<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Interesting. One suggestion is that for your improved CM calculation, instead of taking +/- 3 sigma of the first iteration in your second step, you could do the first step the same way, and then take -5 sigma
< ADC – mean from 1<sup>st</sup> step < +3 sigma, which might help remove some of the bias from positive signals.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Andrew<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">From:
</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">Sbs_gems <sbs_gems-bounces@jlab.org> on behalf of Sean Jeffas <sj9ry@virginia.edu><br>
<b>Date: </b>Friday, February 18, 2022 at 4:31 PM<br>
<b>To: </b>Sbs_gems@jlab.org <sbs_gems@jlab.org><br>
<b>Subject: </b>[Sbs_gems] [EXTERNAL] Negative Pulse Analysis Update<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Hi All,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">I touched up my negative pulse analysis results that I showed to everyone last week. I realized I was making a serious mistake by simply cutting on signal > 80 ADC, because the first few strips in the APV
always have large signals on them from the event header. Therefore this was significantly skewing my data. I am now using the correct method of cutting using 5*sigma of the pedestal noise, as is done in the tracking analysis.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Please see my new results in the following slides
<a href="https://logbooks.jlab.org/files/2022/02/3984417/Neg_pulse_study_2_18_22.pdf">
https://logbooks.jlab.org/files/2022/02/3984417/Neg_pulse_study_2_18_22.pdf</a>. Also please take the time to look over all the plots in my log entry, <a href="https://logbooks.jlab.org/entry/3984417">https://logbooks.jlab.org/entry/3984417</a>. I try my best
to pick some event examples to show, but I encourage everyone to scroll through the event displays I have posted, to get an idea of what the negative pulses look like. Please let me know your thoughts and questions.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Best,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Sean<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>