Apr. 10-20: High-E Proton LDF with 5MeV cutoff

First pass at parameterizing this LDF. Ended up with unstable fits.

Second pass at parameterizing the LDF. Much better overall.
I ended up changing the moliere radii in order to properly fit the curvature of the LDF.

Refining the parametrization. Not very different, but it improved the linearity of log(C) vs. log(E).

Found better parametrization with MRe~2500
I missed this originally because only a few fits came out with MR=2500 (for electrons), but when this was made fixed, all the fits looked better.

Code used:

• fit.C (fits LDF to AIRES output)
• NKG.C (holder for LDF function)
• ntup_e.C (plots electron parameter trends)
• ntup_m.C (plots muon parameter trends)

Final LDF: Plots of Iron LDF superimposed on AIRES data

The LDF has the same general form as the AGASA LDF:

The parameters, as functions of zenith angle and energy, are:

• MR_e = 2477
• MR_m = 2560
• delta_e = 0.03107
• delta_m = 0.01939
• eta_e = 8.391 - 5.315 (sec(ZA)-1)
• eta_m = 9.020 - 2.552 (sec(ZA)-1)
• alpha_e = 2.513
• alpha_m = 0.7701
• log(C_e) = 0.1 - 1.45 (sec(ZA)-1) + 0.96 (log(E)-19)
• log(C_m) = 1.2 - 0.72 (sec(ZA)-1) + 0.97 (log(E)-19)

Showers reconstructed using new LDF

Note that I used the auto-reconstruct program (with no SOTC or IGN commands, static CHICOS array) to do these, so they are not the best possible fit. The notes are comparisons with the reconstructions posted on the main showers page.

• shower 04-03-05 Quite similar reconstruction, energy increases.
• shower 03-11-05 Similar but energy is pushed down by non-active sites nearby.
• shower 03-03-05 Quite similar reconstruction, energy increases.
• shower 02-16-05 Pinned. Needs SOTC adjustment.
• shower 02-06-05 Shower core moves outward, pushing the energy up.
• shower 02-03-05 Similar reconstruction, energy decreases.
• shower 02-01-05 Fit failed. Energy very low.
• shower 01-15-05 Core moves inward, energy goes up.

Looking for a better parametrization of the overall constant...