That would result in that noise term being a factor of 8 lower, much more reasonable
and the same as one of the numbers in the note (32.8 p.e./MeV). There is also 112.6
p.e./MeV in the note.
On Mar 24, 2015, at 11:47, Gabriel CHARLES <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> What about replacing it by ECalUtils.lightYield * ECalUtils.quantumEff * ECalUtils.surfRatio as used when the condition use2014Gain is true?
>
> This modification may have been forgotten. Sho can probably tell more about it.
>
> --
> Gabriel CHARLES
> Institut de Physique Nucléaire d'Orsay
>
> Le 2015-03-24 16:38, Nathan Baltzell a écrit :
>> Hi Everyone,
>> Does anyone know about the noise calculation at line 454 in
>> org.hps.readout.ecal.FADCEcalReadoutDriver?
>> Specifically, this pePerMeV, which defaults to 2. What we think we’re
>> finding is that this pePerMeV term is
>> completely dominating the smearing and is much larger than the numbers
>> in HPS-NOTE-2014-002.
>> - Holly & Nathan
>> ########################################################################
>> Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list
>> To unsubscribe from the HPS-SOFTWARE list, click the following link:
>> https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=HPS-SOFTWARE&A=1
>
########################################################################
Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list
To unsubscribe from the HPS-SOFTWARE list, click the following link:
https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=HPS-SOFTWARE&A=1
|