From: SMTP%"klk3@PO.CWRU.EDU" 19-NOV-1993 16:37:47.53 To: Multiple recipients of list T864-L CC: Subj: 11/12/93 MiniMax Collaborator's Mtg. Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1993 16:51:37 -0500 From: Kenneth Kowalski Subject: 11/12/93 MiniMax Collaborator's Mtg. Sender: T864-L - T864 Discussion List To: Multiple recipients of list T864-L Reply-to: Kenneth Kowalski Message-id: <01H5I33JY8GI001E7A@SERV03.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> X-Envelope-to: minimax@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-To: T864-L@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU E864 MiniMax Collaboration Meeting 11/12/93. [Notes prepared by Ken Kowalski and Mike Martens.] {The degree of detail presented below was cut off by time considerations. Somethings may be incorrect or overly superficial for which we apologize. We both had a pass at this, but not all of our notes of this long meeting are represented here because of time. We will review our notes, which are only partly represented by the following report, after sending this out. We would also appreciate questions or critical remarks from you whether you were present or not at the meeting. If there seems to be a need we will put out an Addendum to this report of what was in our opinion was a very important meeting. The discussion went on continuously from after lunch to well after dark with only a single short break. A great deal of information was presented visually and only the barest fragments survive below. Again, if needed we will try to supply as much additional information as we can. Ken and Mike, a.k.a. Art} _____________________________________________________________ Experimenters Present: Bob Ball,Bj, Ken DelSignore, DIck Gustafson, Tom Jenkins, Larry Jones, Matt Knepley, Ken Kowalski, Mike Longo, Mike Martens, Norm Morgan, [via speakerphone] Seog Oh, Jon Streets, and Cyrus Taylor. _____________________________________________________________ The meeting agenda was focused primarily on the apparatus itself and where we are at. Consequently there was relatively little discussion of the relevant physics issues. There was, however, discussion of long-term plans. _____________________________________________________________ TOPICS AGENDA A. HARDWARE B. TRIGGER C. READOUTS 1. Chambers 1. Namometrics 2. Scintillators 2. Michigan electronics 3. Calorimeter 3. Scintillators (ADC/TDC) D. DAQ E. DATA FORMAT/ANALYSIS F. ANALYSIS OF DATA/PERFORMANCE 1. On Line 2. Off Line G. SIMULATIONS H. SHORT TERM ADDITIONS TO APPARATUS 1. Pb plates 2. Scintillator on pit walls I. ADMINISTRATIVE J. FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF THE DETECTOR 1. Trouble list 1. By spring 2. ES&H status 2. By summer 3. Run planning 3. Beyond this run [with reference to User's meeting of 19 November] 4. Long Term plans for MiniMax K. MISCELLANEOUS _____________________________________________________________ NOTES OF TOPICS DISCUSSED A. HARDWARE 1. Chambers Tom showed histograms of pedestal-subtracted pulse-height distributions in single chambers. They depicted some interesting, but difficult to understand, features such as a peak in the distribution at a pulse height of 150. Tom also showed plots of expected hits versus actual hits for several chambers using the first 4 Nano chambers to fit a track. There was some indication of possible floating wires or bad connections on some of the wires. [Checks of wire tensions revealed no disconnections. Cable problem?] The Michigan instrumentation looked good. The plots looked as expected. Tom also showed plots of track intersections at various z cross sections Showing many events clustering together near z=-50 inches. The question of manufacturing additional chambers was brought up. Tom stated that the lab at CWRU will be razed in March and that there was a lead time of about one month for parts. Therefore a decision needs to be made soon [Original suggestion 11/13/93, and it was decided to defer a decision until the strategy-level discussions.]. Presently there are two working spares. Tom asked for suggestions for changes in the chamber design: It was suggested to use Aluminum or Aluminized Mylar instead of Mylar for the chambers walls. Gas problems: (a) Gas is about $26 per bottle and lasts about 3 weeks. There was a desire to have some sort of log sheet for gas use. (b) It was noted that Mylar is permeable w.r.t. water vapor. (c) Bubblers? (d) Recommended to keep gas going to avoid start-up thresholds associated with gas shut-offs. 2. Scintillators Seog Oh would like to monitor the peak on the ADC's for minimum ionizing particles over the period of weeks to determine if the scintillators are degrading. E735 showed yellowing of the light pipe for these type of scintillator. To accomplish this the ADC's need to be timed in. We should replace the TLD in the tunnel and get the TLD analyzed. Seog Oh brought up the possibility of buying new scintillator and light guide depending on the radiation damage to the existing scintillator. Pbar 7 sees signals. E counter is sick and needs repair. 3. Calorimeter Mike Longo showed a drawing of the lead scintillator. He also showed a plot of pulse height distribution. In order to calibrate the calorimeter it was suggested that the HV be run up and then scale to lower HV by measuring the DC current. B. TRIGGER We would like to be able to trigger on MR. The ratio trigger is being made at Fermilab by Carlos. There is a desire to get more NIM hardware, NIM bins, and to label the cables. It would be nice if things were spread out and arranged more logically. Therefore some NIM housekeeping needs to be done. It was suggested that the trigger setup be similar to E735. Carlos can help us with this. The CAMAC 279 cards were explained. The bunch positions relative to the A, B and C markers needs to be calibrated. C. READOUTS 1. Namometrics The efficiencies of the nanometrics readout needs to be measured. Ken D. reported that efficiencies were around 95% with the beta source and depended mainly on the value of the HV. Results are in the log book. Who will replace Ken D. as the resident expert on the Nanometrics? Mike Martens? He understands the latch readout scheme and latch delay control, but is not as familiar with HV and threshold settings. Ken D. recommends running the chambers with HV of 2750, threshold from 1.4 to 2.2 with 1.6 - 1.7 optimal, and to set the width of the load pulse to 100 to 150 ns. He also reminds us that we are using the long delay latches. Remember that changing the trigger means changing the delay in the Nano. latches. These delays should be calibrated with a delay box. To get more chambers readout with the Nano. we would need, in addition to more hardware, more ribbon cables strung from the portakamp to the tunnel. 2. Michigan Electronics Mike showed some histograms of the Mich. chambers. Mike also did some timing runs to find the best setting for the delay. A plot of pulse height vs. delay in the log book and shows the best delay to be around 1300 ns. D. DAQ Jon Streets installed a revision level 3 LAM latch module this weekend and modified the EVD file slightly in order to fix the problems of the LAM hanging up and the bogus records. The fix was deemed a success. There were problems with the ADC's and TDC's not reporting. Dick has reconfigured the CAMAC cards by switching a jumper. They should report everytime now. There was noted a problem with buffer overflow in event builder. The buffer sizes need to be tuned up. There is also a possibility of getting data from FNMINT. E. DATA FORMAT Mike Martens presented the present status of online, offline and pedestals. Much of the software is documented on the World-Wide-Web (WWW). Suggested fixes and upgrades are as follows. 1. Change pedestals to run in one of three modes: pedestals gain, or initialize only. (Work is in progress) 2. Change pedestals to only write data to PEDESTALS.DAT if requested by the user.This will eliminate the proliferation of data files. (Work in progress) 3. Update the .MMS files to work from remote nodes. Bob Ball has some ideas and has begun to implement them. 4. Modify OFFLINE to read in more than one file at a time. 5. Put pedestals data and run data into a "Begin of Run" record in the same file as the event data. Jon Streets has begun work on this already. Norm, Art, Tom and Jon were appointed to determine what info should go into the BOR record. We decided to include the following data: Pedestals Data Chamber HV Trigger type Evd file number//Version number Michigan Threshold Nano threshold Date/Time Who's on shift Run #, tape # Comments Store number Lumberjack File End of Run comment At the beginning of a run the user will be prompted for all of this data with the option to choose default values. Norm also suggested keeping one file containing the run data above for every store. This would make it easy to see a summary of all the runs. F. DATA ANALYSIS Bj showed plot of y positions from hits from MR. Matt and Ken D. have independently been calculating residuals. Bj suggested keeping planes 1,2 and 11,12 as reference planes and calculating residuals for the other 8 planes. Bj presented a scheme to calculate the angles of the tracks using three wire addresses. G. SIMULATIONS Simulations have been in hibernation. There are plans to begin again. Achiem W. will now have time for GEANT Bill Fickinger will step up EGS work along with general CWRU effort Bj presented a map of the location of every piece of the apparatus in lego space. At this point there was a long discussion on getting P-Pbar collisions a.s.a.p. According to Bj and Leo Michlotti and Donna Siergiej, for gaussian bunches the luminosity of P-Pbar collisions on separated orbits will be 6 10^23 cm^-2 per crossing. Probability of getting a track per crossing approx. ) 0.5. The transverse beam separation in the x-y plane was indicated to be (2.6mm, 2.6mm). Relevant Questions: How much halo-halo collisions [= beam-beam collisions separators off] Need pattern analysis to distinguish beam -gas collisions. Need to understand the placement of beam scrappers; Mike Martens said he will talkto Stan Pruss about this. H. SHORT TERM ADDITIONS TO THE APPARATUS 1. Install Pb Converter Questions: When and where will the Pb go in? More chambers before Pb [D. G. remark] Any use of the CWRU stock of Pb plates? Put in 2Xo in 0.5Xo pieces or what? Guidelines: The plates should be no bigger than the fiducial area of the chambers. Think about creative mounts for the Pb; 20lbs or so. 2. Possible to add counters to pit walls to cover the rapidity gap. [Holes in Bj's 'global'lego plot.] Chio and S.Oh will make four more counters; not hard to do. I. ADMINISTRATIVE 1. Trouble list Need more electronics. A conduct of operations needs to be completed. 2. ES&H status Now have 12 people trained for controlled access. No need for further training now. 3. Run planning Ramping runs? Take data when the energy is moving up. Get lots of valuable energy-dependent generic multiparticle data. Late in the experiment ask for a dedicated run to "cog" energy. May have problems with Accel. Div. in achieving this. The last collider run before shutdown [2 weeks in Aug. 1994?] is dedicated only to E0 and C0. This inspired some discussion of Physics goals. Bj gave lego rendition of intermittency considerations that might be addressed during the beam-gas phase which can serve not just as a tune-up but also to get some distinctive physics not studied previously [neutral/charged ratios; energy-dependence; good statistics in a small region of the tail of the full acceptance region.] Need some exploration of trigger combinations with no interuptions of gates. J. Long Term plans for MiniMax Re MiniMax: "... I'm not looking beyond this run.' (Bj) Mike L. described the original MAX detector and discussed the rationale for a new proposal to stage MAX at C0 in two years. Need to do this to secure funding in a atmosphere strongly affected by the fate of the SSC. This would also represent an initiative towards the exploration of gaps and jets. Moving towards MAX could begin via a growth pattern during the present run. Which direction do we want to go? Re-Fermilab, etc: Better calorimetry? Both for larger[Around the Beam pipe, e.g. ] and zero [central] rapidities. Barrel scintillator for p-perp More tracking? RPC's Go elsewhere other than Fermilab? Perhaps a more hospitable environment at BNL[RHIC] (BJ). [E.g., equipment for doing multiphoton spectroscopy at AGS. ] Is RHIC [1998-1999 start] a better to consider as a next step as a completement/adjunct/ alternative to PHOBOS rather than a MAX/MiniFAD at Fermilab. Spirited discussion of these issues at the end of a long afternoon. _____________________________________________________________ Kenneth L. Kowalski Physics Department Case Western Reserve University Cleveland, OH 44106 216-368-4011 Internet: klk3@po.cwru.edu From: SMTP%"cct@PO.CWRU.EDU" 31-JAN-1994 09:56:53.02 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: more on locating the collision point Date: Mon, 31 Jan 1994 10:50:35 -0500 From: cct@PO.CWRU.EDU Subject: more on locating the collision point Sender: T864-L - T864 Discussion List To: Multiple recipients of list T864-L Reply-to: cct@PO.CWRU.EDU Message-id: <01H8BPP6EGGY0013K2@SERV02.