Support #1730
Analysis of TOF0-only June Runs (6715--6729)
Added by Blackmore, Victoria about 8 years ago. Updated over 7 years ago.
100%
Description
Analysis of runs 6715--6719, taken on June 2nd 2015.
Setup:- TOF1 was not in the beam
- TOFs were not calibrated
- Trigger was TOF0.
- Tuning of Q123 magnet currents
- Run current summary: http://micewww.pp.rl.ac.uk/projects/operations/wiki/02_June_2015_beam_settings
Files
Updated by Blackmore, Victoria about 8 years ago
- File TOF_assumptions.pdf TOF_assumptions.pdf added
- File runs_6715_6729_ExtractedTOF0Data.zip runs_6715_6729_ExtractedTOF0Data.zip added
Reading runs 6715--6729 with MAUS is not possible without two modifications:
1. A "hack" to the unpacker. Instructions from Yordan:
a. Open the file /third_party/build/unpacking-mice/src/MDprocessManager.cpp and edit the line 253 from if (MDequipMap::GetName(GetEquipmentType())!="VRB") { to if (MDequipMap::GetName(GetEquipmentType())!="VRB" && MDequipMap::GetName(GetEquipmentType())!="VLSBMaster") { b. rebuild the unpacking: source env.sh cd /third_party/build/unpacking-mice/build/ cmake -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=${MAUS_ROOT_DIR}/third_party/install -DSTEPIV_DATA=1 ../ make make install
2. Changing TOF_trigger_station = "tof1"
to TOF_trigger_station = "tof0"
in $MAUS_ROOT_DIR$/src/common_py/ConfigurationDefaults.py
(line 535)
Doing the above has worked with MAUS version 1.0.
As there is no valid calibration for TOF0 during these runs, space point reconstruction is extremely poor. Instead, I have stripped off the horizontal and vertical slab hits into a separate root file (archive attached to this entry). Assumptions used when converting slab numbers to (x, y) co-ordinates are also attached.
Updated by Blackmore, Victoria about 8 years ago
- File task_5pt6_histograms.pdf task_5pt6_histograms.pdf added
- File task_5pt7_histograms.pdf task_5pt7_histograms.pdf added
- File task_5pt8_histograms.pdf task_5pt8_histograms.pdf added
- File task_5pt9_histograms.pdf task_5pt9_histograms.pdf added
- File task_5pt1_histograms.pdf task_5pt1_histograms.pdf added
- File task_5pt2_histograms.pdf task_5pt2_histograms.pdf added
- File task_5pt3_histograms.pdf task_5pt3_histograms.pdf added
- File task_5pt4_histograms.pdf task_5pt4_histograms.pdf added
- File task_5pt10_histograms.pdf task_5pt10_histograms.pdf added
- File task_5pt5_histograms.pdf task_5pt5_histograms.pdf added
First, a naive look at the data.
The attached plots show histograms of the horizontal and vertical slab hits at TOF0 for each "task" (corresponding to a beam setting in the run plan). Vertical slab hits are converted into an x-coordinate, centred on the slab (see assumptions pdf in previous entry), and horizontal slab hits are converted into y-coordinates centred on the slabs.
At this point, I'm just counting every slab hit returned -- i.e. there's no accounting of multiple hits or requiring that a particle goes through both planes of the TOF.
There's no dramatic change in the distribution of slab hits, and the means vary by a few mm only.
