<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body dir="auto">
Hi Sebastian,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I can certainly look into it, and I’ll share my findings as soon as I have them available.</div>
<div><br id="lineBreakAtBeginningOfSignature">
<div dir="ltr">Sincerely,
<div>Derek Holmberg</div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<blockquote type="cite">On Jul 8, 2024, at 3:35 PM, Sebastian Kuhn <kuhn@jlab.org> wrote:<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"> Dear all,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>just for clarification: I understand that the “goodness-of-calibration” for EC, CTOF and FTOF are unchanged, and the timing for HTCC has actually IMPROVED with the new raster constant, except for a few runs where the peak jumped by 4 ns. This looks like
a mis-identification of the beam bucket from which the electron came - a few mm in vertex position can’t really account for such a large shift. It would be worthwhile to study where this shift comes from - maybe Derek can look at a few runs surrounding (and
including) the first set of outliers, 16962-3, and plot all of his raster constants (p0 and p1 for x and y) as well as p0+Beam offset and p1 for the CCDB calibration for these few runs, so we can get an idea what could have triggered that. Also, for good measure,
the average beam position in x and y plot focused in on that run range, and the vertex distributions for x, y, and z for both electrons and pions for runs 16961-64. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks - Sebastian<br id="lineBreakAtBeginningOfMessage">
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>On Jul 8, 2024, at 2:05 PM, Izzy Illari <izzy@jlab.org> wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div>
<div>
<p>Hi Cole,</p>
<p>Thank you for checking that out.</p>
<p>All the best,</p>
<p>Izzy <br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/8/24 1:30 PM, L Smith wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:016F0E37-8233-4B3E-9D85-F4541A85264F@me.com">
<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>
<div><Screenshot 2024-07-08 at 1.16.42 PM.png></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>1.06</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div><Screenshot 2024-07-08 at 1.16.27 PM.png></div>
<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 <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:clas12_calcom@jlab.org">
<clas12_calcom@jlab.org></a> wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div>
<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/" originalsrc="https://clas12mon.jlab.org/rgc/Fall2022/pass0v1.07/tlsummary/" shash="Rl9TxbY0PXk78j1fm9CNet8XbMQPqfCSa3LRE7fjxbI54Xt7HIHrJLoLxNWfmXIBXNgEY7q8ZhB9tVHJkkBUPuiN9vpmA3MPpHHsTgEhnAEMuqMf4WdfX756MSWbzRRlZewgvUm7Bhe0ORX093aPMMCFpP2zHWu1Ode0gDwA7os=" moz-do-not-send="true">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/" originalsrc="https://clas12mon.jlab.org/rgc/Fall2022/pass0v1.06/tlsummary/" shash="oxVLwvNFuFAnQO+7Mp4o8daR0yP6V4pDGEtaTC0gcrq6ijfeLSxH24jDP+bw/nU08NQLwKqQGVRmf5XWMcmWRJ4wfh48dVuTjJF7FIBktIfB6IYF5pvK0aIanXVa+jbZ2lqKHZSDV2zm2sLWBjtM+8YrtmqeoxX+88yFYrwH+dw=" moz-do-not-send="true">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 moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:Clas12_calcom@jlab.org" moz-do-not-send="true">Clas12_calcom@jlab.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas12_calcom" originalsrc="https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas12_calcom" shash="csQ927FsnZgEVOz/KJjbz7xvmx516UbL3gUkC1eGgNFB1/YD7s9gKZWZUNOLE8LESRYkgFFex1BNCn5yg8ikGrrNyNifEnM/grieBQ3gqVAxkBvt4pZcS+AwrTjUkopkJUnLy7/m5TCmrgXwu+PIuVaCEhMrNbhzELtEIJV68iY=" moz-do-not-send="true">https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas12_calcom</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Clas12_calcom mailing list<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Clas12_calcom@jlab.org">Clas12_calcom@jlab.org</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas12_calcom" originalsrc="https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas12_calcom" shash="YTPHMivg0IoOWMKjWa0OnxGmDYThu9SBoBQTFrme/aTOCRJGHZkPWojY+oLenoqDnhvqUXh8TwEJjEI1+SH82gwZTJkJCY0x6vo7muiBQvFOIXugfl2FEHTEzYVkezbKBsbSAgcxnKVoPnt54j4zRdYLnndKQnQVueNnCow4kjE=">https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas12_calcom</a><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</body>
</html>