Run 70000046 : CPT calu_collect_mu
Muon peaks seen by David indicate that there is a 10% discrepancy from expect values.
See presentation in VRVS meeting
Philippe argues that the muon peaks are not correct . His selection cuts are* Tkr1Z0>0 && CalCsIRLn>0 and :
- for tower2 and 3, I require that the trajectory of the muon crosses the top plane and bottom plane of the calorimeter not more than 150mm from the center (in X and Y);
- calenergyraw.ps :
- 1) CalEnergyRaw corrected for path length (tower2 in black, tower 3 in red);
2) Tkr1ZDir distribution
3) profile CalEnergyRaw versus Tkr1ZDir (tower 2)
4) profile CalEnergyRaw versus Tkr1ZDir (tower 3)
You can see the correlation between CalEnergyRaw and Tkr1ZDir. The CalEnergyRaw distributions for tower2 and 3 are similar.
calelayer.ps :
-Tkr1ZDir*CalELayer? distributions (tower2 in black, tower 3 in red)
The distributions are no longer similar for tower 2 and 3, and there is a clear indication that the calibration is either wrong or not applied.
calelog_tower2.ps and calelog_tower3.ps:
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 ?
Is there a more suitable run to analyse ?