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> X-Envelope-to: minimax@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-To: t864-l@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU As a follow up to last night's note, I first looked at the distribution of hough activity with a looser TDC cut: at least one of pbar 1 through pbar 4 TDC's had to report in the interval [180,300]. All other cuts are the same as in my last note. The result is as follows. With a tight cut on Hough activity (12 planes= a success), one finds, for events after the separators were turned off (but excluding those during which the Big C veto was on): Hough activity gt 11 as a function of z (after) HBOOK ID = 212 DATE 31/01/94 NO = 1 15.2 --- 14.8 I I 14.4 I I 14 I I 13.6 I I 13.2 I I- 12.8 I I 12.4 I I 12 - I I 11.6 I I I 11.2 - I--I I- 10.8 I I I 10.4 I I I 10 I-I I- 9.6 I I 9.2 - - I I 8.8 I I I I 8.4 I I I I 8 I I-I I 7.6 I I I 7.2 I-I I - - 6.8 I I I I 6.4 I I I I 6 -I I--I-I 5.6 I I 5.2 -I I 4.8 I I 4.4 I I 4 -I I- - 3.6 I I I 3.2 -- -I I- -I 2.8 II I I II 2.4 II I I II 2 - II-I I----II 1.6 I I I 1.2 -I-- I I .8 I I I I .4 I I I I CHANNELS 10 0 1 2 3 4 1 12345678901234567890123456789012345678901 CONTENTS 10 11111111111 1. 1211 33234569798102115553106676743222234 LOW-EDGE --------------------- 100 1 10 0998877665544332211 112233445566778899 1. 16161616161616272727227272726161616161616 0 00122345567889011233443321109887655432210 0 07529741963085207429669247025803691479257 * ENTRIES = 216 * ALL CHANNELS = 0.2520E+03 * UNDERFLOW = 0.000 0E+00 * OVERFLOW = 0.0000E+00 * BIN WID = 0.4927E+01 * MEAN VALUE = 0.8231E+01 * R . M . S = 0.395 8E+02 When one loosens the cut, the peak again washes out. However, it is no longer true that there are no events before the separators were turned off (though it is possible that I have incorrectly located the boundary between the two periods ). In any case, for the nominal period before separators were turned off, I find, again for the 12 plane requirement: Hough activity gt 11 as a function of z (before) HBOOK ID = 112 DATE 31/01/94 NO = 4 4.1 4 - - 3.9 I I 3.8 I I 3.7 I I 3.6 I I 3.5 I I 3.4 I I 3.3 I I 3.2 I I 3.1 I I 3 -I-----I- -- --- 2.9 I I II I I 2.8 I I II I I 2.7 I I II I I 2.6 I I II I I 2.5 I I II I I 2.4 I I II I I 2.3 I I II I I 2.2 I I II I I 2.1 I I II I I 2 -I I-II-- -I I 1.9 I I I I 1.8 I I I I 1.7 I I I I 1.6 I I I I 1.5 I I I I 1.4 I I I I 1.3 I I I I 1.2 I I I I 1.1 I I I I 1 --I I-------I I .9 I I .8 I I .7 I I .6 I I .5 I I .4 I I .3 I I .2 I I .1 I I CHANNELS 10 0 1 2 3 4 1 12345678901234567890123456789012345678901 CONTENTS 1. 1123433333432332211111112333 0 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000 LOW-EDGE --------------------- 100 1 10 0998877665544332211 112233445566778899 1. 16161616161616272727227272726161616161616 0 00122345567889011233443321109887655432210 0 07529741963085207429669247025803691479257 * ENTRIES = 63 * ALL CHANNELS = 0.6300E+02 * UNDERFLOW = 0.000 0E+00 * OVERFLOW = 0.0000E+00 * BIN WID = 0.4927E+01 * MEAN VALUE = 0.2784E+02 * R . M . S = 0.390 6E+02 Cyrus ----------------------------------- Cyrus Taylor Warren E. Rupp Assistant Professor of Science and Engineering Department of Physics Case Western Reserve University Cleveland, OH 44106-7079 USA (216) 368-3710 (216) 368-4671 (FAX) cct@po.cwru.edu From: SMTP%"cct@PO.CWRU.EDU" 31-JAN-1994 14:08:23.62 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: still more on collisions Date: Mon, 31 Jan 1994 12:40:55 -0500 From: cct@PO.CWRU.EDU Subject: still more on collisions Sender: T864-L - T864 Discussion List To: Multiple recipients of list T864-L Reply-to: cct@PO.CWRU.EDU Message-id: <01H8BTOZPAAQ0014ZR@SERV02.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> X-Envelope-to: minimax@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-To: t864-l@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU I have now removed the TDC cut entirely. Background levels have climbed appreciably: the raw histograms are (i) before separators off, Hough requirement of 12 hit planes: Hough activity gt 11 as a function of z (before) HBOOK ID = 112 DATE 31/01/94 NO = 1 72 - 70 -I 68 II 66 II 64 -II 62 -I I 60 I I 58 I I 56 --I I 54 -I I 52 I I 50 I I 48 -I I 46 --I I 44 I I 42 I I 40 --I I 38 I I 36 --I I 34 I I 32 -I I 30 I I 28 -- - I I 26 - -II-I-I I 24 I-I I 22 ---I I 20 I I 18 I I 16 I I 14 -- I I 12 II-I I 10 --I I 8 I I 6 - I I 4 - -I-----I I 2 -I-I I CHANNELS 10 0 1 2 3 4 1 12345678901234567890123456789012345678901 CONTENTS 10 111122222222222333344445556677 1. 13246344339033222153677686166905574561401 LOW-EDGE --------------------- 100 1 10 0998877665544332211 112233445566778899 1. 16161616161616272727227272726161616161616 0 00122345567889011233443321109887655432210 0 07529741963085207429669247025803691479257 * ENTRIES = 1101 * ALL CHANNELS = 0.1113E+04 * UNDERFLOW = 0.000 0E+00 * OVERFLOW = 0.0000E+00 * BIN WID = 0.4927E+01 * MEAN VALUE = 0.4276E+02 * R . M . S = 0.447 3E+02 (ii) After separators off: Hough activity gt 11 as a function of z (after) HBOOK ID = 212 DATE 31/01/94 NO = 2 80 78 - 76 I 74 I 72 ---I 70 I I 68 I I 66 I I 64 I I 62 -I I 60 I I 58 -I I 56 I I 54 ---I I 52 I I 50 I I 48 - -I I 46 - -I I I 44 -I-II --I I 42 -I I-I I 40 I I 38 - I I 36 I-I I 34 -I I 32 - I I 30 I-I I 28 I I 26 I I 24 - I I 22 I---I I 20 -I I 18 -I I 16 -I I 14 --I I 12 --I I 10 ---I I 8 I I 6 -I I CHANNELS 10 0 1 2 3 4 1 12345678901234567890123456789012345678901 CONTENTS 10 1 11111122222333334444444444555567777 1. 44590921336704222103862354572437334821118 LOW-EDGE --------------------- 100 1 10 0998877665544332211 112233445566778899 1. 16161616161616272727227272726161616161616 0 00122345567889011233443321109887655432210 0 07529741963085207429669247025803691479257 * ENTRIES = 1312 * ALL CHANNELS = 0.1414E+04 * UNDERFLOW = 0.000 0E+00 * OVERFLOW = 0.0000E+00 * BIN WID = 0.4927E+01 * MEAN VALUE = 0.3416E+02 * R . M . S = 0.486 9E+02 (iii) After - before Hough activity gt 11 as a function of z (after) HBOOK ID = 2012 DATE 31/01/94 NO = 3 18.4 18 - 17.6 I 17.2 --I 16.8 I I 16.4 I I 16 I I 15.6 I I 15.2 -I I 14.8 I I 14.4 I I 14 I I- 13.6 I I 13.2 I I 12.8 I I 12.4 I I 12 - I I 11.6 I I I 11.2 - I I I- 10.8 I I I I 10.4 I I I I 10 -- I- - -I I I - 9.6 II II I II I I I 9.2 II II I II-I I I 8.8 II II I I I I 8.4 II II I I I I 8 - II II I I I - I 7.6 I II II I I I I I 7.2 I-II---II I I I I I- - 6.8 I I I I I I II I 6.4 I I I I I I II I 6 -I I I I I- I- -II I 5.6 I I I I I II I I I 5.2 - I I I-I I- II I I I 4.8 I I I I I II I I I 4.4 I I I I I II I I I 4 I-I I I I II I I I 3.6 I I I I II I I I 3.2 - -I I I I- II -I I I 2.8 I I I I I II I I I 2.4 I I I I I II I I I 2 I I I I I-II I I I 1.6 I I I I I I I I 1.2 I-I I I I I I-I .8 I I I I I I .4 I I I I I I CHANNELS 10 0 1 2 3 4 1 12345678901234567890123456789012345678901 CONTENTS 10 11 11 1 11 111111 1 1. 313546870077710 05029577841653286 360717 LOW-EDGE --------------------- 100 1 10 0998877665544332211 112233445566778899 1. 16161616161616272727227272726161616161616 0 00122345567889011233443321109887655432210 0 07529741963085207429669247025803691479257 * ENTRIES = 2413 * ALL CHANNELS = 0.3010E+03 * UNDERFLOW = 0.000 0E+00 * OVERFLOW = 0.0000E+00 * BIN WID = 0.4927E+01 * MEAN VALUE = 0.2341E+01 * R . M . S = 0.495 4E+02 Cyrus ----------------------------------- Cyrus Taylor Warren E. Rupp Assistant Professor of Science and Engineering Department of Physics Case Western Reserve University Cleveland, OH 44106-7079 USA (216) 368-3710 (216) 368-4671 (FAX) cct@po.cwru.edu From: SMTP%"BJORKEN@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU" 31-JAN-1994 22:04:22.82 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Memo to Taiji/DRAFT Date: Mon, 31 Jan 1994 17:49:00 -0800 From: BJORKEN@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU Subject: Memo to Taiji/DRAFT Sender: T864-L - T864 Discussion List To: Multiple recipients of list T864-L Reply-to: BJORKEN@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU Message-id: <01H8CBB9GDT6001DEL@SERV02.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> X-Envelope-to: minimax@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Forwarded-from: BJORKEN - - - - Forwarded Text - - - - Comments quickly please--I'd like at least to slip this in draft form to Taiji before the Tuesday scheduling meeting. My opinion this moment is that we should put some pressure on the second floor but not to insist on an instant run for us. Art has the flu and no report was made at the all- experimenters meeting today. It would be good if we can get the Pbar_or/ABCD tuned up to the point that we trigger only on double-beam-gas prior to the next seps off run. Please add your analysis results to this liberally--it is out of ignorance that it is written as it is: bj DRAFT 1/30/94 Preliminary Results from T864 Run 235 (Separators Off) This run occurred at the end of Store 46xx. Logging of data began at 7:55 pm, 26 Jan. Separators were turned off at 8:00. Our main beam-beam trigger was used until 8:06, at which time a more restrictive trigger was introduced. This report is concerned only with the results from the first 6 minutes; no clear advantage has so far been seen from the latter trigger. The apparatus ran smoothly during the entire run. The rate in the ABCD counters (those embedded in the acceptance of the tracking telescope) was 6.5 KHz before separators were switched off. At switchoff occurred a spike: 17 KHz averaged over the first second. This rapidly dropped to about 11 KHz. A slower exponential-like decrease then ensued such that at the six-minute mark the rate was back to 6 KHz. The decrease continued up to the final abort at 8:12, when it was about 4.4 KHz. Information from the Tevatron data logger shows that the proton and antiproton currents decreased very little, about 2% for p and less than 5% for pbar. Proton (vertical) emittance, initially large at 45pi mm-mrad, did not increase further. However the antiproton emittance did jump from 25 pi to 42 pi. The luminosity reported by D0 decreased from 48E29 to 36E29, a decrease consistent with the observed emittance increase. CDF luminosity was reported to increase; however their monitors are more sensitive to halo interactions. At D0 the p loss monitors, 1 KHz before separators went off, increased to 2.5 KHz and then decreased in the same pattern seen by us. On the other hand the losses in pbar, initially 0.5 KHz, increased moonotonically during the separators-off period up to a final value of 8 KHz. Similar behavior was observed at CDF. The trigger was a coincidence between the ABCD group and an appropriately timed or'd output of the Pbar counters upstream of the C0 collision point. The trigger rate with separators on was 225 Hz, or 3.42% of the ABCD rate. After separators were turned off, the ratio increased to 3.85% and remained stable at that value for the duration of the run to better than 0.15% despite the change of the ABCD rate by a factor 2. While one might be tempted to attribute the excess percentage to p-pbar collisions, the constancy of this number invites suspicion. The rate associated with this excess is 0.004 x 8 KHz = 30 Hz, a factor 10 lower than our typical separators-off trigger rate of about 300 Hz. During