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 I I 12 I I 11 I I 10 I I 9 I I _____________________________ -50" +50" Z value of closest approach 23.5 23 - 22.5 I 22 I 21.5 I 21 I 20.5 I 20 -I- 19.5 I I 19 I I 18.5 I I 18 - I I 17.5 I I I 17 - I I I- 16.5 I I I I 16 I I I I 15.5 I I I I 15 I I - - - -I I 14.5 I I I I I I I 14 I I I I I-I I - - 13.5 I I I I I I I I 13 I I I- I -I I-- I I 12.5 I I II I I I I I 12 I I II - I I I I- - I- 11.5 I I II I I I I II I II 11 I I II -I I I I -II- I II 10.5 I I II II I I I I I I II 10 - I I II-II -I-I I- I I I---II 9.5 I I I I I I I I I I I 9 I I -I-I I I I I I I I - 8.5 I I I I I I I I I I I 8 -I I I I-I I I I-I I I 7.5 II I I I I I I 7 II -I I I I I-I 6.5 II II I I I I 6 II-II I I-I I 5.5 I I I I 5 -- I I I I 4.5 II I I I I 4 II --I I I I- 3.5 II I I I I 3 II-I I-I I 2.5 I I ---------------------------------------------------------- -2" +2" Distance of closest approach to the 'Z' axis These background histograms contain the top two histograms. From the (tdc cut/distance of closest approach hist.) it would appear that what we are calling the z axis is below the beam ~.5". I'm not sure what we can say about the z vertex histogram. The tracker seems to have a geometric limitation of ~ 5" on vertex resolution. By this I mean if I fit wires a,b,c,d in chbrs. 1,2,11,12 and then do a fit to wires a,b,c,d+1 I see that the vertex moves by ~5". Also in "multi-track" events the z value of closest approach can differ by 20" for the different tracks. Some of this may be due to scattering, photon conversion, ect. I am going to increase my multiplicity cut and try to get better stats. Does anyone know how to make a scatter plot with paw? If anyone is going to try running the tracker in [.tracker2] to do any analysis they should probalby get in touch with me. There are some changes I've made to the version in .tracker2. I've put a bit of a front end on the tracker that will allow you to change certain cuts inherent in this tracking method, and added hbook output. Good hunting Ken From: FNMINT::FNDAQ::STREETS "x3629, page 536-1799" 11-FEB-1994 21:42:37.34 To: FNMINT::MINIMAX CC: Subj: RE: myprint the histograms sdhould be in for011.dat jon From: SMTP%"MINIMAX@FNMINT.FNAL.GOV" 11-FEB-1994 23:57:23.14 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: More histograms Date: Fri, 11 Feb 1994 23:54:55 -0600 (CST) From: MINIMAX@FNMINT.FNAL.GOV To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Message-Id: <940211235455.228@FNMINT.FNAL.GOV> Subject: More histograms Hi again, I've made a couple more histograms and increased my max. hits for each crosshair chamber cut. If I increase my hit per crosshair chamber cut to <=15, then of the 527 events that pass the TDC cut, 371 pass the <=15 cut. Of those 130 events are found that have track that has a z(closest) within +- 50", and I also tightened the dist from z (at closest approach to the 'z' axis) cut to -.25< dist. <1". The hist. of z (@ closest approach): 33 32 - 31 I 30 I 29 I 28 I 27 I 26 I 25 I 24 I 23 I - 22 I I- 21 I II 20 I II 19 I II 18 I-II 17 --I I 16 I I 15 I I- - 14 -I I I - 13 I I I I 12 I I I I 11 I I I I 10 I I -I-I 9 I I-I I 8 I I 7 -I I 6 -I I 5 I I 4 -I I 3 - I I 2 I I I ----------------------------- | | -50" +50" CHANNELS 10 0 1 2 1 12345678901234567890 So I'll extend the range of this hist. to >50" next time. The hist. of dist. from z axis (@closest approach): 32 31 - 30 I 29 I 28 I 27 I 26 I 25 I 24 -I- 23 I I 22 I I 21 I I 20 I I 19 I I 18 I I 17 --I I 16 I I 15 I I 14 I I 13 I I 12 I I 11 - I I 10 - I-I I - 9 I I I -I 8 I-I I -II 7 - -I I-I I 6 I I I- 5 I I I- 4 I--- I I 3 -I I- --I I 2 I I-I I- 1 I I -------------------------------------------------- | | | -2" 0" 2" CHANNELS 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 1 12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890 The following 2 histograms are the x & y dist. of closest approach: 25 24 - 23 I 22 I - 21 I I 20 I I 19 I I 18 I I- 17 I II 16 I II 15 I II 14 -I-II 13 -I I 12 I I 11 I I- 10 I I 9 --I I 8 -I I - 7 -I I-I- 6 - I I - 5 I I I I - 4 I -I I-I I 3 - I -- I I-- - I 2 I I II-I I- -I I - 1 I-- I--I I- -II- I---I -------------------------------------------------- | | -1.0 .75" x value of closest approach CHANNELS 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 1 12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890 23.5 23 - 22.5 I 22 I 21.5 I 21 I- 20.5 II 20 II 19.5 II 19 II 18.5 II 18 -II 17.5 I I 17 I I 16.5 I I 16 I I 15.5 I I 15 - I I 14.5 I I I 14 I I I - 13.5 I I I I 13 I I I I 12.5 I I I I 12 I -I I -I 11.5 I I I II 11 I I I II 10.5 I I I II 10 - I I I II 9.5 I I I I II 9 - I I-I I-II 8.5 I I I I 8 I -I-I I - 7.5 I I I I 7 I I I I 6.5 I I I I 6 - -I -I I-I 5.5 I II I I 5 I II -I I 4.5 I II I I 4 I -II-I I -- 3.5 I I I II 3 I-I I II 2.5 I I II 2 - I I-II - 1.5 I I I I 1 - -I ----I I-I-- .5 I II I I -------------------------------------------------- | | | -1.0 0.0" 1.5" y value of closest approach CHANNELS 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 1 12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890 Run 237 is supposed to consist of events with the tdc cut hardwired in. I will look at 237 next. The CPU time for my runs is as follows: Run 235 <=10 hits per cross hair chamber 230 events - 4.5 min ~ .5Hz Run 235 <=15 hits per cross hair chamber 371 enents - 16 min. ~ .3 Hz Ken From: SMTP%"martens@CALVIN.FNAL.GOV" 12-FEB-1994 00:57:42.53 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: All Exp. meeting Date: Sat, 12 Feb 1994 00:44:04 -0600 From: Michael Martens Subject: All Exp. meeting Sender: T864-L - T864 Discussion List To: Multiple recipients of list T864-L Reply-to: Michael Martens Message-id: <01H8RY1D575E00027A@SERV02.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> X-Envelope-to: minimax@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-To: t864-l@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU Cryus and I have outlined what we think should be presented at the All Experimenters Meeting on Monday. Please comment if you feel like it. WHAT WE LEARNED: We successfully took data on our first separators off run. Neither CDF nor D0 reported any trauma, although CDF indicated they were not interested in taking data with separators off. Analysis of the run data shows that we can clearly see collsions. { Transparency: Histogram of z vertex location showing peak at C0.} Losses in the accelerator went up dramatically, but not disasterously, when the separators were turned off. The Pbar emittance grew by a factor of two in the ten minutes of running. {trans: LOSTP and LOSTPB signals and Pbar emittance blowup} WHAT WE DESIRE: Another run at the end of a store with separators off. 10 to 20 minutes is a useful amount of time. Need at least a one hour notice in order to gather our troops. WHAT WE WILL DO DIFFERENT: Since last run we have improved our trigger timing and fixed a few minor bugs in our electronics. Next run we will have someone in the MCR to adjust tunes in the hopes of minimizing losses and emittance blowup. If not too difficult, can the separators be ramped down instead of just shut off. (There doesn't seem to be a consensus in the AD as to whether ramping them down would be useful in reducing losses or not.) Art From: SMTP%"CTAYLOR@FNALV.FNAL.GOV" 12-FEB-1994 12:38:45.62 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Accelerator Schedule for the Week Date: Sat, 12 Feb 1994 12:31:10 -0600 (CST) From: CTAYLOR@FNALV.FNAL.GOV To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov, CTAYLOR@FNALV.FNAL.GOV Message-Id: <940212123110.20a3b8cf@FNALV.FNAL.GOV> Subject: Accelerator Schedule for the Week The last 24 hours has seen a series of quenches at the Tevatron. At the 9AM scheduling meeting this morning, John Marriner decided that the machine must be fixed. This will involve a necessary repair period to replace the Tev dipoles at A25-2,3 and B21-4,5. There will be no p-pbar stores until Saturday 19 Feb 1994 at the earliest. There will be no main ring or Tevatron beam from 1600 on Saturday 23 February until approximatley 1600 on Thursday 17 February. There will be Main Ring supervised access Monday through 1600 Thursday. Accesses should be possible for us during this time. Despite the fact that there will be no Tevatron beam, I will return on Tuesday through Thursday of this week to continue work on the trackers. Cyrus From: SMTP%"CTAYLOR@FNALV.FNAL.GOV" 12-FEB-1994 12:45:00.97 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: tracking Date: Sat, 12 Feb 1994 12:43:00 -0600 (CST) From: CTAYLOR@FNALV.FNAL.GOV To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov, CTAYLOR@FNALV.FNAL.GOV Message-Id: <940212124300.20a3b8cf@FNALV.FNAL.GOV> Subject: tracking The message I just sent is a draft of the www documentation for the minimax trackers, indicating the direction we are heading. Let us know of any comments/suggestions/complaints, Cyrus From: SMTP%"CTAYLOR@FNALV.FNAL.GOV" 12-FEB-1994 12:53:14.07 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: protocols on tracking Date: Sat, 12 Feb 1994 12:36:40 -0600 From: CTAYLOR@FNALV.FNAL.GOV Subject: protocols on tracking Sender: T864-L - T864 Discussion List To: Multiple recipients of list T864-L Reply-to: CTAYLOR@FNALV.FNAL.GOV Message-id: <01H8SMY64QIQ0002AV@SERV02.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> X-Envelope-to: minimax@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-To: t864-l@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU Trackers on FNMINT Due to the high rate of hits in the chambers, there are two trackers: Hougher; Combinatorial tracker, with duplicate removal. The Hougher projects hit wires from an assumed vertex location onto a plane covered by N*M overlapping, circular cells. The cells are arranged in a square lattice which covers the acceptance of the chambers as seen from the vertex. For each cell, the Hougher determines the number of planes which have hit wires whose projections from the vertex lie within the cell. The Hougher produces a list of hit wires per plane per cell. It is being used as a front end for the Combinatorial tracker. The Combinatorial tracker uses information from the Hougher for each cell, and reconstructs tracks inside the cell, constructing a list of tracks described by y=y0+z*yv, x=x0+z*xv. A second stage of the Combinatorial tracker is to flag duplicate tracks depending on which wires make the track; values of y0,yv,x0,xv; and track chi-squared. In order to modularize the problem, we have defined the following MINIMAX common blocks on FNMINT MINIMAX$HOUGHER:HOUGHER.INC MINIMAX$COMBINE:COMBINE.INC The HOUGHER.INC contains information which a Hougher must fill, and COMBINE.INC contains information which a Combinatorial tracker must fill. In this way, we can anaylse events with the following algorithm: CALL GET_EVENT(STATUS) CALL UNPACKER CALL HOUGHER(X0,Y0,Z0,IRES,NQUAL,AWFLAG) NTRACKS=0 DO I=1,NCELL DO J=1,NCELL IF(HOUGH(I,J).GE.HOUGHMIN)THEN CALL COMBINE(I,J) !ntracks is incremented in ENDIF ! combine END DO END DO CALL DUPLIC C C Now Analyse data in COMBINE.INC common blocks C The input arguments to the HOUGHER are the assumed vertex (such as C0), a parameter determining the resolution of the cells (currently, IRES=1 corresponds to cells 1" apart, center-to-center; IRES=2 corresponds to cells 0.5" apart, center-to-center). NQUAL is output and is equal to (the number of cells with NNCHAMB hit planes)*(10**6) + (the number of cells NNCHAMB-1 hit planes)*(10**3) + (the number of cells with NNCHAMB-2 hit planes)*1. If AWFLAG=1, HOUGHER fills the ASSOC_WIRE array (defined in HOUGHER.INC); otherwise the array is not filled. Hougher Scanners By incrementing X0, Y0 and Z0, and maximising NQUAL, it is possible to identify the vertex of the primary interaction in single vertex events. Such maximising programs are termed Hougher Scanners. Multiple Versions Currently MINIMAX$COMBINE points to USR$ROOT1:[MINIMAX.COMBINE.V1_0] and MINIMAX$HOUGHER points to USR$ROOT1:[MINIMAX.HOUGHER.V1_0]. By referring to the include files and code libraries by these logicals it will be possible for people to use different versions of Houghers and Combinatorials without changing compilation or linking procedures, but by changing a logical. Alignment Chamber Alignment parameters have been given versioning capability by defining a logical MINIMAX$ALIGN. Users can pick up the latest alignment in the include file MINIMAX$ALIGN:ALIGN.INC. If chambers are moved, then the ALIGN common block will need to be indexed by Run Number. From: FNMINT::SMTP%"MAILER-DAEMON@po.CWRU.Edu" 14-FEB-1994 21:57:27.10 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Returned mail: Cannot send message for 3 days Message-Id: <9402150357.AA25940@po.CWRU.Edu> Date: Mon, 14 Feb 94 22:57:11 -0500 From: Mail Delivery Subsystem Subject: Returned mail: Cannot send message for 3 days To: MINIMAX@FNMINT.FNAL.GOV ----- Transcript of session follows ----- 421 cwaphy.phys.cwru.edu (tcp)... Deferred: Connection timed out during user open with cwaphy.phys.cwru.edu ----- Unsent message follows ----- Return-Path: Received: from fnmini.fnal.gov by po.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.65b+ida+/CWRU-1.9.4) id AA17924; Fri, 11 Feb 94 22:39:21 -0500 (from MINIMAX@FNMINT.FNAL.GOV for ctaylor@fnalv.fnal.gov) Received: from FNMINT.FNAL.GOV by FNMINI.FNAL.GOV with SMTP; Fri, 11 Feb 1994 21:39:06 -0600 (CST) 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 I I 12 I I 11 I I 10 I I 9 I I _____________________________ -50" +50" Z value of closest approach 23.5 23 - 22.5 I 22 I 21.5 I 21 I 20.5 I 20 -I- 19.5 I I 19 I I 18.5 I I 18 - I I 17.5 I I I 17 - I I I- 16.5 I I I I 16 I I I I 15.5 I I I I 15 I I - - - -I I 14.5 I I I I I I I 14 I I I I I-I I - - 13.5 I I I I I I I I 13 I I I- I -I I-- I I 12.5 I I II I I I I I 12 I I II - I I I I- - I- 11.5 I I II I I I I II I II 11 I I II -I I I I -II- I II 10.5 I I II II I I I I I I II 10 - I I II-II -I-I I- I I I---II 9.5 I I I I I I I I I I I 9 I I -I-I I I I I I I I - 8.5 I I I I I I I I I I I 8 -I I I I-I I I I-I I I 7.5 II I I I I I I 7 II -I I I I I-I 6.5 II II I I I I 6 II-II I I-I I 5.5 I I I I 5 -- I I I I 4.5 II I I I I 4 II --I I I I- 3.5 II I I I I 3 II-I I-I I 2.5 I I ---------------------------------------------------------- -2" +2" Distance of closest approach to the 'Z' axis These background histograms contain the top two histograms. From the (tdc cut/distance of closest approach hist.) it would appear that what we are calling the z axis is below the beam ~.5". I'm not sure what we can say about the z vertex histogram. The tracker seems to have a geometric limitation of ~ 5" on vertex resolution. By this I mean if I fit wires a,b,c,d in chbrs. 1,2,11,12 and then do a fit to wires a,b,c,d+1 I see that the vertex moves by ~5". Also in "multi-track" events the z value of closest approach can differ by 20" for the different tracks. Some of this may be due to scattering, photon conversion, ect. I am going to increase my multiplicity cut and try to get better stats. Does anyone know how to make a scatter plot with paw? If anyone is going to try running the tracker in [.tracker2] to do any analysis they should probalby get in touch with me. There are some changes I've made to the version in .tracker2. I've put a bit of a front end on the tracker that will allow you to change certain cuts inherent in this tracking method, and added hbook output. Good hunting Ken From: SMTP%"STREETS@FNALV.FNAL.GOV" 15-FEB-1994 13:01:29.13 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: downtime for fnmint, fnmini Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 12:59:27 -0600 (CST) From: STREETS@FNALV.FNAL.GOV To: t864-l@fnmini.FNAL.GOV Message-Id: <940215125927.20a3ecd8@FNALV.FNAL.GOV> Subject: downtime for fnmint, fnmini i would like to install the new 3.5Gbyte disk from UMich on FNMINT this afternoon at 3pm. this will mean FNMINT will be unavailable for several minutes. please let me know if this is unacceptable. i will transfer the data on the 500Mb FNMINT disk to the new disk. the Disk currently on FNMINT will be moving to FNMINI. FNMINI will need rebooting sometime later this week to mount the new disk. The final arrangement will be FNMINT - 500Mbyte disk: SYSTEM, USER LOGIN, ~100Mb DATA 3.5Gbyte disk: DATA FNMINI - 1Gbyte disk: SYSTEM, USER LOGIN, ~500Mb DATA 500Mb disk: DATA there is also a small disk from UMich, which will probably end up on FNMINT. jon From: SMTP%"STREETS@FNALV.FNAL.GOV" 15-FEB-1994 15:12:33.07 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: fnmint is up - jon Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 15:09:37 -0600 (CST) From: STREETS@FNALV.FNAL.GOV To: t864-l@fnmini.FNAL.GOV Message-Id: <940215150937.272152a3@FNALV.FNAL.GOV> Subject: fnmint is up - jon fnmint now has a 3.5Gbyte disk. i copied the data from the old DKB200:[data]. jon From: SMTP%"STREETS@FNALV.FNAL.GOV" 16-FEB-1994 10:27:49.50 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: status of disks on fnmini & fnmint Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 10:26:06 -0600 (CST) From: STREETS@FNALV.FNAL.GOV To: t864-l@fnmini.FNAL.GOV Message-Id: <940216102606.20a3915a@FNALV.FNAL.GOV> Subject: status of disks on fnmini & fnmint FNMINI now has the 500Mbyte disk mounted as DUA1:. MINIMAX has write access to DUA1:[DATA] FNMINI$ sho dev d Device Device Error Volume Free Trans Mnt Name Status Count Label Blocks Count Cnt FNMINI$DUA0: Mounted 0 FNMINI_SYS 619773 261 1 FNMINI$DUA1: Mounted 0 FNMINT_DATA 365052 1 1 VAXONLINE still writes to usr$root1:[minimax.data]. there is more free space on dua0 than on dua1, because dua0 is a 1.2Gb disk FNMINT has the 500Mb system disk and the 3.5Gb data disk from UMich mounted. FNMINT$ sho dev d Device Device Error Volume Free Trans Mnt Name Status Count Label Blocks Count Cnt FNMINT$DKB0: Mounted 1 FNMINT_SYS 161541 261 1 FNMINT$DKB200: Mounted 0 FNMINT_DATB 5094636 4 1 FNMINT$DKB300: Online 1 the 425Mb UMich disk wont mount. Qunatum Corp. are going to send me mods to the firmware. jon From: SMTP%"CTAYLOR@FNALV.FNAL.GOV" 16-FEB-1994 15:24:46.09 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: collaboration meeting Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 15:19:55 -0600 (CST) From: CTAYLOR@FNALV.FNAL.GOV To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Message-Id: <940216151955.2426ed3b@FNALV.FNAL.GOV> Subject: collaboration meeting We have had our first collider run, and hope/expect to have a series of them in the near future. With the experiment thus moving to a new phase, it seems like a good idea to have a collaboration meeting in the near future (early-mid March). I'd appreciate knowing of days that would be very good or very bad for members of the collaboration, and then we will try to schedule a meeting accordingly. Cyrus From: SMTP%"BJORKEN@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU" 16-FEB-1994 18:21:51.09 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: listserve Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 16:15 -0800 (PST) From: BJORKEN@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU Subject: listserve To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Message-id: <01H8YK0UKN9U000BW3@SERV02.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> X-Envelope-to: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Once I am convinced that the new local version of listserve that Jon set up does the same thing as the old slacvm one, I will ask to have the slac one discontinued. I am tempted to ask that if you do not get this via fnmini you should let me know asap. bj From: SMTP%"BJORKEN@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU" 16-FEB-1994 18:32:24.73 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: listserve Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 16:19:00 -0800 From: BJORKEN@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU Subject: listserve Sender: T864-L - T864 Discussion List To: Multiple recipients of list T864-L Reply-to: BJORKEN@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU Message-id: <01H8YKEWPM4I000CDJ@SERV02.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> X-Envelope-to: minimax@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Forwarded-from: BJORKEN - - - - Forwarded Text - - - - Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 16:15 -0800 (PST) From: BJORKEN@SLACVM Subject: listserve Once I am convinced that the new local version of listserve that Jon set up does the same thing as the old slacvm one, I will ask to have the slac one discontinued. I am tempted to ask that if you do not get this via fnmini you should let me know asap. bj From: SMTP%"CTAYLOR@FNALV.FNAL.GOV" 16-FEB-1994 23:42:51.31 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: tracking Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 23:41:46 -0600 (CST) From: CTAYLOR@FNALV.FNAL.GOV To: STREETS@FNALV.FNAL.GOV, t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Message-Id: <940216234146.20a4311c@FNALV.FNAL.GOV> Subject: tracking Jon, I think I have all the indices in accessing ASSOC_WIRES consistent with the new convention. I have modifed user.for in minimax$tracker to print out the Hough transform--this is a temporary (and not elegant) way of checking what is happening event by event. I think what I am seeing is what I expected--most events do not generate tracks; the bulk of the contribution to the histograms you were collecting seems to come from relatively infrequent events which are VERY busy. This behaviour is (I think) to be expected because we are only Houghing from a single location. To make sure that this is a correct interpretation, my next step will be to generate synthetic tracks, and verify that we successfully reconstruct them. Next after that, I think, is to implement the scanner (if the above interpretation is correct). I went over Ken's code with him, and think I have at least a general understanding of what it is doing. He has lots of ideas for streamlining and improving it; we discussed how to proceed in this-- the key point being that changes in code/algorithms/etc need to be coordinated, in particular with you. The most pressing upgrade seems to me to be to internally determine all tracking/fitting cooridinates from minimax$align. Mike Longo is very eager to follow single tracks back into the calorimeter. Ken's code, as maintained in minimax$combine should work well for this task. Incidentally, Ken has a revised version of his code, which should probably become v1_2. One question: as we develop new code, or new versions of the existing code, should we work in the directories themselves (as I did today, and I guess you did yesterday), or should we work in our own directories (as Ken has been doing the past few days), or should we create .dev subdirectories for code under development? Cyrus From: FNALV::BJORKEN 17-FEB-1994 13:57:25.53 To: FNMINI::MINIMAX CC: Subj: letter to sid This is a draft of a letter to the Drell panel. I had a discussion with Tom Nash who is responsible for long range planning coordination at the lab. Since this letter has lots of opinions on what Fermilab ought to do, I wanted to have them have a chance to react before I ship it out. So it will go to Tom as well as to you all for comments. Comments please. bj 2/17/94 DRAFT Dear Sid, I am writing in response to the request for inputs to your HEPAP subcommittee on long range planning for the field. For the most part I restrict these opinions to the program for the next ten or at most fifteen years. In that interval I think the electron-positron sector is in decent condition, provided the SLAC and Cornell programs go ahead, and that there is orderly progress on next-linear- collider R and D. The NLC is a natural candidate for the centerpiece of the long range, strategic US HEP program. But it has not quite arrived yet technically, and so I do not see it appropriate to anoint it now as the unique candidate. The big problem now is of course the proton program in the post- SSC world. It is a pity that our only new facility in the next decade is something proposed in 1970 which should have been commissioned a decade ago and will only be commissioned half a decade from now. I do assume here that no new tunnels will be dug for protons in the period I consider. This is based not only on the probably negative politics, but especially on the marginal scientific case in the presence of the LHC. The case is certainly weaker than what was made for the Fermilab dedicated collider proposal in 1983, a case deemed by the community as unacceptably weak. In any case, it is simply a fact that promoting a new proton ring of any sort is a high risk enterprise. And given that we have just completed ten high-risk SSC years, it is hardly the time to enter more of the same. Therefore the focus is on what we have now, namely Fermilab, and what can be done with it. For the last several years that lab has had a kind of number-two status, living in the shadow of the SSC, at least with respect to strategic priorities. But now it is back to Number One status. We should not ignore that fact. And it is not at all a weak Number One. For essentially the entire period of consideration Fermilab will provide the highest energy collisions in the world, with an improvement program which should produce a steadily increasing luminosity as well. It is the flagship laboratory in the country, and should be capable of supporting a solid majority of the community. Nevertheless I feel the situation vis a vis Fermilab is at present not at all healthy. At Fermilab the progress seems to come at a glacially slow pace. I hasten to emphasize that this is not because of weak staff or management. For the last year I have been immersed in a small test/experiment in the Tevatron collider, and have seen the operations of the laboratory in a way that goes beyond what I experienced during my ten-year tenure there in the 1980's. I am most impressed by the depth and quality of the staff, especially in the accelerator division, which to me is a real class operation. The ambience and infrastructure throughout the laboratory is superb. And John and his administration are as far as I can see doing a first rate job in running the lab. So why the problem? Some is built in: running fixed target and collider in series makes for a very long cycle time. But for sure a root cause is budgetary deficiency and bureaucratic oversufficiency. The wear and tear of the new layers of DOE regulations, the Tiger teams, and especially the inability to run the machine full time because of budget limitations has taken its toll. In addition, the burdens imposed by the presence of the SSC and the challenges to the Fermilab management structure that have been catalyzed by the SSC have not helped either. All this, together with the narrowing of scientific focus of the HEP community, has led to a tendency to contract the scientific program in the lab. I think the appropriate solution to this problem is for Fermilab to aggressively expand and diversify its scientific program. Even glaciers are known to undergo surges, where the flow unexpectedly quickens for a while to an extraordinary degree. Fermilab deserves and needs just such a surge now. It can be accomplished by the reopening of some of its many fixed target spigots. There is a big latent physics menu to consider. I found it painful to witness the rejection of an innovative, high-risk proposal to look for CP violation in hyperon-decay asymmetries shortly after the demise of the SSC, a proposal led by a very talented, young, but most experienced worker in that subfield, Kam-Biu Luk. Could there not have been at the least a deferral until the impact of the SSC loss were better assessed? There is plenty of motivation for a long baseline neutrino-oscillation experiment, but it is caught in the glacier despite PAC/lab in-principle endorsement. The muon program is gone, just when HERA is stimulating the physics in an area where Fermilab could contribute. Spin-physics in hadron collisions disappeared in a most untimely way a few years ago. The fixed target charm physics goes well, is far from being saturated, and deserves the support needed to maintain momentum. Most everyone agrees that the KTev program is a high priority, quality experiment. Yet it did not augment when the SSC went down. Why? Beyond KTev there may well be other rare K decay physics measurements to be done. And so on. And at least as important as augmentation of the fixed target program is the augmentation of the collider program. I think it is essential to do this by adding more collision regions, if possible two more. One of these would naturally go to an optimized b-physics experiment, with a major new collision hall. The other might evolve from our own enterprise, and be dedicated to large-cross section physics which need not have long running periods. The program could naturally be a testbed for innovations in detector components and/or detector architectures (especially for forward-direction physics) and have a not insignificant level of sophistication. The emphasis here would have to be on compact detector elements which could fit in a slightly expanded C0 collision region, or its equivalent. And the physics is not at all insignificant. Forward-direction physics is still unexplored. At DESY already I see that interesting questions raised by their observations are difficult to answer because of the limited performance capability of generic barrel detectors for small angle particles. There are members of our group interested in very low pt. Others are interested in leading particle physics, others in hard diffraction and disoriented chiral condensate. With leading-particle tagging such things as pi-pi and pi-nucleon elastic and total cross sections could be measured. In general there are a lot of aspects of strong interactions that still need serious attention. They are not understood and therefore not in simulations. Even at large angles and moderate pt there are new opportunities. As pt scales and jet multiplicities increase, the problem of jet clusters,i.e. jets whose cores are separated by angles small compared to a radian, becomes more acute. Generic techniques for separating them based on hadron calorimetry cannot deal with this. But good tracking plus fine-grained electromag- netic calorimetry might: there is not a physical limitation but there is a need for very small pixel size (0.01 x 0.01 in lego units?) leading to a need for dealing with many more readout channels in a way that is economical in space as well as cost. I do not see the present Fermilab initiative to incorporate b- physics within the B0 and D0 regions as augmentation of the program. It looks more like a prescription for trouble. It seems preferable to me to add a third region, even if it cannot be run simultaneously with CDF/D0 rather than compromising the rest of CDF and/or D0's program in order for them to meet the b-physics competition. For both the fixed target and collider augmentations, I am very convinced that there is more than ample scientific justification in these investments. They may not have the glamour that the high- priority SSC physics had. But there has been much skipped over in the SSC-induced leap to the Tev scale. It is in fact an imperative for us physicists to behave as scientists and investigate with great thoroughness-and with good taste- all the phenomena available to us at the present energy scale. It cannot but help make more efficient the utilization of future larger facilities. Making the above program happen will not come easily. But it should in a rational world be much easier than asking for a new proton ring somewhere. There are at least three necessary conditions for making this happen: 1. Fermilab management must be activist in persuading not only DOE but also the community that this is an essential element for their future. 2. Support must be forthcoming from DOE and the community, e.g. your committee and HEPAP. This means a major increase in the resources allocated to Fermilab. 3. Most importantly, support must come from the grass roots. This support must be expressed in terms of proposals and expressions of interest for the physics to be done. To make things happen these proposals will have to be imaginative and well thought out. I am pained, truly pained, to say that I believe that the most difficult of the three requirements above will be the third. The SSC decade has raised expectations so high within the community that there seems little interest in physics outside of the Big Three: Higgs, top, and CP. Since the fall of the SSC, I have watched for a flow of people/ideas/proposals/expressions-of-interest back into the Fermilab program. If it has happened, I have not been able to detect it. It seems to me that there are far too many experimentalists willing to live for the next decade within the comfort and security of a long term LHC project or whatever, with the nearest contact to physics being the make-believe world of the Monte Carlo, rather than trying to go out and measure something. There is a perception that relatively small or chancy enterprises will not be funded by DOE, and that it is necessary to jump into a big barrel somewhere in order to be assured support. I do not know whether this perception is true. If so, your committee should strive to change the situation. If not, this fact should be advertised to the community. There is I believe a vital need to maintain diversity at all levels. First and foremost it is good science. History teaches that it is dangerous to assume that one knows what the right problem is. We are extraordinarily overfocussed now. The breakout from the standard model for which we all yearn can happen in unconventional ways. The only way to prepare for that is an open attitude regarding alternatives and a patient accumulation of as broad a data base as possible. And I mean the real thing, not Monte Carlo. In addition, the smaller enterprises provide a kind of training that I believe cannot occur within the large collaborations. At least part of our leadership ought to evolve from that source. I have not addressed the issue of the LHC. Certainly we should do everything we can to ensure that the LHC goes ahead. That is essential basic science. Likewise we should do it in a way that does not destabilize the delicately balanced political structure of CERN. So a level of activity consistent with those basic requirements is most appropriate. I prefer a low-profile approach, with the US contribution diffuse, rather than a bloc marching in with US flag flying high. But no matter what the level of involvement, we can only be a junior partner in that enterprise. And given our heritage in proton physics that is a letdown and a potential difficulty. Does that mean that we are phasing out and that Fermilab's existing facilities are the end of the line? This need not be the case at all. But we will need to be patient, and focus on the needs beyond the LHC. We should restart the dream, not in terms of a national program that the SSC turned out to be, but more like the VBA dream that preceded the SSC. This time the parameters of the VBC need to be looked at anew. They probably should be higher than VBA, in fact as high as technical feasibility (the synchrotron radiation limit) allows. Why not think boldly in that direction? We have learned that 10 to 20 Tev per beam is thinkable as a regional program. So a world program, started to be sure not for some time, should have considerably more reach than that. While no one would consider initiation of such a program this side of commissioning of the LHC, there are some issues which are more immediate. For example if one goes ahead with a large linear electron collider, is it feasible to collide its electrons with stored protons? If so one should consider sites where the linac and large VBC proton ring can coexist. One could see a staged program where protons from the booster rings collided with electrons. This could exceed LHC's 100 Gev x 8 Tev at a relatively early stage. So there are I think already reasons to dream the dream now, with quite possibly real R and D implied, as well as conceptual design work. Fermilab is a natural center for this to occur, and the natural focal point for national efforts on this long range goal. In addition, for the superconducting option for a next linear collider, Fermilab is also a natural site for conducting the R and D. In short, there is no reason to believe that Fermilab is on some sort of road toward obsolescence and every reason for the contrary. So in conclusion, I think there is plenty of opportunity for a healthy US program just with what we have. The hard part seems to be to believe that this is really true. To do that requires thinking about physics. It requires thinking small. It requires imagination and taste. I only can hope that there are enough people left that know how to do all that. Good luck in the difficult task that you face. Yours truly, bj From: SMTP%"BJORKEN@FNALV.FNAL.GOV" 17-FEB-1994 14:28:33.34 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: letter to sid Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 14:11:47 -0600 From: BJORKEN@FNALV.FNAL.GOV Subject: letter to sid Sender: T864-L - T864 Discussion List To: Multiple recipients of list T864-L Reply-to: BJORKEN@FNALV.FNAL.GOV Message-id: <01H8ZPYI62BA000HTP@SERV02.