1 / 3
AWAN Cloud Chamber
2 / 3
(left) Alpha tracks from Uranitite (right) Alpha tracks from Americium-241
3 / 3
Vacuum Test of AWAN

Showing posts with label Test. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Test. Show all posts

Friday, 12 March 2021

Preliminary Study: Detecting Cosmic Muons with Geiger-Muller Tube Pair

Since the completion of the coincident system recently, a test was planned for it to find out if a block of lead plates placed before the GM tube pair, will the coincident counter give different count rates?  The basis of this test was:

1. Could lead attenuate low energy secondary beta particles, thus reducing the coincident counts per hour (CPH)? 

2. Could the presence of lead increases the collision probability of whatever passing though the metal (electromagnetic component or muons) which induces cascade, thus increase the chance of coincidence count, which leads to higher CPH?  

The test was conducted where the electronics of coincident system and tube positions unchanged, but two sets of data was taken. One was when two GM tubes are left alone and while the other has a 13.0 mm fishing lead plates almost in contact to the upper GM tube (photo below). 


A total of 16 hours of data was collected for each set and are shown as below:


WITHOUT 13 MM LEAD PLATES (Left Figure)

Data [CPH]: 39, 47, 50, 49, 43, 46, 49, 48, 41, 49, 47, 39, 44, 30, 42, 54 (n=16)

Mean: 44.8125          Median: 46.5

Unbiased Standard Deviation: 5.7645

Simple reading: (45 ± 12) CPH


WITH 13 MM LEAD PLATES (Right Figure)

Data [CPH]: 46, 42, 28, 50, 38, 34, 47, 40, 77, 46, 36, 30, 44, 48, 34, 43 (n=16)

Mean: 42.6875          Median: 42.5

Unbiased Standard Deviation: 11.2648

Simple reading: (43 ± 25) CPH


Since n < 30, T-distribution was used to conduct a hypothesis testing. The test was to determine if there is a difference between the average or "mean" of the population (i.e. data using lead vs. data without lead) where:

Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between the population mean.

 Alternative hypothesis: There is a difference between the population mean.

The test statistics was computed using 2 sample Welch's T-test formula assuming unequal variance which gives a test statistics of  0.6717 with a degree-of-freedom 22. The resulting P-value is 0.5088. Thus, the null hypothesis is not rejected (insufficient evidence to accept alternative hypothesis).


In conclusion, there is no statistical significance in the difference between the population mean (i.e. with lead vs. without lead) within a short acquisition time. Experimentally, it makes no difference on the rate of photography regardless of the presence of a lead target.

Wednesday, 10 March 2021

Two Geiger-Muller (GM) Tubes Coincident Circuit

I purchased two low cost Arduino-compatible Geiger-Muller (GM) tube module somewhere in 2013 but only recently I am finally able to assemble them to count coincident signals. 

If two GM tubes aligned on top of each other, both tubes sends a "click" signal simultaneously in time, it is highly probable that they are both detecting the same particle passing through it. To design an electric circuit that is able to recognize both signals coming in simultaneously while filtering others is what physicist calls "coincident circuit". 

Coincident signal is the OUTPUT of the AND logic gate, which triggers ON only when both GM Tube A and GM Tube B sends a signal simultaneously in time.

Early particle physicists studied cosmic rays using cloud chambers. To "catch" photos of high energy particles coming from the sky passing through a cloud chamber, the chamber is often installed two or more GM tubes parallel to it. If a pair or more of these tubes sends coincidence signal to a controller circuit, it will recognize the simultaneous signal and "turn on" the chamber momentarily for photography.

As I intend to repeat these findings, I must first build a coincidence detector.

When a particle passes through a GM tube, it always gives a LOW going pulse for a short time known as "dead time". The GM tube module I got gives a low of 0V for about 0.3 to 0.4 ms. These low going pulses, if connected directly to an Arduino's interrupt-sensitive pins (pin 2 and pin 3 for Arduino UNO), can be detected using attachInterrupt() command to count individual pulses. 

I do not have the programming expertise to sketch an Arduino C/C++ code that detects two LOW pulses in the same time, so I went for the old school logic system using analogue ICs. It seems to work just fine and here's how:

1. An ionizing particle passes through a GM tube, its output goes LOW for a short time. 

2. This LOW pulse triggers a 555 timer set up in monostable mode. The 555 timer reads the LOW pulse, and converts it to a square wave HIGH pulse. The duration of HIGH pulse can be adjusted with the following formula: t = 1.1RC. (Refer to the following diagram for the location of R and C) My RC values are chosen so I can extend the HIGH pulse from 0.5 ms to 2 ms. I am using 2 ms so far.

3. If two GM tubes sends LOW pulses at the same time, both 555 timers will invert and extend them to HIGH pulses. In reality, the high pulses are approximately +4.1 V with respect to LOW of +0.1 V, at Vcc of +5 V.