the 5 minutes prior to separators off, 6.4K triggers were written to disk. In the next 6 minutes, 9.5K triggers were written to disk. The fraction of triggers recorded is 10% because the main ring cycle is gated off, and the DAQ rate was for these rather big events about 50 Hz. The rate of real p pbar collisions can be estimated as the product of four factors, as follows: Luminosity at D0 or CDF: 3.6E29 (after seps turned off) Ratio of beta* at CDF/D0 to ours = .35m/70m = 0.05 Effective inelastic cross-section = 50 mb (?) Minimax acceptance x efficiency = .30 +-.15 (???) The product of these is 27 +-13 Hz, comparable with the excess rate. If this is in fact not misleading, then there could be, within a factor 2, 10% x 27 x 360 = 1000 real p-pbar collision events in the record of the first six minutes of the separators-off run. Searches for these are underway. One search, using tracking code designed for clean events with low multiplicity in the front and rear chambers, finds no signal. Another, using Hough transform algorithms, a cut on the TDC information, and a strong cut on multiplicity of hit wires, does see a signal at the x% level. Neither of these tracking codes is yet well enough tuned to deal with complex patterns. Neither, at present, is expected to be highly efficient for acquiring the generic p-pbar collision event. Next steps: We request from the laboratory a second separators-off run, with the separators ramped off over a period of a second or so, rather than switched off suddenly. This may prevent the creation of the initial spike of losses and consequent trauma to CDF/D0. In addition it may mitigate the rather strong emittance blowup of the pbars which was observed. Meanwhile a high priority for us is to refine our beam beam trigger. It should be possible with some tuning to reduce substantially the present 300 Hz rate. Were a factor 10 attainable we would gain considerably in the purity of our sample of collision events. We expect that this refinement, which can be done parasitically, will be implemented quite soon. On the other hand, doing better with the tracking may or may not come fast. We do notice some worrisome deterioration of our electronics, so that--as in our initial request--we do not want to dally very long and do want to acquire as much information in collider mode as possible while things are working reasonably well. From: SMTP%"BJORKEN@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU" 31-JAN-1994 23:46:34.68 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: memo from Dick Date: Mon, 31 Jan 1994 21:23:00 -0800 From: BJORKEN@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU Subject: memo from Dick Sender: T864-L - T864 Discussion List To: Multiple recipients of list T864-L Reply-to: BJORKEN@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU Message-id: <01H8CIPCB24I001B1W@SERV02.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> X-Envelope-to: minimax@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT I just found Dick/Art's memo on the next seps off run--sorry for not taking it into consideration in what was written today. Comments: Ramping the seps was strongly urged on me twice by Stan Pruss, who in general has been very forthcoming and helpful, and who dug in lumberjack for the acnet numbers quoted in the taiji draft. What is the time constant for the seps? If the wisdom is that it does no good, it is not a disaster, I guess, to live with what we have. I think the evidence is that we do not scrape heavily on the Lambertson. Also the beam dips downward as it enters it, which is favorable--scraping will tend to be concentrated on the upstream end. I doubt it is worth hassling AD on that. Re putting effort into timing up the scintillator-- especially ABCD Pbar--I heartily agree with the sentiments. I think we already have some thick converter in front of the chambers. There is a persistent shadow on the chambers 6.5" above the beam and on the inner 1-2" or so of the acceptance, probably from a horizontal plate used to support the main ring (???). If it is steel we have a lot of Xo there, and it isn't killing us. I think it's time to bite the bullet and learn how bad a problem the converter is. I am cautiously optimistic. From: SMTP%"CTAYLOR@FNALV.FNAL.GOV" 1-FEB-1994 07:28:26.13 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: DRAFT of Preliminary Results from T864 Run 235 (Separators Off) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 1994 07:24:17 -0600 From: CTAYLOR@FNALV.FNAL.GOV Subject: DRAFT of Preliminary Results from T864 Run 235 (Separators Off) Sender: T864-L - T864 Discussion List To: Multiple recipients of list T864-L Reply-to: CTAYLOR@FNALV.FNAL.GOV Message-id: <01H8CYTOC302001IN0@SERV02.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> X-Envelope-to: minimax@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-To: TAIJI@FNALV.FNAL.GOV, t864-l@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU, WANG@FNALV.FNAL.GOV, HOJVAT@FNALV.FNAL.GOV DRAFT 1/31/94 Preliminary Results from T864 Run 235 (Separators Off) This run occurred at the end of Store 4631. Logging of data began at 7:55 pm, 26 Jan. Separators were turned off at 8:00. Our main beam-beam trigger was used until 8:06, at which time a more restrictive trigger was introduced. This report is concerned only with the results from the first 6 minutes; no clear advantage has so far been seen from the latter trigger. The apparatus ran smoothly during the entire run. The rate in the ABCD counters (those embedded in the acceptance of the tracking telescope) was 6.5 KHz before separators were switched off. At switchoff occurred a spike: 17 KHz averaged over the first second. This rapidly dropped to about 11 KHz. A slower exponential-like decrease then ensued such that at the six-minute mark the rate was back to 6 KHz. The decrease continued up to the final abort at 8:12, when it was about 4.4 KHz. Information from the Tevatron data logger shows that the proton and antiproton currents decreased very little, about 2% for p and less than 5% for pbar. Proton (vertical) emittance, initially large at 45pi mm-mrad, did not increase further. However the antiproton emittance did jump from 25 pi to 42 pi. The luminosity reported by D0 decreased from 48E29 to 36E29, a decrease consistent with the observed emittance increase. CDF luminosity was reported to increase; however their monitors are more sensitive to halo interactions. At D0 the p loss monitors, 1 KHz before separators went off, increased to 2.5 KHz and then decreased in the same pattern seen by us. On the other hand the losses in pbar, initially 0.5 KHz, increased moonotonically during the separators-off period up to a final value of 8 KHz. Similar behavior was observed at CDF. The trigger was a coincidence between the ABCD group and an appropriately timed or'd output of the Pbar counters upstream of the C0 collision point. The trigger rate with separators on was 225 Hz, or 3.42% of the ABCD rate. After separators were turned off, the ratio increased to 3.85% and remained stable at that value for the duration of the run to better than 0.15% despite the change of the ABCD rate by a factor 2. While one might be tempted to attribute the excess percentage to p-pbar collisions, the constancy of this number invites suspicion. The rate associated with this excess is 0.004 x 8 KHz = 30 Hz, a factor 10 lower than our typical separators-off trigger rate of about 300 Hz. During the 5 minutes prior to separators off, 6.4K triggers were written to disk. In the next 6 minutes, 9.5K triggers were written to disk. The fraction of triggers recorded is 10% because the main ring cycle is gated off, and the DAQ rate was for these rather big events about 50 Hz. The rate of real p pbar collisions can be estimated as the product of four factors, as follows: Luminosity at D0 or CDF: 3.6E29 (after seps turned off) Ratio of beta* at CDF/D0 to ours = .35m/70m = 0.05 Effective inelastic cross-section = 50 mb Estimated Minimax acceptance x efficiency = .30 +-.15 The product of these is 27 +-13 Hz, comparable with the excess rate. If this is in fact not misleading, then there could be, within a factor 2, 10% x 27 x 360 = 1000 real p-pbar collision events in the record of the first six minutes of the separators-off run. There is good evidence for events from collisions from timing data. Direct searches for these using tracking are underway. One search, using tracking code designed for clean events with low multiplicity in the front and rear chambers, finds no clear evidence for a signal in the very small sample surviving the cuts. Another, using Hough transform algorithms, a cut on the TDC information, and a strong cut on multiplicity of hit wires, does see a signal at the 1/4% level. Neither of these tracking codes is yet well enough tuned to deal with complex patterns. Neither, at present, is expected to be highly efficient for acquiring the generic p-pbar collision event. Next steps: We request from the laboratory a second separators-off run, with the separators ramped off over a period of a second or so, rather than switched off suddenly. This may prevent or reduce the creation of the initial spike of losses observed by both us and CDF/D0. In addition it may mitigate the rather strong emittance blowup of the pbars which was observed. Meanwhile a high priority for us is to refine our beam beam trigger. It should be possible with some tuning to reduce substantially the present 300 Hz rate. Were a factor 10 attainable we would gain considerably in the purity of our sample of collision events. We expect that this refinement, which can be done parasitically, will be implemented quite soon. We are also working to improve the efficiency of our tracking codes. We do notice some worrisome deterioration of our electronics, so that--as in our initial request--we do not want to dally very long and do want to acquire as much information in collider mode as possible while things are working reasonably well. From: SMTP%"longo@MICH.PHYSICS.LSA.UMICH.EDU" 1-FEB-1994 09:04:11.92 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Comments on drafts for Taiji Date: Tue, 01 Feb 1994 09:35:21 -0500 From: "MICHAEL J. LONGO" Subject: Comments on drafts for Taiji Sender: T864-L - T864 Discussion List To: Multiple recipients of list T864-L Reply-to: "MICHAEL J. LONGO" Message-id: <01H8D24FNGZM00163C@SERV02.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> X-Envelope-to: minimax@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-To: T864-L@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU Dear Bj and Cyrus-- I received two drafts in quick succession. I'll assume the one dated 1/31 is the more relevant one. My general impression is that we could and should take a more optimis- tic stance regarding the results from Run 235. Perhaps I misunderstood Cyrus' notes about the Hough tracking, but my understanding was that he indeed was finding that a goodly fraction of the triggers selected on the basis of (late) pbar timing were coming from near z=0. If this is so, it means we generally understand the timing info and the tracking is sensible. It also means that it should be easy to greatly enrich the trigger by tightening the pbar timing requirement. I contend that the trigger tuning can and should be done with seps on running. I am reasonably optimistic that when this is done a very modest fraction of our seps on triggers will be either beam-beam or at least beam-gas from near z=0. I suggest the mention of the possible deterioration of our electronics in the tunnel be deleted. There may be some changes in the pedestals but this is hardly a problem, and there is no evidence for channels failing. It survived the large doses during tuneup and should be able to survive the lower rates during steady collider running. I don't think this is any justification for hurrying to get another collider run "while things are working reasonably well". All in all, I don't see much reason to rush another collider run. There's an awful lot we can do with seps on running plus the data we have from Run 235. --Mike Longo From: SMTP%"longo@MICH.PHYSICS.LSA.UMICH.EDU" 1-FEB-1994 12:41:32.14 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Amazing TDC plots Date: Tue, 01 Feb 1994 13:20:36 -0500 From: "MICHAEL J. LONGO" Subject: Amazing TDC plots Sender: T864-L - T864 Discussion List To: Multiple recipients of list T864-L Reply-to: "MICHAEL J. LONGO" Message-id: <01H8D9QMZLZQ001IN0@SERV02.