From: Ian Bearden (bearden@nbi.dk)
Date: Thu Jan 30 2003 - 08:06:07 EST
And one more thing... The problem with taking the detectors out is that they are most useful for (relatively) low momentum particles, which is also where there contributions to scattering will be worst. So it isn't clear to me that we win too much by taking them out (although for a long high pt run, it is maybe a good idea?)... Cheers, Ian On Thursday, January 30, 2003, at 01:59 PM, Dana Beavis wrote: > There may be an additonal thing to consider. At what angle/ field > settings > should C1 be removed. I am sure that the material causes interactions > and > multiple scattering. A new set of extension bars were made for this > years > run which allows both C1 and the multiplicity array to be moved > out/serviced > at the same time. The same thought may occur for H1. > dana > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ian Bearden" <bearden@nbi.dk> > To: <brahms-l@bnl.gov> > Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 2:34 AM > Subject: C1 > > >> I am sending this to the list to 'advertise' the usefulness of the >> elog, and so that other people who are involved in this can see what >> happened. We have had some problems with calibrating C1, but looking >> on Wed. day entry in the elog I find a nice writeup with scope >> pictures, explaining that the problems may come simply from the number >> of particles in C1. The calibration was attempted using data with the >> FFS trigger (trigger 6), but in such events there are (evidently) too >> many pions in C1. We will try to look for the 1 p.e. in min bias >> events. >> So, thanks to Ramiro for clearing this up. >> And thanks to Hiro for providing the wonderful elog. Now if we could >> just pry that paper log book out of Flemming's hands, all would be >> well:-) >> Cheers, >> Ian >> > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 30 2003 - 08:06:49 EST