2, b=13 340 0 900, int=551387, I2/I3=2.3542 -h3, b=13 190 195 236, int=234218 -h4, b=13 190 236 289, int=305044, I4/I3=1.3024 -h5, b=13 190 289 326, int=33988, I5/I3=0.14511 -h6, b=13 170 338 368, int=5052.99, I6/I3=0.021574 -h7, b=13 190 377 415, int=20792, I7/I3=0.088772 -h9, b=13 190 472 528, int=33208.5, I9/I3=0.14178 -h12, b=50 140 626 648, int=3345.34, I12/I3=0.014283 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? -gel31 b1 13 210 0 610, b2 13 300 0 610, fit 0 -h03, b=13 210 195 235, int=681113 -h04, b=13 210 235 289, int=901075, I4/I3=1.3229 -h05, b=13 210 289 330, int=103805, I5/I3=0.15240 -h06, b=30 170 333 366, int=11646.2, I6/I3=0.017099 -h07, b=20 180 374 422, int=68499.7, I7/I3=0.10057 -h08 not visible -h09, b=30 170 475 526, int=96342.2, I9/I3=0.14145 -h10, b=30 170 526 544, int=3936.5, I10/I3=0.0057795 b1 30 180 610 700, b2 13 230 610 700, fit 0 -h12, b=30 180 612 662, int=26505.5, I12/I3=0.038915 h9 seems to be on a ring, of ?melar? ------------------------- 2 Nov 2017 Thursday -gel32 b1 13 170 285 800, b2 13 300 285 800, fit 0 b1 13 210 0 285, b2 13 300 0 285, fit 0 -h03, b=13 210 196 238, int=458040 -h04, b=13 210 238 292, int=621064, I4/I3=1.3559 -h05, b=13 170 292 320, int=64553.4, I5/I3=0.14093 -h06, b=40 150 345 368, int=9148.2, I6/I3=0.019972 -h07, b=40 160 374 420, int=41082.3, I7/I3=0.089692 -h09, b=30 160 469 521, int=59240.2, I9/I3=0.12933 -h12, b=20 180 625 655, int=12374.5, I12/I3=0.027016 -h08, not visible so redo with b1 20 170 405 488, b2 13 230 405 488 b=30 150 437 448, int=1830.44, I8/I3=0.0039962 did the table for q, Rh,3 and the error, but the error is really long to do, maybe faster on matlab ------------------------- 3 Nov 2017 Friday formula R(thetamis=0)=R(thetamis)/(1+b*thetamis) R4,5=11.5 gel45 R5,6=8.93 gel46 R5,7=1.79 gel47 R7,9=9.24E-01 gel48 R7,9=1.03 gel49 R9,10=4.72E+01 gel50 R10,11=2.00 gel51 R2,3 is the y intercept of the fit for R7,9 we could compute the y-intercept fitting the 2 points gives R7,9=0.867 but with this the slope is positive, wich doesnt make sense since R7,9 should decrease with a greater thetamis ------------------------- 6 Nov 2017 Monday -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 --gel55 D=61.44 rad dam? b1 13 200 10 333, b2 13 300 10 333, fit 0 -h03, b=13 200 195 232, int=1.04453e+06 -h04, b=13 200 232 285, int=1.52438e+06 -h05, b=13 200 285 328, int=220275 b1 13 220 333 700, b2 13 280 333 700, fit 0 -h06, b=13 180 337 359, int=28107 -h07, b=13 180 359 411, int=117476 -h09, b=13 220 469 513, int=165326 -h10, b=13 180 517 530, int=8437.35 ------------------------- 8 Nov 2017 Wednesday -gel54 -D=61.34 b1 13 255 470 504, b2 13 300 470 504, fit 0 NO REPLACED WITH NEXT ONE b1 13 255 400 504, b2 13 300 400 504, fit 0 b1 13 210 504 700, b2 13 230 504 700, fit 0 -h09, b=13 