[G12] g11 correction factpr

[Johann Goetz]

35% vs 27% seems like a lot of room for error in this estimate.

But the question I have is this: does this "tripfixer" program do the same
thing as the flux corrections use by g11?

The trigger and delta-t (ST efficiency) have not been taken into account so
I can include them in this analysis

2010/10/6 Valery Kubarovsky <vpk at jlab.org>

> All in all we had about 50% correction factor.
> See the page 13 of [37] presentation. And you cross section will be
> the same as g11 I believe.
> vk
>
>
> http://clasweb.jlab.org/rungroups/e1-dvcs/wiki/index.php/Elastic_scattering
>
> At the bottom of the page you will find this:
>
>
> [37] Test of normalization procedure made by Marco Battaglieri and
> Rafaella de Vita for g11 data set.
>
> - Page 6 Current dependent correction - 15-20 % at 60-65 nA,
> extrapolation to zero current.
>
> - Page 10. Trigger efficiency study. Comparison of open (1 sector
> trigger) and production trigger (2 sectors trigger) shows possible
> problems of trigger inefficiency depending on the number of tracks ->
> possible problem with L1 trigger. No trigger inefficiency was observed
> for the events with at least 3 tarcks. Trigger bit word found to be
> wrong: 10% of the recorded events in production runs have only 1
> sector bit set. Applied correction factor for 2 tracks topology is
> about 15%.
>
> - page 13. List of all g11 corrections: Flux 19%, trigger 15%.
>
>
> [38] CMU group analysis of the g11 normalization procedure.
>
> - Page 11. ρ and ω yield as a function of the beam current. Correction
> at I=65 nA is 27%.
>



-- 
Johann Goetz
jgoetz at ucla.edu
UCLA Dept. Physics & Astronomy
Nefkens Group
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/g12/attachments/20101006/204a685f/attachment.html