PP2PP
PP2PP page
A_NN, A_SS GPC paper review
Transverse double spin asymmetries in proton-proton elastic scattering
at sqrt(s)=200 GeV and small momentum transfer
Target Journal: Physics Letters B
PAs: Igor Alekseev, Andrzej Sandacz, Dmitry Svirida
Abstract:
Precise measurements of transverse double spin asymmetries A_NN and A_SS in proton-proton elastic scattering at very small values of four-momentum transfer squared, t, have been performed using the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) polarized proton beams. The measurements were made at the center-of-mass energy sqrt(s) = 200 GeV and in the region 0.003 < |t| < 0.035 (GeV/c)^2 , which was accessed using Roman Pot devices incorporated into the STAR experimental setup. The measured asymmetries are sensitive to the poorly known hadronic double spin-flip amplitudes. While one of these amplitudes, \phi_4 , is suppressed as t \to 0 due to angular momentum conservation, the second double spin-flip amplitude, \phi_2 , was found to be negative and small, but significantly different from zero. Combined with our earlier result on the single spin asymmetry A_N, the present results provide significant constraints for the theoretical descriptions of the reaction mechanism of proton-proton elastic scattering at very high energies.
Figure 1:
Figure 1: Difference in R2 double spin normalization ratio for BBC and ZDC as a function of the RHIC fill number during the experiment data taking.
Figure 2:
Figure 2: (a) STAR BBC small tiles: white - inner, hatched - outer; the central circle and the dot show the beam pipe and the beam; (b) hit multiplicity distribution in STAR BBC.
Figure 3:
Figure 3: Difference in R2 ratio for various BBC parts as a function of the RHIC fill number during the experiment data taking: (a) east and west arms compared for high multiplicity events; (b),(c) and (d) - correspondingly: 'inner' tiles, 'outer' tiles and high multiplicity events compared to the BBC as a whole.
Figure 4:
Figure 4: Angular distributions for the asymmetry \epsilon2(\phi)/(P_B P_Y) and their fit with A_2+ + A_2- cos 2\phi: top left - full t-range of the experiment, other panels - individual t-intervals.
Figure 5:
Figure 5: Magnified background part of the \chi2 distribution for one of the t intervals and its fit with a sum of exponent and linear function.
Figure 6:
Figure 6: Dependence of the extracted asymmetries on the \chi^2_cut value for one of the t-intervals and their fits with quadratic polynomials.
Figure 7:
Figure 7: Results on the double spin asymmetries A2+ (left) and A2- (right) and their fits to extract relative amplitudes r2 and r4 .
Figure 8:
Figure 8: 1\sigma confidence level ellipses for the relative amplitudes r2 (left) and r4 (right).
Paper Conclusions:
In conclusion, we present precise measurements of transverse double spin asymmetries in elastic proton-proton scattering at the CNI region and sqrt(s) = 200 GeV. The experimental uncertainty of the result is about a factor of 10 smaller than that of the previous measurements at the same energy.
Extensive studies were performed to evaluate and reduce systematic uncertainties originating from the relative luminosity and a background asymmetry. A detailed analysis of the data from various detectors and processes was carried out in a search for an optimal monitor of the relative bunch luminosity, which should be insensitive to double spin asymmetries. It led to the choice of the BBC detectors. The background asymmetry is not related to any physics process, but is dominated by accidental coincidences of scattered protons with beam halo particles. This background effect was studied and subtracted using two approaches, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. The conservative estimate of the corresponding uncertainty was obtained by comparing the results from both approaches.
The measured asymmetry (A_NN - A_SS )/2 is compatible with zero. On the contrary the values of (A_NN + A_SS )/2 are significantly below zero. Its t-dependence is flat and the absolute values are of the order of 0.005. Our results are at variance, both for the sign and t-dependence, with the latest predictions [4] of the model based on the Regge theory. Using the extracted values of the relative double spin-flip amplitudes r2 and r4 , we conclude that the hadronic double spin-flip amplitudes \phi_2^had and \phi_4^had are different at our kinematic range. This indicates that the exchange mechanism is more complex than an exchange of Regge poles only. This conclusion is further supported by comparing \phi_2^had with the STAR result on the single spin-flip amplitude \phi_5^had [3].
The STAR measurements of the double and single spin asymmetries, with small uncertainties and at high energy, provide important constraints for theoretical models aiming to describe the spin-dependence of elastic scattering.
Recent Presentations:
DUBNA-SPIN2013 talk on asymmetries
DUBNA-SPIN2013 talk on asymmetry uncertainties
Comments exchange / paper discussion
Supporting Documents:
Relative luminosity and normalization uncertainties
Double spin asymmetries analysis note
Paper Drafts:
Collection of Paper Draft revisions
References:
[1] V. Barone, E. Predazzi, High-Energy Particle Diffraction, number XIII in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics, Springer Verlag, 2002. ISBN: 3540421076.
[2] S. Donnachie, G. Dosch, P. Landshoff, O. Nachtmann, Pomeron Physics and QCD, Cambridge Monographs on Particle Physics, Nuclear Physics and Cosmology, Cambridge University Press, 2005. ISBN: 9780521675703.
[3] L. Adamczyk, et al. (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B719 (2013) 62-69. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2013.01.014. arXiv:1206.1928.
[4] T. Trueman, Phys. Rev. D77 (2008) 054005. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77. 054005. arXiv:0711.4593.
[5] K. Ackermann, et al. (STAR Collaboration), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A499 (2003) 624-632. doi:10.1016/S0168-9002(02)01960-5.
