Xiaofeng Zhu discussed the g2n analysis progress:

        - The second run through the offline analysis has begun
        - The ntuples have been converted to root files
        - False asymmetry study:

• Corrected the scalar trigger fro runs 2496-2562
• Problem in the synchronization of the scalar and event clocks.
        Some first scalar events are missing.  So far, by checking the
        scalar event and scalar history file, they are the same
• Will check the scalar clock Vs. 1 MHz clock to see if the scalar
        clock is fine
- Studied PID cut dependence

        Cut dependence on geometry, beam position, and beam ramping

    Kevin Kramer discussed his progress on the target analysis:

        - Within a week Kevin plans on finishing:

• Collecting measurements for the cells
• Writing the tech-note
• Analyzing the RTD's by averaging over the target chamber
• Analyzing the temperature studies
• Calculating the pressure for all the cells


- Measured the physical dimensions of the cells:
 

• Measured with a Caliper
• Noted that there is an error ~ 3% for the vertical diameter
        of the pumping chamber
• Archimedes volume measurement agrees with UVA with
        an offset of 0.6 to 0.8 mL (0.5% error)

- Window and wall thickness measurements
 

• UVA and JLab's measurements match very well (2% uncertainty)
• 16 good wall measurements on most cells
• Need to get the window from Tilghman to measure thickness


- Internal chamber volumes determined by using a combination of
   Archimedes, water cell, mechanical, and optical measurements
- Internal pumping chamber temperature from the temperature tests
   have ~ 5% uncertainty

        - Cell flux analysis:  November and December
        - Water NMR analysis:  December and January

    Wolfgang Korsch gave a report on his EPR analysis:

        - Refit all data
        - Defined "spin flip time"  and checked a few runs:  No significant difference
        - Studied AFP losses:

• Shapiro:  -0.140% +/- 0.03%
• VA1:  -0.621% +/- 0.05%
• VA1:  -0.420% +/- 0.09%
• Note:  Cell was in two different positions and the gradient coil was on
- Calculated P_t by using analytical solution of the diffusion equation
- Assigned a P_t value to each run by using interpolation:
        linear fit to +/- 2 closest EPR measurements
- Checked the ratio of polynomial to spline fitting:  no significant difference