Weird... that email sent itself... I had one more comment:
The trigger 1 events are now outnumbering trigger 2 by a factor of 4.
wondering what happened....???
-eugene
----- Forwarded message from "Eugene J. Geis" <egeis@imap2.asu.edu> -----
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 12:34:33 -0700 (MST)
From: "Eugene J. Geis" <egeis@imap2.asu.edu>
Reply-To: "Eugene J. Geis" <egeis@imap2.asu.edu>
Subject: ANALDIR
To: "[BLAST_ANAWARE]" <Blast_anaware@ROCKO.LNS.mit.edu>
Need to know:
Were Trigger 2 events filtered in the lr-files in the directory:
/net/data/9/Analysis/data
to prevent particles in the neutral particle sector from having tracks?
The Veto on raw hits in the WC used to cut out more than 95% of the
trigger 2 events and now when I analyze trigger 2 events, and then use
a charge veto, I'm only cutting out approximately 20%... This doesn't
seem right because I could've swore that there were much more events
in the trigger 2 yield.
For run 11251: lr-11251.root
root [1] lr->Draw("qwl","qwl==-1&&trig==2")
(Int_t)2588
root [2] lr->Draw("qwl","qwl==-1&&trig==2&&hwr<13")
(Int_t)2093
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eugene Geis
PhD Student, Physics Department, ASU
Research Affiliate, MIT-Bates Laboratory of Nuclear Science
eugene.geis@asu.edu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://quickreaction.blogspot.com
----- End forwarded message -----
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eugene Geis
PhD Student, Physics Department, ASU
Research Affiliate, MIT-Bates Laboratory of Nuclear Science
eugene.geis@asu.edu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://quickreaction.blogspot.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Mon Feb 24 2014 - 14:07:33 EST