Ludlum+2010

Introduction:
== The purpose of my research is to test different scintillating materials that can possibly be used in high energy particle detectors; for example, which liquids could work the best with a large scale particle detector such as the LHC (Large Hadron Collider). ==

Methods:
== The methods I utilized in this research project were the creating and interpreting Spectrophotometer graphs, creating and interpreting Endpoints measurements graphs, and using the fume-hood to create different concentrations. ==

Results:
== I learned that different liquids can have different light outputs when placed in the spectrophotometer and the endpoints machine. I discovered that solutes dissolve in solvents differently; some dissolve completely and others don’t dissolve very well. ==

Discussion and Conclusion:
== The results will help people down in CERN look to see which liquids create the most light output and which ones will work best with their large scale particle detectors. The graphs we gathered from the liquids can be used to show CERN what we discovered so they can conclude whether or not our liquids would be good for their equipment. ==

Further work:
== In the future, I anticipate that many other students and faculty members will be working with other liquids to see how well they can scintillate. I hope that they will be able to consider different liquids, and check our results to see how the data measurements correlate. ==

June 21, 2010 to June 25, 2010
=**QuarkNet Ludlum Liquids Logsheet 01**=
 * Lindsay**

** Monday, June 21, 2010 ** · Today we became acquainted with the computer program that is used to record the important data that is collected from testing the various liquids in the spectrophotometer. I learned how to customize the settings for the machine to gather different types of data for both Emissions and Excitations using the sample known as 73 (EJ-309) as an introductory liquid. I was also introduced to some of the topics that will be discussed later in the upcoming summer sessions. · We created two different liquids 10A and 10B which contain DDP + BDBP and DDP + PPO, respectively. In the midst of creating the liquids, it was important to use the correct amount; for example, the liquid must have a total weight in this scenario of approximately 3 grams at 0.1% concentration. The first solution, 10A, had a total mass of 3.0223 grams. The second solution, 10B, had a total combined mass of 3.0132 grams. These two solutions will be tested in the next few days to see how they will respond to Excitation and Emission.
 * //Progress://**

** Tuesday, June 22, 2010 ** · Today, I applied knowledge of the computer program that is connected to the spectrophotometer, which I was acquainted with yesterday. I feel that I have nearly mastered the critical steps involved with analyzing and graphing a sample. The samples that we created yesterday had settled for 24 hours and were ready to be analyzed similarly to the test sample 73 (EJ-309), I had worked with yesterday. After working with Microsoft Excel to get the graph printed out, we placed the graphs into a binder so we can remain organized throughout the entire summer. · Next, we worked with the Endpoints Machine to analyze the substances 10A and 10B to gain a better proficiency with the liquids. I learned how to operate the machine and the important rules that I must follow in order to keep all of the equipment safe. Brian focused on remembering how to operate the machine and was learning new steps, as well. I also learned how to transfer files from the Macintosh 1994 to the regular XP Excel file using a floppy disk. · Finally, we altered the two liquids which we created yesterday by changing the concentration levels to 0.2%, as opposed to the 0.1% from Monday. We added 0.0032 grams BPBD to solution 10A, creating a total weight of 3.0255 grams and we added 0.0038 grams of PPO to solution 10B, creating a total weight of 3.0170 grams. We will let these solutions sit overnight, and test them tomorrow. · After lunch, we collaboratively worked on checking out percents relative to the given percentages because there is human error involved since it is extremely difficult to measure the substances perfectly. At the given 0.1% concentration, 10A measured to about 0.115% and 10B measured to about 0.126%. In addition, we could also measure the actual percentages in the 2% concentrated liquids. Substance 10A measured to about 0.221% and Substance 10B measured to about 0.252%. Next, we preformed calculations to see how much of the substances we would have to add to make the 0.4% concentration closer to its actual value of 0.4%. We found if we add 0.0055 grams of BPBD to 10A and 0.0045 grams to 10B, we would be in good shape for the next concentration that will take place on Wednesday. ** Wednesday, June 23, 2010 ** · The material that was covered today was much similar to the material that was covered on Tuesday. I worked with the spectrophotometer to test the concentration at 0.2% of 10A (DDB + BPBD) and 10B (DDB + PPO). We questioned the results from the machine because the two liquids looked nearly similar in wavelength and intensity. It was strange to see that both these two different liquids could produce results that are similar to each-other. Because of these results, we tested a substance 7A which simply was DDB without anything else added. We found that the DDB has an extremely low wavelength, and we had to increase the voltage to 600 volts in order to observe any major results. Once we recorded the results from 7A, we noted that the DDB did not seem to reflect in the graphs from 10A and 10B, which was strange. We will see how much the graphs change once we add more BPBD and PPO concentrations. · Next, we worked with the Endpoints Machine again to  analyze the substances 10A and 10B at 0.2% concentration, rather than 0.1% concentration that was completed yesterday. All of the data was transferred to an Excel file and all of the different graphs were printed so we can have a hard copy when Mr. Ruchti arrives to check our progress. · We began to organize the two binders of Spectra graphs and the Endpoints Machine graphs. We printed out tabs for some dividers that we will be using to withhold our organization ideals. If we remain organized throughout the entire summer, we will make much more progress in our testing. · Since we arrived back to QuarkNet Center late from lunch, I was unable to accompany Jeff and Brian with the creation of liquids 10A and 10B at a concentration of 0.4%. However, they were planning on creating them this evening after I left so we will analyze them tomorrow.
 * //Progress://**
 * //Progress://**

