New Work B

This page will focus on work using runs from day 63 (506310[456]).

____________

Nov 1, 2007

Offset of central membrane from zero (a T0 offset for the laser) only very slighty different from day 22. Was 6.45, now 6.54.

  root4star -b -q -l 'filterLaser.C+("st_laser_5063104*")'

...and 5 and 6.

  root4star -l -q 'findLasers07.C("../NoCorr/5063106/","NominalB")' > & log.nominalB &

  root4star -l -q 'findLasers07.C("../NoCorr/5063104/","NominalC")' > & log.nominalC &

Not sure I need to remove any lasers from either. They match each other pretty well, but not perfectly. We'll see...

  root -l -q 'plots07.C+("NominalB_good.dat",20106,20105,20104,0.5,"./%05d/")' > & log.20105 &

  root -l -q 'plots07.C+("NominalC_good.dat",30106,30105,30106,0.5,"./%05d/")' > & log.30105 &

Looks like a cut of 0.5 may be too severe. I'm losing some of the data at z=15.

Anyhow, if I plot (r-c) from 20105 and fit the peak, I get a sigma of 0.0035 (that's 35 microns). So a reasonable cut on abs(r-c) < 0.01 is essentially a 3 sigma cut and should be useful in selecting good reference points (r+c)/2. Also, the same cuts on hit errors from the work for the GG runs on day 22 using errors < 0.005 seems reasonable to reuse.

  root -l -q 'plots07.C+("NominalB_good.dat",20106,21105,20104,1.0,"./%05d/")' > & log.21105 &

  root -l -q 'plots07.C+("NominalC_good.dat",30106,31105,30106,1.0,"./%05d/")' > & log.31105 &

Turns out that the 1.0 cut doesn't do much to help the z=15 laser, but it does help remove a little bit of the noise, and is actually necessary to capture the distortion seen at small z, small r where the distortion is more than 0.5 cm! 

  root -l -q '../DrawDiff.C("../Hists_21105.root","../../NominalC_good.dat")'

  root -l -q '../DrawDiff.C("../Hists_31105.root","../../NominalC_good.dat")'

There are still outlier hits, but it's not clear to me they are worth worrying about because I use a chi<5 cut when doing the final fits. That chi is the square of (map - (distortion-ref)) / error, where the error is calculated from the errors stored in the ntuples in combination with an "adderr" which I invent to get reasonable probabilities. Note that the chi cut is that if the hit ever has a chi less than 5 for any of the omegatau values, then it is used for omegatua values except for the individual times when it is larger than 100.

I need adderr of 0.0152 to get a good probability for the day 63 data.

_____

Preliminary RESULT:

The day 63 data seems to prefer a value of 3.11 for omegatau. This seems incompatible with the day 22 data. Hmmm...

If I combine the four day 22 probabilities with the one from day 63, I get 2.85 as the most probable omegatau value, but the probability is really, really low (10^-17).

So now I'm wondering about the z-dependence of the global fits. Have I got something hidden there? I'll explore it on the Z-dependence page...

......

Back from the Z-dependence which is now solved! Yay!

New preliminary result:

omegatau = 2.77

This is still notably higher than the 2.38 value from day 22 data.

Using all 5 values together gives a probability in the 10^-19 ballpark for a value of omegatau = 2.64.

So now I'm left with the daty 22 vs. day 63 difference. Sigh....

____

Nov 2, 2007

I'm now exploring the other dependences of the omegatau fits, which I've put on the R-dependence page and Sector-dependence page.