From 562167b1d3ccabc1ffed89ce2dc517ee747e0042 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: nam Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 13:32:20 +0900 Subject: [PATCH] tried various font settings, go back to the default one --- thesis2/chapters/chap6_analysis.tex | 121 ++++++++++++++-------------- thesis2/mythesis.sty | 24 ++++++ thesis2/thesis.tex | 12 +-- 3 files changed, 91 insertions(+), 66 deletions(-) diff --git a/thesis2/chapters/chap6_analysis.tex b/thesis2/chapters/chap6_analysis.tex index 3c82d1f..75f46bb 100644 --- a/thesis2/chapters/chap6_analysis.tex +++ b/thesis2/chapters/chap6_analysis.tex @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ \section{Analysis modules} \label{sec:analysis_modules} -A full offline analysis has not been completed yet, but initial analysis +A full analysis has not been completed yet, but initial analysis based on the existing modules (Table~\ref{tab:offline_modules}) is possible thanks to the modularity of the analysis framework. @@ -57,14 +57,14 @@ Figure~\ref{fig:tap_maxbin_bad}. The TSimpleMuonEvent first picks a muon candidate, then loops through all pulses on all detector channels, and picks all pulses occur in -a time window of $\pm 10$~\micro\second\ around each candidate to build a muon -event. A muon candidates is a hit on the upstream plastic scintillator with -an amplitude higher than a threshold which was chosen to reject minimum ionising -particles (MIPs). The -10~\micro\second\ is long enough compares to the mean life time of muons in the -target materials (0.758~\micro\second\ for silicon, and 0.864~\micro\second\ for -aluminium~\cite{SuzukiMeasday.etal.1987}) so practically all of emitted charged -particles would be recorded in this time window. +a time window of \SI{\pm 10}{\si{\micro\second}} around each candidate to build +a muon event. A muon candidates is a hit on the upstream plastic scintillator +with an amplitude higher than a threshold which was chosen to reject minimum +ionising particles (MIPs). The period of \SI{10}{\si{\micro\second}} is long +enough compares to the mean life time of muons in the target materials +(\SI{0.758}{\si{\micro\second}} for silicon, and \SI{0.864}{\si{\micro\second}} +for aluminium~\cite{SuzukiMeasday.etal.1987}) so practically all of emitted +charged particles would be recorded in this time window. %\begin{figure}[htb] %\centering %\includegraphics[width=0.85\textwidth]{figs/tme_musc_threshold} @@ -73,13 +73,13 @@ particles would be recorded in this time window. %\end{figure} A pile-up protection mechanism is employed to reject multiple muons events: if -there exists another muon hit in less than 15~\micro\second\ from the candidate -then both the candidate and the other muon are discarded. This pile-up -protection would cut out less than 11\% total number of events because the beam -rate was generally less than 8~\kilo\hertz. +there exists another muon hit in less than \SI{15}{\si{\micro\second}} from the +candidate then both the candidate and the other muon are discarded. This +pile-up protection would cut out less than 11\% total number of events because +the beam rate was generally less than \SI{8}{\kilo\hertz}. %In runs with active silicon targets, another requirement is applied for the -%candidate: a prompt hit on the target in $\pm 200$ \nano\second\ around the +%candidate: a prompt hit on the target in $\pm 200$ \si{\nano\second}\ around the %time of the $\mu$Sc pulse. The number comes from the observation of the %time correlation between hits on the target and the $\mu$Sc %(Figure~\ref{fig:tme_sir_prompt_rational}). @@ -120,11 +120,12 @@ shown in Figure~\ref{fig:lldq}. The energy calibration for the silicon detectors were done routinely during the run, mainly by an $^{241}\textrm{Am}$ alpha source and a tail pulse generator. The source emits -79.5 $\alpha\per\second$ in a 2$\pi$~\steradian~solid angle. The most -prominent alpha particles have energies of 5.484~\mega\electronvolt\ -(85.2\%) and 5.442~\mega\electronvolt\ (12.5\%). A tail pulse with amplitude of -66 \milli\volt~was used to simulate the response of the silicon detectors' -preamplifiers to a particle with 1\mega\electronvolt~energy deposition. +79.5 $\alpha$\si{\per\second} in a \SI{2\pi}{\steradian} solid angle. The most +prominent alpha particles have energies of \SI{5.484}{\si{\mega\electronvolt}} +(85.2\%) and \SI{5.442}{\si{\mega\electronvolt}} (12.5\%). A tail pulse with +amplitude of +\SI{66}{\milli\volt}~was used to simulate the response of the silicon detectors' +preamplifiers to a particle with \SI{1}{\si{\mega\electronvolt}} energy deposition. During data taking period, electrons in the beam were were also used for energy calibration of thick silicon detectors where energy deposition is large enough. @@ -136,14 +137,14 @@ tuning period. According to Micron Semiconductor \footnote{\url{http://www.micronsemiconductor.co.uk/}}, the manufacturer of the silicon detectors, the nominal thickness of the dead layer on -each side is 0.5~\micron. The alpha particles from the source would deposit +each side is 0.5~\si{\micro\meter}. The alpha particles from the source would deposit about 66~keV in this layer, and the peak would appear at 5418~keV (Figure~\ref{fig:toyMC_alpha}). \begin{figure}[htb] \centering \includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{figs/toyMC_alpha} \caption{Energy loss of the alpha particles after a dead layer of - 0.5~\micron.} + 0.5~\si{\micro\meter}.} \label{fig:toyMC_alpha} \end{figure} @@ -190,18 +191,18 @@ found to be: \textrm{ E [keV]} = 0.1219 \times \textrm{ADC} + 1.1621 \end{equation} The energy resolution (full width at half maximum) was better than -2.6~\kilo\electronvolt\ for all the $^{152}\textrm{Eu}$ peaks. It was a little -worse at 3.1~\kilo\electronvolt~for the annihilation photons at -511.0~\kilo\electronvolt. +2.6~\si{\kilo\electronvolt}\ for all the $^{152}\textrm{Eu}$ peaks. It was a little +worse at 3.1~\si{\kilo\electronvolt}~for the annihilation photons at +511.0~\si{\kilo\electronvolt}. The absolute efficiencies for the $(2p-1s)$ lines of aluminium -(346.828~\kilo\electronvolt) and silicon (400.177~\kilo\electronvolt) are +(346.828~\si{\kilo\electronvolt}) and silicon (400.177~\si{\kilo\electronvolt}) are presented in Table~\ref{tab:xray_eff}. In the process of efficiency calibration, corrections for true coincidence summing and self-absorption were not applied. The true coincidence summing probability is estimated to be very small, about \sn{5.4}{-6}, thanks to the far geometry of the calibration. The -absorption in the source cover made of 22~\milli\gram\per\centi\meter$^2$ -polyethylene is less than \sn{4}{-4} for a 100~\kilo\electronvolt\ photon. +absorption in the source cover made of 22~\si{\milli\gram\per\si{\centi\meter}^2} +polyethylene is less than \sn{4}{-4} for a 100~\si{\kilo\electronvolt}\ photon. \begin{table}[htb] \begin{center} @@ -224,8 +225,8 @@ polyethylene is less than \sn{4}{-4} for a 100~\kilo\electronvolt\ photon. \caption{Energy spectrum of the $\rm^{152}\textrm{Eu}$ calibration source recorded by the germanium detector. The most prominent peaks of $^{152}\textrm{Eu}$ along with their energies are - annotated in red; the 1460.82 \kilo\electronvolt~line is background from - $^{40}\textrm{K}$; and the annihilation 511.0~\kilo\electronvolt~photons + annotated in red; the 1460.82 \si{\kilo\electronvolt}~line is background from + $^{40}\textrm{K}$; and the annihilation 511.0~\si{\kilo\electronvolt}~photons come both from the source and the surrounding environment.} \label{fig:ge_eu152_spec} \end{figure} @@ -505,8 +506,8 @@ listed in Table~\ref{tab:mucap_pars}. The muonic X-ray spectrum emitted from the active target is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:sir2_xray}. The $(2p-1s)$ line is seen at -399.5~\kilo\electronvolt, 0.7~\kilo\electronvolt\ off from the -reference value of 400.177~\kilo\electronvolt. This discrepancy is within our +399.5~\si{\kilo\electronvolt}, 0.7~\si{\kilo\electronvolt}\ off from the +reference value of 400.177~\si{\kilo\electronvolt}. This discrepancy is within our detector's resolution, and the calculated efficiency is $(4.549 \pm 0.108)\times 10^{-5}$ -- a 0.15\% increasing from that of the 400.177~keV line, so no attempt for recalibration or correction was made. @@ -529,7 +530,7 @@ corrected for several effects: \item Self-absorption effect: the X-rays emitted could be absorbed by the target itself, the probability of self-absorption becomes larger in case of thick sample and low energy photons. - For this silicon target of 1500~\micron\ thick and the photon energy of + For this silicon target of 1500~\si{\micro\meter}\ thick and the photon energy of 400~keV, and assuming a