 |
 |
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