Difference between revisions of "BCAL Beam Test Plots, November 20, 2006"
From GlueXWiki
(12 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
* Gain Correction: | * Gain Correction: | ||
− | *# Establish the '''means''' of each cell in the Monte Carlo and find the ratio wrt Cell 8 | + | *# Establish the '''means''' of each cell in the Monte Carlo and find the ratio wrt MC Cell 8 over whole tagger spectra |
*# Find the current ratio of each ADC in the beamtest data wrt to North 8 | *# Find the current ratio of each ADC in the beamtest data wrt to North 8 | ||
*# Correct the ADC ratio to match the Monte Carlo Ratios | *# Correct the ADC ratio to match the Monte Carlo Ratios | ||
− | *#*The ratio of Cell 8 to North 8 defines the MeV/Channel | + | *#*The ratio of MC Cell 8 to North 8 defines the MeV/Channel |
+ | [[Image:EnergyN7.gif|thumb|left|100px|North 7]] [[Image:EnergyN8.gif|thumb|left|100px|North 8]] [[Image:EnergyN9.gif|thumb|left|100px|North 9]] [[Image:EnergyN12.gif|thumb|none|100px| North 12]] | ||
− | ; How does this look over the entire tagger spectrum? | + | : <math> \frac{MC 8}{North 8} = 0.018 \frac{MeV}{Channel}</math> |
+ | <br> | ||
+ | <br> | ||
+ | ; How does this look over the entire tagger spectrum? | ||
+ | [[Image:Energysum_1.gif|none|480px]] | ||
+ | The 0.151 MeV/Ch is for a tagger photon (digregard this). The others are for energy deposit in the scintillator. | ||
+ | <br> | ||
+ | ; What if we look at MC 8 vs North 8 with Tagger Energy cuts? | ||
+ | [[Image:AdcNn8fit 300to400unzoom.gif|thumb|left|100px|North8 300<Ephoton<400]] | ||
+ | [[Image:Escih11fit 300to400.gif|thumb|none|100px|MC8 300<Ephoton<400]] | ||
+ | : <math> (\frac{MC 8}{North 8})_{300<Ephoton<400} = 0.0177 \frac{MeV}{Channel}</math> | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | [[Image:AdcNn8fit 500to600unzoom.gif|thumb|left|100px|North8 500<Ephoton<600]] | ||
+ | [[Image:Escih11fit 500to600.gif|thumb|none|100px|MC8 500<Ephoton<600]] | ||
+ | : <math> (\frac{MC 8}{North 8})_{500<Ephoton<600} = 0.0165 \frac{MeV}{Channel}</math> | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | *'''Very Strange: Apparent Energy Dependence''' | ||
+ | [[Image:Adccalib2.gif|480px]] | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | ;How do we see what's going on? | ||
+ | # Cuts: Trig==8 (MOR and BCal OR), Nphotons==1 | ||
+ | #*Possibly there are e+e-, maybe. Need to check the veto but it doesn't seem to be in the Root Trees | ||
+ | ## Cut out the lower hump from the ADC sum. | ||
+ | [[Image:AdcsumS 200to300.gif|thumb|left|100px|ADCsum South 200<Ephoton<300]] | ||
+ | [[Image:AdcsumS 300to400.gif|thumb|left|100px|ADCsum South 300<Ephoton<400]] | ||
+ | [[Image:AdcsumS 500to600.gif|thumb|none|100px|ADCsum South 500<Ephoton<600]] | ||
+ | <br> | ||
+ | *This seems to remove the "junk" from the left of the spectra, and will flatten out the MC8/North8 ratio. But what is the "junk? | ||
+ | [[Image:North8 junk 300to400.gif|320px|none]] | ||
+ | *-This has a 2% or more effect on the mean for 300<Ephoton<400. Probably much larger effect for the lower energies. | ||
+ | <br> | ||
+ | <br> | ||
+ | *Compare North 8 over all spectra when cutting on adcsumN > Ch1000 ~ 140MeV to previous | ||
+ | [[Image:EnergyN8 adcsumcut.gif|320px|left|with cut]] [[Image:EnergyN8.gif|320px|none|previously]] | ||
+ | : <math> \frac{MC 8}{North 8} = 0.0167 \frac{MeV}{Channel}</math> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <br> | ||
+ | <br> | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | [[Image:Energysum 2.gif|none|480px]] Using the new gain factors and scale factors. Looks reasonably closer except for the excess at the front of the spectra. I expect this is the contribution of the electrons or whatnot, the "junk", that we need to cut out. | ||
+ | |||
+ | It was suggested I start looking at tdc information for making cuts. | ||
+ | <br> | ||
+ | <br> | ||
+ | ; The veto almost has no information for run 2334 | ||
+ | |||
+ | ;Can anyone explain why Ephoton vs tphoton has this pattern? Is it uncertainty in the timing offsets for the tagger t-counters? Is this fixable or something we have to live with? The tphoton scale is blown up but it's still curious. | ||
+ | [[Image:Ephoton vs tphoton.gif|left|480px]] | ||
+ | [[Image:AdcsumN vs tphoton.gif|none|480px]] | ||
+ | <br> | ||
+ | And if you cut on 500<Ephoton<550 you get | ||
+ | [[Image:Tphoton adcsumN 500to550.gif|90cw|280px]] |
Latest revision as of 18:51, 23 November 2006
First go
- Gain Correction:
- Establish the means of each cell in the Monte Carlo and find the ratio wrt MC Cell 8 over whole tagger spectra
- Find the current ratio of each ADC in the beamtest data wrt to North 8
- Correct the ADC ratio to match the Monte Carlo Ratios
- The ratio of MC Cell 8 to North 8 defines the MeV/Channel
- How does this look over the entire tagger spectrum?
The 0.151 MeV/Ch is for a tagger photon (digregard this). The others are for energy deposit in the scintillator.
- What if we look at MC 8 vs North 8 with Tagger Energy cuts?
- Very Strange: Apparent Energy Dependence
- How do we see what's going on?
- Cuts: Trig==8 (MOR and BCal OR), Nphotons==1
- Possibly there are e+e-, maybe. Need to check the veto but it doesn't seem to be in the Root Trees
- Cut out the lower hump from the ADC sum.
- This seems to remove the "junk" from the left of the spectra, and will flatten out the MC8/North8 ratio. But what is the "junk?
- -This has a 2% or more effect on the mean for 300<Ephoton<400. Probably much larger effect for the lower energies.
- Compare North 8 over all spectra when cutting on adcsumN > Ch1000 ~ 140MeV to previous
It was suggested I start looking at tdc information for making cuts.
- The veto almost has no information for run 2334
- Can anyone explain why Ephoton vs tphoton has this pattern? Is it uncertainty in the timing offsets for the tagger t-counters? Is this fixable or something we have to live with? The tphoton scale is blown up but it's still curious.