Difference between revisions of "Adam Blomberg"
| (8 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | Files | ||
| + | ---------- | ||
| + | |||
[http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/E05-102/analysis.html Optics files from E05-102] | [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/E05-102/analysis.html Optics files from E05-102] | ||
[http://astro.temple.edu/~tud51511/HallA/db_files/ My DB files] | [http://astro.temple.edu/~tud51511/HallA/db_files/ My DB files] | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Meeting Slides | ||
| + | --------------- | ||
[https://hallaweb.jlab.org/wiki/images/e/e0/8-3.pdf Meeting 8-3] | [https://hallaweb.jlab.org/wiki/images/e/e0/8-3.pdf Meeting 8-3] | ||
| Line 7: | Line 14: | ||
[https://hallaweb.jlab.org/wiki/images/c/ca/Meeting-8-24.pdf Meeting 8-24] | [https://hallaweb.jlab.org/wiki/images/c/ca/Meeting-8-24.pdf Meeting 8-24] | ||
| − | [https://hallaweb.jlab.org/wiki/images/5/5f/Meeting_10-19-12.pdf] | + | [https://hallaweb.jlab.org/wiki/images/5/5f/Meeting_10-19-12.pdf Meeting 10-19] |
| + | |||
| + | [https://hallaweb.jlab.org/wiki/images/1/18/Talk-11-2-2012.pdf Meeting 11-02] | ||
| + | |||
| + | [https://hallaweb.jlab.org/wiki/images/f/f4/Meeting_01-18-2013.pdf Meeting 01-18] | ||
| + | |||
| + | [https://hallaweb.jlab.org/wiki/images/0/02/Meeting_02-15-2013.pdf Meeting 02-15] | ||
| + | |||
| + | [https://hallaweb.jlab.org/wiki/images/6/63/Meeting-03-01-2013.pdf Meeting 03-01] | ||
| + | |||
| + | [https://hallaweb.jlab.org/wiki/images/d/db/Meeting-03-22-2013.pdf Meeting 03-22] | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Output Deifinitions | ||
| + | -------------------- | ||
| + | [http://astro.temple.edu/~tud51511/HallA/new_xsec.odef My odef file to make xsec] | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Example Cuts | ||
| + | ------------------- | ||
| + | t5trig_bool = DBB_edtpr == 0 && DBB_edtpl == 0 && (long)DBB_evtypebits&(1<<5); | ||
| + | single_track_bool = L_tr_n==1 && R_tr_n==1 | ||
| + | && R_vdc_u1_nclust ==1 && R_vdc_v1_nclust ==1 && R_vdc_v2_nclust ==1 && R_vdc_u2_nclust ==1 | ||
| + | && L_vdc_u1_nclust ==1 && L_vdc_v1_nclust ==1 && L_vdc_v2_nclust ==1 && L_vdc_u2_nclust ==1; | ||
| + | pad_hit_bool = L_s2_trpad>=0 && R_s2_trpad>=0 ; | ||
| + | |||
| + | mm_bool = mm > mmiss_lo && mm < mmiss_hi ; | ||
| + | cer_bool = cer_sum > 1 ; | ||
| + | ps_bool = R_ps_e / R_gold_p > 200 ; | ||
| + | prl1_bool = L_prl1_e / L_gold_p < 70 ; | ||
| + | prl2_bool = L_prl2_e / L_gold_p < 70 ; | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Possible Analyzer Cuts | ||
| + | ------------------ | ||
| + | mom_accep_bool = L_gold_p > 0.0 && L_gold_p < 2.0 && | ||
| + | R_gold_p > 0.0 && R_gold_p < 2.0 ; | ||
| + | |||
| + | accep_bool[1] = R_tr_tg_dp < 0.03 && R_tr_tg_dp > -0.03 && | ||
| + | L_tr_tg_dp < 1 && L_tr_tg_dp > -1 && | ||
| + | R_tr_tg_th < 1 && R_tr_tg_th > -1 && | ||
| + | L_tr_tg_th < 1 && L_tr_tg_th > -1 && | ||
| + | R_tr_tg_ph < 1 && R_tr_tg_ph > -1 && | ||
| + | L_tr_tg_ph < 1 && L_tr_tg_ph > -1 ; | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Target Length Corrections | ||
| + | --------------------------- | ||
| + | Effective target length and correction: | ||
| + | *15cm cell: 14.8 +/- 0.02 cm = 1.34 +/- 0.1 % | ||
| + | *4cm cell: 3.86 +/- 0.004 cm = 3.44 +/- 0.1 % | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | These results are broken down below for those who are interested. I will post a copy this email on my page of the experiment wiki. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Thermal Contraction: | ||
| + | *both cells: 0.5 +/- 0.1 % | ||
| + | |||
| + | This is based off the thermal contraction of Al from 273K (room temp where length measured) to 19K (temp of cell during experiment) according to the CRC chemistry handbook (5.8%). As a secondary source, Dave Meekins states the thermal contraction effect to be 0.4%. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Window Thickness: | ||
| + | *15cm cell: 0.192 +/- 0.04 % | ||
| + | *4cm cell: 0.735 +/- 0.02 % | ||
| + | |||