[6] I. Alekseev, A. Bravar, G. Bunce, S. Dhawan, K. Eyser, et al., Phys. Rev. D79 (2009) 094014. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.79.094014.
[7] S. Bueltmann, et al., Phys. Lett. B647 (2007) 98-103. doi:10.1016/j. physletb.2007.01.67. arXiv:nucl-ex/0008005.
[8] N. H. Buttimore, B. Kopeliovich, E. Leader, J. Soffer, T. Trueman, Phys. Rev. D59 (1999) 114010. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.59.114010. arXiv:hep-ph/9901339.
[9] E. Leader, T. Trueman, Phys. Rev. D61 (2000) 077504. doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.61.077504. arXiv:hep-ph/9908221.
[10] L. Lukaszuk, B. Nicolescu, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 8 (1973) 405.
[11] T. Trueman (2005). arXiv:hep-ph/0604153.
[12] N. H. Buttimore, E. Gotsman, E. Leader, Phys. Rev. D18 (1978) 694-716. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.18.694.
[13] R. Battiston, et al. (Amsterdam-CERN-Genoa-Naples-Pisa Collaboration), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A238 (1985) 35. doi:10.1016/0168-9002(85) 91024-1.
[14] D. Svirida, for the STAR Collaboration (STAR Collaboration), Conf. Proc. of XV Advanced Research Workshop on High Energy Spin Physics (DSPIN- 13, Dubna, October 8-12, 2013) C131008 (2014) 319-322.
[15] C. Adler, A. Denisov, E. Garcia, M. J. Murray, H. Strobele, et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A470 (2001) 488-499. doi:10.1016/S0168-9002(01) 00627-1. arXiv:nucl-ex/0008005.
[16] C. Whitten (STAR Collaboration), AIP Conf. Proc. 980 (2008) 390-396. doi:10.1063/1.2888113.
[17] CNI Polarimeter Group at BNL (2012). URL: https://wiki.bnl.gov/rhicspin/Results.
A_N Paper GPC and Collab. Review
This is the webpage for the GPC review of the paper
Single Spin Asymmetry AN in Polarized Proton-Proton Elastic Collisions at sqrt(s) = 200 GeV
Analysis Note
Analysis Note (Kin Yip)
There is also a copy at the STAR Notes area:http://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/starnotes/private/psn0559 .
A_N Paper Draft
Paper Draft Feb. 24
Paper Draft (Feb. 2 2012)
Paper Draft Feb. 28, 2012
Version 1 (Apr. 4-12, 2012)
Version 1 --- maintained by Kin Yip
Done
Version 2 (after Collaboration Review)
Originally from the complete version (http://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/blog/yipkin/2012/apr/26/paper-q-a) which includes implementation of a lot of obvious text corrections and here only those related to "Physics" are included :
Flemming Videbaek :
A few persons/groups have made suggestions to this sentence. Now it's changed to be:
"The Roman Pot stations are located on either side of the STAR interaction point (IP) at 55.5 m and 58.5 m with horizontal and vertical insertions of detectors respectively."
Andrzej Sandacz:
> B) line 211 and Eqs (7), (8), (9)
> L^{eff}, and also L^{eff}_x, L^{eff}_y are not defined explicitely.
> One can try to infer which elements of the transport matrix may correspond to L^{eff} by guessing that
> they must be the largest values, but still distiction between L^{eff}_x and L^{eff}_y is not
> straightforward. The problem arised after replacing Eq. (7) written formerly for the general case in
> terms of symbols, by the present selected example with values of the transport matrix elements for
> a particular store. I understand the aim of the change: to give idea about values of TM elements.
> But for an average reader these precise values probably are only of moderate interest. Thus I would
> propose to go back to the previous version, i.e. general Eq. (7) with symbols, which is more transparent.
Now, we have the transport matrix in both symbols and in real nos. and so L^{eff}_x and L^{eff}_y are clearly defined.
Hal for the Argonne group :
> ** l.168 - maybe change "downstream" -> "away from"??
A few persons/groups have made suggestions to this sentence. Now it's changed to be:
"The Roman Pot stations are located on either side of the STAR interaction point (IP) at 55.5 m and 58.5 m with horizontal and vertical insertions of detectors respectively."
> ** l.225 - "... with p = 100.22 GeV/c the beam momentum." or something like this to explain why p is not 100.00.
Actually, even the total energy is not 100.00 GeV. All of these come from the fact that G-gamma has been set to be 191.5 between 191 and 192 (to avoid integers which might result in resonance). We've changed it to be "p = 100.2 GeV/c" as have the fraction error in the order about 1e-4.
> ** Eq. 11 - this equation assumes perfectly transversely polarized beams. We believe it is possible that due to
> non-ideal beam orbits and magnetic fields or magnet alignments, the beams may have a small longitudinal
> component at the STAR IR even when the rotators are off. This could lead to a (A_LS = A_SL)sin(phi) term in the
> equation. It will (probably) also be negligible in your analysis as you describe ~ line 241. Please consider whether
> you wish to add such a term in the equation and a couple words in the text about it. Alternately, you might
> mention that higher order correction terms are ignored in the equation.
We now mention "higher order correction terms are ignored" under Equation 11, as you suggest.
> ** l.272 - perhaps quote the actual values instead of "~55" and "~10"??
The "collinearity" in reality is slightly different from run to run, not just one single value.
> ** l.283 - do we understand correctly that there may be a false asymmetry that is proportional to the beam polarization, and it has not been ruled out by your tests?
