- BEMC
- BEMC Detector Operator Manual
- Calibrations
- BPRS
- BSMD
- 1) DATA: 2008 BSMD Calibration
- 1) M-C : response of BSMD , single particles (Jan)
- BSMD 2005 energy scale uncertainty
- Definition of absolute BSMD calibration
- Mapping, strip to tower distance
- Run 10 BSMD Calibrations
- Run 9 BSMD Calibration
- details about known hardware problems
- details of SMD simulator, simu shower zoom-in
- one cluster topology , definition of 'barrel cell'
- BTOW - Calibration Procedure
- Run 12 BTOW Calibration
- Run 3 BTOW Calibration
- Run 4 BTOW Calibration
- Run 5 BTOW Calibration
- Run 6 BTOW Calibration
- Run 7 BTOW Calibration
- Run 8 BTOW Calibration (2008)
- Run 9 BTOW Calibration
- Database
- Hardware
- Mapping
- Service Tasks
- Software
- Useful Documents
- EEMC
- ETOF
- FGT
- FPD & FMS & FPS
- FTPC
- HLT
- L3
- PMD
- PP2PP
- RICH
- Roman Pot Phase II*
- SSD
- SVT
- Slow Controls
- TPC
- TRG
- Trigger Detectors
- VPD
- test
BSMD Wire Support Effects on GAIN
Updated on Tue, 2009-07-14 18:04. Originally created by wwjacobs on 2009-07-14 17:54.
Under:
Here is a note from Oleg Tsai (and attached file "wiresup.pdf" below) concerning source
measurements of the BSMD gain behavior near the nylon wire supports:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008, tsai@physics.ucla.edu wrote:
> Attached plot will help you to understand what you see close to
> strips 58 and 105. There are two nylon wire supports in the chamber
> at distances 34.882" and 69.213" from the (eta=0 end of the chamber,
> not from the real eta 0). Gain drops near these supports. You can
> see this in your plots also. The attached plot shows counting rate vs
> strip id for a typical chamber. Don't pay attention to channels
> near 0 and 150 - these effects are due to particular way co60 source
> was collimated (counting profile was close to 0.1/0.2/0.4/0.2/0.1)
> 0.4 in central strip. From that I estimated that eta strips
> 56-60 and 104-107 should have calib. coefficients
> (.95,.813,.875,.971,.984) (.99,.89,.84,.970.), I don't remember
> if I was using counting rate vs HV to derive these numbers...
> (this is my third and final attempt :-))
>
»
- Printer-friendly version
- Login or register to post comments