narrow muon stopping distribution at the centre of the target, the self-absorption correction is estimated to be: \begin{align} @@ -556,8 +557,8 @@ corrected for several effects: \centering \includegraphics[width=0.85\textwidth]{figs/sir2_ges_self_tdiff} \caption{Interval between to consecutive pulses on the germanium - detector. The peak at 57~\micro\second\ indicates the pulse length, and - the bump at about 2000~\micro\second\ shows the width of the reset + detector. The peak at 57~\si{\micro\second}\ indicates the pulse length, and + the bump at about 2000~\si{\micro\second}\ shows the width of the reset pulses. The average count rate of this detector is extracted from the decay constant of the time spectrum to be $5.146 \times 10^{-7}\textrm{ ns}^{-1} = 514.6 \textrm{ s}^{-1}$} @@ -690,13 +691,13 @@ So, the emission rate is: %\end{figure} %The spectrum measured by Sobottka and Wills~\cite{SobottkaWills.1968} is %reproduced in Figure~\ref{fig:sobottka_spec}, the spectral integral in the -%energy region from 8 to 10~\mega\electronvolt\ is $2086.8 \pm 45.7$. -%The authors obtained the spectrum in a 4~\micro\second\ gate period which began -%1~\micro\second\ after a muon stopped, which would take 26.59\% of the emitted +%energy region from 8 to 10~\si{\mega\electronvolt}\ is $2086.8 \pm 45.7$. +%The authors obtained the spectrum in a 4~\si{\micro\second}\ gate period which began +%1~\si{\micro\second}\ after a muon stopped, which would take 26.59\% of the emitted %particles into account. The number of stopped muons was not explicitly stated, %but can be inferred to be $55715/0.06 = 92858.3$. -%The partial rate of charged particle from 8 to 10~\mega\electronvolt\ is then +%The partial rate of charged particle from 8 to 10~\si{\mega\electronvolt}\ is then %calculated to be: %\begin{equation} %R_{\textrm{8-10 MeV}}^{lit.} = @@ -704,7 +705,7 @@ So, the emission rate is: %= 1.28 \times 10^{-2} %\end{equation} %The authors did not mentioned how the uncertainties of their measurement was -%derived, but quoted the emission rate below 26~\mega\electronvolt\ to be $0.15 +%derived, but quoted the emission rate below 26~\si{\mega\electronvolt}\ to be $0.15 %\pm 0.02$, which translates to a relative uncertainty of 0.133. The statistical %uncertainty from the spectral integral and the number of stopped muons is: %\begin{equation*} @@ -712,14 +713,14 @@ So, the emission rate is: %\end{equation*} %Then their systematic uncertainty would be: $0.133 - 0.009 = 0.124$. -%For the partial spectrum from 8 to 10~\mega\electronvolt, the statistical +%For the partial spectrum from 8 to 10~\si{\mega\electronvolt}, the statistical %contribution to the uncertainty is: %\begin{equation*} %\dfrac{1}{\sqrt{2086.8}} + \dfrac{1}{\sqrt{92858.3}} = 2.5 \times 10^{-2} %\end{equation*} %So, the combined uncertainty of this partial rate calculation is: $0.124 %+ 0.025 = 0.150$. The partial rate of charged particles from 8 to -%10~\mega\electronvolt per muon capture is: +%10~\si{\mega\electronvolt} per muon capture is: %\begin{equation} %R_{\textrm{8-10 MeV}}^{lit.} = (1.28 \pm 0.19) \times 10^{-2} %\end{equation} @@ -729,8 +730,8 @@ So, the emission rate is: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% \section{Charged particles following muon capture on a thin silicon target} \label{sec:charged_particles_following_muon_capture_on_a_thin_silicon_target} -In this measurement, a passive, 62-\micron-thick silicon target was used as the -target. The silicon target is $5\times5$~\centi\meter$^2$ in area. The muon +In this measurement, a passive, 62-\si{\micro\meter}-thick silicon target was used as the +target. The silicon target is $5\times5$~\si{\centi\meter}$^2$ in area. The muon momentum was chosen to be 1.06 after a scanning to maximise the stopping ratio. The charged particles were measured by two arms of silicon detectors. The plastic scintillators vetoing information were not used. @@ -754,17 +755,17 @@ tree contains total $1.452 \times 10^8$ muon events. %145212698 \subsection{Particle identification by dE/dx and proton selection} \label{sub:particle_identification_by_de_dx} %All silicon hits with energy deposition larger than -%200~\kilo\electronvolt\ that happened within $\pm 10$~\micro\second\ of the +%200~\si{\kilo\electronvolt}\ that happened within $\pm 10$~\si{\micro\second}\ of the %muon hit are then %associated to