s1249_2011_data_analysis
をテンプレートにして作成
[
トップ
] [
新規
|
一覧
|
単語検索
|
最終更新
|
ヘルプ
|
ログイン
]
開始行:
* z-t plots [#f6c9b74c]
-- &ref(./ztplots.pptx);
* Run-by-run dependence of MCP adc (Oct 26, 2011, Mibe) [#w7f4fe0a]
- Figure 5.1 ( 27mg/cm3, p=22.7 MeV/c, slit = 20mm)
-- &ref(./trendmcpadc_t027_p229_sl20.png, left, 50%);
- Figure 5.2 ( 100mg/cm3, p=23.1 MeV/c, slit = 40mm)
-- &ref(./trendmcpadc_t100_p231_sl40.png, 50%);
* Run-by-run dependence (Oct 26, 2011, Mibe) [#la26f786]
- Following discussion with Iwasaki-san and Art, I investigated stability of number of DC tracks in
vacuum regions after subtracting background using the entries in the target region. I divided data with 0.027g/cm3 p=22.9 MeV into 5 periods (aprox. 20 runs each) as follows:
|period | run_start | run_end |
|1 |1772 |1791 |
|2 |1792 |1811 |
|3 |1812 |1831 |
|4 |1832 |1851 |
|5 |1852 |1860 |
- I plotted number of excess events after subtraction of background assuming the scaling factor of the
target-region events is a constant over the run period. This is shown in attachment 1. Overall, it is
consistent with a constant although statistical uncertainties are rather large to see any systematic
effect if they are smaller than 10-20 % level.
- Next, I plotted a ration of number of MCP events in coincidence with DC track divided by number of
DC track in each region. This ratio is a matching fraction to find a MCP hit for a given DC track. The
results are shown in attachment 2. Systematic drop as a function of time is seen for the target region
and region 1, while region 2 and region 3 are rather stable which is consistent with Art's analysis
posted before.
-- Figure 3.1 ( 27mg/cm3, p=22.7 MeV/c, slit = 20mm)
--- &ref(trend_t027_p229_sl20.png, abc, 50%);
-- Figure 3.2 ( 100mg/cm3, p=23.1 MeV/c, slit = 40mm)
--- &ref(./trend_t100_p231_sl40.png, 50%);
- Figure 4.1 ( 27mg/cm3, p=22.7 MeV/c, slit = 20mm, period 0)
-- &ref(./tdist_t027_p229_sl20_0.png, 50%);
- Figure 4.2 ( 27mg/cm3, p=22.7 MeV/c, slit = 20mm, period 1)
-- &ref(./tdist_t027_p229_sl20_1.png, 50%);
- Figure 4.3 ( 27mg/cm3, p=22.7 MeV/c, slit = 20mm, period 2)
-- &ref(./tdist_t027_p229_sl20_2.png, 50%);
- Figure 4.4 ( 27mg/cm3, p=22.7 MeV/c, slit = 20mm, period 3)
-- &ref(./tdist_t027_p229_sl20_3.png, 50%);
- Figure 4.5 ( 27mg/cm3, p=22.7 MeV/c, slit = 20mm, period 4)
-- &ref(./tdist_t027_p229_sl20_4.png, 50%);
* More data with 0.1g/cm3 target (Oct 24, 2011, Mibe) [#j8df24dc]
- Figure 2.1 ( positron time distributions, p=23.1MeV/c, sl4p=40mm)
-- &ref(./tdist_t100_p231_sl40.png, 50%);
- Figure 2.2 ( positron time distributions, p=23.1MeV/c, sl4p=20mm)
-- &ref(./tdist_t100_p231_sl20.png, 50%);
- Figure 2.3 ( positron time distributions, p=22.98MeV/c (-0.5%), sl4p=20mm)
-- &ref(./tdist_t100_p2298_sl20.png, 50%);
- Figure 2.4 ( positron time distributions, p=22.77MeV/c (-1.0%), sl4p=20mm)
-- &ref(./tdist_t100_p2277_sl20.png, 50%);
- Figure 2.5 ( positron time distributions, p=23.0MeV/c (self-tuned), sl4p=20mm)
-- &ref(./tdist_t100_p23.0_sl20.png, 50%);
* Comparison with 2010 data (Oct 23, 2011, Mibe) [#u86569ab]
- see s1249 elog xxxx for detail discussion.