There we try to explain in detail that the false asymmetry is ~ 0.
> ** Fig.6 - The text and error bar run into each other for (d).
> Fig.6 caption - is the vertical dashed line the average of experimental values or just zero or ...??
> Please include in the caption.
We've added "The vertical dashed line indicates where Im($r_5$)=0." at the end of the Fig. 6 caption.
> ** l.299,300 - this sentence is a bit confusing. You use "variable" for both deltaB and Re r_5, we believe. Maybe
> something like "The remaining lines show changes of Re r_5 and Im r_5 when the parameter was varied by +/- 1
> sigma during the fit procedure." We are not sure this is even what is meant. Sorry.
Actually, you've understood perfectly. We've made the changes as you've suggested.
> ** l.308,9 - "... more emphasized in estimating ..." we are confused by this and aren't sure what the
> authors are trying to say.
It just says the AN peak is more sensitive to Im(r5) and thus attracts more attention. This explains why we look at the Im(r5)'s in Fig. 6.
Panjab University :
> Page 6 line no. 222
> After the selection chi**2 < 9, please explain.
Most cuts are at 3 sigma-level and so this so-called chi**2 at 3-sigma is 3**2 = 9.
> Page 7 FIG. 3
> Is it possible to display the distribution of forbidden asymmetry for the five t ranges in
> FIG. 3(a)-(e) instead of showing for the whole range of t in FIG.3f?
>In FIG. 3(a) the error bars are large for two points around phi 80. Similar trend is seen in FIG. 3(e).
>It is not seen for the negative phi values. Any reason.
We feel that the figures are already too busy and it's not good to add more. The larger error b\
ars are because of low statistics and they're related to how close the respective vertical roma\
n pots were moved to the center of the beampipe. During the run, we tried to move the pots as c\
lose to the beampipe as possible without having too much background.
> Page 8 Table 1
> First bin (0.003< -t <0.005), the statistics is less(20%) as compared to other bin. Its width is
> 0.002 as compared to 0.005 and 0.15 for other bins. I think fit in FIG. 4 should be made removing this point.
The point with the smallest -t range is probably the most interesting point in this measurement\
and it contributes a lot in determining the shape.
Janusz from the Cracow group :
> General:
> Explain fully the coordinate system shown in Fig. 1
In the caption of Fig. 1, I now add "Positive y is pointing towards the sky and positive x is pointing to the center of the RHIC ring."
> 144. At very high energy sqrt(s) - -> At high centre of mass energy, sqrt(s),
Now, we define "center of mass energy" for sqrt(s) in "Introduction" (the 1st time that it appears, line 127) and here, we just say "At very high sqrt(s)".
> 154-155. The contribution of the two spin-flip amplitudes, …., to the asymmetry AN is small as indicated by both experimental estimates [] and th. pred.[18]
OK. We have changed it to :
"The contribution of the two double spin-flip hadronic amplitudes, …., to the asymmetry AN is small, as indicated by both th. pred.[18] and experimental estimates [19,20]".
> Section 3
> 168. on each side - -> on West and East side
A few persons/groups have made suggestions to this sentence. Now it's changed to be:
"The Roman Pot stations are located on either side of the STAR interaction point (IP) at 55.5 m and 58.5 m with horizontal and vertical insertions of detectors respectively."
> 190. Give also value of the distance of 10 mm in units of the beam width at RPs.
It's about 10-12 sigma's but it's probably difficult to be exact.
> 214. small correction less than 4 $\mu$rad, the full - -> small, less than 4 $\mu$rad, correction, the full
We've adopted Hal's suggestion : "small corrections of less than 4 $\mu$rad" .
> 218-221. are not very clear, especially the use of “similar’ or “typical”
> replace: are taken from the fits similar to those in Fig. 2 - -> are taken from the fits to data performed for each run. An example is presented in Figs. 2(a) and 2(b).
We've changed to "are taken from the fits to data performed for each data segment. An example is shown in Fig.~2."
> 257. the position of the t = 0 trajectory … - -> the position of the t = 0 elastically scattered proton trajectory or the beam position
"t = 0 trajectory" is an ideal trajectory with no scattering.
> 268-269. The simulation included … optics - -> Simulation of the elastically scattered proton transport through the
> RHIC magnetic lattice and the apertures was performed and the detector acceptance was calculated.
The present form seems cleaner and the acceptance is mentioned in the following sentence.
> 274-275. Assuming the background is unpolarized - -> Assuming that the background is the beam polarization
> independent …
"unpolarized" is probably easier to understand.
>298-302. Table II shows the fitted values of Re r5 and Im r5 together with statistical and total systematic
> uncertainties. Also, the contributionsto the systematic uncertainty are given in this table. They are due to:
> systematic uncertainty on Leff , alignment ……. .They were obtained by changing the value of the considered
> parameter by $\pm$1 standard deviation.
A few people have commented/suggested, we've changed to:
"In Table II, we show the central value of the fit and uncertainties on Re$\:r_5$ and Im$\:r_5$ due to various effects. In the first line of the table, the statistical error to the fit with the central value of the parameters is shown. The remaining lines show changes of Re$\:r_5$ and Im$\:r_5$, when the parameter was varied by $\pm$1$\:\sigma$ during the fit procedure. ......"
> 308-309 Remove sentence: Since the maximum... since it is not needed
This sentence explains why we look at Im(r5), but not Re(r5).
