 likely to have come from EAS and to reduce to about 20 Hz the rate of events to be sent to the central station. All ToT triggers are directly promoted T2 whereas T1 threshold triggers are requested to pass a higher threshold of 3.2 $I_{VEM}^{est}$ in coincidence for 3 PMTs. Only T2 triggers are used for the definition of a T3.\
The probability for a station to pass the trigger requirements strongly depends on the integrated signal. We define this probability, P(S), as the ratio of stations that trigger divided by the number of stations for a given integrated signal. We have measured this probability directly from the data by two different methods. The first method is based on the existence of two pairs of detectors separated by 11 m from each other. The double sampling of signals in near locations provides a way to estimate the number of signals that did not cause a trigger. This method allows direct comparison of P(s) for individual stations. In figure \[fig1\] we show that the two pairs of stations used in this study have the same P(s) within uncertainties. The second method uses this result and assumes that a single P(s) can describe the behavior of all the stations in the surface array. For each event a Lateral Distribution Function (LDF) is fitted to all the stations that have signal. Here the LDF used is a parabola on a log-log scale. The systematic due to the use of a LDF form different from the one described in this conference is of a few percent, within the statistical uncertainties of the method [@ba05]. The LDF is assumed to be cylindrically symmetric so for each event there are regions of constant signal. In each event the stations that did and did not trigger in a given constant signal region can be identified and P(s) computed.

![\[fig1\] The points represent the two pairs of stations from method one with statistical error bars. For method 1 all showers with $\theta$ less then 60 degrees and S(1000) greater than 2 VEM have been used. The dotted line is the fit from method 2 using the same large theta and S(1000) bins. The functional form of the fit is $P(S) = s^{N}/(s^{N}+ s_{50\%}^{N}).$](ICRC_lhenry_fig1.eps){width="60.00000%"}

The agreement between both methods is shown in figure 1. Method one
likely to have come from EAS and to reduce to about 20 Hz the pace of event to be sent to the central place. All ToT trigger are directly promoted T2 whereas T1 doorway triggers are requested to evanesce a higher threshold of 3.2 $ I_{VEM}^{est}$ in concurrence for 3 PMTs. Only T2 triggers are used for the definition of a T3.\ 
 The probability for a station to guide the trigger requirements strongly depends on the integrated signal. We specify this probability, P(S), as the ratio of stations that trigger divided by the issue of stations for a given integrated signal. We have measured this probability immediately from the data by two unlike methods. The first method is based on the universe of two pairs of detectors separated by 11 m from each other. The bivalent sample distribution of signal in near locations provides a way to estimate the number of signal that did not induce a gun trigger. This method allows direct comparison of P(s) for individual station. In figure \[fig1\ ] we show that the two pairs of place use in this study have the like P(s) within uncertainties. The second method uses this result and assumes that a single P(s) can trace the behavior of all the stations in the surface array. For each event a Lateral Distribution Function (LDF) is meet to all the station that have signal. Here the LDF used is a parabola on a log - log scale. The systematic due to the use of a LDF form unlike from the one described in this league is of a few percent, within the statistical uncertainties of the method [ @ba05 ]. The LDF is assumed to be cylindrically symmetric then for each event there are region of constant signal. In each consequence the stations that did and did not trigger in a given ceaseless signal region can be identified and P(s) computed. 

! [ \[fig1\ ] The points represent the two pair of stations from method one with statistical error bars. For method 1 all showers with $ \theta$ less then 60 degrees and S(1000) greater than 2 VEM have been used. The dashed line is the fit from method acting 2 using the same large theta and S(1000) bin. The functional form of the fit is $ P(S) = s^{N}/(s^{N}+ s_{50\%}^{N}).$](ICRC_lhenry_fig1.eps){width="60.00000% " } 

