John: your point is taken but still I believe it is only such a small
amount of work to fix those channels that are 20% or so off we should
probably invest on tweaking them. We should really be done in one day.
But if you are strongly against it, stop it.
About the timing, as mentioned, it is bench-marked from the flasher
response, to the extent the CFD's treat equally to pulses on the same
scale. Note we only need the relative flasher differences.
-- ________________________________________________________________________________ Tancredi Botto, phone: +1-617-253-9204 mobile: +1-978-490-4124 research scientist MIT/Bates, 21 Manning Av Middleton MA, 01949 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^On Wed, 9 Apr 2003, John Calarco wrote:
> > Just a point to consider: it is not clear that matching the gains > to as exact a point as possible is worth the effort, especially > if it will change the timing. The energy resolution of the TOFs > considering their thickness and length is probably of order 20%. > Changing HV by of order 100V will probably result in timing shifts > of order 1-2 ns. > > The primary point of matching gains is 2-fold; first to try to make > sure that not too many events of interest exceed full scale, although > these events are NOT lost, they just pile up in the overflow channel. > The only possible issue is that this may skew some PID info, although > thus far, the only PID info from the TOFs has been lower level cuts > to find high pulse height/low energy protons. > > The other point is to match the gains reasonably close so that a > common cut can be applied to all TOFs. Is 20% good enough? We have > to think about that. Redoing all the retiming OR stuff would be a > bit of a pain in the you know what. > > So let's think about what the needs are before we run off and do > something that's going to generate additional days of work. > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Mon Feb 24 2014 - 14:07:29 EST