Chi,
I agree that the polarization angle appears to be 30 instead of 32...
But it doesn't affect the measured polarization much...
I want to make a real comparison of our results.
Let us use the same set of files. I suggest the week-long set, where
conditions
have been stable. The runs are 8912-9168. You can find the exact list of
files in
pro2004/analysis/users/genya/RUNLIST2004.ed. Some bad files (like missing
charge counts) are already removed from this list.
The total charge in the files is about 24.5 kC, so in order to project
errors to
300 kC, one just need to reduce them by factor of 3.5.
Before presenting my data, I'd like to comment on asymmetry->t20
conversion.
t20, A(q) and B(q) present the total set, and since A and B are known
very well, I
believe it is a very good approximation that the relative error in
asymmetry is equal to
relative error in t20 determination.
Asymmetry definition: a=(p-m)/(2*p+m), without any numerical factors.
Binning: since we have the best resolution in Theta (e), I suggest to
bin Theta(e).
Let's compare 2 points:
1) Theta(e)=29.5-35.2 degrees.
2) Theta(e)=35.2-42.0 degrees.
I believe, these points correspond to the 2-nd and 3-rd points on your
first picture (before
you increased number of bins) with average q=2.28 f-1 and q=2.66 f-1
respectively.
For the first point I have total number of events in both systems
Ntot=4555.
a(Right)=-8.7+-1.7 %; a(left)=14.7+-1.2; a(averaged)=12.7+-.98%
da/a=7.7%,
projected to 300 kC da/a=7.7/3.5=2.2 %.
For the second point I have total number of events in both systems
Ntot=1132.
a(Right)=-19.8+-3.4 %; a(left)=23.0+-2.3; a(averaged)=22.0+-1.9%
da/a=8.6%,
projected to 300 kC da/a=8.6/3.5=2.5 %.
Could you do the same with your analysis?
Genya
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Mon Feb 24 2014 - 14:07:31 EST