Re: my fit suggestion

[Steven Clayton <smclayto@npl.uiuc.edu>]

Fred,

are you using Prod-50 data only and excluding the suspect run ranges
suggested by Tom a few weeks ago?  I believe what I've shown is for
all clean mu- data.  I will repeat the fits for the Prod-50 subset.

Steven

On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 03:22:25PM -0500, David W. Hertzog wrote:
> Fred,
> 	These are quite interesting ... and, yes, flat for mu-.  The
> difference between you and Steve is rather stunning for the sum.  I also
> checked a bunch of individual scans -- same conclusion.  Back at the
> meeting, we discussed an "event by event" comparison.  We could cook up
> something -- anything -- to test the two processing algorithms.  They
> should be different for known reasons but not for unknown reasons.
> 
> 	Dave
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frederick Gray [mailto:fegray@berkeley.edu] 
> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 1:22 PM
> To: David W. Hertzog
> Cc: smclayto@uiuc.edu; kammel@npl.uiuc.edu
> Subject: Re: my fit suggestion
> 
> > 	Since you are an expert, I cc:'d you on this too in case
> > Berkeley might find it of interest.  The start time (and stop time)
> > scans are rather important.
> 
> Hi, Dave et al.,
> 
> I have posted my time scan fits of the Berkeley dataset.  Please see
>   http://kaon.physics.berkeley.edu/~fegray/mucap/comm-2005-08-18/
> In general, I would say that our mu- fits look significantly more stable
> than 
> the ones that Steve showed on Tuesday, especially for the sum of all
> detectors.
> The mu+ fits are not yet as stable as the mu-, although they are
> improved 
> somewhat by a central TPC cut.
> 
> > This is really interesting !!
> 
> I agree!  We are truly blessed with nice data and fascinating problems.
> :-)
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -- Fred
> 
> -- Fred Gray / Visiting Postdoctoral Researcher                 --
> -- Department of Physics / University of California, Berkeley   --
> -- fegray@berkeley.edu / phone 510-642-2438 / fax 510-642-9811  --