I want to point out this old post of mine from Feb 15th, 2012 Bigcal-Cherenkov Efficiency
Hovannes was saying that the problem was with the gas cherenkov mirrors, which I show is not correct. I try to understand the apparent inefficiency problem by analyzing the timing between the two sections before and after a fix to the trigger pulses. I suggest a couple of scenarios which may explain what was seen. One possibility being that lower energies time-walk to a better trigger for Protvino.
The conclusion: the problem is not the Cherenkov; BigCal needs to be better understood.
The problem reappears to be an energy reconstruction problem.
Introduction a factor of 5 to the protvino energy correction, the asymmetries look much better (708) compared to the previous ones (608).
The simulation is saying the energy correction should be small. The data suggests it should be similar to RCS. What is causing the simulation to under estimate - or - what effect is not included in the simulation?
![]() | Name | Last modified | Size | Description |
---|---|---|---|---|
![]() | Parent Directory | - | ||
![]() | j_vs_i_para59_72925.png | 2015-01-09 17:56 | 22K | |
![]() | combined-split_asym_..> | 2015-01-09 17:56 | 30K | |
![]() | combined-split_asym_..> | 2015-01-09 17:56 | 31K | |
![]() | phi_vs_theta_para59_..> | 2015-01-09 17:56 | 34K | |
![]() | Y_vs_X_para59_72925.png | 2015-01-09 17:56 | 35K | |
![]() | Y_vs_RawEnergy_para5..> | 2015-01-09 17:56 | 35K | |
![]() | Y_vs_Energy_para59_7..> | 2015-01-09 17:56 | 37K | |
![]() | combined-split_asym_..> | 2015-01-09 17:56 | 39K | |
![]() | Y_vs_4Factor_Energy_..> | 2015-01-09 17:56 | 41K | |
![]() | combined-split_asym_..> | 2015-01-09 17:56 | 41K | |
![]() | Y_vs_5Factor_Energy_..> | 2015-01-09 17:56 | 42K | |
![]() | NNParaGammaEXYCorrec..> | 2015-01-09 17:56 | 123K | |