Run
...
700000460 : CPT calu_collect_mu
Results Status: OK/NOT OK
Note: Whatever is highlighted above in red indicates the status of the data analysis results for this run. Experts are expected to update this page and highlight the right status.
...
For each layer, -Tkr1ZDir*CalELayer? versus the direction perpendicular to the log axis (so you have 12 bins for the 12 logs). Each column (i.e log) is scaled independently such that the max scale (red) corresponds to the bin that has the maximum of entries. So if the calibration is good, all the red bins should be around 11MeV, which is clearly not the case.
I'm not an expert of the calibration, so can someone comment on that ?
Runs 700000276 to 286, 700000490 to 500 : BT13
BT configuration: 4 range readout, no Zero suppression, muon Gain, CAL_LO 15MeV
More muon peaks:
David had another quick look to the runs proposed by Johan in an e-mail sent to the beamlist on July 18, 2006.
...
- TkrNumTracks == 1
- Tkr1Hits > 20
- TMath::Abs((acos(Tkr1ZDir)*(180./3.14159))-180.) < 20
- GltTower == 2 (3) ; This is used to select rougly events hiting the calorimeter of the 2 (3) tower.
Somehow, in ALL those runs the location of the muon peaks is wrong by more than a factor 2.
Below plots are provided for run 280 and 495. All runs are very similar.
It seems that the calibration of the calorimeter was not properly performed for these runs. Any idea of what went wrong ?
Run 280
Energy (raw) deposited in "tower 2": here ps file gif file
Energy (raw) deposited in "tower 3" : here ps file ps file
Energy (raw) deposited in "single layers of tower 2" : here ps file gif file
Energy (raw) deposited in "single layers of tower 3" : here ps file gif file
Run 495
Energy (raw) deposited in "tower 2": ps file gif file
Energy (raw) deposited in "tower 3" : ps file gif file
Energy (raw) deposited in "single layers of tower 2" : ps file gif file
Energy (raw) deposited in "single layers of tower 3" : ps file gif file