Regarding the d(gamma,pn) channel, Michael is correct of course. I think
this is a perfect example of being careful to examine all consequences
of a proposed change in triggering.
Also regarding the d(gamma,pn) channel, I have been looking at what we
might learn about this reaction vis-a-vis Arenhoevel's predictions from
the 1986 CEBAF Summer Study. Perhaps if I get my act together and don't
get buried by teaching, I can report briefly at one of the Wednesday
meetings. However, in summary, I expect approximately 150k events in
the photon energy range 100-800 MeV, based on published Mainz data
and assuming 10% neutron detection efficiency. These events will be
primarily in the 100-400 MeV range (the cross section drops like the
proverbial rock above 400) and primarily concentrated in the rearmost
8 TOFs due to the fact that as the proton goes more forward, the
neutron falls off the back angle of the Ohio wall. By the way, my
counts assume 1000 hours at the expected luminosity. In the limited
BLAST acceptance Arenhoevel's calculations predict both a very
significant tensor target asymmetry as well as a significant
beam/target vector double polarization asymmetry.
Tim and Abby have started to mine the present data for such events.
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004, Michael Kohl wrote:
> To throw in my coin,
>
> by requiring Cerenkov in PHYS1 trigger type, we would then suppress the
> photodisintegration channel d(gamma,pn), where the proton was supposed to
> be detected in the left sector, but no electron, and a proton doesn't
> fire the Cerenkov.
>
> Michael
>
>
>
> >
> > Good morning:
> >
> > I must have not thought things completely through. A quick check with
> > Eugene on the phone shows that indeed CC remove all the trackless stuff
> > in trig==2 just as richard suggested.
> > We can require CC in trig==2 (e,e'n) which would yield a significant
> > reduction of that trigger. One can monitor the CC efficiency with ee'p
> > events from trig==1, which does not contribute to the deadtime as much.
> >
> > -- t
> > ________________________________________________________________________________
> > Tancredi Botto, phone: +1-617-253-9204 mobile: +1-978-490-4124
> > research scientist MIT/Bates, 21 Manning Av Middleton MA, 01949
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > On Fri, 5 Mar 2004, John Calarco wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Hi Richard,
> > >
> > > I may be wrong, which is why I opened my comment with "Be careful." ...
> > > meaning we need to think carefully to not make any mistakes. Unless I'm
> > > wrong (which may be the case), PHYS0 contains the elastic as well as
> > > quasielastic e,e'p. Thus a simple hardware AND of the CC takes the
> > > last 4 TOFs out of the trigger which means we get no triggers for
> > > elastic events in the last 4 TOFs, the high Q^2 region. It is possible
> > > of course to work around this and have a hardware trigger of (any TOF
> > > AND CC) OR (last 4 TOFs). This keeps the last 4 TOFs in the trigger,
> > > but now I begin to worry about timing. For every logical operation,
> > > we accumulate a delay of at least 10 ns in the trigger. If the 2
> > > Boolean operations I just described have to be done sequentially, then
> > > we have at least 20 ns delay in the trigger relative to the retiming
> > > signal. At some point we run into trouble. Perhaps Karen or others
> > > might wish to comment.
> > >
> > > So, to reiterate, "Be careful." Any change in the trigger is possible
> > > but MAY (repeat, MAY) have possible unforeseen consequences which have
> > > to be assessed before making the change.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Richard Milner wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I am not sure what you mean John. The idea is that where we have Cerenkov
> > > > detectors in the acceptance we should seriously consider to use them in
> > > > the electron trigger. They are now highly efficient and should
> > > > reduce trackless triggers, e.g. in (e,e'n) as a means to reduce the
> > > > deadtime.
> > > >
> > > > Elastic scattering on both the deuteron and proton has the benefit of
> > > > being completely kinematically correlated. My understanding is that this
> > > > trigger type is a relatively small contributor to the deadtime.
> > > >
> > > > Also, for the proton target we have only the (e,e'p) assuming we prescale
> > > > the inclusive.
> > > >
> > > > Am I missing something?
