hi adrian,
what do the other diagnostics like adc's say? i not sure about my
results yet, so maybe you could just raise ltb5 by 50 V, and wait on the
others.
--chris
Adrian T Sindile wrote:
> Hi, Chris!
> I could change the voltages on all those tubes, but like John said, we
> might mess up the timing... from your initial plot I thought only
> RTOF3 was bad enough to require intervention...
>
> On the other hand, if gains are going down, maybe putting them back by
> adding about 30 volts would not create that much of a timing shift...
> just let me know if you think it should be done...
>
> Adrian
>
> On Sun, 7 Nov 2004, Chris Crawford wrote:
>
>> hi adrian and john,
>> i was also a little concerned about ltb5 also (and ltb9?). first
>> from scalers, second from the yield plot. (left tof 4 is higher ->
>> left tof 5 is lower) i expect a discontinuity between tofs 3,4 but
>> not 4,5. finally, the eff plot still has problems, but you can see
>> the same discontinuity in the magenta curve between TOF's l4 and l5.
>> it might not be a big problem, but if we could add cerenkov's of
>> opposite sector into the singles 'trig==7' trigger, then we could
>> have a constant monitor of all of the TOF efficiencies.
>> --chris
>>
>> ltt ltb ltc rtt rtb rtc
>>
>> 0 3337, 3736, 2866, 5237, 3567, 3357
>> 1 4118, 3046, 2813, 3107, 3213, 2448
>> 2 2849, 2541, 2193, 3035, 2618, 2257
>> 3 2307, 2444, 1793, 1188, 1786, 1107
>> 4 2805, 3123, 2022, 3209, 2314, 1980
>> 5 2469, 564, 561, 1767, 1369, 1137 <<<<<
>> 6 1391, 2132, 1199, 1366, 2081, 1166
>> 7 1885, 1479, 1099, 1509, 1267, 972 8 1391, 1800, 1039,
>> 1671, 732, 695 9 1514, 369, 367, 1042, 980, 681
>> 10 1607, 1636, 974, 663, 975, 548 11 2875, 3621,
>> 1904, 1909, 3069, 1248
>> 12 1878, 2594, 1232, 987, 2706, 854 13 1825, 1447,
>> 867, 2141, 2002, 1045
>> 14 2426, 1721, 665, 1436, 2684, 1056
>> 15 2192, 2790, 1210, 2305, 563, 530
>> John Calarco wrote:
>>
>>> Need to look at TDC offset for RTOF3 now. Adding 50V should have caused
>>> the transit time in the PMTs to be reduced. By how nuch? This is a
>>> change of V of dV/V ~ 50/2500 = 1/50. Transit times are ~ 30 ns. So
>>> were talking 0.6 ns ... rounds off to 1 ns.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, 6 Nov 2004, Electronic Log Book wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Operator: adrian
>>>>
>>>> Runs 12373-12382 taken. Crunching...
>>>> Run 12377 is shorter (CODA crashed - rebooted ROCs remotely).
>>>>
>>>> RTOF3 shown in Chris' recent efficiency picture seemed to have a
>>>> problem. I tracked it down, the scalers for the bottom tube were
>>>> consistently lower. Other tubes seemed lower too, but an ADC study
>>>> of the recent hydrogen runs showed only RTOF3 bottom to be going
>>>> down continuosly.
>>>> Added an extra 50 volts on that tube during run 13282 (and Aaron
>>>> rebooted HVGUI right after that run, so the changes should have
>>>> taken effect).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Mon Feb 24 2014 - 14:07:32 EST