1 |
dlumb |
1.6 |
ChangeLog for emos-quantumeff |
2 |
|
|
============================ |
3 |
dlumb |
1.13 |
VERSION 1.6 - 2002-03-07 (DHL) |
4 |
|
|
----------- |
5 |
|
|
Iss 0011 |
6 |
|
|
Made an error in adding up only patterns 0:12 into the QE_TOT |
7 |
|
|
extensions |
8 |
|
|
So this version should now have patterns 0:31 |
9 |
|
|
|
10 |
dlumb |
1.12 |
VERSION 1.5 - 2002-03-01 (DHL) |
11 |
dlumb |
1.13 |
----------- |
12 |
dlumb |
1.12 |
Iss 0011 |
13 |
dlumb |
1.13 |
Fixed the data for the QE, by making the high energy (>1.5keV) points |
14 |
|
|
match a detection depth provided on a CCD-CCD case from the Orsay data |
15 |
|
|
(see below). At lower energies I just take the existing sets from the |
16 |
|
|
Leicester response matrices (q20 versions) and merge into the higher |
17 |
|
|
energy data. I note that we are matching a response of 0-12 patterns |
18 |
|
|
only, so we do not truly expect the curve to fit a simple Si depth |
19 |
|
|
-due to effect of energy thresholds and event splitting, but the Orsay |
20 |
|
|
data are a pretty good match. On echange i made was to get a good fit |
21 |
|
|
just below the Si K edge & there is put in a depth of 32um for ALL |
22 |
|
|
chips |
23 |
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
Values used were: MOS1, CCD 1-7 25.8,29.6,28.8,25.3,28.4,28.2,27.8 |
25 |
|
|
MOS2, CCD 1-7 28.0,27.4,26.8,28.8,28.8,26.4,28.2 |
26 |
|
|
Note that in MOS2 CCDS4&5 were never measured on ground so I took an |
27 |
|
|
average value based on other CCDS from the same manufactured batch |
28 |
dlumb |
1.12 |
|
29 |
rsaxton |
1.11 |
VERSION 1.4 - 2002-01-30 (RDS) |
30 |
|
|
----------- |
31 |
|
|
Iss 0010 |
32 |
|
|
|
33 |
|
|
Add in extra units and remove quotes from region string |
34 |
|
|
|
35 |
rsaxton |
1.10 |
VERSION 1.3 - 2002-01-24 (RDS) |
36 |
|
|
----------- |
37 |
|
|
Iss 0010 |
38 |
|
|
|
39 |
|
|
Add in extra pattern fraction tables (SCR-72) |
40 |
|
|
|
41 |
dlumb |
1.9 |
VERSION 1.2 - 2002-01-08 (DL) |
42 |
|
|
----------- |
43 |
|
|
Iss 0009 |
44 |
|
|
|
45 |
|
|
To fix SPR2178 I changed the region descriptor from POLYGON type to |
46 |
|
|
BOX type. This not only clears up ambiguity on the borders of the shape |
47 |
|
|
but probably speeds up the calculation. |
48 |
|
|
|
49 |
dlumb |
1.8 |
VERSION 1.1 - 2001-09-20 (DL) |
50 |
|
|
----------- |
51 |
|
|
Iss 0008 |
52 |
|
|
|
53 |
|
|
Updated for version 5.2 of SAS. We realise that there was a double |
54 |
|
|
accounting of the pattern fractions so that at 10keV (for exampel) |
55 |
|
|
the 50% fraction of 0-12 patterns was doubly applied. This led to |
56 |
|
|
a gradually decreasing QE with Energy compared with the true expected |
57 |
|
|
QE |
58 |
|
|
|
59 |
dlumb |
1.7 |
VERSION 1.0 - 2001-07-19 (DL) |
60 |
|
|
----------- |
61 |
|
|
Updated for version 5.1 of SAS to make the SAS arfgen reproduce |
62 |
|
|
consistent data with the LUX-supplied response matrices. |
63 |
|
|
Addedd additional energy anchor points at 0eV and 30keV to aid |
64 |
|
|
interpolation. |
65 |
|
|
High energy points are scaled according to a silicon absorption depth |
66 |
|
|
which was measured at Orsay - now we have a good cross-match to CCD |
67 |
|
|
fabrication batch which allows an estimate even for thoise CCDS which |
68 |
|
|
were never measured at Orsay. |
69 |
dlumb |
1.6 |
VERSION 0.6 - 2000-09-6 (DL) |
70 |
|
|
----------- |
71 |
|
|
Further analysis of fligh tdata at Licester allowed better |
72 |
|
|
reconciliation with the analytical QE models. In addition we |
73 |
|
|
introduce far more energy data to allow for better interpolation. There |
74 |
|
|
are still problems around the O edge and below 300eV, so we need to |
75 |
|
|
understand modifications in RMF to make progress at this point. |
76 |
|
|
|
77 |
dlumb |
1.5 |
VERSION 0.5 - 2000-06-23 (DL) |
78 |
|
|
----------- |
79 |
|
|
The initial flight calibration revealed discrepancies at the O edge |
80 |
|
|
and the lowest energy reponses. These were attributed mainly to |
81 |
|
|
systematic errors in the monitoring process at the Orsay synchrotron. |
82 |
|
|
New empirical fits to the data were provided by Leicester, and these |
83 |
|
|
have been compared with new SCISIM runs, utilising the best latest |
84 |
|
|
electrode structure used in the Leicester analystical QE model fit. A |
85 |
|
|
combination of LUX data, and an extension BELOW the Si L edge for the |
86 |
|
|
SCISIM data allows a hopefully better fit. In addition I have modified |
87 |
|
|
the QE's for the outer CCDs of each camera, where there are systematic |
88 |
|
|
differences in QE at > 5keV. These can be attributed to ddifferences |
89 |
|
|
in silicon resistivity translating to different depletion depths. The |
90 |
|
|
QE data for this at Orsay is equivocal, so I take average trends in |
91 |
|
|
increased efficiency between 5 and 12keV and allocate a best estimate |
92 |
|
|
of increased depletion depth to this, and in return modify the overall |
93 |
|
|
QE curves as a result. I am suspicious, though that all QE's are |
94 |
|
|
GREATER tahn the central CCD, and this may indicate a systematic bias |
95 |
|
|
in the measurment method at Orsay. |
96 |
|
|
|
97 |
|
|
The new data sets should give good results to about 10% accuracy at |
98 |
|
|
worst case small energy scales (eg EXAFS scales at silicon edges etc.) |
99 |
|
|
|
100 |
dlumb |
1.4 |
VERSION 0.4 - 2000-05-23 (DL) |
101 |
|
|
----------- |
102 |
|
|
FIxed error of missing pattern 1 data for CCD5 |
103 |
dlumb |
1.3 |
VERSION 0.3 - 2000-02-23 (DL) |
104 |
|
|
----------- |
105 |
|
|
FIxed numerical problem in the data files (some values >>1 ) |
106 |
|
|
|
107 |
ulammers |
1.2 |
Version 0.2 - 2000-02-17 (UL) |
108 |
|
|
----------- |
109 |
|
|
+ fixed minor problem with REGION expression in data files |
110 |
ulammers |
1.1 |
|
111 |
ulammers |
1.2 |
Version 0.1 - 2000-02-09 (DL) |
112 |
ulammers |
1.1 |
----------- |
113 |
|
|
+ created by DL |