1. Physics Pulse Shapes A first look with a handful of Luminosity Blocks 12/08/20101Physic Pulse Shapes

2. Reminder: FIR coefficients Our final calibration depends on the Filters used We are using a simplified set of coefficients – Suggested by David Hadley – Based on calibration pulse shapes Big question: do calibration pulses = physics pulses FIR coefficient sets – EM layer:1, 8, 13, 10, 7 – Hadronic layer:1, 9, 15, 11, 5 – FCAL (all layers): 0, 2, 13, 5, 0 12/08/2010Physic Pulse Shapes2

3. Analysis ‘technique’ Raw data from run 160800 – About 5 luminosity blocks of Jet/Tau/Etc stream – Start of fill, so high luminosity – Lots of big pulses Use only pulses with maximum FADC > 60 – Similar to timing analysis cuts Average pulse shape by (major) partition – EMB, EMEC, HEC, Tile, FCAL As always FCAL has the last laugh… 12/08/20103Physic Pulse Shapes

4. EM layer 12/08/2010Physic Pulse Shapes4 Physics pulses (marginally) narrower (n-2) sample close to zero

5. Hadronic layer 12/08/2010Physic Pulse Shapes5 HEC pulses (marginally) narrower (n-2) sample close to zero For HEC Tile almost perfect

6. FCAL – the joker in the pack 12/08/2010Physic Pulse Shapes6 ALL pulses are wider FCAL2+3 (hadronic) are particularly wide

7. Conclusions Differences between calibration and physics pulses will distort FADC to LUT energy conversion – Will eventually require recalibration of LUT slopes – Also maybe re-evaluation of FIR coefficients – For the future (but when?) Main effects for now should be: – Tile is about right – EM will be underestimated in LUT value – FCAL will be overestimated in LUT value Is this all backed up by Yuriy/Juraj’s observations? 12/08/2010Physic Pulse Shapes7