[Hps-analysis] vertex x position

[Omar Moreno]

Good point. Let me generate the plots.

On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Graf, Norman A. <ngraf at slac.stanford.edu>
wrote:

> ​Agreed. I think for questions such as this, we need to analyze
> UNnconstraind vertices.
>
>
> Norman
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Hps-analysis <hps-analysis-bounces at jlab.org> on behalf of Graham,
> Mathew Thomas <mgraham at slac.stanford.edu>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 2, 2017 10:58 AM
> *To:* Omar Moreno
> *Cc:* hps-analysis at jlab.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Hps-analysis] vertex x position
>
>
> If this is still target constrained then this will skew the mean by quite
> a bit...
>
> On Aug 2, 2017, at 11:56 AM, Omar Moreno <email at omarmoreno.net> wrote:
>
> I'm seeing a much smaller shift (~-13 um)  (see attached).  I wonder how
> much you would need to move the target to get the 127 um shift we see in
> data? Just curious ...
>
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Rafayel Paremuzyan <rafopar at jlab.org>
> wrote:
>
>> This is the most recent scan with svt_top from 2015 data
>> https://logbooks.jlab.org/entry/3340385
>>
>> It shows beam_x position is -0.127mm
>>
>> So might be it is normal than Omar sees X slightly negative.
>>
>> Rafo
>> _______________________________________________
>> Hps-analysis mailing list
>> Hps-analysis at jlab.org
>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/hps-analysis
>>
>
> <moller_vx.pdf>_______________________________________________
> Hps-analysis mailing list
> Hps-analysis at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/hps-analysis
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/hps-analysis/attachments/20170802/1d1fe5a8/attachment.html>