Difference between revisions of "02/16/16 Meeting Analysis Follow-Up"
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
= ''' Removing Thickest Foils ''' = | = ''' Removing Thickest Foils ''' = | ||
| − | Fits of Run II data, with thickest foils removed in sequence. Thickness data is from 1/22/16 and does not reflect newest FESEM thickness uncertainties presented 2/16/16. They, however, should not affect the fits dramatically. | + | Fits of Run II data, "dilution"-subtracted, energy cut from -0.5 to +2 sigma, with thickest foils removed in sequence. Thickness data is from 1/22/16 and does not reflect newest FESEM thickness uncertainties presented 2/16/16. They, however, should not affect the fits dramatically. |
Pade forms (0,1), red, former best fit; (2,0), blue, and (1,1), green are included. Note that from 2/16/16 presentation by Marty, the simulation-motivated best fit is the Pade (1,1), green on the plots, of the form | Pade forms (0,1), red, former best fit; (2,0), blue, and (1,1), green are included. Note that from 2/16/16 presentation by Marty, the simulation-motivated best fit is the Pade (1,1), green on the plots, of the form | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
Half-sigma energy slices from -4 to +4 sigma looking at fit parameters A<sub>0</sub>, b, c from form | Half-sigma energy slices from -4 to +4 sigma looking at fit parameters A<sub>0</sub>, b, c from form | ||
| − | + | ||
A(t) = (A<sub>0</sub> + b * t) / (1 + c * t) | A(t) = (A<sub>0</sub> + b * t) / (1 + c * t) | ||
| − | using Run II data and 2/16/16 FESEM thickness data. | + | using Run II data and 2/16/16 FESEM thickness data. This data is not "dilution"-subtracted, as I have not done a half-sigma energy slice study for "dilution"-subtracted data from either Run. |
[[file:Pade11.HalfSigmaSlices.jpeg||800px|]] | [[file:Pade11.HalfSigmaSlices.jpeg||800px|]] | ||
Revision as of 08:30, 17 February 2016
Removing Thickest Foils
Fits of Run II data, "dilution"-subtracted, energy cut from -0.5 to +2 sigma, with thickest foils removed in sequence. Thickness data is from 1/22/16 and does not reflect newest FESEM thickness uncertainties presented 2/16/16. They, however, should not affect the fits dramatically.
Pade forms (0,1), red, former best fit; (2,0), blue, and (1,1), green are included. Note that from 2/16/16 presentation by Marty, the simulation-motivated best fit is the Pade (1,1), green on the plots, of the form
A(t) = (A0 + b * t) / (1 + c * t)
all foils
no 1000 nm
no 1000 and 870 nm
no 1000, 870, 750 nm
no 1000, 870, 750, 625 nm
no 1000, 870, 750, 625 and 500 nm
Half-Sigma Energy Slices -- Fit Parameters' Dependency
Half-sigma energy slices from -4 to +4 sigma looking at fit parameters A0, b, c from form
A(t) = (A0 + b * t) / (1 + c * t)
using Run II data and 2/16/16 FESEM thickness data. This data is not "dilution"-subtracted, as I have not done a half-sigma energy slice study for "dilution"-subtracted data from either Run.
Text Document with table media:Run2.Pade11.FitParameters.HalfSigmaSlices.odt
All data, including asymmetry by half-sigma bin for every individual foil, the above plots and data, in a spreadsheet media:Pade11.HalfSigmaSlices.AllData.ods