Hi, Chris!
The only tube that seemed to go consistently down was RTOF3 top (not
bottom as I had written)... that was consistent with your efficiency
finding, so I put an extra 50 volts on it.
LTOF5 bottom (and others) seems OK in the raw flasher ADC check that I do
for stability only (it also looks OK on the online GUI if I remember
correctly) but I just added 30 volts per your request (it cannot hurt).
When the HVGUI is rebooted, it will read from the database the new value.
Adrian
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004, Chris Crawford wrote:
> 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