<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Dear Richard,</p>
<p>My first item, the single bin near 9.1 which loses 15%, is in the
*hodoscope* region, that is why it only shows up in Sean's branch
(ver10, red). The question was more directed towards Sasha or
Sean.</p>
<p>Are you still planning to submit a pull request today? <br>
</p>
<p>Cheers,</p>
<p>Alex<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/24/2020 1:15 PM, Richard Jones
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CABfxa3SgVsWG-o65DqciNQPYTw2VALaVgUsNFDsUQ_ktoq5yaQ@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">Alexander, my response to your questions. -Richard
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Comparing
the two versions with and without the requirement of ADC/TDC<br>
matching for the hodoscope, I only see a loss of events below
1% in<br>
almost the full energy range. There is only one 100MeV-wide
bin near<br>
9.1GeV, where the loss is about 15%. Could this be a sign of a
broken or<br>
miscalibrated TDC?</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>No, the DAQ was working ok in that sector. The loss of 15%
is pretty much uniform across the entire TAGM. The reason the
ratio looks like 1 in the low-energy end is because the missed
tags are missing from both the numerator (tdc*adc) and
denominator (adc) in that region, so the ratio looks close to
1. I will present my analysis of these data at the beamline
meeting next Tuesday. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> Once
the thresholds were fixed in run 71724, the loss goes down to
10%<br>
in the higher-energy part of the microscope, while it
completely<br>
recovers for the low-energy part. What is the reason for this<br>
discrepancy? New vs old fibers?</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Basically the ratio is close to 1 in the low-energy end of
the TAGM because the low-amplitude pulses are missed by both
the adc and tdc. What really surprised me is the additional
tags that are recovered at the high-energy end where the new
fibers are: by lowering the adc threshold way down, we are
able to see an additional 15% of tags in the adc over what is
seen by the tdc which just counts on the primary MIP peak. I
believe that this 15% are coming from electrons that passed
through the cladding of the fiber, instead of the core.
Originally I assumed that light produced in the cladding would
be totally lost because it is outside the
total-internal-reflection capture cone of the fiber. Now I see
that this assumption was wrong! Nevertheless, there is
probably not enough light from these pulses to make good tags.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Let's discuss the "15% problem" at the beamline meeting
next week.</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 11:46
AM Alexander Austregesilo <<a
href="mailto:aaustreg@jlab.org" moz-do-not-send="true">aaustreg@jlab.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">*Message
sent from a system outside of UConn.*<br>
<br>
<br>
Hi,<br>
<br>
I looked at the accidental corrected rho yields as a function
of energy<br>
for the three test runs. You can see the plots on this wiki
page:<br>
<br>
<a
href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fhalldweb.jlab.org-252Fwiki-2Dprivate-252Findex.php-252F2020-5FTagM-5FThreshold-5FTest-26amp-3Bdata-3D02-257C01-257Crichard.t.jones-2540uconn.edu-257Ca352d79c11974c79fea808d7e866a12e-257C17f1a87e2a254eaab9df9d439034b080-257C0-257C0-257C637233399810094785-26amp-3Bsdata-3D4zYaxV2ZzXphRsiaR5eFzgX3ebxm-252BHN7owoyTIl-252F1lA-253D-26amp-3Breserved-3D0&d=DwMFaQ&c=CJqEzB1piLOyyvZjb8YUQw&r=9LGv0gfS3B8uAbsk8r_cEX_4GVRxd2wkj-RJy5MLidg&m=vEgBctGyqGiFqUYKDPZj5ruXlVsTBzGsfO06rswPQFA&s=6rlUaB4IB4F1ys1ZFI1UPihxKMvDbR2wbmt59FSvyMA&e="
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhalldweb.jlab.org%2Fwiki-private%2Findex.php%2F2020_TagM_Threshold_Test&data=02%7C01%7Crichard.t.jones%40uconn.edu%7Ca352d79c11974c79fea808d7e866a12e%7C17f1a87e2a254eaab9df9d439034b080%7C0%7C0%7C637233399810094785&sdata=4zYaxV2ZzXphRsiaR5eFzgX3ebxm%2BHN7owoyTIl%2F1lA%3D&reserved=0</a><br>
<br>
Comparing the two versions with and without the requirement of
ADC/TDC<br>
matching for the hodoscope, I only see a loss of events below
1% in<br>
almost the full energy range. There is only one 100MeV-wide
bin near<br>
9.1GeV, where the loss is about 15%. Could this be a sign of a
broken or<br>
miscalibrated TDC?<br>
<br>
For the 2 runs before the adjustment of the microscope
thresholds, the<br>
loss of rho events with tagged beam photons is close to 30% as
expected.<br>
Once the thresholds were fixed in run 71724, the loss goes
down to 10%<br>
in the higher-energy part of the microscope, while it
completely<br>
recovers for the low-energy part. What is the reason for this<br>
discrepancy? New vs old fibers?<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
Alex<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>