** Thursday, June 24, 2010 ** · Most of the steps that we complete for the remainder of this week is extremely similar to Monday-Thursday’s schedule because they all involve the same process, only with different concentrations. · Today we worked with the 0.4% concentration samples of 10A (DDB + BPBD) and 10B (DDB + PPO). We began to analyze the liquid solutions more critically, attempting to make new and different connections about how they respond with Emission and Excitation. We ran the Endpoints machine and the Spectrophotometer at these different concentrations to add to our data sets. · Once we collected data from the machines, I taught Brian how to put the information from the Spectrophotometer graphs onto Microsoft Excel and soon after he mastered the simple multistep task. We quickly finished this crucial step and continued on with the remaining steps on the agenda. · We also worked on the math equations to get a numerical value of exactly how much BPBD and PPO that we needed to add. The number that we came up with through mathematics was 0.0057 for both 10A and 10B, which was a great because Jeff and Brian were consistently adding the DDB and PPO to 10A and 10B, respectively. When we add BPBD and PPO to the solutions, we would want to aim somewhere close to 0.0057 grams to remain within the 0.6% concentration range. · After we finished getting all of the data organized and printed, we finally created the 0.6% concentrations of 10A and 10B. We altered the two liquids again by changing the concentration levels to 0.6 %, as opposed to the 0.4% from Wednesday. We added 0.0057 grams BPBD to solution 10A, creating a total weight of 3.0366 grams and we added 0.0057 grams of PPO to solution 10B, creating a total weight of 3.0274 grams. We will let these solutions sit overnight, as always, and we will t est them tomorrow. ** Friday, June 2 5 , 2010 ** · Today we worked with the 0.6% concentration samples of 10A (DDB + BPBD) and 10B (DDB + PPO). Brian and I worked with the spectrophotometer and gathered data points from the different concentrations. Both of us noticed that the peaks on the DDB + PPO graphs were beginning to shift in magnitude in the Emission runs. To explain more clearly, in the earlier concentrations the first peak in the Emission was larger than the second peak; however, in the 0.6% concentration, the first peak was smaller in magnitude than the second peak. We are all curious to see how the graph will change in further concentrations. · After we used the spectrophotometer, we used the Endpoints Machine, doing the exact same process as Monday through Friday. However, this time Brian was the navigator of the process of converting the seemingly incompatible Mac files, into. xls files. It is important that all of the group members are on the same level of understanding about how the different programs work. After this, we computed how much BPBD and PPO we need to add to create 0.8% concentrations for 10A and 10B. · After lunch, we created the 0.8% concentrations that we will be analyzing on Monday of next week. Through our computations, we figured out that we needed to add 0.0065 grams of BPBD and 0.0063 grams of PPO. In reality, we added 0.0062 grams of BPBD and 0.0061 grams of PPO. I pointed out that the concentrations will be inconsistent because of the weekend. Usually, we let the concentrations set overnight; however, since it is a weekend, we will need to take in account that there was extra time allowed for this specific concentration. · After we finished creating the concentrations of 10A and 10B, we called Mr. Ruchti in the conference room. Although I wasn’t able to stay long, I still gained some great insight about my project and the other projects around the lab.
 * //Progress://**
 * //Progress://**

