[b1_ana] Rates Update

[Patricia SOLVIGNON]

Hi.

I think for proposal we should always assume PAC days =  100% efficiency of the accelerator. When the lab schedule us, they take into account how the accelerator is performing to add days.

Patricia

On May 3, 2013, at 2:16 PM, Elena Long wrote:

> Good afternoon,
> 
> Patricia and I have been working on the rates, and I think we've come to an agreement. There's a difference from last night, which stems from the fact that I was using old (larger) values for the spectrometer energy acceptance on the SHMS. They've been updated to what the SHMS can actually do, and new plots can be found at the link below. 
> 
> I've also moved the <x> bins for b1 and Azz to reflect the central range that they are measuring over. The dark points on the kinematics plots show the central value of where we would park the spectrometer.
> 
> One thing that I'm currently unclear on is whether a PAC day consists of 24 hours (100% efficiency) or 12 hours (50% efficiency). I've plotted both cases given 30 days (9 days at x=0.15 and 0.3, 10 days at x=0.35, and 30 days at x=0.45).
> 
> https://hallcweb.jlab.org/wiki/index.php/Elong-13-05-02
> 
> Now that the code has been cross-checked, this afternoon I'm going to scan over x and Q2 again to see if I can find a "sweet spot" for any of the points. Also in the plans is re-coloring the kinematics plots so that each data period is easy to see.
> 
> Take care,
> Ellie
> -- 
> Elena Long, Ph.D.
> Post Doctoral Research Associate
> University of New Hampshire
> elena.long at unh.edu
> ellie at jlab.org
> http://nuclear.unh.edu/~elong
> (603) 862-1962
> _______________________________________________
> b1_ana mailing list
> b1_ana at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/b1_ana

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/b1_ana/attachments/20130503/2b760027/attachment.html