PS >> wrote
I think that T2 is consistent with survey, but regarding T1 the rise from .08 to 1.3 points to the problem with TDC
offsets (e.g. which TDC is related to zero drift associated with known y position in T1) and rather not to drift velocity because the drift velocity has been already calibrated using T3 tracks.
>> Well I disagree - .5 cm is 350 nsec and there is no-where in the TPC electronics you can get 350 nsec
had it been about a mm it would have been ok.
uncertainty in the Vdrift determination.
The angles between T1 T2 was afterall determined from zero-fierlds runs to a very small d(alpha). You
do afterall change the angle between T1-2T by about (-0.08-(-0.126))= -0.046 deg == 0.8 mrad which I thibk is not consistent with the zero-field
yes, but only in x-direction. At that time I didn't play with T1 and T2 y-slopes because the slopes (and specially dy offsets) where not consistent from run to run.
>> yes but this was not apparent from the e-mail where you said the figures clarified that
" I found that by changing T2 horizontal rotation
from 0 to -0.126 deg "
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jun 18 2002 - 12:03:32 EDT