= // Ludlum Liquids Logsheet 02 // =

· * Today was an extremely productive day at QuarkNet. We went through the 0.8% concentrations on 10A (DDB + BPBD) and 10B (DDB +PPO) in the spectrophotometer. We recorded that the first peak of both solutions was noticeably smaller than the second peak, which was represented as the exact opposite at the beginning of last week when the concentration was fairly low. After we finished with gathering the Excitation sites and Emission sites with the spectrophotometer, we did the normal routine involving Microsoft Excel where we got the graphs printed out. · * Next, we used the Endpoints Machine to graph the endpoints of Pedestal, 201T, 10A, and 10B as usual. We worked diligently to get them done quickly and efficiently because some of the other groups needed to use the operating system for their research. Once we finished, we converted the files on the XP computer, and printed off the graphs using Excel. After this, we fixed some of the mistakes that were made in the past on a few of the graphs and reprinted them. · Then, we took all of the data we collected from the endpoints graphs from concentrations 0.1% to 0.8% and created a table that organized everything. After we got all of the data organized, we created a scatter plot on Excel to see what the trends were with the liquids. · * After lunch, we created the 1.0% concentrations of 10A and 10B. We ended up adding 0.0063 grams of BPBD to 10 A and 0.0064 grams of PPO to 10 B. Through calculation, we mathematically found that we should target for 0.0068 grams of BPBD and 0.0065 grams of PPO. We were pretty close to these computed values. · Finally, we tested two semi-new liquids. They are entitled S1 and S2. The first one, S1, consists of DDB + Gasket Seal; the second one, S2, consists of EJ-309 + Gasket seal. We received no significant light output from S1, and we were fairly disappointed because there was not much that happened. We even put the voltage at 600, and there still was not a pleasing reading. However, S2 still had a large amount of light. It resembled the graphs EJ-309 that we recorded earlier. We most likely will be looking over these graphs tomorrow.
 * //Monday June 28, 2010://**

· * For the beginning portion of the morning, we met with Randy Ruchti about our recent data collections. We showed him the scatter plots that we made yesterday with the endpoints of 10A and 10B. He was impressed with all of the positive results that we had to present to him. He told us to continue working diligently. He told us to create two more liquids exactly like 10B, which included DDB and PPO. He did not want us to redo BPBD because this solute has a difficult time dissolving in the solvent. Therefore, we are running the experiment with PPO. We will go through the PPO just like the way we went through the PPO in 10B. We will start at 0.1% concentration and progress up to 1.0% concentration. Once we reach this 1.0% concentration we will add POPOP to one of the cuvettes and dimethyl POPOP to the other. We will then see how the POPOP works in the near future. · * After Mr. Ruchti left, we ran the spectrophotometer on 10A and 10B at 0.1% concentration. We finished the graphs, imported them into Excel, printed them out, and placed them into our binders. After this, we ran the Endpoints machine on 10A and 10B. In addition, we ran the Endpoints on S1 and S2. If we recall from yesterday, S1 was Viton Gasket added to DDB and s2 was Viton Gasket added to EJ-309. We did not get much of an output from S1, as we expected and S2 looked close to what we should be anticipating. · * After lunch we created two new samples, instead of adding on to 10A and 10B, like we have been doing for the past week. These two new solutions are now known as 10C and 10D. As of right now, they both are DDB mixed with PPO. We will be adding the POPOP later, to see how the liquids respond. We will also be comparing these new liquids to see how they correlate with 10B.
 * //Tuesday June 29, 2010://**