> Present the main result with bold face font
It's difficult to say which nos. are more important in this table. ( And we have changed 1st two lines into one line as Andrzej has suggested. )
> Table II. …. Measurement induced uncertainties (1) – statistical, …. (4). Uncertainties associated with the fit: (5) – the total cross-section …
Changed to "Table II: ..... (1): Statistical Uncertainties. (2)-(4): Systematic uncertainties associated with this measurement.
(5)-(7): Systematic uncertainties associated with ...."
Steven Heppelmann for Penn State U. :
>If I look for an issue it would be the rather large chi-square value on Figure 3b (32.68 for 17 DOF). This is fairly unlikely
>(1-2%) and might suggest that the errors bars on the 17 points should actually be about sqrt[2] larger than the ones
>plotted. In fact, most of the points of Figure 3 have chi2/dof >1 which as a group is somewhat unlikely too.
>Because the statistical error from the fits are only about 1/2 of the error on polarization, I don't think the story would
>change much but I just wanted to comment and ask if some words in the text should be added to indicate that this has
>been considered in the systematic error analysis.
If we look at the variation of point-to-point, it's bigger than statistical variations. That means there
are some point-to-point systematic uncertainties. These variations are likely from the variations of
geometry of t=0 and the uncertainties are factored in systematic uncertainty of delta_t(alignment).
If we add systematic errors to the points before the fits, we'll certainly get better/more realistic chi-sqs.
The other point is that the function we are fitting with is not "perfect".
If we add high order/off-set terms, such as phi0 which we've decided to drop, chi-squares get better.
We have chi2/dof = 11.1/16, 25.8/16, 12.6/16, 23.2/16, and 14.2/16 for the 5-bins (when phi0 is included).
The errors look small partly because we use the same “large scale” for all the plots because
we want to accommodate the with the largest AN scale, ie. 3(a), in which the chi2/dof = 11.32/17 < 1.
For the other 3 fits, chi2/dof~1.18, 1.54 and 1.32 which seem to be reasonable experimental fitting results.
And of course, we've used the method/formula to calculate the error on each bin.
Shan Dong University :
> 1)In line 214,215, "full transport matrix was used", does this mean Eq(8),Eq(9) and L_{x,y}^{eff} are not used for
> the calculation of angles? If so, how to understand the uncertainties of L^{eff} in line 257,263,274 and in table II?
> Or they are only used in estimating the uncertainties?
L^{eff} (for x or y) are just two of the elements (the two > 20 m) in the transport matrix
and so when the transport matrix was used, they were indeed used. These were the two dominating terms in the transport matrix and the other elements are very small
compared to L^{eff}. Conceptually, it's often easier to just consider these two terms
when you try to understand various things in the analysis. So, equations (8) and (9) are
just approximations to help people understand/grasp the main idea and the transport
matrix has been used in the analysis. And indeed, the uncertainties L^{eff} are
essentially the uncertainties of the transport.
> 3) Line 241: "preliminary results of this experiment [20] show that..."
> Are these results not part of this analysis or not further checked using the
> final data sample? It is a bit surprising to cite preliminary results of ourselves
> for the same analysis, as we are the same collaboration or group.
The double-spin asymmetries A_NN/A_SS indeed belong to another set of analysis. Unlike the single-spin asymmetry (A_N) in this paper, there is NO square-root formula for extracting A_NN/A_SS. The square-root formula helps cancel out a lot of luminositybunch variance etc. We therefore need reliable normalization (bunch intensities etc.) for the A_NN/A_SS analysis which is an ongoing effort. We'd like to publish the A_N and r5 results first.
> 4) In line 305, "Re r_5 =0.00167 +/- 0.0063 in line 306 Im r_5=0.00722+/-0.057",
> The rounding of the digits should be consistent and make real sense as in other places
> in the paper.
What we've done is to show 3 significant figures for the measurements and 2-significant figures
for the errors. A "typical" (but not always) rule for displaying experimental uncertainties is to show
1-significant figure less since the uncertainty is an estimate and cannot be more precise than the best
estimate of the measured value. For some errors are too small compared to the dominant one (polarization),
so we've also restricted the significance to 4 decimal points which is ~O(1%) of relative accuracy.
Stephen Bültmann :
> line 171 : only -> almost exclusively
Done !
> line 172 : insensitive -> nearly insensitive
Done !
Last edited by Kin (May 9, 2012)
Version 3.2 (May 24, 2012)
Version3.2(May 30, 2012)
Vfinal: Submission to PLB
The pdf file of the paper and tex/figures in tar-gzipped format are attached here.
Alignment and Survey
Note on Survey Alignment of the Roman Pots
Local Alignment
Corrections to Local Alignment
Analysis Codes
-
The MuDst (for the 2009 pp2pp/STAR run) was made using the $STAR/StRoot/St_pp2pp_Maker together with all other standard packages in the STAR reconstruction chain.
- The codes to analyze the MuDst are only AnalyzeMu.h and AnalyzeMu.C in $CVSROOT/offline/pp2pp/kinyip .
- Officially, at the end of the GPC review, the above testing codes have been put in the official area of $CVSROOT/offline/paper/psn0559.
Running it requires several input files and some of which depend on which run number you're running against.
