Hi Elton,<div><br></div><div>Thank you for this very nice summary. I am free any time on Friday. </div><div><br></div>---Sean<span></span><br><div><br>On Wednesday, December 10, 2014, Elton Smith <<a href="mailto:elton@jlab.org">elton@jlab.org</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Dear colleagues,<br>
<br>
I have uploaded a draft document (GlueX-doc-2618) with definitions for<br>
the low-level calibration constants for the BCAL. This is a document for<br>
discussion and feedback is welcome. The goal, after we have hashed it<br>
out, is to have precise definitions of all constants that are placed in<br>
the calibrations data base. In particular, it is necessary to choose<br>
some conventions, which need to be clear to avoid errors in<br>
reconstruction. We need to agree on what those conventions are. We<br>
should also make sure that there are no factors of 2 missing.<br>
<br>
The document proposes that the gains be specified at the center of the<br>
module. If I understand correctly, this is different than Andrei's<br>
convention that uses the end of the module.<br>
Therefore, there is a factor of e^{-L/2*lambda} between the two that<br>
needs to be sorted out. There may also be other definitions or<br>
conventions that need consensus.<br>
<br>
We should probably find a dedicated time to go over this. As we are in<br>
the process of entering constants into db now, I would hope to have a<br>
discussion soon. Is Friday a possibility?<br>
<br>
Thanks, Elton.<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
Elton Smith<br>
Jefferson Lab MS 12H3<br>
12000 Jefferson Ave STE 4<br>
Newport News, VA 23606<br>
(757) 269-7625<br>
(757) 269-6331 fax<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br><br>-- <br><div dir="ltr">Sean Dobbs<br>Department of Physics & Astronomy <br>Northwestern University<br>phone: 847-467-2826</div><br>