************************************************************************** To be implemented: ************************************************************************** ---------------------- General ---------------------- - From DW: What is the RC ratio for all resonances, and the simulated , if using: 1) Bosted's fit for cross section throughout; 2a) DIS formula for the asymmetry; and 2b) toy model formula for the asymmetry. For both 2a) and 2b), do not use any theory models for resonances, but do use the proper quasi- and elastic formula. The above might help to understand RES#3 better, and 2a), maybe even 2b) is a potential evidence for duality. --- see update0117.pdf under 20130117/dwang/ ************************************************************************** Completed following meeting 2013/01/17 ************************************************************************** - From DW: Deadtime correction for DIS1 and DIS2 wide path, run-by-run? (your page 26 of original SOM writeup had only narrow path). --- see asymmetries.pdf under 20130110 ---------------------- in Section 3.4, RM/som_beam_pol.tex ---------------------- --- see update0117.pdf under 20130117/dwang/ --- also updated AsymResults.xls for RES polarizations --- Need to use the two new figures from Diancheng From DW: need separate values for Compton and Moller for DISs (Table 5); - For this, we may not need to include the separate values in Table 5, but it is important to show the difference between Compton and Moller and how consistent they are. From my time log (see Table 2 in Sec.3.1), Moller had the last measurement done at 4.8 GeV which is shown in both Fig. 4 and 5, while Compton was done only at 6 GeV. This is fine, however when comparing Compton with Moller (see texts between Fig.4 and Fig.5), the average of Moller data in Fig.5 was shown as 88.97% (which I assume include also the 4.8 GeV point) and was compared with 89.45% from Compton. So if we do not show numbers in Table 5, we need to remove the last Moller point from both Fig.5 and the numbers in the text. From DW: confirm Compton, Moller, and COmbined values for RESs (Table 6). - I asked for confirmation because the Compton number was shown for RES 3, 4, 5 and 7. RES#7 was taken at 6 GeV and there was COmpton, fine. But did we really have Compton for RES 3,4,5? The answer is NO, by just looking at Fig.5. Also, RES3,4,5 and 7 were taken one month apart, how likely do they have exactly the same Compton values? To summarize, all above issues are related to integrity of the paper and should be cleared up. Perhaps this can reveal some problem in the analysis too. ---------------------- in Section 3.6, KP/som_optics.tex ---------------------- From KP: For RES#7 and #7b, need to check if there was any solid target data (carbon hole, BeO, Al dummy etc), to improve the optics uncertainty. - update near X'mas, we do not seem to have taken any solid target data here. Fine, just keep the large uncertainty then. ---------------------- in Section 3.7, DW/som_q2.tex ---------------------- From DW: need comparison table (HAMC vs. data) of Q2 and x for DIS (in Table 8). - The agreement between these values should be consistent with the error quoted for Q2, from optics. So we still need to quote these numbers. Missing data Q2 and x for DIS. --- see update0117.pdf under 20130117/dwang/ --- Replace the HAMC vs. data plot by Diancheng's new one in this PDF. --- also updated AsymResults.xls ---------------------- in Section 3.8, XZ/som_allbg.tex ---------------------- From XZ: Once get Q2 and W from DW on DIS1 and 2 (HAMC values), will update Table 13; From XZ: Once get Q2 and W from DW on RES7b, will update Table 13 -- endcap correction for RES#7b, also updated AsymResults.xls ************************************************************************** Completed following meeting 2013/01/24 ************************************************************************** -From KP: Overall electron and pion rates for all DIS and RES - as suggested by Bob: should list overall rates for all DIS and RES to show that the deadtime is proportional to rates in the first order. --- see Kai's entry #159, completed. Rates added to NIM. ---------------------- in Section 3.8, XZ/som_allbg.tex ---------------------- From KP: need corrected contamination analysis for electrons in pion triggers -> Both NIM and SOM Table 9-10; From XZ: The above item will affect the pion asymmetry results, which further affects the positron background analysis and corrections to the electron asymmetry -> Table 12. (Note to self: this is done in my spreadsheet AsymResults.xls). ---------------------- in Section 3.9, DW/som_radcor.tex ---------------------- From XZ: need reference for NMC fit of $F_2$ (near line 856).