[Hps] correction to normalization 2016

[Sebouh Paul]

I have updated the beam charges and luminosity, and have submitted updated
versions of the beam charge and golden run selection HPS-NOTES.  (they are
awaiting approval, but they can be viewed in github; links below)

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_JeffersonLab_HPS-2DNOTES_blob_master_ANALYSIS_goldenRunSelection2016_Golden-2DRun-2DSelection.pdf&d=DwIBaQ&c=lz9TcOasaINaaC3U7FbMev2lsutwpI4--09aP8Lu18s&r=hGEVsUzUB5ml8iDt6EuOdg&m=qPifY77nMpIhhn6VZvNVpuosVUrao87qy2Nwc49tgIc&s=xb_4yr6HgtES06o_cZlRWRfu9SAfJq2Jd43M_PEBkzs&e= 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_JeffersonLab_HPS-2DNOTES_blob_master_TECHNICAL_myaCharge2016_Beam-2520Charge.pdf&d=DwIBaQ&c=lz9TcOasaINaaC3U7FbMev2lsutwpI4--09aP8Lu18s&r=hGEVsUzUB5ml8iDt6EuOdg&m=qPifY77nMpIhhn6VZvNVpuosVUrao87qy2Nwc49tgIc&s=UKvubCie4cOiGi5lTvOpvZ7H2Y4gzkHb3QxsI5ZuwCM&e= 

On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 2:08 AM, Sebouh Paul <sebouh.paul at gmail.com> wrote:

> It looks like I messed up the calculation of the beam charge for 2016
> data; the values in the spreadsheet "goodQ" columns are off by a factor of
> 2/3.  I used Sho's SvtChargeIntegrator program, which takes information
> from the database and a mya dump file to calculate per-run beam charge.
> The "goodQ" takes into account (among other things) the efficiency loss
> from latency effects: in 2015 we had the wrong latency value, and didn't
> fix it until partway through the run period.  This effected 1/3 of the 2015
> data we took prior to fixing it.
>
> The reason why this affects the calculation in 2016 is that Sho's program
> takes in the latency values from the database to determine whether or not
> to scale down for latency-related efficiency loss, and the latency values
> for 2016 were not in the database when I ran the program.  Thus, the
> program assumed that all of the 2016 data was effected by the latency bug
> and thus applied a 2/3 efficiency correction to the data.
>
> I will modify the 2016 spreadsheet this week and correct this.  Stay
> tuned.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/hps/attachments/20170519/f4583cf8/attachment.html>