Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

star-qaboard-l - Re: [STAR-QAboard] 26.5GeV FXT QA

star-qaboard-l@lists.bnl.gov

Subject: STAR QA Board

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Van Buren, Gene" <gene@bnl.gov>
  • To: Benjamin Kimelman <bkimelman@ucdavis.edu>
  • Cc: "star-qaboard-l@lists.bnl.gov" <star-qaboard-l@lists.bnl.gov>
  • Subject: Re: [STAR-QAboard] 26.5GeV FXT QA
  • Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2020 03:58:14 +0000

I indeed missed it and just learned about it now by reading this thread.
Database updated, and we'll reprocess the run.

Thanks,
-Gene


> On Jul 30, 2020, at 11:28 PM, Benjamin Kimelman via STAR-QAboard-l
> <star-qaboard-l@lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>
> Hi Rosi,
>
> I agree. I think many of us were caught unaware of the fact that we were
> going to collect FXT data. Now that we know it is a possibility during CeC
> running, I hope we can set the vertexing correct for the future.
>
> Ben Kimelman
> Ph.D. Candidate, Nuclear Physics Group
> UC Davis
> He/him/his
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 8:20 PM Rosi Reed <rosijreed@lehigh.edu> wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> We could ask Gene to change the settings - and then perhaps have
> another small production done in order to give you something to
> analyze from the whole data set. I suppose we will be doing this
> again so probably can have the FXT settings loaded for the CeC running
> in the future.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Rosi
>
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 7:52 PM Benjamin Kimelman via STAR-QAboard-l
> <star-qaboard-l@lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
> >
> > Hi QA board,
> >
> > Yesterday evening we had one run of 26.5GeV FXT data during CeC running.
> > You can look at my QA for that one run here:
> > https://www.star.bnl.gov/protected/lfsupc/bkimel/run20QA/AuAu_26p5GeV_FXT/day211/AuAu_26p5GeV_FXT_run_21211028_QA.pdf
> >
> > There are a few things I want to point out:
> >
> > The vertexing algorithm was not adjusted for FXT (I'm guessing that Gene
> > didn't know that we were going to take FXT data and didn't change the
> > algorithm, but I only found out at the end of the run)
> > On slides 7&8, the right column shows only tracks that have dE/dx<1. In
> > 2019, we had seen an issue with a large number of tracks having dE/dx<1,
> > which is why these QA plots exist. This seems to be a similar issue,
> > although it appears that the particle bands in dE/dx are very wide. I
> > cannot remember the cause of this, but I will look back through emails to
> > identify that before we meet tomorrow.
> > On slide 5, we can see shadow bands in the eToF 1/beta and mass
> > distribution, which shows that it is not properly calibrated.
> >
> > Ben Kimelman
> > Ph.D. Candidate, Nuclear Physics Group
> > UC Davis
> > He/him/his
> > _______________________________________________
> > STAR-QAboard-l mailing list
> > STAR-QAboard-l@lists.bnl.gov
> > https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-qaboard-l
>
>
>
> --
> Rosi Reed
> RHIC/AGS UEC member
> Associate Professor, Physics Department
> Lehigh University
> (610)758-3907
> 16 Memorial Drive East Office 406
> Bethlehem, PA 18015
> she/her/hers
> _______________________________________________
> STAR-QAboard-l mailing list
> STAR-QAboard-l@lists.bnl.gov
> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-qaboard-l





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page