1. At the 2012-05-30 Instrumentation Meeting,
At the Instrumentation Meeting,
I described finding an applied weight (to apply to the sync. rad. high energy shape)
that provides a match of the model to the measured relative image areas
for GeV , “no filter”, “carbon filter” and “molybdenum filter”
In summary, using the GeV pinhole data,
and matching to the relative transmission through the
4 μm carbon and 2 μm molybdenum filters,
there are two solutions to decreasing the low energy x-ray power.
These are shown with the unfiltered power distribution and
the power distribution filtered by carbon.
( 2a ) With { 0.063, } applied weight in bins 1,2,
Molybdenum: the relative transmitted power = /31547=
Carbon: the relative transmitted power = 16367/31547=
( 3a ) With { 0.047, 0.094, } applied weight in bins 1,2, 3,
Molybdenum: the relative transmitted power = 627/12748=
Carbon: the relative transmitted power = 6647/12748=
They are very different.
They both satisfy the observed relative transmissions for the
carbon and molybdenum filters (2 pieces of information).
( The 3-bin solution has the added constraint that the
ratio of the applied transmission of bin 2 to that of bin 1 is 2:1 . )

2. Include the 1.800 GeV and 2.300 GeV pinhole data.
Include the GeV and GeV pinhole data.
The normalized (total power in image)/(beam current)
i.e. (image area)/[(beam current) x (electronic gain)]
for and and 2.3 GeV data is shown below.
We did not take GeV without filter; that was a mistake.
(Red is the new information.)
DATA no filter carbon filter molybdenum filter
1.800 GeV
2.085 GeV
2.300 GeV
( 2a ) With { 0.063, } applied weight in bins 1,2,
no filter carbon filter molybdenum filter
1.800 GeV
2.085 GeV
2.300 GeV
( 3a ) With { 0.047, 0.094, } applied weight in bins 1,2, 3,
1.800 GeV
2.085 GeV
2.300 GeV
The “3-bin solution” is a good match for GeV
and is the better match for GeV than the “2-bin solution”.
The 2 bins at higher energy can be raised to increase the GeV power
with limited affect on the and GeV power.
1.800 GeV no filter
1.800 GeV carbon filter
2.300 GeV carbon filter
2.300 GeV molybdenum filter
1.800 GeV no filter
1.800 GeV carbon filter
2.085 GeV no filter
2.085 GeV carbon filter
2.300 GeV no filter
2.300 GeV carbon filter

3. (Ex-ray)n where n is some power, i.e. 2.5 .
However, all this leads to a model with an applied weight that increases as
(Ex-ray)n where n is some power, i.e
As the applied weight increases rapidly at high energy,
the energy distribution will be extent to larger energy,
the bin size must be increased to increase the upper limit.
Bin start: 0.5 keV, bin size: 1.0 keV, end of last bin: 7.5 keV .
0.5 to 5.17 keV, , 0.94, 0.375, 1,1,1,1 weights
0.5 to 7.5 keV, (Ex-ray)2.5 weight

4.
key: DATA { model with (Ex-ray)2.5 scaling }
no filter carbon filter molybdenum filter
1.800 GeV { } { }
2.085 GeV { 1 } { } { }
2.300 GeV { } {0.215 }
The earlier ad-hoc scaling tests pointed to the power law.
I have not optimized this. Perhaps 2.6 is better than But 2.5 is better than 2 or 3.
What does this mean?
The simple high energy synchrotron radiation formula is incomplete.
We do know that the light cone becomes more pointed at high energy.
(I am not including that in the simple formula.)

5. 2012-06-06 2.085 Gev, 500nm gold Coded Aperture, no filter
image is reversed,
ignore the fit; it is old
2.085 Gev, 500nm gold Coded Aperture, carbon filter
image is reversed, ignore the fit; it is old