Eric, I know the 610 keV peak is right where it should be. The scaling was done as a single multiplicative scale based on the 2.2 MeV peak in the source graph (I.E. 2-point scaling was not done). Once it was scaled, since the 610 keV peak was in the correct place, I presumed the others had been scaled to their correct locations as well. I can re-load the data and check more closely that the 77 keV and 1.13 keV peaks were scaled to their correct locations, but I think they look approximately correct.
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:37 PM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote: > I wrote: > > Would it be possible to add some labels to the overlaid graph so that the >> correspondence between the two is made clearer, and one can see which peak >> in one graph corresponds to a peak in the other? >> > > Upon a closer look it's not too difficult to tell which peaks correspond > to which in both graphs. Reading from right to left, I think we have peaks > at 1.39 MeV, 1.13 MeV, 0.77 MeV and 0.61 MeV. The alignment of the peaks > with the new x-axis is not exact, so there's some difference, but I think > the general correspondence is apparent. > > Eric > >