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> X-Envelope-to: minimax@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-To: t864-l@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU This is a letter to the Drell subpanel. I had a chat with Tom Nash who is coordinator for Fermilab long range planning. Since the contents of the letter has much to do with Fermilab, I am forwarding this to him for comments as well as to you all. Comments please. bj 2/17/94 DRAFT Dear Sid, I am writing in response to the request for inputs to your HEPAP subcommittee on long range planning for the field. For the most part I restrict these opinions to the program for the next ten or at most fifteen years. In that interval I think the electron-positron sector is in decent condition, provided the SLAC and Cornell programs go ahead, and that there is orderly progress on next-linear- collider R and D. The NLC is a natural candidate for the centerpiece of the long range, strategic US HEP program. But it has not quite arrived yet technically, and so I do not see it appropriate to anoint it now as the unique candidate. The big problem now is of course the proton program in the post- SSC world. It is a pity that our only new facility in the next decade is something proposed in 1970 which should have been commissioned a decade ago and will only be commissioned half a decade from now. I do assume here that no new tunnels will be dug for protons in the period I consider. This is based not only on the probably negative politics, but especially on the marginal scientific case in the presence of the LHC. The case is certainly weaker than what was made for the Fermilab dedicated collider proposal in 1983, a case deemed by the community as unacceptably weak. In any case, it is simply a fact that promoting a new proton ring of any sort is a high risk enterprise. And given that we have just completed ten high-risk SSC years, it is hardly the time to enter more of the same. Therefore the focus is on what we have now, namely Fermilab, and what can be done with it. For the last several years that lab has had a kind of number-two status, living in the shadow of the SSC, at least with respect to strategic priorities. But now it is back to Number One status. We should not ignore that fact. And it is not at all a weak Number One. For essentially the entire period of consideration Fermilab will provide the highest energy collisions in the world, with an improvement program which should produce a steadily increasing luminosity as well. It is the flagship laboratory in the country, and should be capable of supporting a solid majority of the community. Nevertheless I feel the situation vis a vis Fermilab is at present not at all healthy. At Fermilab the progress seems to come at a glacially slow pace. I hasten to emphasize that this is not because of weak staff or management. For the last year I have been immersed in a small test/experiment in the Tevatron collider, and have seen the operations of the laboratory in a way that goes beyond what I experienced during my ten-year tenure there in the 1980's. I am most impressed by the depth and quality of the staff, especially in the accelerator division, which to me is a real class operation. The ambience and infrastructure throughout the laboratory is superb. And John and his administration are as far as I can see doing a first rate job in running the lab. So why the problem? Some is built in: running fixed target and collider in series makes for a very long cycle time. But for sure a root cause is budgetary deficiency and bureaucratic oversufficiency. The wear and tear of the new layers of DOE regulations, the Tiger teams, and especially the inability to run the machine full time because of budget limitations has taken its toll. In addition, the burdens imposed by the presence of the SSC and the challenges to the Fermilab management structure that have been catalyzed by the SSC have not helped either. All this, together with the narrowing of scientific focus of the HEP community, has led to a tendency to contract the scientific program in the lab. I think the appropriate solution to this problem is for Fermilab to aggressively expand and diversify its scientific program. Even glaciers are known to undergo surges, where the flow unexpectedly quickens for a while to an extraordinary degree. Fermilab deserves and needs just such a surge now. It can be accomplished by the reopening of some of its many fixed target spigots. There is a big latent physics menu to consider. I found it painful to witness the rejection of an innovative, high-risk proposal to look for CP violation in hyperon-decay asymmetries shortly after the demise of the SSC, a proposal led by a very talented, young, but most experienced worker in that subfield, Kam-Biu Luk. Could there not have been at the least a deferral until the impact of the SSC loss were better assessed? There is plenty of motivation for a long baseline neutrino-oscillation experiment, but it is caught in the glacier despite PAC/lab in-principle endorsement. The muon program is gone, just when HERA is stimulating the physics in an area where Fermilab could contribute. Spin-physics in hadron collisions disappeared in a most untimely way a few years ago. The fixed target charm physics goes well, is far from being saturated, and deserves the support needed to maintain momentum. Most everyone agrees that the KTev program is a high priority, quality experiment. Yet it did not augment when the SSC went down. Why? Beyond KTev there may well be other rare K decay physics measurements to be done. And so on. And at least as important as augmentation of the fixed target program is the augmentation of the collider program. I think it is essential to do this by adding more collision regions, if possible two more. One of these would naturally go to an optimized b-physics experiment, with a major new collision hall. The other might evolve from our own enterprise, and be dedicated to large-cross section physics which need not have long running periods. The program could naturally be a testbed for innovations in detector components and/or detector architectures (especially for forward-direction physics) and have a not insignificant level of sophistication. The emphasis here would have to be on compact detector elements which could fit in a slightly expanded C0 collision region, or its equivalent. And the physics is not at all insignificant. Forward-direction physics is still unexplored. At DESY already I see that interesting questions raised by their observations are difficult to answer because of the limited performance capability of generic barrel detectors for small angle particles. There are members of our group interested in very low pt. Others are interested in leading particle physics, others in hard diffraction and disoriented chiral condensate. With leading-particle tagging such things as pi-pi and pi-nucleon elastic and total cross sections could be measured. In general there are a lot of aspects of strong interactions that still need serious attention. They are not understood and therefore not in simulations. Even at large angles and moderate pt there are new opportunities. As pt scales and jet multiplicities increase, the problem of jet clusters,i.e. jets whose cores are separated by angles small compared to a radian, becomes more acute. Generic techniques for separating them based on hadron calorimetry cannot deal with this. But good tracking plus fine-grained electromag- netic calorimetry might: there is not a physical limitation but there is a need for very small pixel size (0.01 x 0.01 in lego units?) leading to a need for dealing with many more readout channels in a way that is economical in space as well as cost. I do not see the present Fermilab initiative to incorporate b- physics within the B0 and D0 regions as augmentation of the program. It looks more like a prescription for trouble. It seems preferable to me to add a third region, even if it cannot be run simultaneously with CDF/D0 rather than compromising the rest of CDF and/or D0's program in order for them to meet the b-physics competition. For both the fixed target and collider augmentations, I am very convinced that there is more than ample scientific justification in these investments. They may not have the glamour that the high- priority SSC physics had. But there has been much skipped over in the SSC-induced leap to the Tev scale. It is in fact an imperative for us physicists to behave as scientists and investigate with great thoroughness-and with good taste- all the phenomena available to us at the present energy scale. It cannot but help make more efficient the utilization of future larger facilities. Making the above program happen will not come easily. But it should in a rational world be much easier than asking for a new proton ring somewhere. There are at least three necessary conditions for making this happen: 1. Fermilab management must be activist in persuading not only DOE but also the community that this is an essential element for their future. 2. Support must be forthcoming from DOE and the community, e.g. your committee and HEPAP. This means a major increase in the resources allocated to Fermilab. 3. Most importantly, support must come from the grass roots. This support must be expressed in terms of proposals and expressions of interest for the physics to be done. To make things happen these proposals will have to be imaginative and well thought out. I am pained, truly pained, to say that I believe that the most difficult of the three requirements above will be the third. The SSC decade has raised expectations so high within the community that there seems little interest in physics outside of the Big Three: Higgs, top, and CP. Since the fall of the SSC, I have watched for a flow of people/ideas/proposals/expressions-of-interest back into the Fermilab program. If it has happened, I have not been able to detect it. It seems to me that there are far too many experimentalists willing to live for the next decade within the comfort and security of a long term LHC project or whatever, with the nearest contact to physics being the make-believe world of the Monte Carlo, rather than trying to go out and measure something. There is a perception that relatively small or chancy enterprises will not be funded by DOE, and that it is necessary to jump into a big barrel somewhere in order to be assured support. I do not know whether this perception is true. If so, your committee should strive to change the situation. If not, this fact should be advertised to the community. There is I believe a vital need to maintain diversity at all levels. First and foremost it is good science. History teaches that it is dangerous to assume that one knows what the right problem is. We are extraordinarily overfocussed now. The breakout from the standard model for which we all yearn can happen in unconventional ways. The only way to prepare for that is an open attitude regarding alternatives and a patient accumulation of as broad a data base as possible. And I mean the real thing, not Monte Carlo. In addition, the smaller enterprises provide a kind of training that I believe cannot occur within the large collaborations. At least part of our leadership ought to evolve from that source. I have not addressed the issue of the LHC. Certainly we should do everything we can to ensure that the LHC goes ahead. That is essential basic science. Likewise we should do it in a way that does not destabilize the delicately balanced political structure of CERN. So a level of activity consistent with those basic requirements is most appropriate. I prefer a low-profile approach, with the US contribution diffuse, rather than a bloc marching in with US flag flying high. But no matter what the level of involvement, we can only be a junior partner in that enterprise. And given our heritage in proton physics that is a letdown and a potential difficulty. Does that mean that we are phasing out and that Fermilab's existing facilities are the end of the line? This need not be the case at all. But we will need to be patient, and focus on the needs beyond the LHC. We should restart the dream, not in terms of a national program that the SSC turned out to be, but more like the VBA dream that preceded the SSC. This time the parameters of the VBC need to be looked at anew. They probably should be higher than VBA, in fact as high as technical feasibility (the synchrotron radiation limit) allows. Why not think boldly in that direction? We have learned that 10 to 20 Tev per beam is thinkable as a regional program. So a world program, started to be sure not for some time, should have considerably more reach than that. While no one would consider initiation of such a program this side of commissioning of the LHC, there are some issues which are more immediate. For example if one goes ahead with a large linear electron collider, is it feasible to collide its electrons with stored protons? If so one should consider sites where the linac and large VBC proton ring can coexist. One could see a staged program where protons from the booster rings collided with electrons. This could exceed LHC's 100 Gev x 8 Tev at a relatively early stage. So there are I think already reasons to dream the dream now, with quite possibly real R and D implied, as well as conceptual design work. Fermilab is a natural center for this to occur, and the natural focal point for national efforts on this long range goal. In addition, for the superconducting option for a next linear collider, Fermilab is also a natural site for conducting the R and D. In short, there is no reason to believe that Fermilab is on some sort of road toward obsolescence and every reason for the contrary. So in conclusion, I think there is plenty of opportunity for a healthy US program just with what we have. The hard part seems to be to believe that this is really true. To do that requires thinking about physics. It requires thinking small. It requires imagination and taste. I only can hope that there are enough people left that know how to do all that. Good luck in the difficult task that you face. Yours truly, bj From: SMTP%"BJORKEN@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU" 17-FEB-1994 14:54:55.26 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: letter to sid Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 12:47 -0800 (PST) From: BJORKEN@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU Subject: letter to sid To: T864-L@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Message-id: <01H8ZR11J9SI000H8I@SERV02.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> X-Envelope-to: T864-L@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Forwarded-from: BJORKEN I had trouble sending this from vax to vax, so I'll try this way-- - - - - Forwarded Text - - - - Received: from SLACVM.BITNET by SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Mailer R2.08 R208004) with BSMTP id 7101; Thu, 17 Feb 94 12:16:36 PST Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 14:11:47 -0600 Reply-To: BJORKEN@FNALV.FNAL.GOV From: BJORKEN@FNALV.FNAL.GOV Subject: letter to sid To: James Bjorken This is a letter to the Drell subpanel. I had a chat with Tom Nash who is coordinator for Fermilab long range planning. Since the contents of the letter has much to do with Fermilab, I am forwarding this to him for comments as well as to you all. Comments please. bj 2/17/94 DRAFT Dear Sid, I am writing in response to the request for inputs to your HEPAP subcommittee on long range planning for the field. For the most part I restrict these opinions to the program for the next ten or at most fifteen years. In that interval I think the electron-positron sector is in decent condition, provided the SLAC and Cornell programs go ahead, and that there is orderly progress on next-linear- collider R and D. The NLC is a natural candidate for the centerpiece of the long range, strategic US HEP program. But it has not quite arrived yet technically, and so I do not see it appropriate to anoint it now as the unique candidate. The big problem now is of course the proton program in the post- SSC world. It is a pity that our only new facility in the next decade is something proposed in 1970 which should have been commissioned a decade ago and will only be commissioned half a decade from now. I do assume here that no new tunnels will be dug for protons in the period I consider. This is based not only on the probably negative politics, but especially on the marginal scientific case in the presence of the LHC. The case is certainly weaker than what was made for the Fermilab dedicated collider proposal in 1983, a case deemed by the community as unacceptably weak. In any case, it is simply a fact that promoting a new proton ring of any sort is a high risk enterprise. And given that we have just completed ten high-risk SSC years, it is hardly the time to enter more of the same. Therefore the focus is on what we have now, namely Fermilab, and what can be done with it. For the last several years that lab has had a kind of number-two status, living in the shadow of the SSC, at least with respect to strategic priorities. But now it is back to Number One status. We should not ignore that fact. And it is not at all a weak Number One. For essentially the entire period of consideration Fermilab will provide the highest energy collisions in the world, with an improvement program which should produce a steadily increasing luminosity as well. It is the flagship laboratory in the country, and should be capable of supporting a solid majority of the community. Nevertheless I feel the situation vis a vis Fermilab is at present not at all healthy. At Fermilab the progress seems to come at a glacially slow pace. I hasten to emphasize that this is not because of weak staff or management. For the last year I have been immersed in a small test/experiment in the Tevatron collider, and have seen the operations of the laboratory in a way that goes beyond what I experienced during my ten-year tenure there in the 1980's. I am most impressed by the depth and quality of the staff, especially in the accelerator division, which to me is a real class operation. The ambience and infrastructure throughout the laboratory is superb. And John and his administration are as far as I can see doing a first rate job in running the lab. So why the problem? Some is built in: running fixed target and collider in series makes for a very long cycle time. But for sure a root cause is budgetary deficiency and bureaucratic oversufficiency. The wear and tear of the new layers of DOE regulations, the Tiger teams, and especially the inability to run the machine full time because of budget limitations has taken its toll. In addition, the burdens imposed by the presence of the SSC and the challenges to the Fermilab management structure that have been catalyzed by the SSC have not helped either. All this, together with the narrowing of scientific focus of the HEP community, has led to a tendency to contract the scientific program in the lab. I think the appropriate solution to this problem is for Fermilab to aggressively expand and diversify its scientific program. Even glaciers are known to undergo surges, where the flow unexpectedly quickens for a while to an extraordinary degree. Fermilab deserves and needs just such a surge now. It can be accomplished by the reopening of some of its many fixed target spigots. There is a big latent physics menu to consider. I found it painful to witness the rejection of an innovative, high-risk proposal to look for CP violation in hyperon-decay asymmetries shortly after the demise of the SSC, a proposal led by a very talented, young, but most experienced worker in that subfield, Kam-Biu Luk. Could there not have been at the least a deferral until the impact of the SSC loss were better assessed? There is plenty of motivation for a long baseline neutrino-oscillation experiment, but it is caught in the glacier despite PAC/lab in-principle endorsement. The muon program is gone, just when HERA is stimulating the physics in an area where Fermilab could contribute. Spin-physics in hadron collisions disappeared in a most untimely way a few years ago. The fixed target charm physics goes well, is far from being saturated, and deserves the support needed to maintain momentum. Most everyone agrees that the KTev program is a high priority, quality experiment. Yet it did not augment when the SSC went down. Why? Beyond KTev there may well be other rare K decay physics measurements to be done. And so on. And at least as important as augmentation of the fixed target program is the augmentation of the collider program. I think it is essential to do this by adding more collision regions, if possible two more. One of these would naturally go to an optimized b-physics experiment, with a major new collision hall. The other might evolve from our own enterprise, and be dedicated to large-cross section physics which need not have long running periods. The program could naturally be a testbed for innovations in detector components and/or detector architectures (especially for forward-direction physics) and have a not insignificant level of sophistication. The emphasis here would have to be on compact detector elements which could fit in a slightly expanded C0 collision region, or its equivalent. And the physics is not at all insignificant. Forward-direction physics is still unexplored. At DESY already I see that interesting questions raised by their observations are difficult to answer because of the limited performance capability of generic barrel detectors for small angle particles. There are members of our group interested in very low pt. Others are interested in leading particle physics, others in hard diffraction and disoriented chiral condensate. With leading-particle tagging such things as pi-pi and pi-nucleon elastic and total cross sections could be measured. In general there are a lot of aspects of strong interactions that still need serious attention. They are not understood and therefore not in simulations. Even at large angles and moderate pt there are new opportunities. As pt scales and jet multiplicities increase, the problem of jet clusters,i.e. jets whose cores are separated by angles small compared to a radian, becomes more acute. Generic techniques for separating them based on hadron calorimetry cannot deal with this. But good tracking plus fine-grained electromag- netic calorimetry might: there is not a physical limitation but there is a need for very small pixel size (0.01 x 0.01 in lego units?) leading to a need for dealing with many more readout channels in a way that is economical in space as well as cost. I do not see the present Fermilab initiative to incorporate b- physics within the B0 and D0 regions as augmentation of the program. It looks more like a prescription for trouble. It seems preferable to me to add a third region, even if it cannot be run simultaneously with CDF/D0 rather than compromising the rest of CDF and/or D0's program in order for them to meet the b-physics competition. For both the fixed target and collider augmentations, I am very convinced that there is more than ample scientific justification in these investments. They may not have the glamour that the high- priority SSC physics had. But there has been much skipped over in the SSC-induced leap to the Tev scale. It is in fact an imperative for us physicists to behave as scientists and investigate with great thoroughness-and with good taste- all the phenomena available to us at the present energy scale. It cannot but help make more efficient the utilization of future larger facilities. Making the above program happen will not come easily. But it should in a rational world be much easier than asking for a new proton ring somewhere. There are at least three necessary conditions for making this happen: 1. Fermilab management must be activist in persuading not only DOE but also the community that this is an essential element for their future. 2. Support must be forthcoming from DOE and the community, e.g. your committee and HEPAP. This means a major increase in the resources allocated to Fermilab. 3. Most importantly, support must come from the grass roots. This support must be expressed in terms of proposals and expressions of interest for the physics to be done. To make things happen these proposals will have to be imaginative and well thought out. I am pained, truly pained, to say that I believe that the most difficult of the three requirements above will be the third. The SSC decade has raised expectations so high within the community that there seems little interest in physics outside of the Big Three: Higgs, top, and CP. Since the fall of the SSC, I have watched for a flow of people/ideas/proposals/expressions-of-interest back into the Fermilab program. If it has happened, I have not been able to detect it. It seems to me that there are far too many experimentalists willing to live for the next decade within the comfort and security of a long term LHC project or whatever, with the nearest contact to physics being the make-believe world of the Monte Carlo, rather than trying to go out and measure something. There is a perception that relatively small or chancy enterprises will not be funded by DOE, and that it is necessary to jump into a big barrel somewhere in order to be assured support. I do not know whether this perception is true. If so, your committee should strive to change the situation. If not, this fact should be advertised to the community. There is I believe a vital need to maintain diversity at all levels. First and foremost it is good science. History teaches that it is dangerous to assume that one knows what the right problem is. We are extraordinarily overfocussed now. The breakout from the standard model for which we all yearn can happen in unconventional ways. The only way to prepare for that is an open attitude regarding alternatives and a patient accumulation of as broad a data base as possible. And I mean the real thing, not Monte Carlo. In addition, the smaller enterprises provide a kind of training that I believe cannot occur within the large collaborations. At least part of our leadership ought to evolve from that source. I have not addressed the issue of the LHC. Certainly we should do everything we can to ensure that the LHC goes ahead. That is essential basic science. Likewise we should do it in a way that does not destabilize the delicately balanced political structure of CERN. So a level of activity consistent with those basic requirements is most appropriate. I prefer a low-profile approach, with the US contribution diffuse, rather than a bloc marching in with US flag flying high. But no matter what the level of involvement, we can only be a junior partner in that enterprise. And given our heritage in proton physics that is a letdown and a potential difficulty. Does that mean that we are phasing out and that Fermilab's existing facilities are the end of the line? This need not be the case at all. But we will need to be patient, and focus on the needs beyond the LHC. We should restart the dream, not in terms of a national program that the SSC turned out to be, but more like the VBA dream that preceded the SSC. This time the parameters of the VBC need to be looked at anew. They probably should be higher than VBA, in fact as high as technical feasibility (the synchrotron radiation limit) allows. Why not think boldly in that direction? We have learned that 10 to 20 Tev per beam is thinkable as a regional program. So a world program, started to be sure not for some time, should have considerably more reach than that. While no one would consider initiation of such a program this side of commissioning of the LHC, there are some issues which are more immediate. For example if one goes ahead with a large linear electron collider, is it feasible to collide its electrons with stored protons? If so one should consider sites where the linac and large VBC proton ring can coexist. One could see a staged program where protons from the booster rings collided with electrons. This could exceed LHC's 100 Gev x 8 Tev at a relatively early stage. So there are I think already reasons to dream the dream now, with quite possibly real R and D implied, as well as conceptual design work. Fermilab is a natural center for this to occur, and the natural focal point for national efforts on this long range goal. In addition, for the superconducting option for a next linear collider, Fermilab is also a natural site for conducting the R and D. In short, there is no reason to believe that Fermilab is on some sort of road toward obsolescence and every reason for the contrary. So in conclusion, I think there is plenty of opportunity for a healthy US program just with what we have. The hard part seems to be to believe that this is really true. To do that requires thinking about physics. It requires thinking small. It requires imagination and taste. I only can hope that there are enough people left that know how to do all that. Good luck in the difficult task that you face. Yours truly, bj From: SMTP%"CTAYLOR@FNALV.FNAL.GOV" 18-FEB-1994 10:37:42.88 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: collaboration meeting Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 10:32:45 -0600 (CST) From: CTAYLOR@FNALV.FNAL.GOV To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov, CTAYLOR@FNALV.FNAL.GOV Message-Id: <940218103245.2425c56e@FNALV.FNAL.GOV> Subject: collaboration meeting After going through the various responses to my earlier message, I think the best date would probably be Thursday March 3. Major considerations are (1) E-735 has a collaboration meeting scheduled for Saturday March 5, and so it may be much cheaper for people from VPI and Duke if we schedule our meeting close to it; (2) The next week is not an option for Dick Gustason (and for Bj for part of the week); (3) Friday March 4 is the date of the Wilson symposium, and a number of people have expressed a desire to attend it. Please let me know as soon as possible if Thursday March 4 is possible/ difficult for you, so that we can nail the date down. Thanks, Cyrus From: SMTP%"cct@po.cwru.edu" 20-FEB-1994 17:32:47.51 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: more chambers in the near future Message-Id: <9402202331.AA13291@po.CWRU.Edu> Date: Sun, 20 Feb 94 18:31:55 -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: more chambers in the near future While down in the tunnel on Thursday with Dick, I spent some time thinking about where we can put another stand of chambers in a short access (i.e. without moving the chambers already in place). Since we will soon have another batch of chambers ready to go, and Dick will have electronics to read it out, it is thinkable that we do this in the next access of a few hours duration we have. There are two possibilities for the location of the new stand: at hole 4, or at hole 7. The first has the advantage of being unobstructed, but because it is nearer the collision region, probably limited to comparatively large angles. If we put the stand at hole 7, we may be able to cover smaller angles (commensurate with the rest of the telescope), but will have to take into account the obstruction provided by the tevatron support stand at hole 6. In particular, a bolt on this stand requires that a section of the aluminum support of the stand 1/2" by 2 1/2" be cut away (marked on the stand in the middle portakamp). In addition, the chamber mounted directly above it mus be mounted in a fashion consistent with a thin aluminum plate which lies 3 1/2" above the first 4" of the first rail. I will put together proposals for chamber orientations for both locations before the collaboration meeting. 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::SMTP%"longo@mich.physics.lsa.umich.edu" 21-FEB-1994 10:41:20.03 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Re: tracker problem Date: Mon, 21 Feb 1994 11:34:46 -0500 Message-Id: <94022111344633@mich.physics.lsa.umich.edu> From: longo@mich.physics.lsa.umich.edu (MICHAEL J. LONGO) To: MINIMAX@fnmint.fnal.gov Subject: Re: tracker problem X-VMS-To: SMTP%"MINIMAX@fnmint.fnal.gov" Hi Ken-- I was checking for EVTYPE=1 in USER_ANAL before I called TRACKER,etc. I temporarily took out the check for identical X's and here's what I get: Ev/n/g/x/y 35163 1 0.0000000E+00 7.337040 4.165749 Ev/n/g/x/y 35191 1 -2.000000 8.714746 2.077125 Ev/n/g/x/y 35192 1 -2.000000 10.85424 6.698949 Ev/n/g/x/y 35193 1 -3.000000 10.85424 6.698949 Ev/n/g/x/y 35194 1 -2.000000 10.85424 6.698949 Ev/n/g/x/y 35212 1 8.000000 8.456223 4.005051 Ev/n/g/x/y 35222 1 -3.000000 14.10376 12.30655 Ev/n/g/x/y 35223 1 0.0000000E+00 14.10376 12.30655 Ev/n/g/x/y 35224 1 -3.000000 14.10376 12.30655 Ev/n/g/x/y 35231 1 -3.000000 6.380091 8.805378 Ev/n/g/x/y 35232 1 -1.000000 6.380091 8.805378 Ev/n/g/x/y 35233 1 4.000000 6.380091 8.805378 Ev/n/g/x/y 35234 1 -3.000000 6.380091 8.805378 Ev/n/g/x/y 35236 1 -2.000000 6.380091 8.805378 Ev/n/g/x/y 35237 1 4.000000 6.380091 8.805378 Ev/n/g/x/y 35238 1 -2.000000 6.380091 8.805378 Ev/n/g/x/y 35239 1 -3.000000 11.76640 11.54199 The "1" in the 3rd column is now the EVTYPE. I also noticed when I had the check for identical X's still in that under certain conditions I saw PAIRs of identical tracks found for different event numbers. In other words there are sometime pairs of duplicates. My check only looked for two X's in a row that were the same. Regards, Mike From: FNMINT::SMTP%"longo@mich.physics.lsa.umich.edu" 21-FEB-1994 11:05:43.49 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Re: tracker problem Date: Mon, 21 Feb 1994 11:58:25 -0500 Message-Id: <94022111582416@mich.physics.lsa.umich.edu> From: longo@mich.physics.lsa.umich.edu (MICHAEL J. LONGO) To: MINIMAX@fnmint.fnal.gov Subject: Re: tracker problem X-VMS-To: SMTP%"MINIMAX@fnmint.fnal.gov" This is weird, but maybe a clue. I changed the crosshair chambers to 7,8,11,12 and required 6 chambers. The print statement is now inside a loop over gamma counters so the same track will get printed more than once with the second index different each time. [No EVTYPE this time.] Here's a sample: Ev/nt/i 36334 1 10 10.71031 3.462590 Ev/nt/i 36334 1 11 10.71031 3.462590 Ev/nt/i 36343 1 9 11.38161 9.013433 Ev/nt/i 36343 1 11 11.38161 9.013433 Ev/nt/i 36343 2 9 9.422606 2.891927 Ev/nt/i 36343 2 11 9.422606 2.891927 Ev/nt/i 36344 1 9 11.38161 9.013433 Ev/nt/i 36344 1 11 11.38161 9.013433 Ev/nt/i 36344 2 9 9.422606 2.891927 Ev/nt/i 36344 2 11 9.422606 2.891927 Ev/nt/i 36346 1 9 11.38161 9.013433 Ev/nt/i 36346 2 9 9.422606 2.891927 Ev/nt/i 36347 1 9 11.38161 9.013433 Ev/nt/i 36347 1 10 11.38161 9.013433 Ev/nt/i 36347 1 11 11.38161 9.013433 Ev/nt/i 36347 2 9 9.422606 2.891927 Ev/nt/i 36347 2 10 9.422606 2.891927 Ev/nt/i 36347 2 11 9.422606 2.891927 Ev/nt/i 36348 1 9 11.38161 9.013433 Ev/nt/i 36348 1 10 11.38161 9.013433 Ev/nt/i 36348 2 9 9.422606 2.891927 Ev/nt/i 36348 2 10 9.422606 2.891927 Ev/nt/i 36357 1 10 9.961980 3.000474 Ev/nt/i 36357 1 11 9.961980 3.000474 Notice the x=9.42... and x=11.38... keeps reappearing for different event numbers. --Mike From: SMTP%"cct@po.cwru.edu" 21-FEB-1994 16:10:34.59 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: collaboration meeting Message-Id: <9402212209.AA14149@po.CWRU.Edu> Date: Mon, 21 Feb 94 17:09:23 -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: collaboration meeting Cc: cct@po.CWRU.Edu This is to confirm that the collaboration meeting will begin on the morning of Thursday, 3 March, continuing on Friday 4 March 1994 as need be. Some members of the collaboration will be unable to make the first day, some the second day. Please let me know your schedule as soon as possible, and we will draw up an agenda commensurate with the various constraints. Thanks, 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::SMTP%"longo@mich.physics.lsa.umich.edu" 21-FEB-1994 17:48:18.94 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Re: tracker problem Date: Mon, 21 Feb 1994 18:41:02 -0500 Message-Id: <94022118410284@mich.physics.lsa.umich.edu> From: longo@mich.physics.lsa.umich.edu (MICHAEL J. LONGO) To: MINIMAX@fnmint.fnal.gov Subject: Re: tracker problem X-VMS-To: SMTP%"MINIMAX@fnmint.fnal.gov" Hi Ken-- I did notice later that I was calling TRACKER too early, before I checked the EVTYPE. However, I did not do anything with whatever TRACKER returned. I just RETURNed from USER_ANAL and went to the next event where I called TRACKER once more. Thus I can't see how that mattered. I am now requiring that <3 of the gamma counters give modest pulse heights before I look at the tracking and put it into my plots. This get rid of most of the big splashes which come from real gammas which dump energy into 4 or so blocks. With this cut and Run 215 with E counter required I begin to see clear correlations between the track locations at the G counters and the struck counters. Aiming seems pretty good to 1" accuracy. Mostly now I need to process more events and figure out a way to get data in the corner blocks which are not being hit by tracks if I use 7,8,11,12 as the crosshairs. Regards, Mike From: SMTP%"martens@calvin.fnal.gov" 22-FEB-1994 13:09:54.23 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: FWD> cdf luminosity monitors Date: Tue, 22 Feb 1994 13:07:48 -0600 From: Michael Martens Message-Id: <199402221907.AA12181@gumby.fnal.gov> To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Subject: FWD> cdf luminosity monitors From: B0::HAHN "Steve Hahn - X2123, X2354, 851-1268" 4-JAN-1994 11:29:16.88 To: FNALP::BRENNA CC: Subj: Lum monitors in Run Ia and Ib Steve Hahn Dec. 18, 1992 Updated Dec. 20, 1993 Luminosity monitors at CDF -------------------------- ******************************************************************************** Changes from Run Ia to Run Ib are noted below between stars as here. Also, the luminosity parameters derivation is written out in more detail at the end, with values for Run Ia where they existed in this note previously. ******************************************************************************** A list of ACnet devices which report CDF luminosity and their sources and current state of the art: C:B0LUM This is a BBC counter read out thru a ratemeter which has (NO GOOD!) been modified to be a "luminometer"--that is, full scale is 0.88 of the read out full scale. This was an earlier attempt to take out the BBC cross section in the hardware before the ACnet database had it's current level of sophistication. Before 12/17/92 the full scale was 88 kHz corresponding to an uncorrected luminosity of about 2.4E30; on 12/17/92 the full scale was changed to 88 kHz * 5 = 440 kHz (see C:B0LUMP below) greater than 286.28 kHz; thus, this device will work at any luminosity. Unfortunately, this ACnet device's database constants have not yet been changed to reflect this scale change so the device readout is currently nonsense. ******************************************************************************** C:B0LUM This is now good in Run Ib for small luminosity where multiple interactions are minimal. All "luminometers" have now been returned to normal ratemeters for interchangibility with the standard full scale being 100 kHz * 5 = 500 kHz. The ACnet DB constants have been changed to reflect this after a fix installed 12/20/93. ******************************************************************************** C:B0LUMH This is the same BBC counter as C:B0LUM vetoed on halo counters (NO GOOD!) in the BBC array, and then read out thru a second "luminometer". Before 12/17/92, full scale was 88 kHz corresponding to a luminosity corrected for the effect of halo of 2.4E30; on 12/17/92 the full scale was changed to 88 kHz * 5 = 440 kHz (see C:B0LUMV below) with the same ACnet database problems as C:B0LUM. ******************************************************************************** C:B0LUMH Also, now good in Run Ib, with the same comments and DB constants applying as C:B0LUM above. ******************************************************************************** C:B0LUMV This is a second ACnet device using the same "luminometer" as C:B0LUM corrected for multiple interactions. Before 12/17/92, this correction was made by a polynomial approximation of the Poisson correction. On 12/17/92, an exact correction was put into the ACnet database (see calculation below); this made possible since a natural logarithm transform is now available. ******************************************************************************** C:B0LUMV Same but for changes to C:B0LUM as noted above. ******************************************************************************** C:B0LUMP As C:B0LUMV is to C:B0LUM, C:B0LUMP is to C:B0LUMH. ******************************************************************************** C:B0LUMP Same but for changes to C:B0LUMV as noted above. ******************************************************************************** C:B0RAT4 This ACnet device uses a normal ratemeter (with 100% full scale) but uses the same input signal as C:B0LUM. Full scale on this rate meter is 200 kHz corresponding to a maximum luminosity of about 7.1E30. Currently this ACnet device still has the polynomial approximation to the ACnet correction; this needs to be fixed. ******************************************************************************** C:B0RAT4 Need to check this ******************************************************************************** (Note: originally, the B0 luminosity displayed on channel 13 of the TV system was (C:B0LUMP + C:B0LUMV)/2. It is believed that the raw halo correction is too large, and this is a guess at correcting that. Since B0RAT4 has been used when C:B0LUM and it's ken started saturating, channel 13 has just displayed C:B0RAT4. We should now probably return to (C:B0LUMP + C:B0LUMV)/2 which should be good at any luminosity). ******************************************************************************** (For the end of Run Ia and Run Ib, channel 13 displays C:B0LUMV with the implicit assumption that well-tuned beam has a small enough halo component that it can be ignored.) ******************************************************************************** C:B0LUM1 This is a scintillator in the new luminosity telescope installed at the beginning of this run in anticipation of the BBC counter-based devices saturating. C:B0LUM1 is the NE telescope. Before 12/17/92, this device saturated at 6.8E30; on 12/17/92, it was corrected to read out the luminosity corrected for multiple interactions using the Poisson correction. Full scale on this ratemeter is 50 kHz corresponding to a maximum luminosity of 1.9E31. C:B0LUM2 Like C:B0LUM1, but the SW telescope. The same comments apply. C:B0RAT3 This is another ACnet channel connected to another normal ratemeter held in reserve for the luminosity telescope. ================================================================================ A word about gates: All the above luminosity monitors work off of two gates. The time of flight from the nominal z = 0 to the BBC counters and telescopes is about 20 ns. The in-time gate is defined as +/-15 ns of this delay; the