<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">Hi All,<br>
attached you find a note I cobbled together looking at the start
counter data<br>
and made me worry that we are looking at the issue wrong. This may
be not <br>
a problem with the path correction but rather a "gain" problem.<br>
<br>
I plot the TDC_time minus the RF time VS the signal amplitude. And
I do this<br>
for two runs: 73262 (for reference) and a current run 111145.<br>
These plots are generated at three different positions along the z
axis at<br>
60cm (middle of the strait section) at 80 cm (bend section) and
92cm<br>
close to the nose (last two plots).<br>
<br>
you can (starting from the last plots) that the issue may be the
"gain".<br>
in run 73262 the minimum ionizing peak is clearly identified and
separated<br>
from the pedestal. This is not so clear for run 111145. Which
leads me<br>
to the conclusion that the earlier plots are indicating we cut
into the <br>
minimum ionizing peak because the gain is too low.<br>
<br>
I will go and look at other runs that are closer to the current
run period<br>
with the start counter on. I will also look at what the operating
voltages are<br>
and if they are truly the same as in the past.<br>
<br>
Happy Thanksgiving,<br>
Beni<br>
<br>
<br>
</font>
</body>
</html>