| + | From the target configuration report, the sum of the thickness of the end-caps of the target cell is 0.288 +/-0.0551 mm for the 15cm cell and 0.294 +/- 0.00894 mm for the 4cm cell. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | End cap curvature: | ||
| + | *15cm cell: 0.653 +/- 0.03 % | ||
| + | *4cm cell: 2.20 +/- 0.1 % | ||
| + | |||
| + | The central spot position is very consistent across kinematics and runs ( ~0.1mm variation), so a single value for the target length will suffice for each target cell these values are averaged across several runs from each kinematic. | ||
| + | beam central position (average of urb.x and urb.y): | ||
| + | (-4.22 +/- 0.1 , 2.74 +/- 0.1) all in mm | ||
| + | Raster width measured peak to peak using urb.x and urb.y. | ||
| + | raster width in x: 2.19, +/- 0.1 mm, raster width in y: 2.36, +/- 0.1 mm | ||
| + | |||
| + | Target Survey Position: | ||
| + | 15cm (1.72, 0.06) all in mm | ||
| + | 4cm (1.37, 0.02) all in mm | ||
| + | |||
| + | The radius of curvature of the endcap is 20.32 mm. The average length correction is calculated from the offset of the beam raster from the surveyed target center and averaged over the raster area. The uncertainty was found by repeating the calculation while varying the center position and raster widths with the uncertainties above. | ||
| + | results: | ||
| + | 15cm cell: 0.98 +/- 0.04 mm | ||
| + | 4cm cell: 0.88 +/- 0.05 mm | ||
Latest revision as of 17:47, 31 May 2013
Files
Meeting Slides
Output Deifinitions
Example Cuts
t5trig_bool = DBB_edtpr == 0 && DBB_edtpl == 0 && (long)DBB_evtypebits&(1<<5);
single_track_bool = L_tr_n==1 && R_tr_n==1
&& R_vdc_u1_nclust ==1 && R_vdc_v1_nclust ==1 && R_vdc_v2_nclust ==1 && R_vdc_u2_nclust ==1
&& L_vdc_u1_nclust ==1 && L_vdc_v1_nclust ==1 && L_vdc_v2_nclust ==1 && L_vdc_u2_nclust ==1;
pad_hit_bool = L_s2_trpad>=0 && R_s2_trpad>=0 ;
mm_bool = mm > mmiss_lo && mm < mmiss_hi ;
cer_bool = cer_sum > 1 ;
ps_bool = R_ps_e / R_gold_p > 200 ;
prl1_bool = L_prl1_e / L_gold_p < 70 ;
prl2_bool = L_prl2_e / L_gold_p < 70 ;
Possible Analyzer Cuts
mom_accep_bool = L_gold_p > 0.0 && L_gold_p < 2.0 &&
R_gold_p > 0.0 && R_gold_p < 2.0 ;
accep_bool[1] = R_tr_tg_dp < 0.03 && R_tr_tg_dp > -0.03 &&
L_tr_tg_dp < 1 && L_tr_tg_dp > -1 &&
R_tr_tg_th < 1 && R_tr_tg_th > -1 &&
L_tr_tg_th < 1 && L_tr_tg_th > -1 &&
R_tr_tg_ph < 1 && R_tr_tg_ph > -1 &&
L_tr_tg_ph < 1 && L_tr_tg_ph > -1 ;
Target Length Corrections
Effective target length and correction:
- 15cm cell: 14.8 +/- 0.02 cm = 1.34 +/- 0.1 %
- 4cm cell: 3.86 +/- 0.004 cm = 3.44 +/- 0.1 %
These results are broken down below for those who are interested. I will post a copy this email on my page of the experiment wiki.
Thermal Contraction:
- both cells: 0.5 +/- 0.1 %
This is based off the thermal contraction of Al from 273K (room temp where length measured) to 19K (temp of cell during experiment) according to the CRC chemistry handbook (5.8%). As a secondary source, Dave Meekins states the thermal contraction effect to be 0.4%.
Window Thickness:
- 15cm cell: 0.192 +/- 0.04 %
- 4cm cell: 0.735 +/- 0.02 %
From the target configuration report, the sum of the thickness of the end-caps of the target cell is 0.288 +/-0.0551 mm for the 15cm cell and 0.294 +/- 0.00894 mm for the 4cm cell.
End cap curvature:
- 15cm cell: 0.653 +/- 0.03 %
- 4cm cell: 2.20 +/- 0.1 %
The central spot position is very consistent across kinematics and runs ( ~0.1mm variation), so a single value for the target length will suffice for each target cell these values are averaged across several runs from each kinematic. beam central position (average of urb.x and urb.y): (-4.22 +/- 0.1 , 2.74 +/- 0.1) all in mm Raster width measured peak to peak using urb.x and urb.y. raster width in x: 2.19, +/- 0.1 mm, raster width in y: 2.36, +/- 0.1 mm
Target Survey Position: 15cm (1.72, 0.06) all in mm 4cm (1.37, 0.02) all in mm
The radius of curvature of the endcap is 20.32 mm. The average length correction is calculated from the offset of the beam raster from the surveyed target center and averaged over the raster area. The uncertainty was found by repeating the calculation while varying the center position and raster widths with the uncertainties above. results: 15cm cell: 0.98 +/- 0.04 mm 4cm cell: 0.88 +/- 0.05 mm