early or halo gate is defined as -105 ns to -5 ns of the interaction time. All of the above devices use the in-time gate; C:B0LUMH uses the halo gate for the halo veto. C:LOSTP uses discriminated West BBC hits (typically about 10 ns wide) delayed 40 ns (2 * TOF) ANDed with prompt East BBC hits; C:LOSTPB is delayed East BBC hits ANDed with prompt West BBC hits. Both have further gates to remove unwanted reflections; however, they are ungated by bunch gates. C:GLOSTP uses East BBC hits in the in-time gate ANDed with West BBC hits in the early gate; C:GLOSPB uses West BBC hits in the in-time gate ANDed with East BBC hits in the early gate. Note these are NOT just C:LOSTP and C:LOSTPB gated in some fashion. ================================================================================ Calculations of ACnet database constants for B0LUMP (per Paul Derwent and John Elias): Rate = R = (1 - e ** -) * f0 -> * f0 as -> 0 where is the average interactions per crossing f0 is the rate of crossings (= 286.28 kHz at 900 GeV) R is the rate of interactions = L * sigma / f0 where L is the luminosity sigma is the total cross-section at 900 GeV x 900 GeV (here we are using 46.8 mb) => L = (f0 / sigma) * = (f0 / sigma) * [-ln(1 - R / f0)] -> (f0 / sigma) * (R / f0) = R / sigma as -> 0 The MADC (multiplexing ADC) measures the ratemeters in volts from -10 V at no rate to +10 V at the maximum rate of the ratemeter (Rmax), so: X = FLOAT(MADC counts) / 3200. This preconversion of 3200 MADC count per input volt is done explicitly for all MADC ACnet devices R = Rmax * (X + 10.00) / 20.00 For the -10 V to +10 V swing of the ratemeters and MADC For Run Ia, Rmax = 440 kHz For Run Ib, Rmax = 500 kHz ******************************************************************************** First, let's calculate the ACnet DB constants for C:B0LUM and C:B0LUMH which are uncorrected for multiple interactions (i.e., in the limit -> 0). So, for a result in units of 10**30: X' = L / 10**30 = (R / sigma) / 10**30 = [(Rmax * (X + 10.00) / (20.00 * sigma)] / 10**30 The closest ACnet DB transform is transform 4: X' = (X - C1) / C2 Therefore: C1 = -10.00 C2 = (20.00 * sigma * 10**30) / Rmax = (20.00 * 46.8 * 10**-3 * 10**-24 * 10**30) / 500 * 10**3 = 1.872 for Run Ib ******************************************************************************** Second, let's calculate the ACnet DB constants for C:B0LUMV and C:B0LUMP which are corrected for multiple interactions. Again in units of 10**30: X' = L / 10**30 = (f0 / sigma) * [-ln(1 - R / f0)] / 10**30 = (f0 / sigma) * [-ln(1 - Rmax * (X + 10.00) / (20.00 * f0)] / 10**30 The closest ACnet DB transform is transform 32: X' = C2 * ln(C1 * X + C4) + C3 Therefore: C3 = 0 C2 = -(f0 / sigma) / 10**30 = -[(286.28 * 10**3) / (46.8 * 10**-3 * 10**-24)] / 10**30 = -6.117094 for Runs Ia and Ib C1 * X + C4 = -(Rmax * X) / (20.00 * f0) + 1 - (10.00 * Rmax) / (20.00 * f0) And therefore: C1 = -Rmax / (20.00 * f0) = -(440 * 10**3) / (20.00 * 286.28 * 10**3) = -0.0768478 for Run Ia ******************************************************************************** C1 = -(500 * 10**3) / (20.00 * 286.28 * 10**3) = -0.0873271 for Run Ib ******************************************************************************** C4 = 1 - (10.00 * Rmax) / (20.00 *f0) = 1 + 10.00 * C1 = 1 + 10.00 * (-0.0768478) = 0.23152159 for Run Ia ******************************************************************************** C4 = 1 + 10.00 * (-0.0873271) = 0.12672908 for Run Ib ******************************************************************************** From: SMTP%"SIGNORE@OSSE.NRL.NAVY.MIL" 22-FEB-1994 13:14:26.89 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Tracking studies Date: Tue, 22 Feb 1994 14:09:54 -0500 (EST) From: SIGNORE@OSSE.NRL.NAVY.MIL Message-Id: <940222140954.242009d5@OSSE.NRL.NAVY.MIL> Subject: Tracking studies To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov" Hello MiniMaxers, I've been looking at background tracks in runs 235 and 237. I believe the trigger used in 237 has a favorable effect. In the directory [minimax.kd1.v2] you will find two .ps files called 235bkgrd.ps 237bkgrd.ps If you care too, one can port these files to your home machine and print them. The first histogram in each is 'z value at closest approach to the z axis'. This plot effectively displays the range of z values that tracks are originating from and tripping our trigger and being recorded. In run 237 the plot shows that range of z values has been reduced to ~ -100" to +150". Following this histogram are 'imageing' x vs y scatter plots taken at various z values, listed on each plot. Regards Ken From: SMTP%"cct@po.cwru.edu" 23-FEB-1994 10:44:22.75 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: RE: tracking Message-Id: <9402231642.AA25078@po.CWRU.Edu> Date: Wed, 23 Feb 94 11:42:24 -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: RE: tracking This is a message Jon Streets sent me last Friday, which helps to establish the near-term agenda on tracking. I'm sending it out on the listserv to help other tracking people coordinate their efforts. Cyrus >Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 18:33:56 -0600 (CST) >From: "x3629, page 536-1799" >To: cct@po.cwru.edu >Subject: RE: tracking > >hi Cyrus, >Mike's talk went well. Leo Michelotti is very keen to write a C++ simulation >for >Minimax, starting late next week. he is going to use a program called GIZMO >written by >Paul Kunz & Tony Burnnett at SLAC. this has detector simulation in it, but not >a good >event generator. it will need to get events from Pythia + your favorite >anti-Centauro >generator. The program will run only on a Sun. Leo would like help, Mike said >that Erik >would be a likely candidate. anyway, i think Minimax would benfit from Leo's >help. > >Ken hasnt mentioned the single tracking program. i can help Mike Longo get >going. > >i dont know where Ken's mods are. but making a new version should be easy. i >will email >Ken. > >x-y scanner. writing is "already done". what needs to be done with it ? do you >want to >see the face of the Lambertson ? Certainky the X0,Y0 resolution needs to be >understood. > >Non-Trivial DUPLIC: the removal of the 10 tracks with 9 hits where a 10 hit >track is >found, should be done in Ken's code. however as the experiment is meant to >count tracks, >overlapping tracks is a big problem, and needs to be studied. (Leo's monte >carlo would >be an ideal tool here). > >A DUPLIC is required because the cells overlap. the required DUPLIC removes >identical >tracks. in which case, the COMMON blocks could be overwritten, and NTRACKS >reduced. i >can do this. any day now. > >as we have lead in the experiment now, i think an attempt could be made at >finding the >tracks in two passes. as long as you pass the Chamber numbers around, then the >hougher >only gets called once, but Kens code can get called 2*NCELL*NCELL times. the >tracker >main routine becomes slightly more complicated. Kens tracker may need mods for >4 hit >tracks. (80% efficiency?) >we should change the common blocks now rather than later as this is a Big >Change to the >files. > >things i think i can do in a timely fashion: >o create MINIMAX$COMBINE v1.2 with Ken >o write an OFFLINE for singlke tracks with Mike L. >o figure out the changes needed in common blocks for counting photons, and >write an >offline to do it, with you. > >other things id like to help with: >o Talk to Leo Michelotti. i really think he will deliver. Bj should know as >well. >o Improve the COMBINE tracker to remove duplicates, understand chi2's, >overlaps, >multiplicities, alignment, ... >o find best NCELLs for hougher >o write DUPLIC to remove the identical tracks ONLY, and modify the common >blocks >accordinglyd best NCELLs for hougher >o get offline running on RS6000 at Case >o understand use of Hough Scanners > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------- 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%"CTAYLOR@FNALV.FNAL.GOV" 24-FEB-1994 10:17:42.12 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: separators off run in progress Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 10:00:10 -0600 From: CTAYLOR@FNALV.FNAL.GOV Subject: separators off run in progress Sender: T864-L - T864 Discussion List To: Multiple recipients of list T864-L Reply-to: CTAYLOR@FNALV.FNAL.GOV Message-id: <01H9998ZE4E2000BON@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 Bj just called to say that a separators off run of 1/2 to 2 hours duration. Please stay off of FNMINI during this period! Cyrus From: SMTP%"CTAYLOR@FNALV.FNAL.GOV" 24-FEB-1994 12:25:27.22 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: new collider runs Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 12:23:27 -0600 (CST) From: CTAYLOR@FNALV.FNAL.GOV To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Message-Id: <940224122327.27609983@FNALV.FNAL.GOV> Subject: new collider runs The new collider runs (242,243,244) have a total of about 100K real triggers on them. They are located on dkb200. 244 is about 50K in length, the others are about 30K. There is an extra delay (noted in therun log) in run 243. Ken D.--can you generate histograms of z-distributions ASAP, and print them out at the portakamp. Cyrus From: SMTP%"cct@po.cwru.edu" 24-FEB-1994 12:57:27.71 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Undeliverable Mail Message-Id: <9402241854.AA23851@po.CWRU.Edu> Date: Thu, 24 Feb 94 13:54:29 -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: Undeliverable Mail > Matt and Erik, > > Matt very briefly gave me a summary of your DUPLICate track removal logic-- > I don't think it stuck. Can you carefully outline it to me in an e-mail > message? > > Cyrus > >End of returned message > > ----------------------------------- 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%"SIGNORE@OSSE.NRL.NAVY.MIL" 24-FEB-1994 13:06:06.90 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Lots of collisions Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 14:03:49 -0500 (EST) From: SIGNORE@OSSE.NRL.NAVY.MIL Message-Id: <940224140349.242009d6@OSSE.NRL.NAVY.MIL> Subject: Lots of collisions To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov" Hi Gang, Take a look at the .ps file trk.ps in [minimax.kd1.v2]. It speaks for itself. The histograms were generated with the combinatorical tracker set at a multiplicity cut of 5 or less hit wires in all 12 chambers. Also 11 chambers are required to see the track for the event to make it into the histogram. Of the 2600 events that pass the multiplicity cut, ~ 500 events are found which come from c0. I estimate that my crosshair technique is ~ 50 % efficient due to an apparent efficientcy of only 75% in chambers 1 and 2. Also, for computer people, the program took a very long time to run, is there any chance that reading from dkb200 slows things down? Ken From: SMTP%"MINIMAX@FNMINT.FNAL.GOV" 24-FEB-1994 13:30:08.56 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: last msg Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 13:28:31 -0600 (CST) From: MINIMAX@FNMINT.FNAL.GOV To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Message-Id: <940224132831.4d5@FNMINT.FNAL.GOV> Subject: last msg Computer people, I figured out why the run took so long and corrected the problem, Ken From: SMTP%"longo@mich1.physics.lsa.umich.edu" 24-FEB-1994 17:00:26.70 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Latest data Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 17:56:25 -0500 Message-Id: <94022417562557@mich1.physics.lsa.umich.edu> From: longo@mich1.physics.lsa.umich.edu (MICHAEL J. LONGO) To: T864-L@fnmini.fnal.gov Subject: Latest data X-VMS-To: T864 I took a quick look at the latest data. The chambers seem to be working fine. The TDCs are okay. The LeCROY ADCs *still* are not working. Mike Longo From: FNDAQ::STREETS "x3629, page 536-1799" 24-FEB-1994 17:40:17.53 To: FNMINI::MINIMAX CC: FNALV::CTAYLOR Subj: fix Ken., can you put this fix into the tracker code on [minimax.combine.v1_1] ? if you have a later version, then can we make a v1_2 directory ? jon From: SMTP%"BJORKEN@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU" 24-FEB-1994 17:50:06.70 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: collider run comments Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 15:14:00 -0800 From: BJORKEN@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU Subject: collider run comments Sender: T864-L - T864 Discussion List To: Multiple recipients of list T864-L Reply-to: BJORKEN@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU Message-id: <01H99P8BVM5E000C61@SERV02.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> X-Envelope-to: minimax@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Today's run other than ADC's looks superb. I think the trigger is 90% pure collisions and implies a very high trigger efficiency. The arguments: 1) Both Ken and I see a very clean vertex distribution for the track samples we reconstruct. 2) I checked during the run for a contribution to the trigger from pbar beam gas (Por delay curve) and saw no evidence. 3) ABCD ran at 2.3 Khz throughout the run while our trigger rate declined; we need to take the ratio of our trigger rate to D0 luminosity vs time to nail this down. 4) The numbers: Ratio of beta*'s (0.4+-0.1m)/70m D0 luminosity during run: (0.9+-0.1)E30 Effective cross section for triggering 60+-10 mb Multiply these to get the 100% efficient trigger rate: 310+-90 Hz What we observed was 300+-30 of which 30+-10 is probably junk (as measured by the seps on rate). So our measured collision rate is 270+-30 Hz Conclusion: there is reason to suppose that ABCD is really quite efficient despite its very small lego acceptance. Why? Probably the beampipe splash efficiently fires all four scintillators even when a direct track is absent. After all the MWPC's are full of that stuff even for single track events. If the conclusion is right we have two roads to improvements. One would be to find a way to write more events to disk per second. The other would be learning how to prescale the commonplace events and leave room for the more interesting ones. I prefer the second. It is great that we have this as our problem! bj Ken shipped his splendid vertex dist's to me from run 241; I showed these to John Marriner and a few others--including the Duke 3, all in town for CDF things (!). Taiji is giving us 10 mins next Monday pm; please ship any and all results here to include in that presentation. I am about to start a control run or two--please stay away from fnmini for a while. It is now 545 pm cst. From: SMTP%"MINIMAX@FNMINT.FNAL.GOV" 24-FEB-1994 22:25:17.35 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Better stats Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 22:24:29 -0600 (CST) From: MINIMAX@FNMINT.FNAL.GOV To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Message-Id: <940224222429.3f1@FNMINT.FNAL.GOV> Subject: Better stats Hi gang, I've run thru run 242 with a mult. cut of 15 or less wires hit in all 12 chambers, 8100 events pass this cut, I then find possible c0 events in 2800 events. The histograms are pretty nice to look at. If you care to plot [minimax]trk.ps. The two plots that refer to vertex events are done when an event has two and only two tracks found. The scatter plot of x vs y is very interesting. Ken From: SMTP%"MINIMAX@FNMINT.FNAL.GOV" 25-FEB-1994 13:30:52.30 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: History of store 4692; 2/24/94 Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 13:26:38 -0600 From: MINIMAX@FNMINT.FNAL.GOV Subject: History of store 4692; 2/24/94 Sender: T864-L - T864 Discussion List To: Multiple recipients of list T864-L Reply-to: MINIMAX@FNMINT.FNAL.GOV Message-id: <01H9AUHPTKYU000EXC@SERV02.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> X-Envelope-to: minimax@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-To: T864-L@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU History of Store 4692; 2/24/94 900am bj arrives at AD meeting to find that there has been a failure in an electrostatic separator power supply, leading to separators-off running "starting soon" and lasting for two hours. 901am bj leaves AD meeting. 915-930 prerun setup completed (gas, HV, etc); js arrives. 935 run 241 begun 945 separators turned off 945-955 (approx) scraping of beams; high rates in ABCD, etc. ca 1015, maybe sooner; stable conditions with ABCD.Pbar or.T0 running at 330 Hz, twice as high as bj anticipated. ca 1030 a puzzled bj checks whether some of the rate is pbar beam gas by briefly putting an appropriately delayed por output in veto with the trigger. No effect. 1054 a confused bj, unable to comprehend that ALL that 300 Hz is real collisions, removes 6 nsec from the pbar or delay in order to reduce the rate and perhaps enhance the signal. Rate goes to about 150-160 Hz. This is Run 243. 1120 Run 244 restores the better trigger. Shortly thereafter all 12 chambers trip off. It turns out there were some main ring studies going on where the beam was deliberately kicked into coherent betatron motion. Trip troubles continues for about 10 minutes. 1203 Store ends quietly 1500 bj begins to realize that in all likelihood our trigger happens to be very efficient. 900 2/25/94 in report to AD meeting, bj expresses gratitude and reports that T864 is considering hiring Jeff Gillooly to assist in the maintenance of the separator power supplies. Rate summary:(ABCD.Pbar or.T0 / ABCD) seps on: 40 Hz / 2.2KHz during scrape: 130Hz up to 1600 and down to 450 / 5.7 KHz up to 100 KHz down to 7 KHz from 1015 onward: 330 Hz down to 270 / 2.3 KHz steady Estimated luminosity at 100% efficiency: 310 Hz Result of run: 145K triggers onto disk, almost all of which are real ppbar collisions. Results from run 242 (thanks to Ken): 24K triggers onto disk 8.1 K after cut on wire occupancy (no more than 15 hits/chamber) 2.8K events have tracks; at least 11 out of 12 chambers must report. Ken's plots on z dist and multiplicity shown. For those who have not seen the multiplicity dist, the numbers are N = 0 5.1K 1 2.1K 2 0.5K 3 0.1K 4 0.04K etc Essentially all the above information was presented at the 900 AD meeting today. bj From: SMTP%"STREETS@BISON.FNAL.GOV" 25-FEB-1994 15:06:57.46 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: RE: Unpacker errors Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 15:03:49 -0600 (CST) From: "x3629, page 536-1799" To: MICHLONGO@BISON.FNAL.GOV CC: t864-l@fnmini.FNAL.GOV Message-Id: <940225150349.23000431@BISON.FNAL.GOV> Subject: RE: Unpacker errors Mike, yes these are probably ACNET events. you should copy over the new unpacker from FNMINI::USR$ROOT1:[MINIMAX.CHECKNEW]UNPACKER.FOR. jon >Hi Jon-- > Are we "supposed" to be getting UNPACKER errors of this sort: > Event Length too long, 50340446 record skipped > 9C 0 5 4 11 C0168BA C008968 > C00896C C008970 C008974 C008978 C00897C C009116 C008980 > C008984 C008988 C00898C C008990 C008994 C009117 C001C9C >I assume they are Acnet info as they did not happen in data taken >1 >month ago. Is this something I'm doing wrong or is it just a question >of the UNPACKER needing updating? >BTW, I've been using Ken's tracker successfully to track into the face >of the gamma counters and it's worked fine. I've pretty well done all >I need to do with it right now. > Regards, Mike From: SMTP%"MINIMAX@FNMINT.FNAL.GOV" 25-FEB-1994 17:40:25.64 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Background run of 245 Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 17:38:52 -0600 (CST) From: MINIMAX@FNMINT.FNAL.GOV To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Message-Id: <940225173852.5fb@FNMINT.FNAL.GOV> Subject: Background run of 245 Hi everyone, I made a .ps file of the same histo's I've put out before, but on the background run , # 245. The z@closest hist. shows the usual spread form ~ -150" to 150". The file is in [minimax.ps]245trk_10M_11h.ps. BJ, to print in the porta camp type from fnmint, LPR [MINIMAX.PS]245TRK_10M_11H.PS. The 10M refers to mymultiplicity cut of 10. 11H means 11 chambers are required to see the track. Ken From: SMTP%"MINIMAX@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV" 26-FEB-1994 18:57:06.28 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: ADCs Date: Sat, 26 Feb 1994 18:53:47 -0600 From: MINIMAX@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Subject: ADCs Sender: T864-L - T864 Discussion List To: Multiple recipients of list T864-L Reply-to: MINIMAX@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Message-id: <01H9CK7BNJ5E000M83@SERV02.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> X-Envelope-to: minimax@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-To: t864-l@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU I still haven't found the problem with the ADCs. However I believe the ADC in slot 7 may be bad. There is a new program in the [.prerun] directory called ADC_TEST which makes use of the ADC test feature. By inputing a DC voltage to the test inputs and sending a F25 to the card a charge is deposited into all the ADC channels for that card. Doing this with a 3.8 V test signal I should get a signal ADC = 3.8 V * -12.5 pC/V * 4 counts/pC = 190. This is close to what I actually get except to the ADC in slot 7 (The Pbar ADCs ). Art From: SMTP%"cct@po.cwru.edu" 26-FEB-1994 20:10:48.59 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: hougher Message-Id: <9402270209.AA03170@po.CWRU.Edu> Date: Sat, 26 Feb 94 21:09:46 -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: hougher I finally tracked down a bug in the new version of the hougher which I had suspected existed for the past ten days or so. The cause was a typo... I have in addition modified the code to accept 2" and 4" cells (perhaps a useful size in the marriage to the combinatorial tracker), and finished Jon's task of implementing ires=3,4 (1/4" and 1/16" cells). I've just scanned through a number of events on run 242 using ires=-1 (4" cells), then calling the combinatorial tracker. The results look reasonable, and clearly call for implementing duplicate track removal so that we can begin more comprehensive multiplicity studies. Tomorrow, if Ken arrives in Cleveland in time, we will update the combinatorial tracker used in combine to his current version. 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@mich1.physics.lsa.umich.edu" 27-FEB-1994 12:30:40.97 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Re: ADCs Date: Sun, 27 Feb 1994 13:25:51 -0500 Message-Id: <94022713255105@mich1.physics.lsa.umich.edu> From: longo@mich1.physics.lsa.umich.edu (MICHAEL J. LONGO) To: MINIMAX@fnmini.fnal.gov Subject: Re: ADCs X-VMS-To: SMTP%"MINIMAX@fnmini.fnal.gov" Hi Art-- It sure looks to me as if the ADCs are getting cleared by another GATE pulse coming in after the one that's supposed ot be the trigger. The problem is most conspicuous on the ADC with A, B, C,... for which there should be large pulses all or most of the time. The actual pulse height distributions look like pedestals with a small admixture of biggish ones which I take to be accidentals. Regards, Mike From: SMTP%"MINIMAX@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV" 27-FEB-1994 20:18:24.87 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: ADCs Date: Sun, 27 Feb 1994 20:14:46 -0600 From: MINIMAX@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Subject: ADCs Sender: T864-L - T864 Discussion List To: Multiple recipients of list T864-L Reply-to: MINIMAX@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Message-id: <01H9E1B3A9V6000K68@SERV02.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> X-Envelope-to: minimax@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-To: t864-l@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU The ADCs are in a state of flux right now - here is what I know. Using the F25 test function of the ADCs I think the camac card in slot 8 is bad. At least it fails the F(25) test anyway. (The card that was in slot 8 (a good one) is now in slot 7.) Looking at the front panel inputs, the gate and signals look to be timed in correctly. The gate is about 100 nsec wide and the signals are near the middle of this gate. There is no extra gate or fast clear after a trigger occurs. They are being vetoed correctly. If I make up a dummy signal of about -1 Volt * 6.6 nsec / 50 Ohm = 132 pC and stick that into the ADC input I get an ADC count of 650 = 162 pC. The readevent.evd (and .evl) file has a 100 usec pause after a trigger but before reading out the ADCs. (The manual recommends 60 usec.) I can't think of any other reason why the ADCs would not work although there must be things I haven't thought of. Perhaps are signals are really too small? Art From: SMTP%"longo@mich1.physics.lsa.umich.edu" 28-FEB-1994 07:59:17.56 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Re: ADCs Date: Mon, 28 Feb 1994 08:48:39 -0500 Message-Id: <94022808483969@mich1.physics.lsa.umich.edu> From: longo@mich1.physics.lsa.umich.edu (MICHAEL J. LONGO) To: MINIMAX@fnmini.fnal.gov Subject: Re: ADCs X-VMS-To: SMTP%"MINIMAX@fnmini.fnal.gov" Hi Art-- Thanks for the rundown. I don't know what's happening either. They *did* work up to about Run 222. The A,B pulse heights, for example, had means of several hundred for Run 222. They're in the trigger so the pulse heights can't have changed much. The distributions now look a lot like they did when we had hooked up the T0 gate but neglected ot to inhibit it. That's why I guessed it was the non-inhibited gate syndrome again. It's hard to see how the timing could be completely and suddenly screwed up. The failure seemed to occur between Runs 222 and 235 when not much was happening to the cabling. Regards, Mike From: SMTP%"MINIMAX@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV" 28-FEB-1994 23:19:16.13 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Monday report/bj Date: Mon, 28 Feb 1994 22:58:14 -0600 From: MINIMAX@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Subject: Monday report/bj Sender: T864-L - T864 Discussion List To: Multiple recipients of list T864-L Reply-to: MINIMAX@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Message-id: <01H9FLBWZMRA000K61@SERV02.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> X-Envelope-to: minimax@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-To: T864-L@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU Report on the Mon mtng and other things: My report followed pretty much messages I have sent out, with a couple of additions. One was to take Ken's multiplicity distribution extracted from 1/3 of the events from run 242, assume it is representative of the whole, and estimate mean multiplicity in our acceptance. I get 0.45. Our acceptance, measured from the scatter plot of hits in transverse plane is a lego circle of diameter 1.04. Putting things together in a straightforward way gives dN/deta at eta = 4 of 3.5. This is very close to what I get by extrapolating directly UA5 data at root s of 200, 550, and 900 taken at eta of 4. Ken Kowalski sent me his estimate, a little lower but not a big deal. But we need to negotiate it, Ken. Implicit in my presentation was a conviction that our background in collider mode is no more than 17% of all events recorded. Three reasons: 1) raw trigger rate before seps off, proportional to proton current, was 50 Hz, afterward 300 Hz. 2) distribution of hit wires in seps on mode has a large tail at nhits>500. Subtraction of 17% of this tail from seps off data leaves nothing beyond nhits = 500. Therefore 17% appears as an upper bound. 3) the multiplicity of hit pbar scintillation counters in seps on mode decreases very fast; most is in n = 1 and 2. In seps off mode the distribution is nearly flat with a gentle rise toward large n. Subtraction of more than 15% background from the sep off distribution leaves tne number with n = 1 negative. This last feature suggests a good trigger improvement for a halo- halo trigger with seps on, namely to replace pbar or delayed with majority logic pbar delayed, with at least 5 out of 8 counters firing. It reduces signal by 40% and trigger rate by a factor 100. I will show pix at the meeting. The physics is probably that our residual trigger rate is dominated by proton induced showers originating downstream or near the pbar counters, sending albedo backward into the pbar counters. Also implicit in the above is that our trigger is very efficient-- 60 to 80 percent of all inelastic collisions is my guess. If so the reason is most likely that the beam-pipe splash triggers ABCD even when no real tracks go through the telescope. . My conclusions for the meeting: 1) Trigger in very good shape. 2) Likewise with tracking. 3) Existing data gets us started thinking/doing physics analysis. Next steps: 1) Put converter in front of telescope. 2) Install more chambers, 3) ADC's, scint still need some tuneup. Request: Make the seps off scenario (assuming short end-of-fill runs) routine. We will want the next seps-off run soon after we change something. Taiji made a point of asking CDF/D0 whether they ran during seps off. Other than during scrape, answers were affirmative. He also picked up on the added chambers, and I assured him they were essentially impact-free and in the plan for some time. He inquired when they appear; I answered they arrive this week. bj From: SMTP%"MINIMAX@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV" 2-MAR-1994 07:13:05.01 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: run 250 Date: Wed, 02 Mar 1994 04:50:51 -0600 From: MINIMAX@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Subject: run 250 Sender: T864-L - T864 Discussion List To: Multiple recipients of list T864-L Reply-to: MINIMAX@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Message-id: <01H9HBXY1A8I000PTK@SERV02.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> X-Envelope-to: minimax@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-To: T864-L@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU We just completed a separators-off run of one hour duration. ADC's/TDC's are working and the background should be less than 0.5% of the signal. There are 52.4K events on disk dkb200. More details after sunrise. bj From: SMTP%"BJORKEN@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU" 2-MAR-1994 12:50:16.63 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: runs 246-250 Date: Wed, 02 Mar 1994 09:27:00 -0800 From: BJORKEN@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU Subject: runs 246-250 Sender: T864-L - T864 Discussion List To: Multiple recipients of list T864-L Reply-to: BJORKEN@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU Message-id: <01H9HSEJG29M000UC4@SERV02.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> X-Envelope-to: minimax@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Yesterday was another good day for us. Store 4710 was in the machine and we were able to make good use of it. Here is a summary of the runs: 246: Pbar_or (not delayed) was put in veto with ABCD. This is intended to create as clean a beam-gas sample originating from the pit (not Lambertson, etc) as possible. Big run--50K I think. 247: Another control run for the seps off trigger, like 245, but with ADC's in. DICK AND ART FIXED THEM 2 DAYS AGO --fast clear pulse was too narrow. 248: First holy-grail trigger: designed to look for beam- halo collisions by requiring high multiplicity in the pbar counters. This run required N=6 and used an imperfect majority-logic module. About 800 events in about 2 hours. 249: Improved holy-grail trigger: Summed output of pbar_or is put into discriminator which only accepts N>4. This output, separate from the usual pbar_or delayed, is then combined with the ABCD and original pbar_or delayed into a threefold coincidence. Rate is 4K events/8 hours onto disk. 250: While 249 was running (6pm-3am) we learned that from midnight onward the running for expt would be terminated but that the store would be continued for separator studies. Detailed inquiry with the experts in MCR revealed that while their studies affected only the region proximate to B0/D0 they were willing to shut off seps for 10 minutes prior to ending the store and after their studies were complete. (there was no other pressure since the pbar stack was very low at that point; no new store for some time.) I was at C0 alone at 315 when the call came in. Art was notified and raced to MCR. I then did the startup of run 250. Initial rate of trigger was 95 Hz; it sagged to 75 by the end. About 45 Hz went to disk. Other than reporting to MCR that it was excellent run conditions, we did not push for a lot of time and left it at their discretion. They left the store in for a full hour so we got 52K triggers. There may be a antiproton-only store late tonight. I regard this as very high priority--we have no clear evidence to my knowledge of what pbar induced beam gas does to us (if anything). Please let us know which triggers are of high priority to use for this store. bj From: SMTP%"BJORKEN@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU" 2-MAR-1994 12:59:57.22 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: run 250 again Date: Wed, 02 Mar 1994 10:46:00 -0800 From: BJORKEN@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU Subject: run 250 again Sender: T864-L - T864 Discussion List To: Multiple recipients of list T864-L Reply-to: BJORKEN@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU Message-id: <01H9HSR5WA8I000VMQ@SERV02.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> X-Envelope-to: minimax@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT In the previous message I neglected to mention what trigger was used in run 250--it was the same as 249, the improved holy-grail. It was chosen in case the ABCD rates,etc were high (they weren't: about 2 KHz). Background in 250 should be .004 +-.001 per event and the signal biased a bit toward central collisions. bj From: SMTP%"STREETS@FNDAQU.FNAL.GOV" 2-MAR-1994 15:36:45.93 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: new disk on fnmint Date: Wed, 2 Mar 1994 15:30:50 -0600 (CST) From: "x3629, page 536-1799" To: t864-l@fnmini.FNAL.GOV Message-Id: <940302153050.23400128@FNDAQU.FNAL.GOV> Subject: new disk on fnmint The second Michegan disk is now mounted on FNMINT. it has 425Mb. the directory is dkb300:[data] i am also backing up the last few runs to tape. jon From: SMTP%"MINIMAX@FNMINT.FNAL.GOV" 2-MAR-1994 17:13:38.64 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: group meeting tomorrow Date: Wed, 2 Mar 1994 17:11:24 -0600 (CST) From: MINIMAX@FNMINT.FNAL.GOV To: T864-L@fnmini.fnal.gov Message-Id: <940302171124.5c@FNMINT.FNAL.GOV> Subject: group meeting tomorrow Yes we have a room for the meeting. I almost forgot about it in all the run activity, and Carlos found the 8th floor conf room WH8 SW corner behind the research div offices (it is where ther T864 desks were before the move to the 13th floor. We have it all day starting 9 am. Let's gather in atrium bkft time. Sorry for the short notice-- Sorry for the short notice-- bj From: FNMINT::SMTP%"jones@mich1.physics.lsa.umich.edu" 3-MAR-1994 08:44:28.01 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Re: group meeting tomorrow Date: Thu, 3 Mar 1994 09:41:28 -0500 Message-Id: <94030309412843@mich1.physics.lsa.umich.edu> From: jones@mich1.physics.lsa.umich.edu (Lawrence W. Jones (Larry)) To: MINIMAX@fnmint.fnal.gov Subject: Re: group meeting tomorrow X-VMS-To: SMTP%"MINIMAX@fnmint.fnal.gov" BJ: Is the meeting just Thursday or is it continuing over Friday? I cannot be there today but would be able to drive down (had been planning to drive down) tonight to be there tomarrow. But I will stay here if the Minimax meeting is only today. Larry From: SMTP%"longo@mich1.physics.lsa.umich.edu" 3-MAR-1994 09:29:32.37 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: ADC status Date: Thu, 3 Mar 1994 10:14:42 -0500 Message-Id: <94030310144238@mich1.physics.lsa.umich.edu> From: longo@mich1.physics.lsa.umich.edu (MICHAEL J. LONGO) To: T864-L@fnmini.fnal.gov Subject: ADC status X-VMS-To: T864 Just for the record, I looked at the ADCs in recent run 250. There are pulses in them now, but instead of being almost inactive as before they are now hyperactive. Good-sized pulses appear in them almost all the time now. I would expect normal-sized pulses in Cb,Ct, Db,Dt approx. half the time, and pulses in the gamma counters rather rarely. Instead they are almost always there. I have the impression that they are now not being cleared and are some- how accumulating data, at least until they are read out. Basically the PH distributions look reasonable except for the absence of pedestals. Sorry, but I won't be able to get to the meeting till tomorrow AM. --Mike Longo From: FNMINT::SMTP%"SIGNORE@CWAPHY.PHYS.CWRU.EDU" 3-MAR-1994 09:49:16.94 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: RE: group meeting tomorrow Date: Thu, 3 Mar 1994 10:49:20 -0500 (EST) From: SIGNORE@CWAPHY.PHYS.CWRU.EDU Message-Id: <940303104920.2020032f@CWAPHY.PHYS.CWRU.EDU> Subject: RE: group meeting tomorrow To: MINIMAX@FNMINT.FNAL.GOV X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"MINIMAX@FNMINT.FNAL.GOV" BJ, Before you take any more data I have to, repeat HAVE TO, run delay curves. If you have a trigger and HV on 1-4 send me mail, It will take ~ 15 min. I really wan't to get this fixed before we hit another gold mine. Ken P.S. I figured out how to make the log plot you wanted. I printed one in the porta camp this morning. From: SMTP%"MINIMAX" 3-MAR-1994 21:43:02.23 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Nanometrics delays Date: Thu, 3 Mar 1994 21:40:39 -0600 (CST) From: MINIMAX@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Message-Id: <940303214039.551@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV> Subject: Nanometrics delays Hi gang, The nanometrics latch delay's had become out of time due to additions to the trigger logic, ( at least thats the theory). This unfortunately impacted adversely on the recent long collider runs. Chambers 1,2,4 had been operating at 75% effic. I've rerun the latch delay curves and updated the file AMPSETTING.DAT. The histograms of wire hits show a nominal distribution, with the exception of two dead spots in chambers 1 and 3, with the adjacent hot wires. Ken From: SMTP%"STREETS@FNEQS2.FNAL.GOV" 5-MAR-1994 18:13:04.10 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: data on fnmini Date: Sat, 5 Mar 1994 18:12:01 -0600 (CST) From: "x3629, page 536-1799" To: t864-l@fnmini.FNAL.GOV Message-Id: <940305181202.22800142@FNEQS2.FNAL.GOV> Subject: data on fnmini Disk space on FNMINI is low on the system disk. who is taking the data ? can we move it to the DATA on disks on FNMINI and FNMINT ? please send me email jon From: FNALV::FNMINT::MINIMAX 5-MAR-1994 14:56:31.29 To: STREETS CC: Subj: minimax.data Jon, we should put the runs in .data into dkb200:[data]. And possibly archive some of them. there is over 100 megs in that subdirectory. Ken From: SMTP%"MINIMAX@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV" 5-MAR-1994 22:07:45.41 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: New ADC pointers Date: Sat, 05 Mar 1994 22:03:57 -0600 From: MINIMAX@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Subject: New ADC pointers Sender: T864-L - T864 Discussion List To: Multiple recipients of list T864-L Reply-to: MINIMAX@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Message-id: <01H9MIW4TY6Q0013U0@SERV02.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> X-Envelope-to: minimax@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-To: T864-L@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU Colleagues, ********** Report of our activity at C0. ***** 1) Mike Longo and I rearranged the location of the signals in the ADCs to al low us to get all scintillator signals timed into their respective ADC gates. I shortened the ADC gate delay 19 ns, then adjusted the individual gates to match the times of signals from the various scintillators. I believe that all the signals are hitting their ADC gates now. I changed the ADC pointers in [MINIMAX.CHECKNEW]EVENT.INC to point to the new locations for the Calorim eter, Proton, Pbar, and Stonehenge counters. The others didn't change. The old version is in EVENT_OLD.INC 2) I added a few histograms to [MINIMAX.CHECKNEW]USER.FOR. ID Description ---------------------------------- 5 Multiplicity of Proton counter ADC hits 6 Multiplicity of Pbar ADC hits 7 Multiplicity of Stonehenge ADC hits 8 Multiplicity of Proton TDC hits 9 Multiplicity of Pbar TDC hits 10 Multiplicity of Stonehenge TDC hits 11 ADC hit map (number of hits on each counter) 12 TDC hit map 13 Mult. of Proton+Pbar+Stonehenge ADC hits 14 Mult. of Proton+Pbar+Stonehenge TDC hits In these histograms I defined an ADC hit as greater than 50 counts and a TDC hit as greater than 10 and less than 300 counts. This is done in USER_ANAL.FOR 3) The macro MULT.KUMAC displays the eight multiplicity histograms defined above. 