Hi, Chris!
I did write in elog for the first change I made while on shift on
Saturday (please see my shift summary).
The second change will take effect when somebody will reboot HVGUI (it can
only be done from the counting bay)... whoever does it, please make a note
in elog.
Thanks,
Adrian
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004, Chris Crawford wrote:
> hi adrian,
> thanks, and you could also be sure to put in elog which runs started with
> the both new Voltage settings?
> --thanks, chris
>
> Adrian T Sindile wrote:
>
>> 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