No objections from anyone - I was just comparing data from the same run
and saw:
for the same channel (RTOF11) there was a huge flasher shift but the
singles data looked fine! I saw the opposite occur in another channel. I
thought that if flasher shifted then ALL should shift - so this makes no
sense. I am still trying to figure it out. Hopefull I have made a
mistake. The bottom line is that this method, as it stands, is not
bulletproof and will result in bogus offsets
being written to the database for some channels (seemingly with good
flasher!) SO this is still under investigation.
Pete
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, Adrian T Sindile wrote:
> Hi, Pete!
>
> > For the channels with missing flasher, the work around is still in the
> > works - it may not be trivial to use singles - esp since there is no
> > Cerenkov for last 4 TOFs.
>
> I thought we decided on the method, why is it still in the works? Any
> objections from other people?
>
> Or is it just the implementation that's in the works, not our method?
> Just curious..
> Thanks!
>
> Adrian
>
----------------------------------------------
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