[Clas12_rgb] [EXTERNAL] Re: analysis of timelines and proposition of runs to calibrate

Raffaella De Vita Raffaella.Devita at ge.infn.it
Tue Feb 18 20:23:16 EST 2020


Dear Silvia,
For the FTCal energy, those 5 runs would be a very good start. We may have to add two more run at the end, to have equally spaced calibration points but we could decide later.
Thanks,
	Raffaella

> On 18 Feb 2020, at 09:28, silvia at jlab.org wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> I have looked at the timelines for the various subsystems, made slides
> with the relevant plots and my own proposition of runs to calibrate.
> The slides are here:
> https://clasweb.jlab.org/wiki/images/9/94/Timeline_spring_check.pdf
> 
> My conclusions, for which I'd like the feedback of the detector contact
> people, are:
> 
> - we need to calibrate FTOF for 6223 6286 6351 6420 6546, and then as a
> consequence recook and redo timing calibrations for the same runs for
> CTOF, CND, FTCal, etc.
> 
> - FTCal energy calibration is drifting, I don't know if the 5 runs
> mentioned are enough or not
> 
> - CTOF needs also run 6189 to be recalibrated.
> 
> - ECal looks very good timing wise, while the SF drifts by about 4% from
> the start to the end of the run.
> 
> - There are some weird features concerning the CD; jumps in reconstructed
> vertex position, and a sudden increase in particle rates per trigger in
> the CD from run 6420, the first run at 10.2 GeV. The rise is too high, in
> my opinion, to be physics related, and there is no change in the FD rates.
> 
> I didn't include the CND in this analysis because we think there may be
> issues with how the monitoring plots were filled, and we are discussing
> with the monitoring crew.
> 
> Please let me know your comments/suggestions.
> Best regards,
> Silvia
> 
> 
> 
> 





More information about the Clas12_rgb mailing list