This is what I saw also and asked you to check. This is worrysome,
since we rely heavily on stable timing. Can we do these checks daily?
Vitaliy
Peter Karpius wrote:
>With Adrian's database record of timing vs. run number I have modified
>the raw tof tdc macro to plot flasher tdc and print an error message
>"CHECK TIMING" if the flasher peak is more than 40 channels (2ns) off of
>the mark (ch=1000). 2ns is the resolution of our programmable delays.
>See attached gif. This macro runs from raw data. It is:
>
>/home/daq/blast/pro2004/analysis/macros/Raw/raw_checktiming.C
>
> After doing some preliminary runs it looks like there
>actually has been a timing shift (see attached gif for run 5415 LTOP) I
>need to look at this before I conclude anything-
>
> Pete
>
>On Mon, 15 Mar 2004, Adrian T Sindile wrote:
>
>
>
>>Hi, Vitaliy!
>>I have been dumping those numbers into the database.
>>If I see any problem I will let you know.
>>
>>Adrian
>>
>>-------------------------------
>>Adrian Sindile
>>Research Assistant
>>Nuclear Physics Group
>>University of New Hampshire
>>phone: (603)862-1691
>>FAX: (603)862-2998
>>email: asindile@alberti.unh.edu
>>http://einstein.unh.edu/~adrian/
>>
>>
>>On Mon, 15 Mar 2004, vitaliy ziskin wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Is anyone monitoring tdc positions of a flasher in the tofs as a
>>>function of run numbers. It is very important for the neutron data.
>>>Please, someone who is in charge of tofs, look at it and let me know.
>>>
>>> Chees,
>>>Vitaliy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>----------------------------------------------
>Pete Karpius
>Graduate Research Assistant
>Nuclear Physics Group
>University of New Hampshire
>phone: (603)862-1220
>FAX: (603)862-2998
>email: karpiusp@einstein.unh.edu
>http://pubpages.unh.edu/~pkarpius/homepage.htm
>----------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Mon Feb 24 2014 - 14:07:30 EST