We show in Fig. 8.21 a fit to the 3 T data from Series A ( ) with the nominal physics input, where we obtained and confidence level 54.6%, with the normalization factor . The fit is very good, perhaps somewhat accidentally. But the situation is less perfect in the case for the 3 T in series B () shown in Fig. 8.22, in which we obtained and CL 1.67% with .

The result of the formation rate scaling is presented in
Fig. 8.23, where the total
is plotted against
the log of the formation scaling parameter
.
The log scaling
of the horizontal axis was chosen to give relatively symmetrical shape of
the resulting curve, compared to linear scaling. More physically motivated
scalings (such as
)
were tried, but none of them
symmetrized the curves for both Series A and Series B simultaneously. The
points near the minimum (indicated by *filled* squares) were fitted
with a quadratic function to obtain the best fit value and its error was
estimated from finding the
in which
is increased by
1 from the minimum. The dotted line in the figure indicates reduced
(*i.e.,*
)
of one. The results for two separate measurements
(Series A and B) are given in Table 8.16.
They are in an apparent disagreement by two standard deviations, indicating
the existence of an unanticipated systematic uncertainty, which we
shall discuss below.

The results for the resonant energy scaling are shown in
Fig. 8.24. The horizontal axis is a linear scale here
due to a reasonably symmetric distribution of the data points. A quadratic
fit similar to above was performed to obtain the best fit, ** S_{E}**, and
its error. Table 8.17 summarizes the energy scaling
measurement. The results for two series of runs are in agreement within one
standard deviation for the resonant energy measurements.
Note that Series A had a higher
sensitivity for both the rate and the energy measurements due to better
statistics.

We note that, for both formation rate scaling and resonance energy scaling measurements, there are some uncertainties in the determination of the best fit value and its error due to the non quadratic shapes of the curves. But these effects are relatively small compared to other uncertainties involved in the measurements.