• Step 1: Ask the cDAQ shifter to pause the run. If you do this by phone, try to keep him/her on the line.
• Step 2: Change the phase scan delay settings.
  • Your choices are described relative to the current default (setting "0")
  • Your minimum choice is -3 ("M3", or a delay three nanoseconds shorter than the default delay settings)
  • Your maximum choice is +32 ("P32", or a delay 32 nanoseconds longer than the default delay settings)
  • You can chose any integer setting between (and including) your minimum and maximum choice
  • Once you have selected a delay setting (e.g. "P10"), enter the following commands to change the delay settings:

cd /nfshome0/eberry/PhaseScanDelays/
./change.sh P10

• Step 3: Initialize and then configure the piggy-back RCMS configuration. The path of this configuration is:

/hcalpro/USC/HF/PhaseScanVME04

• Step 4: Once the piggy-back RCMS configuration has configured, make sure that the RBX delays have been updated via the RBX manager hyperdaq page
• Step 4a: Open a window to ssh to hcalutca01, where the reset script has to be run.
• Step 4b: Run the reset script to force the uHTRs to lock to the new timing: ~hcalsw/bin/ResetAllLinkCDR.sh
• Step 5: Only when you have confirmed that the RBX delays have been updated, ask the cDAQ shifter to resume the run
• Step 6: Destroy the piggy-back RCMS configuration
• Step 7: Take data in this setting (i.e. do nothing) for several minutes, watching the DQM to see if you can observe a change.

Your goal should be to minimize the time it takes to get from Step 1 to Step 6.

• collisions_timing2.pdf: analysis of run 243506-243679, HBHE and HF, V. Epshteyn, last updated, May 20, 2015</verbatim>

• fraction of signal in HF vs phase, averaged over all HF towers, from V. Epshteyn's write-up:
  </verbatim>

• Link to main elog
• Full collection of Lumi histograms from Olga are at

   /afs/cern.ch/user/o/odryha/public/for_Paolo/hflumi_plots/ 

Lumi Histogram	Delay setting summary and notes	Filename with date_time_Run(_LS) Info
	DELAY of -3ns -- Run 243679. Pausing for LS: 21-26 and Resuming with delays set to -3ns starting with LS 26. The beam was lost at LS46. Therefore for DELAY of -3ns we have been running only for LS:26-46.	zoom_cms1_integral_0507_013048_run243679_LS030.png
	NO DELAY	zoom_cms1_integral_0506_171644_run243639.png
	DELAY of +3ns -- Run 243671, Pausing for LS: 99-105 and Resuming with delays set to +3 startin with LS 105	zoom_cms1_integral_0506_223654_run243671_LS110.png
	DELAY of +7ns -- Run 243664, Paused for LS: 73 thru 79, Resumed starting LS 79 with the delay of +7ns	zoom_cms1_integral_0506_210314_run243664_LS081.png
	DELAY of +11ns -- Run 243677. Pausing for LS: 41-48 and Resuming with delays set to +11ns starting with LS 48.	zoom_cms1_integral_0507_002532_run243677_LS064.png
	DELAY of +15ns -- Run 243664, starting LS38 we have +15ns introduced	zoom_cms1_integral_0506_204718_run243664_LS040.png
	DELAY of +20ns -- Run 243677. Pausing for LS: 116-122 and Resuming with delays set to +20ns starting with LS 122.	zoom_cms1_integral_0507_011318_run243677.png
	DELAY of +24ns --Run 243668, ECAL had to change timing, therefore we stopped 243664!!! I've introduced the delays of +24ns and starting LS1 for 243668, we have +24ns	zoom_cms1_integral_0506_213528_run243668_LS002.png
	DELAY of +32ns( -- Edmund has set a delay of +32ns and we have taken data starting 243639, LS ~414-415 with these delays	zoom_cms1_integral_0506_180943_run243639.png

• information on data taken on May 21, 2015 (r245914, 916, 920):
  </verbatim>

• Plots from online DQM showing phase shifts during R245914:

</verbatim>

</verbatim>

• HF_phase_scan.pdf: summary of May 21st HF phase scan data, V. Epshteyn, updated May 28, 2015</verbatim>

• hf_phase_scan.xls: summary spreadsheet with channel-by-channel delay corrections by V. Epshteyn on May-21 HF Phase scan, last updated May 25, 2015</verbatim>

• HF phase scan: 1D of delay corrections from V. Epshteyn, May 25, 2015:
  </verbatim>

The x-axis is the difference (in ns) between actual 50/50 position and nominal 50/50 position of the signals in HFP and HFM

• HF phase scan: 2D plot of delay corrections from V. Epshteyn, May 25, 2015:
  </verbatim>

The z-axis is the difference (in ns) between actual 50/50 position and nominal 50/50 position of the signals in HFP and HFM

• comparison between corrections extracted by Vladimir and Otman, 6ns shift is understood:
  </verbatim>

more details on comparison, see write-up by vladimir

• HF_phase_scan_2.pdf: write-up from V. Epshteyn on HF Phase scan taken on June 3, 2015</verbatim>

• comparison between HF scan on May21 (old) and on June 3(new), V. Epshteyn, June 5, 2015:
  </verbatim>

• comparison between HF scan on May21 (old) and on June 3(new), V. Epshteyn, June 5, 2015:
  </verbatim>

* analysis of Otman of July 5th HF phase scan:
</verbatim>

• analysis of Otman of July 5th HF phase scan:
  </verbatim>

• analysis of Otman of July 5th HF phase scan:
  </verbatim>

• V. Epshteyn, analysis of July 5 HF Phase scan:
  </verbatim>

• V. Epshteyn, analysis of July 5 HF Phase scan:
  </verbatim>

• V. Epshteyn, analysis of July 5 HF Phase scan:
  </verbatim>

• list of runs taken during July11 scan:
  </verbatim>

• HF_phase_scan_6.pdf: Write-up for July 11th scan, V. Epshteyn</verbatim>

• hf_phase_scan_11_07_2015.xls: spreadsheet of corrections for July 11th scan, V. Epshteyn</verbatim>

• plots for July 11th scan, V. Epshteyn:
  </verbatim>

• single run taken during July13 scan, r251638, with out best choice of 50/50:

• HF_phase_scan_6.pdf: write-up and two critical figures from analysis of july11 and july13 scans, V. Epshteyn</verbatim>

• write-up and two critical figures from analysis of july11 and july13 scans, V. Epshteyn:
  </verbatim>

• hf_phase_scan_13_07_2015_corrections.xls: table with corrections ( > 1 ns) based on run 251638 taken on July-13-2015</verbatim>