4) The event display program now shows which scintillators were hit using the above definition of a TDC hit. Norm Morgan From: SMTP%"MINIMAX" 6-MAR-1994 21:36:26.19 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: chamber stands Date: Sun, 6 Mar 1994 21:35:22 -0600 (CST) From: MINIMAX@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Message-Id: <940306213522.9a5@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV> Subject: chamber stands I started to prepare the next stand for receiving the 4 new chambers. There are a few glitches (this I hope might be acted upon at VPI): 1) the short posts which ride on the transverse rails have a 3/8" hole in them instead of 1/4"; some bushings or the like to reduce them effectively will be needed. There will be 4 short posts in use in the new stand. 2) The new diagonal arms also have 3/8" holes instead of 1/4"; same problem, same solution? Only one of the new arms will be used. 3) We need 2 more of the big knurled knobs (or equivalent). 4) We have only 9 Al spacer washers (custom-made before, I believe) and a dozen or two more would be welcome. Dimensions are 3/4" OD, 1/4" ID, 1/8" thick. For anyone inspired to mount the new chambers, I have left specs which Cyrus and I agreed upon during the meeting in the portakamp with the stands. The new stand goes in front of the existing twelve and the labeling is 13, 14, 15, 16, 1, 2, 3, ... The orientation of the normals to the wire direction are 67.5, 146.25, 33.75, 101.25 degrees for 13, ...1 respectively (modulo 180 degrees). The amount of rotation per plane is 67.5 instead of 75 degrees as in the first twelve; ch 13 is exceptional for practical reasons. I still haven't gotten around to getting a digital protractor, and we may have to prevail on John Koreinek again. bj From: SMTP%"Postmaster@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV" 6-MAR-1994 21:43:41.27 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Undeliverable Mail Date: Sun, 6 Mar 1994 21:43:38 -0600 (CST) From: Postmaster@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Subject: Undeliverable Mail To: Bad address -- Error -- %MAIL-E-NOSUCHUSR, no such user MINMAX Start of returned message Date: Sun, 6 Mar 1994 21:43:36 -0600 (CST) From: MINIMAX@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV To: minmax@fnmini.fnal.gov Message-Id: <940306214336.9a5@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV> Subject: runs 276 and 277 I took/am taking 2 holy-grail runs looking for p-pbar_halo collisions in the begin-of-store (before/during scraping). It is very unlikely that there is any signal, but the rate was somewhat higher than I expected in the early running. Please report out what if anything you all find. bj End of returned message From: SMTP%"MINIMAX" 6-MAR-1994 21:54:33.65 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: runs 276/277 Date: Sun, 6 Mar 1994 21:54:30 -0600 (CST) From: MINIMAX@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV To: minimax@fnmini.fnal.gov Message-Id: <940306215430.9a5@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV> Subject: runs 276/277 I took/am taking 2 holy-grail runs looking for proton-pbar_halo collisions at the beginning of the store (before scraping is complete). It is very unlikely that there will be a signal. But the early rate was a little higher than I expected, so I will be interested in what you all find. bj From: SMTP%"MINIMAX" 6-MAR-1994 22:01:42.97 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: runs 276/277 Date: Sun, 6 Mar 1994 22:00:38 -0600 (CST) From: MINIMAX@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Message-Id: <940306220038.9a5@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV> Subject: runs 276/277 I took/am taking two holy-grail runs looking for collisions of p with pbar halo. It is a longshot, but the initial rate (before scraping was complete; early store conditions) was a bit higher than expected. Please report out what if anything you find. bj From: SMTP%"MINIMAX" 7-MAR-1994 11:01:52.11 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: misc Date: Mon, 7 Mar 1994 11:00:45 -0600 (CST) From: MINIMAX@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Message-Id: <940307110045.7ae@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV> Subject: misc I talked to Ken Gray this am; he runs the scintillator facility in the village across the street from the t864 house. He has quite a lot of scintillator/light guides/pmt (no bases) and was extremely friendly--I think we might get these things fabricated there. Cost might be minimal/nonexistent (his shop runs out of the physics dept). Especially attractive were some long pieces 6" wide and about 1 cm thick that could be cut into square (mol) panels. Steve Geer/apex has bid for some (all?) of these, and we should coordinate with them (Art--HELP!). I got 3 MWPC HV supplies (6 chambers worth) from PREP today. They are in the bottom drawer of the file cabinet near pkamp a. It looks like there will be an access Wed AM. Pat is coordinating who will go in--the lead converter will be put in, and if there is time ecal will be moved 2" outward and 2.5" upward. Cyrus provided analyses of runs 276/277--no sign of collisions. We also begin to think about possible beampipe improvements for the winter shutdown--bigger pipe in the pit and flared pipe downstream. Pat is investigating the engineering side. bj From: SMTP%"martens@calvin.fnal.gov" 7-MAR-1994 18:08:30.72 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: ACNET data Date: Mon, 7 Mar 1994 18:05:31 -0600 From: Michael Martens Message-Id: <199403080005.AA00371@gumby.fnal.gov> To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Subject: ACNET data I have updated the code in [.CHECKNEW] on FNMINI. [Norm I didn't see your new version of USER.FOR in that directory so I updated the version that was already there.] ACNET data can now be decyphered in USER_ANAL 1) add the lines INCLUDE 'MINIMAX_INCLUDE:ACDEVICES.INC/LIST' REAL AC_VAL to the begining of your USER_ANAL 2) You also need to get the new version of OFFLINE.MMS and ONLINE.MMS 3) the function AC_VAL(NAME,ACLIST) will return the value of the ACNET Device in list ACLIST. Returns zero if device is not known or not in the list. i.e. put this in USER_ANAL IF(ACLIST.EQ.1) WRITE(6,*)'T:PSFBI is ',AC_VAL('T:PSFBI ',ACLIST) Note!!! the device name must be EXACTLY 8 characters long. Add trailing blanks if needed. 4) An ACNET event has an EVTYPE of 5. ACNET events are further divided into 5 sub-events of ACLISTs. The event.inc variable ACLIST ranges from 1 to 5 and each ACLIST contains a different set of ACNET devices. (in the example above T:PSFBI is in ACLIST 1.) 5) Which ACNET Devices are in which ACLIST can determined by looking at the file [MINIMAX.ACNET]FNMINI.INP. 6) A very brief description of what each device measures can be found in [MINIMAX.ACNET]FNMINI.DAT Unfortunately, the ACNET device list has been incomplete. No emittance data was in the list and C:LOSTP and C:LOSTPB were also missing. I will fix this in the near future. Presently the ACNET data is recorded every two minutes. Should we speed this up to every 20 secs or so? Art From: SMTP%"martens@calvin.fnal.gov" 7-MAR-1994 19:10:50.70 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: RE: ACNET data Date: Mon, 7 Mar 1994 19:08:31 -0600 From: Michael Martens Message-Id: <199403080108.AA00376@gumby.fnal.gov> To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Subject: RE: ACNET data >Mike, > What has to be changed in offline.mms. Mine is heavily modified. >Ken 1) add BOTHDIR:acdevices.obj to the OBJECTS = definition 2) add BOTHDIR:acdevices.inc to the INCLUDE = definition 3) add BOTHDIR:acdevices to the link command 4) add for $(USER_FORFLAGS) BOTHDIR:acdevices BOTHDIR:acdevices.obj : BOTHDIR:acdevices.for $(INCLUDE) to the end of the file Art From: SMTP%"JENKINS@CWAPHY.PHYS.CWRU.EDU" 8-MAR-1994 08:46:08.23 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Correlations between chambers Date: Tue, 8 Mar 1994 9:43:29 -0500 (EST) From: JENKINS@CWAPHY.PHYS.CWRU.EDU (Tom Jenkins) Message-Id: <940308094329.2020045f@CWAPHY.PHYS.CWRU.EDU> Subject: Correlations between chambers To: T864-L@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV X-Vmsmail-To: @[.mail]minimax Dear Colleagues: In an effort to throw some light on the issue of the source of our extraneous wire hits, I have calculated the correlation coefficient between the number of hits in pairs of chambers. If the origin of the extra reporting wires is purely internal to the chambers, then one would expect that from event to event, the number of hits in one chamber would have no correlation with the number of hits in any other chamber. I have calculated the correlation coefficient betweeen hits in chamber i, and hits in chamber j, for a sample of 2403 events drawn from the middle of run 250. The following table shows the correlation coefficient for all pairs of chambers: Chamber i Chbr 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 j 1 0.69 0.62 0.61 0.57 0.59 0.56 0.52 0.40 0.42 0.44 0.43 2 0.61 0.60 0.56 0.57 0.53 0.49 0.41 0.42 0.43 0.43 3 0.70 0.64 0.61 0.58 0.56 0.47 0.48 0.49 0.46 4 0.67 0.64 0.61 0.58 0.45 0.45 0.46 0.46 5 0.76 0.71 0.69 0.52 0.53 0.54 0.53 6 0.75 0.70 0.52 0.54 0.54 0.53 7 0.73 0.53 0.55 0.56 0.55 8 0.54 0.55 0.55 0.53 9 0.73 0.68 0.66 10 0.73 0.71 11 0.73 For this number of samples, any correlation coefficient greater than 0.05 is significant at the 99% confidence level. There is clearly a correlation but what does it prove? Nothing, really. Had there been none, it would have supported the theory that the hits are not due to external causes but they can still be due to propagation of the discharge from wire to wire initiated by a real track going through the chamber. More tracks, more spurious hits and hence the correlation. Tom From: SMTP%"longo@mich.physics.lsa.umich.edu" 8-MAR-1994 13:35:25.42 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Run 276 timing peaks Date: Tue, 8 Mar 1994 14:02:21 -0500 Message-Id: <94030814022127@mich.physics.lsa.umich.edu> From: longo@mich.physics.lsa.umich.edu (MICHAEL J. LONGO) To: T864-L@fnmini.fnal.gov Subject: Run 276 timing peaks X-VMS-To: T864 I also looked at Bj's run 276 strictly on the basis of timing information. I required that one pbar counter have timing "appropriate" for a pbar-p collision at C0.(I know from collider runs where the timing peaks should be for good collisions.) Then I plotted the timing of any of the *other* pbar counters relative to the A counter time. Essentially all the pbar-A timing plots gave two peaks cleanly separated about 16+/-1 ns apart. The left peak typically contains about 10X as many events as the right. I estimate the time difference for p-induced events and collision-induced events to be about 15 ns. The Stonehedge counters also show clear double peaks. Their spacing varies between about 7 and 13 ns. I don't have their locations rel. to C0, but I suspect these time differences are about right for what would be expected for p-induced events rel. to collisions. All I can say is that the time differences are what would be expected if a few percent of the events came from close to the IP. This is admittedly too good to be true. It would be very interesting to correlate the timing information with tracking to see if these events also track back to an origin close to the IP. I should point out that the position of the *left* peak is about where the collision peak would be for a seps off run; the right peak is the one where the holy grail would be located. However, this must be the case since the trigger requires a pbar hit with timing corresponding to a collision source, i.e., pbar about 15 ns later than the dominant p-induced triggers. --Mike Longo From: SMTP%"martens@calvin.fnal.gov" 8-MAR-1994 16:40:28.65 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Run 249 Date: Tue, 8 Mar 1994 16:38:42 -0600 From: Michael Martens Message-Id: <199403082238.AA00533@gumby.fnal.gov> To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Subject: Run 249 A word of warning to about analysing run 249. Run 249 was a run lasting ~7 hours. As a result the total scaler counts, SCLRTOT(), overflows part way through the analysis of that run causing OFFLINE to crash. For that run you should probably zero out SCLRTOT() every once in awhile. DO I=1,NSCLR SCLRTOT(I)=0 END DO I don't know of a good way to prevent this in general. Art From: SMTP%"martens@calvin.fnal.gov" 8-MAR-1994 16:52:52.80 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Run 249 Date: Tue, 8 Mar 1994 16:51:34 -0600 From: Michael Martens Message-Id: <199403082251.AA00545@gumby.fnal.gov> To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Subject: Run 249 I have switched the array SCLRTOT() to a REAL instead of an INTEGER so overflow should not be a problem. From: SMTP%"JENKINS@CWAPHY.PHYS.CWRU.EDU" 8-MAR-1994 17:08:58.68 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Results of runs 263 through 267 Date: Tue, 8 Mar 1994 18:07:46 -0500 (EST) From: JENKINS@CWAPHY.PHYS.CWRU.EDU (Tom Jenkins) Message-Id: <940308180746.2020045f@CWAPHY.PHYS.CWRU.EDU> Subject: Results of runs 263 through 267 To: T864-L@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV X-Vmsmail-To: @[.mail]minimax These runs were made by Mike Longo on March 4 to look at chamber efficiency as a function of hold delay on the Michigan electronics. I have found the median pulse height produced by through tracks and the efficiency for each chamber in each of the runs except run 267. Run 267 had an "infinite" delay and I could not find tracks in it. I consider the median pulse height to be a better measure of the timing so I am presenting only those results below. (Generally, efficiencies were >95% except for run 266) Run => 263 264 265 266 Delay => 200 600 1000 1500 (nsec) Chbr 5 118 121 83 45 6 218 186 160 87 7 168 157 105 63 8 192 184 144 74 9 145 129 90 47 10 110 117 76 38 11 179 170 90 51 12 148 125 94 57 From the above, I would guess an optimum delay would be ~325 nsec which is about where we have been operating, I understand. Tom From: SMTP%"JENKINS@CWAPHY.PHYS.CWRU.EDU" 9-MAR-1994 10:49:21.69 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Efficiencies in runs 263 through 266 Date: Wed, 9 Mar 1994 11:48:17 -0500 (EST) From: JENKINS@CWAPHY.PHYS.CWRU.EDU (Tom Jenkins) Message-Id: <940309114817.2020045f@CWAPHY.PHYS.CWRU.EDU> Subject: Efficiencies in runs 263 through 266 To: T864-L@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV X-Vmsmail-To: @[.mail]minimax I have been asked what were the efficiencies in these runs. Here they are. This is the efficiency for detecting any pulse 10 counts above the pedestal. Statistical errors are typically +/- 2.0 Run => 263 264 265 266 Delay => 200 600 1000 1500 (nsec) Chbr 5 100.0 97.5 96.4 92.8 6 95.8 96.3 91.4 90.9 7 94.4 95.2 96.5 100.0 8 93.0 96.3 93.1 95.3 9 91.3 98.6 98.1 90.0 10 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 11 89.4 95.9 90.2 87.8 12 97.0 98.7 95.4 96.0 Tom From: SMTP%"martens@calvin.fnal.gov" 9-MAR-1994 14:44:32.10 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Scalers Date: Wed, 9 Mar 1994 14:43:19 -0600 From: Michael Martens Message-Id: <199403092043.AA00604@gumby.fnal.gov> To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Subject: Scalers Since there have been several questions regarding the scaler readout: The CAMAC scalers are inhibited while the MR Gate. We may want some of the scalers to count during MR - this can be done as well. The scalers are read and cleared every fifth event (LAM 0 event.) When the scalers are read, the counts are unpacked into the array SCLCUR() and the total counts are accumulated in SCLRTOT(). When running ONLINE, the count in SCLRTOT() will not be accurate since ONLINE does not process every event. The scalers are not cleared at the start of a run so the first LAM 0 event will have the scaler count accumulated from before the run. (If it isn't done already, the unpacker should be modified to ignore the first event so that SCLRTOT() does not include the first event.) The suggestion has also been made to read only, and not clear, the scalers every time so that the counts would accumulate in the CAMAC cards. This would make the ONLINE monitoring of the scalers more accurate since we don't have to worry about ONLINE missing events. However, we would need to worry about overflow in the scalers and find a way to clear the scalers before the start of a run. Art From: SMTP%"martens@calvin.fnal.gov" 9-MAR-1994 15:25:13.98 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: scalers Date: Wed, 9 Mar 1994 15:23:40 -0600 From: Michael Martens Message-Id: <199403092123.AA00609@gumby.fnal.gov> To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Subject: scalers The unpacker has been modified to ignore the first LAM0 event so that SCLRTOT() is not biased by scaler counts before the run started. Art From: SMTP%"cct@po.cwru.edu" 13-MAR-1994 10:03:27.15 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Cyrus' schedule this week Message-Id: <9403131602.AA23597@po.CWRU.Edu> Date: Sun, 13 Mar 94 11:02:18 -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: Cyrus' schedule this week This is our spring break, but it turns out that I need to be at CWRU on Thursday and Friday, so I will be at Fermilab from late this (Sunday) evening through late Wednesday afternoon. 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%"MINIMAX@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV" 14-MAR-1994 21:19:05.75 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Two new runs Date: Mon, 14 Mar 1994 21:16:28 -0600 From: MINIMAX@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Subject: Two new runs Sender: T864-L - T864 Discussion List To: Multiple recipients of list T864-L Reply-to: MINIMAX@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Message-id: <01H9Z1SC3AKI001X5U@SERV02.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> X-Envelope-to: minimax@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-To: t864-l@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU This evening I took two runs of data with separators on and the lead installed in front of the chambers. The first, run #284, had trigger ABCD and T0. The second, run #285, had what I believe to be (ABCD and T0 and BigCVeto). Art From: SMTP%"MINIMAX@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV" 14-MAR-1994 21:36:20.37 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Third run Date: Mon, 14 Mar 1994 21:32:16 -0600 From: MINIMAX@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Subject: Third run Sender: T864-L - T864 Discussion List To: Multiple recipients of list T864-L Reply-to: MINIMAX@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Message-id: <01H9Z2EBUYSY001X5U@SERV02.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> X-Envelope-to: minimax@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-To: t864-l@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU I took a third run, #286, with what I think was a ABCD and T0 and (PBarOR Veto) trigger. I am not 100% certain that I had the correct delay from the Pbar OR to the VETO. Art From: SMTP%"longo@mich1.physics.lsa.umich.edu" 15-MAR-1994 10:40:38.98 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Searching for the Holy Grail Date: Tue, 15 Mar 1994 11:35:07 -0500 Message-Id: <94031511350759@mich1.physics.lsa.umich.edu> From: longo@mich1.physics.lsa.umich.edu (MICHAEL J. LONGO) To: T864-L@fnmini.fnal.gov Subject: Searching for the Holy Grail X-VMS-To: T864 I've spent a fair amount of time searching for the "Holy Grail" in Bj's Run 276. The hope is that there are some events from p-pbar collisions in separators-on runs. While not attaining this noble goal, I think the experience was worthwhile and worth passing on to others. It seems to me there are two (and only two) checks that we have on the origin of the events. One is the pbar timing information since the pbar timing relative to the A counter is different for events from collisions compared to p-induced events that come from upstream and strike the pbar counters on their way toward the A counter. The other information comes from tracking; in particular, does the event appear to come from the interaction point? Recall that in these holy grail runs Bj used a rather severe timing requirement on the pbar counters in the trigger which effectively forced the pbar counters to come in late compared to the A counter, as they would for events from collisions. As I mentioned in an earlier message, in Run 276 the pbar-A timing distributions do show two cleanly separated peaks from most of the pbar counters. The separation of these peaks was about what would be expected for events from the two sources described above (i.e., about 15 ns). However, as I said then this was too good to be true. I think I now understand the origin of the second peak. The second peak only appears in the pbar-A timing plots, not in the "raw" pbar TDC distributions. It is actually about 19 ns later than the pbar-A timing peak for collision-induced events, as seen in separators-off runs. In Run 276 the timing of the pbar counters in the trigger is such that most of the triggers are forced to have timing appropriate for collision-induced events. This explains the first timing peak. The second peak comes about due to accidentals involving the A counter and satellite bunches preceding the main bunch. Thus the A counter gets a hit from something from the satellite bunch and the pbar counters get a hit from something in the main bunch. These are relatively rare, but are selected by the trigger. Art informs me that the satellite bunches are 18.8 ns from the main bunch, which is where the second peak occurs. Thus the second peak is a false trail to the Holy Grail. I have also looked at the tracking from Run 276 using Ken's tracker. First I selected events which had one (or two) pbar counters with TDCs appropriate for events from collisions (as most of these events have because of the trigger selection). Then I ran the tracker to find where the track "originated". I then compared these distributions with Run 242 with separators off. The details of this are lengthy. First I calculated x and y for the track at z=0, and z for x=0. For Run 242 these quantities give fairly sharp peaks somewhat offset from zero (about 1" in x and y and about 20" in z). The distributions also have widths of about 1" in x and y and 20" in z if tails are cut off. I tried to make a single measure of how near to the collision point the track originated using R**2 = x**2 + y**2 + z**2 where x,y,z are corrected for the off- sets and measured in units of standard deviations. The distribution in this quantity was reasonable for Run 242 with a width of about 2 units or so, as might be expected. For Run 276 (seps on) there are still about 1/3rd as many entries with R**2 < 4, as there are for Run 242 with a comparable number of triggers. This is clearly too many events to be beam-beam collisions with separators on. Thus I conclude we do not have the resolution to resolve a holy grail signal from the background. It seems to me the 1" or so accuracy we get in transverse position at the origin is disappointing. With something like 1 mm accuracy in position at each of the wire planes, I would expect the apparent x,y source dimensions to be 2-3 mm with seps off. If such an accuracy could be achieved we might be able to resolve the 'holy grail' events. I should emphasize that some of this smearing may be due to my naive use of Ken's tracker. Ken has done a great job in making a working tracker. I mostly would like feedback on whether we should expect to do better. (Perhaps someone is??) The offsets from 0,0,0 mentioned above make me wonder about the alignment information. Other possibilities include multiple scattering in the vacuum pipe (which we can't do much about) and too many stray hits in the chambers near the 'real' ones (we typically get about 20 hits per plane and Ken's tracker usually returns only one track??!). --Mike Longo From: SMTP%"CTAYLOR@FNALV.FNAL.GOV" 15-MAR-1994 11:18:48.33 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: re: Searching for the Holy Grail Date: Tue, 15 Mar 1994 11:01:56 -0600 From: CTAYLOR@FNALV.FNAL.GOV Subject: re: Searching for the Holy Grail Sender: T864-L - T864 Discussion List To: Multiple recipients of list T864-L Reply-to: CTAYLOR@FNALV.FNAL.GOV Message-id: <01H9ZV06HETQ001X5U@SERV02.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> X-Envelope-to: minimax@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-To: t864-l@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU Mike, This is just a brief update on the tracking situation. Matt and Erik should soon be reporting Houghing results to complement what Ken has done. (Matt will be meeting with Bj at SLAC this week to discuss this work). Meanwhile, Tom Jenkins, Jon Streets and I (in consultaiton with Ken) are writing a second generation tracker. Parts of this have finished the debug stage; it should be available for use in the near future. One of the key components of the new tracker will be a cluster-finding algorithm. Initially, 1 hit wire=1 cluster, allowing us to make unbiased studies of wire correlations in events with large nubmers of hit wires. Other cluser-related studies are underway, and I hope that we can report some initial results later this week. This is an area which will be evolving; I think there is room for substantial improvement over our present performance. From: SMTP%"CTAYLOR@FNALV.FNAL.GOV" 15-MAR-1994 12:03:19.31 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: collider run tonight? Date: Tue, 15 Mar 1994 12:01:15 -0600 (CST) From: CTAYLOR@FNALV.FNAL.GOV To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Message-Id: <940315120115.20408090@FNALV.FNAL.GOV> Subject: collider run tonight? At the 9 AM AD scheduling meeting, I requested a seps off run when convenient. Assuming that the present store (4750) terminates normally, we will have a seps off run at the end of the store, sometime on the owl shift or early tomorrow morning. This will be our first collider run with converter in place. Cyrus From: SMTP%"BJORKEN@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU" 15-MAR-1994 12:49:38.92 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Where is the pbar beam-gas junk? Date: Tue, 15 Mar 1994 10:13 -0800 (PST) From: BJORKEN@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU Subject: Where is the pbar beam-gas junk? To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Message-id: <01H9ZY9195XU001V9J@SERV02.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> X-Envelope-to: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT For some time I have been looking for evidence for double-beam-gas events and have been unable to find any. I had an interesting conversation with Seog on this which may help explain why it is so hard to see. First the problem: Our standard ABCD.T0 trigger in a good store runs typically at 2.5 to 4 KHz. Bunches go by at 330 KHz. So per bunch passage there is a 1% chance that a proton (usually far upstream) interacted and created junk that goes by us synchronous with the proton bunch. This source should scale with proton current. Since the pbar current is typically about 0.2 of the proton current, this would imply that per bunch passage (or per trigger) that 0.2% of the time the pbars are accompanied with junk. These should trigger our pbar counters with the same timing as would a real ppbar collision, while the ABCD counters could respond to the debris flowing in the proton direction. Thus the nominal rate from this double-beam-gas scenario might be expected to be about 3KHz x 2E-3 = 6 Hz. But in the holy-grail runs the trigger rate is 0.3 Hz or so and not obviously related to pbar-induced beam gas, although I am not sure that that possibility is yet ruled out. A possible explanation on why the pbar beam gas signal is suppressed goes as follows. When beam-gas occurs (from either direction?), it appears to be the case that we get a lot of debris off the beam pipe, which not only puts many hits into the chambers, but which also puts enough hits into the ABCD counters to make them an efficient beam-beam-collision trigger. If pbar beam gas also makes big pipe showers, then it is likely that at least some of the ABCD counters will fire early. It is my understanding that if the pbar-induced pulse is still there and large enough when the p induced pulse begins (15 to 25 nsec later) the discriminator will not respond and the p-induced ABCD trigger will be lost. In other words upstream beam-gas effectively creates a veto on the p-induced ABCD trigger. I am not sure how this hypothesis might be checked further, and invite suggestions. bj From: SMTP%"BJORKEN@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU" 15-MAR-1994 13:21:38.74 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: seps off triggers Date: Tue, 15 Mar 1994 11:03 -0800 (PST) From: BJORKEN@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU Subject: seps off triggers To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Message-id: <01H9ZZCTYIA6001V9J@SERV02.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> X-Envelope-to: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT I agree with Mike that we want a loose trigger. There is one main reason for the tight holy-grail choice and that is that if the initial conditions are dirty the holy grail rate is low enough that we will not dilute appreciably the ratio of collisions to beam gas. I would suggest setting up with holy-grail, and then one to say three minutes into the seps off run go to the pbar_or delayed trigger with no multiplicity requirement on pbar at all (other than >0). I would like to see enough holy-grail running that we can extract a wire-hit distribution with decent statistics. From: FNMINT::FNALV::FNDAQ::STREETS "x3629, page 536-1799" 15-MAR-1994 13:58:54.72 To: FNALV::FNMINT::MINIMAX CC: Subj: RE: offline.mms can you tell me the error ? im in my office 840-3629 ifd you need to call jon From: SMTP%"JENKINS@CWAPHY.PHYS.CWRU.EDU" 15-MAR-1994 16:15:51.76 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Wire hit correlations Date: Tue, 15 Mar 1994 17:14:13 -0500 (EST) From: JENKINS@CWAPHY.PHYS.CWRU.EDU (Tom Jenkins) Message-Id: <940315171413.20200621@CWAPHY.PHYS.CWRU.EDU> Subject: Wire hit correlations To: T864-L@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV X-Vmsmail-To: @[.mail]minimax The high occupancies in the chambers observed in our recent runs, especially those where no "big C veto" is present, is a source of concern. These seemingly random wire hits, for the most part, do not seem to be correlated with tracks of particles going though the array of chambers. They will make it difficult to discern tracks in events that have a large number of tracks in them. As I understand it, there are two theories as to the origin of these extraneous hits: 1. A valid hit on a wire is propagating to adjacent wires by the emission of uv photons from the avalanche process initiated by the valid hit. 2. Many events are accompanied by e.m. showers propagating down the beam pipe and causing soft (~few KeV) photons to leak into the chambers. Of course, both mechanisms could contribute. In an effort to understand this effect, I have calculated the frequency of accompanying wire hits as a function of distance from the reporting wires in a chamber. These distributions are generated by visiting every reporting wire (in the chamber under investigation) and asking if there was another wire, or wires, reporting on the high wire number side. (I limit it to the high wire number side to avoid double counting. This introduces certain systematic effects at large distances but they can be understood). Histograms of these distributions for the collider runs, such as run 250, show a drop-off from about 0.3 for the adjacent wire to a more-or-less uniform background of 0.1 to 0.2 at distances of about ten wires. This peak in the frequency distribution at close range (less than ten wires) could be the result of propagation as in theory #1 or it could be caused by real, externally induced ionizing events which by their nature trigger more than one wire. In any event, these excess hits at close range only amount to roughly 1 to 2% of the total hits at a Michigan threshold of 20. Raising the threshold seems to reduce even more the fraction of short range correlated hits. Definitive tests to separate the two theories would be: 1. Try a more highly quenched gas mix, such as Mike Longo has been advocating. This should reduce the propagation effect. 2. Cover the chamber faces with a thin layer of high-Z material that would absorb X-rays in the few kilovolt region (which is what they are if one believes the pulse heights they produce). One or two thousandths of an inch of copper or higher Z should be enough, by my calculations. The small added material should not significantly add to multiple scattering. I have printed some of the distributions described above on the Portakamp printer. Postscript files are in FNMINT::[MINIMAX.TJENKINS]wirecorr.ps*, if anyone wishes to look at them. Tom From: SMTP%"martens@calvin.fnal.gov" 15-MAR-1994 17:33:42.96 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Seps off run Date: Tue, 15 Mar 1994 17:32:05 -0600 From: Michael Martens Message-Id: <199403152332.AA01168@gumby.fnal.gov> To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Subject: Seps off run The Crew Chief just informed me that our separators off run is at the end of the next store, not at the end of this store. The next shot will take place at about 8am Wednesday, last about 16 hours, meaning we can run around midnight Wednesday or Owl shift on Thursday. Art From: SMTP%"CTAYLOR@FNALV.FNAL.GOV" 15-MAR-1994 17:36:44.31 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: collider run Date: Tue, 15 Mar 1994 17:26:44 -0600 From: CTAYLOR@FNALV.FNAL.GOV Subject: collider run Sender: T864-L - T864 Discussion List To: Multiple recipients of list T864-L Reply-to: CTAYLOR@FNALV.FNAL.GOV Message-id: <01HA087PM2W60021BQ@SERV02.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> X-Envelope-to: minimax@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-To: t864-l@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU The separators off run will not be with the present store (4750), but rather the store after this one (4751). Store 4750 will be terminated at 0800 tomorrow morning, followed by shot setup for 4751, so we can anticipate our run at approximately some time between 0400 and 0800 on Thursday morning. Cyrus From: SMTP%"JENKINS@CWAPHY.PHYS.CWRU.EDU" 16-MAR-1994 07:47:36.35 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Wire hit correlations - correction and amplification Date: Wed, 16 Mar 1994 8:45:56 -0500 (EST) From: JENKINS@CWAPHY.PHYS.CWRU.EDU (Tom Jenkins) Message-Id: <940316084556.2020072d@CWAPHY.PHYS.CWRU.EDU> Subject: Wire hit correlations - correction and amplification To: T864-L@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV X-Vmsmail-To: @[.mail]minimax My memo of yesterday on this subject said that the close range hits amounted to only 1-2% of the total hits. That is true in the sense that for a particular wire, the close range hits are 1 to 2% of the total hits in the chamber but that doesn't mean that only 1 to 2% of the hits are multiples. A more accurate statement would be that for every wire reporting, there is, on average, about 0.3 to 0.4 additional wire reporting nearby. Of these, about 0.15 to 0.2 is the immediately adjacent wire. Tom From: SMTP%"CTAYLOR@FNALV.FNAL.GOV" 16-MAR-1994 11:28:22.11 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: send/edit Date: Wed, 16 Mar 1994 11:27:26 -0600 (CST) From: CTAYLOR@FNALV.FNAL.GOV To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Message-Id: <940316112726.20609164@FNALV.FNAL.GOV> Subject: send/edit After reading Mike Longo's and Bj's messages of yesterday, and discussing it with Dick and Jon Streets, we propose the following run plan for our fifteen minute collider run scheduled for the end of store 4751 (owl shift tomorrow morning): 1) ten minutes of ABCD*T0*P_bar_or_delayed [with delay of 16 nanoseconds on Dick's box]. This is (apparently) what we have used in the recent collider runs, and will facilitate comparison of before Pb with after Pb. 2) five minutes of ABCD*T0*P_bar_or_delayed backed off to a delay of 12 nanoseconds. 3) If any additional time is available, go to the holy grail trigger with p_bar_delay back to 16 ns on the master box. (Note in run 250, BJ and MM recorded a trigger rate of 0.25Hz with this trigger with the requirement N_pbar>4...data accumulates slowly..perhaps the multiplicity cut should be backed off a bit.) Comments/suggestions for changes?? Cyrus From: SMTP%"CTAYLOR@FNALV.FNAL.GOV" 16-MAR-1994 11:42:45.29 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: more on the run plan Date: Wed, 16 Mar 1994 11:41:51 -0600 (CST) From: CTAYLOR@FNALV.FNAL.GOV To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Message-Id: <940316114151.20609164@FNALV.FNAL.GOV> Subject: more on the run plan Mike Longo writes: From: SMTP%"longo@mich.physics.lsa.umich.edu" 16-MAR-1994 11:32:45.72 To: CTAYLOR CC: Subj: Re: send/edit Date: Wed, 16 Mar 1994 12:28:46 -0500 Message-Id: <94031612284607@mich.physics.lsa.umich.edu> From: longo@mich.physics.lsa.umich.edu (MICHAEL J. LONGO) To: CTAYLOR@fnalv.fnal.gov Subject: Re: send/edit X-VMS-To: SMTP%"CTAYLOR@fnalv.fnal.gov" Hi Cyrus-- There is certainly no point in NOT running the DAQ close to its max. rate. We can always make additional cuts offline to require N pbar counters or whatever. The mult. req. in the trigger or timing should be adjusted to take data at least at 50% of max. during collider runs. --Mike ***************** I agree with you. One unfortunate problem is that I have to go back to CWRU this afternoon; Dick and Jon Streets will be running tonight. Any comments on the run plan should certainly be sent to Dick! Cyrus From: SMTP%"martens@calvin.fnal.gov" 16-MAR-1994 16:04:33.98 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: seps off Date: Wed, 16 Mar 1994 16:03:03 -0600 From: Michael Martens Message-Id: <199403162203.AA01252@gumby.fnal.gov> To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Subject: seps off Store 4751 started at about 3pm today (Luminosity ~ 4E30) and the present plan is to end it at 8am tommorrow. Art From: SMTP%"BJORKEN@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU" 16-MAR-1994 16:43:55.91 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: cross sections Date: Wed, 16 Mar 1994 14:03 -0800 (PST) From: BJORKEN@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU Subject: cross sections To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Message-id: <01HA1KOSCR3Q0027G7@SERV02.