Anonymous | Login | Signup for a new account | 2025-05-14 07:17 EDT | ![]() |
My View | View Issues | Change Log | Roadmap |
View Issue Details [ Jump to Notes ] | [ Issue History ] [ Print ] | ||||||||||||
ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update | ||||||||
0000381 | Hall D Offline | General | public | 2013-09-13 13:50 | 2013-09-13 13:50 | ||||||||
Reporter | wilevine | ||||||||||||
Assigned To | |||||||||||||
Priority | normal | Severity | minor | Reproducibility | have not tried | ||||||||
Status | new | Resolution | open | ||||||||||
Platform | OS | OS Version | |||||||||||
Summary | 0000381: mcsmear BCAL: verify BCAL_mevPerPE value | ||||||||||||
Description | Elton thinks the value of BCAL_mevPerPE is off by a factor of 2: "We looked at the code in smear_bcal.cc and find the following statement at line 398: BCAL_mevPerPE = 1.0/( BCAL_PHOTONSPERSIDEPERMEV_INFIBER * BCAL_DEVICEPDE * BCAL_SAMPLING_FRACT ); = 1/(75x 0.21 x 0.095) = 0.67 [As an side, I think this number lacks a factor of 2 reduction in p.e. due to light guide collection, which would bring the factor up to 1.3 MeV/p.e. Is this factor missing?]" | ||||||||||||
Tags | No tags attached. | ||||||||||||
Attached Files | |||||||||||||
![]() |
|||
Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
2013-09-13 13:50 | wilevine | New Issue |
Copyright © 2000 - 2025 MantisBT Team |