Hi Karel,
If you, somehow, have some hardware issues to cause either the pulsecal or
popt to fail, I would suggest you to set up the same array of experiments and
run them with "multizg" to see what will happen.
Good luck.
Simon
-----Original Message-----
> From: main_at_ammrl.groups.io <main_at_ammrl.groups.io> On Behalf Of Karel Klika via groups.io
> Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2024 9:25 AM
> To: main_at_ammrl.groups.io
> Subject: [AMMRL] problems with pulsecal
Dear all,
We have a problem with pulsecal, sometimes it works, sometimes more-or-less
(i.e. poorly), sometimes really badly (10x or even 100x longer pulse width
than it should be), and sometimes fails completely ("no peak found in the
area"). The results can vary widely on immediate consecutive runs of pulsecal,
e.g. a good or near reasonable result to complete failure or a nonsense result.
Pulsecal has been used for many years with no problems, now suddenly not.
Attached are pics of the nutation when it fails completely. I have run ha
for the amplifier and it seems fine, the pulse widths for proton (both hard
and soft) and an X nucleus are fine, both decoupling and pre-saturation for
proton are also working as per normal, and sensitivities for both proton and
an X nucleus also seem fine. The probe is a 5-mm BBO (Z108618_0274) and the
console is an Avance III (H03128OB). I have rebooted TopSpin (version 3.6.2
running under Windows 7) and the console multiple times, recompiled pulsecal,
and used the pulse sequence pulsecal in place of pulsecal.2. Usually, pulsecal
seems to work with just about any sample, but I have been testing on the
standard sucrose in 90% H2O. What could be wrong and how to fix the problem ?
Let me know please what I should try to diagnose the fault/fix the problem.
I don't know if this is related, but usually the nutation arrays (popt) that
I run are fine, but this one result (pic attached) is very strange, and it
was run immediately after a normal looking result on the same sample for the
same pulse width determination (just run with smaller steps for finer evaluation).
Subsequent runs on other samples were also normal looking. The strange result
is not the result of too high an rg value as it was not changed. It even
resembles what a double FT of the signals might look like ?
Also,
1. Anyone know what is the heat output on the various low, medium, and high
settings for a BCU-II ? It is listed as 2.4 kW, but would it be fair to assume
that this is for the high setting and that for the low setting it is only 0.5 kW,
i.e. the same as the BCU-I ?
2. Is it possible to fit a modern helium check valve to our 2010 vintage magnet?
(pics attached) When we do helium fills we take the current check valve off; in
my previous post we left the more modern check valve in place. So can we do
helium fills with the modern check valve in place on this magnet if we can
replace it ? Anyone happen to know the part number for the more modern check valve ?
Thank you very much in advance.
Kind regards,
Karel Klika
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#995): https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://ammrl.groups.=
io/g/main/message/995__;!!PvDODwlR4mBZyAb0!UUMpeIlV43xXbhnYsMs6RZJWjroyw45S=
SCSqYE36cXqwv4YJRaCGumyPT07yqY2EAaglDJ5NhaEM$
Mute This Topic: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://groups.io/mt/104490589=
/7559972__;!!PvDODwlR4mBZyAb0!UUMpeIlV43xXbhnYsMs6RZJWjroyw45SSCSqYE36cXqwv=
4YJRaCGumyPT07yqY2EAaglDMCDxvxs$
Group Owner: main+owner_at_ammrl.groups.io
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Received on Wed Feb 21 2024 - 08:29:37 MST