24 November 2009

Q = Question
A = Answer
C = Comment

(0)Filtering
Michael C:No progress

(1)Code
Alice C: Still not getting smd strips for endcap
Michael, Ilya C: Looks in log file for warnings or errors from StGammaRawEvent

(2)Geometry
Will C: 40% increase of running with LOW_EM option.  Seems to improve data - MC agreement,
especially for shower max.
Ilya C: 2009 may appear to agree better than 2006 with 2006 data might be due to cuts on eta
mesons not placed on the Monte Carlo
Jim C: It looks like maybe the LOW_EM option is over-correcting
All C: We need a sample with and without LOW_EM option.  Some discussion if you can run with
LOW_EM option and then undo it in analysis, and generally decided not.  Still planning on coming
up with a request for a test sample - but many techinical difficulties now with StGammaMaker and
filtering, etc. 

(3)Fast Simulator sampling fraction
Will C: Don't think this was measured with the test beam.  It wouldn't be in written form
anywhere if we did, not same geometry.
Jim C: If we account for material in front of detector then it will change from year to year. 
Hal C: I would be in favor or leaving it at 5%.
All C: The scale factor might then be 1.02.  If we want more precise a very detailed study will
be required.  This is something the test run can tell us as well.
Jason C: LOW_EM option makes a lot more sense from a physical prespective.  The cuts without it
are too high.