From: Christopher Tunnell (tunnell@mail.utexas.edu)
Date: Fri Jan 20 2006 - 13:56:08 CST
After you caught the mistake I made in the paper, I realized it was a
compound error going all the way back to this macro. This does effect
the mix rate since I only had half the needed mineral oil events. A
potentially big problem will be that less events in the scintillator
means less average path-length, which means a flatter fit, on top of a
vertical translation in efficiency.
I was just about to e-mail Josh to ask him if I should pull my plots,
but I will leave that up to you. I am quite embarrassed that a silly
mistake lasted that long. If you want to present it still, I would say
that a mistake was caught in the study today that should make the fit
flatter, so we can treat this plot as a bound. If you want to pull the
plots, however, I completely understand.
I can also be on the phone to explain if you pass it off to me, but I
can't get you new plots due to computational limitations before the meeting.
Matthew Worcester wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> These rates were balancing your scint/acr/oil event mix, right? Does
> this effect your studies badly?
>
> Matt
>
> On Fri, 20 Jan 2006, Matthew Worcester wrote:
>
>> Modified file: RAT mac/detectorIBD.mac,v
>> head 1.2;
>>
>> Latest version 1.2
>> @Fixed generator rates
>> date 2006.01.20.19.40.07; author tunnell; state Exp;
>>
>> Sent automatically by cvslogman on Fri Jan 20 13:42:01 CST 2006
>> Reply to bw_sim@hep.uchicago.edu with problems.
>>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Wed Jan 25 2006 - 00:01:02 CST