4. These HIGH going pulses are sent to a general purpose NPN transistors in series (I happen to have some 2N3904s) through a current limiter of 10 kOhms. The serial transistor act as an analog AND gate. Only both HIGH pulses from the 555 timers arriving the transistors at the same time will allow current passing through both transistors to the 5kohms pull-down resistor. 

5. When that happens, a lead wire from the pull-down resistor to Arduino pin 2 allows it to read the sudden changes of voltage if coincidence occurs. Arduino then proceeds to counting, putting result on 16x2 LCD screen. 

Simplified block diagram of the coincident-detecting system. A pulse shaping circuit (green) was necessary to "improve" the recognition of the pulse sent by the GM tubes. 

Simplified circuitry of the pulse shaping and logic gate part of the coincident system. the R = 20 kOhm allows HIGH pulse-width extension up to 2.0 ms.

The circuit works but flawed: The "pseudo-digital" LOW of the twin NPN transistor is no where near 0 V. Instead, it pulses from -0.3 V to 3 V whenever GM Tube B pulses HIGH. A coincidence signal from both tubes will give a pulse from -0.3 V to 5.5 V. Hence, the resistance of the pull-up resistor connected to the twin transistor must be selected in such a way tube B will only give a logic output less than 3V, so Arduino ADC will not recognize false HIGHs from tube B alone. 

The pull-up resistor I use has a value of 5kOhm. 

A pushbutton and 16x2 LCD was connected to the Arduino. The sketch written for this is very simple. It counts any interrupt from pin 2, and displays the counts on an LCD screen. The pushbutton resets the count:

const int pb = 5;
int pbValue;
volatile unsigned long CNT_AB;    // variable for counting interrupts coming from AND gate 

#include<LiquidCrystal.h>                     // adding LCD from the library
LiquidCrystal lcd(12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7);       // defining digital pinout for LCD

//====================================================================================
void setup() {
 pinMode (pb, INPUT);
 pbValue = 0;                // initial pushbutton value

 Serial.begin(9600);
 lcd.begin(16,2);            // initializes dimension of LCD display, 16 char x 2 lines
 CNT_AB = 0;                 // CNT value for AB initially 0

 lcd.setCursor(0,0);
 lcd.print("Coincidence V0.1");
 lcd.setCursor(0,1);
 lcd.print("ACJC 2021");
 delay(2000);
 cleanDisplay();
 
 attachInterrupt(digitalPinToInterrupt(2), GetEvent_AB, RISING);  // detect event in pin 2
}
//====================================================================================
void loop() {
 lcd.setCursor(0,0);                       // Sets cursor to character 0, row 0
 lcd.print("COINCIDENCE: ");               // Prints the defined word
 lcd.print(CNT_AB);
 
 pbValue = digitalRead(pb);
 if (pbValue == HIGH) {
  CNT_AB = 0;
 }
}
//====================================================================================
void GetEvent_AB() {
  CNT_AB++;
}
//====================================================================================
void cleanDisplay (){
  lcd.clear();
  lcd.setCursor(0,0);
  lcd.setCursor(0,0);
}



Preliminary finding of coincident signal per hour from this setup is not significantly different from another coincident detecting IC written long ago by a friend.

Coincident Counts per Hour (CPH) was calculated with both tubes configured in similar geometrical position. At a total of 16 hours acquisition time gives the following table (date, time, counts for the past hour):

My analog-IC Method                     16 Pin IC (C.K.'s program)

2/Mar/2021   22:48     47                    11/Oct/2020   18:00     47

2/Mar/2021   21:47     50                    11/Oct/2020   19:00     41

2/Mar/2021   20:47     39                    11/Oct/2020   20:00     45

3/Mar/2021   13:09     49                    11/Oct/2020   21:00     42

3/Mar/2021   12:05     43                    11/Oct/2020   22:00     47

8/Mar/2021   16:32     46                    11/Oct/2020   23:00     30

8/Mar/2021   15:31     49                    12/Oct/2020   09:00     39

8/Mar/2021   14:31     48                    12/Oct/2020   10:00     55

8/Mar/2021   13:31     41                    12/Oct/2020   13:00     46

8/Mar/2021   12:31     49                    12/Oct/2020   14:00     42

9/Mar/2021   23:14     47                    13/Oct/2020   09:00     43

10/Mar/2021   12:52     39                  13/Oct/2020   10:00     35

10/Mar/2021   13:52     44                  13/Oct/2020   11:00     42

10/Mar/2021   14:52     30                  13/Oct/2020   12:00     42

10/Mar/2021   15:53     42                  13/Oct/2020   13:00     55

10/Mar/2021   16:53     54                  13/Oct/2020   14:00     59

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Average:                       45 [CPH]                                 44 [CPH]


Thus, to answer the following questions in cyan:

1. Is the coincident system capable of operating continuously in long hours? 

Conclusion: (from preliminary results) Yes, with the exception of hardware problem whenever GM tube A PCB is torsionally stressed, it works well otherwise for at least 5 hours continuously. In actuality, every acquisition with a cloud chamber would only last at most an hour before condensant refill is necessary. About 40 photographs per hour, regardless of quality, is expected.  