> > > >
> > > > Richard
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, John Calarco wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Be careful. Now that we have removed CC3 from behind the 4 rearmost TOFs
> > > > > and put them behind the BATs, a hardware CC requirement restricts the
> > > > > high Q^2 end, and that's where the ed elastic T20 overlaps the very
> > > > > interesting region where the old Bates data overlap the recent JLab
> > > > > data. I don't think we want to sacrifice that, and I definitely want
> > > > > the high Q^2 end for the ep elastic.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Karen Dow wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Just spoke with Richard on the phone, he requested that someone check how
> > > > > > much a hardware Cerenkov requirement would cut the trigger rate, hoping to
> > > > > > reduce the rate of PHYS1 significantly (and possibly also PHYS0). Tavi and
> > > > > > Baris will look at crunched data while they're on shift, see what a
> > > > > > Cerenkov cut does to the number of trig==2 and trig==1, also what it does
> > > > > > to the spectra (z, momentum, theta etc -- presumably we don't lose good
> > > > > > events).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Karen
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > At 01:42 PM 3/4/2004 -0500, Richard Milner wrote:
> > > > > > >Following Tancredi's mail, I think we should significantly prescale the
> > > > > > >inclusive and put more lead shielding in front of the forward LADS. Ernie
> > > > > > >is working up a modification of the collimator which has the potential to
> > > > > > >improve the deadtime situation for the inclusive trigger. Until we can
> > > > > > >implement that, we should optimize running conditions for (e,e'd), (e,e'p)
> > > > > > >and (e,e'n) both vector and tensor.
> > > > > > >Richard
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Tancredi Botto wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > A brief summary of the present understanding of deadtime sources from the
> > > > > > > > analysis of recent data:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Deadtime is limiting us in the use of higher beam currents. There are many
> > > > > > > > components to this: the most significant is "trackless" triggers that pass
> > > > > > > > the 2nd level trigger thanks to random hits in the wch. The ratio of
> > > > > > > > these fake 2ndl level triggers (abot 2/3 of total data) is consistent with
> > > > > > > > the Wch S/N ratios. The ratio of trackless triggers is nearly independent
> > > > > > > > of trigger type.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Trackless triggers have no known vertex or momentum distribution of course
> > > > > > > > but they contribute fully to DAQ deadtime. They are very sensitive to Wch
> > > > > > > > multiplicity and S/N. Possibly this is related also to the collimator
> > > > > > > design.
> > > > > > > > Trackless events really have too few wch hits (often < 3 hits in the tdc
> > > > > > > > range used in the reconstruction of the wch events). We can't use a
> > > > > > > > momentum cut to truly speak about deadtime..
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > A second contribution is coming from low-momentum particles that originate
> > > > > > > > mostly upstream of the target. These events constitute the vast majority
> > > > > > > > of "tracked" triggers, but a smaller fraction of the overall yield. They
> > > > > > > > are well characterized in momentum (100-200 MeV/c), charge (positrons for
> > > > > > > > inbending field, electrons for outbedending - both fire the Cerenkovs) and
> > > > > > > > location in the detector (tof #'s 10-14).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > These events must originate from 300 MeV photons in a EM shower. The
> > > > > > > shower
> > > > > > > > having photons (which are not "bent") may contribute again to the Wch S/N.
> > > > > > > > Note that trackless triggers are instead *uniformly* distributed in the
> > > > > > > TOF's
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > We have never experienced such a harsh environment before because we were
> > > > > > > > not running with an inclusive trigger (requires a cerenkov) prescaled by 6
> > > > > > > > and because we did not add the LADS to the e,e'n trigger. Having done so
> > > > > > > > it offers many more opportunities for trackless and low-energy-background
> > > > > > > > triggers. Indeed trig==2 and trig==7 are the dominant distribution of
> > > > > > > > trigger types.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > To make matters worse, any of these trigger rates will show a dependence
> > > > > > > > on beam current and as mentioned in the prev email it is important to
> > > > > > > > operate in a linear region. Regards,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -- tancredi
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
> > > > > > > > Tancredi Botto, phone: +1-617-253-9204 mobile:
> > > > > > > +1-978-490-4124
> > > > > > > > research scientist MIT/Bates, 21 Manning Av Middleton MA,
> > > > > > > 01949
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >--
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
-- John R. Calarco Dept. of Physics Univ. of New Hampshire Durham, NH 03824 phone: (603)862-2088 FAX: (603)862-2998 email: calarco@unh.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Mon Feb 24 2014 - 14:07:30 EST