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> X-Envelope-to: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT I still puzzle over our high efficiency in collider mode, and so looked into the cross sections in more detail this morning. I use CDF numbers, which are a bit higher than the E711 competition: total cross section = 80.03 +- 2.24 mb elastic = 19.70 +- 0.85 single diffraction = 9.46 +- 0.44 Therefore inel nondiff = 41.41 +- 2.2?? This last line is gotten by subtracting elastic and twice single diffraction from the total. We may trigger on some of the single diffraction, at high mass. A reasonable parametrization to the accuracy we need of high mass single diffraction is as follows: M2 dsigma/ dM2 = dsigma/ detamax = 0.72 +-.05 mb. The dynamic range in produced diffractive masses goes from 1.2 GeV to 360 GeV according to the CDF analyses/assumptions. Etamax is the maximum rapidity for which diffractive particles are seen if the mass is M. It ranges from about -7 to + 7 in general and we can be sensitive in the range from about +4 to +7. So I take twice 2 mb (with a 50% error) as the piece of single diffraction we might see. This gives a trigger cross-section of at most 45 mb. for us. Again, turning this into Hz means multiplying by the D0 luminosity (Art recommends this as the more reliable estimate) and by the ratio of the betas (0.35/72). For a D0 luminosity of 1.00E30 this gives our 100% efficient trigger rate to be 45 x .35/72 x 1000 = 219 Hz I think this should be good to 10%, not counting the beta value uncertainty at CDF/D0. ( I put a +-3 on the 45, and a +-4 on the 72). The CDF numbers come from 3 preprints FNAL93-232,3,4-E (Aug 93). I hope someone will carry this analysis a notch further. And be sure to watch those scalars when the seps go off. bj From: SMTP%"martens@calvin.fnal.gov" 16-MAR-1994 19:33:27.24 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Seps off run Date: Wed, 16 Mar 1994 19:32:33 -0600 From: Michael Martens Message-Id: <199403170132.AA01271@gumby.fnal.gov> To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Subject: Seps off run For reasons as yet unknown the beam in the TEV has dribbled away to nothing. Our seps off run will no doubt be postponed. Art From: SMTP%"BJORKEN@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU" 17-MAR-1994 15:24:31.81 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: cross-sections again: problem solved? Date: Thu, 17 Mar 1994 13:00 -0800 (PST) From: BJORKEN@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU Subject: cross-sections again: problem solved? To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Message-id: <01HA2W7HHYQA002274@SERV02.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> X-Envelope-to: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT In my estimate of rates I normalized to CDF/D0 luminosity and to the ratio of the beta functions. However, I neglected to take into account the fact that over the CDF/D0 luminous region the beta function is varying. (What is happening is that the focussing is so strong that the beam divergence at the focal point makes the beam sizes significantly larger already by the time one is at the ends of the luminous region.) When I try to take this into account I get a factor 0.70 (good to about +-0.05) reduction in what CDF/D0 actually get in rate to what would be naively estimated with a constant beta. Therefore we should divide my old estimated rate (which was 219 Hz the other day for CDF/D0 L=10E30) by 0.70. This yields 313 Hz, an eminently reasonable value. The correct correction factor can I am sure be retrieved from CDF/D0 lore. bj From: SMTP%"martens@calvin.fnal.gov" 17-MAR-1994 16:53:24.58 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Seps off run Date: Thu, 17 Mar 1994 16:52:33 -0600 From: Michael Martens Message-Id: <199403172252.AA01344@gumby.fnal.gov> To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Subject: Seps off run Store 4755 went in at 1600 (Lum ~ 3E30). The plan is to turn the seps off for 15 minutes at 0745 Friday. Art From: SMTP%"BJORKEN@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU" 17-MAR-1994 19:27:22.62 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: T864-L at slacvm: RIP Date: Thu, 17 Mar 1994 17:20 -0800 (PST) From: BJORKEN@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU Subject: T864-L at slacvm: RIP To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Message-id: <01HA34RRNXPY0028XX@SERV02.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> X-Envelope-to: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Today I asked that T864-L@slacvm be shut down. The replacement is T864-L@fnmini. If you send messages to it from a vax, use smtp%"T864-L@fnmini.fnal.gov"--I come to grief using the :: bj From: SMTP%"DICK@FNALV.FNAL.GOV" 18-MAR-1994 08:54:00.08 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: seps off run and stuff Date: Fri, 18 Mar 1994 8:53:08 -0600 (CST) From: DICK@FNALV.FNAL.GOV To: t864-l@fnmini.FNAL.GOV Message-Id: <940318085308.2060ac2d@FNALV.FNAL.GOV> Subject: seps off run and stuff Hi Chiral Fans, from DG JS MM We ran a test run this morning 293 and shifted to the real run at 0740 Lead of some variety has been installed in front of the detector and is presumably documented in the log book.[ I haven't found it ] Run 294 had standard gas and HV's; trigger was ABCD*Pbar with the delay corresponding to PPbar collisions; this is DLY SW = 16 which is arrived at by subtracting 14 ns the C0 to Pbar cntr dist times 2 from the garbage [ abundant P induced ] delay curve peak at 30-32 ns on the switch dly. The seps went off at about 0745 and event number 1948 [ LAM Sclr ] Rates in ABCD went from 1500 per 1.37 sec to about 2000 and slowly ran down to 1700 at 0800 Rates in ABCD*Pbar went from about 30 to 300 to 280end LAM Trigs went from 26 to 85 through most of the run. At 0759 event/lam number 28080 the delay was switched from 16 to 12ns. rates went down somewhat. At 0801 event /lam number 31659 the delay was switched to 20 ns rates went up somewhat... At 0802 they started to turn the separators back on and to dump the beam...we stopped recording at about event 45914. So off to the meeting Dick From: SMTP%"martens@calvin.fnal.gov" 18-MAR-1994 10:04:10.50 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Run 294 (MCR summary) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 1994 10:02:40 -0600 From: Michael Martens Message-Id: <199403181602.AA01395@gumby.fnal.gov> To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Subject: Run 294 (MCR summary) Summary of Run 294 accelerator data. At 7:45 - seps off Tunes adjusted (-.002) in both vertical and horizontal planes Pbar emittance grew by about 50% but leveled off once the tunes were adjusted. At 8:00 there was some concern about quenching the magnets if beam was aborted with separators off. As a result we started turning the separators back on but stopped at about 50% helix because the losses increased. Beam was then slowly scraped away using the scrapers. This whole process took about 20 minutes. Dick informs me we were taking data during this time. In the past we have aborted succesfully in the past with seps off and we have permission to so again next run. This should prevent us from wasting 20 minutes while scraping beam. Among the ACNET device readings we collect is a subset collected every 20 seconds. These are events with EVTYPE = 5 and ACLIST = 1. Among this subset is: T:IBEAM 72626 12 TEV E49 DCCT MEDIUM BEAM 1E12 T:PSFBI 37833 12 PROTON FBI SUMMATION 1E09 T:ASFBI 37832 12 PBAR FBI SUMMATION 1E09 C:LOSTP 32562 12 CDF LOST PROTONS hz C:LOSTPB 32563 12 CDF LOST PBARS hz E:D0LUMC 70501 12 Corrected D0 Luminosity E30 C:B0LUMV 39278 12 CDF lum. No Halo, log E30 C:WPVE 36379 12 Ave Vert proton emit mmmr C:WPHE 36380 12 Ave Hor proton emit mmmr C:WAVE 36383 12 Ave Vert anti-p emit mmmr C:WAHE 36384 12 Ave Hor anti-p emit mmmr Note that we should use C:LOSTP and C:LOSTPB to measure losses (and not T:LOSTP and T:LOSTPB as we have before.) Also the luminosities reported on Channel 13 are C:B0LUMV and E:D0LUMC (and not C:B0LUM and E:D0LUM.) An example of how to unpack these is in [.CHECKNEW]USER.FOR Art From: SMTP%"\'FNDCD::COLOMBO\'" 18-MAR-1994 13:49:25.45 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: RE: mail aliases for t864-l Date: Fri, 18 Mar 1994 13:46:50 -0600 (CST) From: Rick Colombo <"FNDCD::COLOMBO"@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV> To: t864-l@fnmini.FNAL.GOV X-Vmsmail-To: fnmini::t864-l Message-Id: <940318134650.106b@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV> Subject: RE: mail aliases for t864-l Jon The mail aliases "t864-l" has been setup so that if you send mail to t864-l (or FNMINI::t864-l if you're logged in somewhere else on site) and it will send your mail to the entire distribution list via SMTP mail. This mail was sent (to the entire list) in this manner. Rick Colombo From: SMTP%"cct@po.cwru.edu" 19-MAR-1994 12:10:13.94 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: state of affairs Message-Id: <9403191808.AA04411@po.CWRU.Edu> Date: Sat, 19 Mar 94 13:08:19 -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: state of affairs >Date: Sat, 19 Mar 1994 11:31:08 -0500 (EST) >From: SIGNORE@OSSE.NRL.NAVY.MIL >Subject: state of affairs >To: cct@po.cwru.edu > >Cyrus, > In [minimax.ps]294_20m_11h.ps you will find some ever so weak evidence of >vertex events in the lead. > There is a scatter plot of z value of vertex vs dist. of vertex. This >plot shows differences to the one made on run 250. At 140" there is a source >extending up to ~11". This is not present in run 250 histogram's, which >I have in front of me, and I am regenerating now on fnmint. > You can also see a narrow peak in the hist. of z value of vertex. The batch >job for run 250 takes about 12 hours as nhits was not as high. > The good news is The lead doesn't seem to distort the charged tracks coming >from the origin much. > After this run I'm going to a data summary file system that will be much >simpler. A few lines in user .for is all you need, and then the user will >get a list of tracks for every event htey were found in. > I'll let you know when 250 finishes, I'm going to make the offline.hbook >files for DG's gas runs now. >Ken > > ----------------------------------- 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" 19-MAR-1994 12:18:52.94 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: plots Message-Id: <9403191817.AA04655@po.CWRU.Edu> Date: Sat, 19 Mar 94 13:17:03 -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: plots Ken, Let me know when you have the analogous plots for run 250 ready. For the plot `zvalue of vertex', what does it take to make a track? By which I mean--what's causing the peak at 200"? Also, what exactly is being plotted (e.g. variable and units) in the plot `dist. closest apprch btwn 2 trks'? 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" 19-MAR-1994 14:33:20.10 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: RE: LEAD PLATES Message-Id: <9403192031.AA09899@po.CWRU.Edu> Date: Sat, 19 Mar 94 15:31:30 -0500 X-Sender: cct@pop.cwru.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov, SEOG@DUKHEF.PHY.DUKE.EDU From: cct@po.cwru.edu Subject: RE: LEAD PLATES Seog, I believe that the lead was placed at hole 7, which puts it at z=142.3". I am not certain of it's distance from the beampipe. It is my understanding that it roughly shadows the MWPC telescope, but is about 1/2" farther out than planned. Pat Colestock has apparently documented this in a message to Bj, but this has not been forwarded to the listserv. In any case, this puts the lead behind the A counter, but in front of all others. The B counters would be about 12" behind the lead. 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" 19-MAR-1994 15:06:15.65 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Re: state of affairs Date: Sat, 19 Mar 1994 16:01:56 -0500 From: cct@PO.CWRU.EDU Subject: Re: state of affairs Sender: T864-L - T864 Discussion List To: Multiple recipients of list T864-L Reply-to: cct@PO.CWRU.EDU Message-id: <01HA5O7GZK9E00242H@SERV02.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> X-Envelope-to: minimax@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-To: t864-l@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU >Date: Sat, 19 Mar 1994 15:59:55 -0500 (EST) >From: SIGNORE@OSSE.NRL.NAVY.MIL >Subject: Re: state of affairs >To: cct@po.cwru.edu > >Cy, The gamma counters were not working for run 294. > > ----------------------------------- 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" 19-MAR-1994 15:46:40.60 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: HRS runs Date: Sat, 19 Mar 1994 16:44:29 -0500 From: cct@PO.CWRU.EDU Subject: HRS runs Sender: T864-L - T864 Discussion List To: Multiple recipients of list T864-L Reply-to: cct@PO.CWRU.EDU Message-id: <01HA5PNO4MS2002AHQ@SERV02.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> X-Envelope-to: minimax@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-To: t864-l@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU, dick@fnalv.fnal.gov Dick, Could you make some control runs with Ar CO(2) with the same trigger you used in the HRS runs? We don't have such control runs... Run 274 was in principle similar, but that was before we put in the lead. Run 288 may have nominally had the same trigger, but run comment `p beam sort of' may account for the anomalously low number of hits. Other than that, it is my general impression that the number of hits on the HRS run may not have changed much from other runs with messy triggers post-lead, though the trigger uncertainty is too large to say much of anything, really. The pulse-height distributions do seem to have more power at larger values of the pedestal-subtracted pulse height. 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" 19-MAR-1994 16:07:22.11 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: location of lead Date: Sat, 19 Mar 1994 13:26 -0800 (PST) From: BJORKEN@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU Subject: location of lead To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Message-id: <01HA5QDQFBO2002AHQ@SERV02.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> X-Envelope-to: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT The lead plate is located at hole no 7 as Cyrus has reported. It is 6" wide in the horizontal and 8" high in the vertical. The upper half is 1 Xo and the lower half is 2 Xo. The lower edge is 0.2" above the horizontal plane containing the Tevatron beam axis. The inner edge is 4.25" from the vertical plane containing the Tevatron beam axis. This assumes the beam is centered in the pipe which may not be the case. bj From: SMTP%"JENKINS@CWAPHY.PHYS.CWRU.EDU" 19-MAR-1994 16:32:05.12 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: MWPC's are light-sensitive Date: Sat, 19 Mar 1994 17:32:02 -0500 (EST) From: JENKINS@CWAPHY.PHYS.CWRU.EDU (Tom Jenkins) Message-Id: <940319173202.2020072d@CWAPHY.PHYS.CWRU.EDU> Subject: MWPC's are light-sensitive To: T864-L@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV X-Vmsmail-To: @[.mail]minimax Dear Minimaxers: We are in the process of assembling the last of 12 additional chambers. Seven were taken to C0 two weeks ago. I normally check these out by applying 3000 volts for three hours. They are considered to have passed the test if there is no current trip on the 0.1 uA scale. This is with 20% CO2. Recently we have encountered difficulties with the chambers passing the test and today I discovered that the chamber I was working with would do fine with the room lights out (flourescent lights) but not with them on. Placing an opaque sheet over the chamber also cured the problem. [I had a certain feeling of deja vu when I made this discovery - I think this happened to me before with other chambers] Questions: what kind of illumination is used in the tunnel? Are the lights in the tunnel turned out when beam is on? Perhaps some black cloth should be requisitioned to drape over the chambers in the tunnel. Some chambers do not exhibit a problem and some do. I suspect what is happening is that the aluminized Mylar used for the cathode planes has thin spots or pin holes in them at places. Tom From: SMTP%"cct@PO.CWRU.EDU" 19-MAR-1994 16:38:13.17 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: HRS runs Date: Sat, 19 Mar 1994 17:34:36 -0500 From: cct@PO.CWRU.EDU Subject: HRS runs Sender: T864-L - T864 Discussion List To: Multiple recipients of list T864-L Reply-to: cct@PO.CWRU.EDU Message-id: <01HA5RFZO15E002AHQ@SERV02.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> X-Envelope-to: minimax@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-To: t864-l@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU Actually, run 293 can serve as a control run for the HRS runs. I don't see any striking difference in the NHITS distribution between this run and the HRS runs (with a software Michigan threshold cut of 30), but the pulse heights are typically somewhat larger than with the Ar C02. A longer control run would be nice. 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%"SEOG@DUKHEF.PHY.DUKE.EDU" 20-MAR-1994 07:40:29.90 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Q from ABCD counters. Date: Sun, 20 Mar 1994 8:39:45 -0500 (EST) From: SEOG@DUKHEF.PHY.DUKE.EDU To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Message-Id: <940320083945.26a00298@DUKHEF.PHY.DUKE.EDU> Subject: Q from ABCD counters. I have been looking at the ADC distribution of the ABCD counters. Here are what I have found. 1. There are one, two and usually three minimum ionizing particle peaks. 2. Most of events produces a large number of charge (tracks). 3. There is a fairly good correlation in the amount of charge deposited in the B, C and D counters. Try a two dimensional plot between the sum of charges from B (top+bottom) counters and C counters, for example. 4. If you want to select events with few tracks traversing the ABCD counters, then make cuts on the charge. For example, Requiring ADC of A counter <200 .and. ADC of C-top counter <200 .and. ADC of C-bottome counter <200 should select events with few tracks passing through the ABCD counters, and chambers. The 200 is the ADC count. Seog From: SMTP%"longo@mich1.physics.lsa.umich.edu" 20-MAR-1994 09:39:17.20 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: HRS gas runs Date: Sun, 20 Mar 1994 10:08:38 -0500 Message-Id: <94032010083817@mich1.physics.lsa.umich.edu> From: longo@mich1.physics.lsa.umich.edu (MICHAEL J. LONGO) To: T864-L@fnmini.fnal.gov Subject: HRS gas runs X-VMS-To: T864 Hi Gang-- I did try to compare the HRS gas runs with our normal Argon-20% CO2. The HRS gas containsargon with 10% CO2 and 1% methane, so it does not contain much in the way of a quencher to suppress UV-induced extra hits. The data were taken with an ABCD*T0*PBAR trigger rather than the bigC veto which gives cleaner, simpler events, so it will be hard to do very detailed tracking. Fortunately there were two runs that seem to have been taken with the same trigger and similar run conditions; these were runs 292 & 293. Run 292 was taken with HRS gas and Run 293 was taken 8 hrs later with Ar-CO2. I'm not sure what the HVs were for Run 292 with HRS gas; they are listed in the log book on p 51. I only looked at the multiplicity distributions(=wire hits/event) and the pulse height distributions from the Mich. readout chambers. The distributions for the two run are basically very similar. The run with the HRS gas typically gave mean pulse heights 10-20% larger. The HRS gas gave a multiplicity about 20% higher. I also plot the wire separation to the nearest hit in another wire when I find a hit. That also looked very similar for the two runs. I did look at runs with normal and HRS gas on the event display. They are very muddled so it is really hard to tell what is going on there. Thus I conclude that with this level of quencher there is no benefit as far as reducing the number of hits. However, I should say I was very skeptical to start with that such a small amount of quencher would do any good (with half as much CO2 as well). P10 gas has 10% methane which is about the most you can put in and still have it nonflammable. I think there is a chance that it will help and is definitely worth a try. More generally I am very concerned we will ever be able to make much sense of the bulk of the events. The average number of hits per chamber is about 20 for our standard triggers. I had hoped that some significant fraction of these were spurious, due to internal UV feedback, which might be suppressed by a quencher. The majority of these hits are almost certainly coming from showers originated by real particles striking the vacuum pipe near the chambers. These will be very hard to suppress with our present vacuum pipe. I believe that to do any physics we have to find essentally all tracks and photons in our acceptance that originate from the p-pbar collision, and eliminate essentially all of the spurious ones from the vacuum pipe or other sources. --Mike Longo From: FNMINT::SMTP%"cct@po.cwru.edu" 20-MAR-1994 10:03:43.70 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Re: run 250 Message-Id: <9403201603.AA16641@po.CWRU.Edu> Date: Sun, 20 Mar 94 11:03:22 -0500 X-Sender: cct@pop.cwru.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: MINIMAX@FNMINT.FNAL.GOV From: cct@po.cwru.edu Subject: Re: run 250 Actually, 250_294.ps seems to have two plots on one page of the zvalue at closest approach. A more dramatic proof of the lead is given by the plots of the zvalue of the vertex. 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@mich1.physics.lsa.umich.edu" 20-MAR-1994 11:13:16.53 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Pbar ctr timing from recent collider run Date: Sun, 20 Mar 1994 12:00:56 -0500 Message-Id: <94032012005655@mich1.physics.lsa.umich.edu> From: longo@mich1.physics.lsa.umich.edu (MICHAEL J. LONGO) To: T864-L@fnmini.fnal.gov Subject: Pbar ctr timing from recent collider run X-VMS-To: T864 I looked at the pbar counter TDCs from events 5000-9000 in Run 294 that Dick took with fairly loose timing requirements on the pbar counters in the trigger. The pbar-A TDC distributions show that most of the events have timing corresponding to that for pbar-p collisions. In other words, I think the non-collider background is relatively small, probably of order 30% or less. If you want to clean up the sample further, here are the cuts I use on the pbar-A TDC's--- INTEGER TDCOFF(8),IGOOD,TIMDIF,PBTDCLL(8),HITS12 DATA PBTDCLL/42,50,26,46,40,46,16,49/ 200 IF (TDC_VALID.EQ.0) GO TO 300 C REQUIRE TDC(1) [A CTR] BE REASONABLE TO CUT OUT JUNK TDC(1)=TDC(1)-TDCOFF(1) CALL HF1(301,FLOAT(TDC(1)),1.) IF (TDC(1).LT.123) GO TO 300 IF (TDC(1).GT.155) GO TO 300 C C PUT IN SOME CUTS ON THE PBAR TDCS TO SELECT EVENTS FROM COLLISIONS IGOOD=0 DO I=1,8 TIMDIF=TDC(I+16)-TDC(1)-PBTDCLL(I) IF ((TIMDIF.GT.0).AND.(TIMDIF.LT.80)) IGOOD=I C IF (TIMDIF.LT.800) IGOOD=I !REQUIRE ANY HIT END DO IF (IGOOD.EQ.0) GO TO 300 !GET OUTTA HERE The PBTDCLL's are Pbar TDC lower limits that cut out most of the non-collider events. The values given in the DATA statement are reasonable. I check on TDC(1) which is the A counter to remove events from the satellite peak. IGOOD is nonzero if there is any counter with the right timing. You can clean up the sample somewhat more by requiring 2 counters. --Mike Longo From: SMTP%"cct@po.cwru.edu" 20-MAR-1994 11:36:11.27 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: impact of Pb on NHITS distribution Message-Id: <9403201735.AA19588@po.CWRU.Edu> Date: Sun, 20 Mar 94 12:35:25 -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: impact of Pb on NHITS distribution Run 242 (a collider run before the lead) had a trigger similar to that of run 294. As a first look at the impact of the lead on chamber occupancy, I have prepared a postscript file [MINIMAX.PS]NHITS_294_242.PS on FNMINT which illustrates the impact. I used a Michigan threshold cut of 30 in both cases, and only included events between 7:45 AM and 8:00 am in run 294. I have not made careful timing cuts as suggested by Mike. The ratio of the two distributions is especially interesting. Basically, events with nhits about 400 are enhanced relative to events with either nhits either much greater or much less. (There may also be an enhancement at the very highest values of nhits seen, though the statistics are poor). 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" 21-MAR-1994 07:59:35.94 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Re: LEAD PLATES Date: Mon, 21 Mar 1994 08:51:23 -0500 From: cct@PO.CWRU.EDU Subject: Re: LEAD PLATES Sender: T864-L - T864 Discussion List To: Multiple recipients of list T864-L Reply-to: cct@PO.CWRU.EDU Message-id: <01HA81SI971E0026IQ@SERV02.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> X-Envelope-to: minimax@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-To: t864-l@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU >Date: Mon, 21 Mar 1994 07:44:20 -0500 (CDT) >From: COLESTOCK@almond.fnal.gov >Subject: Re: LEAD PLATES >To: cct@po.cwru.edu > >Cyrus, > >This is to confirm the positioning of the lead plate. There is a diagram >in the log (now), but basically it is 1/2" further out than planned due to >an obstruction on the floor. This can be easily modified in the future, if >necessary. > >Pat > > ----------------------------------- 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@FNDAQV.FNAL.GOV" 21-MAR-1994 11:52:04.19 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: t864-l listserver Date: Mon, 21 Mar 1994 11:50:43 -0600 (CST) From: "x3629, page 536-1799" To: michlongo@FNDAQV.FNAL.GOV, longo@MAIL.PHYSICS.LSA.UMICH.EDU CC: t864-l@fnmini.FNAL.GOV Message-Id: <940321115043.2180012a@FNDAQV.FNAL.GOV> Subject: t864-l listserver Mike, i looked at the messages on MINIMAX at FNMINI. i think i remember seeing all of those messages forwarded to me on FNDAQ::STREETS. the forwarding to you at Michegan is smtp%"longo@MAIL.PHYSICS.LSA.UMICH.EDU, this node is up at the moment, is it possible that it was down over the weekend ? i know that smtp can take several days to retransmit messages if nodes are initially down. has anyone else noticed the lack of messages from the minimax list server ? here are the last from MINIMAX, but some of these may have been sent only to MINIMAX. jon 128 SMTP%"\'FNDCD::COLOM 18-MAR-1994 RE: mail aliases for t864-l 129 SMTP%"cct@po.cwru.ed 19-MAR-1994 state of affairs 130 SMTP%"cct@po.cwru.ed 19-MAR-1994 plots 131 SMTP%"cct@po.cwru.ed 19-MAR-1994 RE: LEAD PLATES 132 SMTP%"cct@PO.CWRU.ED 19-MAR-1994 Re: state of affairs 133 SMTP%"cct@PO.CWRU.ED 19-MAR-1994 HRS runs 134 SMTP%"BJORKEN@SLACVM 19-MAR-1994 location of lead 135 SMTP%"JENKINS@CWAPHY 19-MAR-1994 MWPC's are light-sensitive 136 SMTP%"cct@PO.CWRU.ED 19-MAR-1994 HRS runs 137 SMTP%"SEOG@DUKHEF.PH 20-MAR-1994 Q from ABCD counters. 138 SMTP%"longo@mich1.ph 20-MAR-1994 HRS gas runs 139 FNMINT::SMTP%"cct@po 20-MAR-1994 Re: run 250 140 SMTP%"longo@mich1.ph 20-MAR-1994 Pbar ctr timing from recent collider run 141 SMTP%"cct@po.cwru.ed 20-MAR-1994 impact of Pb on NHITS distribution 142 SMTP%"cct@PO.CWRU.ED 21-MAR-1994 Re: LEAD PLATES >Hi Jon-- > The listserver seems to be 'broken'. There are a half-dozen messages >sitting on FNMINI that were addressed to the list but did not get forwarded. >Is there some way to revive it? > --Mike Longo >Roughly all the messages from March 19 onward were not forwarded. >Probably all starting with Bj's "location of lead" should be resent. > --Mike >In reading the later messages I see Cyrus referred to one from me which >I never received from the server. It may be the problem is limited to >certain sites like Michigan, not the server itself! From: SMTP%"martens@calvin.fnal.gov" 21-MAR-1994 14:11:25.60 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: run # Date: Mon, 21 Mar 1994 14:09:15 -0600 From: Michael Martens Message-Id: <199403212009.AA01589@gumby.fnal.gov> To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Subject: run # > Mike, > Is there some variable that defines the run number once offline is > running off of the defined file. I want to throw run #'s on my > histograms. > Ken The run number is stored in the BOR record and, after the BOR event has been unpacked, exists in the ascii string INFO(1) in the common block BOREOR . The run # is "printed" into the ascii string as an I10. [i.e. a three digit run number is stored in the ascii string INFO(1)(8:10) ] Jon might know a better way to get the run number. Art From: SMTP%"STREETS@FNDAQV.FNAL.GOV" 21-MAR-1994 14:13:10.69 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: RE: Server Date: Mon, 21 Mar 1994 14:11:01 -0600 (CST) From: "x3629, page 536-1799" To: JENKINS@CWAPHY.PHYS.CWRU.EDU CC: t864-l@fnmini.FNAL.GOV Message-Id: <940321141101.2180012a@FNDAQV.FNAL.GOV> Subject: RE: Server Tom, mail 139 was from Cyrus to MINIMAX, it didnt go to the list server, and so you should not have received it. Mike is asking the system maintainers about their mail server at Michegan jon >Jon: >I have received all the mail on your list except >139 FNMINT::SMTP%"cct@po 20-MAR-1994 Re: run 250 >I sent an item to the server on March 15 that I received back almost >immediately while Mike Longo evidently never received it. >Tom Jenkins From: SMTP%"JENKINS@CWAPHY.PHYS.CWRU.EDU" 21-MAR-1994 14:30:19.66 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: HRS gas runs Date: Mon, 21 Mar 1994 15:30:13 -0500 (EST) From: JENKINS@CWAPHY.PHYS.CWRU.EDU (Tom Jenkins) Message-Id: <940321153013.20200061@CWAPHY.PHYS.CWRU.EDU> Subject: HRS gas runs To: T864-L@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV X-Vmsmail-To: @[.mail]minimax I have looked at runs 289 through 293 which Dick made a few days ago to test the effect of using HRS gas (89% Ar 10% CO2 1% CH4). To remind you: Runs 289 through 292 were run with the HRS gas, run 293 was run with our usual 20% CO2 mix. 289 and 292 had 100 volts higher voltage than 290, 291. 289 and 290 had different trigger conditions from 291, 292. As explained in a previous note (15-MAR), I plot the frequency with which an additional wire reports (above threshold) as a function of distance from any wire that does report. All these runs had typically 20% of wires reporting so this frequesncy distribution falls to some smoothly varying function at about the 20% level. The highest point in the distribution is at one wire displacement from the reporting wire. This falls off to the background level at about ten wires distant. In other words, within ten wires there is an increased probability that if one wire reported, another will also report. I try to quantify this by extrapolating the background level (which is smoothly varying but not constant) into the region of excess hits and subtract this background to determine the number of hits over and above what one would expect if all hits were uncorrelated. The extrapolation is somewhat subjective (and tedious) but I try to do it the same way in a given chamber for all runs. The upshot is that I see very little difference between the gasses. Here are some typical results: Table entries are the average number of additional reporting wires above what would be expected from uncorrelated hits: I--------- HRS gas --------------------I I-- control --I Run Run Run Run Run Chamber 289 290 291 292 293 3 0.42 0.27 0.31 0.45 0.41 6* 0.22 0.08 0.08 0.15 0.18 12* 0.49 0.46 0.48 0.47 0.35 *Michigan threshold of 20 was used. Tom From: SMTP%"JENKINS@CWAPHY.PHYS.CWRU.EDU" 22-MAR-1994 09:03:51.77 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Tantalum foil Date: Tue, 22 Mar 1994 10:03:37 -0500 (EST) From: JENKINS@CWAPHY.PHYS.CWRU.EDU (Tom Jenkins) Message-Id: <940322100337.20200061@CWAPHY.PHYS.CWRU.EDU> Subject: Tantalum foil To: martens@calvin.fnal.gov, T864-L@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"martens@calvin.fnal.gov" Art: Today I am sending you (at AD) by Federal Express one sheet of tantalum foil, 0.001" thick 7" X 39". This can be cut into pieces as needed. On the next access, if possible, I would ask that this be taped over the face of one of the Michigan chambers. If this is cut into three pieces 7" X 13", it should be enough to cover all of the front (upstream) side and half of the back side. The half sheet should be oriented parallel to the wires so that half the wires are completely shielded both sides. The hope, of course, is to see if this reduces the single hits by shielding soft radiation. Tom From: FNMINT::FNDAQ::STREETS "x3629, page 536-1799" 22-MAR-1994 15:12:08.41 To: FNMINT::MINIMAX CC: Subj: the current peds file is written into the data stream in the BOR record. offline reads in the current poedestal file from FNMINI, and then overwrites the peds with the values from the begin of run record when it gets to it. jon From: FNMINT::SMTP%"cct@po.cwru.edu" 22-MAR-1994 19:28:31.90 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Re: 250 unsubrtacted vs subtracted Message-Id: <9403230128.AA02649@po.CWRU.Edu> Date: Tue, 22 Mar 94 20:28:17 -0500 X-Sender: cct@pop.cwru.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: MINIMAX@FNMINT.FNAL.GOV From: cct@po.cwru.edu Subject: Re: 250 unsubrtacted vs subtracted >Cyrus, > Ok, in [minimax.ps]250_unsub_sub_pls.ps are my plots of pls spectra >both subtracted and un subtracted. Which are which--you sure can't tell from your labels! > In the unsubtracted spectra there are clear deficits, like absorption >lines, at regular interrvals, I don't know what to make of that. Might >be a computer thing, bin width = channel width = 1. Take a careful look at your hbook calls. The unsubtracted pulse heights are integers, while hfil uses reals. You want to make sure that the boundaries of the bins are inbetween the integer values coming out. Thus, if you want to make a histogram of pulse heights with allowed values between 0 and 500 (integer values) you need to allow 501 bins, with xmin=-0.5 and xmax=500.5 If you don't do this, you get aliasing phenomena, which in my experience can look like what your plots show. Of course, the phenomena could be real, but my bet would be (until you tell me that you have carefully taken care of the bins) that the gaps are due to aliasing. > I remade the pls spectra plots of tracks vs no tracks using the >pedestal subtracted value, for run 248 because it was short. Which are tracks, which are no tracks? No labels... >Run 250 >will be ready tommorrow. The spectra for tracks was a clear landau, >the spectra for no tracks, but passing the multip. cut, was a mixture >of the 1/f, landau, but the stats aren't good for run 248. > When Offline is run it just say's its using predstals.dat with >no version number. I sent Jon mail asking what the deal was. > > I'm working hard on an improved vertex algorithym. The alledged sighting >of the lead is done on events where 2 and only 2 tracks are found, and >I think I'm pretty good at finding tracks from the origin, so that means >I'm finding events that had no charged particles from c0. That sounds quite reasonable... > >Also, I can't reach FNAL from D.C, but I can get there from the >Clev. computers. Maybe tolls on the info-superhighway would help >to get some of these damned users offline! That is the idea of the Clinton administration--turn it over to the phone companies, and they'll figure out how to charge! And for people that regularly move around megabyte files like we do.... >Ken ----------------------------------- 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%"SIGNORE@OSSE.NRL.NAVY.MIL" 23-MAR-1994 22:03:04.64 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: recent collider run 294 Date: Wed, 23 Mar 1994 23:03:06 -0500 (EST) From: SIGNORE@OSSE.NRL.NAVY.MIL Message-Id: <940323230306.2be00205@OSSE.NRL.NAVY.MIL> Subject: recent collider run 294 To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov" Hello minimaxer's In the recent collider run 294, with the converter installed, I can see an increase in the z value, of vertices found, at a z value ~140". In a histogram of these z values a clear peak appears in the 130-150" region. In collider run 250, with no converter, the peak is absent. These two histograms are in [minimax.ps]vtex_294_250.ps. Histogramed are the z values of vertices found in events where 2 and only 2 tracks are found. A vertex is declared when two tracks pass within .5" of each other. The tracker was run with a multiplicity cut of 20 or fewer hit wires in each chamber, and 11 chambers are required to see the tracks. 294 is on top. A peak also appears at 200". This peak comes on in the histograms as the wire hit multiplicity goes up. At a multip. cut of 10 it is virtually gone. I think this peak can be attributed to 'noise-tracks' and some sort of selection effect that favors 200". I've taken to storing the data on the tracks found by the combo- tracker in files called DKB200:[DATA.TRK_DAT]250_20_11.TRK, ect. I have a little bit of code which can be added to OFFLINE that will give you the tracks found for each event as offline runs through them. This offers the ability to go through our various runs and histogram information relating to tracking in a few minutes, as opposed to say ten hours of processing to dig out the tracks. If anybody is interested in using this setup, let me know, I will get it going for you. Warning: do not print the .trk files. Al Gore will have a heart attack. It is my early impression from the tracking analysis that we should double up some of the chambers on the mounting stands, with the wires going in perpendicular directions. This would give a higher density of planes, increasing the confidence level of declared tracks, and provide better crosshairs. A hard part of implementing this, aside from tunnel access, would be making the Mich. electronics to fit into the available space. Suggestions welcome, Ken From: SMTP%"SIGNORE@OSSE.NRL.NAVY.MIL" 24-MAR-1994 20:17:15.30 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: adc's in run 294 Date: Thu, 24 Mar 1994 21:17:27 -0500 (EST) From: SIGNORE@OSSE.NRL.NAVY.MIL Message-Id: <940324211727.2be00348@OSSE.NRL.NAVY.MIL> Subject: adc's in run 294 To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov" Hi gang, It appears in run 294 that not all of the adc's were working. I haven't looked at every histogram, but in most of the one's I've plotted all of the counts are in the leftmost bin. I've been storing the standard OFFLINE histograms on dkb200 as dkb200:[data.offline]294offl.hbook, ect. We ran a test run before 294. We should continue this policy. I will write a short macro that will print all of our various histograms on the printer in the portacamp to confirm that the detector is operating nominally before our collider runs. KD From: SMTP%"martens@calvin.fnal.gov" 25-MAR-1994 12:50:29.49 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: peds and init Date: Fri, 25 Mar 1994 12:49:25 -0600 From: Michael Martens Message-Id: <199403251849.AA02078@gumby.fnal.gov> To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Subject: peds and init There are two new .COM files to make initializing and pedestals easier. They are PEDS.COM and INIT.COM in the [.PRERUN] directory. From any directory use the command $peds to automatically run pedestals, create the histograms, and then print the histograms to the printer. From any directory use the command $init to automatically run camac_init and initialize the CAMAC cards. It sets the Michigan threshold to 2000. Art From: SMTP%"\'FNALV::DICK\'" 25-MAR-1994 13:06:07.48 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: chambers peds gas etc Date: Fri, 25 Mar 1994 13:04:48 -0600 (CST) From: "FNALV::DICK"@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV To: t864-l@fnmini.FNAL.GOV X-Vmsmail-To: FNMINI::T864-L Message-Id: <940325130448.19df@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV> Subject: chambers peds gas etc Hello brothers in disordered chirality, I have 2 bottles of P10 here now; The machine is trying to run but studys today...till this eve I ran peds with HV low ie circa 1800 and with HV HI ie nominal circa 2700 rough conclusions: There are 16 cards I have in ordered priority to change all but one same symtom: mean ped vals dropping so far always due to the 4051 Signetics dying... we are jsut now exploring this in rad tests at UM WORSE perhaps new There are 7 locations [ wires ] where the peds in the 8 MICH read chambers get big PED sigma's associated with HV on. See LOGBOOK II p 67-69 for the gruesome details I now always turn the chambers down 1000 V when inactive; I actually don't think the standard ramping of the HV is ramped enough all the current kick is at the injection/transition transition point in the cycle of the main ring and still grossly visable. Perhaps the ramp fraction can be changed. Fairly lonely around here... Dick From: SMTP%"\'FNALV::DICK\'" 25-MAR-1994 13:30:43.60 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: slightly edited re send re ped s gas chambers 3/25/94 Date: Fri, 25 Mar 1994 13:29:30 -0600 (CST) From: "FNALV::DICK"@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV To: t864-l@fnmini.FNAL.GOV X-Vmsmail-To: FNMINI::T864-L Message-Id: <940325132930.1b64@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV> Subject: slightly edited re send re ped s gas chambers 3/25/94 Hello brothers in disordered chirality, I have 2 bottles of P10 here now; This is reputed by some to quench UV more.. eg than HRS gas However others say a more complex/more component mix is better to plug all the UV windows... will think about some P10 runs soon. The machine is trying to run but studys today...till this eve PEDS/CHAMBERS in quiet time I ran peds with HV low ie circa 1800 mean sigma.95 sig sigma of sigmas .51 and with HV HI ie nominal circa 2700 mean sigma 1.68 sigma of sigmas 5.6 ...inspiring us to look at the plots. rough conclusions: There are 16 cards I have in ordered priority to change all but one same symtom: mean ped vals dropping so far always due to the 4051 Signetics dying... we are just now exploring this in rad tests at UM WORSE perhaps new There are 7 locations [ wires ] where the peds in the 8 MICH read chambers get big PED sigma's CHAMBER DEGRADATION?TROUBLE associated with HV on. 10 -30 discharges/wire trouble/...?? See LOGBOOK II p 67-69 for the details I now always turn the chambers down 1000 V when inactive; I actually don't think the standard ramping of the HV drops enough all the current kick is at the injection/transition point in the cycle of the main ring and still grossly visable and the scalers I have cobbled onto the nanomaerics still grossly counts. Perhaps the ramp fraction can be changed. Should we really turn them OFF... I actually have always hated doing this but if there is a real aging process??? Fairly lonely around here... Dick From: SMTP%"JENKINS@CWAPHY.PHYS.CWRU.EDU" 25-MAR-1994 14:13:57.33 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: RE: slightly edited re send re ped s gas chambers 3/25/94 Date: Fri, 25 Mar 1994 15:13:12 -0500 (EST) From: JENKINS@CWAPHY.PHYS.CWRU.EDU (Tom Jenkins) Message-Id: <940325151312.20200061@CWAPHY.PHYS.CWRU.EDU> Subject: RE: slightly edited re send re ped s gas chambers 3/25/94 To: DICK@fnalv.fnal.gov, T864-L@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"DICK@fnalv.fnal.gov" Dick: I see no problem with trying the P-10 gas if you want to. We have ordered a bottle here in order to determine what the HV operating range should be compared to the 20% CO2 - argon mix. We may not get that bottle for another several days, however. With regard to your recent measurements, do we know if there has actually been a CHANGE in the pedestal sigmas? Perhaps it was always like this. One source of the higher sigmas with HV on could be the effect I discovered here last weeK: these chambers can be light-sensitive (some are, some are not). I take this to mean that a pin hole or thin spot in the aluminized Mylar can admit enough UV from flourescent lights to cause a small DC current - not necessarily resulting in recorded "hits". But perhaps this could cause fluctuations in pedestals. Tom From: SMTP%"SIGNORE@OSSE.NRL.NAVY.MIL" 25-MAR-1994 17:07:21.58 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: hrs runs Date: Fri, 25 Mar 1994 18:07:02 -0500 (EST) From: SIGNORE@OSSE.NRL.NAVY.MIL Message-Id: <940325180702.2be00124@OSSE.NRL.NAVY.MIL> Subject: hrs runs To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov" Hello, For what it is worth, I have a few ratio's to present regarding how the hrs gas runs compare to the 80/20 mixture. Runs 289,290 and 293 had a trigger of ABCD*T0*Pbor(16ns). # of events were 10k,10k,2.3k resp. I ran the tracker at a multip. cut of 15 on all three. 