Re: MA Calibrations update

From: Stephen J. Sanders (ssanders@ku.edu)
Date: Fri Jun 28 2002 - 11:14:34 EDT

  • Next message: Flemming Videbaek: "Re: bad runs"

    Hi Ian,
    I'd stay with the conservative answer-it helps bury the sins!
    
    More to the point, I'm not sure how to get a more precise value for X.
    We did not take sufficient min-bias data for the end of the experiment
    (where almost all of our physics data is coming from) to be able to check
    variations in the mult distributions.   The best I've come up with is the
    check on the calculated dN/dEta (0-5%, 30-40% centrality cuts)
    values to see that these remain constant, run-to-run.  I'll try to get a
    width for the run-to-run variations of these values after I get a few more
    runs replayed. (I should have a first pass of all runs done in about a day ,
    at which point I need to go back for a second pass using the corrected
    pedestal values.)
    
    
    Regards,
    Steve
    > And now, since I am not so conservative, what should X be? 0.5%?
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jun 28 2002 - 11:16:00 EDT