From kaf@cygnus Sat Jan 25 01:15:59 1997 Received: from cygnus.mit.edu by wiwaxia AA13292; Sat, 25 Jan 97 01:15:58 EST Received: by cygnus AA29266; Sat, 25 Jan 97 01:15:53 EST Date: Sat, 25 Jan 97 01:15:53 EST From: Kathryn A. Flanagan To: baluta@cygnus, bertb@sron.ruu.nl, buehler@cygnus, crc@space.mit.edu, davis@cygnus, dd@cygnus, dph@cygnus, dsd@cygnus, ebg@cygnus, fangt@cygnus, hermanm@cygnus, jhk@cygnus, kaf@cygnus, kimf@cygnus, marks@cygnus, mm@cygnus, mwb@cygnus, nss@cygnus, pgf@cygnus, prp@mpe-garching.mpg.de, psh@cygnus, theog@sron.ruu.nl, wise@cygnus Status: R The Al suite 26 (in which higher orders of LEG were sampled) has been rerun as suite 66. I have looked at the quick look results and have calculated efficiencies. These are based on counts within a region-of-interest. As such, I expect that the dispersed beam will contain less continuum than the direct beam, so the efficiencies above 0th order should be a lower limit. The flow counter results appear to be symmetric for even/odd orders for HEG and MEG, although this is not true for the SSD. Although there is known to be efficiency variation across the SSD, it is only of order 6%. Thus, I am not sure why this asymmetry shows up at this point. (generally when there is an asymmetry, the -1 order exceeds the +1 order). The ratio of 0th to 1st order also seems to match up reasonably well with the predicted ratio, and the efficiencies are in the ballpark, so hopefully this test escaped the problems of the first run. I have not looked in detail at the LEG results yet. I do not know where to find the file containing predicted efficiencies for the LEG. In order to normalize properly, I took into account the fact that the bare HRMA measurements had a rectangular aperture, whereas the grating measurements had a 36 mm aperture. This gives a factor of 0.278 (approximately). I obtained the LEG equivalent HRMA flux by adding the results from the MEG and HEG tests with the HRMA. The quick-look rates are listed under .scn. Find below the run info. Orders are both + and - in each case. GTG ORDER DETECTOR RunID TRW_ID MEG HRMA FPC 10009 66.001 MEG HRMA SSD 10010 66.009 HEG HRMA SSD 110011 66.010 HEG HRMA FPC 110012 66.002 HEG 0,1,2 FPC 110013 66.004 HEG 0,1,2 SSD 110014 66.012 LEG 2-7 SSD 110019 - has two fake positions to "safe" the detector; 66.014 LEG 2-7 FPC 110022 - has 2 safety positions; 66.006 MEG 0-4 FPC 110015 66.003 MEG 0-4 SSD 110016 66.011 LEG 0,1,3 SSD 110017 66.013 LEG 0,1,3 FPC 110018 66.005 LEG 7-14 SSD 110020 - has 2 safety positions; 66.015 LEG 7-14 FPC 110023 66.007 LEG 15-25 FPC 110024 - has 2 safety positions; 66.008 LEG 15-25 SSD 110021 66.016 # Rerun suite 26 with Al. # My quick-look results of efficiency # in percent for MEG with FPC and SSD are: # order percent_FPC percent_SSD +1 13.15 7.37 +2 .266 0.797 +3 1.09 0.200 +4 0.177 0.024 0 6.91 5.36 -1 13.01 12.22 -2 0.268 0.277 -3 1.09 1.135 -4 0.158 0.154 # Rerun suite 26 with Al # My quick look results for efficiency # in percent for HEG with FPC and SSD are: # order percent_FPC percent_SSD +1 8.12 6.64 +2 1.07 .629 0 3.93 3.456 -1 8.31 8.699 -2 1.00 1.00 # This is a repeat of Al suite 21. # My quick-look results for LEG # efficiency (IN PERCENT), using flow # counter (FPC) and SSD are: # order percent_SSD percent_FPC 0 4.617 8.717 +1 2.604 7.6675 -1 5.395 7.589 2 0.107 0.416 -2 0.2875 0.4214 3 0.1783 0.833 3 0.2066 0.822 -3 0.636 0.82487 -3 0.670 0.8199 4 .04407 0.247 -4 .208 0.2149 5 .0396 0.2177 -5 .1987 0.21732 6 .02389 0.14755 -6 .1423 0.149095 7 .012580 .0816587 7 .0122 .08103 -7 .0771438 .0806976 -7 .0802 .082357 8 .01109 .08520 -8 .08524 .08718 9 .00521 .03716 -9 .0366 .0383 10 .00657 .0456 -10 .0441 .04658 11 .0013855 .0208 -11 .0200 .0210 12 .001515 .02256 -12 .0228 .0231 13 .0014791 .0121786 -13 .0121 .01254 14 .001388 .010929 -14 .0112 .01146 15 * .0127 -15 .01359 .01294 16 * .0106 -16 .01143 .01038 17 * .00868 -17 .00889 .00823 18 * .00620 -18 .00673 .00661 19 * .00542 -19 .00574 .00531 20 * .00415 -20 .0043 .00423 21 * .00363 -21 .0039 .00371 22 * .00288 -22 .00298 .00287 23 * .00247 -23 .00262 .00259 24 * .00209 -24 .00225 .00212 25 * .00175 -25 .00186 .00190 * the efficiency is calculated at .008% for all of these. It is presumably meaningless (noise?).