Difference between revisions of "BCal Beam Test Plots, December 19, 2006"
From GlueXWiki
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | *cuts used: | |
| + | trig==8 Nphotons==1 Ntdctrig>=8 tveto<-100 | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| + | * (Figure 1.) ''<math>E_{beam}/E_{cal}</math>'' distribution using Monte Carlo corrected phototube calibration factors | ||
| + | [[Image:Ebeamecal.gif|thumb|400px|left|Figure 1.]] | ||
| + | <br style="clear:both;"/> | ||
| − | [[Image: | + | * (Figure 2.) Plots of Z for different beam energy cuts where : <math> z = \frac{E_{cal} - E_{beam}}{E_{beam}} </math> |
| + | Figure 2. | ||
| + | [[Image:Z 200to250.gif|thumb|100px|left|(a) 0.20 to 0.25 GeV]] | ||
| + | [[Image:Z 250to300.gif|thumb|100px|left|(b) 0.25 to 0.30 GeV]] | ||
| + | [[Image:Z 300to350.gif|thumb|100px|left|(c) 0.30 to 0.35 GeV]] | ||
| + | [[Image:Z 350to400.gif|thumb|100px|left|(d) 0.35 to 0.40 GeV]] | ||
| + | [[Image:Z 400to450.gif|thumb|100px|left|(e) 0.40 to 0.45 GeV]] | ||
| + | [[Image:Z 450to500.gif|thumb|100px|left|(f) 0.45 to 0.50 GeV]] | ||
| + | [[Image:Z 500to550.gif|thumb|100px|left|(g) 0.50 to 0.55 GeV]] | ||
| + | [[Image:Z 550to600.gif|thumb|100px|none|(h) 0.55 to 0.60 GeV]] | ||
| + | <br style="clear:both;"/> | ||
| − | |||
| − | [[Image: | + | * (Figure 3.)Means vs E_{beam} from Gaussian fits of z from Monte Carlo corrected data |
| + | [[Image:Mean vs Ebeam.gif|400px|thumb|left|Figure 3.]] | ||
| + | <br style="clear:both;"/> | ||
| − | Sigma vs E_{beam} from Gaussian fits of z from Monte Carlo corrected data. The curve is a fit to the function a/sqrt(E[Gev]) + b where and a = 0.046 +/- 0.005 and b = 0.033 +/- 0.005. This is very similar to Alex's note from December 16, 2006 where a = 0.050 and b = 0.020. | + | * (Figure 4.)Sigma vs E_{beam} from Gaussian fits of z from Monte Carlo corrected data. The curve is a fit to the function a/sqrt(E[Gev]) + b where and a = 0.046 +/- 0.005 and b = 0.033 +/- 0.005. This is very similar to Alex's note from December 16, 2006 where a = 0.050 and b = 0.020. |
| + | [[Image:Sigma vs Ebeam.gif|400px|thumb|left|Figure 4.]] | ||
| + | <br style="clear:both;"/> | ||
Latest revision as of 18:18, 20 December 2006
- cuts used:
trig==8 Nphotons==1 Ntdctrig>=8 tveto<-100
- (Figure 1.)
distribution using Monte Carlo corrected phototube calibration factors
- (Figure 2.) Plots of Z for different beam energy cuts where :
Figure 2.
- (Figure 3.)Means vs E_{beam} from Gaussian fits of z from Monte Carlo corrected data
- (Figure 4.)Sigma vs E_{beam} from Gaussian fits of z from Monte Carlo corrected data. The curve is a fit to the function a/sqrt(E[Gev]) + b where and a = 0.046 +/- 0.005 and b = 0.033 +/- 0.005. This is very similar to Alex's note from December 16, 2006 where a = 0.050 and b = 0.020.