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> X-Envelope-to: minimax@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-To: T864-L@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU At Dick's suggestion I started looking at correlations for events in which more than one pbar TDC and which at least one had timing appropriate for an event originating from a beam-beam collision. Specifically I required pbartdcn-tdcA to be >M counts where M varies for each pbar ctr but is typically 25 counts. If a pbar ctr satisfied this requirement, I looked at the TDCs for the *other* ones and histogrammed them. In the seps off data, essentially all 8 of the pbar counters showed *three* cleanly resolved peak about 15 ns apart. These show up in both the raw pbar TDC data and pbartdc-tdcA, perhaps slightly cleaner in the time difference. I interpret the leftmost peak as p-induced events which manage to make the pbar coincidence requirement in the trigger. The center peak is the cleanly resolved signal from beam-beam. The rightmost peak is due to pbar-induced events. The three peaks are about equal in width. The contents are in the ratio 9:3:1 by eyeball. There are probably of order 100 events in the center peak for each pbar counter. Perhaps more amazing is that the same structure appears in Run 232 with the separators ON. The center peak is probably two orders of magnitude smaller but is still clearly resolved and looks like a collision signal, rather than beam-gas. There are only a handful of events in the pbar-induced peak but it is there. --Mike Longo From: SMTP%"cct@PO.CWRU.EDU" 1-FEB-1994 14:37:36.37 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Re: Amazing TDC plots Date: Tue, 01 Feb 1994 15:23:02 -0500 From: cct@PO.CWRU.EDU Subject: Re: Amazing TDC plots Sender: T864-L - T864 Discussion List To: Multiple recipients of list T864-L Reply-to: cct@PO.CWRU.EDU Message-id: <01H8DDPFNAFA00179J@SERV02.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> X-Envelope-to: minimax@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-To: t864-l@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU Mike, I will take a look at run 232 with the tracker. Based on tracking studies, and looking at scatter plots of p/pbar timings, I believe that your interpretation is correct: the first peak is due to p induced beamgas, the second peak is due to beam-beam collisions, and the third peak is due to p-bar induced beam gas from a satellite p-bar bunch. (The p-timing of the third peak appears to me to be delayed by a few nanoseconds compared to the other two peaks, which occur at the same relative time in the p-counters). If my memory is correct, Bj quoted Stan Preuss as indicating that the relevant satellite p-bar bunch had 6% of the number of p-bars as the main one during our run. It is certainly the case that the central p-bar tdc peak is a relatively rich source of events which appear to be coming from C0. Cyrus ----------------------------------- Cyrus Taylor Warren E. Rupp Assistant Professor of Science and Engineering Department of Physics Case Western Reserve University Cleveland, OH 44106-7079 USA (216) 368-3710 (216) 368-4671 (FAX) cct@po.cwru.edu From: SMTP%"MORGAN@AMY.PHYS.VT.EDU" 1-FEB-1994 16:31:18.53 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: p/pbar times Date: Tue, 01 Feb 1994 17:11:00 -0500 From: "NORMAN MORGAN, VPI AND SU (703) 231-3308" Subject: p/pbar times Sender: T864-L - T864 Discussion List To: Multiple recipients of list T864-L Reply-to: "NORMAN MORGAN, VPI AND SU (703) 231-3308" Message-id: <01H8DHHRY3N6001IN0@SERV02.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> X-Envelope-to: minimax@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-To: T864-L@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU Minimaxers, I'm back from Japan. I had every intention of tuning the p and pbar timing as soon as beam and data aquisition allowed. Unfortunately, I spent part of December and January in Japan. I'm not at all surprised that they are out of time relative to one another by as much as 10 ns. I don't plan to be at Fermi until the first week of March, so please feel free to adjust the p and pbar timing as needed. Congratulations on what appears to be a successful p/pbar run. Norm From: SMTP%"longo@MICH.PHYSICS.LSA.UMICH.EDU" 2-FEB-1994 08:43:41.54 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Some time plots Date: Wed, 02 Feb 1994 09:14:19 -0500 From: "MICHAEL J. LONGO" Subject: Some time plots Sender: T864-L - T864 Discussion List To: Multiple recipients of list T864-L Reply-to: "MICHAEL J. LONGO" Message-id: <01H8EFOA7FXI001ETF@SERV02.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> X-Envelope-to: minimax@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-To: T864-L@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU Here are a couple of examples of the time difference histos for pbar-A. These are for seps off data with events chosen to have at least one pbar counter time inappropriate for the left-hand peak. That time is not entered, so to appear the event must have at least 2 pbar TDCs. I estimate that it takes a proton 15 ns to go from the pbar to the A counters. For an antiproton-induced event it takes 15 ns in the opposite sense. Thus the p-induced and pbar-induced peaks should be about 30 ns apart, and the events from collisions about halfway in between. The 3 peaks seem to have this time relationship. --Mike Longo PBAR4-A TIME HBOOK ID = 620 DATE 02/02/94 NO = 83 107.5 - 105 I 102.5 I 100 I 97.5 I 95 I 92.5 I 90 I 87.5 I 85 I 82.5 I 80 - I 77.5 I I 75 I I 72.5 I I- 70 I II 67.5 I-II 65 I I 62.5 I I 60 I I 57.5 I I 55 I I- 52.5 I I 50 I I 47.5 I I- 45 I I 42.5 I I - 40 -I I -I 37.5 I I II 35 I I -II 32.5 I I I I 30 I I -I I-- 27.5 I I- I I 25 I I -I I - 22.5 I I I I I 20 I I I I-I 17.5 I I- I I 15 -I I -I I -- 12.5 I I I I -II 10 I I--- I I I I- 7.5 -I I-I I- -I I 5 I I- - --I I-- 2.5 -I I- I-I I-- CHANNELS 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 1 12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890 CONTENTS 100 1 10 1476075421 1 1223342212 1111 1. 27508761477789075593819993751 3243724305521 LOW-EDGE ------------------ 100 1111111 10 7665554433322111 111223334455566777889990011122 1. 06284062840628406226048260482604826048260482604826 PBAR2-A TIME HBOOK ID = 618 DATE 02/02/94 NO = 81 82 - 80 I 78 I 76 I 74 I 72 I 70 I- 68 -II 66 I I 64 I I 62 I I- 60 I I 58 I I 56 I I 54 I I 52 I I 50 I I 48 I I 46 I I 44 I I 42 -I I 40 I I 38 I I 36 I I 34 I I 32 I I 30 - I I 28 I-I I- - 26 I I I- 24 I I II 22 I I- II 20 I I - II 18 I I I--II- 16 I I I I 14 I I-- -I I 12 I I I I - - 10 I I I I-I I 8 -I I I I I - 6 I I- - -I I- --I-I- 4 I I-I-I I -I I - 2 --I I ----I I---I CHANNELS 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 1 12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890 CONTENTS 10 22468662211 111122111 1 1. 11898181928143546464988768025 122145525862223 LOW-EDGE --------------- 100 1111111111 10 6554443322211 11222334445566677888990001122233 1. 062840628406284 4826048260482604826048260482604826 PBAR1-A TIME HBOOK ID = 617 DATE 02/02/94 NO = 80 82 - 80 I 78 I- 76 II 74 II 72 II 70 II 68 II 66 II 64 II 62 II 60 II 58 II- 56 -I I 54 I I 52 I I 50 I I 48 I I 46 I I 44 I I 42 I I 40 I I - 38 -I I I 36 I I- I 34 I I - I 32 I I I I 30 I I I I 28 I I I- I 26 I I II I 24 I I II--I- 22 I I I I 20 I I- I I - 18 I I I I- I 16 I I -I I I 14 -I I- -I I -I- 12 I I I I- I I 10 -I I - I I- I I 8 I I-- I I I I I 6 I I I-I I - I I- - 4 I I-I I-- I---I I I 2 --I I--I I-I--- CHANNELS 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 1 12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890 CONTENTS 10 135875321 1132223211 121 1. 119486178503774953538349371934216434304516122 LOW-EDGE ------------- 100 111111111111 10 54433322111 11122333445556677788999001112233344 1. 06284062840622604826048260482604826048260482604826 I'll send some plots from Run 232 separately. From: SMTP%"longo@MICH.PHYSICS.LSA.UMICH.EDU" 2-FEB-1994 13:14:10.81 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Time dists for seps on Run 232 Date: Wed, 02 Feb 1994 14:02:09 -0500 From: "MICHAEL J. LONGO" Subject: Time dists for seps on Run 232 Sender: T864-L - T864 Discussion List To: Multiple recipients of list T864-L Reply-to: "MICHAEL J. LONGO" Message-id: <01H8EP53RWDE001J91@SERV02.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> X-Envelope-to: minimax@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-To: T864-L@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU OK, I finally was able to run these off. The cuts are the same as for the previous examples which had seps off. The peaks are small but still pretty clear. Note that these are the best of the pbars. PBAR3-A TIME HBOOK ID = 619 DATE 02/02/94 NO = 82 190 - 185 I 180 I 175 -I 170 II 165 II 160 II- 155 I I 150 I I 145 I I- 140 I I 135 -I I 130 I I 125 I I 120 I I 115 I I 110 I I 105 I I 100 I I 95 I I 90 -I I 85 I I 80 I I- 75 I I 70 I I 65 I I 60 I I- 55 I I 50 -I I 45 I I 40 -I I 35 I I- 30 I I 25 I I 20 I I- 15 -I I 10 I I-- - - - 5 I I--- ----I-I-- -- - -- I- CHANNELS 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 1 12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890 CONTENTS 100 11111 10 13593785485311 1. 460055794083708321 121592832 12 2 11 71 LOW-EDGE --------------- 100 1111111111 10 6554443322211 11222334445566677888990001122233 1. 062840628406284 4826048260482604826048260482604826 [Sorry, I lost the others. The above is the best.] --Mike From: SMTP%"martens@CALVIN.FNAL.GOV" 2-FEB-1994 17:48:48.71 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: [michelot: Please read and correct errors; thank you.] Date: Wed, 02 Feb 1994 17:35:16 -0600 From: Michael Martens Subject: [michelot: Please read and correct errors; thank you.] Sender: T864-L - T864 Discussion List To: Multiple recipients of list T864-L Reply-to: Michael Martens Message-id: <01H8EYNR3C1E001EWG@SERV02.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> X-Envelope-to: minimax@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-To: t864-l@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 17:23:15 -0600 From: Leo Michelotti To: martens@calvin.fnal.gov Subject: Please read and correct errors; thank you. Minimaxers, I recieved the folowing schedule of Leo's C++ workshop. Most relevant is our talk on the last day (Fri. Feb. 18th). I am the speaker by default, but have no objections if someone else wants to give it. Michael Martens FNAL MiniMax: Low Pt physics in a collider environment. 1 hr Art ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Greetings ... At the bottom of this page are lists of: (a) those currently enrolled to participate in the Workshop on C++ Classes for Design, Analysis, Modelling, and Control of Accelerators and Detectors, and (b) the speakers and their talks. Please read through them. If your name has been either included in or excluded from these lists by mistake, please notify me of the correction as quickly as possible. Similarly, please check the title(s) of your talk(s) and the time(s) allotted to make certain that they are correct. If the title is enclosed in <<...