200 463 519, int=2.73118e+06 I9/I12=15.707 -h12, b=40 170 605 650, int=173879 SEEMS LIKE THERE'S AN ERROR This is completely different from previous results, average for no rot=5.73 SEEMS LIKE THERE'S AN ERROR -gel56 -D= b1 13 210 10 800, b2 13 280 10 800, fit 0 -h03, b=13 210 184 227, int=853230 ------------------------- 9 Nov 2017 Thursday --gel56 follow up -D=63.10 -h04, b=13 210 227 274, int=933877 -h05, b=13 210 274 318, int=354733 -h06, b=30 190 318 337, int=11077.7 INCORRECT -h07, b=13 210 337 409, int=136218 TAKES h=6 REDO -h09, b=13 210 471 523, int=95621.2 --gel57 -D=61.90 b1 13 210 10 534, b2 13 280 10 534, fit 0 b1 13 150 534 800, b2 13 200 534 800, fit 0 h03 and h04 overexposed -h05, b=13 210 286 337, int=872355 -h06, b=13 210 337 356, int=17765.3 -h07, b=13 210 356 421, int=416767 -h09, b=13 210 470 521, int=382454 -h10, b=13 150 521 548, int=63265.8 -h11, b=20 150 566 592, int=12461.2 -h12, b=20 150 607 653, int=60590.8 --gel58 -D=62.10 h03 and h04 overexposed b1 13 200 100 542, b2 13 250 100 542, fit 0 b1 13 160 542 800, b2 13 190 542 800, fit 0 -h05, b=13 200 285 338, int=985276 -h06, b=13 200 340 359, int=29376.3 -h07, b=13 200 359 424, int=446292 -h09, b=13 200 465 520, int=340581 -h10, b=13 160 520 542, int=67370.4 -h11, b=25 160 569 590, int=13346.8 -h12, b=13 160 615 658, int=67325.3 --gel59 -D=62.66 h03 and h04 overexposed b1 13 200 100 551, b2 13 240 100 551, fit 0 b1 13 160 551 800, b2 13 180 551 800, fit 0 -h05, b=13 200 281 335, int=1.13138e+06 -h07, b=13 200 359 425, int=425041 -h09, b=13 200 463 517, int=315012 -h10, b=13 200 517 546, int=82338.1 -h11, b=25 160 558 586, int=11818.5 -h12, b=25 160 615 672, int=58886.9 ------------------------- 10 Nov 2017 Friday --gel60 backround --gel61 -D=62.64 b1 13 200 100 546, b2 13 250 100 546, fit 0 -h04, b=13 200 235 281, int=2.68665e+06 -h05, b=13 200 281 332, int=1.04626e+06 -h06, b=13 200 332 354, int=17441.9 -h07, b=13 200 354 428, int=430791 -h09, b=13 200 468 515, int=294917 -h10, b=13 200 515 543, int=80741 b1 13 140 548 592, b2 13 180 548 592, fit 0 -h11, b=25 140 563 586, int=9791.31 b1 13 170 592 800, b2 13 220 592 800, fit 0 -h12, b=13 170 604 664, int=76465 I9/I12=3.8568 --gel62 SUBSTRACTED gel60 BEFORE ROTATION -D=62.73 b1 13 200 100 439, b2 13 300 100 439, fit 0 -h04, b=13 200 235 282, int=2.47508e+06 -h05, b=13 200 282 326, int=900040 -h06, b=13 200 335 354, int=14533.5 -h07, b=13 200 354 424, int=376186 -- 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 ------------------------- 13 Nov 2017 Monday --gel62 CONTINUATION SUBSTRACTED gel60 BEFORE ROTATION b1 13 200 440 800, b2 13 240 440 800, fit 0 -h09, b=13 200 456 501, int=214114 -h10, b=13 200 501 537, int=110796 -h11, b=25 180 562 582, int=5674.34 -h12, b= ,int= --gel38 ERROR CORRECTION -h09, b=13 180 486 