<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div><br></div>Hi Elton,<div><br></div><div> I would argue in favor of Beni’s point. In order to correctly subtract the event-by-event pedestal</div><div>from the integral you will at least need to know the ratio of the number of samples used for each.</div><div>Since you have 15 unused bits in the pedestal word, you could use these to hold this information.</div><div>If you run in a mode where the 3rd word is dropped, you’ll be using average pedestals that were</div><div>presumably measured via pulse integral values so you won’t need the number of samples in</div><div>that case. </div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div>-David</div><div><br><div><div>On Jul 22, 2015, at 10:18 AM, Elton Smith <<a href="mailto:elton@jlab.org">elton@jlab.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hi Beni,<br>
<br>
Yes. This would be necessary if the integral uses a variable number
of samples. From Mark's studies it appears that an integral over
about 16 samples may be optimal at least for the bcal.<br>
<br>
Thanks, Elton.<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Elton Smith
Jefferson Lab MS 12H3
12000 Jefferson Ave STE 4
Newport News, VA 23606
(757) 269-7625
(757) 269-6331 fax </pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/22/15 9:00 AM, Beni Zihlmann
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:55AF9407.8060706@jlab.org" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">unless the pedestal sum contains the
same number of samples as the integral <br>
it would be necessary to also store the sample numbers in the
pedestal sum<br>
and/or integral.<br>
<br>
cheers,<br>
Beni<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:55AEB3EC.4070002@jlab.org" type="cite">Dear
colleagues, <br>
<br>
We have been discussing various considerations for the next f250
firmware upgrade. Based on the size of the spring data with mode
7, we see that the data volume is dominated by header words and
not the "content" per se. Therefore, it appears that we should
be able to handle the GlueX rate with 3 words for the
calorimeter "content". However, it would be desirable to
separate the pedestal into one word, which could be dropped if
size becomes an issue. Attached is a draft scheme for discussion
that achieves these goals. <br>
<br>
Feedback is welcome. <br>
<br>
Cheers, Elton. <br>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Halld-cal mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Halld-cal@jlab.org">Halld-cal@jlab.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/halld-cal">https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/halld-cal</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Halld-cal mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Halld-cal@jlab.org">Halld-cal@jlab.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/halld-cal">https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/halld-cal</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>Halld-cal mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Halld-cal@jlab.org">Halld-cal@jlab.org</a><br>https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/halld-cal</blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>