From: Jonathan Link (link@fnal.gov)
Date: Thu Jun 30 2005 - 13:45:43 CDT
Bolton, Tim wrote:
>I still find the introduction of the idea of a "7% dead-time" in the response to #1 somewhat troubling. It's not an unrecoverable dead time; it is an offline detection efficiency. The first sentence of the second paragraph could be dropped.
>
>
>
After reading Tim's comments I took a look at the sentence in question.
I believe that this is a useful discussion. There are a few points that
could be adjusted. First the lifetime is 178 ms not 175. Second I
think that we can remove the parenthetical comment. It does not add
anything useful. Finally I think that we need some mention that this is
a simple minded approach to the problem and not a proposed analysis
technique. Perhaps we could replace the first sentence with something like
"Based on studies of KamLAND data and simulations of muon showers in our
detector we estimate that 72% of all 9Li produced could be tagged by
selecting events that occur within 500 ms of a muon that deposits more
that 1.5 GeV in the detector volume. This simple approach would result
in an effective dead time of only 7%, but it is likely that more complex
tagging schemes would result in less dead time, higher tagging
efficiency or both."
-Jon
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Fri Jul 01 2005 - 03:10:18 CDT