506, int=5612 -h10, b=13 180 506 511, int=573.642 which is much better ------------------------- 14 Nov 2017 Tuesday --gel54 ERROR CORRECTION b1 13 170 100 460, b2 13 190 100 460, fit 0 -h06, b=13 180 334 360, int=431232 -h07, b=13 180 360 435, int=2.05663e+06 b1 13 190 595 660, b2 13 230 595 660, fit 0 -h12, b=13 190 605 652, int=485761 b1 13 180 430 570, b2 13 220 430 570, fit 0 -h09, b=13 194 458 547, int=2.58634e+06 ------------------------- 15 Nov 2017 Wednesday --gel62 CONTINUATION SUBSTRACTED gel60 BEFORE ROTATION -h12, b=13 200 601 672, int=116255, I9/I12=1.8417 UNSURE ABOUT THESE HIGH ORDERS --gel61 WITH SUBTRACTION OF GEL60 b1 13 180 430 700, b2 13 220 430 700, fit 0 -h09, b=13 180 456 510, int=238652 -h10, b=13 180 510 542, int=89873.4 added constant of 3.5 for h11, it was too low -h11, b=13 180 555 589, int=27059.7 kept that constant -h12, b=13 180 596 685, int=179510, I9/I12=1.32946 UNSURE ABOUT THESE HIGH ORDERS --gel63 again subtracted then rotating b1 13 200 257 455, b2 13 300 257 455, fit 0 -h05, b=13 200 283 332, int=1.08252e+06 -h06, b=13 200 336 357, int=16962.3 -h07, b=13 200 357 422, int=438296 ------------------------- 16 Nov 2017 Thursday --gel63 CONTINUATION b1 13 180 455 800, b2 13 230 455 800, fit 0 -h09, b=13 180 456 513, int=286531 -h10, b=13 180 513 547, int=105965 -h11, b=13 180 563 589, int=16195.1 -h12, b=13 180 612 646, int=67203.4 WITH A H13 AFTER? there may be a noise bump in the subtracted gel60 making it seem like there are 2 bumps. -h12, b=13 180 612 677, int=123056 --gel67 -D=62.65 b1 30 150 050 800, b2 13 400 050 800, fit 0 -h01, b=30 150 099 149, int=207586 -h02, b=30 150 149 192, int=83260.6 -h03, b=30 150 192 235, int=29113.1 -h04, b=30 150 235 284, int=24412 -h05, b=30 150 284 314, int=9009.41 -h07, b=30 150 475 501, int=2019.74 --gel68 -D=62.53 b1 13 200 050 800, b2 13 400 050 800, fit 0 (-h01, b=13 200 99 150, int=1.14693e+06) OVEREXPOSED -h02, b=13 200 150 195, int=422125 -h03, b=13 200 195 238, int=151186 -h04, b=13 200 238 284, int=131913 -h05, b=13 200 284 324, int=46598.7 -h06, b=13 200 351 359, int=352.494 -h07, b=13 200 368 411, int=15468.9 -h09, b=13 200 472 514, int=13642.3 -h10, b=13 200 514 538, int=3737.28 --gel69 -D=62.57 b1 13 200 100 597, b2 13 300 100 597, fit 0 -h03, b=13 200 193 237, int=737087 -h04, b=13 200 237 284, int=646274 -h05, b=13 200 284 331, int=234469 -h06, b=13 200 339 354, int=2123.75 -h07, b=13 200 354 423, int=94082.9 -h09, b=13 200 462 515, int=64811.5 -h10, b=13 200 515 544, int=15871.7 b1 13 150 546 598, b2 13 190 546 598, fit 0 -h11, b=13 150 564 581, int=4109.86 b1 13 154 598 800, b2 13 180 598 800, fit 0 -h12, b=13 154 617 651, int=9364.67 --gel70 -D=62.49 b1 13 200 220 551, b2 13 300 220 551, fit 0 --gel45 redoing because there seems to be an error when comparing to