>> brackets, it means that I do not have your exact title and suggest this as a default, which will be upgraded to the actual title automatically unless you contact me to change it. *** WARNING *** Some people are giving more than one talk. PLEASE *** WARNING *** CHECK ALL PLACES WHERE YOUR NAME APPEARS. Regrettably, a complication has occurred. I received an email message yesterday stating that an APS/DPF sponsored conference on U.S. participation in the LHC has been scheduled to take place Tuesday and Wednesday, February 15 and 16, at Fermilab, in direct conflict with us on the 16th. (Unfortunately, this almost guarantees that no Fermilab scientist will sit in on our Wednesday session out of curiosity.) This is the first I'd heard of the US LHC conference, which had not been scheduled back in November, when I sent queries about the C++ mini-workshop. Since the US LHC conference involves high level members of HEP, we, not they, would have to be the ones to reschedule in order to avoid overlap. At this point, I think the only reasonable course is to swallow the conflict and proceed as planned. (It is not likely that the intersection between these two groups would have been large anyway.) If any of you has conflicting thoughts on this, please let me know. To end on a brighter note, the management has indeed agreed to make coffee and donuts available, and there is some hope that they may even subsidize a frugal dinner at one of our fine local restaurants. Thank you, Leo Michelotti ================================================================= o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o These are the people currently registered to attend our little gathering: J.Scott Berg SLAC Toby Burnett U.Washington John Cary U. Colorado David Caussyn IUCF Youngjoo Chung ANL Pat Colestock FNAL Kenneth Evans, Jr. ANL Etienne Forest LBL Miguel Furman LBL Bill Gabella Vanderbilt U. Jim Holt FNAL John Irwin SLAC F.Christoph Iselin CERN Paul Kunz SLAC George Lahti CEBAF Hiroshi Nishimura LBL Kazuhito Ohmi KEK David Olivieri FNAL J.Francois Ostiguy FNAL Ruth Pordes FNAL Gordon Pusch ANL Jane Richards TRIUMF David Robin LBL Chris Saltmarsh BNL Claude Saunders ANL Jianping Shan FNAL Jon Streets FNAL Keith Symon U. Wisconsin Nick Walker SLAC Peter Yan U. Maryland ================================================================= o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o These are the talks currently scheduled to be given, arranged broadly according to category: INTRODUCTION FOR BEGINNERS ______________________________________ Paul Kunz SLAC << Introduction to object-oriented programming >> 2-3 hrs DETECTOR DESIGN AND HEP ANALYSIS _________________________________ Toby Burnett U.Washington GISMO: a user's perspective 30 min GISMO: creation, decay, and interaction of particles. 30 min ORCA: An OOP approach to histograms, ntuples, and plots. 20 min Spin-parity analysis in C++. 10 min AUTOMATIC DIFFERENTIATION AND DIFFERENTIAL ALGEBRA _______________ Gordon Pusch ANL 20 min DA as a Geometrical Object: Jets, Prolongations, and Moments Leo Michelotti FNAL MXYZPTLK: automatic differentiation and differential algebra 1 hr Kazuhito Ohmi KEK A C++ class library of the differential argebra 20 min F.Christoph Iselin CERN (see below) MODELLING ACCELERATOR COMPONENTS ________________________________ Leo Michelotti FNAL BEAMLINE: modelling accelerator components 1 hr F.Christoph Iselin CERN A Preliminary Framework in C++ for a MAD Replacement 1 hr (part of this may also be in the AUTOMATIC DIFFERENTIATION category) Hiroshi Nishimura LBL Creating a class library for accelerator simulation 1 hr CONTROLS AND DATA ACQUISITION ___________________________________ Chris Saltmarsh BNL << C++ use in control systems >> 1 hr Jane Richards TRIUMF Device Access Using C++ on VAX/OpenVMS 1 hr Ruth Pordes FNAL Using C++ in Data Acquisition Systems 20 min SPECIAL TOPICS: LANGUAGE, GRAPHICS, PHYSICS, ETC. _____________ Keith Symon U. Wisconsin << Comparison of theory and nonlinear dynamics experiments at the Aladin storage ring >> Fermilab Colloquium on Wednesday, Feb.16 at 4:00 1 hr Etienne Forest LBL << Minimum requirements for accelerator analysis libraries >> 1 hr Toby Burnett U.Washington Object persistence: why reinvent the wheel? 20 min Hiroshi Nishimura LBL Raima Object Manager 20 min John Irwin SLAC << Experiences interfacing theory with control room reality >> 1 hr Nick Walker SLAC << Lessons learned by using Mathematica >> 30 min Bill Gabella Vanderbilt U. Simulation of momentum filtering and bunch compression in an FEL electron source 1 hr Jim Holt FNAL << Interfacing graphics tools with C++ >> 1 hr J.Francois Ostiguy FNAL C++ in Computational Electromagnetics: What's Wrong with Fortran and C ? 1 hr Michael Martens FNAL MiniMax: Low Pt physics in a collider environment. 1 hr From: SMTP%"cct@PO.CWRU.EDU" 2-FEB-1994 18:10:54.00 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Re: Satellite bunches? Date: Wed, 02 Feb 1994 17:05:43 -0500 From: cct@PO.CWRU.EDU Subject: Re: Satellite bunches? Sender: T864-L - T864 Discussion List To: Multiple recipients of list T864-L Reply-to: cct@PO.CWRU.EDU Message-id: <01H8EX1SNBJI001FZR@SERV02.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> X-Envelope-to: minimax@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-To: "MICHAEL J. LONGO" , t864-l@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU Mike, I took your suggestion, and generated a scatter plot, with the output of the A TDC on the x axis, and the output of (in this plot) pbar 3 on the y-axis. The resolution of this line printer plot is a bit poor, so I have included below a second histogram giving the projection onto the pbar axis. The first peak is at pbar 3 TDC=140, the second at pbar 3 TDC = 190, and the third at pbar 3 TDC = 270 (approximately). As should be clear from both the scatter plot and the third histogram below (a projection onto the A TDC axis) all signals are essentially coincident, at the A counter. I checked with Dick just now, and confirmed that all the TDC's are started by a signal from AD, so if they appear coincident at A, they actually are coincident (relative to T0). The upshot is that the difference in timing you see in plotting A-pbar appears to me to be entirely due to differences in timing at pbar. The spacetime diagram I sent to you was an attempt to interpret this. But I am still puzzled. Cyrus pbar 3 vs. A tdcs (after) [y-axis=pbar TDC, x-axis=A TDC] HBOOK ID = 1301 DATE 02/02/94 NO = 3 CHANNELS 10 U 0 1 2 3 4 O 1 N 1234567890123456789012345678901234567890 V ************************************************ OVE * ******+ * OVE 390 * * 40 380 * * 39 370 * * 38 360 * * 37 350 * * 36 340 * * 35 330 * * 34 320 * * 33 310 * ++ * 32 300 * + * 31 290 * 23 * 30 280 * +338+ * 29 270 * 69IP3 * 28 260 * +5TA * 27 250 * 5+5 * 26 240 * + * 25 230 * 2 ++ * 24 220 * +64 * 23 210 * 3DJ2 * 22 200 * GZ*7+ * 21 190 * 2N**M3 * 20 180 * DTRA3 * 19 170 * 2DGC+ * 18 160 * +T*Q7 * 17 150 * B***U * 16 140 * + 6***** * 15 130 * 2 2****Q * 14 120 * B****2 * 13 110 * +G***2 * 12 100 * 332 * 11 90 * * 10 80 * * 9 70 * * 8 60 * * 7 50 * * 6 40 * * 5 30 * * 4 20 * * 3 10 * * 2 * + * 1 UND * * UND ************************************************ LOW-EDGE 100 111111111122222222223333333333 10 123456789012345678901234567890123456789 1. 000000000000000000000000000000000000000 * I 5916 I * ENTRIES = 12078 PLOT ---------I---------I--------- * SATURATION AT= INFINITY I 6162 I * SCALE .,+,2,3,.,., A,B, STATISTICS ---------I---------I--------- * STEP = 1.00 * MINIMUM=0.000E+00 I I ******************************* [frequency of events as a function of pbar 3 TDC value] pbar 3 vs. A tdcs (after) HBOOK ID = 1301 PROJECTION Y DATE 02/02/94 NO = 7 4400 - 4300 I 4200 I 4100 I 4000 I 3900 I 3800 I 3700 I 3600 I 3500 I 3400 I 3300 I 3200 I 3100 I 3000 I 2900 I 2800 I 2700 I- 2600 -II 2500 I I 2400 I I 2300 I I 2200 I I 2100 I I 2000 I I 1900 I I 1800 I I 1700 I I 1600 I I 1500 I I 1400 I I 1300 I I 1200 I I 1100 I I 1000 I I 900 I I- 800 I I 700 I I 600 -I I 500 I I 400 I I - 300 I I- I 200 I I -I- - 100 - -I I-I I------I---- CHANNELS 10 0 1 2 3 4 1 1234567890123456789012345678901234567890 CONTENTS1000 242 100 553682 131 1 10 1116553864972 29231 1. 2 6402420846842822022024 LOW-EDGE 100 111111111122222222223333333333 10 123456789012345678901234567890123456789 1. 000000000000000000000000000000000000000 * ENTRIES = 3200 * ALL CHANNELS = 0.1232E+05 * UNDERFLOW = 0.000 0E+00 * OVERFLOW = 0.0000E+00 * BIN WID = 0.1000E+02 * MEAN VALUE = 0.1438E+03 * R . M . S = 0.274 4E+02 ******************************* pbar 3 vs. A tdcs (after) [frequency as a function of A TDC value] HBOOK ID = 1301 PROJECTION X DATE 02/02/94 NO = 6 2350 2300 - 2250 I 2200 I 2150 I 2100 -I 2050 II 2000 II 1950 II 1900 II 1850 II 1800 II 1750 II 1700 II 1650 II 1600 II 1550 II 1500 II 1450 II 1400 II 1350 II 1300 II 1250 II 1200 II 1150 II 1100 II 1050 II 1000 II 950 II- 900 I I 850 I I 800 I I 750 I I 700 I I 650 -I I 600 I I 550 I I 500 I I 450 I I 400 I I 350 I I 300 I I 250 I I 200 I I 150 I I- 100 I I 50 - - --I I CHANNELS 10 0 1 2 3 4 1 1234567890123456789012345678901234567890 CONTENTS1000 22 100 60391 10 439043 1. 3 1 1084078 LOW-EDGE 100 111111111122222222223333333333 10 123456789012345678901234567890123456789 1. 000000000000000000000000000000000000000 * ENTRIES = 1600 * ALL CHANNELS = 0.6162E+04 * UNDERFLOW = 0.000 0E+00 * OVERFLOW = 0.0000E+00 * BIN WID = 0.1000E+02 * MEAN VALUE = 0.1712E+03 * R . M . S = 0.103 9E+02 ----------------------------------- Cyrus Taylor Warren E. Rupp Assistant Professor of Science and Engineering Department of Physics Case Western Reserve University Cleveland, OH 44106-7079 USA (216) 368-3710 (216) 368-4671 (FAX) cct@po.cwru.edu From: SMTP%"cct@PO.CWRU.EDU" 2-FEB-1994 22:05:57.05 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: chamber occupancies Date: Wed, 02 Feb 1994 22:59:02 -0500 From: cct@PO.CWRU.EDU Subject: chamber occupancies Sender: T864-L - T864 Discussion List To: Multiple recipients of list T864-L Reply-to: cct@PO.CWRU.EDU Message-id: <01H8F7O4AVT2001HUA@SERV02.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> X-Envelope-to: minimax@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-To: t864-l@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU I've looked at the chamber occupancies in run 235, comparing generic events (except in the Big-C veto region) with events selected as candidate collisions on the basis of pbar TDC information. Averaged over all events, except those with the Big C veto in the trigger, the frequency distribution of the number of hit wires looks like: (no Mich. threshold cut) HBOOK ID = 100 DATE 02/02/94 NO = 1 1125 1100 - 1075 -I 1050 II 1025 II- 1000 I I 975 -I I- 950 I I 925 I I 900 I I 875 I I 850 I I- 825 I I 800 I I 775 I I 750 I I- 725 -I I- 700 I I 675 I I 650 I I 625 I I- 600 I I 575 I I- 550 I I 525 I I- 500 I I 475 I I- 450 I I 425 I I - 400 I I-I 375 I I- 350 I I- 325 -I I- 300 I I- 275 I I- 250 I I-- 225 I I- 200 I I - 175 I I-I-- 150 I I- 125 I I-- - 100 I I-I-- - 75 I I-I- 50 -I I 25 -I I CHANNELS 10 0 1 2 3 4 1 1234567890123456789012345678901234567890 CONTENTS1000 111 100 3790109877655434333222221111111 1 10 210760164302525906309533157754109087776 1. 2879010896415459180944196737043958179491 LOW-EDGE 100 111111111122222222223333333333 10 123456789012345678901234567890123456789 1. 000000000000000000000000000000000000000 * ENTRIES = 16024 * ALL CHANNELS = 0.1526E+05 * UNDERFLOW = 0.000 0E+00 * OVERFLOW = 0.7670E+03 * BIN WID = 0.1000E+02 * MEAN VALUE = 0.1332E+03 * R . M . S = 0.859 1E+02 The corresponding distribution for events selected by requiring that none of pbar 1 through pbar 4 fire before a TDC count of 180, and that at least one fire in the interval 180-230, looks like: (481 total events) distribution of number of hit wires (tdc cut) HBOOK ID = 1100 DATE 02/02/94 NO = 1 38 37 - 36 I 35 I 34 I 33 I 32 I 31 I - 30 I I 29 I I 28 I I - 27 I I I 26 I I I 25 I I I 24 -I I I 23 II I- I- - - 22 II-II II I I 21 -I I II-I I 20 I I I I- I 19 I I-I I- I 18 I I I 17 I I I 16 I I I 15 I I I- 14 -I I II- 13 I I I I 12 I I-I I - 11 I I I 10 -I I -I 9 I I II 8 I I II- - 7 I I-I I I 6 I I I 5 I I I-- 4 -I I I I 3 I I I I - - 2 I I-I I I I- - 1 I I-I-II-I -- CHANNELS 10 0 1 2 3 4 1 1234567890123456789012345678901234567890 CONTENTS 10 1122323212222211211 11 1. 40414721398313092354702828551313212 11 LOW-EDGE 100 111111111122222222223333333333 10 123456789012345678901234567890123456789 1. 000000000000000000000000000000000000000 * ENTRIES = 481 * ALL CHANNELS = 0.4750E+03 * UNDERFLOW = 0.000 0E+00 * OVERFLOW = 0.6000E+01 * BIN WID = 0.1000E+02 * MEAN VALUE = 0.1438E+03 * R . M . S = 0.737 7E+02 As an interesting additional note, the time distribution of events passing the TDC cut are given by: distribution of candidates as a function of time HBOOK ID = 200 DATE 02/02/94 NO = 1 56 54 - 52 - I 50 I I 48 I I- 46 I II 44 I II 42 - I II 40 I -I II 38 I II II 36 I II II 34 I II II 32 I - II II 30 I - -I II II 28 I-I II-- II II 26 I I I I II II 24 I I-I I II II 22 I I-II II 20 -I I II 18 I I II 16 I I II 14 I I II 12 I I II- 10 I I I I 8 I I I I 6 I I I I 4 -- -I I -I I 2 -II----I I I I CHANNELS 10 0 1 2 3 1 123456789012345678901234567890123 CONTENTS 10 242323322245 541 1. 