Hi Claus, > > In your analysis you count the number of tracks and the number of events. > If you want to correct for the scaledown you should select events only > with the event trigger and multiply with the scaledown factor (for the > event count) and select tracks in events with the track trigger and > multiply with the corresponding scale down factor. It's quite simple. I think that what I did for a certain centrality bin. > > I still doubt the acceptance map. The map generated from BRAG is very much > > different from map generated from Claus' pure geometrical method (the > > same cut on slats of tofw is applied). And the map from BRAG for B1000 is > > also very much different from that for B1050. The map generated from BRAG > > doesn't match data at all. Then I would think it the current is wrong, I > > mean much lower than 1050 actally, then the acceptance correction might > > be larger, then the yield will be lower. > > Did you check if the TOFW panels and slat numbering in BRAG changed with > the new setup? My guess is that this is the problem (since this is what > have been changed from last run). You say that the B1000 and B1050 maps > are different. Did you make both of them using the current BRAG setup or > are you comparing the new B1050 with the old B1000? > I think Jens Ivar used old BRAG for both B1050 and B1000, while I used the newly update version of BRAG for both B1050 and B1000. Thanks for your comments. -- ----------------------------------------------------- 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-l mailing list Brahms-l@lists.bnl.gov http://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/brahms-lReceived on Mon Dec 29 08:44:30 2003
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Dec 29 2003 - 08:44:45 EST