// ---------- Codes (say "mytest.C") to compile and run once if you have the filename(s) in .file.list --------------
// --- several run-dependent input files are really needed to run it meaningfully.
class StChain;
StChain *chain=0;
void mytest( string output_file = "hist.root" ){
gROOT->LoadMacro("$STAR/StRoot/StMuDSTMaker/COMMON/macros/loadSharedLibraries.C");
loadSharedLibraries();
gSystem->Load("libStBFChain");
gROOT->LoadMacro("${HOME}/MuDstpp2pp/AnalyzeMu.C++");
chain = new StBFChain();
StMuDstMaker *maker = new StMuDstMaker(0,0,"",".file.list","",1000);
AnalyzeMu( maker, output_file ) ;
if ( chain != 0 ) delete chain ;
return ;
}
// -------------------------- End -----------------------------------------------
Comments by the GPC and replies by the PAs
Optics and Magnet Strength Determination
Phil's notes
Response to Collaboration Review
1. The latest Version 3.2 draft of the paper can be found:
http://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/subsys/pp2pp/anpaper-review/paper-draft/version32may-30-2012
2. Our responses to the comments from the collaboration, with links to responses to individual institutions can be found below. You should see by the name of the file.
http://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/subsys/pp2pp/anpaper-review/response-collaboration-review
We also created a file which contains summary of responses to the comments and major questions. The link to the file can be found on the bottom of the list.
xxxx
SPin Formalism A_N
A_N Paper Proposal
Paper Proposal (JH Lee)
Collaborators' files
Andrew Gordon
You do not have access to view this node
Andrzej Sandacz
Angelika Drees
Dana Beavis
Dave Underwood
Dmitry Svirida
Donika Plyku
Igor Alekseev
Ivan Koralt
J.H. Lee
Kin Yip
My analysis note for the 2009 data
May still update from time to time.
Stephen Bueltman
Steve Tepikian
Tomek Obrebski
Cuts Technical Notes
Tonko Ljubicic
Wlodek Guryn
Conference proceedings
Conference talks and presentations
Phase II information
Run 2009 information
List of runs
| Run # | Date | Start | Stop | Duration | # Events | # Elastic | Elas Frac | Comment | Store | Pos | B Left | B Right | B Top | B Bot | Y Left | Y Right | Y Top | Y Bot |
| 10181085 | 30-Jun | 22:53 | 23:21 | 0:28 | 999833 | 548950 | 0.55 | 1 | 1 | 10.3 | 10.3 | 15.4 | 15.2 | 10.4 | 10.6 | 10.3 | 10.5 | |
| 10181086 | 30-Jun | 23:23 | 0:16 | 0:53 | 1999935 | 972055 | 0.49 | 1 | 1 | 10.3 | 10.3 | 15.4 | 15.2 | 10.4 | 10.6 | 10.3 | 10.5 | |
| 10182001 | 1-Jul | 0:17 | 0:32 | 0:15 | 559257 | 270138 | 0.48 | 1 | 1 | 10.3 | 10.3 | 15.4 | 15.2 | 10.4 | 10.6 | 10.3 | 10.5 | |
| 10182002 | 1-Jul | 0:34 | 1:29 | 0:55 | 1999945 | 970560 | 0.49 | 1 | 1 | 10.3 | 10.3 | 15.4 | 15.2 | 10.4 | 10.6 | 10.3 | 10.5 | |
| 10182003 | 1-Jul | 1:31 | 1:33 | 0:02 | 10001 | 0.00 | pedestal | 1 | 1 | 10.3 | 10.3 | 15.4 | 15.2 | 10.4 | 10.6 | 10.3 | 10.5 | |
| 10182004 | 1-Jul | 1:34 | 2:32 | 0:58 | 1999950 | 964171 | 0.48 | 1 | 1 | 10.3 | 10.3 | 15.4 | 15.2 | 10.4 | 10.6 | 10.3 | 10.5 | |
| 10182005 | 1-Jul | 2:33 | 3:32 | 0:59 | 1999839 | 962600 | 0.48 | 1 | 1 | 10.3 | 10.3 | 15.4 | 15.2 | 10.4 | 10.6 | 10.3 | 10.5 | |
| 10182006 | 1-Jul | 3:34 | 4:36 | 1:02 | 1999942 | 950144 | 0.48 | 1 | 1 | 10.3 | 10.3 | 15.4 | 15.2 | 10.4 | 10.6 | 10.3 | 10.5 | |
| 10182011 | 1-Jul | 5:58 | 6:00 | 0:02 | 10001 | 0.00 | pedestal | 1 | 1 | 10.3 | 10.3 | 15.4 | 15.2 | 10.4 | 10.6 | 10.3 | 10.5 | |
