[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Addendum to my 8/22/06 results
- To: Claude Petitjean <claude.petitjean@psi.ch>, Steven Clayton <smclayto@uiuc.edu>, Fred Gray <fegray@socrates.berkeley.edu>, Tim Gorringe <gorringe@pa.uky.edu>, David Hertzog <hertzog@uiuc.edu>, Peter Kammel <kammel@npl.uiuc.edu>, Malte Hildebrandt <malte.hildebrandt@psi.ch>, Rene Prieels <R.Prieels@fynu.ucl.ac.be>, Francoise Mulhauser <Francoise.Mulhauser@psi.ch>, Bernhard Lauss <lauss@berkeley.edu>, Brendan Kiburg <kiburg@npl.uiuc.edu>, Peter Winter <peter.winter@psi.ch>
- Subject: Addendum to my 8/22/06 results
- From: Tom Banks <tbanks@socrates.berkeley.edu>
- Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 17:29:06 -0700 (PDT)
- In-reply-to: <Pine.SOL.4.56.0608180955210.16740@socrates.Berkeley.EDU>
- References: <Pine.SOL.4.56.0510171101290.10438@socrates.Berkeley.EDU><43C59BF1.70802@npl.uiuc.edu> <43C7FE61.3030209@npl.uiuc.edu><Pine.SOL.4.56.0608171134500.10980@socrates.Berkeley.EDU> <44E5C882.3060805@psi.ch><Pine.SOL.4.56.0608180955210.16740@socrates.Berkeley.EDU>
Dear all,
in yesterday's teleconference it was requested that I fit the data from
the two questionable muSC run periods alone--rather than simply fitting
files where they were excluded--in order to better identify any
potentially dangerous characteristics therein. I have performed these
fits, and the results are posted in an addendum at the bottom of this
week's worklog page
http://weak0.physics.berkeley.edu/weakint/research/muons/private/tbanks_dir/TeleConf/2006Aug22/2006Aug22.html
(The addendum text is in red.) As far as I can see, the fitted rates for
period 1 and 2 are reasonable--there aren't any wild results. So, I think
it should be OK to include the data from these two periods.
Comments are welcomed,
Tom