a few pretty tracks / suggested test

[Fred Gray <fegray@socrates.berkeley.edu>]

There are some nice-looking tracks in the TDC400 data from run 410 (this is
the view of the bit pattten in a single TDC):

------------------------------------------------------------
31624 ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ .......X 
31625 ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ .....X.. 
31626 ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ...X.... 
31627 ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ .X...... 
31628 ........ ........ ........ ........ ......X. ........ 
31629 ........ ........ ........ ........ ....X... ........ 
31630 ........ ........ ........ ........ ..X..... ........ 
------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------
20640 ........ ........ ........ ........ ...X.... ........ 
20641 ........ ........ ........ ........ ....X... ........ 
20642 ........ ........ ........ ........ .....X.. ........ 
20643 ........ ........ ........ ........ ......X. ........ 
20644 ........ ........ ........ ........ ......XX ........ 
20645 ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ X....... 
20646 ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ .X...... 
------------------------------------------------------------

However, it's mostly noise, and there aren't nearly enough hits for the
beam rate that you say is going in.  Here's a suggestion: is it possible for
you pick a channel, put it on a visual scalar that is gated by the DAQ 
livetime, and take a run?  Then I can count how many times the channel
fired in the recorded data from the TDC400, and you can write down the 
visual scaler reading, and we can compare.  That way we can figure out whether 
the rate problem is in the detector or the DAQ.

Thanks,
 
-- Fred

-- Fred Gray / Visiting Postdoctoral Researcher                         --
-- Department of Physics / University of California, Berkeley           --
-- fegray@socrates.berkeley.edu / phone 510-642-4057 / fax 510-642-9811 --