Jan 26 2009.
Tested with a diffraction pattern what the spot shape would look if we slit down the front end apertures.


B. Sweet--The beam-size tool I sent you on Friday predicted that the spot should be
160mu fwhm with the FE slit at 4.9mm.  Indeed that's what we saw for a
"typical" fully-recorded spot.  However the spot got no smaller when we
narrowed the slit to 1.9 and 1.3mm, where the spot is predicted to be
60-75mu.  What we >did< see, however, was that the peak:background ratio
appeared to increase from about 4 with the wide slit to 6 with the
narrower ones.

A. Heroux-These shots were not done taken with dose in mind to compare the intensity of the peak or the backgroung. As seen on the first row trippling the exposure time barely the backgroung but double the intensity of the peak.
On the second row the backgroup doubles but the at least triples (if not quadruples).


Huge xtal with slits at 20x20 um2 (not calibrated)
0.3 sec exposure time for front end aperture at 4.91mm(not calibrated).


Huge xtal with slits at 20x20 um2 (not calibrated)
0.6 sec exposure time for front end aperture at 4.91mm.(not calibrated).

Huge xtal with slits at 20x20 um2 (not calibrated)
0.9 sec exposure time for front end aperture at 4.91mm.(not calibrated).




Huge xtal with slits at 50x50 um2 (not calibrated)
0.3 sec exposure time for front end aperture at 4.91mm.(not calibrated).
Huge xtal with slits at 50x50 um2 (not calibrated)
0.6 sec exposure time for front end aperture at 4.91mm.(not calibrated).		 Huge xtal with slits at 50x50 um2 (not calibrated)
0.9 sec exposure time for front end aperture at 4.91mm.(not calibrated).







Huge xtal with slits at 50x50 um2 (not calibrated)
0.3 sec exposure time for front end aperture at 4.91mm.(not calibrated).
Huge xtal with slits at 50x50 um2 (not calibrated)
1.0 sec exposure time for front end aperture at 1.91mm.(not calibrated).		 Huge xtal with slits at 50x50 um2 (not calibrated)
3.0 sec exposure time for front end aperture at 1.31mm(not calibrated).



Jan 23 2008 knife edge scan to determine the divergence of the beam at X25 while close the front end slits. Measuremnets done by Grace and Bob.
These results are with non-calibrated front-end slits and "20 um" apertures.
largest spacing is usinglambda 0.9795A, a distance of 350mm for the detector apertures of 100x100 um2




 Front-end slit width/mm FWHM / mm width – aperture FWHM divergence / mrad spot size / microns largest spacing relative intensity









1.31 0.0254 0.0054 0.0108 204 600 350

1.51 0.0413 0.0213 0.0426 215 500 650

1.71 0.0540 0.0340 0.0680 224 500 840

1.91 0.0699 0.0499 0.0997 235 500 1160

2.11 0.0794 0.0594 0.1188 242 500 1360

2.71 0.1080 0.0879 0.1759 262 400 1700

3.51 0.1365 0.1165 0.2331 282 400 1900

3.91 0.1588 0.1388 0.2775 297 400 2480

4.31 0.1746 0.1546 0.3093 308 400 2600

4.91 0.2381 0.2181 0.4363 353 300 3100




λ / a = angular spot separation






spot size = aperture + div.*dist.






a = λ / (size/distance) * factor = λ / factor * [(aperture + div.*dist.)/dist.]





















Summary of Tests performed on X25 during the week of 9/29-10/3/08:1 done by Grace)
Started in 2.584Gev Ops. The mono lift , mono height, mirror height, twists, roll and focus were realigned to optimized the beam shape on the mono and mirror phosphors.2) The mono lift and mono height adjustments successfully eliminated the double peak previously observed during pitch scans.3) The diffractometer was realigned to optimize counts. The diffyaw and diffpitch were optimized. The FrontEnd slits were closed up to decrease scattering.4) After the Energy was calibrated, the proper gap was measured. Chris then calculated the needed offset and set this in software.5) Preliminary settings for Roll and Focus were looked also looked at just prior to the ring energy switching back from 2.584Gev to 2.8Gev ops. 6) The mirror focus was also looked at. Although, the beam can be overfocused, attempts to underfocus the beam had unexpected results. Additionally the elliptical bend motion continues to give false hard limit trips. Long term our recommendation is to use the BC-005 (APS transition board) in place of Bill's IO58 box (in the white electronic rack), as it's wiring scheme has been more reliable. 7) The alignment was rechecked, the Energy was recalibrated, and the gap offset was optimized for 2.8Gev ops 8) The focus table was established for energies ranging from 6.0 to 15 kev, and the roll motion was further optimized.9) Bob and John L. made modifications to the periscope to accommodate a protective lens cover. This required the periscope motions and focal distances to be rechecked.10) A burn was taken on the Hutch Ion Chamber to confirm the beams position and the beam position monitor and attenuator were reinstalled. 11) On Friday Stu cooled down the detector and the cold stream was put back in place. 12) Joe D., Annie, and Chris worked on measuring the beam flux using Lonny's standard ion chamber. As the focus table was not fully implemented, hand tweaking was needed for these tests.13) Chris fitted the focus data to determine the best curve to calculate the focus for energy moves. Although this was not completely implemented until Friday evening, the focus table did appear to be working repeatably for .979 A and 1.1A. 14) As mentioned in my note at the beamline, the roll will still need some final tuning and the focus table will need additional testing. 15) If time allows, I would recommend completing the roll/focus testing with the existing slit calibration to maintain a consistent merit comparison..16) As the slits have had excessive use, the slit calibration will need to be rechecked prior to user operations. If new offsets are used please record these in the beamline logbook.