2. Is the counts from my coincident system consistent with other coincident systems?

Conclusion: (from preliminary results) Yes, although only one system was compared, the compared system was fully-digital and written separately by a different author. He programmed the IC to extend each GM tube pulse to 0.5 ms while mine was set to 2.0 ms. Despite these differences, our CPH readings are comparable.  


Sunday, 4 October 2020

Estimating Magnetic Flux Density using 240 eV Electron Beam and Hall Sensor

Recently I have bought a N42 grade neodymium magnet that boasts function as "salvage" magnets with lifting force equivalent to 600 kg mass on earth. Since my plan for AWAN 3 involves momentum measurement in cosmic ray showers that needs stable magnetic fields, I had to figure out a way to measure the magnetic flux density on the surface of this magnet.
 
The magnet has following physical dimensions:

Magnet diameter: 90 mm
Mount diameter: 120 mm
Thickness: 18 mm
Mount screw: M16

As I did not have any Gauss-meter at hand, I thought of measuring the flux density by cross-checking two different methods:


Method 1: Crude estimation of flux density through bending electron beam of known kinetic energy. 

This is a classic high-school physics demonstration of Lorentz force using specialized cathode ray tubes (CRT) with lots of incorrect assumptions (we'll get to that soon enough), hence "crude estimation". Typically, CRTs uses fluorescent screens to trace the electron beam, the tube I have is one that has partially evacuated glass envelope filled with trace amount of noble gas so it will excite and glow under electron bombardment, making the beam visible. 

In essence, the electron beam inside the CRT is positioned perpendicular to the direction of magnetic field from the magnet. The downward Lorentz force acting on the electrons will "bend" the beam downwards, creating a "vertical displacement". The point is to measure the distance between the magnet to the CRT and see how it varies with the vertical displacement of the beam.

Please take note on all the symbols used.

Variables
vertical displacement, x
magnet to CRT distance, l

Constants
accelerating voltage, V = 240 V 
anode distance to the screen, d = 14 cm 

At l = 100 cm, there is no noticeable deflection on the CRT electron beam so x = 0. I marked the position of the beam on the tube with a Sharpie. Then, by drawing the magnet closer while maintaining perpendicular position as best as I could, I mark down x whenever l changes. x became significant at l = 70 cm, and x became so large that the beam spot touches the edge of the screen at l = 34 cm.

Notice that at l = 30 cm, the electron beam is bent past below the lower edge of the screen. 

Then, all values of x can be converted to radius of curvature, r with the following formula. To save you the trouble of derivation (basic trigonometry really), I'll just provide it here: 

r = sqrt ((x^2)+(d^2)) / 2 cos (90 - arctan (x/d))

Now as I have mentioned, the assumption to make the equation above work is that:
1. The CRT screen must be flat. (reasonable)
2. The electron is bent immediately after it exits anode plate. (not so sure)
3. The field is uniform over the tube so the track would ideally bend into a circle. (very unlikely)
4. It ignores the magnetic properties of glass and the electron gun. 

Then, the radius of curvature, r can be used to compute the field density, B, with the following equation:

B = sqrt (2mV/q(r^2))

assuming non-relativistic electrons. which is true here; where m is the rest mass of electron and q is the elementary charge. B should be in Tesla, and was converted to Gauss by a factor of 10,000. Once all values of B are computed, they are plotted against l

Now, any science student would know the field density does not increase linearly to decreasing l. Rightly so because of how the field lines "spreads out" without a ferromagnetic "guide". The relationship fits well to 1/l^2 for short distances though buuuttttt the result is discouraging at best: 

I got less than 1 gauss at a distance of l = 34 cm away from the tube, so I double checked my derivation and computation. Nothing was apparently wrong, which leads me to the second method...


Method 2: Direct measurement of field density with a smartphone hall sensor.   

This one was way easier. Just make the phone coplanar with the magnet without touching (might magnetically fry the phone if it comes too close), then find the position of the sensor inside the phone. This was done with an adjustable stage to find the z-axis position such that it gives the highest reading at fixed distance, l away from the magnet. 

Now the phone's hall sensor and the magnet has been aligned, I measured its field strength in decreasing l just like what I did to the CRT. The phone gives reading in microTeslas, but it is easily converted to Gauss.