289 and 90 were hrs runs. % events passing % events passing cut multip. cut and 1 track found _________________________________________________________________ 289 15% 14% 290 24% 16% 293 21% 16% Ken From: SMTP%"DICK@FNALV.FNAL.GOV" 25-MAR-1994 19:10:11.91 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: lead and tant foils Date: Fri, 25 Mar 1994 19:09:17 -0600 (CST) From: DICK@FNALV.FNAL.GOV To: t864-l@fnmini.FNAL.GOV Message-Id: <940325190917.2020f98a@FNALV.FNAL.GOV> Subject: lead and tant foils We got the tantulum and I have scrounged up some lead in 10 and 25 mil thicknesses most any quantity; the th Ta will do about 1.5 chamber sides; we don't know what the advocates have in mind for mounting this stuff... you don't just go down the tunnel and tape something up at least I don't... Dick Art From: SMTP%"JENKINS@CWAPHY.PHYS.CWRU.EDU" 26-MAR-1994 08:43:57.27 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: RE: lead and tant foils Date: Sat, 26 Mar 1994 9:41:48 -0500 (EST) From: JENKINS@CWAPHY.PHYS.CWRU.EDU (Tom Jenkins) Message-Id: <940326094148.2020021c@CWAPHY.PHYS.CWRU.EDU> Subject: RE: lead and tant foils To: DICK@FNALV.FNAL.GOV, T864-L@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"DICK@FNALV.FNAL.GOV" Dick and Art: Not having been in the tunnel for the better part of a year, I have no direct knowledge of the conditions there. I would certainly not propose treating more than one chamber for starters; the other chambers would act as controls. I agree you cannot tape a ten mil sheet of lead over the face of one of these chambers - each sheet would weigh over half a pound. The tantalum should be a lot more tractable. Would it be possible to tape tantalum sheet over the accessable face of one of the end chambers on a stand? Tom From: SMTP%"CTAYLOR@FNALV.FNAL.GOV" 26-MAR-1994 11:25:40.65 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: access tomorrow Date: Sat, 26 Mar 1994 11:23:45 -0600 (CST) From: CTAYLOR@FNALV.FNAL.GOV To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Message-Id: <940326112345.2041e2cf@FNALV.FNAL.GOV> Subject: access tomorrow From: FNAL::IN%"COLESTOCK@almond.fnal.gov" 26-MAR-1994 11:21:02.44 To: IN%"CTAYLOR@fnalv.fnal.gov" CC: Subj: RE: more on the run plan Return-path: Received: from DECNET-MAIL (COLESTOCK@ALMOND) by FNAL.FNAL.GOV (PMDF V4.2-12 #3998) id <01HAFCL0GO1C003WGJ@FNAL.FNAL.GOV>; Sat, 26 Mar 1994 11:20:54 CDT Date: Sat, 26 Mar 1994 11:20:54 -0500 (CDT) From: COLESTOCK@almond.fnal.gov Subject: RE: more on the run plan To: CTAYLOR@fnalv.fnal.gov Message-id: <01HAFCL0HGZ6003WGJ@FNAL.FNAL.GOV> X-VMS-To: FNAL::IN%"CTAYLOR@fnalv.fnal.gov" MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Cyrus, This is to let you know that I haven't been able to raise Dick or anyone else to inform them of the upcoming repair period (tomorrow 8:00 AM). If you know how to reach them, or have other suggestions, please contact me today at (708) 840-8030 or via page at (708) 314-0343 or via e-mail. I need to get any key requests in soon. I can be here tomorrow to help with any access, if needed. Pat From: SMTP%"CTAYLOR@FNALV.FNAL.GOV" 26-MAR-1994 11:34:31.68 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: access tomorrow Date: Sat, 26 Mar 1994 11:31:25 -0600 (CST) From: CTAYLOR@FNALV.FNAL.GOV To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Message-Id: <940326113125.2041e2cf@FNALV.FNAL.GOV> Subject: access tomorrow To follow up on the last message--Dick and Pat will be able to take advantage of tomorrow morning's access. They will be formulating the battle plan later this afternoon. Cyrus From: FNALV::DICK 26-MAR-1994 12:32:59.86 To: MARTENS,STREETS,CTAYLOR,TLJ,LONGO,LJONES,COLSTOCK,DICK,BJORKEN,FNMINI::MINIMAX CC: Subj: access coming 8 am tomorrow sunday We just got a call from Pat Colstock saying there will be an access at 8AM; I'm in Batavia and will orchestrate it. Hi Pat, I'll go in and need one of you guys; I'll call and be around the Portacamp getting organized... and likely send out message broadcating the order of battle... but basicly 1 Do the foil shielding of one or two chambers 2 Replace between 8 and 16 cards 3 Replace the dosimenters TLD's I reckon it will take of order 1-2 hours in the tunnel Dick The main things to do are to figure out what foil and how to attach it to the chambers. I assume we are attacking a uniform sea of low energy photons and 4pi coverage is what is needed; There is not enough tantulum foil to cover both sides of a plane...sort of 3/4 of that. I think to make up the difference with Pb foil; Note the Ta foil is reputedly 1 mil; the lead foil is 10 mill. I think to possibly then cover another plane on both sides with Pb foil; and think to do this to plane 12 the last one I don't have a victim for the first Ta covered plane in mind and will do the easiest unless someone has a better idea; ?? Should it be on a MICH readout chamber or NANO?? I think MICH but would would go with any other conscensus. I know how to attach stuff to one side of the chamber fairly elegantly using the nylon screws /nuts but don't have a scheme that pleases me for the other yet where there are only screw heads...[ in retrospect I wish you all had used nuts on both sides with threaded rod ]. The electronic and dosimenter changes are relatively straight forward, things we have done before about 1/2-3/4 hour.. I propose to remove the piece of lead I attached covering 1/4 of one of the chambers some time ago though it doesn't seem to have caused any trouble or even been detectable and won't if it seems any problem or we run out of time. We need someone besides myself to make the access... Good ideas or company welcome Dick From: SMTP%"MINIMAX" 27-MAR-1994 20:15:39.40 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: ADCs Date: Sun, 27 Mar 1994 20:12:56 -0600 (CST) From: MINIMAX@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV To: t864-l@fnmini.FNAL.GOV Message-Id: <940327201256.5e@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV> Subject: ADCs I checked up on the ADC problem. As far as I can tell all of the ADCs are working except the Pbar ADCs Possible bad CAMAC card in slot 7?? I see Pbar hits using the card in slot 6. I will try to look into this further trade the ADC in at PREP. Art From: SMTP%"SIGNORE@OSSE.NRL.NAVY.MIL" 27-MAR-1994 21:56:43.64 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: RE: ADCs Date: Sun, 27 Mar 1994 22:57:34 -0500 (EST) From: SIGNORE@OSSE.NRL.NAVY.MIL Message-Id: <940327225734.2be0052f@OSSE.NRL.NAVY.MIL> Subject: RE: ADCs To: MINIMAX@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"MINIMAX@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV" Mike, When I print out the values of ADC(20-36), the gamma counters, I find only gamma 1-5 are working. I found that the offline system on fnmint had to be all recompiled so the modules would run off the new event.inc. This was causing untold confusion on fnmint, but I think I have it straight now. Anyway, If I make the histograms when offline is run, in .checknew, I fing that gamma 6-16 are dead. I was doing this on run 289, I've done it on the others also. Maybe they were broke and now they work. Could you try a short data run. Ken BTW how did the tunnel access go? From: SMTP%"\'MICH::GUSTAFSON\'" 28-MAR-1994 13:32:04.47 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: acces was today Date: Mon, 28 Mar 1994 13:25:50 -0600 (CST) From: DICK GUSTAFSON 313 936 0812 UNIV OF MICH <"MICH::GUSTAFSON"@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV> To: t864-l@fnmini.FNAL.GOV X-Vmsmail-To: FNMINI::T864-L Message-Id: <940328132550.ac@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV> Subject: acces was today Hi GANG, Pat Colstock and I did the access today. THE TLD DOSIMETERS WERE CHANGED. A 10 mil sheet of lead was added to the front and back of chamber 12. The tantulaum 1 mill foil was added to the front of chamber 9; Half of chamber 9 back side was covered with tantulum foil; the other half with 10 mil lead 16 cards were changed in the mICH electronics; I don't know if ti was a disaster yet. The back chamber ie Pb covered chamber 12 A- job.as a dam hard bit of work; The fron chamber 9 is a B job. The foil assemblys are supported on the screws of the chamber and on the gas fittings; 4 nuts were used on ch 12 ...chamber 9 uses taped to secure the foil assembly. I am going to Mich now; will try to run peds first. Will the server work? This was a hard weekend Dick From: SMTP%"ball@mhpbb2.physics.lsa.umich.edu" 28-MAR-1994 14:42:18.68 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: DECnet connections to t864-l may be a no-no From: Robert Ball Subject: DECnet connections to t864-l may be a no-no To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Date: Mon, 28 Mar 94 15:37:52 EST Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] DECnet connections to the t864-l mail list on fnmini may be breaking the MICH mailer. An example of such a connection is one in which you are logged into an FNALV node, and then send mail to FNMINI::T864-L I don't know for a fact that this is true, but we have had mailer crashes shortly after two such instances of mail being sent, one friday, the second this afternoon. Until we can nail this down, I would appreciate it if such DECnet connections were not performed. An example of what seems to work is to send instead to (again from FNALV) smtp%"t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov" Regards, bob From: SMTP%"longo@mich1.physics.lsa.umich.edu" 29-MAR-1994 12:23:00.78 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Gamma ADCs Date: Tue, 29 Mar 1994 13:11:44 -0500 Message-Id: <94032913114422@mich1.physics.lsa.umich.edu> From: longo@mich1.physics.lsa.umich.edu (MICHAEL J. LONGO) To: T864-L@fnmini.fnal.gov, SIGNORE@osse.nrl.navy.mil Subject: Gamma ADCs X-VMS-To: T864,KDS Hi Ken-- You're probably right that most of the gamma counter ADCs are not working correctly in Run 294. Most of my experience with them was with special runs that I had taken to calibrate the energy scale. They seemed to work fine in Run 268, for example. Generally most of the events give pedestals in the counters. In Run 294, the first 5 GADCs show very healthy pulses on almost all events. This is suspiciously overactive, though it's not inconceivable that is appropriate for the trigger used in Run 294. The next 11 show almost all pedestals with <1% of the triggers showing counts a few chan- nels above pedestal. That is suspiciously underactive. Since the first 5 are in one ADC module and the next 11 in another, I assume at least one of these is not working right, maybe both. I'm not sure which is bad right now. Regards, Mike Longo From: SMTP%"longo@mich1.physics.lsa.umich.edu" 29-MAR-1994 13:56:40.47 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Gamma ADCs Date: Tue, 29 Mar 1994 14:50:05 -0500 Message-Id: <94032914500580@mich1.physics.lsa.umich.edu> From: longo@mich1.physics.lsa.umich.edu (MICHAEL J. LONGO) To: T864-L@fnmini.fnal.gov Subject: Gamma ADCs X-VMS-To: T864 I looked at runs between 268 and 294. The problem with the gamma ADCs seem to arise between Run 275 and 276. Before 276 there is no obvious 'seam' between the 5th and 6th counters. I believe when they are operating properly with our 'usual' triggers, the counters nearest the beam, esp. 1,2,5 will have like 10% of triggers with ADC> 100 over pedestal. This fraction decreases to like 1% as you look at counters farther from the beams, in a reasonably smooth fashion. Thus I think it is GADCs 6-16 that are sick after Run 275, as though they are out of time or being given a GATE after the desired triggering event. --M. Longo From: SMTP%"MINIMAX" 29-MAR-1994 21:36:47.60 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: ADC titles. Date: Tue, 29 Mar 1994 21:32:59 -0600 (CST) From: MINIMAX@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV To: t864-l@fnmini.FNAL.GOV Message-Id: <940329213259.5e@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV> Subject: ADC titles. The D_bottom counter appears to be dead. The Histogram titles in USER.FOR in [MINIMAX.CHECKNEW] for the alphabet counters have been incorrect. The top and bottom counters were backwards. The title are now correct (at least on FNMINI). Art From: SMTP%"MINIMAX" 29-MAR-1994 23:37:53.53 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Runs 295 + 296 Date: Tue, 29 Mar 1994 23:36:50 -0600 (CST) From: MINIMAX@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV To: t864-l@fnmini.FNAL.GOV Message-Id: <940329233650.a2@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV> Subject: Runs 295 + 296 Bj and I have made two runs after the foil was placed on chambers 9 and 12. Since D_bottom was broke, the trigger was ABC*T0*PbarORdelayed (16ns delay on Dicks delay box). The chambers seemed to be drawing a lot of current, about 20 uA, with the HV at the nominal settings, therefore RUN 295 was taken with the HV dropped 200 Volts below the nominal settings. RUN 296 had the HV restored to the nominal value. After run 296 I recorded the current in the chambers. # HV Current (uA) -- ---- ------- 1 2.70 8 2 2.70 12 3 2.70 12 4 2.7 22 5 2.75 15 6 2.48 20 7 2.89 15 8 2.91 15 9 2.76 12 10 2.70 8 11 2.78 12 12 2.76 10 Art From: SMTP%"MINIMAX" 29-MAR-1994 23:56:00.26 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Trigger timing Date: Tue, 29 Mar 1994 23:55:04 -0600 (CST) From: MINIMAX@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV To: t864-l@fnmini.FNAL.GOV Message-Id: <940329235504.a2@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV> Subject: Trigger timing Recently I plugged the TRIG output into TDC channel #45 (Histogram ID 345). A plot of this histogram for run 296 exists in FNMINI::[MINIMAX.MARTENS]trig_timing.ps. It shows some interesting behavior that should be understood. Art From: SMTP%"SIGNORE@CWAPHY.PHYS.CWRU.EDU" 30-MAR-1994 10:31:10.06 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: RE: Trigger timing Date: Wed, 30 Mar 1994 11:32:08 -0500 (EST) From: SIGNORE@CWAPHY.PHYS.CWRU.EDU Message-Id: <940330113208.20200303@CWAPHY.PHYS.CWRU.EDU> Subject: RE: Trigger timing To: MINIMAX@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"MINIMAX@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV" Mike, What are the tdc values in your plot relative to ? T0? The calorimeter still has some quirks in it. Some of the spectra apear normal, but mosthave peculiar features in the spectra. Run 296 had fewer wire hits /event than we've been observing for the converter being in place. Do you think the D counter had anything to do with this? When do we think it went bad? Ken From: FNMINT::SMTP%"cct@po.cwru.edu" 30-MAR-1994 15:18:09.52 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Re: nano fix Message-Id: <9403302117.AA01064@po.CWRU.Edu> Date: Wed, 30 Mar 94 16:17:54 -0500 X-Sender: cct@pop.cwru.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: MINIMAX@FNMINT.FNAL.GOV From: cct@po.cwru.edu Subject: Re: nano fix Hi! In fact, I will not go to Fermi this weekend, but perhaps Bj can do it. The tracking ideas sound promising. I'm putting the finishing touches on this darned paper. 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" 30-MAR-1994 15:24:20.84 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Stonehenge Date: Wed, 30 Mar 1994 16:22:32 -0500 (EST) From: "NORMAN MORGAN, VPI AND SU (703) 231-3308" To: t864-L@fnmini.fnal.gov Message-Id: <940330162232.20200270@amy.phys.vt.edu> Subject: Stonehenge Minimaxer, I haven't seen decent signals from Stonehenge in triggered events. I would like to try reducing the voltage ~200 volts and adding an amplifier upstairs. I'll need a LeCroy 612A 12-channel amplifier or equivalent from PREP if we don't have one laying around in the portakamps. If that doesn't solve the problem, I have a request for our next access. I would like to test at least one of the counters with cosmic rays to see if the phototubes have been damaged. If I'm not there or it can't be tested in the tunnel, I would like to have one of the counters brought upstairs so we can give it a thorough examination. Thanks, Norm From: SMTP%"JENKINS@CWAPHY.PHYS.CWRU.EDU" 30-MAR-1994 16:09:32.85 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Effect of tantalum and lead sheets Date: Wed, 30 Mar 1994 17:09:08 -0500 (EST) From: JENKINS@CWAPHY.PHYS.CWRU.EDU (Tom Jenkins) Message-Id: <940330170908.202002ea@CWAPHY.PHYS.CWRU.EDU> Subject: Effect of tantalum and lead sheets To: T864-L@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV X-Vmsmail-To: @[.mail]minimax Dear Minimaxers: I have looked at wire occupancies in run 296 and compared them to run 293. To remind you: 296 was made with normal voltages after the lead and tantalum sheets had been added to the faces of chambers 12 and 9. (See Dick's memo of 28 March for details). Run 293 was the control run made after switching back to the normal gas following the HRS gas runs. The numbers below are eye-balled (but fairly carefully) from histograms of the frequency of wire hits as a function of wire number. I have used a Michigan threshold of 10 in all cases. The occupancies in run 296 tend to be lower than those in 293 but the effect is not confined to the chambers with lead or tantalum on them. It does seem to be slightly different between the two stands. Following is the ratio of occupancies in run 296 divided by those in run 293. In calculating these I used limited ranges of wire numbers, avoiding areas where there were hot wires or other anomalies in the hit distributions. Some effects may be the result of certain cards having been replaced. Remember, also, that the trigger conditions were actually slightly different for the two runs because of the non-functioning of half of counter D. Estimated error on these ratios are +/- 0.03 Chamber ratio 296/293 5 0.77 6 0.72 7 0.72 8 0.69 9 0.85 <== Ta + Pb 10 0.83 11 0.82 12 0.82 <== Pb Conclusions(?): there seems to be little effect from the addition of Pb and Ta. Tom From: SMTP%"STREETS@FNDAQV.FNAL.GOV" 30-MAR-1994 17:26:38.25 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Date: Wed, 30 Mar 1994 17:25:59 -0600 (CST) From: "x3629, page 536-1799" To: t864-l@fnmini.FNAL.GOV Message-Id: <940330172559.2180046c@FNDAQV.FNAL.GOV> i have copied over the new unpacker.for from FNMINI to FNMINT. i hope this is an improvment, if there's a problem please send me email. jon From: SMTP%"BJORKEN@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU" 30-MAR-1994 17:48:07.64 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: chamber dc current Date: Wed, 30 Mar 1994 15:34 -0800 (PST) From: BJORKEN@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU Subject: chamber dc current To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Message-id: <01HAL6XSLRB6002YS9@SERV02.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> X-Envelope-to: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT I just fired up the chambers to full voltage and they no longer are drawing any dc current, despite a high intensity store. Maybe the lesser number of hits in the last runs are correlated with this. I can take another run to check this. bj From: SMTP%"DICK@fnalv.fnal.gov" 30-MAR-1994 17:56:38.08 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Re: Trigger timing Date: Wed, 30 Mar 1994 17:56:23 -0500 (CDT) From: DICK@fnalv.fnal.gov Subject: Re: Trigger timing To: MINIMAX@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Message-id: <01HALBLHX33M004170@FNAL.FNAL.GOV> X-VMS-To: FNAL::IN%"MINIMAX@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV" MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT When that happens you should print it and anotate a little into the log Dick From: SMTP%"martens@calvin.fnal.gov" 30-MAR-1994 17:59:28.98 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Update of OFFLINE software Date: Wed, 30 Mar 1994 17:58:43 -0600 From: Michael Martens Message-Id: <199403302358.AA02531@gumby.fnal.gov> To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Subject: Update of OFFLINE software Jon is in the process of porting the OFFLINE software onto a UNIX machine. To make the transition and future updates easier I will be making some changes to the OFFLINE software in the near future. In short, the UNIX version does not like DATA statements in include files. Therefore some of the variables will be initialized in UNPACKER rather than in the EVENT.INC. The disadvantage is that these variables will not be initialized until after USER_INIT is called; the advantage is that the UNPACKER can set these variables based on the readout version number. (i.e it can set NCHAMB to the number of chambers for that run number.) The variables I am refering to are NUM_LATCH NUM_MICH NHITMAX=NUM_LATCH+NUM_MICH NCHAMB NADC NTDC NSCLRS To get around the problem of using these values in USER_INIT there are two possibilities. A) use the above variables but don't call USER_INIT until after the unpacker has seen its first real event (and then call it only once). B) use the following variables in USER_INIT, NNUM_LATCH NNUM_MICH NNHITMAX=NNUM_LATCH+NNUM_MICH NNCHAMB NNADC NNTDC NNSCLRS These are set to the expected maximum value. I plan to copy everything from [.checknew] to [.check] and make the changes there. I will inform people when the changes have been made. Art From: SMTP%"STREETS@FNDAQV.FNAL.GOV" 30-MAR-1994 19:17:50.08 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: offline for UNIX Date: Wed, 30 Mar 1994 19:17:03 -0600 (CST) From: "x3629, page 536-1799" To: t864-l@fnmini.FNAL.GOV Message-Id: <940330191703.2180046c@FNDAQV.FNAL.GOV> Subject: offline for UNIX i have installed offline on the IBM RIOS at Case, and on the SGI in my office. if anyone else would like to install the programs on their own computers (VAX, RISC, etc), please send me email. jon From: SMTP%"longo@mich1.physics.lsa.umich.edu" 31-MAR-1994 09:33:25.63 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: TDC and ADC status Date: Thu, 31 Mar 1994 09:38:56 -0500 Message-Id: <94033109385664@mich1.physics.lsa.umich.edu> From: longo@mich1.physics.lsa.umich.edu (MICHAEL J. LONGO) To: T864-L@fnmini.fnal.gov Subject: TDC and ADC status X-VMS-To: T864 The situation regarding the ADCs and TDCs is pretty confused. I have mostly been looking at the first 8 ADC channels and the Gamma ADCs. The first 8 which contain the A,B,C,D counters have always worked okay in the past several weeks as far as I can tell. The Gamma ADCs worked okay till run 275, after which only the first 5 worked; the next 11 showed mostly pedestals till Run 294. As of Run 296 they seemed to be working okay again(!) All the TDCs I've been looking at seemed to work okay till Run 294. In Run 296 they've changed a lot. The distributions show several peaks. This is most conspicuous for combinations like DB-A, DT-A, etc. which gave clean single peaks before. Now they show a series of irregular peaks spaced about 16 ns apart. I don't know what Art has plugged into TDC 45, but in Run 296 it does show a broad double peak. TDC43 which was the RF (relative to the TDC start) has always been quite narrow. --Mike Longo From: FNMINT::SMTP%"CTAYLOR@FNALV.FNAL.GOV" 31-MAR-1994 09:37:47.91 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: no Date: Thu, 31 Mar 1994 9:37:37 -0600 (CST) From: CTAYLOR@FNALV.FNAL.GOV To: MINIMAX@FNMINT.FNAL.GOV Message-Id: <940331093737.20417e3c@FNALV.FNAL.GOV> Subject: no no From: SMTP%"martens@calvin.fnal.gov" 31-MAR-1994 11:43:29.63 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Re: TDC and ADC status Date: Thu, 31 Mar 1994 11:42:34 -0600 From: Michael Martens Message-Id: <199403311742.AA02570@gumby.fnal.gov> To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Subject: Re: TDC and ADC status Mike > The situation regarding the ADCs and TDCs is pretty confused. > As of Run 296 they seemed to be working okay again(!) What I recorded in the log book but neglected to email was that before run 295 I replaced the ADCs in slots 5 and 7 (The gamma and Pbar counters) > the TDCs in Run 296 they've changed a lot. > This is most conspicuous for combinations like DB-A, DT-A, etc. which > gave clean single peaks before. Since D_bottom was not working for runs 295 and 296 the D_OR was removed from the trigger so that explains the D counters, but still doesn't explain the others. > I don't know what Art has plugged into TDC 45 The input to TDC 45 is the trigger time (i.e. the TRIG signal). This is essentially the time of the coincidence of T0 and the scintillator trigger. The fact that the distribution is about 9 ns wide can be explained by the fact that the T0 pulse is about 9 ns wide. The double peaks however?? Art From: SMTP%"MINIMAX@FNMINT.FNAL.GOV" 31-MAR-1994 13:06:05.12 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: run 297 Date: Thu, 31 Mar 1994 13:05:17 -0600 (CST) From: MINIMAX@FNMINT.FNAL.GOV To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Message-Id: <940331130517.442@FNMINT.FNAL.GOV> Subject: run 297 Dick and I ran 20K with the usual trigger this am. The chambers are not drawing any dc current so analysts please compare wire performance on this one with runs 295 -296. bj From: SMTP%"MINIMAX@FNMINT.FNAL.GOV" 31-MAR-1994 13:37:48.75 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: beampipe Date: Thu, 31 Mar 1994 13:36:51 -0600 (CST) From: MINIMAX@FNMINT.FNAL.GOV To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Message-Id: <940331133651.442@FNMINT.FNAL.GOV> Subject: beampipe Pat and I are beginning to talk to Mike May (AD mech engr) about the cost/feasibility of a next-generation beam pipe. The "baseline" configuration is as follows: Pbar to 40" downstream of collision point: Essentially what exists now. 40" to just upstream of p: Large aluminum tank, 12-18" diameter; not concentric with Tev axis, but with surface nearest wall tangent with the existing (or upstream) pipe. p to 140": Tev pipe flared (conical with (virtual) vertex at collision point); upstream neck has 2 1/2" diameter. Abort pipe same as it is now. 140" to existing bellows (250"??) Tev pipe tapered back to 2 1/2" at upstream end (140") and new flare started which is terminated at bellows. According to Mike it is not unreasonable to make this entire piece, from pbar to bellows, as a single structure with all transitions being made by simple welds--no flanges. For this reason we assume for now that all pipe materials are aluminum. While there is some reasoning that motivates this layout, there is nothing sacred about it and alternatives are most welcome. We need something concrete now however in order to get a realistic picture of costs etc. In particular the value of the upstream flare is dubious because of parallax effects (the source region is not a point but almost a meter long, so many secondaries see the surface of the cone). Simulations will be very important here. Next steps: Pat/Bruce find drawings of existing stuff. We provide a sketch of a new pipe. Mike May looks into costs/ feasibility, etc. bj From: SMTP%"DICK@FNALV.FNAL.GOV" 31-MAR-1994 15:58:09.19 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: beautiful plots Date: Thu, 31 Mar 1994 15:57:02 -0600 (CST) From: DICK@FNALV.FNAL.GOV To: t864-l@fnmini.FNAL.GOV Message-Id: <940331155702.2061e888@FNALV.FNAL.GOV> Subject: beautiful plots Beautiful plots eg a z disrribution plot with 2 bumps appear here often without a name to blame or a title; please figure out a way to editorialize/title them so they can be incorporated in the progress book of the experiment. Dick From: SMTP%"longo@mich1.physics.lsa.umich.edu" 31-MAR-1994 16:48:25.24 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: New beam pipe Date: Thu, 31 Mar 1994 17:06:16 -0500 Message-Id: <94033117061652@mich1.physics.lsa.umich.edu> From: longo@mich1.physics.lsa.umich.edu (MICHAEL J. LONGO) To: T864-L@fnmini.fnal.gov Subject: New beam pipe X-VMS-To: T864 Hello Bj-- I am happy that the possibility of a new vacuum pipe is being seriously discussed. I'm beginning to despair that we will ever be able to make sense of the events we get now in which the particles from the interaction are apparently accompanied by dozens of particles coming from the vacuum pipe just upstream of the chambers. However, I have serious reservations about the proposed design which I believe will do little to improve the situation. It seems to me its only advantage might be to eliminate the heavy conflat flange we now have near the first chambers. As you mention, the flaring in the rest of the pipe is of dubious value. It's not obvious to me what the short large-diameter pipe just after 40" would do. As an alternative, I would suggest the longest possible large-diameter pipe. This would require having only two 'stations' of chambers, one just before and the other just after the large pipe. The large pipe would be large enough to contain the abort channel. [The "pipe" might actually be rectangular in cross section. The large flat sides are far from the beam so their thickness is not important.] This design would remove all the material near the beam line between the chambers. The sections of pipe adjacent to the chambers should be as thin- walled as possible. The chambers are at angles close to 90 deg as seen from these walls so the spray generated in them should not be too bad. I agree that we need to do a realistic simulation. I will begin to look into the possibility of using GEANT to do this, though I have no experi- ence with it and am not too hopeful that I could do it in a finite time. [Does anyone else know it??] Regards, Mike From: SMTP%"BJORKEN@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU" 31-MAR-1994 18:24:32.09 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: hyperons Date: Thu, 31 Mar 1994 16:22 -0800 (PST) From: BJORKEN@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU Subject: hyperons To: MINIMAX@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Message-id: <01HAMMP42TSI003LT1@SERV02.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> X-Envelope-to: MINIMAX@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Forwarded-from: BJORKEN - - - - Forwarded Text - - - - Received: from UHHEPG.BITNET (PAKVASA) by SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Mailer R2.08 R208004) with BSMTP id 1367; Wed, 30 Mar 94 19:56:35 PST Received: from uhhepg.phys.hawaii.edu by uhhepg.phys.hawaii.edu (PMDF #2608 ) id <01HALAX8XKTW8WW1GG@uhhepg.phys.hawaii.edu>; Wed, 30 Mar 1994 17:55:10 HST Date: 30 Mar 1994 17:55:10 -1000 (HST) From: PAKVASA@UHHEPG.BITNET Subject: hyperons To: BJORKEN@SLACVM.BITNET Message-id: <01HALAX8XKTY8WW1GG@uhhepg.phys.hawaii.edu> X-Envelope-to: BJORKEN@SLACVM.BITNET X-VMS-To: IN%"BJORKEN@SLACVM.BITNET",PAKVASA MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Dear Bj: As I recall, it was your letter to some of us in 1985 that started John Donoghue and me to start thinking about this topic. I have seen the proposal from Luk et al. The asymmetries they quoted in there(from a conference talk by John in 1988) are somewhat high and optimistic and probably outdated. My answers to your questions will be based on the current best estimates which are for the quantity theyr measure A(the sum of the lambda and xi asymmteries) in the Standard Model: A = 1E-5 to 1E-4. This includes the uncertainties in t-mass and the KM matrix elements but not due to the hadronic matrix element slop. That probably is about a factor of 2 uncertainty. Based on this my answers would be something like the following: 1E-3: 1. Odds of finding minuscule. 2. If seen at this level, it is obviously fantastic and new physics beyond SM, and with possible important implications for baryon asymmetry in the universe considerations. 3. If not seen, we dont learn much. 1E-4: 1. Odds, 10 to 20 %. 2. If seen. Could be just SM with the right parameters and matrix elements, or could be some new physics. Will be difficult to disentangle without lot of other information. 3. If not seen, one would be inclined to blame the matrix element and assume SM is ok. 1E-5: 1. Odds of finding 90-95 %. 2. If seen, important step in confirming SM and establishing sizes of parameters and matrix elements. 3. If not seen at this level, very important and probably indicates new physics; need more information to pinpoint source of cancellation with SM. etc. My rough guess is that measuement of this asymmetry at 1E-5 level is comparable in impact to a measurement of e'/e at 1E-4 level. I hope this is helpful! Best Regards Sandip ==:R:== Reply from BJORKEN ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Mar 1994 16:19 -0800 (PST) From: BJORKEN@SLACVM To: PAKVASA@UHHEPG Subject: Re: hyperons In-Reply-To: PAKVASA@UHHEPG -- 03/30/94 19:56 Dear Sandip, Many thanks for your response, which is most helpful. I will let you know how things go. Regards, bj From: SMTP%"BJORKEN@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU" 31-MAR-1994 18:27:10.61 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Undeliverable mail: SMTP delivery failure Date: Thu, 31 Mar 1994 16:24 -0800 (PST) From: BJORKEN@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU Subject: Undeliverable mail: SMTP delivery failure To: MINIMAX@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Message-id: <01HAMMRC2Y76003B4Y@SERV02.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> X-Envelope-to: MINIMAX@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Forwarded-from: BJORKEN - - - - Forwarded Text - - - - Received: from HAMLET.BITNET by SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Mailer R2.08 R208004) with BSMTP id 9241; Wed, 30 Mar 94 15:34:01 PST Received: from HAMLET.CALTECH.EDU by HAMLET.CALTECH.EDU (PMDF V4.2-13 #4943) id <01HAL6NTAN34A77NST@HAMLET.CALTECH.EDU>; Wed, 30 Mar 1994 15:34:06 PDT Date: Wed, 30 Mar 1994 15:34:06 -0700 (PDT) From: PMDF Mail Server Subject: Undeliverable mail: SMTP delivery failure To: postmaster@HAMLET.BITNET, BJORKEN@SLACVM.BITNET Message-id: <01HAL6NTAN36A77NST@HAMLET.CALTECH.EDU> X-Envelope-to: BJORKEN@SLACVM.BITNET MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="Boundary (ID R5myY9Xv5Oe8sBfPOnSyUA)" Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT --Boundary (ID R5myY9Xv5Oe8sBfPOnSyUA) The message could not be delivered to: Addressee: WISE@CALTECH.THEORY3.CALTECH.EDU Reason: Illegal host/domain name found. --Boundary (ID R5myY9Xv5Oe8sBfPOnSyUA) Content-Type: MESSAGE/RFC822 Received: from SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (MAILER@SLACVM) by HAMLET.CALTECH.EDU (PMDF V4.2-13 #4943) id <01HAL6NMSZM8A77NSS@HAMLET.CALTECH.EDU>; Wed, 30 Mar 1994 15:33:56 PDT Received: by SLACVM (Mailer R2.08 R208004) id 9231; Wed, 30 Mar 94 15:32:45 PST Date: Wed, 30 Mar 1994 15:32 -0800 (PST) From: BJORKEN@SLACVM.BITNET Subject: Undeliverable Mail To: WISE@CALTECH.THEORY3.CALTECH.EDU Message-id: <01HAL6NMSZMAA77NSS@HAMLET.CALTECH.EDU> X-Envelope-to: WISE@CALTECH.THEORY3.CALTECH.EDU Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Forwarded-from: BJORKEN Second try-- bj - - - - Forwarded Text - - - - Received: from SERV03.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU by SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Mailer R2.08 R208004) with BSMTP id 6044; Wed, 30 Mar 94 11:12:10 PST Received: from FNALA.FNAL.GOV by SERV03.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (PMDF V4.2-12 #4747) id <01HAKXGLMXWG000QHP@SERV03.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>; Wed, 30 Mar 1994 11:10:58 PST Date: Wed, 30 Mar 1994 13:10:42 -0600 (CST) From: Postmaster@FNALV.FNAL.GOV Subject: Undeliverable Mail To: BJORKEN@SERV03.SLAC.Stanford.EDU Message-id: <01HAKXGLPW02000QHP@SERV03.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> X-Envelope-to: bjorken@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Bad address -- Error -- Nameserver error: Unknown host Start of returned message Date: Wed, 30 Mar 1994 13:10:40 -0600 (CST) From: BJORKEN@FNALV.FNAL.GOV To: wise@caltech.theory3.caltech.edu Message-Id: <940330131040.20426e5f@FNALV.FNAL.GOV> Subject: Luk/CP/hyperons Dear Mark, As you may know, Kam-biu Luk and collaborators submitted a proposal to Fermilab to measure CP violation via decay asymmetries in cascade/anticascade and lambda/antilambda decays (the alpha parameters). The proposal was rejected. I am a member of an appeals committee. It is clear that there are a lot of uncertainties, and that either explicitly or implicitly that there will be considerable subjective risk analysis applied. I would appreciate knowing your opinions on the following questions, answered for each of the following scenarios: the experiment attains the sensitivity of 10E-3, 10E-4 (what is proposed), and 10E-5. 