rotating -D=60.66, y0=80.55, y_theta_mis=283.90 b1 13 200 220 350, b2 13 400 220 350, fit 0 -h04, b=13 200 238 277, int=63616.5 -h05, b=13 200 297 320, int=5597.35 I4/I5=11.36546 all this indeed gives a result closer to the rotations ------------------------- 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) --gel70 continuation -h04, b=13 200 236 282, int=1.90305e+06 -h05, b=13 200 282 337, int=713556 -h06, b=13 200 337 355, int=14336.7 -h07, b=13 200 355 424, int=274599 -h09, b=13 200 468 516, int=199465 -h10, b=13 200 516 545, int=54951.3 b1 30 140 551 600, b2 13 170 551 600, fit 0 -h11, b=30 140 563 594, int=6330.2 b1 13 170 601 750, b2 13 220 601 750, fit 0 -h12, b=13 170 614 671, int=43206 --gel71 -D=62.61 b1 13 200 210 550, b2 13 300 210 550, fit 0 -h04, b=13 200 228 283, int=1.81874e+06 -h05, b=13 200 283 342, int=711883 -h06, b=13 200 342 351, int=4805.44 -h07, b=13 200 351 431, int=277647 -h09, b=13 200 464 519, int=207440 -h10, b=13 200 519 543, int=48929.9 b2 30 140 552 600, b2 13 180 552 600, fit 0 -h11, b=30 140 558 593, int=10811.5 b1 30 170 601 700, b2 13 200 601 700, fit 0 -h12, b=30 170 614 670, int=36047.3 --gel72 -D=62.31 b1 13 200 288 433, b2 13 280 288 433, fit 0 review lower limit because of beam stop ------------------------- 20 Nov 2017 Monday b1 13 220 240 288, b2 13 250 240 288, fit 0 -h05, b=13 200 272 338, int=3.5962e+06 -h06, b=13 200 338 351, int=51757.4 -h07, b=13 200 351 426, int=1.37059e+06 b1 13 200 433 500, b2 13 300 433 500, fit 0 b1 13 200 500 550, b2 13 250 500 550, fit 0 -h09, b=13 200 464 516, int=994158 -h10, b=13 200 516 548, int=226661 b1 13 145 551 600, b2 13 170 551 600, fit 0 -h11, b=13 145 557 595, int=48243.7 b1 13 180 601 658, b2 13 220 601 658, fit 0 b1 13 150 658 700, b2 13 180 658 700, fit 0 -h12, b=13 150 610 670, int=224789 --gel73 !!!MAYBE MORE ORDERS CAN BE FOUND -D=61.6, big error b1 13 200 493 547, b2 13 250 493 547, fit 0 -h10, b=13 200 514 536, int=433609 b1 50 140 548 600, b2 25 160 548 600, fit 0 -h11, b=50 140 554 586, int=80452.7 b1 13 180 601 640, b2 13 220 601 640, fit 0 b1 13 150 640 700, b2 13 175 640 700, fit 0 -h12, b=13 180 605 640 and b=13 170 640 660, int=303289+78028.3=381317.3 --gel74 !!!MAYBE MORE ORDERS CAN BE FOUND SUBTRACTION OF GEL75 -D=62.18 b1 13 200 500 530, b2 13 250 500 530, fit 0 b1 13 170 530 547, b2 13 200 530 547, fit 0 -h10, b=13 200 508 547, int=907537 BAD !! b1 44 150 548 599, b2 13 400 548 599, fit 2 -h11, b=44 150 555 598, int=140239 BAD b1 44 150 548 599, b2 13 180 548 599, fit 0 -h11, b=44 150 555 594, int=108050 BAD !! b1 20 200 600 700, b2 13 400 600 700, fit 2 -h12, b=20 200 605 687, int=1.21189e+06 BAD b1 13 200 600 700, b2 13 240 600 700, fit 0 -h12, b=13 200 604 687, int=1.1973e+06 BAD !! ------------------------- 