Main INDEX
Monthly INDEX
PREV
NEXT
User name jpchen
Log entry time 16:54:46 on April 9,1999
Entry number 25
keyword=3/10 analysis meeting minutes
Minutes of 3/10 analysis meeting:
Present: Pibero Djawotho, Wang Xu, Zhengwei Chai, Marat Rvachev,
Xiaodong Jiang, Seonho Choi, Kevin Fissim, Mark Jones and Jian-ping Chen.
Wang/Pibero: Working on trigger/scintillator inefficiency.
Marat:
continue filtering data for e-arm y_tg optimization. The task is pretty
difficult because of many cuts need to be placed and many files to be
filtered. Once the filtering is done the y_tg optimization can be done
quickly.
Zhengwei: Working on Y-target optimization.
Xiaodong:
Working on a Monte Carlo Model of the spectrometer.
Built a SNAKE based model which reproduced spectra in the dispersive
direction almost exactly, but in the transverse direction the model does
not exactly reproduce the data (of deep inelastic region). A noticable
disagreement (about 10% level) in the transverse direction still exist,
will work with John LeRose again to try to make adjustments to the magnet
model while keeping the first order optics intact. There're indications
that some of the magnet properties of the spectrometer might not be known
well enough.
Seonho:
Finally, I have compiled all the available statistics at 1.72 GeV. (I am
counting all the runs since charge asymmetry adjustment. And while writing
this mail, I found out that I missed 2 runs. The result presented during
the collaboration meeting will include them.) When I calculate A_parallel
and A_perpendicular, the statistical error is of the order of 0.0005 while
the maximum asymmetry around delta region is about 0.004. I have to
mention that these asymmetries are not yet divided by target and beam
polarizations and the final physical asymmetry should be 5 times bigger.
A_parallel agrees pretty well between two arms as they should do. For
A_perpendicular, a simple sign change is expected between the two arms,
and the plot shows overall opposite behavior between the two arms, but
there is something else which can not be explained with simple sign
change. To verify this, I calculated the simple sum of A_parallel between
the two arms. If the two are related with sign change, the sum should give
identically zero. The actual sum is not zero and around -0.001 till W=1400
and then it becomes +0.001 and remains there. If there is a misalignment
of the target polarization, this sum should be proportional to A_parallel,
but due to relatively big error bars, it is not easy to conclude if there
is such an effect. Anyway, I tool weighted average of A_parallel and
A_perpendicular from both arms. (Of course, for A_parallel, I changed sign
for hadron arm before taking weighted average.) The asymmetries are quite
big at the Delta region (A_par = 0.004, A_perp = -0.004). Near the
quasi-elastic region, the asymmetries are also significant with opposite
sign to that of delta region (A_par = -0.002, A_perp = +0.0015).
Finally, a decomposition to A_1 and A_2 has been tried. For R (ratio of
longitudinal and transverse cross section) factor necessary for this
decomposition, I used various assumptions: DIS assumption such as 2xF1=F2,
or constant R=20%, 50% or 80%. In any case, the actual numerical values
vary a little, but the general trend does not change. A1 is quite big
around delta region (A1 ~ 0.02 to 0.03 depending on R) and also
significant in the quasi-elastic region with negative sign (A1 ~ -0.015 to
-0.023). A2 is pretty small and only becomes slightly negative just after
delta (A2 ~ -0.005 to -0.01 at W ~ 1350MeV).
The next plan is to get R from other experiments on 3He and extract A1 and
A2. The final result will be presented during the collaboration meeting.