Dear Tavi,
> Hi guys,
>
> I have checked the runs, I have found some faulty empty runs and possible one
> H2 run.
Good. Can you send your runlist of good runs please.
> I have also checked my analysis and I could not find anything.
> I have looked at all ABS H2 runs (Fall 2004) and I got the same results for
> the asymmetries.
Did you compare your inclusive asymmetries in the elastic region with the
exclusive ones from p(e,e'p) from Adrian or Chris, for the same Q^2's?
You may also want to compare the normalized elastic yields from your
inclusive analysis with the exclusive normalized yields from Adrian in
the elastic region.
This issue has to be clarified before anything else is trustworthy.
> I have tried something else: I haven't normalized the Monte Carlo anymore,
> with and without Radiative Corrections (MC_noRC, MC_withRC) and I have got a
> match! I have attached my results! I guess the problem is with normalization,
> though I did it right the first time!!! Although the data look close to
> MC_noRC (blue curve), this should not mean that MASCARAD (greenish curve) has
> a bug! MAID2003 is not suppose to match the data with the standard quadrupole
> strengths, E2, C2 (1.0, 0.0), so the next step is to change these to get
> closer to the data (compare with MC_withRC).
> But how should I normalize?! I tried everything!
What do you exactly mean by "normalize MC"? If you mean by this to
normalize the MonteCarlo yield by some luminosity/efficiency factor, then
I don't understand how this can change the MC result for asymmetries.
Before you fit any E2/C2 amplitudes, it would be good to see the
sensitivity of the asymmetries with respect to a variation of EMR/CMR,
between, say 0% and 5%.
Best regards
Michael
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Mon Feb 24 2014 - 14:07:33 EST