· * In the time frame before lunch, we were all able to complete all of the important tasks on our list, and have a very lax afternoon. We went through the spectrophotometer of liquids 10C and 10D at the 0.1% concentrations. The results were quite similar to the results that we collected from June 22, 2010 when we ran 10B which was PPO added with DDB. Both liquids looked extremely similar relative to each other, as well. · * After we ran the spectrophotometer, we ran the endpoints scan to see how the two liquids responded there. We were not expecting much change from the results that we perceived with 10B at 0.1% concentration. We ran the scans, and then we went to the computer and analyzed the graphs. We noticed a slight difference between 10B and our two new solutions, 10C and 10D. But, we will see how the two scatter plots compare once we arrive at 1.0% concentration. After we finished with the Endpoint scans, Jeff showed Brian and I how to use the equipment so we can work effectively while Jeff is away tomorrow. We took notes so we can easily reproduce the daily tasks that Jeff usually helps us with. We became familiar with the setup, and we feel prepared for tomorrow. · * After we ran the endpoints, we went through the calculations of how much solute to add to the 0.2% concentrations. We came up with 0.0031 grams of PPO would be added to 10C, and 0.0033 grams of PPO would be added to the second one. Instead of Jeff running this part of the agenda as he usually does, Brian took over because he will have to be in charge tomorrow and he will need to know what to do. In reality, we added 0.0033 grams of PPO in both liquids, which will put us near 0.2% concentration. Tomorrow, Brian and I hope to get many things accomplished, even though Jeff will not be there to assist.
 * //Wednesday June 30, 2010://**

· * Today began as a very slow moving day, but as we progressed it got more exciting. Jeff wasn’t here today, so Brian and I were on our own. The very first that that was accomplished was that Brian put two different types of seals into the DDB and the EJ-309 to see how they work with each other. When we tried the Gasket Seal, the EJ-309 was perfectly fine, but the DDB did not produce any light. We need to find a type of seal that will not limit the DDB. Therefore, Brian is setting those up and we should be able to test them later-on. · After he finished putting them into test tubes, we went back to the spectrophotometer to test 10C and 10D at 0.2% concentrations. As usual, we ran the machine, and then put the data into Microsoft Excel. We got the graphs printed and placed into our binder, with time to spare. · * Once Mark arrived, we were then able to run the endpoints measurements. We were all ready to begin, when we discovered that the machine was acting a little funny because it had not had time to warm up. We all waited for it to warm up, and then we ran the Pedestal, 201T, 10C, and 10D and copied the scans over to the other computer so we can print the graphs. Mark helped us deal with the source, Sr90. The only problem I noticed with the Endpoints graphs was that the pedestal usually was always at 200, or a number that is really close to 200. Unfortunately, I noticed that the number I read off of the graph was around 193. I do not know how much of a difference 7 channels makes, but it is definitely something I will bring up to Jeff tomorrow. After the endpoints, we also went through the calculations for the increase of concentrations of 10C and 10D. · * After lunch, Brian and I went and created the larger concentrations of 10C and 10D. It was a simple process because he had seen Jeff do it so many times. Finally we finished, and then Brian decided to put the EJ-309 that was setting with some of the scintillating fiber, in a cuvette to see if any of the fiber gets mixed inside of the liquid. He was supposed to run the spectrophotometer once I left. I am anxious to see what the results were.
 * //Thursday July 1, 2010://**

· * Because of the big picnic lunch, we needed to finish all of the important steps of the day right away to make sure that we could finish everything in time. First we ran the Spectrophotometer on 10C and 10D at 0.4% concentration to see how the different concentration affected the graphs. We ran these and then adjusted them into Microsoft Excel format in order to print the graphs correctly. We finished this rather quickly; however, Jeff received two new commercial samples from Ludlum. He received EJ-305 and EJ-301. I ran these two liquids in the spectrophotometer and transferred the file into Excel, as usual. · * Next, we ran the Endpoint machine of Pedestal, 201T, 10C, 10D, 74 (EJ-305), and 75 (EJ-301). The pedestal returned to 200 channels, so the 193 channels from yesterday were minor because it was only one inconsistency in our experiment. We printed all of the graphs, and filed them in the binder. · * Finally, we ran through the calculations and increased the concentrations of 10C and 10D to 0.6%, and we will run the spectrophotometer and the endpoints measurement on Tuesday, when we return.
 * //Friday July 2, 2010://**

