<div dir="ltr">EDIT:<div><br></div><div>The first image included inside the text, showing efficiency for UV Layer 1 should be replaced with this plot: </div><div><br></div><img src="cid:ii_kygwfc6a8" alt="13297 Layer 1 Efficiency.png" width="351" height="272" style="margin-right: 0px;"><br><div><br></div><div>My apologies, I previously and erroneously attached the plots for UV Layer 0 instead of UV Layer 1.</div><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div><br></div><div>John</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Jan 16, 2022 at 1:45 AM John Boyd <<a href="mailto:jab7bp@virginia.edu">jab7bp@virginia.edu</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">So, at the current moment, for the initial runs at 1 uA, I only had access to 10k replays so I based the following off of those.<div><br></div><div>The differences between the two runs are that Run 13297 had previous voltage values and Run 13298 had an increase of 25V on UV Layer 1 and Module 1 of the XY Layer.</div><div><br></div><div>From the attached plots showing the peak time samples, it appears that the latency was okay and therefore I didn't adjust it. </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div></div><img src="cid:ii_kygv9iiv2" alt="image.png" width="232" height="180" style="margin-right: 0px;"> <img src="cid:ii_kygva6ji3" alt="13297 Layer 3 Latency.png" width="233" height="178" style="margin-right: 0px;"><br><div><img src="cid:ii_kygva8bs4" alt="13299 Layer 1 Latency.png" width="235" height="174" style="margin-right: 0px;"> <img src="cid:ii_kygva9bg5" alt="13299 Layer 3 - Latency.png" width="230" height="176" style="margin-right: 0px;"><br></div><div>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><div>Also, between the two HV settings there isn't a definite enough difference (increase) in efficiencies between the previous voltage settings and from increasing them by 25V. Please see the attached plots for this. </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><img src="cid:ii_kygvpqx312" alt="13297 Layer 1 Efficiency.png" width="265" height="206" style="margin-right: 0px;"> <img src="cid:ii_kygvpwj713" alt="13297 XY GEM1 Efficiency.png" width="271" height="212" style="margin-right: 0px;"></div><div><img src="cid:ii_kygvq4fo14" alt="13299 Layer 1 Efficiency.png" width="262" height="202" style="margin-right: 0px;"> <img src="cid:ii_kygvqbxi15" alt="13299 XY GEM1 Efficiency.png" width="256" height="198" style="margin-right: 0px;"></div><div>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</div><div><br><div><br></div><div>With that being said, I left the voltages for UV Layer 1 and Module 1 of the XY layer set with an increase of 25V. </div><div><br></div><div>While I was writing this one of the 50k replays finally came in and for reference the efficiency for UV Layer 1 with the 25V increase was: <span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica;font-weight:700">84.71<span> </span></span><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:9pt;font-family:Symbol">±<span> </span></span><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica;font-weight:700">0.64</span>. The full set of 50k replays is not yet finished. I will update if those change anything.</div></div><div><br></div><div>Best regards,</div><div><br></div><div>John Boyd</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div> </div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Jan 15, 2022 at 11:45 AM Gnanvo, Kondo (kg6cq) <<a href="mailto:kg6cq@virginia.edu" target="_blank">kg6cq@virginia.edu</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi again Sean, <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I also thing that like Andrew suggested, ultimately, changing the latency for these two layers 1 & 3 to center the APV25 peak for the hits in the central area of the detector will address the concern (tracking efficiency)<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best regards <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Kondo<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> Sbs_gems <<a href="mailto:sbs_gems-bounces@jlab.org" target="_blank">sbs_gems-bounces@jlab.org</a>> <b>On Behalf Of
</b>Sean Jeffas<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, January 15, 2022 11:02 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:Sbs_gems@jlab.org" target="_blank">Sbs_gems@jlab.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Sbs_gems] [EXTERNAL] UV Latency Analysis Results<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi All,<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">We have finished analyzing a cosmic test after turning the gas flow down on layers 1 and 3 from 525 cc/min to 375. The data is attached below. For reference:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Run 13240: </b>Taken January 11th with all four UV layers and 2 uA on LH2 at the <span>SBS</span>-14 kinematic. Gas flow at 525 cc/min<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Run 12423:</b> Taken January 14th with cosmic data. UV layers 1 and 3 gas flowing at 375 cc/min<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">These runs are a bit difficult to compare since one is with beam and the other is comsic, but it's all that we have. Overall you can see that the timing distribution is a bit better for layer 1 and 3, but still not great. Also the efficiencies
