1. Update on the Moon shadow analysis

2. Clermond-Ferrant

3. Applied cuts: Event reconstructed as down-going Moon above horizon Event reconstructed within 5° from the Moon center Quality Cut:Λ>-5.7 Data samples (Ag runs) ConfigurationLive Time (days) Events L10_HT3_3N28.042069 L10_HT10_3N*-- L10_HT3_3N_T33.0323 L9_HT3_3N_T336.471880 L9_HT10_3N_T31.768 L12_HT3_3N_T327.643528 L12_HT10_3N_T326.211730 Total123.159238 * Problems in reading reconstructed data files In run: Simulation of each configuration using the new version of TriggerEfficency

4. Merging data from all configurations: Assuming a Gaussian shape for the telescope PSF: From the fit: k= 115 ± 2 deg -2  = 0.24 ± 0.05 deg Significance: Live Time= 123.15 days Λ>-5.7

5. During the last 2 weeks….

6. Applied cuts: Event reconstructed as down-going Moon above horizon Event reconstructed within 5° from the Moon center Quality Cut:Λ>-5.7 Data samples (Ag runs) ConfigurationLive Time (days) Events L10_HT3_3N35.962997 L10_HT10_3N8.95143 L10_HT3_3N_T33.0323 L9_HT3_3N_T336.781885 L9_HT10_3N_T31.7610 L12_HT3_3N_T338.844633 L12_HT10_3N_T326.211724 Total151.53 I still have problems in reading some reconstructed data files

7. Merging data from all configurations: Assuming a Gaussian shape for the telescope PSF: From the fit: k= 144 ± 2 deg -2  = 0.24 ± 0.04 deg Live Time= 151.53 days Λ>-5.7 BinWid=0.2° I introduced the 1.93° rotation

8. Are we observing the Moon? k= 144 ± 2 deg -2  = 0.24 ± 0.04 deg In red: the analysis is carried out computing the Moon position at a time 30 min later than the event time. This correspond to a mean shift of 7° (varying between 6.5° and 8°) of the real position of the Moon.

9. Check on coordinates: Astronomical coordinates of the Moon: Check with Teresa, we found differences in Dec and RA but due to the different procedure: Teresa uses a routine which gives directly the topocentric Dec and RA, the she transform them in topocentric astronomical Altitude and Azimuth I calculate the geocentric Dec and RA, I transform them in geocentric Altitude and Azimuth and then I add the Moon paralax to get the topocentric ones At the final step we both have the topocentric horizontal coordinates Detector coordinates: We find a difference in the phi angle….

10. Am I wrong in the detector frame? But looking at the e-log and also discussing with Teresa: From ANTARES-SOFT-2008-002:

11. Including the new rotation… Since the direction (vx moon,vy moon,vz moon ) is evaluated in the (x,y,z)=(N,W,Up), I still miss a rotation by 90°: φ=φ data -90° φ: track phi angle in the frame where I estimate the Moon position (vx moon,vy moon,vz moon ) is the direction of a particle coming from the Moon centre BinWid=0.2° k= 149 ± 2 deg -2  = 0.36 ± 0.09 deg The plot gets worse but it seems more realistic, in particular the angular resolution of 0.36° And not only….

12. A new check! φ+90°φ-90° φ+180° As a check, I introduced a new rotation on tracks Rotation of +/-90° modifies the signal depth in the opposite direction. After a rotation of 180°, the signal is almost flat. So, probably I’m finally using the detector coordinates in the right way!!!

13. Check on Alignment Andreas Spies provided the list of the runs with alignment coverage >80% for 2008 data. Only 2008 Ag data runs selected Live Time: 133.5 days Live Time (alignment): 91.3 days k= 149 ± 2 deg -2  = 0.36 ± 0.09 deg k= 97± 2 deg -2  = 0.39 ± 0.12 deg alignment coverage >80%

14. To do… final check on coordinate systems evaluate the effect in Monte Carlo (I’ll correct the generated tracks and re-do the simulation in order to analyses the simulation in the same way of data  it’ll take at least 1 week) evaluate the present significance in data …….. make official plots