I just want to stress the point that because of reconstruction, low
statistics and especially binning, a reconstructed Monte Carlo data file
might not look at all as the theory plot is uses...
I only wanted to show people that even a reconstructed Monte Carlo can
look funnny due to the reasons mentioned above (the 45 degree case should
be close to the theory curve as the statistics were 10 times higher).
So I guess the conclusion should be we need a lot more statistics and
careful binning for real data (besides doubechecking everything else for
errors) before concluding anything...
Adrian
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Adrian T Sindile wrote:
> Hi!
> It was thought that the target holding field angle is 37 degrees, not 45,
> as people initially thought (Karen doublechecked) so I quickly did some
> simulations for the new angle value.
> Plots for 45, 22.5 and 37 degrees can be seen for comparison at:
>
> http://einstein.unh.edu/~adrian/asym/MonteCarlo/
>
> For 45 degrees I had a total of 200K events, for 22.5 and 37 degrees I had
> 20K events each case (so the statistics might not be that good but the
> same is true for real data).
> Anyway, I think the 37 degree case starts to look more like real data (I
> will soon send a real data plot for comparison - I also kept the same
> number of bins for MC!).
>
> Adrian
>
> -------------------------------
> Adrian Sindile
> Research Assistant
> Nuclear Physics Group
> University of New Hampshire
> phone: (603)862-1691
> FAX: (603)862-2998
> email: asindile@alberti.unh.edu
> http://einstein.unh.edu/~adrian/
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Mon Feb 24 2014 - 14:07:29 EST