and gains are not significantly reduced by the lower gas flow. So I think we can run with this setting. <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Kondo/Nilanga/Xinzhan: Will this reduced gas flow have a greater effect with the beam on? I suppose we will find out in two hours anyway.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Also I would be interested in turning up the voltage on layer 1 and module 1 in the XY layer by 25 V. Are there any objections?<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best,<br>
Sean<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 3:49 PM Sean Jeffas <<a href="mailto:sj9ry@virginia.edu" target="_blank">sj9ry@virginia.edu</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border-style:none none none solid;border-left-width:1pt;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding:0in 0in 0in 6pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Andrew,<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I am not sure if you meant to only reply to only me, but here are the plots you asked for. I actually already had them but decided it was kind of overkill.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best,<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sean<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 3:21 PM Andrew Puckett <<a href="mailto:puckett@jlab.org" target="_blank">puckett@jlab.org</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border-style:none none none solid;border-left-width:1pt;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding:0in 0in 0in 6pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Sean,
<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Interesting results. Another interesting way to visualize these results would be in terms of the strip mean times, which might (or might not) have somewhat better resolution than
the time sample peaking distribution. I would also be curious to see a couple of alternative ways of visualizing the data. For example:
<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<ol start="1" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal">
A more “binary” approach: 1D and 2D distributions vs. x and/or y for hits peaking in sample 5 and for hits NOT peaking in sample 5<u></u><u></u></li><li class="MsoNormal">
Same as 1, but perhaps broken out by hits peaking in samples 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc.<u></u><u></u></li></ol>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Cheers,<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Andrew<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<div style="border-style:solid none none;border-top-width:1pt;border-top-color:rgb(181,196,223);padding:3pt 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><b><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black">From:
</span></b><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black">Sbs_gems <<a href="mailto:sbs_gems-bounces@jlab.org" target="_blank">sbs_gems-bounces@jlab.org</a>> on behalf of Sean Jeffas <<a href="mailto:sj9ry@virginia.edu" target="_blank">sj9ry@virginia.edu</a>><br>
<b>Date: </b>Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 3:03 PM<br>
<b>To: </b><a href="mailto:Sbs_gems@jlab.org" target="_blank">Sbs_gems@jlab.org</a> <<a href="mailto:sbs_gems@jlab.org" target="_blank">sbs_gems@jlab.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject: </b>[Sbs_gems] [EXTERNAL] UV Latency Analysis Results</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi All,<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I have finished analyzing the spatial distribution of the peak time samples. I have attached the results below for two runs.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Run 13240:
</b>Taken January 11th with all four UV layers and 2 uA on LH2 at the SBS-14 kinematic.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Run 12423:</b> Taken December 1st with J0 still in the layer 1 position but the UV layer was in layer 3 position. This was 2 uA on LD2 at SBS-11.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">In the recent run (13240) you can clearly see the peak time sample is uniform over the hit map for every layer except for layer 1 and layer 3. Similarly if you look at the December
run (12423) the same issue was present in layer 3, but we never noticed it because we were always the first and last bin out of the analysis. John and I measured the resistors on the GEMs today and did not find a resistance that would suggest that the gas
window has collapsed onto the cathode. Unfortunately the shielding blocks us from seeing the gas window, otherwise it would be very easy to tell. <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Therefore our current conclusion is that since the GEM layers 1 and 3 both have a non uniform gas flow, this is probably causing some bend in the readout board, which causes this
issue. To fix this we can turn down the gas flow rate and see how everything is affected. Since the experiment is down for a few days it would be good to turn it down today and take some cosmic data, if possible.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best,<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sean<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Sbs_gems mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Sbs_gems@jlab.org" target="_blank">Sbs_gems@jlab.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/sbs_gems" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/sbs_gems</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div>