> an LED is there examined. Yes, there's still the 50/100Hz ~3mVp-p
> noise in the fanout output but I think we can live with it. We
> haven't seen it in the digitized data we took today.
Good, that's what counts. Well, that plus the TOHM must not trigger on
it. Just to remind you of the idiosyncrasies of some of our noise,
here is what we saw when studying the 10 kHz noise killed by the
ferrites. The noise was absent if you looked at the PMT's directly,
and the noise was not visible if you looked at the fanout output using
a scope. So it is important to do an end-to-end check with the actual
electronics.
> One *important* thing that I should mention is that all the above
> runs were taken with the WFD byte limit INCREASED to 60K. You see,
> it remained a question to both me and Yiannis as to what exactly was
> limiting us from getting closer to the hardware's actual limit. So,
> we went ahead and tried it. Looking at the data, seems to be working
> fine (we took a normal run with the 60K byte limit, just to see how
> it goes; this is RUN090518 and looks OK). The 60K buys you quite a
> lot (i'll come back tomorrow with more comments/details on
> that). Anyways, what would you say in increasing the byte limit to
> 60K? Ed, is there something we should worry about that we're not
> aware of? I called Ronga on the phone and he says that it should be
> fine...
It should be OK. There was a time when we were interested in having
exactly one channel per buffer (or maybe one pair). At the time,
this was rejected by the DAQ guys. But if they say its OK now, then there
is no problem on our end.
ED