 The agreement between both methods is shown in figure 1. Method one
 linely to have come from EXS and to reducg ro abont 20 Hz fhe rate of events to be sent to the cwntrao station. All ToT trigeers are firectly pronited T2 whecsas T1 tmxeshomf trngjers are requesjed to pass d higher thresvoud of 3.2 $I_{VEM}^{est}$ in coincidence for 3 PMEs. Only T2 triggers are osed gjr tgv befinition of a T3.\
The probabilitg for a station to psss the trigger requiremenhs shrongly depends on the integrqted wignal. We dewine this krmbability, K(S), as the ratio of stations that trigyer divided bt tjg number of wtatijns for a giyvn intecrated xignal. We have meesurwd this probability dmrectly from the datw by two giyferent methods. The furwt mejhod hs bxwed on tie sxistejce of two pajrs of detextors separated by 11 m drom each othsr. The djuble sampling of signals in near locatpons provides a way to estinate the number of sihnals thae did not cause a trigger. This method allows direwt cojoarnwon ow P(d) for individual stations. In figure \[fig1\] we shjs uhan the two pairs on stations used in tjix study have tfe samz P(a) within uncertainhies. Thg secobd method usex this result and assumes tyat a single P(s) can describe thz behavior oy all jhe ststions in the surface axray. Fkr each evejt a Latedxl Distribution Wunbtiot (LDF) is fitted to all the stations thac have skgnak. Here the LDF uded is a parabola on a llg-log swale. The sjstematic due to the use of a LVH form differgnt frmm the oue desgribed in this sonference is pf a fec percdnt, within the stetistical unsertainties ox the method [@ua05]. The LDS is assymed to ce cylindricalky symmetgie so for wach event there ave reejons of constanc wignal. In each rvevt ehv svatiogv that did atd dkd vpt trkgger in a nivdn cpnstant signal regiot cah be identified anc I(s) computgd.

![\[fig1\] The points reprexent the two pairs of svationr frok mgthod one with statistical errod bars. Fog mcthod 1 all shjwerw with $\theta$ less then 60 degrees and S(1000) greater than 2 VEM have been usgd. The dotted line is uhe fit from kethoq 2 using dhe same large theta and S(1000) bins. The fmnctional form of the rit is $P(S) = d^{N}/(s^{N}+ s_{50\%}^{N}).$](ICRC_lhenry_fig1.eps){width="60.00000%"}

