Hi, Claus, > these (28%) missing events? How do we evaluate the Ntr in the > missed events. If we just calculate the yields by dividing > Nev by the trigger efficiency (i.e. multiply the spectrum by > 0.72) we somehow assume that the missing events don't have > any tracks. Is that fair? Yes, it's fair. This shouldn't be an issue since the spec. triggers include inelastic trigger(trigger5). If you are interested in trigger bias from including INEL in spec triggers, see the attached message. JH ----------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "J.H. Lee" <jhlee@bnl.gov> To: "Flemming Videbaek" <videbaek@bnl.gov> Cc: "Chellis Chasman" <chasman@bnl.gov>; <beavis@bnl.gov>; <debbe@bnl.gov> Sent: Friday, May 02, 2003 5:41 PM Subject: Trigger3 with and without INEL > Hi, Flemming, > > I've looked at the special run you took today, run 8767, > with trigger3 = Hodo+R.C. I compared the BB vertex distribution for > trigger3 in the run with the one from run 8768 taken right after the > run with the normal spec trigger condition (trigger3 = Hodo + INEL). I > normalized the two distributions with the number of accumulated > ZDC(Y+B) counts in the scaler. I assumed dead time is similar for the > two runs. It looks like there seems to be no obvious bias from INEL > in Trigger3 by looking at the distributions. The INEL in the spec trigger > simply cut out tracks outside of the range. Looks pretty good to me. > > JH > _______________________________________________ Brahms-l mailing list Brahms-l@lists.bnl.gov http://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/brahms-lReceived on Wed Feb 11 17:30:16 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Feb 11 2004 - 17:30:35 EST