Summary of Sagital Focus values and expected Merits for changing Energy on X25:






(10/6/08)






















Energy Wavelength Theta Focus Roll diffperp optics_V Colli Hutch Merit Ring H-FWHM V-FWHM diffpitch diffyaw slits
















6.000 2.0664 11.40275 -0.300 -0.218 1.5215 -1.4300 128090 516824 738 170ma 243um
0.49 -0.36 100x100
















7.113 (Fe) 1.7430 16.13710 0.020 -0.218 1.1217 -1.4400 92620 509328 541 169
*265 0.49 -0.36 100x100
















9.000 0.6200
0.620 -0.280 2.8520 -1.3400 139000 485000 536 257 254 244 0.35 -0.37 100x100
















10.000 1.2399 11.40275 1.020 -0.218 0.1419 -1.1200 118901 188708 651 ~179 239
0.49 -0.36 100x100
















11.000

1.420 -0.218 1.9789 -1.0470 139000 238000 865 161 231 152 0.33 -0.25 100x100
















12.658 (Se) 0.9795 8.98580 2.150 -0.218 -0.3081 -1.0900 148501 141989 892 165 ~236 *107 0.49 -0.36 100x100
















13.777 0.9000 8.25126 2.650 -0.222 -0.3778 -1.1400 57386 65832 302 ~186 258
0.49 -0.36 100x100
















15.000 0.8266 7.57388 3.250 -0.218 -0.5783 -1.0600 75820 79801 407 184 239
0.49 -0.36 100x100

















Bolded values reflect the most recent compatible "diffperp" positions using the same roll, diffpitch and diffyaw values. 

Oct  3, 2008


After new upgrades of the motor controls for the mono.

There doesn't seem to have anymore flickering of the beam when we wlook at the phospho in the hutch. The motors ahve all been calibrated and we have a new algorithm for the focus.
Measurements of the flux by Joe Dvorak.
The photodiode is set at the sample position 10^6 V/amp, 4000 cv bias.
raw data

 C4 counts
 Current uA
from photodiode
 flux (normalize at 235mA)
photons/sec
 ring current mA
 Flux   (to come)                                           
0.9A
12658eV
 100x100 0
200x200  0
300x300  0










0.9795
12658eV 		100x100   18293
200x200   47887
300x300   71137
 70.63
47.41
17.99		 1.7x10^11
4.5x10^11
6.7x10^11
 252.8--merit 726
252.8
249.8






1.0A
12658eV		 100x100   18680
200x200   47263
300x300   68925
 18.2
46.25
67.55
 1.2x10^11
4.2x10^11
6.2x10^11		 244.7--merit 802
244.7
244.7






1.1
 100x100  27195
200x200  67918
300x300 102168
 25.18
63.35
95.39
 2.0x10^11
5.0x10^11
7.5x10^11		 241.0---merit 1561






1.2
 100x100    9604
200x200  24820
300x300  38174		 8.11
21.10
32.35
 5.6x10^10
1.5x10^11
2.2x10^11		 238.1---merit 645











July 28, 2008
New support for the roll has been added. This is also a new second xtal in the mono.
We also have a new kappa arm called skinny kappa which we want to test. We believe we are at the Se edge and we are running in single lambda mode until motor issues are resolved.


DJ90_1 run 1

The beam seems fine on the phospho paddle. We have the slits at  100x100  just calibrated (with a graph?).
This is 1.0 deg for 0.5 sec and it diffracts to 2.2A  Rsym 0.078 0.1.66% rej.

This data collection is mostly to evaluate the behaviour of the beam after the addition of a clamp on the roll.
This xtal also has some Semet and I would like to see some signal in the data.

DJ90d4_4
Data collected at 0.9795A at X25 first graph no reject, secong graph after reject
from the scan the infl should be at 0.9794A and peak at 0.9792A


at X29 0.4 sec for 1 deg, collected before mounting on X25.
slits are at 100x 160 as usual. 0.9795A
diffracts to 1.9A Rsym 4.6% rej 0.22%

This would be more usuful if it was at the peak and not the inf. The yellow and blue line should be apart for low res if there is some anomalous signal.



June 13, 2008 (it's a friday!)

After multi problems with the motors mostly of the mono, there is beam in the hutch.

Motors off (pitch , theta and lift) in other words we are at 1.0757A and we stay there.