13321213017040277202 4481 LOW-EDGE 10 111111111222222222222222222222222 1. 999999999000000000000000000000000 0 999999999000000000000111111111111 0 234556789001234556789001234556789 0 532087532087532087532087532087532 * ENTRIES = 505 * ALL CHANNELS = 0.5050E+03 * UNDERFLOW = 0.000 0E+00 * OVERFLOW = 0.0000E+00 * BIN WID = 0.8333E-02 * MEAN VALUE = 0.2008E+02 * R . M . S = 0.641 2E-01 There are a small number of events passing the TDC cut before separators were turned off. The Big C period is again blocked out. Finally, it is interesting to look at the distribution of the number of hit wires in these events when a Michigan threshold cut of 30 is imposed: HBOOK ID = 1100 DATE 02/02/94 NO = 2 41 40 - 39 I 38 I 37 I 36 I 35 -I 34 II 33 II 32 II 31 II 30 II 29 II 28 II 27 II 26 II 25 II - - 24 II-I--I 23 I I 22 I I- - 21 I I--I - 20 I I I 19 I I I 18 I I I- 17 -I I II 16 -I I-II 15 I I 14 I I 13 I I- 12 I I 11 I I- - 10 I I I 9 --I I I- 8 I I-II - 7 I I I 6 I I I 5 I I-I 4 I I - 3 -I I I -- 2 I I-I II- - 1 I I I I I-- - CHANNELS 10 0 1 2 3 4 1 1234567890123456789012345678901234567890 CONTENTS 10 113422222222212111 1 1. 3996750454452112618318195824 332 211 1 LOW-EDGE 100 111111111122222222223333333333 10 123456789012345678901234567890123456789 1. 000000000000000000000000000000000000000 * ENTRIES = 481 * ALL CHANNELS = 0.4760E+03 * UNDERFLOW = 0.000 0E+00 * OVERFLOW = 0.5000E+01 * BIN WID = 0.1000E+02 * MEAN VALUE = 0.1254E+03 * R . M . S = 0.706 4E+02 Cyrus ----------------------------------- Cyrus Taylor Warren E. Rupp Assistant Professor of Science and Engineering Department of Physics Case Western Reserve University Cleveland, OH 44106-7079 USA (216) 368-3710 (216) 368-4671 (FAX) cct@po.cwru.edu From: FNMINI::MINIMAX 3-FEB-1994 01:08:05.11 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Run 237 contains an enriched sample of triggers from the middle bump in Mike Longos A-PBAR plots. Dick set up the trigger. There are about 5.5k events on the disk file. trigger rate was around 20Hz. The trig was as in Bj's ABCD*PbarORdly.... except PbarOr is now a 6 ns clipped pulses; this was scope sighted onto the front edge of ABCD [ pulse width = 9ns ] induced by protons, then moved forward ie cable removed from PbarOR = 16 ns; note one expects the real Pbars to induce signals in PbarOR 14 ns later than Protons do. A delay curve dropped from 3k/sec to 20/sec rate for this set up protons[garbage] in time to 16 ns [ Pbar-P in time]. Later noticed the T0 timing could be improved maybe perturbed by above. Also note two of the Pbar counters had been out of time 13 and 8 ns early going into the PbarOR in last weeks run. Try to run trackers; though we did not have BIG "C" in veto... please note that this is the first run to contain ACNET events. your current programs will complain about bad event type 5. You will need to use the new OFFLINE.FOR, UNPACKER.FOR and EVENT.INC from FNMINI::USR$ROOT1:[MINIMAX.CHECKNEW] to get rid of these errors. The accelerator information is unpacked into the ACNET common block. if you have any questions aboput the event unpacker please send email to jon.. jon From: SMTP%"longo@MICH.PHYSICS.LSA.UMICH.EDU" 4-FEB-1994 23:06:48.78 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: ADCs Date: Fri, 04 Feb 1994 18:10:04 -0500 From: "MICHAEL J. LONGO" Subject: ADCs Sender: T864-L - T864 Discussion List To: Multiple recipients of list T864-L Reply-to: "MICHAEL J. LONGO" Message-id: <01H8I2IAXAYA000MO4@SERV02.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> X-Envelope-to: minimax@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-To: T864-L@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU Just for the record, I'm not sure that any of the ADCs are currently working right. There is some data in them, but no 'big' pulses. I think they are either badly mistimed or the gate is not being inhibited when we don't accept a trigger. Mike Longo From: SMTP%"cct@PO.CWRU.EDU" 5-FEB-1994 12:14:25.73 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Mike Longo suggested I send this out on the listserv Date: Sat, 05 Feb 1994 13:10:06 -0500 From: cct@PO.CWRU.EDU Subject: Mike Longo suggested I send this out on the listserv Sender: T864-L - T864 Discussion List To: Multiple recipients of list T864-L Reply-to: cct@PO.CWRU.EDU Message-id: <01H8IU0CBSAA001R27@SERV02.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> X-Envelope-to: minimax@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-To: t864-l@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU, wang@fnalv.fnal.gov, hojvat@fnalv.fnal.gov >From: SMTP%"cct@po.cwru.edu" 4-FEB-1994 17:08:02.94 >To: longo@mich.physics.lsa.umich.edu (MICHAEL J. LONGO) >CC: >Subj: Re: Timing bumps > >HI! > >Bj will be at Fermilab tomorrow, so perhaps there is a chance of a >run of the sort you want. > >I haven't yet gotten to looking at run 237, but I hope the one peak >remaining is the `middle' one: there is no doubt that it is coming >from collisions at C0 in run 235. This is confirmed by Bj. >I should say that >the events in the `middle' peak from events before the turning off >of the separators >are qualitatively different from the collisions; my guess is double >beam gas, but this is not yet really confirmed. The principle peak >seems to be typical proton beam gas, coming from the Lambertsons, etc, > though >I have not yet done careful comparisons with previous runs. My guess >is that the third peak is indeed pbar beam gas, but I have not tried >to use tracking to confirm this yet, and it may be difficult because >of our acceptance in that region. > >It is actually very satisfying to use the scanner (which displays the >Hough transform) on events satisfying the p-bar timing cut I described, >and see--bang, bang, bang, tracks originating from C0. > >As my earlier message indicated, I hope to have a user friendly version >of the Hougher ready for general use (Jon will incorporate it as an >option in OFFLINE.LNK, etc.) by the end of the weekend. Then you can >see for yourself! > >My own goal for the next week is to do a first pass of analysis of our >candidate collisions, doing a better job on vertex location, and >multiplicity distributions. But I will defer this until I have the tracker >ready for use by others. > >Next after that is to start looking at run 237 (and following ones), and >identify gamma's convering in the lead. > > >Hope all is well, > >Cyrus > > ----------------------------------- Cyrus Taylor Warren E. Rupp Assistant Professor of Science and Engineering Department of Physics Case Western Reserve University Cleveland, OH 44106-7079 USA (216) 368-3710 (216) 368-4671 (FAX) cct@po.cwru.edu From: SMTP%"STREETS@FNEQS1.FNAL.GOV" 6-FEB-1994 15:11:29.92 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: copy of mail alias on fnmini Date: Sun, 6 Feb 1994 15:10:32 -0600 (CST) From: STREETS@FNEQS1.FNAL.GOV (x3629, page 536-1799) Message-Id: <940206151032.20a0016f@FNEQS1.FNAL.GOV> Subject: copy of mail alias on fnmini To: t864-l@fnmini.FNAL.GOV X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"t864-l@fnmini" I have set up a copy of the mail alias t864-l on fnmini. This should reduce some of the time lag experienced by people sending messages to the list server from the Mid-West. The address of the alias is t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov if there any problems, please send me email. jon From: SMTP%"STREETS@FNEQS1.FNAL.GOV" 6-FEB-1994 16:20:18.56 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Information about ACNET devices Date: Sun, 6 Feb 1994 16:19:16 -0600 (CST) From: STREETS@FNEQS1.FNAL.GOV (x3629, page 536-1799) Message-Id: <940206161916.20a0016f@FNEQS1.FNAL.GOV> Subject: Information about ACNET devices To: t864-l@fnmini.FNAL.GOV X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"t864-l@fnmini" The ACNET device information are read out into event type 5 by VAXONLINE. The data from the accelerator division is a device number followed by a floating point value. The data to convert the device number into a name is contained in FNMINI::USR$ROOT1:[MINIMAX.ACNET]FNMINI.DAT The number supplied from the AD is the DI+ PI*2**24. The units of the floating point numbers are also in FNMINI.DAT. i have written a small routine to read in FNMINI.DAT and store this information in a common block, so that it can be used in a program like OFFLINE to monitor luminosity. Please look in FNMINI::USR$ROOT1:[MINIMAX.ACNET]ACDEVICES.FOR. jon From: SMTP%"cct@po.cwru.edu" 7-FEB-1994 14:52:50.50 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Bj's report Message-Id: <9402072033.AA08704@po.CWRU.Edu> Date: Mon, 7 Feb 94 15:33:01 -0500 X-Sender: cct@pop.cwru.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov From: cct@po.cwru.edu Subject: Bj's report Bj called from Israel to report the results of his delay curve measurements on Saturday. He asked me to report them on the listserve, since the e-mail facilities he has access to are rudimentary. So... He checked pbar-or in coincidence with T0, varying the time. He used a pbar-or pulse 45 ns wide, with nice square sides, moving it in 2 ns intervals. The resulting delay curve had a `rich and complex shape.' He concluded that there were two components, shifted by 13 ns relative to each other, one of which he believes is proton beam gas, the other pbar beamgas. With a MR cycle with 1.17 sec (when the scalers were counting), he found the raw T0 signal had a rate of 336K, raw pbar-or had a rate of 420K; the or-ed sum had a rate of 755K. The p beamgas peak in pbar-or*T0 had a rate of 5.5K, the pbar beamgas peak in pbar-or*T0 corresponded to a rate of 1.0K. He estimates the double beamgas rate to have an upper bound of 12 Hz. Note that ABCD*T0*pbar-or had a rate of 3.9K. He studied the out-of time signal (neutron?), with a rate of 6K, and observed that it was slightly different on 1 side than the other, which may be attributable to attenuation. The difference was a 10% effect, which corresponds to a 4.4 \mu-s lifetime. Bj's suggestion: Re-do this analysis with a clipped pulse, rather than the 45 ns one he used. Crosscheck with p-or and/or A. He concludes that we should be able to set up a nice trigger requiring no early signal at p-or or p-bar-or, and a late signal at either or both w/ majority logic. End of report. Cyrus ----------------------------------- Cyrus Taylor Warren E. Rupp Assistant Professor of Science and Engineering Department of Physics Case Western Reserve University Cleveland, OH 44106-7079 USA (216) 368-3710 (216) 368-4671 (FAX) cct@po.cwru.edu From: SMTP%"longo@mich.physics.lsa.umich.edu" 8-FEB-1994 16:17:45.18 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Status of gamma counters Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 16:23:06 -0500 Message-Id: <94020816230591@mich.physics.lsa.umich.edu> From: longo@mich.physics.lsa.umich.edu (MICHAEL J. LONGO) To: T864-L@fnmini.fnal.gov Subject: Status of gamma counters X-VMS-To: T864 I have been plugging away trying to understand the energy scale of the gamma counters. This is difficult to do in situ without any source of gammas of known energy. I have been trying to see a peak on the low end of the ADC distributions which would correspond to the passage of one "minimum ionizing particle" through the counter. This has been difficult as the individual counters are rarely hit so most events just give "pedestals" in the ADCs plus a small mix of accidentals due to random hits in coincidence with the gate. This has been complicated by the on-again/off-again working of the ADCs. My attempts to do the pedestal "subtraction" using (events with the E counter required) - (events without the E counter required) were not very successful. The pedestal subtraction is just too delicate for this to work to any degree. I believe I have had some success recently using a "subtraction" based on hits in Chamber 12, the closest to the gamma counters. Basically the idea is to use events with >11 hits in Chamber 12 as the 'signal' and events with <3 hits to represent the pedestals. The hope is that the former have lots more charged particles passing through the gamma counters than the latter. The contributions from the pedestals are normalized in such a way that the difference is forced to zero in a histogram bin just above the bin with the big pedestal spike. This is a bit fishy but I believe the results are sensible and hopefully the energy-scale estimate resulting will be good to at least a factor of two, which is at least a start. When I do this subtraction from data in Run 222, which is about the most recent in which the ADCs were working, I get a distribution of pulse heights which looks vaguely Landau-like with a long tail to the right for all 16 gamma counters. The means of these distributions for the 16 counters range from about 20 to about 80. There is no obvious pattern in these means. For example, the means for counters closest to the beam pipe are not systematically higher that those far away. This, and the reasonable consistency of the shapes of the subtracted pulse-height distributions, gives me some confidence that this really is a peak generated by single non-interacting particles going through the counters (which are approx. 