Hi Erik, I am puzzled. The BB digitization should produced quite nice 1 MIP and multiple MIP peaks sinc egreat care was done when writting the code to match test beam results - BUT it does not use the DB calibration data, but takes the gains etc from the DetectorParams File. Thus you have to use a different calibration corresponding to some Runno. If you took the cal from some data runs I am not surprised that it does not work. It looks like some pedestal or tdc cuts are off in tube 44 data. Hopes this may help you. /fv ---------------------------------------------------------------- Flemming Videbaek Physics Department Brookhaven National Laboratory e-mail: videbaek@bnl.gov phone: 631-344-4106 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Johnson, Erik B" <ebj@ku.edu> To: "Brahms Dev" <brahms-dev-l@lists.bnl.gov> Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 3:41 PM Subject: [Brahms-dev-l] odd behavior with BBL Brahms, In studing the geant data I produced, I noticed that the bb tubes do not give a responce similar to the data. The two figures attached show the erngy distributions of the large left BB tubes for the data and for a geant simulation. The blue line is tube 44. The simulation and data were processed using the same code with the exception that the simulation data needed to be digitized. OK so it's not extremely critical that the MIP peaks are resolved, but what is the issue with tube 44? Has anyone seen this before? Can anyone point me in the right direction on how to resolve this issue? Erik ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > _______________________________________________ > Brahms-dev-l mailing list > Brahms-dev-l@lists.bnl.gov > http://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/brahms-dev-l > _______________________________________________ Brahms-dev-l mailing list Brahms-dev-l@lists.bnl.gov http://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/brahms-dev-lReceived on Thu Sep 22 16:25:10 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Sep 22 2005 - 16:25:22 EDT