sPHENIX EMCal discussion

[John Haggerty <haggerty AT bnl.gov>]

Virginia,

Very nice, just a few remarks that I finally got around to writing.

- I think you should include linearity plots (or, better, deviation from 
linearity) for the memo/paper.  I plotted a few of the numbers and it 
appears very linear, but I think it should be shown.

- I'm a little confused by the hodoscope cuts, and I even thought that 
maybe these runs were taken after we moved the EMCAL and hodoscope 
behind the the table, but that does not seem to be the case.  I thought 
the beam was small in our calorimeter and hodoscope.

- The constant term seems a little disturbing to me... a 2% constant 
term in the PbGl seems high, and I know resolution fits can be pulled 
one way or another by many things, but if we show a 2% constant term in 
a one channel fully absorbing calorimeter, one could wonder whether any 
constant term we observe in the actual calorimeter is spurious.

- Also, there are earlier PbGl runs, I can send you the run numbers if 
you want to look at those too, I think they are identified in the elog; 
I saw 5 or 5% ish stochastic terms in the counting house also, but I 
haven't followed up with a parallel analysis from the DST's.

On 9/8/16 10:37 AM, Bailey, Virginia Ruth wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Attached are some slides documenting the analysis of the lead glass runs
> from the testbeam.  We used the same analysis macro used for finding the
> resolution of the calorimeter to find the PbGL resolution, both
> individually for the 1100V runs and 1200V runs and with the two sets
> combined.  Let me know if you have any questions or comments.
>
> Best,
> Virginia
>
>
> This body part will be downloaded on demand.


--
John Haggerty
email: haggerty AT bnl.gov
cell: 631 741 3358