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!! ------------------------- 27 Nov 2017 Monday --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 entered the intensities in the excell sheet Redoing a bunch because I think taking fit 2 is better especially for small orders. --gel57 b1 20 200 250 397, b2 13 320 250 397, fit 2 b1 20 190 397 440, b2 13 260 397 440, fit 2 -h05, b=20 200 285 337, int=881575 -h06, b=20 200 340 355, int=25529.7 -h07, b=20 200 355 423, int=436433 b1 25 220 442 552, b2 13 350 442 552, fit 2 -h09, b=25 220 468 521, int=331445 -h10, b=25 220 521 550, int=77598.6 b1 25 160 552 600, b2 13 280 552 600, fit 2 -h11, b=25 160 560 596, int=22385 b1 20 190 600 651, b2 13 250 600 651, fit 2 b1 40 160 651 700, b2 13 220 651 700, fit 2 -h12, b=20 190 603 651 and 40 160 651 679, int=69469.5+25519.5= 94989 BAD!! this takes h13 as well --gel58 b1 20 200 250 397, b2 13 320 250 397, fit 2 b1 20 190 397 440, b2 13 260 397 440, fit 2 -h05, b=20 200 288 335, int=946569 -h06, b=20 200 341 355, int=28078.7 -h07, b=20 200 355 424, int=475390 b1 25 220 442 552, b2 13 350 442 552, fit 2 -h09, b=25 220 466 521, int=336322 -h10, b=25 220 521 550, int=78455.8 b1 25 160 552 600, b2 13 300 552 600, fit 2 -h11, b=25 160 562 590, int=15866.9 b1 25 190 600 648, b2 13 260 600 648, fit 2 b1 40 160 648 700, b2 13 210 648 700, fit 2 -h12, b=25 190 614 648 and 40 160 648 679, int=69335.4+27418.3=96753.7 --gel59 b1 20 200 250 397, b2 13 300 250 397, fit 2 b1 20 190 397 440, b2 13 260 397 440, fit 2 -h05, b=20 200 281 333, int=1.11878e+06 -h06, b=20 200 335 354, int=21162.5 -h07, b=20 200 354 425, int=466504 b1 25 220 442 552, b2 13 350 442 552, fit 2 -h09, b=25 220 466 513, int=272718 -h10, b=25 220 513 546, int=107458 b1 25 160 552 600, b2 13 300 552 600, fit 2 -h11, b=25 160 556 589, int=21315 b1 30 180 600 648, b2 13 250 600 648, fit 2 b1 40 160 648 700, b2 13 220 648 700, fit 2 -h12, b=30 180 606 648 and 40 160 648 680, int=67212.3+25462.7=92675 ------------------------- 29 Nov 2017 Wednesday --gel61 -h04 same should be fine -h05 same should be fine %%b1 20 200 300 397, b2 13 300 300 397, fit 2 abandonned b1 20 200 300 436, b2 13 290 300 436, fit 2 -h06, b=20 200 335 354, int=20022.1 -h07, b=20 200 354 430, int=447581 subtracted g60 for h09 and h10 here because it takes out the "meilar" ring (I may be mistaken on the name meilar) b1 25 220 442 552, b2 13 450 442 552, fit 2 -h09, b=25 220 453 510, int=261520 -h10, b=25 220 510 545, int=97912.2 no more gel60 subtraction b1 25 180 553 598, b2 13 300 553 598, fit 2 -h11, b=25 180 556 587, int=15740 b1 30 180 599 648, b2 13 280 599 648, fit 2 b1 40 170 648 700, b2 13 250 648 700, fit 2 -h12, b=30 180 603 648 and 40 170 648 679, int=71700.2+35655.3=107355.5 --gel62 b1 20 200 300 436, b2 13 290 300 436, fit 2 -h06, b=20 200 341 359, int=27641 -h07, b=20 200 359 429, int=400033 subtracted g60 for h09 and h10 here because it takes out the "meilar" ring (I may be mistaken on the name meilar) b1 25 220 442 552, b2 13 450 442 552, fit 2 -h09, b=25 220 452 511, int=239976 -h10, b=25 220 511 540, int=74654.4 no more gel60 subtraction b1 25 160 553 598, b2 13 300 553 598, fit 2 -h11, b=25 160 555 587, int=23070.3 b1 30 180 599 648, b2 13 280 599 648, fit 2 b1 40 170 648 700, b2 13 250 648 700, fit 2 -h12, b=30 180 607 648 and 40 170 648 675, int=48738.5+23352.7=72091.2 --gel63 -D=62.30 b1 20 200 300 436, b2 13 290 300 436, fit 2 -h06, b=20 200 331 356, int=40264.6 -h07, b=20 200 356 432, int=491336 subtracted g60 for h09 and h10 here because it takes out the "meilar" ring (I may be mistaken on the name meilar) b1 25 220 442 552, b2 13 450 442 552, fit 2 -h09, b=25 220 457 511, int=267726 -h10, b=25 220 511 548, int=96120.9 no more gel60 subtraction b1 25 170 553 598, b2 13 300 553 598, fit 2 -h11, b=25 170 562 588, int=18302.4 b1 30 180 599 648, b2 13 260 599 648, fit 2 b1 40 170 648 700, b2 13 250 648 700, fit 2 -h12, b=30 180 614 648 and 40 170 648 678, int=59149.2+51358.6=110507.8 BAD takes h13 into h12 --gel68 b1 30 200 300 436, b2 13 300 300 436, fit 2 -h06, b=30 200 349 359, int=1616.57 --gel69 b1 20 200 300 436, b2 13 290 300 436, fit 2 -h06, b=20 200 343 360, int=4131.16 b1 25 170 442 552, b2 13 350 442 552, fit 2 -h09, b=25 170 458 513, int=49923 -h10, b=25 170 513 549, int=19636.6 b1 30 160 552 617, b2 13 300 552 617, fit 2 b1 25 170 617 700, b2 13 240 617 700, fit 2 -h11, b=30 160 555 593, int=5774.23 -h12, b=25 170 618 671, int=19546.2 --gel70 b1 30 200 300 436, b2 13 300 300 436, fit 2 -h06, b=30 200 342 355, int=12535.6 b1 25 200 442 552, b2 13 300 442 552, fit 2 -h09, b=25 200 469 515, int=151378 -h10, b=25 200 515 542, int=53208.5 b1 30 160 553 598, b2 13 300 553 598, fit 2 -h11, b=30 160 560 595, int=13244.4 b1 20 200 599 648, b2 13 260 599 648, fit 2 b1 40 160 648 700, b2 13 260 648 700, fit 2 -h12, b=20 200 616 648 and 40 160 648 680, int=35204.7+25754.6=60959.3 ------------------------- 30 Nov 2017 Thursday --gel71 b1 30 200 300 436, b2 13 300 300 436, fit 2 -h06, b=30 200 341 356, int=7125.82 b1 20 200 442 552, b2 13 300 442 552, fit 2 -h09, b=20 200 462 514, int=150657 -h10, b=20 200 514 545, int=64966.3 b1 30 160 553 605, b2 13 300 553 605, fit 2 -h11, b=30 160 558 601, int=13020.8 b1 20 190 606 651, b2 13 260 606 651, fit 2 b1 40 160 657 700, b2 13 220 657 700, fit 2 b1 30 170 651 657, b2 13 240 651 657, fit 2 -h12, b=20 190 611 651 and 40 160 657 675 and 30 170 651 657, int=43406.8+6493.46+4452.51=54352.77 --gel72 b1 30 200 300 436, b2 13 300 300 436, fit 2 -h06, b=30 200 335 355, int=59539.9 b1 20 200 442 552, b2 13 300 442 552, fit 2 -h09, b=20 200 458 511, int=731059 -h10, b=20 200 511 547, int=345577 b1 30 160 550 605, b2 13 300 550 605, fit 2 -h11, b=30 160 552 603, int=83453.7 b1 20 180 606 651, b2 13 240 606 651, fit 2 b1 30 170 651 660, b2 13 220 651 660, fit 2 b1 50 140 660 700, b2 13 220 660 700, fit 2 -h12, b=20 180 610 651 and 30 170 651 660 and 50 140 660 677, int=211520+31232.2+14262.8=257015 --gel73 without subtracting gel75 b1 20 200 442 552, b2 13 300 442 552, fit 2 -h10, b=20 200 509 545, int=683085 b1 30 160 550 605, b2 13 300 550 605, fit 2 -h11, b=30 160 552 594, int=135645 b1 20 180 600 645, b2 13 240 600 645, fit 2 b1 50 150 645 700, b2 13 210 645 700, fit 2 -h12, b=20 180 603 645 and 50 150 645 665, int=394822+39880.7=434702.7 Subtract gel75: b1 20 200 477 552, b2 13 300 477 552, fit 2 -h10, b=20 200 508 543, int=558503 BAD For 9 and 10, for 11 and 12, the slope difference induces too much error I think. Can we use subtraction to get 9 7 and 7? --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. --gel57 with h13! b1 20 190 600 651, b2 13 250 600 651, fit 2 b1 40 160 651 700, b2 13 220 651 700, fit 2 -h12, b=20 190 603 651 and 40 160 651 653, int=69469.5+2056.88=71526.38 -h13, b=40 160 653 679, int=23462.6 --gel58 with h13! b1 25 190 600 648, b2 13 260 600 648, fit 2 b1 40 160 648 700, b2 13 210 648 700, fit 2 -h12, b=25 190 614 648 and 40 160 648 656, int=69335.4+10022.1=79357.5 -h13, b=40 160 656 679, int=17396.2 --gel59 with h13! b1 30 180 600 648, b2 13 250 600 648, fit 2 b1 40 160 648 700, b2 13 220 648 700, fit 2 -h12, b=30 180 606 648 and 40 160 648 655, int=67212.3+7698.71=74911.01 -h13, b=40 160 655 680, int=17763.9 --gel61 with h13! b1 30 180 599 648, b2 13 280 599 648, fit 2 b1 40 170 648 700, b2 13 250 648 700, fit 2 -h12, b=30 180 603 648 and 40 170 648 658, int=71700.2+16323.4=88023.6 -h13, b=40 170 658 679, int=19331.9 --gel62 with h13! b1 30 180 599 648, b2 13 280 599 648, fit 2 b1 40 170 648 700, b2 13 250 648 700, fit 2 -h12, b=30 180 607 648 and 40 170 648 656, int=48738.5+8340.63=57079.13 -h13, b=40 170 656 675, int=15012.1 --gel63 with h13! b1 30 180 599 648, b2 13 260 599 648, fit 2 b1 40 170 648 700, b2 13 250 648 700, fit 2 -h12, b=30 180 614 648 and 40 170 648 650, int=59149.2+2144.86=61294.06 -h13, b=40 170 650 678, int=49213.8 --gel69 with h13! b1 30 160 552 617, b2 13 300 552 617, fit 2 b1 25 170 617 700, b2 13 240 617 700, fit 2 -h12, b=25 170 618 658, int=12433.2 -h13, b=25 170 658 671, int=7112.95 --gel70 with h13! b1 20 200 599 648, b2 13 260 599 648, fit 2 b1 40 160 648 700, b2 13 260 648 700, fit 2 -h12, b=20 200 616 648 and 40 160 648 658, int=35204.7+6890.4=42095.1 -h13, b=40 160 658 680, int=18864.2 --gel71 with h13! b1 20 190 606 651, b2 13 260 606 651, fit 2 b1 40 160 657 700, b2 13 220 657 700, fit 2 b1 30 170 651 657, b2 13 240 651 657, fit 2 -h12, b=20 