B How best to statistically analyse a PMT signal?

  • B
  • Thread starter Thread starter rwooduk
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Signal
rwooduk
Messages
757
Reaction score
59
TL;DR Summary
I am looking for advice on statistical analysis of a PMT signal
Hello,

I have recently started collecting photomultiplier tube (PMT) tube data, and I'm curious how best to analyse it (attached right). I also have a background capture (attached left). I am looking to get the relative total intensity and any other statistical analysis I could make. Is anyone familiar with such a signal?

Thanks for any advice.
 

Attachments

  • ddd.png
    ddd.png
    8.6 KB · Views: 151
Physics news on Phys.org
I think you could apply the two signals to a correlation detector.
 
tech99 said:
I think you could apply the two signals to a correlation detector.
I don't know what this is but will look into it, many thanks.
 
rwooduk said:
collecting photomultiplier tube (PMT) tube data
Maybe you want to reveal to us what this is all about ? What is your PMT looking at ? A scintillator, a spectrometer, something else ?

##\ ##
 
If you are supplying the light (i.e this is a remission signal) the most common method is some form of synchronous detection with a modulated source. Not identical to background subtraction for instrumentation reasons. Also sometimes a PMT is not the best choice. What is the apparatus?
 
He's been gone for almost a year.

My question would be "analysis of what?" Leading edge? Gain? Quantum efficiency? Dark current? The list goes on...
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.
Back
Top