the muon and stored in the muon event tree. The -%200~\kilo\electronvolt\ cut effectively rejects all MIPs hits on thin silicon -%detectors of which the most probable value is about 40~\kilo\electronvolt. +%200~\si{\kilo\electronvolt}\ cut effectively rejects all MIPs hits on thin silicon +%detectors of which the most probable value is about 40~\si{\kilo\electronvolt}. %In order to use dE/dx for particle identification, $\Delta$E and total E are %needed. The charged particle selection starts from searching for muon event that has at least one hit on thick silicon. If there is a thin silicon hit -within a coincidence window of $\pm 0.5$~\micro\second\ around the thick +within a coincidence window of $\pm 0.5$~\si{\micro\second}\ around the thick silicon hit, the two hits are considered to belong to one particle with $\Delta$E being the energy of the thin hit, and total E being the sum energy of the two hits. Particle identification is done using correlation between @@ -786,8 +787,8 @@ $\Delta$E-E plots can be identified as follows: \end{itemize} %The electrons either from Michel decay or from the beam are MIPs particles, -%which would deposit about 466~keV on the 1500-\micron-thick silicon detector, -%and about 20~keV on the 65-\micron-thick silicon detector. Therefore our thin +%which would deposit about 466~keV on the 1500-\si{\micro\meter}-thick silicon detector, +%and about 20~keV on the 65-\si{\micro\meter}-thick silicon detector. Therefore our thin %silicon counters could not distinguish electrons from electronic %noise. The brightest spots on the $\Delta$E-E plots are identified as electrons %due to @@ -864,7 +865,7 @@ The double peaks of muonic X-rays from the lead shield at 431 and 438~keV are very intense, reflects the fact that the low momentum muon beam of 29.68~MeV\cc\ (scaling factor 1.06) was strongly scattered by the upstream counters. After a prompt cut that requires the photon -hit occured in $\pm 1$~\micro\second\ around the muon hit, the peaks from lead +hit occured in $\pm 1$~\si{\micro\second}\ around the muon hit, the peaks from lead remain prominent which is an expected result because of all the lead shield inside the chamber was to capture stray muons. The cut shows its effect on reducing the background level under the 400.177 keV peak by about one third. @@ -872,7 +873,7 @@ reducing the background level under the 400.177 keV peak by about one third. \begin{figure}[htb] \centering \includegraphics[width=0.98\textwidth]{figs/si16p_xray} - \caption{X-ray spectrum from the passive 62-\micron-thick silicon target with + \caption{X-ray spectrum from the passive 62-\si{\micro\meter}-thick silicon target with and with out timing cut.} \label{fig:si16_xray} \end{figure} @@ -918,10 +919,10 @@ Table~\ref{tab:si16p_ncapture_cal}. \label{sub:lifetime_measurement} To check the origin of the protons recorded, lifetime measurements were made by cutting on time difference between a hit on one thick silicon and the muon -hit. Applying the time cut in 0.5~\micro\second\ time steps on the proton +hit. Applying the time cut in 0.5~\si{\micro\second}\ time steps on the proton events in Figure~\ref{fig:si16p_proton_after_ecut}, the number of surviving protons on each arm are plotted on Figure~\ref{fig:si16p_proton_lifetime}. The -curves show decay constants of $762.9 \pm 13.7$~\nano\second\ and $754.6 \pm +curves show decay constants of $762.9 \pm 13.7$~\si{\nano\second}\ and $754.6 \pm 11.9$, which are consistent with the each other, and with mean life time of muons in silicon in the literatures of $758 \pm 2$~\cite{}. This is the confirmation @@ -941,7 +942,7 @@ Therefore a timing cut from 500~ns is used to select good silicon events, the remaining protons are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:si16p_proton_ecut_500nstcut}. The spectra have a low energy cut off at 2.5~MeV because protons with energy lower than that could not pass through the thin silicon to make the cuts as the -range of 2.5~MeV protons in silicon is about 68~\micron. +range of 2.5~MeV protons in silicon is about 68~\si{\micro\meter}. \begin{figure}[htb] \centering \includegraphics[width=0.85\textwidth]{figs/si16p_proton_ecut_500nstcut} @@ -1058,7 +1059,7 @@ The ratio between the number of protons and other particles at 500~ns is $(1927 %\centering %\includegraphics[width=0.85\textwidth]{figs/si16p_toyMC} %\caption{An example of response function between the observed energy and - %initial energy of protons in a 62-\micron-target.