Hi Zhongbao, I guess this confuses me even more. You are right, the eff. should not be 100% above 6GeV/c (is this really in p, or pt?) In the first approximation, I would guess that the tracking eff. is roughly constant with p, but I don't know the value for p+p or d+Au off the top of my head. I think that the eff. should be better for these systems than Au+Au, but I don't know if anyone has actually worked on it. Still, how can you have an eff. of 100% and still be lower at high pt than RD? is this due to binning, or are your spectra really very different. It would really be helpful to see a comparison on a reasonable scale. Cheers, Ian On 12/12-2003, at 11.36, yin.zhongbao@fi.uib.no wrote: > > I believe the tracking efficiency applied is wrong. It shouldn't be > 100% > efficient for p>6 GeV/c. Any idea how to correct the tracking > efficiency? > Has anybody done some estimates for d-Au and pp? Please, help me!!! > > Best regards, > Zhongbao > -------- > On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, Ian Bearden wrote: > >> HI Ramiro, Zhongbao, >> Thanks for the plots. >> I have a bit of difficulty judging the quality/consistency of these >> two >> results on the scale shown. >> Can one of you make a figure showing the ratio of the two results on a >> linear scale? Maybe it is best to compare each of them to Hijing so we >> can see where they are different. Also, how is it that the statistics >> are so different? I guess ZBY has more by more than an order of >> magnitued, can that be right?? And...why is the ZBY result so much >> nicer at low pt? Is this because ZBY uses different acceptance maps? >> (have I understood correctly that ZBY uses the "old" maps for Au+Au, >> and if they really are only based on geometry why should there be a >> difference?) >> Cheers, >> Ian >> >> On 11/12-2003, at 16.47, Ramiro Debbe wrote: >> >>> Zhongbao, >>> Here is the plot where I include your results: >>> >>> <pp12WithZhongbao.gif> >>> >>> Let me say it again, as we are working on the same spectra we should >>> compare our methods in great detail. >>> >>> Ramiro >>> >>> On Thursday, December 11, 2003, at 10:24 AM, yin.zhongbao@fi.uib.no >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, Ramiro Debbe wrote: >>>> >>>>> Sorry, I rushed to reply and forgot to be more specific. >>>>> The blue stars are hijing min bias (I'm working on a better >>>>> simulation >>>>> that includes the condition that INEL counters should be hit at >>>>> least >>>>> once on each side) >>>>> The red squares are the result of what I call version 1, and >>>>> finally >>>>> the black triangles are the latest results that I fit to the power >>>>> law. >>>>> >>>>> We are "frantically" studying our method to extract the pt >>>>> distributions, and I would be very curious to see how do you handle >>>>> the >>>>> fact that the INEL resolution for the z coordinate of the vertex is >>>>> poor (~5cm). Maybe we should have a phone conversation. >>>> >>>> I haven't thought about that. From your plots, it seems HIJING >>>> decribes >>>> our data. Then I would leave it as it is since there are many things >>>> waiting for me to work on. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> Zhongbao >>>> ----------------------------------------------------- >>>> Zhongbao YIN Phone: +47-55-582792 (O) >>>> Address: +47-55-276803 (H) >>>> Fantoftveien 14G 466 E-mail: >>>> 5075 Bergen Yin.Zhongbao@fi.uib.no >>>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Brahms-dev-l mailing list >>> Brahms-dev-l@lists.bnl.gov >>> http://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/brahms-dev-l >> >> > > -- > ----------------------------------------------------- > Zhongbao YIN Phone: +47-55-582792 (O) > Address: +47-55-276803 (H) > Fantoftveien 14G 466 E-mail: > 5075 Bergen Yin.Zhongbao@fi.uib.no > ------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ Brahms-dev-l mailing list Brahms-dev-l@lists.bnl.gov http://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/brahms-dev-lReceived on Fri Dec 12 05:57:13 2003
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Dec 12 2003 - 05:57:28 EST