<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">FX,<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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).</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Stepan</div><div class=""> <br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Oct 7, 2018, at 6:41 PM, Francois-Xavier Girod <<a href="mailto:fxgirod@jlab.org" class="">fxgirod@jlab.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">Dear all<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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</div><div class=""><a href="https://logbooks.jlab.org/entry/3605590" class="">https://logbooks.jlab.org/entry/3605590</a><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">At 45 nA I found a ratio of about 75% +/- 5% depending on the sector number</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Best regards</div><div class="">FX</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Best regards</div><div class="">FX</div></div></div><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="">On Sun, Oct 7, 2018 at 8:34 PM Rafayel Paremuzyan <<a href="mailto:rafopar@jlab.org" class="">rafopar@jlab.org</a>> wrote:<br class=""></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Dear all,<br class="">
<br class="">
We didn't get much beam since yesterday,<br class="">
MCC is still working on resolving Accelerator related issues( RF <br class="">
separator, RF zone 1L03).<br class="">
I think there is no much to discuss for today.<br class="">
Instead will be good if we work on the analysis of the special runs <br class="">
(random, packed data, Lumi scans),<br class="">
and in tomorrow's RC meeting discuss what decisions we should make in <br class="">
terms of trigger/bit packing and the beam current.<br class="">
<br class="">
Rafo<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
On 10/06/2018 09:42 AM, Rafayel Paremuzyan wrote:<br class="">
> Dear all,<br class="">
><br class="">
> We took data up to 2:am this night and after that south linac had <br class="">
> vacuum problems,<br class="">
> which was solved half hour ago.<br class="">
> We expect to get the beam soon, and the plan is to continue data <br class="">
> taking through this weekend.<br class="">
><br class="">
> There is no important items to discuss today.<br class="">
> I will update you with the run status tomorrow by e-mail.<br class="">
><br class="">
> Rafo<br class="">
<br class="">
_______________________________________________<br class="">
Clas12_first_exp mailing list<br class="">
<a href="mailto:Clas12_first_exp@jlab.org" target="_blank" class="">Clas12_first_exp@jlab.org</a><br class="">
<a href="https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas12_first_exp" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas12_first_exp</a><br class="">
</blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">Clas12_first_exp mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:Clas12_first_exp@jlab.org" class="">Clas12_first_exp@jlab.org</a><br class="">https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas12_first_exp<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>