} + %initial energy of protons in a 62-\si{\micro\meter}-target.} %\label{fig:si16p_toyMC} %\end{figure} @@ -1096,7 +1097,7 @@ The ratio between the number of protons and other particles at 500~ns is $(1927 %\subsection{Proton emission rate and uncertainties estimation} %\label{sub:proton_emission_rate_and_uncertainties_estimation} -%The rate of proton emission from 2.5--10~\mega\electronvolt is: +%The rate of proton emission from 2.5--10~\si{\mega\electronvolt} is: %\begin{equation} %R = %\end{equation} @@ -1119,7 +1120,7 @@ The ratio between the number of protons and other particles at 500~ns is $(1927 \section{Proton emission following muon capture on an aluminium target} \label{sec:proton_emission_following_muon_capture_on_an_aluminium_target} The aluminium is the main object of the AlCap experiment, in this preliminary -analysis I chose one target, Al100 the 100-\micron-thick target, on +analysis I chose one target, Al100 the 100-\si{\micro\meter}-thick target, on a sub-range of the data set runs 2808--2873, as a demonstration. Because this is a passive target, the same procedure and cuts used in the passive silicon runs were applied. @@ -1163,8 +1164,8 @@ proton energy spectrum is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:al100_proton_spec}. The lifetime of these protons are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:al100_proton_lifetime}, the fitted decay constant on the right -arm is consistent with the reference value of $864 \pm 2$~\nano\second~\cite{}. -But the left arm gives $918 \pm 16.1$~\nano\second, significantly larger than +arm is consistent with the reference value of $864 \pm 2$~\si{\nano\second}~\cite{}. +But the left arm gives $918 \pm 16.1$~\si{\nano\second}, significantly larger than the reference value. %The longer lifetime suggested some contributions from %other lighter materials, one possible source is from muons captured on the back @@ -1180,7 +1181,7 @@ the reference value. Further investigation of the problem of longer lifetime was made and the first channel on the thin silicon detector on that channel was the offender. The lifetime measurement with out that SiL1-1 channel gives a reasonable result, -and the decay constant on the SiL1-1 alone was nearly about 1000~\micro\second. +and the decay constant on the SiL1-1 alone was nearly about 1000~\si{\micro\second}. The reason for this behaviour is not known yet. For this emission rate calculation, this channel is discarded and the rate on the left arm is scaled with a factor of 4/3. The proton spectrum from the aluminium target is plotted diff --git a/thesis2/mythesis.sty b/thesis2/mythesis.sty index 951dd06..8cdf67c 100644 --- a/thesis2/mythesis.sty +++ b/thesis2/mythesis.sty @@ -51,7 +51,31 @@ bookmarks \RequirePackage{setspace} \RequirePackage{verbatim} \RequirePackage{lipsum} +\RequirePackage{datatool} +\RequirePackage[capitalise]{cleveref} +\RequirePackage[final]{listings} +\RequirePackage{xfrac} +%% Units \RequirePackage[]{siunitx} +%% Various fonts ... +%\RequirePackage[T1]{fontenc} +%\RequirePackage{charter} +%\RequirePackage[expert]{mathdesign} + + +%\usepackage[T1]{fontenc} +%\usepackage[bitstream-charter]{mathdesign} + + +%\RequirePackage{lmodern} +%\RequirePackage{libertine} +%\RequirePackage[libertine]{newtxmath} + +% this works +%\usepackage[]{mathpazo} % With old-style figures and real smallcaps. +%\linespread{1.025} % Palatino leads a little more leading +%\usepackage[small]{eulervm} + \RequirePackage{tabularx} \RequirePackage{color} \RequirePackage{pifont} diff --git a/thesis2/thesis.tex b/thesis2/thesis.tex index 1203101..355ddc5 100644 --- a/thesis2/thesis.tex +++ b/thesis2/thesis.tex @@ -24,17 +24,17 @@ for the COMET experiment} \date{September, 2014} \begin{document} -\begin{frontmatter} - \input{chapters/frontmatter} -\end{frontmatter} +%\begin{frontmatter} + %\input{chapters/frontmatter} +%\end{frontmatter} \mainmatter -\input{chapters/chap1_intro} -\input{chapters/chap2_mu_e_conv} +%\input{chapters/chap1_intro} +%\input{chapters/chap2_mu_e_conv} %\input{chapters/chap3_comet} %\input{chapters/chap4_alcap_phys} %\input{chapters/chap5_alcap_setup} -%\input{chapters/chap6_analysis} +\input{chapters/chap6_analysis} %\input{chapters/chap7_results} \begin{backmatter}