35% vs 27% seems like a lot of room for error in this estimate.<br><br>But the question I have is this: does this "tripfixer" program do the same thing as the flux corrections use by g11?<br><br>The trigger and delta-t (ST efficiency) have not been taken into account so I can include them in this analysis<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">2010/10/6 Valery Kubarovsky <<a href="mailto:vpk@jlab.org">vpk@jlab.org</a>><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote">
All in all we had about 50% correction factor.<br>
See the page 13 of [37] presentation. And you cross section will be<br>
the same as g11 I believe.<br>
vk<br>
<br>
<br>
<a href="http://clasweb.jlab.org/rungroups/e1-dvcs/wiki/index.php/Elastic_scattering">http://clasweb.jlab.org/rungroups/e1-dvcs/wiki/index.php/Elastic_scattering</a><br>
<br>
At the bottom of the page you will find this:<br>
<br>
<br>
[37] Test of normalization procedure made by Marco Battaglieri and<br>
Rafaella de Vita for g11 data set.<br>
<br>
- Page 6 Current dependent correction - 15-20 % at 60-65 nA,<br>
extrapolation to zero current.<br>
<br>
- Page 10. Trigger efficiency study. Comparison of open (1 sector<br>
trigger) and production trigger (2 sectors trigger) shows possible<br>
problems of trigger inefficiency depending on the number of tracks -><br>
possible problem with L1 trigger. No trigger inefficiency was observed<br>
for the events with at least 3 tarcks. Trigger bit word found to be<br>
wrong: 10% of the recorded events in production runs have only 1<br>
sector bit set. Applied correction factor for 2 tracks topology is<br>
about 15%.<br>
<br>
- page 13. List of all g11 corrections: Flux 19%, trigger 15%.<br>
<br>
<br>
[38] CMU group analysis of the g11 normalization procedure.<br>
<br>
- Page 11. ñ and ù yield as a function of the beam current. Correction<br>
at I=65 nA is 27%.<br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Johann Goetz<br><a href="mailto:jgoetz@ucla.edu">jgoetz@ucla.edu</a><br>UCLA Dept. Physics & Astronomy<br>Nefkens Group<br>