prog saved

thesis/chapters/chap6_analysis.tex

@@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ pulses on all detector channels, and picks all pulses occur in
 a time window of \SI{\pm 10}{\si{\us}} around each candidate to build
 a muon event. A muon candidates is a hit on the upstream plastic scintillator
 with an amplitude higher than a threshold which was chosen to reject MIPs. The
-period of \SI{10}{\si{\us}} is long enough compares to the mean life time of
+period of \SI{10}{\si{\us}} is long enough compared to the mean life time of
 muons in the target materials
 (\SI{0.758}{\si{\us}} for silicon, and \SI{0.864}{\si{\us}}
 for aluminium~\cite{SuzukiMeasday.etal.1987}) so practically all of emitted
@@ -388,7 +388,7 @@ This number of X-rays needs to be corrected for following effects:
       &= 1.06
     \end{align}
     The 2-ms-long reset pulses effectively reduce the actual measurement time
-    compares to other channels, so the correction factor for the effect is:
+    compared to other channels, so the correction factor for the effect is:
     \begin{align}
       k_{\textrm{reset pulse}} &= \frac{\textrm{(measurement time)}}
       {\textrm{(measurement time)}
@@ -830,7 +830,7 @@ The uncertainty of the emission rate could come from several sources:
     collimator. In the worst case when the muon beam is flatly distributed,
     that displacement could change the acceptance of the silicon detectors by
     12\%. Although no measurement was done to determine the efficiency of the
-    silicon detectors, it would have small effect compare to other factors.
+    silicon detectors, it would have small effect compared to other factors.
 \end{enumerate}
 
 The combined uncertainty from known sources above therefore could be as large