Hi Hal,
Welcome back. Yes, we've had quite a productive week. We have the
stuck bit problem fixed, and you can see the results in the latest
run we took last night (~5000 events at low lumi). I've attached an
example plot from EM one trigger tower. We've been pondering
this calibration issue for a day or so now, and Dan did not propose
anything at today's toolbox meeting. We could in the meantime, just do
a fit to the data we have. Todd is in the process of adjusting the
0.25 constant per TT.
I've also attached two plots of EM and HAD run2b TT energies, after
pedestal subtraction, from a run that was taken during no beam, but in
which we were connected to the BLS signals. So, this is the first
indication we have of the electronics noise in the system. I am in
the process of finding out how this compares to the run2a L1Cal system.
Will keep you posted. Things are developing very quickly now.
Any suggestions you have will be greatly appreciated as well. Nayeem
and I are running Todd's unpacker, and we can generate new plots
quickly.
cheers, sabine
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 13:45:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: Todd Adams <tadams@hep.fsu.edu>
To: Sabine Lammers <lammers@fnal.gov>
Cc: nayeem <nayeem@fnal.gov>
Subject: Re: diff plot
Sabine,
I am right now trying to determine a better calibration for each of
the towers. I'm doing this by trial and error of adjusting the
0.25 GeV per ADC count and checking the slope of the line. Once
the slope on each channel is 1.0, we can use the difference. This
method is probably only a temporary fix which may be necessary
for the review. - Todd
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005, Sabine Lammers wrote:
I take it, then, that the peak is centered at zero simply because
most of the towers have no energy in them most of the time.
We took another special run last night at low luminosity. You
can see the unpacker output at:
/rooms/steam/lammers/p1707unpack/l1cal_examine_2b/test/compare.root
We seem to have introduced some new problem, as we have more data
that does not lie on the correlated line in the 2b TT vs. precision
comparison. We are going to make sure the data is getting
through the readout reliably by taking a run with test ADF data
that have unique values for every tower.
Now, how are we going to get an RMS from our data? Should we
determine a calibration constant from a fit to the data we have now?
Or should we talk to Dan about how he wants to apply a calibration
in the ADF's?
-sabine
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005, Todd Adams wrote:
Nayeem,
I've attached a plot of the difference (in energy) from the Run 2b
TT and the precision readout for one of the TT. Unfortunately since
the gain is not calibrated to 0.25 (e.g. the scatter plot doesn't
have a slope of 1), the difference is energy dependent and therefore
does not give an RMS measurement. - Todd
--
=====================================================================
Todd Adams Email: tadams@hep.fsu.edu
Assistant Professor Phone: (850) 644-7159
Florida State University Office: Keen 515
http://www.hep.fsu.edu/~tadams
=====================================================================
--
=====================================================================
Todd Adams Email:
tadams@hep.fsu.edu
Assistant Professor Phone: (850) 644-7159
Florida State University Office: Keen 515
http://www.hep.fsu.edu/~tadams
=====================================================================