Hi Eugene,
Have Doug's results changed? Last I heard, the right sector
middle chamber was shifted by 1.2 mm.
--Chris
_______________________________________
TA-53/MPF-1/D111 P-23 MS H803
LANL, Los Alamos, NM 87545
505-665-9804(o) 665-4121(f) 662-0639(h)
_______________________________________
On Feb 6, 2006, at 12:23:16, Eugene J. Geis wrote:
>> Concluding, it is the field map change that made the reconstructed
>> angle
>> shift, or am I wrong?
>
> Yes. Crunch with new field map = angle offsets.
>
>
>> The offsets look quite the same for all combinations pR pL eR eL.
>> Is there a possible geometrical effect responsible such as shifts or
>> rotations of chambers?
>
> Potential geometric root causes of offsets...
> Measured - Calculated(opposite sector Measured) is a negative
> number for
> both sides, therefore: Calculated > Measured. Calculated would be
> greater than
> Measured if the opposite sector also measured an angle that was too
> small. If the
> angle is measured at less than it truly is in both sectors, a few
> geometric possibilities:
>
> 1. Software puts the chambers too far downstream from the target,
> reconstructs
> an angle too small.
> 2. Software thinks the chambers are tighter than they are, this
> would result in
> smaller momentum and smaller angles.
> 3. A rotation of the chambers would have opposite effects on
> electron vs. proton
> tracks. The curvature and polar angle would do the opposite
> for opposite charge.
> But this would violate the Calculated > Measured that we are
> seeing.
>
> If Doug's straight track analysis is correct, I think any geometric
> shift would have
> shown up in his final plots of the track's deviation from a line.
> From what I understand,
> that analysis has told us whether the wires are where we think they
> are. And
> the results, in fact, were that the wires are where we think they
> are. Taking on that
> information as fact, I think we'd have to believe that our survey
> is correct and that
> the tracking problem probably resides in the code or the algorithm.
>
> -eugene
>
>
> Quoting Michael Kohl <kohlm@mit.edu>:
>
>> Hi Eugene,
>>
>> I just had a look at your plots of the angle deviations depending
>> on the
>>
>> recrunch version and correponding assumptions that you posted on
>> Jan 19.
>>
>> It seems that only the crunch with the new field had the larger angle
>> offset.
>> You forgot to also plot the actual RECRUNCHDIR result which is
>> Chi's 9th
>>
>> order in combination with the new field map. I seem to remember that
>> this
>> also has an angle offset.
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Michael
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Eugene J. Geis wrote:
>>
>>> Weird timing for me to call in today and apologies about not
>>> making it
>> last week.
>>>
>>> I made 4 plots of comparisons of the theta_(e/p) -
>> theta_e/p(theta_p/e) offsets over the hydrogen
>>> directories given to me by Michael. I've uploaded the 4 graphs into
>> the meeting_060119 directory on
>>> blast02. You should look at the postscript file Theta_pR.ps
>>> first to
>> see which histogram corresponds to
>>> which ANALDIR. The obvious offset is only apparent in Aaron's
>> 6thorder recrunch which is the ONLY
>>> crunch version that uses the NEW Fieldmap from all of the ANALDIR's
>> that I tested. Chi's 9th order
>>> crunch in library v15 that uses the OLD fieldmap does not have the
>> striking offset. All four postscript
>>> files show this same trend. OLD Fieldmap means no striking
>>> theta_e -
>> theta_e(theta_p) offset.
>>>
>>> Also as an update for GEn analysis, I'm piping Vitaly's data into my
>> code to verify asymmetries. We still
>>> have some glaring discrepancies.
>>>
>>> eugene
>>>
>>> Quoting Douglas Kenneth Hasell <hasell@MIT.EDU>:
>>>
>>>> Dear Colleagues,
>>>>
>>>> As decided during last week's analysis meeting: this week's
>> analysis
>>>>
>>>> meeting will be on Thursday (Wednesday there is a lunch for Chris
>>>> Tschalar) at 14:00.
>>>>
>>>> Attached are the minutes from last week's meeting.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Douglas
>>>>
>>>> 26-415
>>>> M.I.T.
>> Tel:
>>>>
>>>> +1 (617) 258-7199
>>>> 77 Massachusetts Avenue Fax: +1
>>>> (617) 258-5440
>>>> Cambridge, MA 02139, USA E-mail:
>>>> hasell@mit.edu
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> -----
>>> Eugene Geis
>>> PhD Student, Physics Department, ASU
>>> Research Affiliate, MIT-Bates Laboratory of Nuclear Science
>>> eugene.geis@asu.edu
>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> -----
>>> http://quickreaction.blogspot.com
>>>
>>
>>
>> +-------------------------------------+--------------------------+
>> | 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 | |
>> +-------------------------------------+--------------------------+
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> Eugene Geis
> PhD Student, Physics Department, ASU
> Research Affiliate, MIT-Bates Laboratory of Nuclear Science
> eugene.geis@asu.edu
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> http://quickreaction.blogspot.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Mon Feb 24 2014 - 14:07:33 EST