| 10182015 | 1-Jul | 7:13 | 8:15 | 1:02 | 1999916 | 1016735 | 0.51 | 1 | 2 | 8.9 | 10.3 | 10.2 | 10.2 | 10.2 | 10.3 | 5.0 | 10.3 | |
| 10182016 | 1-Jul | 8:20 | 9:31 | 1:11 | 1999957 | 980482 | 0.49 | 1 | 2 | 8.9 | 10.3 | 10.2 | 10.2 | 10.2 | 10.3 | 5.0 | 10.3 | |
| 10182021 | 1-Jul | 10:12 | 10:36 | 0:24 | 675560 | 333461 | 0.49 | 1 | 2 | 8.9 | 10.3 | 10.2 | 10.2 | 10.2 | 10.3 | 5.0 | 10.3 | |
| 10182025 | 1-Jul | 10:57 | 12:02 | 1:05 | 1593827 | 741882 | 0.47 | 1 | 2 | 8.9 | 10.3 | 10.2 | 10.2 | 10.2 | 10.3 | 5.0 | 10.3 | |
| 10183005 | 2-Jul | 0:16 | 0:17 | 0:01 | 10001 | 0.00 | pedestal | 2 | 3 | 10.2 | 10.3 | 10.2 | 10.2 | 16.9 | 17.2 | 15.9 | 16.6 | |
| 10183013 | 2-Jul | 1:44 | 2:03 | 0:19 | 778275 | 312823 | 0.40 | no STAR | 2 | 3 | 10.2 | 10.3 | 10.2 | 10.2 | 16.9 | 17.2 | 15.9 | 16.6 |
| 10183014 | 2-Jul | 2:04 | 2:17 | 0:13 | 484155 | 204489 | 0.42 | no STAR | 2 | 3 | 10.2 | 10.3 | 10.2 | 10.2 | 16.9 | 17.2 | 15.9 | 16.6 |
| 10183015 | 2-Jul | 2:20 | 3:12 | 0:52 | 1999933 | 799304 | 0.40 | 2 | 3 | 10.2 | 10.3 | 10.2 | 10.2 | 16.9 | 17.2 | 15.9 | 16.6 | |
| 10183016 | 2-Jul | 3:13 | 4:08 | 0:55 | 1999935 | 795409 | 0.40 | 2 | 3 | 10.2 | 10.3 | 10.2 | 10.2 | 16.9 | 17.2 | 15.9 | 16.6 | |
| 10183017 | 2-Jul | 4:10 | 5:09 | 0:59 | 1999969 | 793377 | 0.40 | 2 | 3 | 10.2 | 10.3 | 10.2 | 10.2 | 16.9 | 17.2 | 15.9 | 16.6 | |
| 10183018 | 2-Jul | 5:23 | 6:19 | 0:56 | 1999933 | 842789 | 0.42 | 2 | 4 | 10.2 | 10.3 | 10.2 | 10.2 | 14.5 | 14.7 | 10.9 | 12.8 | |
| 10183019 | 2-Jul | 6:22 | 6:24 | 0:02 | 10001 | 0.00 | pedestal | 2 | 4 | 10.2 | 10.3 | 10.2 | 10.2 | 14.5 | 14.7 | 10.9 | 12.8 | |
| 10183020 | 2-Jul | 6:27 | 7:27 | 1:00 | 1999960 | 838079 | 0.42 | 2 | 4 | 10.2 | 10.3 | 10.2 | 10.2 | 14.5 | 14.7 | 10.9 | 12.8 | |
| 10183021 | 2-Jul | 7:29 | 8:32 | 1:03 | 1999942 | 833429 | 0.42 | 2 | 4 | 10.2 | 10.3 | 10.2 | 10.2 | 14.5 | 14.7 | 10.9 | 12.8 | |
| 10183025 | 2-Jul | 8:50 | 8:51 | 0:01 | 10001 | 0.00 | pedestal | 2 | 5 | 6.4 | 9.0 | 8.9 | 8.9 | 7.6 | 12.8 | 7.8 | 9.6 | |
| 10183027 | 2-Jul | 9:10 | 9:46 | 0:36 | 1394100 | 638263 | 0.46 | 2 | 5 | 6.4 | 9.0 | 8.9 | 8.9 | 7.6 | 12.8 | 7.8 | 9.6 | |
| 10183028 | 2-Jul | 9:53 | 11:24 | 1:31 | 3428889 | 1578849 | 0.46 | 2 | 5 | 6.4 | 9.0 | 8.9 | 8.9 | 7.6 | 12.8 | 7.8 | 9.6 | |
| 10183034 | 2-Jul | 12:59 | 13:33 | 0:34 | 998537 | 448586 | 0.45 | 2 | 6 | 8.9 | 8.4 | 10.2 | 10.2 | 7.0 | 7.8 | 7.1 | 7.1 | |
| 10183035 | 2-Jul | 13:36 | 14:16 | 0:40 | 1096472 | 479953 | 0.44 | 2 | 7 | 8.9 | 8.4 | 10.2 | 10.2 | 8.0 | 8.8 | 8.1 | 8.1 | |
| 10183036 | 2-Jul | 14:17 | 14:18 | 0:01 | 267 | 0.00 | CP trig test | 2 | 7 | 8.9 | 8.4 | 10.2 | 10.2 | 8.0 | 8.8 | 8.1 | 8.1 | |
| 10183037 | 2-Jul | 14:20 | 15:34 | 1:14 | 1999962 | 879881 | 0.44 | 2 | 7 | 8.9 | 8.4 | 10.2 | 10.2 | 8.0 | 8.8 | 8.1 | 8.1 | |
| 10183038 | 2-Jul | 15:35 | 15:42 | 0:07 | 160125 | 70097 | 0.44 | beam abort | 2 | 7 | 8.9 | 8.4 | 10.2 | 10.2 | 8.0 | 8.8 | 8.1 | 8.1 |
| 10183061 | 2-Jul | 21:05 | 21:07 | 0:02 | 10001 | 0.00 | X-shift 15 | 3 | 8 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 | |
| 10183062 | 2-Jul | 21:07 | 21:07 | 0:00 | 154 | 0.00 | X-shift 17 | 3 | 8 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 | |
| 10183065 | 2-Jul | 21:16 | 21:17 | 0:01 | 10001 | 0.00 | X-shift 11 | 3 | 8 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 | |
| 10183066 | 2-Jul | 21:18 | 21:20 | 0:02 | 10001 | 0.00 | X-shift 13 | 3 | 8 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 | |
