[G8b_run] Analysis note for KY

[Michael]

We should have Brian weigh in on this issue.

Take care,
Michael

Ken Livingston <Kenneth.Livingston at glasgow.ac.uk> wrote:

>Hi Micheal,
>I think you're mixing up the Start Counter with the TOF.  The issue was 
>with the TOF paddles. We're not requiring a pion - which was where the 
>biggest effect was, so the effect to our stats is not much, and the 
>effect on the acceptance cancels.
>Could be an issue for the recoil pol, where acceptance matters, but we 
>only look at this to confirm that it's in fair agreement with older CLAS 
>data. For extraction of doubles we use the measured values of recoil pol 
>from previous CLAS measurement.
>
>We should not raise the question of recooking with the committee. If 
>they raise it we should explain that the effect is small for us, and 
>will give an estimate of how small.
>
>Regards,
>Ken
>
>
>
>
>On 17/05/13 12:36, dugger at jlab.org wrote:
>> 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
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> G8b_run mailing list
>> G8b_run at jlab.org
>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/g8b_run
>
>
>-- 
>=======================================================
>Ken Livingston
>
>Dept. of Physics & Astronomy,        Tel: +44 141 330 6428
>University of Glasgow,               Fax: +44 141 330 5889
>Glasgow G12 8QQ.
>Scotland. UK.
>=======================================================
>
>_______________________________________________
>G8b_run mailing list
>G8b_run at jlab.org
>https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/g8b_run