[Eg6_analysis] IC calibration

[Stepan Stepanyan]

Raphael,

Thanks for explanations. We will have a meeting this coming Thursday.

By the way, I sue to think that pi0 mass peak with for IC was 7 MeV,
why are we getting 11 MeV?

Stepan

On 8/27/13 8:56 AM, Dupré Raphaël wrote:
> Dear Stepan,
>
> Mohammad has comparisons for missing energy and other variables too,
> he can show them in a future meeting. In particular, the RMS for
> missing energy was reduced for incoherent (I did not see coherent). We
> chose to illustrate with the pi0 mass peak since it is simpler to
> interpret, we do not expect contamination effects and it depends only
> on photon kinematic and energy.
>
> Best,
>
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Stepan Stepanyan<stepanya at jlab.org>  wrote:
>> Hello Mohammad,
>>
>> My first thoughts will be it does not matter what corrections you will use.
>> Just keep in mind that getting a narrower pi0 peak is not the ultimate goal.
>> The goal is to get energy and angles of photons measured correctly, since
>> that is what will end up in your calculations of kinematics for DVCS.
>>
>> Regards, Stepan
>>
>>
>> On 8/26/13 12:07 PM, Mohammad Hattawy wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>>     Following the work of IC calibration. Firstly, i corrected the energy
>>> and the time dependence separately which can be found in the link
>>> (https://clasweb.jlab.org/rungroups/lowq/wiki/index.php/User:Hattawy/IC_calibration
>>> ). A new Method of correcting both at the same time is done and can be found
>>> in the link
>>> (https://clasweb.jlab.org/rungroups/lowq/wiki/index.php/IC_calibration).
>>>     As a result, from the side of the number of DVCS events, both methods
>>> gave almost the same numbers, while a gain of 0.4  MeV in the width of the
>>> reconstructed signal of pi0 has been achieved with the second method.
>>>     Suggestions and comments are welcome.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Best regards,
>>> Mohammad Hattawy.
>
>