1) What are the odds you would place that a nonvanishing asymmetry will be seen (assuming the experiment to be sound) at this level? 2) If a nonvanishing asymmetry is seen, how important is the result? I am thinking of the difficulties in dealing with nonleptonic baryon weak matrix elements, and of the competition from kaon decay experiments. 3) If no asymmetry is seen, how important is the experiment? This appears to be the easiest, but please think a moment before answering it. I of course welcome and will greatly appreciate any additional remarks you may choose to make. The meeting is this Saturday. Thanks in advance for your help. Best regards, bj End of returned message --Boundary (ID R5myY9Xv5Oe8sBfPOnSyUA)-- From: SMTP%"martens@calvin.fnal.gov" 31-MAR-1994 18:36:29.52 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Disk space Date: Thu, 31 Mar 1994 18:35:39 -0600 From: Michael Martens Message-Id: <199404010035.AA02649@gumby.fnal.gov> To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Subject: Disk space A word of warning!! Disk space on FNMINI is down to about 60K. Most of the disk space is tken up in the [.data] directory. I would copy to FNMINT myself but I am not sure where it goes. Art From: SMTP%"cct@po.cwru.edu" 31-MAR-1994 19:27:48.34 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Re: Disk space Message-Id: <9404010127.AA22862@po.CWRU.Edu> Date: Thu, 31 Mar 94 20:27:00 -0500 X-Sender: cct@pop.cwru.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Michael Martens From: cct@po.cwru.edu Subject: Re: Disk space Cc: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov >A word of warning!! > >Disk space on FNMINI is down to about 60K. >Most of the disk space is tken up in the [.data] directory. > >I would copy to FNMINT myself but I am not sure where it goes. > >Art HI! I transfered the new runs to the dkb200:[data] on FNMINT, where we are storing the runs these days. I then went to clean up the old runs on FNMINI, but many had disappeared while I was on the phone with Ken (he called just as I finished copying the new runs). Did you delete the old ones? 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%"martens@calvin.fnal.gov" 31-MAR-1994 19:30:36.97 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Disk space Date: Thu, 31 Mar 1994 19:29:42 -0600 From: Michael Martens Message-Id: <199404010129.AA02668@gumby.fnal.gov> To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Subject: Disk space After verifying that the run data existed on FNMINT I removed run data on FNMINI from runs before 280 Art From: SMTP%"longo@mich1.physics.lsa.umich.edu" 1-APR-1994 09:36:54.34 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Modelling pipes Date: Fri, 1 Apr 1994 09:13:16 -0500 Message-Id: <94040109131650@mich1.physics.lsa.umich.edu> From: longo@mich1.physics.lsa.umich.edu (MICHAEL J. LONGO) To: T864-L@fnmini.fnal.gov, COLESTOCK@almond.fnal.gov Subject: Modelling pipes X-VMS-To: T864, SMTP%"COLESTOCK@almond.fnal.gov" Hi Pat-- Getting your new group member involved in modelling the vacuum pipe possibilities sounds like a great idea to me. As a start I'd suggest comparing simple models of Bj's design, the sort of thing I suggested, and the present pipe. The materials near the beams, esp. between z=50" and 250" are most important; that farther away need not be modelled so carefully. The first order question is how many charged particles >5 MeV go through the plane of representative chambers at say z=100 and 200". If we rely mostly on a comparison of the 3 situations, the details of the simulation will be less important. Regards, Mike From: SMTP%"JENKINS@CWAPHY.PHYS.CWRU.EDU" 1-APR-1994 16:43:28.51 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Pulse height distributions Date: Fri, 1 Apr 1994 17:44:08 -0500 (EST) From: JENKINS@CWAPHY.PHYS.CWRU.EDU (Tom Jenkins) Message-Id: <940401174408.20200419@CWAPHY.PHYS.CWRU.EDU> Subject: Pulse height distributions To: BJORKEN@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU, cct@po.cwru.edu, minimax@fnmini.fnal.gov X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"BJORKEN@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU" bj: I have just printed out in the portakamp pulse height distributions from run 205. Four plots are of pulse heights arising from a clearly identified through-going track, four others, labelled "raw distributions", are for all reporting wires in the chambers. I had not appreciated before how different these raw distributions are from chamber to chamber. Some have lots of low pulse height stuff (< 20) others have very little. In the raw distributions, the through-peak is visible in all but chamber 9 where it seems to be overwhelmed by junk. Tom From: SMTP%"BJORKEN@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU" 1-APR-1994 18:59:20.56 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: RE: Luk/CP/hyperons Date: Fri, 01 Apr 1994 16:57 -0800 (PST) From: BJORKEN@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU Subject: RE: Luk/CP/hyperons To: MINIMAX@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Message-id: <01HAO27RCI7M003H2C@SERV02.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> X-Envelope-to: MINIMAX@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Forwarded-from: BJORKEN - - - - Forwarded Text - - - - Received: from SERV03.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU by SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Mailer R2.08 R208004) with BSMTP id 7176; Fri, 01 Apr 94 12:05:56 PST Received: from FNALNE.FNAL.GOV by SERV03.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (PMDF V4.2-12 #4747) id <01HANRYR9VG0001CPG@SERV03.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>; Fri, 1 Apr 1994 12:06:12 PST Date: Fri, 01 Apr 1994 14:08:18 -0600 (CST) From: GERMAN VALENCIA 294 4110 (515) Subject: RE: Luk/CP/hyperons To: BJORKEN@FNALV.FNAL.GOV Cc: VALENCIA@isuhep.hep.ameslab.gov Message-id: <940401140818.3180174c@isuhep.hep.ameslab.gov> X-Envelope-to: bjorken@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Dear Bj, In reply to your message, here are a few of my own comments as well as some John Donoghue forwarded to me. Best regards, German _______________________________________________________________________ From: SMTP%"BJORKEN@FNALV.FNAL.GOV" 30-MAR-1994 13:05:45.47 To: VALENCIA CC: Subj: Luk/CP/hyperons Dear German, As you may know, Kam-biu Luk and collaborators submitted a proposal to Fermilab to measure CP violation via decay asymmetries in cascade/anticascade and lambda/antilambda decays (the alpha parameters). The proposal was rejected. I am a member of an appeals committee. It is clear that there are a lot of uncertainties, and that either explicitly or implicitly that there will be considerable subjective risk analysis applied. I would appreciate knowing your opinions on the following questions, answered for each of the following scenarios: the experiment attains the sensitivity of 10E-3, 10E-4 (what is proposed), and 10E-5. 1) What are the odds you would place that a nonvanishing asymmetry will be seen (assuming the experiment to be sound) at this level? 2) If a nonvanishing asymmetry is seen, how important is the result? I am thinking of the difficulties in dealing with nonleptonic baryon weak matrix elements, and of the competition from kaon decay experiments. 3) If no asymmetry is seen, how important is the experiment? This appears to be the easiest, but please think a moment before answering it. I of course welcome and will greatly appreciate any additional remarks you may choose to make. The meeting is this Saturday. Thanks in advance for your help. Best regards, bj ________________________________________________________________________ Sensitivity 10E-3 1) At this sensitivity I would say that it is extremely unlikely that an asymmetry will be seen (a true CP violating asymmetry, that is). 2) Observation of a non-vanishing asymmetry at this level would be extremely important (provided it can be shown to be a true asymmetry and not some systematic error). It would almost certainly indicate that the CKM phase is not the only source of CP violation. A signal at this level would not have a counterpart in the epsilon prime experiments which have already reached the level where a SM signal is expected. 3) If no asymmetry is seen, this would place some constraints on CP violation beyond the CKM phase, but not terribly important ones. Most importantly it would indicate the capability of this type of experiment to understand their systematics at this level, a necessary step before a more sensitive experiment. Sensitivity 10E-4 1) At this sensitivity it is possible that a signal will be seen, but not likely. It would require that the current estimate of the matrix elements be off by an order of magnitude. Certainly possible given the crudeness of those estimates. 2) Observation of a non-vanishing asymmetry at this level would be difficult to interpret at this time. It would certainly be very important as the first observation of direct CP violation and of comparable significance to an observation of a non-zero epsilon-prime/epsilon at current sensitivity. It would be comparable to a confirmation of the NA31 result for epsilon prime/epsilon. It probably would be due to the CKM phase and would stimulate an effort to understand the hadronic matrix elements. 3) At this level, the significance of a null result would be mostly technical, in that it would show that it is possible to do this type of measurements. It would have very little to say about the CKM model of CP violation. I would say it would be comparable to the current situation with the epsilon prime experiments. Sensitivity 10E-5 1) At this sensitivity I would say that an asymmetry should be seen. 2) Observation of a non-vanishing asymmetry at this level would be strong evidence for the CKM model of CP violation. It would be very difficult to actually extract values of CKM angles from the measurement, but this will also be the case when epsilon prime is finally seen. 3) A null asymmetry would be difficult to interpret. It would not rule out the CKM model of CP violation with our present understanding of hadronic matrix elements. But it would be worrisome enough to warrant a new effort to determine those matrix elements. It would be an impressive technical achievement. I have asked John Donoghue to comment on your questions as well, and these were his remarks: ********************************************************************** From: SMTP%"donoghue@phast.umass.edu" 31-MAR-1994 10:54:39.09 To: VALENCIA CC: Subj: bj Some comments on BJ's questions: I don't think that the interpetation of a positive result is much worse in baryons (if any) than in kaons. This partially is because I think that people are deluding themselves into thinking that the kaon analysis is acceptable. Buras is not doing the community a favor by drawing curves which give supposedly precise predictions of epsilon prime as a function of m_t. A convincing measurement of a hyperon decay asymmetry would be as valuable as a measurement of epsilon prime, perhaps more so. If epsilon prime seems to have a cancellation going on, the theory will be uncertain for a very long time, while if this doesn't occur in hyperons the analysis should get better once the attention gets focussed on it. So IF a nonvanishing asymmetry is seen, it would be great. The less favorable aspect is the probability of seeing something convincingly. Here kaons do have an advantage in that they have a long history of precise experiments, and should see something in the next round. One reason to do this experiment even at its sensitivity is that you need it before doing the next round at a higher sensitivity. If we had stopped the epsilon'/epsilon experiments at 10^-2 sensitivity, they would not be able to do the search required in this next round of experiments. Best regards, John ************************************************************************** From: SMTP%"cct@po.cwru.edu" 2-APR-1994 11:54:17.96 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Chamber hit distributions Message-Id: <199404021753.MAA09531@po.CWRU.Edu> Date: Sat, 2 Apr 1994 12:53:00 -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: Chamber hit distributions Many of us seem to be reaching the conclusion that most of the hit wires that we are seeing are coming from splash from the beampipe beneath the chambers. A little thought (born out by Pythia+EGS MonteCarlo) indicates that in a typical collider event, there should be a few such splashes, with the junk coming from the splash fairly localized in z. As a check of this, I have looked at our recent collider run, 294. For each EVTYPe=1 event from 7:45 AM until 8 AM (the period when separators were off, but before scraping began), I have counted the number of hits in each chamber (with a Michigan threshold cut of 30), and then ordered the chambers by the number of hits. I've then made histograms of the hit distribution of the busiest chamber, the next busiest chamber, etc. The results are striking! The busiest chamber has a peak at about 20 hits, with a tail stretching out to perhaps 100 hits; the distribution of hits in the least noisy chamber in each event has a peak in the first bin [0-5 hits], with the tail stretching out to events with 50 hits. This suggests a strategy for combinatorial tracking in which one identifies the four least noisy chambers in each event, uses them as cross-hair chambers, and looks to the remaining chambers for confirmation. The postscript file of these plots is on FNMINT in the directory [minimax.ps]chambcor_294.ps The first plot is the NHITS distribution for entire events. This is followed by three pages of plots (4 plots on each page) of the distribution of busiest chamber, etc on a linear scale; then by three pages of the same plots on a logarithmic scale. 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" 2-APR-1994 17:33:56.71 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: access Date: Sat, 02 Apr 1994 15:22 -0800 (PST) From: BJORKEN@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU Subject: access To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Message-id: <01HAPDHGUBOY00399Y@SERV02.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> X-Envelope-to: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Yesterday Dick and I were in the tunnel and did the following: 1. Stonehenge #7 removed and brought upstairs. It is in the portakamp with a class 1 radactivity sticker on it-- too big to put in the cabinet. Norm--what do you want from it? It should be very soon disassembled with hot pieces stashed away properly. 2. Dbottom fixed--loose connection. 3. Converter moved from in front of apparatus to in front of chamber 5. It is at hole #16 with same elevation and inner edge 5 1/4" out from tev beam axis. 4. Ecal moved outward (not upward) by 2". 5. Obstructions behind ecal noted. In new position only the inner stack of blocks are blocked by vac plumbing downstream. The rest were ok especially if they are rotated outward a bit. 6. Despite an unconfirmed message yesterday (4/1/94) no chambers were removed. bj Happy easter--that's all,folks. From: SMTP%"martens@calvin.fnal.gov" 4-APR-1994 16:33:50.70 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: MR Access Date: Mon, 4 Apr 1994 16:33:07 -0500 From: Michael Martens Message-Id: <199404042133.AA02922@gumby.fnal.gov> To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Subject: MR Access MR Access. There will be an 8 hour MR access sometime between next week and April 23 to test the interlock system. The exact date is not yet set but the tests must be completed before the April 23 deadline. Art From: SMTP%"martens@calvin.fnal.gov" 5-APR-1994 13:48:49.22 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Power Outage Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 13:40:32 -0500 From: Michael Martens Message-Id: <199404051840.AA00196@gumby.fnal.gov> To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Subject: Power Outage This afternoon we had a sitewide power outage here at Fermilab. Conventional power is restored, but power for the Main Ring won't be available for at least one week. Will update when I learn more about schedules, accesses, etc. Art From: FNALV::RIVARD 5-APR-1994 16:33:10.91 To: FNMINI::MINIMAX CC: Subj: RECONSTRUCTION OF TLD HISTORIES FOR E_864 AT C0. MJR / March 3rd 1994 NEUTRON DOSE AND INITIAL GAMMA TLD MEASUREMENTS TLD# | Start Date End Date | nC, Dose(rad)gamma, N | Rate(rad/day) | TIME irr -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 31 P| 10/28/1993 11/17/1993 | 60740 2955, 530 N | 148, 26.5 N | 20days 32 P| 10/28/1993 11/17/1993 | 71620 2755, 496 N | 138, 24.8 N | 20days 37 Q| 10/28/1993 11/17/1993 | 97570 2624, 614 N | 131, 30.7 N | 20days 38 Q| 10/28/1993 11/17/1993 | 86560 2412, 544 N | 121, 27.2 N | 20days -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- P = "in W holder" atop PE Bonner CYL between MICH stands 1 & 2 2.5' above floor Q = center of CYL(on 18" stand) between MICH stands 1 & 2 2' above floor RESULTS * This early run shows a conservative gamma dose rate of about 150 rad/day and Bonner sphere results show most neutrons to be thermal at a dose rate of about 30 rad/day. GAMMA DOSE TLD MEASUREMENTS TLD#| Start Date End Date | nC, Dose(rad)gamma | Rate(rad/day) | TIME irr -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10 B| 12/7/1993 12/21/1993 | 40400 2091 | 149 | 14days 11 A| 12/7/1993 12/21/1993 | 70280 10063 | 719 | 14days 17 B| 12/21/1993 1/27/1994 | 50710 5518 | 149 | 37days 19 N| 12/21/1993 1/27/1994 | 78930 6860 | 185 | 37days 18 B| 1/27/1994 2/17/1994 | 26260 1948 | 93 | 21days 8 N| 1/27/1994 2/17/1994 | 40210 2913 | 138 | 21days 1 B| 2/17/1994 | | | 2 N| 2/17/1994 | | | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A = interaction side(C0) of 1st MICH stand between crates 5 and 6 UNCERTAIN! B = interaction side(C0) of 2nd MICH stand between crates 7 and 8 N = atop Nanometrics stand RESULTS * The dose rates from position B on the first and second data sets were the same for comparable pre-run activity. * The doses from positions N and B during the third data sets were less than those ratios from the second data set since the Tevatron was down for a week. * For the second and third data sets, the ratios of doses from positions N and B were similar: B N #17 / #19 = (5518 / 6860) = .80 #18 / #8 = (1948 / 2913) = .67 ratio of ratios = .80 / .67 = 20% TLD accuracy * Additional data sets may clarify any trends for total and incremental doses seen by both the Nanometrics and Michigan electronics. Also, placing TLDs at positions: A, B, and N for two or more data sets would explain the anomolous behavior of TLD #11 and determine dose rate at position A. Calculate Total Dose at Positions A, B, and N For B, simply add up dose from data sets 1 through 3 2091 + 5518 + 1948 = 9557 rads For A, use ratio of A:B from data set(10,063 / 2091 = 4.813) and multiply ratio by B dose(4.813 * 9557) = 46,000 rads! For N, average ratios of N:B(1.24 + 1.50)/2 = 1.37 and multiply ratio by B dose(1.37 * 9557) = 13,093 rads A = 46,000 rads B = 9,557 rads N = 13,093 rads --------- --------- | | | | N | crate 5 | | crate 7 | ---------- | | | | | | --------- --------- | | A | B | | | --------- --------- "C0" | | | | | | beam pipe | | | crate 6 | | crate 8 | ====X==============================| |====| |====| |=== |----------| --------- --------- | | | | | | (side view) | | | | | | | | | | | | Michigan Electronics Nanometrics Stand #1 Stand #2 Assuming Main Ring activity started 10/15/1993 from logbook, position B total dose by March 15th is: 10/15 - 12/7 = 53 days @ 150 rad/day = 7950 rad 12/7 - 12/21 = measured @ 2091 rad & 149 rad/day 12/21 - 1/27 = measured @ 5518 rad & 149 rad/day 1/27 - 2/17 = measured @ 1948 rad & 93 rad/day 2/17 - 3/15 = 26 days @ 150 rad/day = 3900 rad Total Dose from October 15th(start) to March 15th = 21,407 rad By November 1st(shut down) Total Dose will be about 53,800 rad From: SMTP%"martens@calvin.fnal.gov" 5-APR-1994 17:32:18.45 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Recovery Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 17:31:07 -0500 From: Michael Martens Message-Id: <199404052231.AA00235@gumby.fnal.gov> To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Subject: Recovery I have now heard that it may not take as long as expected to recover from the power outage. Message on channel 13 says: 1700: Recovering from sitewide power outage. Tev expects to be cold Thursday Evening, Supervised access in MR and pbar Wednesday and Thursday day shifts. Next estimate Wednesday 4/6/94 noon. No access Wednesday evening Thursday Owl due to rad safety tests. Art From: SMTP%"RIVARD@FNALV.FNAL.GOV" 6-APR-1994 01:32:40.72 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Recovery Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 1:31:31 -0500 (CDT) From: RIVARD@FNALV.FNAL.GOV To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Message-Id: <940406013131.20200635@FNALV.FNAL.GOV> Subject: Recovery Our end of recovery(including accesses) seems as volatile as the NYSE stock market. 1832: Recovering from site power outage. Tev expects to be cold Thursday evening. There will be NO accesses into MR/CDF/D0 during the day shift Wednesday. We are performing the bi-annual safety tests during the day Wednesday. SITE POWER = 27.72 MW PRECISION SITE ENERGY = 13.84 MW-HR MR POWER = .00 MW Hopefully the power(computers, soldering irons, necessities) will not be killed again Wednesday. M.J.R. From: SMTP%"DICK@FNALV.FNAL.GOV" 6-APR-1994 09:50:44.81 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: 9 am meeting Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 9:48:40 -0500 (CDT) From: DICK@FNALV.FNAL.GOV To: t864-l@fnmini.FNAL.GOV Message-Id: <940406094840.20402245@FNALV.FNAL.GOV> Subject: 9 am meeting Hello brothers in Chirality, The plan is for a short access this evening; no access tomorrow with stacking going on. The machine will be cold and ready some time tomorrow but they really need a delivery of He to run tomorrrow likely evening... The cloud on the horizon is the teamsters strike which will block Liquid Nitrogen delivery which will stop things sooner or later I'm not sure how well this is understood. I tentatively plan to go in as possible, possibly installing some cables, and looking at the feasibiliyt of moving the back stand ch 9 10 11 12 forward one notch and adding the next stand behind it. Dick From: SMTP%"cct@po.cwru.edu" 6-APR-1994 10:01:46.76 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Re: 9 am meeting Message-Id: <199404061459.KAA10127@po.CWRU.Edu> Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 10:59:51 -0400 X-Sender: cct@pop.cwru.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: DICK@FNALV.FNAL.GOV, t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov From: cct@po.cwru.edu Subject: Re: 9 am meeting Dick, If you have time, give me a call at (216)368-3710. My inclination, given your message, is that there is no point to Ken Delsignore and I rushing out to Fermilab to try to install the next stand of chambers; we will await your report from the short access. Looking at the photos, I don't see any obstruction to moving the back stand forward by one hole, which should open up room between that stand and the calorimeter for the fourth stand. The only complication that I do see from the photos is that the unistrut foot to the D scintillator stand (the one on the corridor side, parallel to the z-axis) is sufficiently long that it will interfere with the electronics stands. The solution I think would be to replace is with a shorter piece of unistrut, which we bolt to the aluminum plate. But let me know what you think. 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%"DICK@FNALV.FNAL.GOV" 6-APR-1994 15:49:28.29 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: I guess we won't access; PULSER to give pseudo triggers Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 15:48:02 -0500 (CDT) From: DICK@FNALV.FNAL.GOV To: t864-l@fnmini.FNAL.GOV Message-Id: <940406154802.20200f41@FNALV.FNAL.GOV> Subject: I guess we won't access; PULSER to give pseudo triggers Hi Gang, I can't find anyone to do an access with so that isn't going to happen. Maybe... I have rigged a pulser trigger addition to the logic that is synced to the T0 ie crossing time but driven by a slow pulser. This wonder is accomplished in a non-obvious way with available 1/2 [ 2 subunits ] of a EGG 794 gate generator in bin 2; the logic is on the LOGIC dwg as Pulser and will be in the log if it ever returns. The injection is at the BEAM TRIG logic module which had/has A = ABCD normal trig source; Pin out for pulser LOGIC = 3FOLD B = T0 C = Switch and now NEW.......D = Pulser*T0 normally PINNED out; remove pin for pulser trigs where Pulser*T0 means a wide T0 pulse gated thro once per Pulser preserving the T0 time. [with very clever logic] So this logic gate should be checked to be sure you are doing what you mean to when making a run. Regards Dick From: SMTP%"Postmaster@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV" 6-APR-1994 21:31:38.81 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Undeliverable Mail Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 21:31:35 -0500 (CDT) From: Postmaster@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Subject: Undeliverable Mail To: Bad address -- Error -- %MAIL-E-NOSUCHUSR, no such user MICH.PHYSICS.LSA.UMICH.EDU Start of returned message Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 21:31:29 -0500 (CDT) From: MINIMAX@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV To: mich.physics.lsa.umich.edu@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV Message-Id: <940406213129.122@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV> RADDAM 4051 AT Co-60 PML FOR E-864 AT C0. MJR / March 31st 1994 A radiation damage test of the 4051 MPX at Co-60 Phoenix Memorial Lab (RADDAM 4051) showed uncertain results for interpreting radiation damage observed in amp cards from C0. On March 31st 9am, I irradiated many types of 4051s to: 2, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, and 500 krad. The chips were: Harris(I bought 300 and hoped they'd be radhard), Motorola, Toshiba, RCA(4 different batches), Signetics(two different batches), Goldstar. CONCLUSION All chips except the Signetics batch Dick got from Tom Drogie and the Goldstar had flat pedestals indistinguishable from unirradiated chips. The undamaged Signetics batch consisted of two samples and was taken from the set used in the actual ampcards in E-864. From TLD dose rate information, I would have expected to see NEGATIVELY sloping pedestals at about 20 krad. The pedistal shape of the damaged Signetics batch remained flat, but after 20 krad they became increasingly negative(-700mV @ 500 krad) as dose increased. The Goldstar pedestals exhibited POSITIVE slopes after 20 krad and were quite severe(40mV range of pedistal) at 500 krad. All chips were re-evaluated 5 days after irradiation and the symptoms of the damaged chips were much less dramatic(+5mV pedistal, 8mV slope). PLAN OF ACTION Irradiate this group of ten chip types to higher doses(1, 2, 5 Mrad) and determine what fails. Also, it'd be useful to irradiate possibly two entire cards(with 4051 removed) to determine what the next component is which fails. Dick guesses the SD5000. End of returned message From: SMTP%"longo@mich1.physics.lsa.umich.edu" 7-APR-1994 10:38:21.29 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: First Centauro events Date: Thu, 7 Apr 1994 11:03:09 -0400 Message-Id: <94040711030902@mich1.physics.lsa.umich.edu> From: longo@mich1.physics.lsa.umich.edu (MICHAEL J. LONGO) To: T864-L@fnmini.fnal.gov Subject: First Centauro events X-VMS-To: T864 I've been looking at the gamma counters and tracking using Ken's tracking code. I made a crude but useful display of the gamma counter signals and the tracking information by displaying the coordinates at the face of the gamma counters, z=288". Most of the events in collider run 294 show 0 or 1 hits in the gamma counters with energy > 0.5 GeV. In the following I show some atypical events which show >5 such hits. You will probably have to set your terminal to nowrap to see them properly. [I think you have to exit MAIL and SET TERM/NOWRAP.] I have selected events with at least 1 pbar counter with timing appro- priate for a p-pbar collision, though I don't think this makes much dif- ference. In Ken's tracker, I usually use crosshair chambers 1,2,11,12 and require at least 8 hits for a track. I have no idea how efficient this is; I suspect it is very inefficient. The gamma counter energies are plotted at the center of the counter. These make a 4 X 4 grid in X,Y. The symbols represent the approx. energy in GeV, rounded to the nearest GeV. A + means an energy <0.5 GeV; letters correspond to energies >9 GeV in logical order. The energy calibration is very rough at the moment, probably no better than a factor of 2 based on energy deposited by single traversing particles. I hope to improve it soon. The track hits are identifiable as the symbols not on the 4 X 4 grid. I've tried to code the symbols to indicate the apparent z the track originates from, essentially the value of z when x=0 (i.e., where the track intercepts the y-z plane). I don't have much of a feel for how accurate these are, probably no better than +/-30". The increments for these symbols are 20". The offset is such that tracks coming from the nominal C0 point should show a symbol of 6. I would guess that any- thing between 4 and 8 could be considered as coming from the collision region. Preceding the plot is a table of the charged track info and the gamma counter info; this should help explain the plots. Recall that the gamma counter numbering starts at the lower left and pro- gresses to the right and up. All coordinates are in inches. Here's one example. I'll put others in subsequent messages. --Mike Longo Ev/z0/x288,y288 33269 21.27543 16.69490 7.259905 Ev/z0/x288,y288 33269 19.57773 16.98858 12.80651 I/GADC in GeV 1 4.732143 I/GADC in GeV 2 0.1704545 I/GADC in GeV 3 -2.9850746E-02 I/GADC in GeV 4 9.0909094E-02 I/GADC in GeV 5 0.9400000 I/GADC in GeV 6 5.125000 I/GADC in GeV 7 1.300000 I/GADC in GeV 8 1.320000 I/GADC in GeV 9 0.7945206 I/GADC in GeV 10 1.022727 I/GADC in GeV 11 0.2615385 I/GADC in GeV 12 -0.1785714 I/GADC in GeV 13 0.7678571 I/GADC in GeV 14 0.5400000 I/GADC in GeV 15 0.2200000 I/GADC in GeV 16 -4.5454547E-02 Hits at z=288 HBOOK ID = 700 DATE 07/04/94 NO = 5 CHANNELS 10 U 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 O 1 N 12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890 V **************************************************************************************** OVE * * OVE 17.75 * * 80 17.5 * * 79 17.25 * * 78 17 * * 77 16.75 * * 76 16.5 * * 75 16.25 * * 74 16 * * 73 15.75 * * 72 15.5 * * 71 15.25 * * 70 15 * * 69 14.75 * * 68 14.5 * * 67 14.25 * * 66 14 * * 65 13.75 * * 64 13.5 * * 63 13.25 * * 62 13 * * 61 12.75 * 6 * 60 12.5 * * 59 12.25 * * 58 12 * * 57 11.75 * 2 2 + + * 56 11.5 * * 55 11.25 * * 54 11 * * 53 10.75 * * 52 10.5 * * 51 10.25 * * 50 10 * * 49 9.75 * * 48 9.5 * * 47 9.25 * * 46 9 * * 45 8.75 * * 44 8.5 * * 43 8.25 * * 42 8 * * 41 7.75 * 2 2 + + * 40 7.5 * * 39 7.25 * 6 * 38 7 * * 37 6.75 * * 36 6.5 * * 35 6.25 * * 34 6 * * 33 5.75 * * 32 5.5 * * 31 5.25 * * 30 5 * * 29 4.75 * * 28 4.5 * * 27 4.25 * * 26 4 * * 25 3.75 * 2 6 2 2 * 24 3.5 * * 23 3.25 * * 22 3 * * 21 2.75 * * 20 2.5 * * 19 2.25 * * 18 2 * * 17 1.75 * * 16 1.5 * * 15 1.25 * * 14 1 * * 13 .75 * * 12 .5 * * 11 .25 * * 10 * * 9 - .25 * 6 + + + * 8 - .5 * * 7 - .75 * * 6 - 1 * * 5 - 1.25 * * 4 - 1.5 * * 3 - 1.75 * * 2 - 2 * * 1 UND * * UND **************************************************************************************** LOW-EDGE 10 11111111111111111111111111111111111111112 1. 11112222333344445555666677778888999900001111222233334444555566667777888899990 0 35803580358035803580358035803580358035803580358035803580358035803580358035803580 0 05050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505 [Summarizing that event, there are two charged tracks that happen to come from z0 approx. 20" (which is the effective origin, rather than z0=0 if you look at lots of events). There are 9 gamma counters with energies >0.5 GeV; all happen to have energies between about 0.5 and 5 GeV. This therefore qualifies as a near perfect Centauro event. (Hey, it was supposed to be easy!)] I'll send more examples in a subsequent message. From: SMTP%"longo@mich1.physics.lsa.umich.edu" 7-APR-1994 11:08:50.18 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: More examples Date: Thu, 7 Apr 1994 11:38:05 -0400 Message-Id: <94040711380489@mich1.physics.lsa.umich.edu> From: longo@mich1.physics.lsa.umich.edu (MICHAEL J. LONGO) To: T864-L@fnmini.fnal.gov Subject: More examples X-VMS-To: T864 Here's one similar to first-- evnum,evtype,ntracks 34945 1 2 *** WARNING in HBOOK2 : Already existing histogram replaced : ID= 700 Ev/z0/x288,y288 34945 -22.81811 6.129066 12.45300 Ev/z0/x288,y288 34945 73.53534 8.238275 10.13589 I/GADC in GeV 1 18.75000 I/GADC in GeV 2 4.011364 I/GADC in GeV 3 1.820896 I/GADC in GeV 4 1.750000 I/GADC in GeV 5 5.900000 I/GADC in GeV 6 0.6250000 I/GADC in GeV 7 0.6200000 I/GADC in GeV 8 0.7600000 I/GADC in GeV 9 -1.3698630E-02 I/GADC in GeV 10 -2.2727273E-02 I/GADC in GeV 11 0.1076923 I/GADC in GeV 12 -0.2142857 I/GADC in GeV 13 3.5714287E-02 I/GADC in GeV 14 5.9999999E-02 I/GADC in GeV 15 7.9999998E-02 I/GADC in GeV 16 -4.5454547E-02 Hits at z=288 HBOOK ID = 700 DATE 07/04/94 NO = 6 CHANNELS 10 U 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 O 1 N 12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890 V **************************************************************************************** OVE * * OVE 17.75 * * 80 17.5 * * 79 17.25 * * 78 17 * * 77 16.75 * * 76 16.5 * * 75 16.25 * * 74 16 * * 73 15.75 * * 72 15.5 * * 71 15.25 * * 70 15 * * 69 14.75 * * 68 14.5 * * 67 14.25 * * 66 14 * * 65 13.75 * * 64 13.5 * * 63 13.25 * * 62 13 * * 61 12.75 * * 60 12.5 * * 59 12.25 * 4 * 58 12 * * 57 11.75 * + + + + * 56 11.5 * * 55 11.25 * * 54 11 * * 53 10.75 * * 52 10.5 * * 51 10.25 * * 50 10 * 9 * 49 9.75 * * 48 9.5 * * 47 9.25 * * 46 9 * * 45 8.75 * * 44 8.5 * * 43 8.25 * * 42 8 * * 41 7.75 * + + + + * 40 7.5 * * 39 7.25 * * 38 7 * * 37 6.75 * * 36 6.5 * * 35 6.25 * * 34 6 * * 33 5.75 * * 32 5.5 * * 31 5.25 * * 30 5 * * 29 4.75 * * 28 4.5 * * 27 4.25 * * 26 4 * * 25 3.75 * 7 2 2 2 * 24 3.5 * * 23 3.25 * * 22 3 * * 21 2.75 * * 20 2.5 * * 19 2.25 * * 18 2 * * 17 1.75 * * 16 1.5 * * 15 1.25 * * 14 1 * * 13 .75 * * 12 .5 * * 11 .25 * * 10 * * 9 - .25 * K 5 3 3 * 8 - .5 * * 7 - .75 * * 6 - 1 * * 5 - 1.25 * * 4 - 1.5 * * 3 - 1.75 * * 2 - 2 * * 1 UND * * UND **************************************************************************************** LOW-EDGE 10 11111111111111111111111111111111111111112 1. 11112222333344445555666677778888999900001111222233334444555566667777888899990 0 35803580358035803580358035803580358035803580358035803580358035803580358035803580 0 05050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505 Here's one with no charged tracks and (I think) 7 gamma counters over 0.5 GeV. In this case one has to be suspicious as there is no info on whether the event originated from the collision region. evnum,evtype,ntracks 30449 1 0 I/GADC in GeV 1 -7.1428575E-02 I/GADC in GeV 2 0.2272727 I/GADC in GeV 3 2.507463 I/GADC in GeV 4 0.3181818 I/GADC in GeV 5 0.4400000 I/GADC in GeV 6 1.589286 I/GADC in GeV 7 0.9600000 I/GADC in GeV 8 0.9600000 I/GADC in GeV 9 1.602740 I/GADC in GeV 10 1.090909 I/GADC in GeV 11 0.1384615 I/GADC in GeV 12 -0.1071429 I/GADC in GeV 13 2.714286 I/GADC in GeV 14 0.4400000 I/GADC in GeV 15 0.1400000 I/GADC in GeV 16 0.0000000E+00 Hits at z=288 HBOOK ID = 700 DATE 07/04/94 NO = 1 CHANNELS 10 U 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 O 1 N 12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890 V **************************************************************************************** OVE * * OVE 17.75 * * 80 17.5 * * 79 17.25 * * 78 17 * * 77 16.75 * * 76 16.5 * * 75 16.25 * * 74 16 * * 73 15.75 * * 72 15.5 * * 71 15.25 * * 70 15 * * 69 14.75 * * 68 14.5 * * 67 14.25 * * 66 14 * * 65 13.75 * * 64 13.5 * * 63 13.25 * * 62 13 * * 61 12.75 * * 60 12.5 * * 59 12.25 * * 58 12 * * 57 11.75 * 4 + + + * 56 11.5 * * 55 11.25 * * 54 11 * * 53 10.75 * * 52 10.5 * * 51 10.25 * * 50 10 * * 49 9.75 * * 48 9.5 * * 47 9.25 * * 46 9 * * 45 8.75 * * 44 8.5 * * 43 8.25 * * 42 8 * * 41 7.75 * 3 2 + + * 40 7.5 * * 39 7.25 * * 38 7 * * 37 6.75 * * 36 6.5 * * 35 6.25 * * 34 6 * * 33 5.75 * * 32 5.5 * * 31 5.25 * * 30 5 * * 29 4.75 * * 28 4.5 * * 27 4.25 * * 26 4 * * 25 3.75 * + 3 2 2 * 24 3.5 * * 23 3.25 * * 22 3 * * 21 2.75 * * 20 2.5 * * 19 2.25 * * 18 2 * * 17 1.75 * * 16 1.5 * * 15 1.25 * * 14 1 * * 13 .75 * * 12 .5 * * 11 .25 * * 10 * * 9 - .25 * + + 4 + * 8 - .5 * * 7 - .75 * * 6 - 1 * * 5 - 1.25 * * 4 - 1.5 * * 3 - 1.75 * * 2 - 2 * * 1 UND * * UND **************************************************************************************** LOW-EDGE 10 11111111111111111111111111111111111111112 1. 11112222333344445555666677778888999900001111222233334444555566667777888899990 0 35803580358035803580358035803580358035803580358035803580358035803580358035803580 0 05050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505 * I I * ENTRIES = 16 PLOT ---------I---------I--------- * SATURATION AT= 63 I 29 I Here's one which almost qualifies as an anti-centauro event except you'll notice the z0's are all over the map,mostly >100". It does show that the tracker can find a lot of tracks (49 in this case with max hits of 50 allowed in the crosshair chambers). The gamma counters were required to have >5 hits. evnum,evtype,ntracks 34565 1 49 *** WARNING in HBOOK2 : Already existing histogram replaced : ID= 700 Ev/z0/x288,y288 34565 71.31773 15.24463 5.978557 Ev/z0/x288,y288 34565 106.0235 11.40562 18.82066 Ev/z0/x288,y288 34565 119.3685 19.72250 5.894824 Ev/z0/x288,y288 34565 -76.95935 12.61182 0.9878900 Ev/z0/x288,y288 34565 35.35057 8.078389 17.15806 Ev/z0/x288,y288 34565 128.2578 12.55491 15.09178 Ev/z0/x288,y288 34565 -147.0273 8.466138 5.796271 Ev/z0/x288,y288 34565 70.97855 11.44278 6.936724 Ev/z0/x288,y288 34565 149.0373 19.83964 7.657766 Ev/z0/x288,y288 34565 143.7991 14.17261 17.60879 Ev/z0/x288,y288 34565 -131.8264 8.493130 5.740129 Ev/z0/x288,y288 34565 -48.96731 7.886784 8.735946 Ev/z0/x288,y288 34565 140.8655 16.43649 10.59204 Ev/z0/x288,y288 34565 112.4800 10.49848 10.57025 Ev/z0/x288,y288 34565 139.4614 13.21761 13.68086 Ev/z0/x288,y288 34565 -152.2267 6.578390 7.718266 Ev/z0/x288,y288 34565 149.5229 18.27355 19.83611 Ev/z0/x288,y288 34565 -29.25046 7.263947 5.669863 Ev/z0/x288,y288 34565 142.1284 17.92075 19.75630 Ev/z0/x288,y288 34565 83.26077 8.287095 17.02445 Ev/z0/x288,y288 34565 146.7310 15.72160 15.49540 Ev/z0/x288,y288 34565 83.84600 13.73261 0.8861394 Ev/z0/x288,y288 34565 -183.1804 6.508285 7.421651 Ev/z0/x288,y288 34565 109.3589 11.86886 6.777174 Ev/z0/x288,y288 34565 127.0008 13.20830 12.35583 Ev/z0/x288,y288 34565 79.99245 8.472056 4.993210 Ev/z0/x288,y288 34565 85.09307 8.195070 16.24121 Ev/z0/x288,y288 34565 96.74238 8.177228 15.51729 Ev/z0/x288,y288 34565 152.5406 16.20703 18.40855 Ev/z0/x288,y288 34565 -202.1252 5.974706 10.23560 Ev/z0/x288,y288 34565 44.74719 6.710755 8.512457 Ev/z0/x288,y288 34565 93.53094 8.162699 15.41493 Ev/z0/x288,y288 34565 146.1667 13.72997 16.97289 Ev/z0/x288,y288 34565 151.8498 18.63954 8.380328 Ev/z0/x288,y288 34565 135.6561 11.26220 13.04589 Ev/z0/x288,y288 34565 719.4851 6.380054 3.088819 Ev/z0/x288,y288 34565 25.49872 11.04837 3.110352 Ev/z0/x288,y288 34565 127.4057 12.09561 6.505604 Ev/z0/x288,y288 34565 643.3440 6.077014 3.729945 Ev/z0/x288,y288 34565 116.4608 19.06406 5.429120 Ev/z0/x288,y288 34565 30.80698 11.00530 2.814991 Ev/z0/x288,y288 34565 76.95217 11.54478 12.64635 Ev/z0/x288,y288 34565 124.8453 13.43675 10.52738 Ev/z0/x288,y288 34565 64.62193 14.13307 15.65755 Ev/z0/x288,y288 34565 121.0453 9.562877 5.035758 Ev/z0/x288,y288 34565 3592.096 6.891666 3.910611 Ev/z0/x288,y288 34565 127.3171 12.57162 12.77431 Ev/z0/x288,y288 34565 144.3245 15.97532 14.08636 Ev/z0/x288,y288 34565 50.04232 10.57728 8.241563 I/GADC in GeV 1 0.7142857 I/GADC in GeV 2 3.704545 I/GADC in GeV 3 0.3134328 I/GADC in GeV 4 0.3863636 I/GADC in GeV 5 1.060000 I/GADC in GeV 6 1.375000 I/GADC in GeV 7 5.9999999E-02 I/GADC in GeV 8 0.2800000 I/GADC in GeV 9 0.3150685 I/GADC in GeV 10 0.1136364 I/GADC in GeV 11 0.9230769 I/GADC in GeV 12 -0.1071429 I/GADC in GeV 13 0.6785714 I/GADC in GeV 14 1.120000 I/GADC in GeV 15 0.1800000 I/GADC in GeV 16 -4.5454547E-02 Hits at z=288 HBOOK ID = 700 DATE 07/04/94 NO = 5 CHANNELS 10 U 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 O 1 N 12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890 V **************************************************************************************** OVE * A D CC * OVE 17.75 * * 80 17.5 * C * 79 17.25 * * 78 17 * G * 77 16.75 * C * 76 16.5 * * 75 16.25 * * 74 16 * 9 * 73 15.75 * * 72 15.5 * A 8 * 71 15.25 * A C * 70 15 * B * 69 14.75 * * 68 14.5 * * 67 14.25 * * 66 14 * C * 65 13.75 * * 64 13.5 * C * 63 13.25 * * 62 13 * C * 61 12.75 * B * 60 12.5 * 9 * 59 12.25 * B * 58 12 * * 57 11.75 * 2 2 + + * 56 11.5 * * 55 11.25 * * 54 11 * * 53 10.75 * * 52 10.5 * B B C * 51 10.25 * * 50 10 * * * 49 9.75 * * 48 9.5 * * 47 9.25 * * 46 9 * * 45 8.75 * * 44 8.5 * 7 3 * 43 8.25 * D * 42 8 * 8 * 41 7.75 * + + 2 + * 40 7.5 * * C * 39 7.25 * * * 38 7 * * 37 6.75 * 9 A * 36 6.5 * B * 35 6.25 * * 34 6 * * 33 5.75 * * 9 B * 32 5.5 * 4 * * 31 5.25 * B * 30 5 * B * 29 4.75 * 9 * 28 4.5 * * 27 4.25 * * 26 4 * * 25 3.75 * 2 * 2 + + * 24 3.5 * * * 23 3.25 * * 22 3 * * 6 * 21 2.75 * 7 * 20 2.5 * * 19 2.25 * * 18 2 * * 17 1.75 * * 16 1.5 * * 15 1.25 * * 14 1 * * 13 .75 * + 9 * 12 .5 * * 11 .25 * * 10 * * 9 - .25 * 2 5 + + * 8 - .5 * * 7 - .75 * * 6 - 1 * * 5 - 1.25 * * 4 - 1.5 * * 3 - 1.75 * * 2 - 2 * * 1 UND * * UND **************************************************************************************** LOW-EDGE 10 11111111111111111111111111111111111111112 1. 