- Attachment 0 ( positron time distributions, 2010, density = 30mg/cm^3, p=22.7MeV/c, sl4p=20mm)
-- &ref(./2010data.png, 70%);
-Attachment 1 ( positron time distributions, 2011, density = 100mg/cm^3, p=23.0MeV/c, sl4p=20mm )
-- &ref(./tdist230sl20.png,70%);
-Attachment 2 ( positron time distribution after subtracting scaled target distribution )
-- &ref(./dtdist230sl20.png,70%);
-Attachment 3 ( z-intercept distribution (top) 2011 and (bottom) 2010
-- &ref(./zvtxcomparison.png,70%);
終了行:
* z-t plots [#f6c9b74c]
-- &ref(./ztplots.pptx);
* Run-by-run dependence of MCP adc (Oct 26, 2011, Mibe) [#w7f4fe0a]
- Figure 5.1 ( 27mg/cm3, p=22.7 MeV/c, slit = 20mm)
-- &ref(./trendmcpadc_t027_p229_sl20.png, left, 50%);
- Figure 5.2 ( 100mg/cm3, p=23.1 MeV/c, slit = 40mm)
-- &ref(./trendmcpadc_t100_p231_sl40.png, 50%);
* Run-by-run dependence (Oct 26, 2011, Mibe) [#la26f786]
- Following discussion with Iwasaki-san and Art, I investigated stability of number of DC tracks in
vacuum regions after subtracting background using the entries in the target region. I divided data with 0.027g/cm3 p=22.9 MeV into 5 periods (aprox. 20 runs each) as follows:
|period | run_start | run_end |
|1 |1772 |1791 |
|2 |1792 |1811 |
|3 |1812 |1831 |
|4 |1832 |1851 |
|5 |1852 |1860 |
- I plotted number of excess events after subtraction of background assuming the scaling factor of the
target-region events is a constant over the run period. This is shown in attachment 1. Overall, it is
consistent with a constant although statistical uncertainties are rather large to see any systematic
effect if they are smaller than 10-20 % level.
- Next, I plotted a ration of number of MCP events in coincidence with DC track divided by number of
DC track in each region. This ratio is a matching fraction to find a MCP hit for a given DC track. The
results are shown in attachment 2. Systematic drop as a function of time is seen for the target region
and region 1, while region 2 and region 3 are rather stable which is consistent with Art's analysis
posted before.
-- Figure 3.1 ( 27mg/cm3, p=22.7 MeV/c, slit = 20mm)
--- &ref(trend_t027_p229_sl20.png, abc, 50%);
-- Figure 3.2 ( 100mg/cm3, p=23.1 MeV/c, slit = 40mm)
--- &ref(./trend_t100_p231_sl40.png, 50%);
- Figure 4.1 ( 27mg/cm3, p=22.7 MeV/c, slit = 20mm, period 0)
-- &ref(./tdist_t027_p229_sl20_0.png, 50%);
- Figure 4.2 ( 27mg/cm3, p=22.7 MeV/c, slit = 20mm, period 1)
-- &ref(./tdist_t027_p229_sl20_1.png, 50%);
- Figure 4.3 ( 27mg/cm3, p=22.7 MeV/c, slit = 20mm, period 2)
-- &ref(./tdist_t027_p229_sl20_2.png, 50%);
- Figure 4.4 ( 27mg/cm3, p=22.7 MeV/c, slit = 20mm, period 3)
-- &ref(./tdist_t027_p229_sl20_3.png, 50%);
- Figure 4.5 ( 27mg/cm3, p=22.7 MeV/c, slit = 20mm, period 4)
-- &ref(./tdist_t027_p229_sl20_4.png, 50%);
* More data with 0.1g/cm3 target (Oct 24, 2011, Mibe) [#j8df24dc]
- Figure 2.1 ( positron time distributions, p=23.1MeV/c, sl4p=40mm)
-- &ref(./tdist_t100_p231_sl40.png, 50%);
- Figure 2.2 ( positron time distributions, p=23.1MeV/c, sl4p=20mm)
-- &ref(./tdist_t100_p231_sl20.png, 50%);
- Figure 2.3 ( positron time distributions, p=22.98MeV/c (-0.5%), sl4p=20mm)
-- &ref(./tdist_t100_p2298_sl20.png, 50%);
- Figure 2.4 ( positron time distributions, p=22.77MeV/c (-1.0%), sl4p=20mm)
-- &ref(./tdist_t100_p2277_sl20.png, 50%);
- Figure 2.5 ( positron time distributions, p=23.0MeV/c (self-tuned), sl4p=20mm)
-- &ref(./tdist_t100_p23.0_sl20.png, 50%);
* Comparison with 2010 data (Oct 23, 2011, Mibe) [#u86569ab]
- see s1249 elog xxxx for detail discussion.
- Attachment 0 ( positron time distributions, 2010, density = 30mg/cm^3, p=22.7MeV/c, sl4p=20mm)
-- &ref(./2010data.png, 70%);
-Attachment 1 ( positron time distributions, 2011, density = 100mg/cm^3, p=23.0MeV/c, sl4p=20mm )
-- &ref(./tdist230sl20.png,70%);
-Attachment 2 ( positron time distribution after subtracting scaled target distribution )
-- &ref(./dtdist230sl20.png,70%);
-Attachment 3 ( z-intercept distribution (top) 2011 and (bottom) 2010
-- &ref(./zvtxcomparison.png,70%);
ページ名: