<!-- Title: 14:12:37  Tue Jan  2 2001 -->
<!-- Crewchief: TDC Task Force -->
<!-- Op1: COT, Muon TDC users -->
<!-- Op2: &nbsp; -->
<!-- Op3: &nbsp; -->
<!-- Op4: &nbsp; -->
<!-- Op5: &nbsp; -->
<!-- Op6: &nbsp; -->
<!-- Notes: -->
<pre>Tracking of TDC problems, test results</pre>


<!-- Date: Tue Jan 2 18:49:44 2001 -->
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> 
<html> 
<head> 
   <meta name="GENERATOR" content="Mozilla/4.75 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.16-3 i686) [Netscape]"> 
</head> 
<body> 
Worked on tracking down problems reported with b0cot08 and b0cot09 (conwb-1/2).&nbsp;&nbsp; 
It was reported several weeks ago that could not get good tracktest results 
in these crates.&nbsp; Last week I determined that neither crate had clock 
signals on the backplne. 
<p>Today, I Did some cable and card swapping with the adjacent endwall 
calorimeter crate and determined that the TRACERs needed replacement.&nbsp; 
However, the new TRACERs did not work.&nbsp; In the end, I discovered the 
crates worked if a TRACER&nbsp;modifed with Pull-downs for the modified 
backplane termination would work but unmodified TRACERs would not.&nbsp; 
On further investigation, it was determined that the clock SIPs had been 
swapped for modified ones at some point but the TRACERs had not been swapped.&nbsp; 
I do not know who did the mod or when it was done. 
<p>Both crates now have modified TRACERs: 
<ul> 
<li> 
cot08:&nbsp;serial #139, prop #561805</li> 
 
<li> 
cot09: serial #132, prop #565598</li> 
</ul> 
Clock signals now look fine. 
</body> 
</html>
<!-- Author: Peter Wilson -->


<!-- Date: Thu May 24 09:17:37 2001 -->
Here is an example of making link to another eLog. 
 
<a href= 
'/cgi/elog/elog.pl?nb=2001&action=view&page=328&frame=2&anchor=23:32:29'> 
possible bad TDC channel CMU E12 chan 27 </a>
<!-- Author: ronmoore -->


<!-- Date: Thu Dec 13 20:00:08 2001 -->
<pre>Cheng-Ju Lin and I swapped one TDC in the Hadron TDC crate  
b0htdc00.  We removed TDC #656 from slot 20 and inserted  
TDC #726.  We would like to use #656 as a replacement board  
for #734 in b0cot05 slot 8.  We reprogrammed FRAM 1.  
</pre>
<!-- Author: Jay Dittmann -->
<!-- Comment: Fri Dec 14 15;31;45 comment by...Cheng-Ju and Jay -->
<pre>Jay replaced TDC#734 in B0COT08 with TDC#656 during the control access today. </pre>


<!-- Date: Wed Jan 9 18:10:38 2002 -->
<pre>Replaced TDC#547 in B0COT16 slot 14 with TDC#734; replaced TDC#736 in BOCOT13 slot 15 with TDC#279; Dave Kirby requested and replaced a new TDC (#267) in B0COT 13 slot 9.</pre>
<!-- Author: Cheng-Ju Lin -->


<!-- Date: Wed Jan 16 19:09:27 2002 -->
<pre>3 TDC's seemed to be giving shifted start times (start times  
would be around 200 ns, instead of 240), so we replaced them:  
 
 
    b0cot09, slot 16:   #202--&gt; #199  
    b0cot13, slot 15:   #279--&gt; #313  
    b0cot18, slot  4:   #193--&gt; #295  
 
In addition, the XTC for the TDC in b0cot15, slot 6  
had to be changed, and for the XFT guys the TDC's   
in crate 12, slots 12 and 14 had to be swapped.  
 
XFT tests and the COT calibration were run and   
everything looks OK.</pre>
<!-- Author: Bill Orejudos -->


<!-- Date: Sun Mar 31 21:43:35 2002 -->
<pre>So the shift crew found a problem in one of the calibrations during quiet time/shot setup.  The problem was 300ns offsets in crate13/slot09 (serial number 267), with channels 0->~42.  Doesn't appear to be a cable problem, but very well could be this chanid problem that Dan has diagnosed elsewhere.  Looking back at previous TDCTest runs on this card, does show a systematic tendancy for the lower channels on this card to give errors.  Bill and I discussed this, and will request that this card be replaced as soon as possible.  Note: this card was installed Jan 9, for card 510 which had a 10ns offset problem.  That's all for now. </pre>
<!-- Author: Kirby -->
<!-- Comment: Sun Mar 31 21;53;03 comment by...Kirby -->
<pre>Sorry about entering that twice, having trouble with Netscape at home.  Anyway, there apparently is more, seems that during one of the calibrations that the shift crew took, the card in crate14/slot12 (serial# 282) had all of the channels show up bad.  This might be a case of the 30-40ns problem.  Not positive, but a card to keep track of.  The card showed the 30-40ns problem in TDCTest once before.</pre>
<!-- Date: Sun Mar 31 21:43:49 2002 -->
<pre>So the shift crew found a problem in one of the calibrations during quiet time/shot setup.  The problem was 300ns offsets in crate13/slot09 (serial number 267), with channels 0->~42.  Doesn't appear to be a cable problem, but very well could be this chanid problem that Dan has diagnosed elsewhere.  Looking back at previous TDCTest runs on this card, does show a systematic tendancy for the lower channels on this card to give errors.  Bill and I discussed this, and will request that this card be replaced as soon as possible.  Note: this card was installed Jan 9, for card 510 which had a 10ns offset problem.  That's all for now. </pre>
<!-- Author: Kirby -->



<!-- Date: Thu Apr 4 11:08:32 2002 -->
<pre>Dan and I swapped 4 TDCs today.  The cards were pulled for various reason, if you're curious, I can forward you an email explaining the problems.  For card tracking here are the details:  
 
 
crate   slot   SL  cell   Card removed     Card installed  
-----   ----   --  ----   ------------     --------------  
cot07    16    7    320     183              512  
cot13    09    4    68      267              555  
cot18    05    8    388     178              613  
htdc00   19    N/A  N/A     512              688  
 
Note the card pulled from htdc00 (512) was then installed in cot07.  This card had fewer problems that 688, so decided to keep 688 in a crate that was always accessible.  All of the cards were reprogrammed, and testing in TDCTest.  Everything seems to work perfectly.  The results were recorded to the database and web pages.  I'll have the ACE run a COT calibration to check to make 
sure that the cables are plugged in.    
 
 
Oh, one final note, the two cards in stereo slots had XTCs that were removed, these were serial numbers 44 and 242.</pre>
<!-- Author: Kirby -->
<!-- Comment: Thu Apr  4 11;09;17 comment by...Kirby -->
<pre>Sorry, I meant that the axial cards had XTCs.  D'oh!</pre>