[G8b_run] Analysis note for KY

[dugger at jlab.org]

Dave,

It would depend on the pid scheme that you use. If you require that each
final state particle has all relevant detector elements present, then you
would benefit from a recook. The problem we are seeing -IF I have this
correctly- is that there is an effective software-threshold set on the
start counter paddles. So if you do not have a strict requirement on the
presence of a start counter for each particle, then you should be good to
go.

This is assuming that I understand the current situation correctly. (I'm
sure my fellow g8b collaborators will correct me if I got this wrong).

Take care,
Michael


> Hi All,
>
> I realise it was a big ask to take a look through the note in one week.
>
> However, one thing I would like everyone's opinion on is whether there
> is any need to recook the data before submitting this note for review.
> If not, we will have to have a solid set of reasons why not. I am just
> asking because that's just my impression of what is likely to happen in
> a review committee.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>
> On 10/05/2013 15:46, David Ireland wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I now have a draft analysis note for the g8 measurements on K-Lambda and
>> K-Sigma. This is essentially what I reported on at the last Working
>> Group meeting. As it is too big a file to circulate, you can find it at
>> http://nuclear.gla.ac.uk/~clasg8/Analysis/PatersonKLambdaAnalysis.pdf
>>
>> I would like to get this into the review process as soon as possible, so
>> could you let me have any feedback by *Friday 17 May*.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Dave
>>
> _______________________________________________
> G8b_run mailing list
> G8b_run at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/g8b_run
>