[Halld-cal] BCAL calibration 2016

[Sean Dobbs]

Hi Mark,

I can't think of a reason offhand to not use the constants, but it would be
interesting to compare their values.  The magnetic field was different
between the two data sets, so maybe there is some hidden systematic there.

Cheers,
Sean

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 6:06 PM Mark Macrae Dalton <dalton at jlab.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I have new calibration constants from 2016 data for the BCAL positions
> from the time differences.  Presumably this would address the issue that
> Mike observed.
>
> I now wonder, is there any reason not to use the 2017 constants for the
> 2016?  (for effective velocities, timing, attenuation lengths etc.)  I
> cannot think of any myself.  I believe that we have already done this for
> the gains.  This is an already existing high statistics set of constants
> that gave good results on the 2017 data.
>
> Best,
> Mark Macrae Dalton
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/halld-cal/attachments/20171018/182faa73/attachment.html>