Updated by Blackmore, Victoria about 8 years ago
The above histograms are then normalised to the same number of entries as task 5.1
Updated by Blackmore, Victoria about 8 years ago
- File task_5pt5_pixel_histogram.pdf task_5pt5_pixel_histogram.pdf added
- File task_5pt6_pixel_histogram.pdf task_5pt6_pixel_histogram.pdf added
- File task_5pt7_pixel_histogram.pdf task_5pt7_pixel_histogram.pdf added
- File task_5pt8_pixel_histogram.pdf task_5pt8_pixel_histogram.pdf added
- File tof0_intensity_study_analysis_script.zip tof0_intensity_study_analysis_script.zip added
- File task_5pt1_pixel_histogram.pdf task_5pt1_pixel_histogram.pdf added
- File task_5pt2_pixel_histogram.pdf task_5pt2_pixel_histogram.pdf added
- File task_5pt3_pixel_histogram.pdf task_5pt3_pixel_histogram.pdf added
- File task_5pt9_pixel_histogram.pdf task_5pt9_pixel_histogram.pdf added
- File task_5pt4_pixel_histogram.pdf task_5pt4_pixel_histogram.pdf added
Next, try and match up horizontal and vertical slab hits into pixels (without having a TOF calibration, I see no other way of doing this than by brute force...)
Analysis code is attached (though I apologise for its inelegance, I've not attempted to tidy it.. it is what it is).
A 'pixel' is made if and only if there is one horizontal and one vertical slab hit for a particle. All other slab hits are ignored. This reduces the number of "hits" at TOF0 to about 70% of what they were without this cut (for the reference beam).
The attached plots show, for each task:
(top, left): 2D pixel profile at TOF0
(top, middle): Projection of 2D profile onto the x-axis (equivalent to vertical slab hits)
(top, right): Projection of 2D profile onto the y-axis (equivalent to horizontal slab hits)
(bottom, middle): Mean value of y at each x
(bottom, right): Mean value of x at each y.
Updated by Blackmore, Victoria about 8 years ago
- File task_5pt10_pixel_histogram.pdf task_5pt10_pixel_histogram.pdf added
- File all_pixels_normalised_to_5pt1.pdf all_pixels_normalised_to_5pt1.pdf added
(ran out of allowable files to attach to the previous entry)
Also attached is the x and y profiles for 'pixel-worthy' hits, normalised to the same number of entries as task 5.1.
Updated by Blackmore, Victoria about 8 years ago
Summary of means and rms's from histograms for particles that make a 'pixel' only.
Task | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | mean x (mm) | rms x (mm) | mean y (mm) | rms y (mm) | total pixels | total spills | pixels/spill | relative to Task 5.1 (%) |
5.1 | 102.4 | 127.9 | 89.0 | -0.3332 | 96.76 | -1.968 | 73.61 | 39016 | 1002 | 39 | 100 |
5.2 | 97.3 | 124.1 | 86.3 | -0.6278 | 96.43 | -1.36 | 74.28 | 35236 | 998 | 35 | 90.6 |
5.3 | 90.1 | 118.9 | 80.1 | -1.915 | 96.17 | -1.606 | 74.54 | 31263 | 1000 | 31 | 80.3 |
5.4 | 95.2 | 117.7 | 74.8 | -1.605 | 97.04 | -1.182 | 73.45 | 31495 | 1002 | 31 | 80.7 |
5.5 | 132.6 | 188.3 | 89.4 | -2.283 | 95.96 | -1.204 | 74.54 | 26514 | 998 | 27 | 68.2 |
5.6 | 158.3 | 179.2 | 198.5 | -1.527 | 95.74 | -1.684 | 73.69 | 39647 | 994 | 40 | 102.4 |
5.7 | 85.97 | 146.61 | 117.65 | -0.6262 | 96.83 | -1.738 | 73.81 | 32547 | 996 | 33 | 83.9 |
5.8 | 94.41 | 140.64 | 110.90 | -0.6582 | 96.38 | -1.746 | 73.93 | 35583 | 1000 | 36 | 91.4 |
5.9 | 38.18 | 115.70 | 110.12 | -0.8329 | 96.99 | -1.718 | 74.65 | 25669 | 1001 | 26 | 65.9 |
5.10 | 87.39 | 138.82 | 113.50 | -1.486 | 96.97 | -0.9925 | 74.06 | 32724 | 997 | 33 | 84.3 |
Updated by Rogers, Chris over 7 years ago
- Status changed from Open to Closed
- % Done changed from 0 to 100
I think this is closed?