Hello aron,
I am not sure about your plot (I tend to agree with you that this number -
whjich I assume is h*P_z is a bit too wild) but regarding your last point
you can easily have a feeling for the uncertainty introduced by the spin
angle value by comparing asymmetries extracted with 32 and 48 deg montecarlo
files
-- tancredi
________________________________________________________________________________
Tancredi Botto, phone: +1-617-253-9204 mobile: +1-978-490-4124
research scientist MIT/Bates, 21 Manning Av Middleton MA, 01949
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Aaron Joseph Maschinot wrote:
>
> at yesterday's meeting, it was mentionned that vitaliy had (a while ago)
> reported that the d(e,e'p) beam-vector dilution seemed to have a Q2
> dependence. i looked into this a little more, and there does indeed
> appear to be such a dependence (see attached plot).
>
> to determine the dilution, i tried two different cuts: 1) all good events
> with missing momentum less than 0.1GeV and 2) all good events with missing
> momentum less than 0.15GeV. theoretically, the limit at pM = 0 will give
> you the dilution (and thus the polarization), but there is very little
> model dependence up to 0.15GeV, so the two sets of results should
> basically agree.
>
> dilution seems to rise with Q2. way too much. theoretically, the
> dilution should be independent of Q2. possibly the variations in the
> field along the extended target convoluted with BLAST's non-4-pi
> acceptance somehow produces such a Q2 dependence. don't know; gotta think
> more about this.
>
> aaron
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Mon Feb 24 2014 - 14:07:31 EST