Hauke,
Bill and I did the same measurement on Sat. night under the same conditions
(reserved target holding field) , and two peaks were found at 1.25A and
1.75A respectively. Besides, last night I made two sets of measurement
with target holding field on (50 Gausse) and off, I got the same results --
two peaks at 0.85A and 1.20A. So I don't think the reversing the target
holding field caused the problem. Please see the ion-pol logbook vol. 2,
which is put on the desk of dblast12. All data I got were recorded there.
BTW, before turning off the target magnets, I asked CCR to do the power
cycle. For the WF magnet, since the DC power supply is unipolar, it's hard
to do a hysteresis suppression cycle; but I did cycle it from 0 to 6 A for
several times.
Yuan
> We recently reversed the target holding field. That means that the
> direction
> of the residual field generated at the magnet of the ion polarimeter
> was also
> reversed. Did you do calculations for the ion polariemter with the
> target
> magnetic field included? What effect do you expect on the magnet of the
> ion
> polarimeter? Did you do a hysteresis suppression cycle before you
> measured
> the mass peaks?
>
> Hauke
>
>
>
> > But the mysterious thing is that istead of what we got before (MASS 1
> peak
> > located at I_WF=1.25A and MASS 2 peak located at I_WF=1.75A), two and
> only
> > two peaks were found at I_WF=0.85A and I_WF=1.20A , no matter the
> long.
> > holding field was on or off. Since these two I_WF's satisfy the
> sqare root 2
> > relation, it seems that somehow the locations of the mass peaks were
> moved.
> > More study about this is needed.
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Mon Feb 24 2014 - 14:07:29 EST