· This entire week Brian and I will be working without Jeff; therefore, our knowledge will be put to the test to see how much we can get by without Jeff’s assistance. Although he is not here, we still will be e-mailing him to keep him updated about our progress in Ludlum. We will also be meeting with Randy to gain further direction throughout the week. · Today, we ran the spectrophotometer on two liquids that we began last week. These liquids are known as 10F and 10G. Last week we spoke with Randy because we were receiving some strange results in our graphs. The 0.6% concentration of DDB + PPO was significantly higher than all of the other data points. I noticed that there was more time passing between when we analyzed this percentage in comparison to the others because of the long holiday weekend. Because of this, Randy had us make 10F which contains DDB + PPO beginning only at 0.6%. We will be keeping track on how it looks as more and more days pass by; so far, the results are not getting too much different as the days progress. We also created 10G, which begins at 0.1% concentration and increases once it stabilizes. We talked to Randy today, and he said that it was okay to up it to 0.2% because we received endpoints of the same value both days. In addition to the spectrophotometer, we ran the endpoints setup on 10F and 10G and plotted our results. · In the remaining amount of spare time I finished working on an Excel document that does the mathematical solving for the equations that we use to calculate how much solute to add and we had a few minutes to speak with Randy.
 * Ludlum Liquids Logsheet 03** ** Monday, July 12, 2010 **
 * //Progress://**

** Tuesday, July 13, 2010 ** · This morning, we increased the concentration of 10G to 0.2% because Randy agreed that we should do so. We finally got the new cuvettes from Starna in today. Since we received the new cuvettes, we created 10H (DDB + POPOP 0.1%) and 10J(DDB + Dim-POPOP 0.1%). After talking to Randy, we learned that we should have only created the concentration at 0.01% because the POPOP and the dim-POPOP have a very low solubility. I e-mailed Jeff to see when we should create that concentration. · After Randy left, we ran the spectrophotometer on 10F (DDB + PPO 0.6%), 10G (DDB + PPO 0.2%), 10H (DDB + POPOP 0.1%), and 10J (DDB + Dim-POPOP). The graphs were printed, and there wasn’t much time left before lunch so Brian and I simply examined the graphs to make sure that they were correct. · After lunch, we ran the Endpoints setup on the liquids. And tomorrow we will be analyzing them.
 * //Progress://**

** Wednesday, July 14, 2010 ** · Today, Brian had an appointment to attend at 9:00am, so I ran the spectrophotometer while he was gone. I finished the graphs for 10F (DDB + PPO 0.6%), 10G (DDB + PPO 0.2%), 10H (DDB + POPOP 0.1%), and 10J (DDB + Dimethyl POPOP 0.1%). I also fixed some mistakes I found with some of the Endpoint scans that were completed yesterday after I left. · After this was done, Brian’s timing was impeccable. He arrived seconds after I finished. Once he arrived, we warmed up the crate and ran the endpoints for 10F, 10G, 10H, and 10J. After this, we quickly had to create a very small concentration for the POPOP and the dimethyl POPOP. Our percentage of concentration was 0.02% which was very difficult to create. Once we created them, we placed them in our water bath, and it was time for lunch. · After lunch, before Brian arrived, I finished printing off the endpoints graphs. Then he returned. We ran the spectrophotometer on 10K (DDB + POPOP 0.02%) and 10L (DDB + dimethyl POPOP 0.02%). Then, we ran the endpoints and we will print off the graphs on Friday.
 * //Progress://**

