Hello,
It seems to me that the measurements of the angular error is quite
important factor to the overall error. Genya's new data with 0.9-1.6
degree uncertainties produces much larger errors. The attachment is the
comparison with my parametrized functions whose parameters were adjusted
to the Karen's data. The 48 degree data are about the same as expected.
However, the 32 degrees data is far from the prediction except for the
angle. I could blame the TOSCA bh-curve but then it is me who blindly
made use of it. I will fix the problem as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Aki
Chi Zhang wrote:
>Hi
>
>DGen/kine.init updated to include the newly measured profile. for spline
>interpolated spin angle profile, one can use the following codes:
>
>// Load libDGen_Cint.so or include DGen/Parts.h
>Target* trag = new init_targ(m); // m being the mass of target particle
>targ->Theta_S(z); // z being z.
>
>used ed-elastic events to weighted average this profile, got average of
>46.84.
>
>Chi
>
>On Thu, 27 Jan 2005, Genya wrote:
>
>
>
>> Hi all,
>> Please find attached the Excel file with the holding field
>>measurements.
>> V6,V7 and V8 are actual voltages measured from 3 Hall probe
>>components, H6,H7 and H8
>>are corresponding magnetic fields. In first approximation, H6
>>corresponds to long. field, H8 - to
>>transverse field and H7 - vertical component.
>> From that Htot, theta and phi are calculated.
>> Now, I do know that the probe had a roll of about 1.6 degrees and
>>pitch of about .9 degrees.
>>I do not know the most important angle - pitch, it was impossible to
>>measure with given apparatus
>>with necessary accuracy. New gear will be machined and new measurements
>>will be done after the run.
>> Genya
>>
>>
>>
>>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Mon Feb 24 2014 - 14:07:32 EST