A side note:

C.Bauer wrote:...I define the experiments such, that I throw out the angles around that point and define 1 experiment before and 2 after the maximum scattering angle, that looks fine.

I keep forgetting exactly how you are fitting. If you are doing it with OP,MINI, you need to make your own corrected yields, because Gosia doesn't sum two experiments to compare to yields from the full range of the two. This is probably clear to you.

C.Bauer wrote:Now, Rutherford cross-section and integrated yields look rather the same no matter which angles I define. But then, I had another surprise: The corrected yields are different! Shouldn't they be similar at least...

You should get different corrected yields whenever you change the point-scattering angle in the EXPT lines. Since

- Code: Select all
`-22,48,360.,19.61,3,1,0,0,360,0,1`

and

- Code: Select all
`-22,48,360.,-19.61,3,1,0,0,360,0,1`

(with the minus flag vs. without it, or equivalently a 19.6 deg projectile angle vs. a 19.6 deg target angle) in EXPT correspond to different c.o.m. scattering angles, the point cross sections will be different, but the integrated yields in OP,CORR don't use the point angle in EXPT for anything, so they will not change. Then, obviously, the ratio (correction factor) will be different. Maybe I could have said that more simply:

The OP,MINI command compares the calculated point yields to the corrected yields, so the latter have to represent point yields also (on some scale) at the scattering angles in EXPT.

C.Bauer wrote:There is a huge difference in the point yields between projectile and target detection, is this correct? Here are also the 2 EXPT inputs, where the input files differ:

Target detection:

- Code: Select all
`EXPT`

3,60,140

-22,48,360.,-19.61,3,1,0,0,360,0,1

-22,48,360.,-19.33,3,1,0,0,360,1,1

-22,48,360.,-17.86,3,1,0,0,360,1,1

Projectile detection:

- Code: Select all
`EXPT`

3,60,140

-22,48,360.,19.61,3,1,0,0,360,0,1

-22,48,360.,19.33,3,1,0,0,360,1,1

-22,48,360.,17.86,3,1,0,0,360,1,1

I am a little confused about these differences, don't know which calculations one can trust so.

This has the same explanation: They should be different in the two cases, since a target angle of 19.6 degrees has a different c.o.m. angle than a projectile angle of 19.6 deg. I know this is obvious when I say it; the obvious gets lost in the coding. This also tells you that the point cross sections can be very misleading, since they can change rapidly with the point angle.

One other side note--you use 3 magnetic substates. Since your input probably uses little memory, you can probably use the maximum of 8 without any problem. It shouldn't make a noticeable difference, but I always use the most accuracy to avoid doing other checks later.

Best,

Adam