[Clas12_first_exp] No RC meeting today

[Francois-Xavier Girod]

Dear all

The run 4875 has been decoded and is nearly entirely cooked ( 585 / 601 )
under
/work/clas12/clas12/data/fall18/cooked/

The luminosity scan runs from the spring data 4301 to 4308 have been
submitted for reconstruction with tag 5c.6.8 and will appear under
/work/clas12/clas12/data/calib/cooked_5bp6p8/

Best regards
FX

On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 1:58 PM Stepan Stepanyan <stepanya at jlab.org> wrote:

> 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/b6d01598/attachment.html>