<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">Hi,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div>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.<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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.</div><div class=""><br class=""><div class="">
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Best,<br class="">Mark Macrae Dalton</div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""></div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<br class=""></div></body></html>