190 611 651 and 30 170 651 655, int=43406.8+3986.07=47392.87 -h13, b=30 170 655 657 and 40 160 657 675, int=466.446+6493.46=6959.906 --gel72 with h13! b1 20 180 606 651, b2 13 240 606 651, fit 2 b1 30 170 651 660, b2 13 220 651 660, fit 2 b1 50 140 660 700, b2 13 220 660 700, fit 2 -h12, b=20 180 610 651 and 30 170 651 655, int=211520+10742.6=222262.6 -h13, b=30 170 655 660 and 50 140 660 677, int=20489.6+14262.8=34752.4 --gel73 with h13! with gel75 subtraction, BAD LOOKS GOOD DOESN'T WORK b1 18 210 580 700, b2 13 300 580 700 -h12, b=18 210 602 658, int=804337 BAD -h13, b=18 210 658 679, int=166920 BAD without subtraction b1 20 180 600 645, b2 13 240 600 645, fit 2 b1 50 150 645 700, b2 13 210 645 700, fit 2 -h12, b=20 180 603 645 and 50 150 645 658, int=394822+30889.6=425711.6 b1 45 150 645 700, b2 20 190 645 700, fit 2 -h13, b=45 150 658 665, int=15626.9 ------------------------- 5 Dec 2017 Tuesday --gel74 with h13! no subtraction of gel75 b1 20 210 442 552, b2 13 280 442 552, fit 2 -h10, b=20 210 514 548, int=784121 b1 30 160 545 605, b2 13 260 545 605, fit 2 -h11, b=30 160 549 602, int=210030 b1 20 190 600 630, b2 13 260 600 630, fit 2 b1 20 180 630 652, b2 13 220 630 652, fit 2 b1 40 160 652 663, b2 13 200 652 663, fit 2 -h12, b=20 190 602 630 and 20 180 630 652 and 40 160 652 657, int=344549+217106+33242.9=594897.9 b1 60 130 663 700, b2 30 180 663 700, fit 2 -h13, b=40 160 657 663 and 60 130 663 685, int=37265.9+62662.7=99928.6 ------------------------- 6 Dec 2017 Wednesday smp two for --gel73 with h13! without subtraction b1 20 180 600 631, b2 13 240 600 631, fit 2 b1 30 180 631 645, b2 13 230 631 645, fit 2 b1 30 180 645 651, b2 20 240 645 651, fit 2 b1 50 190 651 662, b2 20 230 651 662, fit 2 b1 50 130 662 700, b2 20 200 662 700, fit 2 -h12, b=20 180 603 631 and 30 180 631 645 and 30 180 645 651 and 50 190 651 654, int=254663+113651+34150.7+13162=415626.7 -h13, b=50 190 654 662 and 50 130 662 672, int=47180.7+10044.1=57224.8 --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 TODO: forget gel53 -table with results -fixed angles as seperate data sets make the table!!! -use gel76 to get R9,12? use to integrate it to the other data? make a separate file? wait for the separate data to see if they work -send the matlab files -should we count 55 and 56, looks like rad damage, the ratios are very different, but intensities just as high QUESTIONS: -gel54 only h9 and h12, how do we mix this with other data? no relative intensity compared to h3. look at 54, do I measure the spots 5, 6, 7 even though there is the drop? -rings of other crystal material influencing measures, should i approximate the intensity and remove it? FINAL REPORT: -explain correction, the final computation Rab(theta=0) -order of magnitude of that correction -how compute error