1 hadron interaction length thick). I calculate that the counters contain about 165 gm/cm**2 of lead and 20 gm/cm**2 of scintillator. Using the dE/dx for min. ionizing particles from the Particle Data book, I estimate the energy deposited by a min. ionizing particle to be about 227 MeV. If we take 50 counts (above pedestal) as a typical mean pulse height, the energy scale is therefore approx. 220 counts per GeV. Full scale of approx. 1000 counts would typically be about 4.5 GeV with the present HVs. Of course, the individual counters at the moment differ by a factor of about 2 in either direction from this. Before the counters were installed, I tried to use the (VERY small) pulses from the beta source to guesstimate the energy scale and to set them approx. equal for the 16 counters. After looking at data with these HVs for a while early on, I concluded there was no hope of seeing min. ionizing particles with those HVs, so I arbitrarily turned up all the HVs by 200 V. That is where they are now. I hope to get a much cleaner single charged particle signal by tracking particles through the chambers into individual blocks. This may take a while to implement, but it should give better estimates of the energy scale. For the time being, I'm guessing the above estimate is good to a factor of 2. Eventually we should attempt to equalize all the counters to about the same scale. For now 220 counts per GeV is a reasonable guess. I can give the 16 individual numbers if anyone is interested. Note that full scale is only about 5 GeV. This is rather low, but since we are mostly interested in identifying the presence of photons, not in looking for >>5 GeV ones, it is probably best to leave it at approx. 10 GeV full scale for now. Note that if we could get back the LeCroy 2249W ADCs we had before which have a full scale of 2000 counts, we would have a full scale of 10 GeV. I might also take the opportunity to put in a plug for having some "pedestal" triggers mixed into our standard triggers. This would allow adjustments for pedestal drifts to be made continuously. The pedestals on the LeCroy ADCs are known to be temperature dependent and the temp. in the PK with the electronics is far from constant! An immediate priority is to get the ADCs working again. I'd appreciate any suggestions or criticisms. Mike Longo From: SMTP%"cct@po.cwru.edu" 8-FEB-1994 22:11:53.52 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: hougher and scanner Message-Id: <9402090410.AA18704@po.CWRU.Edu> Date: Tue, 8 Feb 94 23:10:24 -0500 X-Sender: cct@pop.cwru.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: streets@fnal.fnal.gov, t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov From: cct@po.cwru.edu Subject: hougher and scanner Jon, I've rewritten my hougher and scanner, putting in all sorts of whistles and bells, and the new version is up and working. However, I think for monitoring purposes as we discussed, it needs to be stripped down again. At least when two of us (Ken DelSignore and I) are both running offline, then it runs at an unacceptably slow pace. (I haven't had a chance to test it when no one else was running). Matt and Erik have also been tuning up their Houghers. They have been running on machines at Case, where they can use much more memory, with the corresponding result that they are much much faster. They probably also program much more efficiently than I do. I will be at Fermilab Thursday through Saturday; one of the priorities should be for you and I to sit down and see what we really want to do for online/offline monitoring purposes. Cyrus ----------------------------------- Cyrus Taylor Warren E. Rupp Assistant Professor of Science and Engineering Department of Physics Case Western Reserve University Cleveland, OH 44106-7079 USA (216) 368-3710 (216) 368-4671 (FAX) cct@po.cwru.edu From: FNMINT::FNDAQ::STREETS "x3629, page 536-1799" 10-FEB-1994 18:45:45.06 To: FNMINT::MINIMAX CC: Subj: RE: backup file ok will try. jon From: FNMINT::FNDAQ::STREETS "x3629, page 536-1799" 10-FEB-1994 19:18:37.81 To: FNMINT::MINIMAX,SMTP%"SIGNORE@OSSE.NRL.NAVY.MIL", CC: Subj: RE: backup file Ken the backup is being read. it could take up to an hour - [usr1] is topwards the endof the alphabet. jon From: FNMINT::FNDAQ::STREETS "x3629, page 536-1799" 10-FEB-1994 20:04:02.76 To: SMTP%"SIGNORE@OSSE.NRL.NAVY.MIL",FNMINT::MINIMAX CC: Subj: backup restore Ken, please check the file in. FNMINT$ dir/siz/dat/prot Directory USR$ROOT1:[STREETS.KD] TRACKER_V1.FOR;3 22 9-FEB-1994 17:01:41.97 (RWED,RWED,RE,RE) TRACKER_V1.FOR;2 15 8-FEB-1994 22:22:33.54 (RWED,RWED,RE,RE) TRACKER_V1.FOR;1 15 7-FEB-1994 18:51:53.83 (RWED,RWED,RE,RE) Total of 3 files, 52 blocks. FNMINT$ From: SMTP%"matt@ds1.phys.cwru.edu" 11-FEB-1994 10:45:34.72 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Alignment Results Date: Fri, 11 Feb 94 11:50:09 -0500 From: matt@ds1.phys.cwru.edu (Matt Knepley) Message-Id: <9402111650.AA00958@ds1.phys.cwru.edu> To: MINIMAX@fnmini.fnal.gov Subject: Alignment Results Cyrus, I imposed a cut of +-10 wires spacing for the residual on a plane of the fit. The results of this cut are given as the subtacted residuals, along with the unsubtracted. Almost all the planes are well aligned, as you can, see with the notable exception of chamber 8, with an unsubtracted residual of 8 wire units. However, the subtracted residual is 0.11 wire units and is an average of 89% of the candidates so I think that the unsubtracted result is due to a hot wire, which I neglected to remove. I think that the agreement here is good enough so that Erik should start using Tom's numbers. Erik said he rewrote the Hough, so I will just get that code from him, and see about running along the beam axis. Matt There were 356 single track candidates fit. Plane 1 Average Residual: -1.59 Subtracted Residual: -0.23 # of Subtracted Residuals: 319 Plane 2 Average Residual: 0.04 Subtracted Residual: 0.40 # of Subtracted Residuals: 352 Plane 3 Average Residual: -1.05 Subtracted Residual: -0.14 # of Subtracted Residuals: 316 Plane 4 Average Residual: 0.05 Subtracted Residual: -0.47 # of Subtracted Residuals: 345 Plane 5 Average Residual: -1.25 Subtracted Residual: 0.04 # of Subtracted Residuals: 321 Plane 6 Average Residual: -1.17 Subtracted Residual: -0.13 # of Subtracted Residuals: 316 Plane 7 Average Residual: 0.34 Subtracted Residual: 0.21 # of Subtracted Residuals: 343 Plane 8 Average Residual: 8.04 Subtracted Residual: 0.11 # of Subtracted Residuals: 317 Plane 9 Average Residual: -0.63 Subtracted Residual: -0.67 # of Subtracted Residuals: 352 Plane 10 Average Residual: -1.82 Subtracted Residual: -0.07 # of Subtracted Residuals: 324 Plane 11 Average Residual: -1.62 Subtracted Residual: -0.04 # of Subtracted Residuals: 317 Plane 12 Average Residual: 0.89 Subtracted Residual: 0.44 # of Subtracted Residuals: 333 From: SMTP%"SIGNORE@OSSE.NRL.NAVY.MIL" 11-FEB-1994 12:02:31.71 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: tracker package Date: Fri, 11 Feb 1994 12:59:57 -0500 (EST) From: SIGNORE@OSSE.NRL.NAVY.MIL Message-Id: <940211125957.230011b8@OSSE.NRL.NAVY.MIL> Subject: tracker package To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov" Hello minimaxers, I'v got a tracker going on fnmint that I would like people to try out. It is in the directory [minimax.tracker2]. The plan is to have users create their own directory and copy all all the files over. It runs inside of offline and there is a user interface subroutine that gets called when a track 'possible' is spotted. You get the variables describing the track and you can do what you want with them. The approach taken is to use four chambers as the crosshairs, fit a track to all combinations of the struck wires, then ask that 5 or more of the remaining chambers confirm the track. In the file AAAREADME.1ST you can find further instructons on how to get it going. I'm open to suggestions and will try to implement all requests. Ive got some preliminary results out of the thing and I want to do further tests. Cyrus wanted me to put this out and I'm also hoping any bugs, chbr. pos., math, ect. are spotted. One thing is for sure, there will be new versions. Ken From: SMTP%"martens@CALVIN.FNAL.GOV" 11-FEB-1994 14:26:09.32 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: [michelot: Final request for correction] Date: Fri, 11 Feb 1994 14:20:34 -0600 From: Michael Martens Subject: [michelot: Final request for correction] Sender: T864-L - T864 Discussion List To: Multiple recipients of list T864-L Reply-to: Michael Martens Message-id: <01H8RCCAN95U00004Z@SERV02.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> X-Envelope-to: minimax@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-To: t864-l@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU The following is a message from Leo Michelotti about the C++ Workshop. Most relevant to us is our talk ========= Friday, Feb. 18 =============================================== Michael Martens FNAL MiniMax: Low Pt physics in a collider environment. 1:45-2:45 1 hr Art -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 11 Feb 1994 12:10:28 -0600 From: Leo Michelotti To: martens@calvin.fnal.gov Subject: Final request for correction Attached below is the "final" schedule for the "C++ (mini?)-workshop on C++ classes for design, ..." and so forth, and so on. Your receiving this message means that you are on the list of enrolled participants. (It also means that our mail system is working again.) If this is incorrect -- if, in fact, you will not be attending and I've failed to update this information -- please let me know. If you are giving one or more talks, please check the schedule carefully once more for errors in titles, dates, or lengths. (In fact, check the schedule even if you are not giving a talk, as I may have inadvertently included you in the program in a burst of wishful thinking.) There have been a number of changes during the past few days, and mistakes could have been made. The sessions begin at Fermilab on Wednesday, Feb.16 at 9:00 AM in Wilson Hall, Room 1 West, just off the world-famous FNAL cafeteria. The first three hours will be devoted to Paul Kunz's "Introduction to object-oriented programming," to bring beginners up to speed on concepts. If you are an expert suffering from jet lag and choose to skip that session *** BE AWARE *** that you must drop in and register for the Wednesday evening dinner before noon, if you would like some free food. (Actually, it can be argued that very few of us are real experts in this business, and all of us can benefit from Paul's tutorial.) This talk is also the *only* part of the workshop which will be unrestrictedly open, as it may be of general interest and importance to others. After Paul's talk, it will be taken for granted that (a) OOP is the programming model and (b) C++ is the language. These points will *not* be open for further debate within the context of this workshop. As written in my original tirade, the objectives are to present and discuss (1) what is actually being done now, (2) how to improve what is being done, (3) what should be done in the future, and (4) how to combine our efforts. Many thanks to all of you for responding so positively. Best wishes to all of us for a useful interchange of ideas -- and a good time. ... Leo Michelotti P.S. For those of you from more southern latitudes: dress warmly; it has been a little chilly this year. ================================================================= o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o List of currently enrolled participants: J.Scott Berg SLAC Toby Burnett U.Washington John Cary U. Colorado David Caussyn IUCF Youngjoo Chung ANL Pat Colestock FNAL Kenneth Evans, Jr. ANL Etienne Forest LBL Miguel Furman LBL Bill Gabella Vanderbilt U. Tom Groves FNAL Jim Holt FNAL John Irwin SLAC F.Christoph Iselin CERN Paul Kunz SLAC Michael Martens FNAL Kevin McGuire FNAL Leo Michelotti FNAL Jim Niederer BNL Hiroshi Nishimura LBL David Olivieri FNAL J.Francois Ostiguy FNAL Ruth Pordes FNAL Gordon Pusch ANL Jane Richards TRIUMF David Robin LBL Claude Saunders ANL Jianping Shan FNAL Svetlana G.Shasharina U. Colorado Jon Streets FNAL Keith Symon U. Wisconsin Nick Walker SLAC Peter Yan U. Maryland ================================================================= o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Program: C++ Classes for Design, Analysis, Modelling, and Control of Accelerators and Detectors ========= Wednesday, Feb. 16 ============================================ Paul Kunz SLAC Introduction to object-oriented programming 9:00-12:00 3 hrs Toby Burnett U.Washington GISMO: a user's perspective 1:00-1:30 30 min GISMO: creation, decay, and interaction of particles. 