The agreement between both methods is shown ib figuce 1. Method ons
likely to have come from EAS and to 20 Hz rate of events central All ToT triggers directly promoted T2 T1 threshold triggers are requested to a higher threshold of 3.2 $I_{VEM}^{est}$ in coincidence for 3 PMTs. Only T2 are used for the definition of a T3.\ The probability for a station pass trigger strongly on the integrated signal. We define this probability, P(S), as the ratio of stations that trigger by the number of stations for a given signal. We have measured probability directly from the data two methods. The method based the existence of pairs of detectors separated by 11 m from each other. The double sampling of signals in near provides a estimate the of that not cause a method allows direct comparison of P(s) In figure \[fig1\] we show that the two of stations in this study have the same within uncertainties. The second method uses this result assumes that a single P(s) can describe the behavior of all the stations in the For each event a Distribution Function (LDF) fitted all stations have signal. the LDF used is a parabola on a log-log scale. The due to the use of a LDF form different from described this conference is a few percent, within statistical of the method [@ba05]. is to so each there are regions of signal. In each event the that did and did constant signal region can be identified and P(s) ![\[fig1\] The points represent the two pairs stations from method one with statistical error bars. For method 1 all with $\theta$ 60 degrees and S(1000) greater than 2 VEM been used. The dotted is the fit from method 2 using the same theta S(1000) bins. functional form of fit is $P(S) s^{N}/(s^{N}+ s_{50\%}^{N}).$](ICRC_lhenry_fig1.eps){width="60.00000%"} The both methods shown figure
 likely to have come from EAS anD to reduce tO abouT 20 Hz The RaTe of EvenTs to be sent to thE CentRal station. All ToT triggeRs are DiREctlY PrOmoteD T2 whereAS T1 THResHoLd TriGgERs Are reQueSted to pAss a higher ThrEsHold of 3.2 $I_{VEM}^{esT}$ In CoincidencE foR 3 PMTs. Only T2 trIggErs are UsEd fOR the dEfiNitioN of a T3.\
THE probaBility for A sTAtion tO Pass the TRIgGer rEquirements strongLY dEPends on the inteGrated SiGNaL. wE deFinE this probaBiLity, P(s), As the raTIo OF STatIOns that triggeR divided by tHE nuMber of StAtiONs for a Given InTEgrAted signal. WE havE measured This prOBabilitY DirectlY from tHe dAta By twO DiFfEreNt MEthODs. the FIrsT method iS bAsEd on tHe exISTENce oF twO paiRs of dEtectors separAteD by 11 m FRom Each oTher. THe doUbLe samPling oF signAlS in near locationS proVides a way To eStImaTe The nuMBer of sIgnAls That did Not causE A trIgGER. thIs method allows direCt COMpArison of p(s) for iNDiViDUal statiOnS. In FiguRE \[Fig1\] we Show THaT the two pAirs of STaTiOns used In This stUdY haVe tHe samE p(s) wiThin unCertaintIes. ThE Second method usES this result anD AsSUMeS That A siNgle P(s) can deScriBE the BehaVIoR of ALl the StatiOnS In THe surface array. For eaCh Event a laterAl DistributioN Function (Ldf) IS fitted tO all THe STations that havE signAl. Here the Ldf used is a ParabOla on a loG-log scale. tHE systemaTic Due To tHe uSE Of A LDF form diffeRENt frOm The one dEscRibed in ThiS coNfeRenCe Is of a few pErcent, wiThIn ThE sTatIsticAL uncertaInTieS oF thE methOD [@ba05]. The lDF is AssuMeD tO Be cYlindriCAlLY SymmEtRiC so fOr eAcH evenT theRE arE regionS of constaNt sIGnal. in EaCh event The stations thAt Did and did nOt TriGger in A GIven consTant signal region can be idENtified And p(s) comPuteD.

![\[fig1\] The poIntS repreSenT The two Pairs oF statIoNs fROM methOD OnE wiTh StatisticaL ERroR bars. foR metHod 1 all sHowers with $\theta$ lesS TheN 60 degrees and S(1000) gReaTer tHAN 2 VeM hAVe BEen UsED. ThE DOtted line is the fIt from methOd 2 USiNg the same lARge ThEta and S(1000) Bins. The FunctIOnal forM of the fit Is $P(S) = s^{N}/(s^{N}+ s_{50\%}^{n}).$](IcRC_lHENry_Fig1.eps){widtH="60.00000%"}

The agreEment betwEEn botH MeThods Is sHown in FiGurE 1. MethOd one
 likely to have come fromEAS and to  redu cetoab out20 H z the rate ofe vent s to be sent to the ce ntral  s t atio n .All T oT trig g er s are  d ir ect ly pr omote d T 2 where as T1 thre sho ld  triggers ar e  r equested t o p ass a higher  th reshol dof3 .2 $I _{V EM}^{ est}$i n coin cidence f or 3 PMTs .  Only T 2 tr igge rs are used for t h ed efinition of a  T3.\Th e  p r o bab ili ty for a s ta tiont o passt he t r igg e r requirement s stronglyd epe nds on  t hei ntegra ted s ig n al.  We definethis  probabil ity, P ( S), ast he rati o of s tat ion s th a ttr igg er div i de d b y  th e number  o fstati onsf o r a gi ven  int egrat ed signal. We  ha ve m e asu red t his p roba bi litydirect ly fr om  the data by tw o di fferent m eth od s.Th e fir s t meth odisbased o n the e x ist en c e of  two pairs of dete ct o r sseparate d by 1 1  m  f r om eachot her . Th e doubl e sa m pl ing of s ignals in  n ear loc at ions p ro vid esa way to e stimat e the nu mbero f signals that did not cause at r ig g er.Thi s method al lows dire ct c o mp ari s on of  P(s)  f o ri ndividual stations.  I n figu re \[ fig1\] we sho w that the t w o pairsof s t at i ons used in th is st udy have t h e same P (s) w ithin un certainti e s . The se con d m eth odu s es  this resulta n d as su mes tha t a  single  P( s)can  de sc ribe thebehavior  o fal lthe  stat i ons in t he  su rf ace  arra y . Foreacheven taL ate ral Dis t ri b u tion  F un ctio n ( LD F) is  fit t edto allthe stati ons that  h av e signa l. Here the L DF  used is a  p ara bola o n a log-lo g scale. The systematic due tothe  useof a  LDF form  di fferen t f r om the  one d escri be d i n thisc o nf ere nc e is of af e w p ercen t,  wit hin the  statistical uncer t ain ties of the m eth od [ @ b a0 5]. Th e  LD Fi s a s s umed to be cyli ndricallysy m me tric so fo r  ea ch  eventthere a re re g ions of  constant  signal.In  eac h eve nt the sta tions th at did an d  didn ot  trig ger  in agi ven  cons tant s i gna l reg ion ca nbe ide ntifi ed  and P(s ) computed.

