 |
 |
7488-7494 are all correct (I looked at plots from each run) and have been for two weeks. 7808 has been correct (I looked at plots) since Wednesday. I will check that 7807 and 7809 are correct. On Fri, 11 Mar 2016, Valery Kubarovsky wrote: > Sho, > Can you check runs: > 7488 7490 7486 7487 7492 7494 > 7807 7808 7809 > ? > These are the runs to study different current settings. > Thanks you, > Valery > > > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Sho Uemura" <[log in to unmask]> >> To: "Valery Kubarovsky" <[log in to unmask]> >> Cc: "Bradley T Yale" <[log in to unmask]>, "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>, >> [log in to unmask], "Sebouh Paul" <[log in to unmask]> >> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 11:25:42 AM >> Subject: Re: Drastic difference between 7487 and 7807. > >> I think this is from a change in conditions DB constants (SVT phase >> offset) for the SVT. This is a number that can change depending on the >> run, and has to be filled in after the run by looking at the data. The >> value for run 7487 has been correct since 2/25. I set the value for 7807 >> on Wednesday (and I changed the default value to something that matches >> most of the runs we have taken). >> >> Maybe your 7807 DQM was run after the change, and the 7487 DQM was run >> before. Rerunning recon and DQM will fix it. >> >> On Fri, 11 Mar 2016, Valery Kubarovsky wrote: >> >>> Hi All: >>> Please take a look to runs 7807 (3/7/2016) and 7487 (2/21/2016). >>> The trigger is almost the same, the current 200 nA. >>> It looks like the number of reconstructed tracks is almost factor of 5 higher >>> the last weekend than two weeks ago. Can somebody tell me what is the reason? >>> Thanks, >>> Valery >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Bradley T Yale" <[log in to unmask]> >>>> To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>, >>>> "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>, >>>> "Sebouh Paul" <[log in to unmask]> >>>> Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 7:06:17 PM >>>> Subject: Too few Pass6 Moller events in MC >>> >>>> I know this was supposed to be the "final pass", >>>> >>>> but it looks like there are far too few Moller events being readout in Pass 6 >>>> Monte Carlo. >>>> >>>> >>>> Looking further into this, it is because the >3-hit clusters in Pass 6 are >>>> getting decimated BEFORE the trigger for some reason (see attached plots), and >>>> so they no longer pass the cluster hit count threshold. These were made using >>>> exactly the same filtered SLIC events, and the same steering file with the same >>>> apparent thresholds in the GTP clusterer and trigger. >>>> >>>> The difference must be elsewhere in the drivers themselves. >>>> >>>> >>>> These plots compare >>>> >>>> hps-distribution-3.5-20151218.205540-15-bin.jar >>>> >>>> with >>>> >>>> hps-distribution-3.6-bin.jar >>>> >>>> >>>> both using the 'EngineeringRun2015TrigSingles1_Pass2.lcsim' steering file. >>>> >>>> >>>> A more recent 3.5 jar (1/25/2016) gives a similar number of events as Pass 4, >>>> and so the key difference must be with 3.6. >>>> >>>> >>>> -Brad >>>> >>>> ######################################################################## >>>> Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list >>>> >>>> To unsubscribe from the HPS-SOFTWARE list, click the following link: >>>> https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=HPS-SOFTWARE&A=1 >>> >>> ######################################################################## >>> Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list >>> >>> To unsubscribe from the HPS-SOFTWARE list, click the following link: >>> https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=HPS-SOFTWARE&A=1 > > ######################################################################## > Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list > > To unsubscribe from the HPS-SOFTWARE list, click the following link: > https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=HPS-SOFTWARE&A=1 > ######################################################################## Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list To unsubscribe from the HPS-SOFTWARE list, click the following link: https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=HPS-SOFTWARE&A=1