| 10184002 | 3-Jul | 1:08 | 1:10 | 0:02 | 10001 | 0.00 | pedestal | 4 | 9 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 25.0 | |
| 10184016 | 3-Jul | 4:09 | 4:52 | 0:43 | 1855459 | 805218 | 0.43 | 4 | 10 | 10.3 | 10.3 | 14.1 | 11.4 | 19.5 | 16.0 | 16.5 | 19.1 | |
| 10184017 | 3-Jul | 4:53 | 5:43 | 0:50 | 1999853 | 866765 | 0.43 | 4 | 10 | 10.3 | 10.3 | 14.1 | 11.4 | 19.5 | 16.0 | 16.5 | 19.1 | |
| 10184018 | 3-Jul | 5:45 | 6:36 | 0:51 | 1999925 | 804721 | 0.40 | 4 | 11 | 10.3 | 10.3 | 15.3 | 12.6 | 19.5 | 16.0 | 16.5 | 19.1 | |
| 10184019 | 3-Jul | 6:37 | 7:28 | 0:51 | 1999957 | 798679 | 0.40 | 4 | 11 | 10.3 | 10.3 | 15.3 | 12.6 | 19.5 | 16.0 | 16.5 | 19.1 | |
| 10184020 | 3-Jul | 7:30 | 8:24 | 0:54 | 1999951 | 796463 | 0.40 | 4 | 11 | 10.3 | 10.3 | 15.3 | 12.6 | 19.5 | 16.0 | 16.5 | 19.1 | |
| 10184021 | 3-Jul | 8:25 | 8:30 | 0:05 | 181881 | 72200 | 0.40 | 4 | 11 | 10.3 | 10.3 | 15.3 | 12.6 | 19.5 | 16.0 | 16.5 | 19.1 | |
| 10184030 | 3-Jul | 10:55 | 11:54 | 0:59 | 1999956 | 883236 | 0.44 | 4 | 12 | 9.1 | 9.1 | 9.6 | 8.9 | 8.3 | 8.3 | 8.4 | 8.4 | |
| 10184031 | 3-Jul | 11:54 | 12:53 | 0:59 | 1999935 | 885745 | 0.44 | 4 | 12 | 9.1 | 9.1 | 9.6 | 8.9 | 8.3 | 8.3 | 8.4 | 8.4 | |
| 10184032 | 3-Jul | 12:54 | 13:53 | 0:59 | 1999939 | 887591 | 0.44 | 4 | 12 | 9.1 | 9.1 | 9.6 | 8.9 | 8.3 | 8.3 | 8.4 | 8.4 | |
| 10184033 | 3-Jul | 13:54 | 14:53 | 0:59 | 1999969 | 899709 | 0.45 | 4 | 12 | 9.1 | 9.1 | 9.6 | 8.9 | 8.3 | 8.3 | 8.4 | 8.4 | |
| 10184034 | 3-Jul | 14:53 | 14:55 | 0:02 | 288 | 1 | 0.00 | beam abort | 4 | 12 | 9.1 | 9.1 | 9.6 | 8.9 | 8.3 | 8.3 | 8.4 | 8.4 |
| 10184038 | 3-Jul | 15:25 | 15:27 | 0:02 | 10001 | 0.00 | pedestal | 5 | 13 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 25.0 | |
| 10184044 | 3-Jul | 18:35 | 18:37 | 0:02 | 10001 | 0.00 | pedestal | 5 | 13 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 25.0 | |
| 10185001 | 4-Jul | 0:29 | 0:30 | 0:01 | 27297 | 10982 | 0.40 | TPC limit | 6 | 14 | 9.0 | 9.8 | 19.3 | 16.6 | 20.1 | 17.9 | 17.3 | 19.1 |
| 10185002 | 4-Jul | 0:32 | 0:32 | 0:00 | 8866 | 3991 | 0.45 | rate limit | 6 | 14 | 9.0 | 9.8 | 19.3 | 16.6 | 20.1 | 17.9 | 17.3 | 19.1 |
| 10185003 | 4-Jul | 0:34 | 0:40 | 0:06 | 253838 | 116882 | 0.46 | TPC limit | 6 | 14 | 9.0 | 9.8 | 19.3 | 16.6 | 20.1 | 17.9 | 17.3 | 19.1 |
| 10185004 | 4-Jul | 0:42 | 1:28 | 0:46 | 1999884 | 978901 | 0.49 | 6 | 14 | 9.0 | 9.8 | 19.3 | 16.6 | 20.1 | 17.9 | 17.3 | 19.1 | |
| 10185005 | 4-Jul | 1:29 | 2:16 | 0:47 | 1999912 | 971976 | 0.49 | 6 | 14 | 9.0 | 9.8 | 19.3 | 16.6 | 20.1 | 17.9 | 17.3 | 19.1 | |
| 10185006 | 4-Jul | 2:17 | 3:10 | 0:53 | 1999923 | 958470 | 0.48 | 6 | 14 | 9.0 | 9.8 | 19.3 | 16.6 | 20.1 | 17.9 | 17.3 | 19.1 | |
| 10185007 | 4-Jul | 3:16 | 3:46 | 0:30 | 1125 | 0.00 | Vernier scan | 6 | 15 | 70.0 | 70.0 | 70.0 | 70.0 | 70.0 | 70.0 | 70.0 | 70.0 | |
| 10185008 | 4-Jul | 3:47 | 3:52 | 0:05 | 320 | 0.00 | VPD min bias | 6 | 15 | 70.0 | 70.0 | 70.0 | 70.0 | 70.0 | 70.0 | 70.0 | 70.0 | |
| 10185013 | 4-Jul | 4:32 | 4:35 | 0:03 | 10001 | 0.00 | pedestal | 6 | 15 | 70.0 | 70.0 | 70.0 | 70.0 | 70.0 | 70.0 | 70.0 | 70.0 | |
| 10185015 | 4-Jul | 5:00 | 5:02 | 0:02 | 10001 | 0.00 | pedestal | 6 | 16 | 6.5 | 8.4 | 10.2 | 7.0 | 13.2 | 10.9 | 10.3 | 12.8 | |
| 10185016 | 4-Jul | 5:17 | 5:25 | 0:08 | 59102 | 31092 | 0.53 | no-0 supp | 6 | 16 | 6.5 | 8.4 | 10.2 | 7.0 | 13.2 | 10.9 | 10.3 | 12.8 |
| 10185018 | 4-Jul | 5:28 | 6:14 | 0:46 | 1999921 | 1068287 | 0.53 | 6 | 16 | 6.5 | 8.4 | 10.2 | 7.0 | 13.2 | 10.9 | 10.3 | 12.8 | |