When I put the results of these two methods together in the same axes, I was pleasantly surprised that the values of B worked out in Method 1 agrees quite well to what the phone measures, given its uncertainties:

The graph speaks for itself. The x-axis is the displacement of the measuring instrument from the magnet. the value of l.

But with a Hall sensor I can go further and put the phone as close as 10 cm to the magnet. My reading maxxed out close to 50 Gauss, but it is now possible to extrapolate it to 4 cm as this was the distance of the sensitive region of my cloud chamber to the magnet in the initial design of AWAN 3. 

At 4 cm, the magnet gives a pathetic of near 300 Gauss. This is nowhere close to field densities (at least by an order of magnitude!) used by particle hunters early in the 20th century. So. If I want to cut the cost of electricity and buying literally tonnes of precious metals for the solenoid, the only way seems to put the magnet INSIDE the chamber.

That means new blueprints.

Wednesday, 24 June 2020

Commercially Bought Expansion Type Cloud Chamber

About a month ago, I finally completed the construction of a cloud chamber. To be honest, it is actually less of "building", and more like "assembling" because the main part is available commercially. It started in 2014, when I bought a Wilson's Cloud Chamber from an Australian scientific instrument supplier for education: Industrial Equipment and Control Pte. Ltd, or (IEC).

The exact catalog link is here and screenshot are as below:



Here is the list of materials inside the package when it arrived:
  1. Cloud Chamber (presumably the most expensive part)
  2. A reverse bicycle pump, (sucks air when you pull the piston)
  3. A plastic bottle for collection of radon gas
  4. Some silicone tubing to connect the pump to the chamber, d = 6 mm
  5. A Mohr clip, act as a valve to prevent turbulence if you use the plastic bottle to feed radon gas into the chamber. (as shown in photo)
  6. An aluminum vertical stand
  7. An instruction on how to use them is available on their website, here

It costs a whopping 400 AUD then (I was a postgraduate student then) so I guess I was really desperate to try out the technology. Yet, despite the cost, I didn't make full use of it since purchase. I tested it yes, it worked perfectly fine, but suffers some minor drawbacks.

For a simple operation test, you will need:
  1. The chamber
  2. The pump
  3. The silicone tubing
  4. 2-propanol (isopropanol) or ethanol (ethyl alcohol)
  5. A high voltage source (this is absolutely necessary)
  6. A strong source of light, actually a cellphone flash in continuous operation will do.
  7. An alpha radiation source. Easiest to get is Am-241 from smoke detectors.  

METHOD
  1. Connect the pump to the chamber through the silicone tube.
  2. Clean all internal surfaces with damp, lens paper. (so it doesn't leave paper fibers) 
  3. Place the Am-241 inside the chamber. 
  4. Wet the bottom of the chamber with said alcohol. (use a dropper)
  5. Seal the chamber. 
  6. Connect a high voltage source. You can literally use the voltage generated by an electric mosquito swatter (tested, OK). I used a small dedicated 1.5 kV lab power supply then.
  7. Pull the valve of the pump. 

This was what I got.

It works well even when the chamber was dusty. The banana plug on 5 o'clock position was annoying. It reduces observation space but the plug is necessary because it connects the high voltage supply to the circular wire on top of the chamber to provide an ion sweep electric-field. 

The alpha tracks were crisp clear if you give an appropriate voltage to sweep away "old" ions, and running the experiment in an environment not exceeding 25 C°. In fact I find the tracks were much clearer and sharper than diffusion type cloud chambers seen so often in YouTube. This is one and perhaps the best advantage of the expansion type cloud chamber.

Absolutely amazed by the result; but like I said, this configuration suffered some serious setbacks:

  • The set up is extremely "mobile", it is nigh impossible to take photos without blurring due to all the vigorous motion. The silicone tube was too short so whenever I pulled the valve, the chamber will most certainly move or shake.
  • The lighting has to be aligned to the area where the tracks appear. It has to be very bright and "point like" with respect to the chamber. The issue above makes this difficult.
  • More importantly, your hands get tired after the 20-th pull. It is difficult to focus on keeping the setup stable and observe the tracks simultaneously. Besides, you only get to see a glimpse of the tracks during each pull, and it never lasts more than a fraction of a second.
  • You can, use a video camera to record your findings during each pull, but the FPS of my camera was low then, and I would need to review the videos frame-by-frame. Rather tedious. 
The conclusion was: if I want to take quality photos of whatever tracks emerging in this chamber, I need to put it on a steady box, inside the box contains all the systems needed to keep the chamber working. In the end, I would be operating the chamber by pressing a button instead of pulling the piston. 

This chamber was kept for a long while until mid 2019, when I had the chance to use my father's workshop; and finally completed during peak COVID pandemic in 2020 when I had the time to work out the installations.