- BEMC
- BEMC Detector Operator Manual
- Calibrations
- Database
- Hardware
- Mapping
- Service Tasks
- Software
- Useful Documents
- EEMC
- ETOF
- FCS
- FGT
- FPD & FMS & FPS
- FTPC
- FTT
- HLT
- L3
- PMD
- PP2PP
- RICH
- Roman Pot Phase II*
- SSD
- SVT
- Slow Controls
- TPC
- TRG
- Trigger Detectors
- VPD
- test
Gain Stability Check
Updated on Wed, 2007-04-25 12:41. Originally created by kocolosk on 2006-11-28 22:01.
Under:
I've updated my codes to do a more systematic investigation of the stability of the gains. Instead of trying to get sufficient tower-by-tower statistics for different time periods, I'm looking at MIP peaks for single runs integrated over all towers. Here's the plot:
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f03ad/f03adfe0571d74fa4a9f3ad0a13f0fb8521310d8" alt=""
Features of note include the bump covering the first couple of days after the shutdown, the bunch of runs on day 123/4 with very low average peaks, and the general decreasing slope (consistent with towers losing high voltage). I also ran this plot for west and east separately:
I'm running jobs now to do electron selection instead of MIPs. I think that I can probably still do this as a function of run, but certainly I'll have sufficient stats to plot vs. fill if necessary.
Goal: Compare the tower slopes and MIP peaks from the following three periods to check for stability.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3ed5e/3ed5ed5512c56d031c9d1d81a17198b071d900e2" alt=""
The next set of plots compare gains extracted from MIP peak positions where the MIP peaks are generated using subsets of the Run. Comparing before and after the shutdown yields a mean difference of 110 MeV with a width of 3 GeV. This difference is significantly less than 1 percent. The comparison between middle and late (essentially a comparison between transverse and late longitudinal running) indicates a 1.5 percent drop in the gains with a 2.3 GeV sigma.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f03ad/f03adfe0571d74fa4a9f3ad0a13f0fb8521310d8" alt=""
Features of note include the bump covering the first couple of days after the shutdown, the bunch of runs on day 123/4 with very low average peaks, and the general decreasing slope (consistent with towers losing high voltage). I also ran this plot for west and east separately:
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/34576/34576616fef80665486e61e5c17982eb46ff6da2" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/24c24/24c241378ec6808cadf75797e43a70032b4a3dcf" alt=""
I'm running jobs now to do electron selection instead of MIPs. I think that I can probably still do this as a function of run, but certainly I'll have sufficient stats to plot vs. fill if necessary.
Goal: Compare the tower slopes and MIP peaks from the following three periods to check for stability.
- Day < 104 (97-99)
- 104 < Day < 134 (114-119)
- Day > 134 (134-139)
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fa025/fa0257194a5c771c305ac507ac9846af7c89ce8a" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3ed5e/3ed5ed5512c56d031c9d1d81a17198b071d900e2" alt=""
The next set of plots compare gains extracted from MIP peak positions where the MIP peaks are generated using subsets of the Run. Comparing before and after the shutdown yields a mean difference of 110 MeV with a width of 3 GeV. This difference is significantly less than 1 percent. The comparison between middle and late (essentially a comparison between transverse and late longitudinal running) indicates a 1.5 percent drop in the gains with a 2.3 GeV sigma.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/dc1fd/dc1fddc34c8ec19f2a53f028a4be01e2cbcf415c" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6531b/6531bcef9f184424ce202bc0e11792cff316bcfe" alt=""
»
- Printer-friendly version
- Login or register to post comments