11112222333344445555666677778888999900001111222233334444555566667777888899990 0 35803580358035803580358035803580358035803580358035803580358035803580358035803580 0 05050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505 Overall, I was very encouraged by how simple most of the events look when viewed this way. The gamma counters, even at this very early stage, seem to provide a lot of information on what is going on. Perhaps we are not so far from being able to do some physics! If there is demand, I will try to make this program available as an easy-to- use module. I should clean it up some first. --Mike Longo From: SMTP%"longo@mich1.physics.lsa.umich.edu" 7-APR-1994 12:20:54.09 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: More on gamma counter plots Date: Thu, 7 Apr 1994 13:10:32 -0400 Message-Id: <94040713103183@mich1.physics.lsa.umich.edu> From: longo@mich1.physics.lsa.umich.edu (MICHAEL J. LONGO) To: T864-L@fnmini.fnal.gov Subject: More on gamma counter plots X-VMS-To: T864 Hi Gang-- Ken reminded me that the ADCs for gamma counter 6-16 were not working significantly for Run 294, from which those events came. Thus the real gamma multiplicity is significantly higher than shown on these plots. That would mean the events should be even richer in gammas >0.5 GeV. I took a quick look at collider Run 244 when they were working okay and it did not seem qualitatively different, but it is not easy to do right as the ADC channels for the gamma counters were different then and all the pedestals and calibration constants were different. It's going to be hard to do anything systematic until the ADCs are working consistently and things settle down. I think the general point that things look reasonably quiet at z=288", and that there *seem* to be a fair number of events with lots of gamma activity and few charged tracks, is correct. You can, by the way, view the plots on your terminal screen more conveni- ently if you type EXTRACT TT: to get the entire message on the screen without having to press return [or extract it to a file and print the file]. --Mike From: SMTP%"DICK@FNALV.FNAL.GOV" 7-APR-1994 15:07:12.45 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: access and the detector expansion Date: Thu, 7 Apr 1994 15:06:16 -0500 (CDT) From: DICK@FNALV.FNAL.GOV To: t864-l@fnmini.FNAL.GOV Message-Id: <940407150617.20804780@FNALV.FNAL.GOV> Subject: access and the detector expansion Hi Minimaxers, Chiho showed up so we actually did have an access last night. We verified it is possible to move the 3rd chamber stand 1 hole step forward and likely even two steps with some possible modification of the stand sawing or grinding off a corner at most; however the access to what goes behind ie chambers and their cables becomes more and more impossible. As we entered we observed vacuum techs searching for leaks in the Main Ring comples of beam pipe/abort pipe right in the area between the last chambers the D counters and the Gamma Calorimeter; the D counter was obvioussly getting moved; many of those horns/valves,connections that are in "our way" were being used, and the guys were generally crawling around, over beside under, etc OUR STUFF. What we are proposing will make access even harder to this area; they are having real trouble with the MR and MR abort vacuum just now and who knows how long.. quite sobering. I sighted along the last four planes and decided the dist of closest approach of the chambers to the TeV beam pipe was about 3.7 " which puts the active volume about 4.7 to 5" from the pipe at D counter Z... and so I set the D counters to 4"; it had been about .5" and looked dumb but I assume it had been moved around. Since these things slide we should make some placement marks on the floor. Mark and I are still a day away from really ready to install electronics in the tunnel; still some cards to be fixed and 4 cables to be made. I'd forgotten the small card tocard daisy chain cables. The accelerator did NOT come up this morning; they are still gefucting mit der vacuum indeed they are again in a short? access to install vacuum gauges, and still find fix some stuff... and not understood problems with the Lithium lens.. Dick From: SMTP%"JENKINS@CWAPHY.PHYS.CWRU.EDU" 7-APR-1994 15:17:52.67 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Chamber installation advice Date: Thu, 7 Apr 1994 16:17:12 -0400 (EDT) From: JENKINS@CWAPHY.PHYS.CWRU.EDU (Tom Jenkins) Message-Id: <940407161712.20200514@CWAPHY.PHYS.CWRU.EDU> Subject: Chamber installation advice To: T864-L@FNMINI.FNAL.GOV X-Vmsmail-To: @[.mail]minimax.dis To whomever is involved in mounting additional chambers: There are four chambers in the Portakamp ready for mounting on stands. When I left last month they were in the first Portakamp (where the PDP-11 used to be) along with three others that can be considered spares. The four I would recommend using have gas lines attached to them. Proceed as follows: Remove the gas blocks to which the gas lines are attached. Put some tape over the exposed holes. Mount the chambers on the stand. Ken says there were at one time enough nylon bolts to do this but they may have been mislaid. Bruce Hanna was the source of the original nylon bolts. The bolts come a bit oversize and must be reduced in diameter to fit in the chambers. Whatever you do, don't use conductive bolts. A quarter inch diameter, straight fluke reamer is in the Portakamp for clearing out the mounting holes in the chambers if necessary. It should not be necessary because I reamed them once. I am not sure if there are sufficient spacers that go between the chamber and the mounting arm to provide clearance for the chamber bolts. If not, use quarter inch washers. They need to be 1/8" thick. More are on order. Relocate the blank gas blocks so that the gas lines will attach to the chambers where you want them. Inlet and outlet should not be at the same corner. If possible, I would avoid re-attaching the gas lines until you get the stand in its final position in the tunnel. The 1/2" line is rather cumbersome and twisting on it can break the epoxy seal between the aluminum tubing and the gas block. If this does happen, the gas seal will still probably be O.K. as it is a tight fit but I would recommend re-epoxying the seal. Use the Hardman epoxy in green envelopes in the Postakamp. It has a one hour setup time. You will need 1/4" and 1/2" unions to attach the ends of the hoses to the existing lines in the tunnel. Ken tells me there are some Parker unions in the PK. The fittings on the chambers are Swagelock. Their parts don't mix with Parker. Tom  From: SMTP%"BJORKEN@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU" 7-APR-1994 23:23:15.98 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: scintillator Date: Thu, 07 Apr 1994 20:53 -0800 (PST) From: BJORKEN@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU Subject: scintillator To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Message-id: <01HAWP57JLS2000K6T@SERV02.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> X-Envelope-to: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT I have been in the last weeks hot on the trail of enough scintillator,tubes,bases,etc to instrument the central rapidity region better. I am personally willing to take on the majority of this burden if necessary; I think it would provide a lot of power to the experiment and open up other possible avenues as well. The design concept is (builders choice!) based on the body-centered-cubic geometry which was in the portakamp last fall, but scaled down in dimensions. A unit would be a "half-box" of 9 square panels each 7" x 7". 10 half-boxes would be the ultimate goal, with at that stage full coverage (taking into account p and pbar) for -4 Date: Fri, 8 Apr 1994 09:30:35 -0400 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: Collaboration meeting To quote from one of Mike Longo's recent messages, >Perhaps we are not so far from being able to >do some physics! We have the lead in place, are ready to add more stands of chambers, and will have new trackers beginning to report results in the very near future. Upgrades on various time scales are also beginning to develop. All of this argues for a collaboration meeting in the not-so-distant future. As always, we would like to plan the meeting to fit into peoples' schedules, and are trying to get an earlier start this time. Please let me know when it would be good/bad to meet in, say, the next 3-6 weeks or so. Thanks, 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" 8-APR-1994 08:34:34.31 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Chamber Mount Parts Date: Fri, 8 Apr 1994 9:33:01 -0400 (EDT) From: "NORMAN MORGAN, VPI AND SU (703) 231-3308" To: T864-L@fnmini.fnal.gov Message-Id: <940408093301.20200167@amy.phys.vt.edu> Subject: Chamber Mount Parts Minimaxers, I had the spacers, bushings, and knobs for the chamber mounts. I was going to hand deliver them to C0, but I won't be there until Thursday morning, the 14th. I sent them overnight mail addressed to Bjorken, M.S. 370, C0 area at Fermilab. They should arrive Saturday, the 9th. Please keep an eye out for them. Thanks, Norm From: SMTP%"DICK@FNALV.FNAL.GOV" 8-APR-1994 09:59:48.09 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: RUN at NOON HELP Date: Fri, 8 Apr 1994 9:58:43 -0500 (CDT) From: DICK@FNALV.FNAL.GOV To: t864-l@fnmini.FNAL.GOV Message-Id: <940408095843.20805768@FNALV.FNAL.GOV> Subject: RUN at NOON HELP Hi Guys, As part aof bringing up the TeV they plan to collide a single bunch separators OFF at C0 Circa noon. We arn't really checked out but will try to be. Can ART or JON come for the party? Dick From: SMTP%"SIGNORE@OSSE.NRL.NAVY.MIL" 8-APR-1994 11:06:19.71 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: machine time Date: Fri, 8 Apr 1994 12:07:26 -0400 (EDT) From: SIGNORE@OSSE.NRL.NAVY.MIL Message-Id: <940408120726.2bc0025c@OSSE.NRL.NAVY.MIL> Subject: machine time To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov" Hi gang, can everybody stay off of fnmini and fnmint for the next 2-3 hours. we are shaking down the detector for a collider run scheduled ~12:00 Ken From: SMTP%"SIGNORE@OSSE.NRL.NAVY.MIL" 8-APR-1994 11:49:59.13 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: old files Date: Fri, 8 Apr 1994 12:50:33 -0400 (EDT) From: SIGNORE@OSSE.NRL.NAVY.MIL Message-Id: <940408125033.2bc0025c@OSSE.NRL.NAVY.MIL> Subject: old files To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov" It is possible that we may get a long collider run in ~10-30min. I'm going to delete some run files from fnmini; these are R000290F01.FSP;1 24251 R000291F01.FSP;1 25530 R000292F01.FSP;1 27642 R000293F01.FSP;1 5695 R000294F01.FSP;1 99176 R000295F01.FSP;1 30393 R000296F01.FSP;1 35192 R000297F01.FSP;1 45429 R000298F01.FSP;1 256 R000299F01.FSP;1 128 these are all copied to dkb200:[data] Ken From: SMTP%"SIGNORE@OSSE.NRL.NAVY.MIL" 8-APR-1994 12:28:51.84 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: .ps Date: Fri, 8 Apr 1994 13:29:30 -0400 (EDT) From: SIGNORE@OSSE.NRL.NAVY.MIL Message-Id: <940408132930.2bc0025c@OSSE.NRL.NAVY.MIL> Subject: .ps To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov" You can download fnmint::[minimax.checknew]trk.ps A rather long file that display's all the histograms. Ken From: SMTP%"kangas@theory3.phys.cwru.edu" 8-APR-1994 14:25:18.19 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Date: Fri, 8 Apr 1994 10:20:58 -0500 From: kangas@theory3.phys.cwru.edu Message-Id: <9404081520.AA18623@theory3.phys.cwru.edu> To: -s@theory3.phys.cwru.edu, Tracking@theory3.phys.cwru.edu, t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Hello Minimaxers, Matt and I have been producing vertex and multiplicity distributions for run 294 using our tracker. We wish to spend some more time analyzing systematic errors associated with our method before announcing our results. However, we should have plots and data files available within the next few days for comparison with Ken's tracker. Erik Kangas & Matt Knepley CWRU From: SMTP%"STREETS@FNDAQU.FNAL.GOV" 8-APR-1994 16:45:11.26 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: tuning the daq Date: Fri, 8 Apr 1994 16:43:28 -0500 (CDT) From: "x3629, page 536-1799" To: t864-l@fnmini.FNAL.GOV Message-Id: <940408164328.208000cb@FNDAQU.FNAL.GOV> Subject: tuning the daq i have looked at improving the DAQ rate. i have loaded the camac driver with no trace (its like running with no debugger), and increased the buffer size, so that you should see fewer LAM 0 events. (10 regular events per LAM 0, instead of 5 regular events per LAM 0). The rate apears not to have changed very much. i get 108Hz without disk and 100Hz to DISK. the 108Hz implies a dead time of 9.2ms. Dick says tht the Michegan ADCs take about 7 or 8ms to digitise and read. i think the contribution to the dead time from vaxonline is at the 10% level, the main portion is coming from the CAMAC modules themselves. jon From: SMTP%"DICK@FNALV.FNAL.GOV" 8-APR-1994 17:33:34.84 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: non RUN and observations note sent to Longo Date: Fri, 8 Apr 1994 17:26:32 -0500 (CDT) From: DICK@FNALV.FNAL.GOV To: MICHLONGO@FNALV.FNAL.GOV CC: t864-l@fnmini.FNAL.GOV Message-Id: <940408172632.20805e70@FNALV.FNAL.GOV> Subject: non RUN and observations note sent to Longo Well Mike and gang, The run has been a non RUN; Art is going to take over the vigil. I went through the ADC GATES and fast clears; all reasonable up to the point I knew... then it got a little bizarre ie after the GATE FO; The cables to the various ADC's are various lengths and at least one, gate labeled ADC 4 is plugged into 6 and viceversa.. All I looked at should work at some level; cal 6 and 7 should work at some level; the pulse for 1-5 come 55 ns after the gate start but should still work with no gross pathologies... that is as far as I got in detailed check till Jon wanted to test stuff and then the beam died. The log distributions do not look so crazy except on 6 &7...Maybe the ADC is gefuckt..6 - 7 I thought superficially there was a big range of pulse heights unit to unit; I wouldn't have guessed they were uniform but perhaps as I was using our trigger I was seeing an outside to inside effect. I personally think we should use two ADC's for the G CALs so we had spare channels and the same gate cable lengths ie the same gate time; regularity and uniformity is a virtue for trouble shooting and maintaining a complex system...yes the gate time is fairly different for ADC 2 and ADC 3 54ns and 71 ns resp from the ADC gate FO front panel... I don't know why some compromise? Something has happend and they now think our 6 x 1 run will happen at midnight; if you believe... We really need to make all this stuff work not take data anyhow; maybe that means me BUT they gotta get P's circulating. Well I really needed to do other stuff today; thanks Gerry Jackson. Dick From: SMTP%"martens@calvin.fnal.gov" 9-APR-1994 15:18:03.76 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: 1X1 run Date: Sat, 9 Apr 1994 15:17:13 -0500 From: Michael Martens Message-Id: <199404092017.AA00527@gumby.fnal.gov> To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Subject: 1X1 run Still waiting for the 1 on 1 store. It will be no sooner than 6 pm. From: SMTP%"STREETS@FNDAQV.FNAL.GOV" 9-APR-1994 16:33:26.37 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Date: Sat, 9 Apr 1994 16:32:48 -0500 (CDT) From: "x3629, page 536-1799" To: t864-l@fnmini.FNAL.GOV Message-Id: <940409163248.206001ef@FNDAQV.FNAL.GOV> i wont be here from monday through wednesday next week. if you have problems/requests for the VAX minimax software then please email Art. if there are problems with the computers in c0, please contact Ruth Pordes (FNALV::RUTH, x3921). thanks jon. From: FNMINI::MINIMAX 9-APR-1994 22:54:04.61 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Once again the 1X1 run has been postponed. This time due to a CHL (Central Helium Liquifier) power outage. The run will be probably be no earlier than tommorrow morning. Art From: SMTP%"martens@calvin.fnal.gov" 9-APR-1994 22:56:25.64 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: 1X1 Date: Sat, 9 Apr 1994 22:55:47 -0500 From: Michael Martens Message-Id: <199404100355.AA00552@gumby.fnal.gov> To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Subject: 1X1 Once again the 1X1 run has been postponed. This time due to a CHL (Central Helium Liquifier) power outage. The run will be probably be no earlier than tommorrow morning. Art From: SMTP%"martens@calvin.fnal.gov" 10-APR-1994 13:37:03.91 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: 1X1 run complete Date: Sun, 10 Apr 1994 13:36:20 -0500 From: Michael Martens Message-Id: <199404101836.AA00586@gumby.fnal.gov> To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Subject: 1X1 run complete The 1X1 run finally happened. The data from this run is stored in three run files which have also been copied to FNMINT::DKB200:[DATA] Trigger was ABCD*T0*P_bar_OR(delayed 16 ns). Approx. Proton intensity 140E9 dropping to 90E9 then stabilizing. Approx. Pbar intensity 30E9. Store number 4803 (despite what it says in the BOR comment) Run 308 - Separators still on (despite what it says in the BOR comment) 3.2k events Run 309 - Separators off approx. 70k events Losses were high for much of this run, especially in the begining, so there is probably a lot of background. ABCD coincidence rates started at about 20 kHz but dropped with time. At trigger #8500 the rate was down to 4 kHz. At about 11:52 (trigger #42,700) the MCR started scrapping and tuning. The ABCD rate was down to 1.4 kHz. At about 12:08 the MCR had made progress on reducing losses, so I ended run 309 and started run 310. Run 310 - Separators off 86.9k events MCR continued scrapping/tuning during the first part of this run but had made considerable progress before this run started. ABCD rate was 1kHz at start of run. At 12:20 (approx. trigger number 25,000) MCR was done scrapping. From this point on everything was stable. ABCD rate was 700 Hz. Beam Trigger was 124 Hz. ABCD*P_barOR rate was 150 Hz. Intensity P1= 93E9 A1= 31E9 Notes: Flying Wires are in a state of transition so the transvese beam size sigmas and emittances are not valid. Therefore we don't have a good way to estimate luminosity. From: SMTP%"martens@calvin.fnal.gov" 10-APR-1994 13:51:05.74 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Scaler Inputs Date: Sun, 10 Apr 1994 13:50:29 -0500 From: Michael Martens Message-Id: <199404101850.AA00592@gumby.fnal.gov> To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Subject: Scaler Inputs The scaler inputs are (and probably have been for a while) as follows. The scalers are inhibited by the MR Gate. Channel Input 1 A 2 B_or 3 C_or 4 D_or 5 E 6 7 P_or 8 Pbar_or 9 10 11 1 Khz pulser 12 Big C 13 A*B*C*D 14 A*B*C*D*Pbar_or (and Pbar multiplicity if not pinned out) 15 Beam Trig*T0 (not vetoed by BUSY but vetoed by MR Gate) 16 Beam Trig*T0 (vetoed by BUSY and vetoed by MR Gate) 17 18 TRIG 19 20 21 LAM Trigger Out 22 23 24 From: SMTP%"martens@calvin.fnal.gov" 10-APR-1994 14:24:06.18 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: New Trigger Scheme Date: Sun, 10 Apr 1994 14:23:19 -0500 From: Michael Martens Message-Id: <199404101923.AA00596@gumby.fnal.gov> To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Subject: New Trigger Scheme While bored and waiting impatiently for beam this morning I started adding to our trigger logic. (Without affecting the old trigger logic.) Basically I have added a new trigger which I call BEAM TRIG #2 in parallel with BEAM TRIG #1 (our usual trigger). BEAM TRIG #2 has no scintillator trigger as of yet. BEAM TRIG #1 is input to LAM #4. BEAM TRIG #2 is input to LAM #6. (LAM #6 will have to be enabled in CAMAC_INIT when we are ready to use it.) Therefore, we can tell which trigger fired by which LAM input was fired. Both triggers are input to the OR which we call TRIG. Both triggers will have Pre-Scaling. I have posted a diagram of what I intended and what needs to be finished on the NIM bin. Only a little time was invested in this scheme so if someone wants to do things differently/better I have no objection to them ripping apart my scheme. Art From: SMTP%"MINIMAX@FNMINT.FNAL.GOV" 10-APR-1994 22:04:21.35 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: GC's Date: Sun, 10 Apr 1994 22:03:35 -0500 (CDT) From: MINIMAX@FNMINT.FNAL.GOV To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Message-Id: <940410220335.1c2@FNMINT.FNAL.GOV> Subject: GC's Hi all, I've printed in the PK the spectra of the GC's for run 310. Something is still f#@$^ed. Suggest aggressive debugging. Need the GC's to look for e,e+'s. Ken From: SMTP%"kangas@theory3.phys.cwru.edu" 11-APR-1994 17:36:45.50 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Hough Tracker Status Date: Mon, 11 Apr 1994 13:32:00 -0500 From: kangas@theory3.phys.cwru.edu Message-Id: <9404111832.AA15700@theory3.phys.cwru.edu> To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Subject: Hough Tracker Status Hello Minimaxers, I have been performing Monte-Carlo simulations using our tracker based on a adaptive 2-plane hough transform. Such statistics will allow us to draw more accurate conclusions from forthcomming analysis based upon this tracker. The tracker makes the following cuts when determining what tracks which tracks are "real." 1. The track must pass through at least 10 different planes 2. A least-squares fit to the participating wires must have a chi-squared per degree of freedom less than 1.0 for 10 planes, 1.1 for 11 planes and 1.2 for 12 planes. 3. The track must be contained in a tube of radius 16.2cm and axis passing through the centers of the front and back planes. 4. We define a Metric on track space by the square root of the sum of the squares of the distances between the two tracks on the front and back planes. Any track whose metric distance to another track is less than 13mm is "grouped" with that track. 5. Of each group of tracks, the one with the smallest chi-squared per degree of freedom is kept as the "real" track. Note: the thresholds for the chi-squared and the metric cuts were determined experimentally. The Monte-Carlo events were generated in a vary crude but effective fashion. The tracks all started from the nominal collision point and hit a spots distributed uniformly in the full acceptance of the last plane. The wires of closest approach to the track on eack plane were activated with 100% efficiency. The %noise refers to the % chamber occupancy over top of the tracks present. This noise was distributed uniformly over the chambers. Note: this is a much nicer environment that the real detector! However, we should still be able to get a feel for the preformance of the tracker. 500 event runs with multiplicities of 1-5 particles and with 0-20% chamber occupancy were simulated. The results are tabulated in the following table. Tracks found refers to the percentage of "real" tracks present that were actually found. (The found tracks have to be within 13mm of the "real" track in Metric space) The mean number of spurious tracks per event is just like it sounds. You subtract out the correct tracks from the found tracks and the left-overs are spurious. The time for 500 events is a little fishy. It represents the total time the run took in seconds and is not necessarily proportional to processor time used. Multiplicity 0% noise 10% noise 20% noise ------------ -------- --------- --------- Tracks Found 1 89.2% 92.8% 91.0% 2 94.4% 93.8% 94.3% 3 94.7% 94.0% 94.6% 4 94.2% 94.5% 94.2% 5 93.7% 93.4% 92.2% Mean Number of Spurious Tracks Found per Event 1 0 0 0 2 0.002 0.002 0 3 0.022 0.02 0.034 4 0.082 0.122 0.102 5 0.488 0.458 0.6 Time for 500 events in seconds 1 7 27 36 2 193 150 168 3 338 407 528 4 858 1097 2131 5 2124 3285 4197 You can see that to within statistical errors, the percentage of correct tracks found is independent of multiplicity and of noise. The percentage is also VARY good. The mean number of spurious tracks / event also seems to be genrally independent of noise. It is, however, dependent on the multiplicity. This is a result of "aliasing" where wires from nearby tracks coincide to produce the image of another track. We are working on ways to reduce this effect, however, even for real multiplicities up to 5 particle, the number of spurious tracks is not large. (This number increases with correlated noise in real data, however) The time per event is also most strongly correlated with multiplicity, though we can only ue the above numbers in terms of comparison and not as accurate measures of actual speed. All in all, this tracker is vary good with low to moderate multiplicity events and can penetrate white noise exceedingly well. Forthcomming will be further statistics based upon corralated noise. We shall also be putting out multiplicity distributions, occupancy-multiplicity correlations, and x-y-z vertex statistics for run 294. Erik Kangas Case Western Reserve University From: SMTP%"cct@po.cwru.edu" 12-APR-1994 10:16:40.18 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: offline problems Message-Id: <199404121514.LAA14826@po.CWRU.Edu> Date: Tue, 12 Apr 1994 11:14:21 -0400 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: offline problems Cc: cct@po.CWRU.Edu Hi! I have been working on theory3 (the new CWRU minimax computer) for the past several days. Now I return to FNMINT, and find that when I try to use the command offline.lnk in my directoyr fnmint::[minimax.ctaylor.old], I get the response %MMS-F-CMSBADFLAGS, Error parsing CMSFLAGS string "/OFFLINE" Everything worked at least as recently as April 7. I'm at a loss. I've tried copying over Ken Delsignore's file, which works fine for him, but it doesn;t work in my directory. ???? 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" 12-APR-1994 12:49:41.80 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: proposed date for T864 collaboration meeting Message-Id: <199404121748.NAA06171@po.CWRU.Edu> Date: Tue, 12 Apr 1994 13:48:34 -0400 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: proposed date for T864 collaboration meeting Cc: dick@fnalv.fnal.gov, cct@po.CWRU.Edu After looking at the responses I have received, I propose that we meet at Fermilab on May 6-7. If you can't make the meeting, please let me know as soon as possible, so that we can finalize the date. 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@FNDAQU.FNAL.GOV" 12-APR-1994 13:03:54.13 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: RE: offline problems Date: Tue, 12 Apr 1994 13:02:07 -0500 (CDT) From: "x3629, page 536-1799" To: cct@po.cwru.edu CC: t864-l@fnmini.FNAL.GOV Message-Id: <940412130207.20800132@FNDAQU.FNAL.GOV> Subject: RE: offline problems hi Cyrus, the problem is that you had a file called MAKEFILE.; in your directory. this overrode the offline.mms for a description of the mms commands. i renamed your file from MAKEFILE. to MAKFILE.UNIX and @offline.lnk noppw works. you can use $ mms/log offline to see problems like this jon From: FNMINT::SMTP%"cct@po.cwru.edu" 12-APR-1994 20:36:02.60 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Re: shake down run Message-Id: <199404130135.VAA24475@po.CWRU.Edu> Date: Tue, 12 Apr 1994 21:35:48 -0400 X-Sender: cct@pop.cwru.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: MINIMAX@FNMINT.FNAL.GOV From: cct@po.cwru.edu Subject: Re: shake down run >Cy, > Big .ps file for you. > >get dkb200:[data.offline]trk.ps > >this is the run 310 shakedown plots. I've printed in PK > >pulse hieght stuff to follow. >BTW theres the thing about when grouping 2 or 3 wires together, what do >you do with the pulse height. I've taken to adding all 2 or 3 pulses since >this is presumably all du to charge liberated by one track. >who's to say. >thoughts? >KD Why not plot distributions for both (1) the pulse height of the single wire closest to the predicted point of passage; and separately (2) the sum of the grouped pulse heights? 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::SMTP%"cct@po.cwru.edu" 12-APR-1994 20:36:39.22 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Re: shake down run Message-Id: <199404130136.VAA24515@po.CWRU.Edu> Date: Tue, 12 Apr 1994 21:36:29 -0400 X-Sender: cct@pop.cwru.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: MINIMAX@FNMINT.FNAL.GOV From: cct@po.cwru.edu Subject: Re: shake down run going to get the ps file now. Thanks, 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::SMTP%"cct@po.cwru.edu" 12-APR-1994 21:26:37.78 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Re: shake down run Message-Id: <199404130226.WAA28734@po.CWRU.Edu> Date: Tue, 12 Apr 1994 22:26:20 -0400 X-Sender: cct@pop.cwru.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: MINIMAX@FNMINT.FNAL.GOV From: cct@po.cwru.edu Subject: Re: shake down run Cc: bjorken@fnalv.fnal.gov A beautiful set of plots, for the most part. 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%"kangas@theory3.phys.cwru.edu" 12-APR-1994 21:35:54.15 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Preliminary results for 294 Date: Tue, 12 Apr 1994 17:31:36 -0500 From: kangas@theory3.phys.cwru.edu Message-Id: <9404122231.AA14383@theory3.phys.cwru.edu> To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Subject: Preliminary results for 294 Hello people, So far, getting our statistics algorithms debugged, we have run our tracker on events 20000-21000 or run 294. We are currently running on more data, but perliminary results follow. The following two plots are statistics for events requiring less than 250 wires chamber occupancy and less than 5 tracks found -- this is the region our tracker has proved most efficient and reliable from Monte-Carlo. Note: only 442 events passed the cut, so the plots could be much better. But... Here we go. Plot of multiplicity for 0-4 tracks found. Average multiplicity was 0.959 tracks / event! 200 ++-------+-------+--------+-------+--------+-------+--------+------++ + + + + + + + + + 180 ********** "stat.mul" ****++ * * | 160 *+ * ++ * ****************** | 140 *+ * * ++ * * * | 120 *+ * * ++ * * * | 100 *+ * * ++ * * * | * * * | 80 *+ * * ++ * * * | 60 *+ * ****************** ++ * * * * | 40 *+ * * ****************** ++ * * * * * | 20 *+ * * * * ++ * * + * + * + ********* 0 ********************************************************************* 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 Plot of the z coordinate of the closest approach to the assumed Tev. Y axis is # of tracks, x Axis is z position in mm (the detector is in the negative z direction in our coordinate system). 10 ++---+----------+---------+----------+---------+----------+--------++ | + + + + + + + | "stat.zp" **** | | : | 8 ++ * : ++ | * : | | * * : | | * * : | 6 ++ * * *** ++ | * * *** | | ***** * **** * | ***** * **** * | ***** * **** * 4 ++ * * ******** **** +* | * * ******** **** * | * * * * ** * *** * *********** **** ** * | * * * * ** * *** * *********** **** ** * 2 ++ * *** * * ** ******* ******* ** *********** ******** +* | * *** * * ** ******* ******* ** *********** ******** * | ** ** * *** **** ********** ********** *********** ******** * | **+ ** * *** **** ********** ********** *********** ******** * 0 ++*********-**********************-**********************-*********** -5000 -4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 We can see the vertex and maybe the lead plane. We shall see how this plot resolves with more statistics. Erik Kangas Case Western Reserve University From: SMTP%"MINIMAX@FNMINT.FNAL.GOV" 13-APR-1994 00:21:31.24 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: seps off Date: Wed, 13 Apr 1994 0:20:26 -0500 (CDT) From: MINIMAX@FNMINT.FNAL.GOV To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Message-Id: <940413002026.176@FNMINT.FNAL.GOV> Subject: seps off There is a chance we get a short seps off run this am at about 10 am local time. If so the trigger would be CD.Pbar_or_del.Pbar_mult (Holy Grail) which has a decent beam gas rate of a few Hz. (Without Holy Grail the rate is a bit too high.) Please stay off fnmini in this period--or until the run situation becomes clear. bj From: SMTP%"SIGNORE@OSSE.NRL.NAVY.MIL" 13-APR-1994 09:10:58.23 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: collider run Date: Wed, 13 Apr 1994 10:11:26 -0400 (EDT) From: SIGNORE@OSSE.NRL.NAVY.MIL Message-Id: <940413101126.2be00b42@OSSE.NRL.NAVY.MIL> Subject: collider run To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov" BJ, Where are you, do the chambers have HV on them? I wan't to do a quick check before the collisions. Ken From: SMTP%"kangas@theory3.phys.cwru.edu" 13-APR-1994 09:35:58.82 To: MINIMAX CC: Subj: Run 294 double hough results Date: Wed, 13 Apr 1994 05:30:17 -0500 From: kangas@theory3.phys.cwru.edu Message-Id: <9404131030.AA18627@theory3.phys.cwru.edu> To: t864-l@fnmini.fnal.gov Subject: Run 294 double hough results More news..... We have results from events 20000-23000 of run 294. Cutting on 4 or less tracks and 250 wires or less total occupancy, we have 1356 events. Cutting at multiplicity of 2 or less, there are 1200 events. A summary of results follows. This is a plot of the multiplicity of tracks found vrs. the log of the number of events in each bin. This plot does not make any cuts on the restuls from the tracker. You can see that the dist. starts flattening out at about 5. 7 ++---------+-----------+----------+----------+-----------+---------++ + + + + + + + * "294.noc.logmul" **** | 6 *+ ++ * | * | 5 ** ++ ** | ** | 4 ** ++ ** | *** | 3 **** ++ ******* * | ******* * | 2 ********* * ++ *********** ** *** | *********** ** *** | 1 ************** ***** * **** *** * ++ **************************************** *** * ** ** | **************************************** *** + * + ** ** + 0 ********************************************************************* 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Clearly the cut at multiplicities of 4 or less is warrented. Here is the log plot with just multiplicities of 0-4 tracks found. It is pretty linear as expected. Matt did a chi-squared fit of these points to a poisson distribution and the reduced chi-squared was 0.12! 6.5 ++-------+-------+--------+-------+--------+-------+--------+------++ ********** + + + + + + + * * "294.c4.logmul" **** | 6 *+ ****************** ++ * * * | * * * | * * * | 5.5 *+ * * ++ * * * | * * ****************** | 5 *+ * * * ++ * * * * | * * * * | * * * ****************** | 4.5 *+ * * * * ++ * * * * * | * * * * * | 4 *+ * * * * ++ * * * * ********* * * * * * * * * + * + * + * * 3.5 ********************************************************************* 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 Now, we look at the z-position of the distance of closest approach of the tracks to the Tev beam. The x-axis is in inches and the y is in # of tracks. Here is the distribution when cutting at multiplicities of 4. 25 ++---------+---*-------+----------+----------+-----------+---------++ + + * + + + + + | : * "294.c4.z-tev" **** | | :* * * | 20 ++ :** * * ++ | :** * * | | *:** * * | | *:** * * | 15 ++ **** * * ++ | **** * * | | ****** * | | ********* * | | *********** ** * | 10 ++ ************ ** * * * * **** * * * ++ | ************ ** * ** **** ***** * * * | | * **************** * ** *********** * * * | | * **************** * ************** * * * | 5 ++* ***************** **************** ** * * ++ | ** ***************** *********************** * * * | | ******************************************** ****** * ** | + ****************************************************** ** * * + 0 ++***************************************************************--++ -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 So we see the the vertex very well in this plot. Most of the tracks in the spike are from single track events as can be seen in later histograms. If we do not make the multiplicity cut and look at all tracks, we see the following... 1200 ++---------+-----------+----------+----------+-----------+---------++ + + + + ** + + + | : **** "294.noc.z-tev" **** | 1000 ++ : ***** ++ | : * ***** | | : ********* | | : ********* | 800 ++ : *********** ++ | : * ************ | | : *************** | 600 ++ : ** **************** ++ | : ******************* | | : ******************* | | : ************************ | 400 ++ : **************************** ++ | : * ******************************* | | : **************************************** | 200 ++ *********************************************** ++ | * ******************************************************** | | *************************************************************** | + *************************************************************** + 0 ++***************************************************************--++ -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 A Peak at the lead plane with long tails. The long tails are probably due to spurious tracks, but I will bet that a lot of the peak is due to washout from the lead plane. This will be substantiated later... Next, we look at the position of all track vertexes found. A vertex is defined by the x,y,z, midpoint of the line connecting the positions of closest approach of two tracks that come within 5mm of each other. The following is a plot of the z distribution of such verticies for multiplicities less than 5. 20 ++---------+-----------+----------+-------*--+-----------+---------++ + + + + * + + + | : * "294.c4.vz" **** | | : * | | : ** | 15 ++ : ** ++ | : *** | | : *** | | : *** | | : *** | 10 ++ : *** ++ | : *** | | : *** * | | : ***** * | | : ******** | | : * ******** | 5 ++ : ** ********** * ++ | : **** ************ ** | | : ****** ************ ** | | : ************************ | + + * * + ************************* **+ + 0 ++***************************************************************--++ -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 We do not see the collision region, but we do see the lead plane and the flange VERY well. If we look at just 2-track events, we get the following plot: 4 ++---------+-----------+----------*--------*-+-----------+---------++ + + + * * + + + | : * * "294.c2.vz" **** | 3.5 ++ : * * ++ | : * * | 3 ++ : * * * * * ++ | : * * * * * | | : * * * * * | 2.5 ++ : * * * * * ++ | : * * * * * | 2 ++ : **** ** * ***** ++ | : **** ** * ***** | | : **** ** * ***** | 1.5 ++ : **** ** * ***** ++ | : **** ** * ***** | | : **** ** * ***** | 1 ++ : ******* * ******** **** ++ | : ******* * ******** **** | 0.5 ++ : ******* * ******** **** ++ | : ******* * ******** **** | + + +