[Clas12_first_exp] No RC meeting today

[Stepan Stepanyan]

Hi FX,

It probably makes more sense to process spring luminosity scan runs with the new release.

Stepan

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 8, 2018, at 7:34 AM, Francois-Xavier Girod <fxgirod at jlab.org> wrote:
> 
> Dear Stepan
> 
> I cannot answer (a) but I can answer (b). The release used for this study is not the same as the one used for DNP data processing. The release used for DNP data processing is 5.6.2, while the release used for this recent study (as well as the processing of all the fall data) is 5c.6.8. In addition to being significantly faster per event, I believe that 5c.6.8 has a better tracking efficiency than 5.6.2 and I also think that the efficiency shown in my recent plot is a bit higher than what we have in the DNP release.
> 
> Please let me know if you want to re-process the luminosity scan data with 5.6.2. I can also work on a more detailed study of the efficiency from the recent luminosity scan
> 
> Best regards
> FX
> 
>> On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 1:26 PM Stepan Stepanyan <stepanya at jlab.org> wrote:
>> FX,
>> 
>> Will be good to know if (a) DC HV and thresholds of these luminosity scan runs were the same as for the spring luminosity scan runs, and (b) which software release was used to process the data (last studies of the spring luminosity scan were done with the version of the code that was used for DNP data processing).
>> 
>> Stepan
>>  
>>> On Oct 7, 2018, at 6:41 PM, Francois-Xavier Girod <fxgirod at jlab.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Dear all
>>> 
>>> I looked at the ratio of events with positive time based tracks normalized at 2 nA vs beam current from the luminosity scan, and posted the corresponding plot, with separated sectors, here
>>> https://logbooks.jlab.org/entry/3605590
>>> 
>>> At 45 nA I found a ratio of about 75% +/- 5% depending on the sector number
>>> 
>>> Best regards
>>> FX
>>> 
>>> Best regards
>>> FX
>>> 
>>>> On Sun, Oct 7, 2018 at 8:34 PM Rafayel Paremuzyan <rafopar at jlab.org> wrote:
>>>> Dear all,
>>>> 
>>>> We didn't get much beam since yesterday,
>>>> MCC is still working on  resolving Accelerator related issues( RF 
>>>> separator, RF zone 1L03).
>>>> I think there is no much to discuss for today.
>>>> Instead will be good if we work on the analysis of the special runs 
>>>> (random, packed data, Lumi scans),
>>>> and in tomorrow's RC meeting discuss what decisions we should make in 
>>>> terms of trigger/bit packing and the beam current.
>>>> 
>>>> Rafo
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 10/06/2018 09:42 AM, Rafayel Paremuzyan wrote:
>>>> > Dear all,
>>>> >
>>>> > We took data up to 2:am this night and after that south linac had 
>>>> > vacuum problems,
>>>> > which was solved half hour ago.
>>>> > We expect to get the beam soon, and the plan is to continue data 
>>>> > taking through this weekend.
>>>> >
>>>> > There is no important items to discuss today.
>>>> > I will update you with the run status tomorrow by e-mail.
>>>> >
>>>> > Rafo
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Clas12_first_exp mailing list
>>>> Clas12_first_exp at jlab.org
>>>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas12_first_exp
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Clas12_first_exp mailing list
>>> Clas12_first_exp at jlab.org
>>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas12_first_exp
>> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/clas12_first_exp/attachments/20181008/90a66746/attachment.html>