[dsg-hallb_rich] [EXTERNAL] Re: d0 results for mirrors 5 and 5C

[Tyler Lemon]

Hi Marco,

It seems that JLab's email security system doesn't like the file types of the scripts you sent.


Could you please resend them either zipped into one file, or just as text files where I can change the extension my self to run them.

Thanks,
________________________________
From: Marco Mirazita <Marco.Mirazita at lnf.infn.it>
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2021 4:33 AM
To: Tyler Lemon <tlemon at jlab.org>
Cc: dsg-hallb_rich at jlab.org <dsg-hallb_rich at jlab.org>
Subject: Re: [dsg-hallb_rich] [EXTERNAL] Re: d0 results for mirrors 5 and 5C

Attachment type is not allowed. It has been removed and discarded by JLAB ProofPoint (POD).  It is NOT recoverable.

Inform sender to work around this by putting a password on the attachment (i.e encrypt it) with WinZip and send you the password.

Encrypted attachments are allowed through the filters.

======================================================================
Hi Tyler,
here is 4 files to make the plots I showed at the RICH meeting last
friday.
Yuo should copy them in the main directory where you have your data and
run the perl script, for example:

> ./doAllPlots.pl 5C/2021-10-05/horizontal/no_ambient "" _2ms_corr

You will get one pdf per each root file and a D0Log.dat.pdf with all the
spots in one page.
Let me know if you have troubles running it.

Marco




Il 2021-10-07 18:02 Tyler Lemon ha scritto:
> Hi Marco,
>
>  Okay, we'll repeat the tests.
>
>  I do have some questions, though.
>
>  For the procedure, it says to determine the exposure time by testing
> various exposures until the maximum CCD counts is ~850. This is what
> we did with the latest measurements. If when we repeat the tests with
> 0.5-ms exposure times, and the CCD counts are significantly less than
> 850 for what we determine to be the smallest image size by eye, should
> we still continue the tests?
>
>  Also, there is a trim potentiometer on the light source that I'm
> guessing will slightly vary the brightness of the source. Should we
> use that to slightly increase the source brightness if we are at
> significantly lower CCD counts with 0.5-ms exposure?
>
>  Lastly (this is mainly just out of curiosity) for the tests, is there
> a reason the light source is red?
>
>  Like you said, we can talk about it in the meeting, but I wanted to
> ask the questions now in case the answers need some thinking time.
>
>  -Tyler
>
> -------------------------
>
> From: Marco Mirazita <Marco.Mirazita at lnf.infn.it>
> Sent: Thursday, October 7, 2021 11:43 AM
> To: Tyler Lemon <tlemon at jlab.org>
> Cc: dsg-hallb_rich at jlab.org <dsg-hallb_rich at jlab.org>
> Subject: Re: [dsg-hallb_rich] [EXTERNAL] Re: d0 results for mirrors 5
> and 5C
>
> Hi Tyler,
> in your measurements you used an exposition time variable from 2 to
> 3.5
> ms, at least by reading the name of the files.
> This is definitely bigger than the value of 0.5 ms we used for the
> RICH-1 mirrors.
> I would ask you to repeat the measurement with 0.5 ms exposition time.
> There could be also some issue with the alignment, since the image on
> the CCD seems to be moving with Z.
> We can discuss about this point tomorrow at the meeting.
> I have posted my slides for tomorrow on the RICH wiki if you want to
> have a look now.
> Marco
> _______________________________________________
> dsg-hallb_rich mailing list
> dsg-hallb_rich at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/dsg-hallb_rich
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/dsg-hallb_rich/attachments/20211011/2b97c718/attachment.html>