Difference between revisions of "Elong-13-09-24"
From HallCWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center; border-collapse:collapse;" border="1" | {| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center; border-collapse:collapse;" border="1" | ||
| − | ! colspan="3" | | + | ! colspan="3" | $A_{zz}$ !! !! colspan="3" | $b_1$ |
|- | |- | ||
| colspan="3" | [[Image:2013-09-25-Azz.png|500px]] || || colspan="3" | [[Image:2013-09-25-b1-final.png|500px]] | | colspan="3" | [[Image:2013-09-25-Azz.png|500px]] || || colspan="3" | [[Image:2013-09-25-b1-final.png|500px]] | ||
|- | |- | ||
| − | | style="width: 50px;" | | + | | style="width: 50px;" | $<x>$ || style="width: 150px;" |$dA_{zz}^{stat} (\times 10^{-3})$ || style="width: 150px;" | $dA_{zz}^{sys} (\times 10^{-3})$ || style="width: 5px;" | || style="width: 50px;" |$<x>$ || style="width: 150px;" | $dA_{zz}^{stat} (\times 10^{-3})$ || style="width: 150px;" | $dA_{zz}^{sys} (\times 10^{-3})$ |
|- | |- | ||
| 0.8 || 4.85 || 5.26 || || 0.16 || 1.42 || 1.90 | | 0.8 || 4.85 || 5.26 || || 0.16 || 1.42 || 1.90 | ||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
|} | |} | ||
| − | It's easiest to compare it to the lowest x point for b1, since that's where the rates are the closest. The b1 measurement has twice the x range, and also | + | It's easiest to compare it to the lowest x point for b1, since that's where the rates are the closest. The b1 measurement has twice the x range and a second spectrometer setting that overlaps with it, and also a little less than half of the statistics, and both are run on a similar time frame so I think that the uncertainties for Azz make sense. |
--[[User:Ellie|E. Long]] 17:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC) | --[[User:Ellie|E. Long]] 17:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 13:54, 18 October 2023
Comparing dAzz between x<0.75 and x>0.75
Looking at the newest Azz rates plot, that we can get those statistics from a week-long measurement almost seems too good to be true. As a check, I've compared it a bit more closely to what we did for the b1 proposal.
| $A_{zz}$ | $b_1$ | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
| |||||
| $<x>$ | $dA_{zz}^{stat} (\times 10^{-3})$ | $dA_{zz}^{sys} (\times 10^{-3})$ | $<x>$ | $dA_{zz}^{stat} (\times 10^{-3})$ | $dA_{zz}^{sys} (\times 10^{-3})$ | |
| 0.8 | 4.85 | 5.26 | 0.16 | 1.42 | 1.90 | |
| 0.9 | 3.56 | 12.0 | 0.28 | 2.07 | 1.98 | |
| 1.0 | 3.28 | 0.249 | 0.36 | 2.28 | 1.95 | |
| 1.1 | 3.55 | 30.7 | 0.49 | 2.14 | 1.96 | |
| 1.2 | 5.15 | 66.7 | ||||
| 1.3 | 6.29 | 92.4 | ||||
| 1.4 | 9.15 | 99.8 | ||||
| 1.5 | 11.7 | 100. | ||||
| 1.6 | 9.26 | 100. | ||||
| 1.7 | 7.98 | 100. | ||||
| 1.8 | 9.79 | 100. | ||||
It's easiest to compare it to the lowest x point for b1, since that's where the rates are the closest. The b1 measurement has twice the x range and a second spectrometer setting that overlaps with it, and also a little less than half of the statistics, and both are run on a similar time frame so I think that the uncertainties for Azz make sense.
--E. Long 17:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
