[Olympus] Report to PRC

[Douglas Kenneth Hasell]

Dear Norik,

	The data in the plots is from Jan's previous analysis as shown in October.  The MC calculation and normalization is from Stand and Yury.  Since the normalizations are different I don't see any danger of this being taken as a result for the ratio.

	Also I don't think Elke will request anything further.  If she does we will simply refuse as we are not ready to make such statements.

	I have no problem keeping these figure in the report.  It shows qualitative agreement, nothing more, between data and MC.

	However, others should comment.  If we don't receive a consensus in the next 8 hours we can discuss it on Monday.

                                                    Cheers,
                                                            Douglas

26-415 M.I.T.                                 Tel: +1 (617) 258-7199
77 Massachusetts Avenue                       Fax: +1 (617) 258-5440
Cambridge, MA 02139, USA                      E-mail: hasell at mit.edu           



On Feb 7, 2014, at 4:02 AM, Norair Akopov <akopov at mail.desy.de> wrote:

> 
> Dear Colleagues,
> 
> I still have a doubts concerning inclusion of Fig. 17 in present report.
> I suppose the Data points for both e^- and e^+ were taken from old spectrum presented by Jan on previous PRC meeting? If not, and this is a new analysis, then I need the details on applied cuts etc. to produce these data points (Stan?). Another point is that we are going to sell Elke this "logarithmic mirage", which will immediately create from Elke quite motivated requirement (as to my long collaborative work experience with her :) to show the ratio plot. Of course on such ratio plot we will see
> essential MC-Data disagreement (in scale , also in shape) even with applied <arbitary> normalization for MC. Here the most dangerous point is that we can not state that the reconstruction procedure applied to Data and MC is the same, then no sense to make any comparison. At least we will need for ratio plot detailed explanations for possible reasons of disagreement to be also included in present report. I'm not sure at the moment we are able to give reasonable explanations for present shape of MC-Data comparison
> on the level of MC/Data ratio.
> 
> This subject was already intensively discussed via email exchange, and I think the most wise decision was already expressed: just exclude Fig. 17 from present report.
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> Norik
> 
> On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Douglas Kenneth Hasell wrote:
> 
>> Dear Colleagues,
>> 
>> 	Attached is the proposed final version of the report to the PRC.  Please read this and send me any comments before Friday, tomorrow, at 16:00 EST.  If there are no major changes I will send the report to Andy White.
>> 
>> 	This is also on the Wiki:
>> 
>> https://olympus-docu.hiskp.uni-bonn.de/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=reports
>> 
>>                                                   Cheers,
>>                                                           Douglas
>> 
>> 26-415 M.I.T.                                 Tel: +1 (617) 258-7199
>> 77 Massachusetts Avenue                       Fax: +1 (617) 258-5440
>> Cambridge, MA 02139, USA                      E-mail: hasell at mit.edu
>> 
>> 
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
>> Name: Report_to_PRC.pdf
>> Type: application/pdf
>> Size: 3000219 bytes
>> Desc: not available
>> Url : http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/olympus/attachments/20140206/c13b9217/attachment.pdf
>> _______________________________________________
>> Olympus mailing list
>> Olympus at mit.edu
>> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/olympus