Calculating Bin Center for Rate vs Energy Plot

[BillKet]

Ever see the end of the movie "A few good men" ? You could play Nicholsons role without having to audit !

Post your plot of ALL data. Counting rate vertically, cm^-1 horizontally

If your counting times don't differ by more than 10%, don't even bother worrying about the effect on the error bar in individual measurements. Let alone trying to compensate.

BTW what's your energy resolution estimate ? Judging from your first two "some of the data" points it might be really good -- but by now I have trouble believing anything I read in this thread.

Is that the lame reason 'misreading the frequency' ?

There can be no sensible argument concocted from that for rebinning. Or do you want to artificially 'improve' your observations in order to get a peak ?

As I said I can't post my data. Also that peak is visible without rebinning, I am worried that the uncertainty in the freq measurement would add to the error of the actual peak center and I am not sure how to account for that yet.

 

[BvU]

Wouldn't worry. Do the fit and look at the errors it comes up with. Rebinning should not affect the results and certainly shouldn't improve them.

 

[gleem]

I am worried that the uncertainty in the freq measurement would add to the error of the actual peak center and I am not sure how to account for that yet.

That is what we needed to know. You do need to know the uncertainty in the energy interval eventually. Why didn't set the laser to get definitively different wavelengths to start?

I am worried that the uncertainty in the freq measurement would add to the error of the actual peak center and I am not sure how to account for that yet.

Yes you will need to deal with that but I agree with BvU that rebinning is not the way.

 

[BillKet]

That is what we needed to know. You do need to know the uncertainty in the energy interval eventually. Why didn't set the laser to get definitively different wavelengths to start?
Yes you will need to deal with that but I agree with BvU that rebinning is not the way.

So basically, whether the error on the freq is significant or not, rebinning will not help?

 

[gleem]

You will need a reasonable estimate of the frequency uncertainty and combine it with the fitting uncertainty. As for significance it seems that you cannot determine if a change in frequency is actually a change if that is so I guess that the uncertainty would be it is close to the increment that you are making.

As I said above, we have some issues with reading the exact wavelength of the laser so 13252.7038 and 13252.7067 are probably the same value (which one of them is right, we don't know for sure), while 13252.7291 is the one after the increase by 0.02 cm−1cm−1cm^{-1}.

So it looks like it is in the neighborhood of .02cm^-1. Your going to have to understand your instrument and what it is telling you.

 

[gleem]

I do not know what you are looking for or what you expect to see, but looking at the plot of the rate vs wave no. I see no peak only an outlier data point.