· Trip to Fermilab. ** Friday, July 16, 2010 ** · This morning, before Brian arrived, I inspected all of the graphs that were done semi-hurriedly on Wednesday because of the high amount of things to accomplish and the little amount of time given. I re-printed all of the graphs that needed to be fixed, and put them into the binder. · Then, we ran the spectrophotometer on 10F (DDB + PPO 0.6%), 10G (DDB + PPO 0.2% Gradual Addition), 10H (DDB + POPOP 0.1%), 10J (DDB + Dimethyl POPOP 0.1%), 10K (DDB + POPOP 0.02%) and 10L (0.02%) and created the graphs. Also, we backed up the files on the backup-hard-drive. · While Brian was working with the spectrophotometer, I began working on the endpoints of all of the samples, myself and finished quickly and efficiently. After I finished collecting the data, I organized the graphs on the computer · Today, we did not need to increase any concentration because we do not want to test new materials over the weekend; therefore, we will wait until next week when both Jeff returns, and there aren’t any days off.
 * Thursday, July 15, 2010 **
 * //Progress://**
 * //Progress://**


 * Ludlum Liquids Logsheet 04 **
 * Monday July 19, 2010**
 * Progress:** Today we introduced Jeff to all of the new findings which we came across in the past week. We introduced him to all of the new samples including the liquids containing POPOP and Dimethyl POPOP. We even had time to talk to Randy about our accomplishments. It was a pretty eventful day. He learned about everything we did throughout the week he was in Florida, and corrected some of the errors that were made when typing the graphs.*After Jeff was back up to speed, we ran the spectrophotometer on 10F (DDB + PPO 0.6%), 10G (DDB + PPO 0.2% Gradual Addition), 10H (DDB + POPOP 0.1%), 10J (DDB + Dimethyl POPOP 0.1%), 10K (DDB + POPOP 0.02%) and 10L (0.02%) and created the graphs. Also, we backed up the files on the backup-hard-drive.*After the spectrophotometer, we ran the endpoints measurements on all of the liquids, and proceeded to graph them. Everything for this week should be very similar, and the Logs will not be very long since we are not accomplishing anything new.


 * Tuesday July 20, 2010**
 * Progress:** The beginning of the morning was very eventful. Jeff, Brian, and I spoke with Randy for the beginning portion of the day. He gave us some great instruction about what to do for the remainder of the week. He told us that we should make samples with DDB + PPO (0.6%) + POPOP (0.02%) and DDB + PPO (0.6%) + Dimethyl POPOP (0.02%). They will be known as 10M and 10N, respectively. If I am not mistaken, Jeff and Brian created these concentrations after I left for the day.*Today we ran 10F through 10L in the spectrophotometer and through the Endpoints setup. After we run these liquids today, we will not have to deal with them for much longer. We will continue to run 10F and 10G, which means that we will be creating new samples to test in the spectrophotometer. Randy is very excited to see how these combined concentrations will look in respect to light output.


 * Wednesday July 21, 2010**
 * Progress:** Today we ran 10G (Increased to 0.4%), 10M, and 10N in the spectrophotometer. We also ran 10Q which is Distilled water with Tide Laundry Detergent added to it. A category of Dodecylbenzene (DDB) is actually found in Tide Detergent, and we wanted to see if the Tide had any sort of output. This sample was powder laundry detergent; however, in the future we will be trying the liquid laundry detergent .*We also ran all of these liquids in the Endpoints Setup. Not only did we run them as we do usually, we also ran 10F, 10M, and 10N with a filter. The purpose of this was to try to minimize the PPO’s light output enough to only see the POPOP and the Dimethyl POPOP. After dealing with issues involving Microsoft Excel , we finally got all of the graphs printed.


 * Thursday July 22, 2010**
 * Progress:** Today, Jeff was home sick so we ran the usual samples since we did not receive any instruction otherwise. We continued to run Tide through the spectrophotometer and the endpoints. We wanted to speak to Randy; however, he was busy on campus. In total, we ran 10G, 10M, 10N, and 10Q in both the spectrophotometer and through the endpoints measurements. We did not use the filter because we did not know wheter or not Jeff would want them done a second day.


 * Thursday July 22, 2010**
 * Progress:** Today, we updated Jeff about everything that happened today. However, before he arrived, Brian and I went out to go get some liquid tide instead of the powder tide to see how much light the tide would output. We discovered that it was more than the powdered tide. However, the total light output was too low for us to even care about. We ran through everything else, as we have in the past week and we ran the samples again with the filters in the endpoints setup.