We are trying to finally finish Nilanga's paper on 16-O(e,e'p)
in the continuum.  One of the remaining problems is to adequately
explain the much larger cross section that your approach gives at
large pm compared with the usual DWIA.  You might recall that I sent
a figure on Nov. 30, 1999 comparing distorted momentum distributions
for a 1s1/2 wave function obtained from a Woods-Saxon potential with
V=-65 MeV, r=3.477 fm, a=0.65 fm.  No Coulomb potential or Perey factor
were present.  A revised figure, spectd.ps, is attached because one of
those curves was incorrect, and the older version has probably evaporated
by now.  These curves are obtained as a Fourier transform of psi_f*psi_i
without a current operator and were all normalized to unity at pm=0
to better compare shapes.  The "PW" curve has no potential in the final
state, while "WS VC" used the same potential in both initial and final
states, similar to your Hartree-Fock approach.  The effect of the real
central potential is shift some strength from small to large pm.
The curve labelled "EDAIO VC" used the real central potential from
the EDAIO phenemenological optical potential and gives rather similar
results over this range of pm even though the two potentials are quite
different.  The curve marked "EDAIO VC+WC" also includes the imaginary
potential for that model, which produces an overall reduction at pm=0
by a factor of about 0.5 due to absorption and causes the distorted
momentum distribution to fall more steeply.  For larger pm the momentum
distribution has a series of minima and maxima reminiscent of black
disk scattering by a fairly absorptive potential.  Thus, remembering
the overall factor 2, the maximum ratio between WS and EDAIO models
is about 15 near 250 MeV/c.

        Last week I made some DWIA additional calculations using the
wave functions you sent me and the second-order reduction of the
current operator, which should be fairly similar to your current
operator.  This time I used a slightly different Woods-Saxon potential,
but the preceding analysis showed that the results are not
particularly sensitive to those details.  The figure logratio.ps shows
the ratio between cross sections using a real central Woods-Saxon FSI
and the full EDAIO optical model.  This ratio is about 2 for small pm
due to absorption and then exhibits dramatic peaks near +/- 300 MeV/c for
all three states, s-shell as well as p-shell.  The choices of one-body
current operator and other ingredients produce much less variation in this
ratio.  Although the attentuation factor for small pm and location of the
peak depend slightly upon the orbital, the appearance of all three curves
is qualitatively similar.  (The p-shell bump at pm=0 comes from filling of
the node.)  The left-right asymmetry arises from the spin-orbit potential
included here in EDAIO. 

        In addition, the Fourier transform (PW) for your wave function
also differs somewhat from NLSH: NLSH has a node near 350 MeV/c, while
yours does not have a node below 400 MeV/c.  This difference probably 
explains the fact that ratio between our calculations does not seem to
fall as rapidly beyond 300 MeV/c as suggested by logratio.ps, but other
minor differences in the models may contribute also.

        To complete this analysis, I would prefer to use your
Hartree-Fock potential rather than to guess about its appearance.
Can you send me that potential in parametrized or tabular form?
Also, please send me the one-body (HF) cross sections that you 
computed for all three states.  We will probably want to compare 
the p-shell HF results as well as the s-shell with the spectral
function data in Fig. 1.