While we are at it, the following are the empty target runs I am
currently using for 2005 data.
Any objections and/or additions are welcome:
14590-14593 14595-14601 14535-14539 14541-14545 14640-14644
14646-14649 14748-14753 14923-14924 14926-14931 15375-15381 15560-15567
15569-15574 15576-15582 15584-15591 15593-15594 15753 15755-15757
15759-15760
This is around 36kC.
n
Chi Zhang wrote:
>
>On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Nikolas Meitanis wrote:
>
>
>
>>For those who are "investing" time in analysis:
>>I have looked at yields for (e,e') and have found some runs that show a
>>discrepancy with their surrounding runs:
>>
>>16092-16096: this seems to be one of those "nozzle-freeze" sequences.
>>The rate for 16093 is obscenely low but it recovers
>> somewhat for the next three. I am not sure why.
>>
>>Low yields: 16204, 16250, 15374, 15417
>>High yields: 15172, 15361
>>
>>
>
>16093 seems to be a short run with only about 10C on each states, I don't
>see too low elastic rates on the other 4 runs but ed statistics is not
>good on run by run bases so the fluctuation is big. I vote for excluding
>these runs anyway.
>
>in reply to the more recent message from Nick,
>
>I now see 15050 and it looks good. I don't know what happened, but I vote
>for including 15050 now.
>
>my list of high BQM runs overlap with well but I
>
> bqmt 14473 14529 15515 15641 15711 16148 16164
> bqml 14488 14556 14570 14729 14968 15626 16022
> bqmb 14528 14530 14691 14946 15606 15833 15898
> bqmr 14554 14781 14825 15080 15182 15742 16095
>scalr 14500 14614 14711 15091 15518 15874 16004
>
>extras from Nick: 14878 14909 14978 15678 15747
>
>again, for whats-worth-it. :)
>
>Chi
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Mon Feb 24 2014 - 14:07:32 EST