<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 7:28 PM, Zhiwen Zhao <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:zwzhao@jlab.org" target="_blank">zwzhao@jlab.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div id=":b1" class="a3s" style="overflow:hidden">I am not sure<br>
Besides the width, position in Phi also matters<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes. It has a similar kinked line shape, with the kinks at the same radii as for the width, though the change in slope is smaller.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div id=":b1" class="a3s" style="overflow:hidden">
Does anyone want to pick up the work I left for the "5555" baffle since<br>
end of 2013?<br>
I think it could lead to a better baffle with similar style to the<br>
current one.</div></blockquote></div><br>I might be able to take a look. Reviewing my slides from 19 Nov 2013 I recall the photon backgrounds were much higher than for more1. But I don't think I ever followed up to see what their spectrum and radial distribution were. As I understand it you started with 96% of phi turning distribution for the phase space of interest then widened by 5°. Apparently the same 96%/5° criteria for all kinematics. Correct? <br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature">- Richard S. Holmes<br> Physics Department<br> Syracuse University<br> Syracuse, NY 13244<br> 315-443-5977<br></div>
</div></div>