[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: fits with full kinetics function
- To: Peter Kammel <kammel@npl.uiuc.edu>
- Subject: Re: fits with full kinetics function
- From: Steven Clayton <smclayto@npl.uiuc.edu>
- Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 00:48:36 -0500
- In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0610042317390.16650-100000@zero.npl.uiuc.edu>
- References: <20061005035433.GA11170@npl.uiuc.edu> <Pine.LNX.4.21.0610042317390.16650-100000@zero.npl.uiuc.edu>
- User-agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
Dear Peter,
The parameters I used for the fit vs. l_op are:
l_pf = 0.0074 MHz
l_of = 1.80 MHz
phi = 0.0116
For the fit vs. l_pf study, the other parameters are:
l_pf = 0.0074 MHz
l_op = 0.08 MHz
phi = 0.0116
It's no problem to rerun with different settings if that
makes connection with your studies simpler.
see you tomorrow,
Steven
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 11:21:08PM -0500, Peter Kammel wrote:
> Thanks Steve,
>
> Of course, I meant l_pp = l_of.
>
> I think, that's good enough consistency for now. I also
> did not understand where the l_op curve is starting at
> l_op=0, what l_of did you use?
>
> Good night
>
> Peter
>
>
> On Wed, 4 Oct 2006, Steven Clayton wrote:
>
> > You mean lambda_of, right?
> > I had a factor of 2 mistake in the x-axis scaling. Also, the
> > parameter for lambda_op below should be this (in 1/ns)
> > func->FixParameter(TLifetimeFit::kParKin_lambda_op, 0.08e-3);
> > not 0.08e-6 as I had before. The corrected files are attached.
> > It looks like about 22 Hz for l_of 0->2.3, and I used a density
> > of 0.0116. (I'm not sure why the fit doesn't give exactly 664 Hz
> > for l_of = 0...maybe because I didn't set lambda_pf to 0.)
> >
> > Sorry for the mistake earlier. Now the code takes the parameter
> > value from the x-axis of the results histogram, not scaled by
> > hand as before.
> >
> > Steven
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 09:15:41PM -0500, Peter Kammel wrote:
> > > Dear Steve,
> > >
> > > You get a 66 Hz change for l_op 0->2.3, I get only 40ppm*0.45=19 Hz.
> > > That is a major discrepancy. Did you account for the fact that
> > > the effective l_op has to be multiplied by the 0.01 density
> > > relative to LH2 (l_op=2.3 for LH2).
> > >
> > > Best regards
> > >
> > > Peter
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, 4 Oct 2006, Steven Clayton wrote:
> > >
> > > > ROOT files are attached. To save as a GIF, EPS or whatever,
> > > > start a ROOT session and do this:
> > > > root [0] TFile f("LifetimeStudyFullKin_vs_lambda_op.root")
> > > > root [1] LifetimeStudyFullKin->Draw()
> > > > (save via the file menu of the canvas)
> > > > and similarly for the other file, LifetimeStudyFullKin_vs_lambda_of.root.
> > > >
> > > > The fixed parameters are:
> > > > // All rates specified should be in 1/ns.
> > > > // Result histograms are scaled to give 1/s.
> > > > // lambda0 = lambda_fit - 664e-9 1/ns
> > > > // Lambda_s = 664e-9 1/ns
> > > > // where lambda_fit is from the 3-parameter fit.
> > > > func->FixParameter(TLifetimeFit::kParKin_lambda0, ltfit->GetR());
> > > > func->FixParameter(TLifetimeFit::kParKin_Lambda_t, 12.0e-9);
> > > > func->FixParameter(TLifetimeFit::kParKin_gamma_o, 1.009/2.);
> > > > func->FixParameter(TLifetimeFit::kParKin_gamma_p, 1.143/2.);
> > > > func->FixParameter(TLifetimeFit::kParKin_phi, 0.0116);
> > > > func->FixParameter(TLifetimeFit::kParKin_lambda_pf, 0.0074e-3);
> > > > if(fVaryLambdaOP) {
> > > > func->FixParameter(TLifetimeFit::kParKin_lambda_of, 1.80e-3);
> > > > func->FixParameter(TLifetimeFit::kParKin_lambda_op, val);
> > > > } else {
> > > > func->FixParameter(TLifetimeFit::kParKin_lambda_of, val);
> > > > func->FixParameter(TLifetimeFit::kParKin_lambda_op, 0.08e-6);
> > > > }
> > > > func->FixParameter(TLifetimeFit::kParKin_cZ, 0);
> > > > func->FixParameter(TLifetimeFit::kParKin_lambda_Ztr, 0);
> > > > func->FixParameter(TLifetimeFit::kParKin_Lambda_Z, 0);
> > > >
> > > >
> >
>
> Peter Kammel / pkammel@uiuc.edu
> Department of Physics, Loomis Laboratory
> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
> 1110 West Green Street, Urbana, IL 61801
> Tel (217) 333-5424 / Fax (217) 333-1215
>