1:30-2:00 30 min Spin-parity analysis in C++. 2:00-2:10 10 min Ruth Pordes FNAL Using C++ in Data Acquisition Systems 2:10-2:30 20 min Jane Richards TRIUMF Device Access Using C++ on VAX/OpenVMS 2:40-3:40 1 hr .................................................................... Keith Symon U. Wisconsin Comparison of Theory and Nonlinear Dynamics Experiments on the Aladdin Electron Storage Ring Fermilab Colloquium on Wednesday, Feb.16 at 4:00 4:00-5:00 1 hr Evening: Dinner at one of our fine local restaurants. 6:30-??? ========= Thursday, Feb. 17 ============================================= Etienne Forest LBL << Minimum requirements for accelerator physics libraries >> 9:00-10:00 1 hr Gordon Pusch ANL 10:00-10:30 30 min DA as a Geometrical Object: Jets, Prolongations, and Moments Leo Michelotti FNAL MXYZPTLK: automatic differentiation and differential algebra 10:45-11:45 1 hr Nick Walker SLAC << Lessons learned by using Mathematica >> 11:45-12:15 30 min F.Christoph Iselin CERN A Preliminary Framework in C++ for a MAD Replacement 1:30-2:30 1 hr Leo Michelotti FNAL BEAMLINE: modelling accelerator components 2:30-3:30 1 hr Hiroshi Nishimura LBL Creating a class library for accelerator simulation 3:45-4:45 1 hr John Irwin SLAC Getting our aCt together 4:45-5:15 30 min Evening: Possible free-for-all??? Questions and answers (or bluff); C++ language issues; more code; whatever ... 7:00-9:00 2 hrs ========= Friday, Feb. 18 =============================================== Bill Gabella Vanderbilt U. Simulation of momentum filtering and bunch compression in an FEL electron source 9:00-10:00 1 hr Toby Burnett U.Washington ORCA: An OOP approach to histograms, ntuples, and plots. 10:00-10:20 20 min Jim Holt FNAL Interfacing graphics with physics in C++ 10:30-11:30 1 hr Toby Burnett U.Washington Object persistence: why reinvent the wheel? 11:30-12:00 20 min Kevin McGuire FNAL Using a Relational Database as a Repository for Persistent Objects 1:00-1:45 45 min Michael Martens FNAL MiniMax: Low Pt physics in a collider environment. 1:45-2:45 1 hr J.Francois Ostiguy FNAL C++ in Computational Electromagnetics: What's Wrong with Fortran and C ? 3:00-3:45 45 min Leo Michelotti FNAL Closing inspirational comments 3:45-4:00 15 min From: SMTP%"Postmaster@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV" 11-FEB-1994 15:16:01.53 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Undeliverable Mail Date: Fri, 11 Feb 1994 15:15:58 -0600 (CST) From: Postmaster@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Subject: Undeliverable Mail To: Bad address -- Error -- Nameserver error: Unknown host Bad address -- Error -- Nameserver error: Unknown host Start of returned message Date: Fri, 11 Feb 1994 15:15:57 -0600 (CST) From: MINIMAX@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV To: longo@mich.FNAL.GOV, gustafson@mich.FNAL.GOV Message-Id: <940211151557.1524@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV> Subject: ADCs Mike, Dick, In looking through the Lecroy catalog for the 2249A ADCs one of the specifications is Digitizing Time: 60 usec. The ADCs are the very first thing we read out when the computer is triggered. Is it possible that we are reading the ADCs to soon? If so, why were we seeing stuff before? There is a way to pause the computer AFTER it sees a trigger but BEFORE it starts to read out the ADC data. I may try this sometime this weekend. Art End of returned message From: SMTP%"martens@CALVIN.FNAL.GOV" 11-FEB-1994 15:28:00.97 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: ADC Date: Fri, 11 Feb 1994 15:22:45 -0600 From: Michael Martens Subject: ADC Sender: T864-L - T864 Discussion List To: Multiple recipients of list T864-L Reply-to: Michael Martens Message-id: <01H8REHTUKR6000050@SERV02.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> X-Envelope-to: minimax@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-To: t864-l@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU Mike, Dick, In looking through the Lecroy catalog for the 2249A ADCs one of the specifications is Digitizing Time: 60 usec. The ADCs are the very first thing we read out when the computer is triggered. Is it possible that we are reading the ADCs to soon? If so, why were we seeing stuff in earlier runs? There is a way to pause the computer after it sees a trigger but before it starts to read out the ADC data. I may try this sometime this weekend. Art From: SMTP%"matt@ds1.phys.cwru.edu" 11-FEB-1994 16:56:06.58 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Alignment Date: Fri, 11 Feb 94 17:59:52 -0500 From: matt@ds1.phys.cwru.edu (Matt Knepley) Message-Id: <9402112259.AA01342@ds1.phys.cwru.edu> To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Subject: Alignment Dear Minimaxers, I have used run 174 to try and confirm Tom's alignment of the chambers in his earlier messages. I used these criteria for a single track: 1) One bunch of wires hit per plane 2) A bunch consists of any number of adjacent hit wires The wires in each bunch are averaged, weighted by pulse height, and then it is least-squares fit to 12 planes. I will soon modify this to leave 1,2,11, and 12 in place, but I think this is a good check. Basically, Tom's new alignment looks good to me, all the relevant residuals are less than a wire spacing. The large unsubtracted residual in chamber 8 I am fairly sure is a hot wire throwing off the average with a couple huge residuals. Below are the residuals I get, and some explanation of what I mean by the numbers. When I say Mean, I refer to averaging the residuals to the 356 candidate single tracks that I fitted. The stdev is the standard deviation of the set of residuals. Dividing by the square root of 356 should give an estimate of the error in the mean. When I say SubMean, I refer to the mean of the set of residuals with any residual over 10 wire units subtracted out. The SubStdDev also refers to this set. There are are different number of members in this set for each chamber and I list them below. I said that a hot wire could cause a discrepancy between these two measurements because it is possible that I am calling single track events, events which are really random, or in which the wire in chamber 8 didn't fire, but the hot wire did. I don't think any real track could be off by even a few wire units, 10 is generous. If you look at the residual plots, you see a really sharp peak around 0 in every chamber, but the mean is screwed up by one or two residuals of ~100 wire units. Matt Run 174 Results Using a outlier subtraction of 10 wire units Chamber 1 Mean -1.590792135 StdDev 0.385103988 SubMean -0.231078616 SubStdDev 0.110426163 # of Subtracted Residuals: 319 Chamber 2 Mean 0.03872191 StdDev 0.268190753 SubMean 0.403352273 SubStdDev 0.09827114 # of Subtracted Residuals: 352 Chamber 3 Mean -1.050286517 StdDev 0.287516204 SubMean -0.140136508 SubStdDev 0.085686008 # of Subtracted Residuals: 345 Chamber 4 Mean 0.048182584 StdDev 0.250166042 SubMean -0.469095652 SubStdDev 0.090565518 # of Subtracted Residuals: 321 Chamber 5 Mean -1.251898876 StdDev 0.263656581 SubMean 0.038299065 SubStdDev 0.096705878 # of Subtracted Residuals: 316 Chamber 6 Mean -1.172766854 StdDev 0.330080652 SubMean -0.125553797 SubStdDev 0.100487587 # of Subtracted Residuals: 316 Chamber 7 Mean 0.34441573 StdDev 0.217842929 SubMean 0.213061224 SubStdDev 0.097780745 # of Subtracted Residuals: 343 Chamber 8 Mean 8.038191011 StdDev 1.347251515 SubMean 0.10837224 SubStdDev 0.114916363 # of Subtracted Residuals: 317 Chamber 9 Mean -0.630932584 StdDev 0.150186446 SubMean -0.669373219 SubStdDev 0.114899124 # of Subtracted Residuals: 351 Chamber 10 Mean -1.817179775 StdDev 0.319309004 SubMean -0.06917284 SubStdDev 0.089312006 # of Subtracted Residuals: 324 Chamber 11 Mean -1.618502809 StdDev 0.304968949 SubMean -0.037211356 SubStdDev 0.107127086 # of Subtracted Residuals: 317 Chamber 12 Mean 0.888705056 StdDev 0.202611038 SubMean 0.43933033 SubStdDev 0.121157842 # of Subtracted Residuals: 333 From: FNMINT::SMTP%"CTAYLOR@FNALV.FNAL.GOV" 11-FEB-1994 21:26:59.85 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: RE: Histogram Date: Fri, 11 Feb 1994 21:26:49 -0600 (CST) From: CTAYLOR@FNALV.FNAL.GOV To: MINIMAX@FNMINT.FNAL.GOV Message-Id: <940211212649.2720ed34@FNALV.FNAL.GOV> Subject: RE: Histogram I'll make a plot when I can--it is not as nice as you seemed to think! Cyrus From: SMTP%"MINIMAX@FNMINT.FNAL.GOV" 11-FEB-1994 21:39:41.94 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: tracks from C0 Date: Fri, 11 Feb 1994 21:39:02 -0600 (CST) From: MINIMAX@FNMINT.FNAL.GOV To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Message-Id: <940211213902.228@FNMINT.FNAL.GOV> Subject: tracks from C0 Hello MiniMaxers, Well I've got some histograms to show you. I've used my combinatorical tracker to look at run 235. I've made the TDC cut of no signal in pbar1-4 before 180 tdc counts and at least one haveing a signal before 230. 537 events survive this cut. I then limit myself to events with 10 or fewer hit wires in chbrs. 1,2,11,12. 238 events survive this cut. I then require that the tracker finds a track that passes within 2" of the z axis, as defined by BJ coordinates, andd also the track must have a zvalue at closest within +-50". 68 events are found that meet this criteria. Plotted below are the histograms of Z value(closest approach) and the distance of closest approach. 12.4 12 - - 11.6 I I 11.2 - I I 10.8 I I I 10.4 I I I 10 I-I -I 9.6 I I II 9.2 I I II 8.8 I I II 8.4 I I II 8 I I II 7.6 I I II 7.2 I I II 6.8 I I II 6.4 I I II 6 I I-II 5.6 I I 5.2 I I- - 4.8 I I I 4.4 I I I 4 I I I - 3.6 I I I I 3.2 ----I I--I I 2.8 I I I 2.4 I I I 2 - I I-I 1.6 I I I 1.2 I-I I .8 I I .4 I I _____________________________ -50" +50" Z value of closest approach 13.2 - 12.8 I 12.4 I 12 -I- 11.6 I I 11.2 I I 10.8 I I 10.4 I I 10 I I 9.6 I I 9.2 I I 8.8 I I 8.4 I I 8 I I 7.6 I I 7.2 I I 6.8 I I 6.4 I I 6 --I I 5.6 I I 5.2 - I I 4.8 I I I 4.4 I I I 4 - I-I I- - 3.6 I I I I 3.2 I I I I- 2.8 I I I II 2.4 I I I II 2 - - - I I I-II - 1.6 I I I I I I I 1.2 - - - - - I-I- I- I-I I ----- I - .8 I I I I I I I II I I I I I I .4 I I I I I I I II I I I I I I ---------------------------------------------------------- -2" +2" Distance of closest approach to the 'Z' axis If I do the same analysis but with no tdc cut I get 9000 events satisfying the 10 hits or less cut and 600 events with a track coming from C0. 39 38 - - 37 I I 36 I - I 35 I I - I 34 - I - I- I I 33 I I I II I I 32 I I I II-I I 31 I I I I I I 30 I I I I I I- 29 I I-I I I II 28 I I I I I II 27 I I I- I I II 26 I I I I I II 25 I I I I I II 24 I -I I-I I-II 23 I I I 22 I- I I 21 II I I 20 II I I 19 - II-I I 18 I I I 17 I I I 16 I I I 15 -I-I I 14 I I 13