| 10185019 | 4-Jul | 6:19 | 7:04 | 0:45 | 1999908 | 1064505 | 0.53 | 6 | 17 | 7.1 | 8.4 | 10.8 | 7.6 | 13.2 | 10.9 | 10.3 | 12.8 | |
| 10185020 | 4-Jul | 7:04 | 7:48 | 0:44 | 1999758 | 1086820 | 0.54 | 6 | 17 | 7.1 | 8.4 | 10.8 | 7.6 | 13.2 | 10.9 | 10.3 | 12.8 | |
| 10185023 | 4-Jul | 7:58 | 8:32 | 0:34 | 1469066 | 799732 | 0.54 | beam abort | 6 | 17 | 7.1 | 8.4 | 10.8 | 7.6 | 13.2 | 10.9 | 10.3 | 12.8 |
| Sum | 34:53:00 | 72,154,615 | 33,018,472 | 0.46 | ||||||||||||||
MuDST documentation
Copied from https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/private/starpp2pp-l/2010-March/001007.html, Donika and Kin have made up a document for the MuDST information :Run 2013 Information
The list of ehternet connected devices
|
|
IP East – 5 o’clock
|
IP West – 7 o’clock
|
||||
|
Device
|
Name
|
IP Address
|
MAC Address
|
Name
|
IP Address
|
MAC Address
|
|
1Web Camera 1 (pot)
|
pp2pp-cam03
|
130.199.90.6
|
|
pp2pp-cam01
|
130.199.90.9
|
|
|
1Web Camera 2 (elec.)
|
pp2pp-cam04
|
130.199.90.7
|
|
pp2pp-cam02
|
130.199.90.22
|
|
|
1APC Power Switch
|
pp2pp-iboot01
|
130.199.90.26
|
00 C0 B7 C3 3E F1
|
pp2pp-iboot02
|
130.199.90.38
|
00 C0 B7 C3 3E F7
|
|
2NI GPIB-ENET/100
|
pp2pp-gpib01
|
130.199.90.47
|
00 80 2F 0A 0D 37
|
pp2pp-gpib02
|
130.199.90.51
|
00 80 2F 0A 03 7C
|
|
2ADAM-ENET
|
pp2pp-adam01
|
130.199.90.43
|
00 DO C9 35 91 43
|
pp2pp-adam02
|
130.199.90.46
|
00 D0 C9 35 92 96
|
|
3Hyper Terminal
|
pp2pp-star90
|
130.199.90.81
|
|
1007wdigi
|
130.199.90.120
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2Slow Controls PC
|
pp2pp-slow
|
130.199.90.72
|
00 04 5A 62 95 76
|
|
|
|
1Name.bnl.gov
2Name.pp2pp.bnl.gov
3Name.c-ad.bnl.gov
Default routers = 130.199.90.24 ( 130.199.60.24 )
IP broadcast address = 130.199.91.255
IP subnet mask = 255.255.254.0
Site DNS server address = 130.199.1.1 130.199.128.31
Site WINS server address = 130.199.128.32 130.199.1.2
Installation and running of slow-server
List of additional software for installation
(It could also be required to install some missing packages from the system distribution like kernel-devel, sox etc.)- National Instruments GPIB drivers.
- Advantech ADAM 4570 driver.
- LabView for Linux.
- Configure GPIB devices using gpibexplorer (/usr/local/natinst/ni4882/bin/gpibexplorer in default instllation). IP addresses are listed above.
- Compile and install advantech driver. Copy configuration files from the attached advtty_conf.tgz to the proper directories:
- 80-advtty.rules to /etc/udev/rules.d
- advtty to /etc/init.d
- advttyd.conf to /usr/local/advtty (for default installation) --- (KY: 2014-9-5) which contains the IP's for ADAM.
- Enable and start advttyd using system-config-services
Running of slow control
- Login as user daq.
- You may need to rebuild lv-pp2pp-slow.so library if the server IP changed. cd to pp2pp-slow, edit pp2pp-slow.h for the new IP and run make.
- Start the server if it was not running : pp2pp-slow-server &. It is assumed that we keep it running all the time.
- Start the LabView application lv-ppslow and press "Run continuously" button. Generally application could be run from a PC different from the server.
- In case of some configuration changes - edit the configuration file bin/pp2pp-slow.conf and restart the server either manually or using the LabView application.
Technical Notes
Angelika Drees: Luminosity measurement
Collaborators' files
Spin Formalism