[Clas12_calcom] database tables
Raffaella De Vita
Raffaella.Devita at ge.infn.it
Thu Apr 14 04:49:51 EDT 2016
Hi Cole,
I understand your concerns: let's talk about this at the CalCom meeting
on Friday.
Regards,
Raffaella
Cole Smith wrote:
>
> Hi Raffaella,
>
> I agree with your points.
> My main concern is with physics triggers rather than self-triggering
> cosmics. We don't yet know the how much time jitter the capture window
> will have, due to various propagation times and cluster reconstruction
> latencies. When FTCAL is the trigger is shouldn't be a problem. But
> if the FADC window offset changes for any reason (such as different
> trigger configurations) detectors that use fixed integration windows
> will need to know that offset to compensate. So Nick's question should
> be addressed.
>
> Cole
>
>
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2016, Raffaella De Vita wrote:
>
>> Hi Cole,
>> for Mode 1 my preference would be to keep the options of emulating
>> mode 7 or working with fixed windows. For small signals with small
>> time jitter (this is the case of FTCAL cosmic signal that are barely
>> above noise) it may be convenient to work with fixed pulse
>> integration windows. In addition, if I'm not mistaken, in mode 7
>> pedestals are calculated only using 4 samples that may not be
>> sufficient when the signal/noise ratio is small.
>> Regards,
>> Raffaella
>>
>> Cole Smith wrote:
>>>
>>> The FADC250 firmware parameters are already in the datastream,
>>> which is
>>> where the decoder should ultimately look to configure itself.
>>> However if
>>> we decide to run in Mode 1 it is my opinion the decoder should emulate
>>> Mode 7 pulse integration rather than use fixed pulse integration
>>> windows.
>>>
>>> Cole
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2016, nick markov wrote:
>>>
>>> > Dear all,
>>> > these are not part of the decoder, but in my opinion in would be
>>> > convenient to have them stored somewhere other than fadc
>>> configuration > file.
>>> > Nick.
>>> > > On Apr 11, 2016, at 11:09 AM, Raffaella De Vita > >
>>> <Raffaella.Devita at ge.infn.it> wrote:
>>> > > > > Hi Cole,
>>> > > in the discussion we had on Friday, it came out that what would
>>> be > > useful to have in the DB (to remove hard coded parameters
>>> from > > calib/monitor code) are the pedestal and pulse ranges that
>>> the decoder > > uses to get the pulse charge for mode 1 data.
>>> > > If necessary, we can also add the windows parameters but, if I
>>> > > understood correctly, these are not needed to decode the data.
>>> > > Regards,
>>> > > Raffaella
>>> > > > > Cole Smith wrote:
>>> > > > > > > I wasn't at the meeting but Nick's original question
>>> referred
>>> > > > to the capture window parameters. I would suggest
>>> window_offset and > > > window_width instead of pulse, to avoid
>>> confusion over the meaning.
>>> > > > Using fixed pulse integration windows could be dangerous.
>>> > > > > > > Cole
>>> > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 11 Apr 2016, Raffaella De Vita wrote:
>>> > > > > > > > Dear All,
>>> > > > > following Nick's question and the discussion we had last
>>> Friday, I > > > > edited the document (see attachment) to reflect
>>> the proposed > > > > change to the /daq/fadc table that would now
>>> also contain the > > > > parameter for Mode 1 analysis. The
>>> proposed names are > > > > pedestal_start, pedestal_width,
>>> pulse_start, pulse_width .
>>> > > > > Comments are welcome.
>>> > > > > Best regards,
>>> > > > > Raffaella
>>> > > > > > > > > nick markov wrote:
>>> > > > > > Dear CALCOM group,
>>> > > > > > I wonder if it possible and needed to add to the DAQ
>>> parameters > > > > > tables
>>> > > > > > parameters of MODE1 readings:
>>> > > > > > FADC250_W_OFFSET
>>> > > > > > FADC250_W_WIDTH
>>> > > > > > Nick.
>>> > > > > > > On Apr 1, 2016, at 11:09 AM, Mac Mestayer
>>> <mestayer at jlab.org> > > > > > > wrote:
>>> > > > > > > > Dear CALCOM group;
>>> > > > > > > > Thanks for the concise and well-written guidelines.
>>> > > > > > > They are very good for focussing discussion.
>>> > > > > > > > I agree with most of the 'best practices' advocated, so
>>> > > > > > > I will only mention my two disagreements here:
>>> > > > > > > > 1) sector, layer, component need not be enforced on the
>>> > > > > > > tables (CCDB is much more flexible than CALDB was in
>>> this > > > > > > regard).
>>> > > > > > > Not only that, but sector, layer, component is not at
>>> all > > > > > > applicable
>>> > > > > > > to the drift chamber data-base. See > > > > > > >
>>> https://clasweb.jlab.org/wiki/index.php/DC-calibration_Constants
>>> > > > > > > for a description of the DC calibration table structure.
>>> > > > > > > We use indices like region, superlayer or region,
>>> superlayer, > > > > > > board, > connector, etc. and I refuse to
>>> call a superlayer a > > > > > > layer, etc.
>>> > > > > > > There is no need to try to enforce a false structure
>>> on > > > > > > everyone.
>>> > > > > > > > 2) we should not use run number to denote a
>>> variation, such > > > > > > > as
>>> > > > > > > Monte Carlo. This is precisely what variations are
>>> designed > > > > > > to do.
>>> > > > > > > Talk to Hall D to find out how they use various
>>> variations to > > > > > > denote
>>> > > > > > > Monte Carlo. In fact, I think we may want to use
>>> actual run > > > > > > number
>>> > > > > > > ranges for the Monte Carlo variations to follow, for
>>> example, > > > > > > different
>>> > > > > > > luminosities and this proposed use of run numbers will
>>> just > > > > > > confuse
>>> > > > > > > people.
>>> > > > > > > > regards, Mac
>>> > > > > > > > "mestayer at jlab.org", (757)-269-7252
>>> > > > > > > > On Fri, 1 Apr 2016, Raffaella De Vita wrote:
>>> > > > > > > > > Dear Harut and Bryan,
>>> > > > > > > > following the discussion we had on the database, we
>>> have > > > > > > > collected a > > set of "guidelines" concerning
>>> the > > > > > > > calibration constants table > > structure, the
>>> use of > > > > > > > variations, the use of run numbers etc. that
>>> we > > would > > > > > > > like to distribute. You can find in
>>> attachment the document > > > > > > > we > > have produced.
>>> > > > > > > > Let us know what you think about it.
>>> > > > > > > > Best regards,
>>> > > > > > > > Raffaella
>>> > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> > > > > > > Clas12_calcom mailing list
>>> > > > > > > Clas12_calcom at jlab.org
>>> > > > > > > https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas12_calcom
>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> > Clas12_calcom mailing list
>>> > Clas12_calcom at jlab.org
>>> > https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas12_calcom
>>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Clas12_calcom mailing list
>> Clas12_calcom at jlab.org
>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas12_calcom
>>
More information about the Clas12_calcom
mailing list