BLAST-MAID-MC is getting better!
I spent some time with Chi lately, I have got better results, but in my
opinion, there are still 'small' bugs in it!
I am still working on.
-----------------------
Octavian F Filoti
Nuclear Physics Group
Univ. of New Hampshire
9 Library Way
Durham, NH 03824
phone: (603)862-1220
FAX: (603)862-2998
email: ofiloti@unh.edu
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Michael Kohl wrote:
> Attending VZ,AS,CC,CZ,AM,TA,DH,MK.
>
> +Attempt to define official data set for next round of conferences in
> April.
> Either we take Dec. 31, 2004 as a natural separator of datasets, or e.g.
> end of March as a deadline for the next official preliminary dataset. We
> have to see how well the 2005 analysis goes in terms of calibrations and
> recrunch. In both cases, the Dec 2004 hydrogen data is included in the
> new dataset.
>
> +Talking about Tavi's asymmetries that he showed three weeks ago. Had
> observed systematic shift between MAID-based MC and measured asymmetries.
> Is presently working on implementing MAID in combination with radiation
> corrections into MC.
> It is suggested that TF will present the status of this effort soon
> (next week?), also in regard of the APS meeting and the collaboration
> meeting in April
> How does BLAST-MAID-MC compare with Aki's simulation?
>
> +hPz systematics: in part discussed last week in AM's absence. hPz can be
> extracted from quasileastic ep and en scattering, but also from elastic
> ed (PK), and perhaps from inclusive, too (NM).
> ep: hPz=0.52+-0.004+-0.02
> en: hPz=0.54+-0.02+-0.01
> I.e. the statistical error of en is about the size of the systematics in
> ep. Can we evaluate the systematics of hPz using the varuious
> independent channels?
> At present, hPz from ep shows a Q2 dependence, a dropoff by 10-15% in Q2
> from 0.1-0.4 (GeV/c)^2. VZ should provide a direct comparison of hPz
> versus Q2, for the same bins and for the same dataset, in order to have a
> cross check of ep and en.
> Part of the Q2 "dependance" may be explained by the deviation of GEp and
> GMp from the diopole form factors, however not quantitatively.
> The dependance on Q2 remains even after applying kinematical corrections.
> -Need to evaluate variation of hPz as a function of which correction is
> used (AM's or EG's)
>
> +Discussion on the spin angle:
> The uncertainty of the spin angle is the biggest contributor to the
> systematics of GEn (varies 12% per degree).
> Average spin angle for ed-elastic event distribution from
> CZ's analysis: 31.2+-0.5(t20),
> Genya's measurement: 31.8+-1.04(RMS)(1 degree alignment error)
> -Need error estimate of the TOSCA-simulated field map
> -How much does the average spin angle vary with the choice of the map?
> A better measurement (<0.5deg alignment error) is certainly doable and
> should be persued after the run.
>
>
> +Extended analysis meeting prior to the collaboration meeting:
> Suggested to hold this meeting already on Wednesday 04/06/2005 instead of
> Thursday. Please let me know if that's fine with everybody.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Michael
>
>
>
> --
>
> +-------------------------------------+--------------------------+
> | Office: | Home: |
> |-------------------------------------|--------------------------|
> | Dr. Michael Kohl | Michael Kohl |
> | Laboratory for Nuclear Science | 5 Ibbetson Street |
> | MIT-Bates Linear Accelerator Center | Somerville, MA 02143 |
> | Middleton, MA 01949 | U.S.A. |
> | U.S.A. | |
> | - - - - - - - - - - - - | - - - - - - - - -|
> | Email: kohlm@mit.edu | K.Michael.Kohl@gmx.de |
> | Work: +1-617-253-9207 | Home: +1-617-629-3147 |
> | Fax: +1-617-253-9599 | Mobile: +1-978-580-4190 |
> | http://blast.lns.mit.edu | |
> +-------------------------------------+--------------------------+
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Mon Feb 24 2014 - 14:07:32 EST