Re: Yesterday's Minutes

[Matthew Shepherd <mashephe@indiana.edu>]

Yes, that's a typo -- there is nothing to subtract in the relative  
times.

-Matt

On May 9, 2007, at 6:22 PM, Blake Leverington wrote:

> Hi Richard,
>
> I think that was a type-o as nothing has been subtracted from floor  
> term when the time difference resolution is measured. The tagger  
> contribution was only subtracted when taking the sum of the two  
> ends because the tagger was used as a reference time.
>
> -Blake
>
> Richard Jones wrote:
>> from Matt's minutes of May 8 calorimetry meeting,
>>>
>>>
>>>         Time Difference
>>>
>>> Similar plots of the end to end time difference indicated  
>>> statistical (floor) terms of 81 (21) ps, where again, the floor  
>>> term as been compensated for the estimated 113 ps tagger/trigger  
>>> resolution.
>> It makes no sense to subtract the tagger/trigger resolution here  
>> because these are relative times between the two ends of the  
>> BCal.  The tagger/trigger time disappears in the difference.  I  
>> suggest that the results should simply show the uncorrected floor  
>> term.  However I am not going to correct the minutes if what is  
>> stated there is actually what was presented.  Do you want comments  
>> added to the minutes as annotations?
>>
>> Richard J.