<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="overflow-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;"><div>H Izzy,</div><div><br></div><div>It is not just the several runs with 4 ns shifts. All of the HTCC runs after run 16943 changed between pass0 1.06 and pass0 1.07 and residuals are better clustered around zero.. The ECAL timing showed no shifts at all. </div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div>Cole</div><div><br></div><div>1.07</div><div><br></div><img src="cid:22A71085-4E27-4909-A33C-53E609A4BA7E" alt="Screenshot 2024-07-08 at 1.16.42 PM.png" width="1833"><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>1.06</div><div><br></div><div><img src="cid:586294CE-75CC-4C23-B941-C68A911343A7" alt="Screenshot 2024-07-08 at 1.16.27 PM.png" width="1834"><div><br></div><div><br><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br id="lineBreakAtBeginningOfMessage"><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Jul 8, 2024, at 12:45 PM, Izzy Illari via Clas12_calcom <clas12_calcom@jlab.org> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div><p>Dear Silvia,<br>
<br>
I have noticed for the HTCC that there is a difference in the
timing. For the previous timelines, using raster calibration
constants from CCDB, HTCC timing is in spec and looks how I
expected:<br>
<span id="cid:part1.9m2kwIUW.x1L55CT0@jlab.org"><Screenshot 2024-07-08 at 12.43.03 PM.png></span></p><p>However, for the new timelines for RGC F22 using an sqlite file
with modified raster calibration and beam offsets constants,
several runs are now out of spec for the timing:<br>
<span id="cid:part2.N14jJ4MT.PA9y8KUL@jlab.org"><Screenshot 2024-07-08 at 12.42.54 PM.png></span></p><p>And I know that I did not change anything on my end for the HTCC
timing for RGC F22. Are other subsystems seeing similar issues?<br>
<br>
All the best,</p><p>Izzy<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/8/24 11:39 AM, silvia--- via
Clas12_calcom wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:d504e373cfc04258a8a46cf869097208.squirrel@webmail.jlab.org">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Dear CalCom,
we have produced new timelines for RGC F22 using an sqlite file with
modified raster calibration and beam offsets constants, produced using
Derek's displaced vertex analysis.
The link is: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://clas12mon.jlab.org/rgc/Fall2022/pass0v1.07/tlsummary/">https://clas12mon.jlab.org/rgc/Fall2022/pass0v1.07/tlsummary/</a>
The previous timelines, using raster calibration constants from CCDB, are
at this link:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://clas12mon.jlab.org/rgc/Fall2022/pass0v1.06/tlsummary/">https://clas12mon.jlab.org/rgc/Fall2022/pass0v1.06/tlsummary/</a>
Could you please look at your subsystem, compare the two timelines, and
let us know if you see any relevant changes in the calibration quality?
Thanks a lot!
Best regards,
Silvia
_______________________________________________
Clas12_calcom mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Clas12_calcom@jlab.org">Clas12_calcom@jlab.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas12_calcom">https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas12_calcom</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>Clas12_calcom mailing list<br>Clas12_calcom@jlab.org<br>https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas12_calcom<br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></body></html>