![\[fig1\]  The p oints  re present t het wopairs ofstat ions frommet hod  onewit h  stat isti c al  er r or ba rs.F or method 1all s ho wers with $ \ t h eta $ les s t h en 60degr ees and S(1000) g r eater than 2 V EM h a v e b een used .The dotted lin e i st h e fit fr om  method 2 u sing the  s a me la rge th eta an d S(100 0 )  b i ns. Th e fu nct ional for m o ft he fitis  $ P (S) =s^{N }/ (s^{N} + s_{5 0 \%}^ { N }).$](ICRC_lhenr y_fig 1 . eps){ w idt h="60 .0 0000%"} 
The  agreement  between bo th met hods  is s hown in  f igure1.Me thod one
 likely_to have_come from EAS and_to reduce_to_about 20_Hz_the rate of_events to be_sent to the central_station. All ToT_triggers_are directly promoted T2 whereas T1 threshold triggers are requested to pass a higher_threshold_of 3.2_$I_{VEM}^{est}$_in_coincidence for 3 PMTs. Only_T2 triggers are used for_the definition_of a T3.\
The probability for a station to_pass_the trigger requirements_strongly depends on the integrated signal. We define this_probability, P(S), as the ratio of_stations that trigger_divided_by_the number of stations_for a given integrated signal. We_have measured this probability directly from_the data by two different methods. The_first method is based on the_existence of two pairs of_detectors separated_by 11 m from each_other. The double_sampling of_signals in near_locations provides a way to estimate_the number of_signals that did not cause a_trigger._This method allows_direct_comparison_of P(s)_for individual stations._In_figure \[fig1\]_we_show that the two pairs of_stations_used in this study have the same_P(s) within uncertainties. The_second_method uses this result_and assumes that a single_P(s) can describe the behavior of_all the_stations in_the surface array. For each event a Lateral Distribution Function (LDF)_is fitted to all the stations_that have signal. Here_the LDF_used_is a parabola_on_a log-log_scale. The systematic due to the use_of a_LDF form different from the one_described in this conference_is_of a few percent, within the_statistical uncertainties of the method [@ba05]._The LDF is assumed to_be_cylindrically_symmetric so for each event_there are regions of constant signal._In each event_the stations that did and did not_trigger_in a given constant signal region_can_be identified and P(s) computed.

![\[fig1\] The_points_represent_the two pairs of stations_from method one with statistical error_bars. For method 1 all showers with $\theta$ less_then 60 degrees_and S(1000) greater than 2_VEM_have_been used. The dotted line is the fit from method_2 using_the same large_theta and S(1000) bins. The functional form of the fit_is $P(S) = s^{N}/(s^{N}+ s_{50\%}^{N}).$](ICRC_lhenry_fig1.eps){width="60.00000%"}

The agreement between_both methods is shown in figure 1. Method one