Difference between revisions of "F2/XEM Mar 6, 2018 9:00am"

From HallCWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Created page with "Accelerator is down, initial estimate is ~2 weeks however there isa large uncertainty in this estimate.. Abel showed some results: https://hallcweb.jlab.org/elogs/E12-10-002...")
 
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
Back to [[F2/DailyMeeting | DailyMeeting ]]
 +
 +
== Minutes ==
 +
 
Accelerator is down, initial estimate is ~2 weeks however there isa large uncertainty in this estimate..
 
Accelerator is down, initial estimate is ~2 weeks however there isa large uncertainty in this estimate..
  
−
Abel showed some results: https://hallcweb.jlab.org/elogs/E12-10-002+Preparations/94
+
* Abel showed some results: [https://hallcweb.jlab.org/elogs/E12-10-002+Preparations/94]
−
He has been looking at data to MC comparisons for E’ = 4.5, 5.1.  
+
 
−
He showed the normalized yield for various momentum settings.  
+
looked at data to MC comparisons for E’ = 4.5, 5.1 and showed the normalized yield for various momentum settings. various PID cuts and target correction cuts applied. Suggested to utilized the 3/4 trigger efficiency.
−
He applies various PID cuts and target correction cuts.  
+
Currently cutting on BCM 1 & 2, however it was noticed that he should be utilizing BCM 4 as well as cutting on the BCM.
−
He is also accounting for taking efficiencies, pre-scales, and computer live times.  
 
−
It was suggested that he utilized the 3/4 trigger efficiency.  
 
−
He is currently cutting on BCM 1 & 2, however it was noticed that he should be utilizing BCM 4 as well as cutting on the BCM.  
 
 
Sangwha will work with Abel on this.
 
Sangwha will work with Abel on this.
−
Fernando showed some results: https://hallcweb.jlab.org/elogs/E12-10-002+Preparations/93
 
−
He is testing low momentum calibrations as applied to high momentum calibration runs. 
 
−
He also compared this to the defocused run calibration.  No discrepancies were observed.  It appears that the two were exactly identical.  Some suggestions regarding quantifying how identical the two calibrated runs are, e.g. take the ratio fo the two histograms.  It is not understood why we were seeing the E/p peak shift at higher momentum online when it is not visible off line.   Moving forward the parameter files need to be s anity checked to ensure that the correct parameters are being loaded in hcana at replay time.
 
  
−
Abishek reported that he will provide Abel with the necessary run by run DC calibrations.
+
* Fernando showed some results: [https://hallcweb.jlab.org/elogs/E12-10-002+Preparations/93]
 +
 
 +
Testing low momentum calibrations as applied to high momentum calibration runs. Compared this to the defocused run calibration. Appears that the two were exactly identical. Suggested to take the ratio of the two histograms.
 +
 
 +
* Abishek reported that he will provide Abel with the necessary run by run DC calibrations.

Latest revision as of 10:41, 7 March 2018

Back to DailyMeeting

Minutes

Accelerator is down, initial estimate is ~2 weeks however there isa large uncertainty in this estimate..

  • Abel showed some results: [1]

looked at data to MC comparisons for E’ = 4.5, 5.1 and showed the normalized yield for various momentum settings. various PID cuts and target correction cuts applied. Suggested to utilized the 3/4 trigger efficiency. Currently cutting on BCM 1 & 2, however it was noticed that he should be utilizing BCM 4 as well as cutting on the BCM. Sangwha will work with Abel on this.

  • Fernando showed some results: [2]

Testing low momentum calibrations as applied to high momentum calibration runs. Compared this to the defocused run calibration. Appears that the two were exactly identical. Suggested to take the ratio of the two histograms.

  • Abishek reported that he will provide Abel with the necessary run by run DC calibrations.
Retrieved from "https://hallcweb-2024.jlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=F2/XEM_Mar_6,_2018_9:00am&oldid=6982"