1 / 9

Probably nothing profound …

Probably nothing profound … It’s basically what I said in my email to cnipol-l mailing list on Sept. 16 &23, 2010 where I tried some ideas that have been thrown out.  For me, I’d like to see what are the differences … Wednesday, October 14, 2010 Kin Yip. Alpha calibration changing with time.

iren
Download Presentation

Probably nothing profound …

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Probably nothing profound … It’s basically what I said in my email to cnipol-l mailing list on Sept. 16 &23, 2010 where I tried some ideas that have been thrown out.  For me, I’d like to see what are the differences … Wednesday, October 14, 2010 Kin Yip

  2. Alpha calibration changing with time Jun 17, 2009 Jan. 15, 2010

  3. Normally, we have banana bands to veto the background. Just a random example:

  4. After plotting using E = 0.5m (L/t)2 Realized that, we can’t give up the energy scale from ADC’s.

  5. Polarization = asymmetry/AN  • I use the same calibration constants (energy and time scales)(done at the very beginning of the run, putting in some more exact distances etc.) • After using TOF only, E = 0.5m (L/t)2 100% event accepted  stupid ! Of course, we need the ADC-energy scale to get rid of backgrounds. • For example, for the run 47046, from our nominal way to using TOF only, AN doesn’t change much (from 0.011571 to 0.011616, < 0.4%). • But overall, from the nominal way to using TOF only (which we accept 100% of events), the polarization would change from 59.2% to 54.6% for the run 47046 with statistical error of 2.5%.

  6. Slicing E (due to my existing binning, 340 – 1140 keV as we use ~ 400-1000 keV • Divided into 20 bins  20 fits (ns) • Found the TOF for each E bin; • New energy scale = 0.5m (L/t)2 ; (but we still use the ADC energy scale to do the banana cut) • In doing so, I’ve realized that • NOT just AN needs to be calculated using this new energy scale • To be consistent, the energy cuts ( 0.09 –t  0.022 ) needs to use the same energy scale.

  7. Then, it’s a shift in the different sets of events to calculate both asymmetries and AN’s • (which seems to cancel out …)

  8. Statistical error is always ~2.5% If I apply the TOF found from slicing done for 46009 : NEW If I do the slicing and find the TOF’s for 47046 and 47047 respectively: OLD

  9. Not sure what conclusion to draw exactly … • except probably that, if things are done consistently, the changes are small.

More Related