I am collecting on a NAO mutant P3221 107 107 337 90 90 120.

Ring: digital feedback on (V and H)


ah24bb4 run 4

I can't really see the beam on the phospho paddle because it's to dim. When I open 200x200 then I can see a slight beam.
the ring current is at 198.8mA and there was a global orbit correction right before I started collecting.
This is 0.5 deg for 10 sec and it diffracts to 2.25A  Rsym 0.061 0.12% rej

the slits are 100x100.
This data collection is mostly to evaluate the behaviour of the beam after the addition of a clamp on the roll during the shutdown.
As you can see the scaling is very quiet except for a glicth at frame 100.











29-30 April 2008- with focus and defocused beam,  slits 150x150

Ring: digital feedback on (V and H)


xtal_ke_5th
(focus 2.41mm lambda 0.9795A)
This is the same xtal as yesterday, not necessarily the same starting orientation.

This is 1 deg for 1 sec and it diffracts to 1.5A as opposed to 1.9A for 0.5 deg 3 sec yesterday.

Despite not a huge difference in the C2 and C4 counters, the intensity of the beam is obviously about 10x higher today.
In the i0 plot, there are some spikes in the C4  (green) which are also seen at C2 (red).
This scaling is what we used to have before the "clamp".

xtal_ke_5th
(defocus 2.9mm lambda 0.9795A)
A lot less intensity.
Still some spikes in C4 and C2.

It's not ovious if there is any improvement in the scaling caused by defocusing the beam.


xtal_ke_5th
defocus with longer exposure time to pick more of the intensity
exposure of 6 sec for 0.5 deg. The beam dumped at after 300 frames.
xtal_ke_5th
1.1A, focused 1.78mm. very weak intensity.
We scanned the gap to make sure we were not too off.
Tweaked the outboard twist to improve the profile of the beam.

The C4 counter goes from 60K to 175K from 0.9597A to 1.1A but the C2 counter doesn't improve that much even when we refocused. The beam dies very fast and it is reflected in the scaling.

According to Paul the ring gives beam extremely quiet today.
Xtal barely diffracts to 2.1A Rsym=6.5% reject 5.5% for 360 frames.

We have to keep in mind that we didn't have time to really optimize X25 (move the mono horizontally??).






 28 April 2008- with focus at 2.4 and slits 150x150 (because I am missing the xtal)


xtal_ke_5th
This is for 0.5 deg 3 sec exposure
no attenuator

Rsym 6.0 rejects 0.19%
The temporary clamp on the xtal-roll has been removed

killed the previous xtal, so I had to take a small one not collected on x29.

this scaling IS as quiet as X29
??????
The green line on the I0 plot shows a bigger drop than expected.
We did not move the roll motor after being unclamped. The pitch motor seems to have some reliability problems.

xtal Ke 10ai-1 collected on april 18 2008
 on X25 same xtal as below
0.5 sec with one attenuator
xtal shot at the tip
 no I0 plot because the data collection stopped (too short exposure time)










xtal Ke 10ai-1  (Ke 10ai-1_3 collected on april 2008)
on X29
for this data collection, the scaling is pretty much typical for this beamline.











Here are some of the datasets collected -1 march 2008- with focus at 1.8 and slits 100x100


This is for 0.5 deg 1.25 sec

Rsym 5.6 rejects 2.2%

This is for 1 deg 2.5 sec

Rsym 5.3 rejects 2.5%

This is for 2 deg 5 sec 

Rsym 6.3 rejects 2.18%

So I adjusted the exposure time to be about equivalent per degree. That seems to be the major factor as far as rejection.

What really bothers me is the noise in my scaling.

Here are some scaling for the SAME xtal at X29
(slits v=100 H=160)

 

The scalings look the same and are very smooth. They always are.
X29 1deg 3 sec
Rsym 6.3 reject 3.8%



X29 2 deg 1 sec
Rsym6.4 reject 1.5


Data collected at X25 on Feb 28, 2008 defocused at 1.8 slits 100x100



This is for 0.5 deg 10 sec

Rsym 7.1 rejects 15%

This is for 1 deg 10 sec

Rsym 7.7 rejects 8%

This is for 2 deg 10 sec 

Rsym 7.5 rejects 2.8%

So I adjusted the exposure time to be about equivalent per degree. That seems to be the major factor as far as rejection.

What really bothers me is the noise in my scaling.

Here are some scaling for the SAME xtal at X29


1 deg for 3 sec Rsym 6.3 reject 3.8%


2 deg for 1 sec Rsym6.4 reject 1.5

the scalings look the same and are very smooth. They always are.





Data collected at X25 feb 28, 2008 focussed at 2.8 slits 100x100



1 deg 2 sec

Rsym 6.0 Rejects 2.2%

(6Hb_x25_3)

2 deg 2 sec

Rsym 7.0 Rejects 0.9%

(6Hb_x25_6)


2 deg 2 sec
Rsym 7.0 Rejects 0.9%(6Hb_x25_7)