[Eg1_run] Dilution Factor information

[Robert Fersch]

On Mon, 5 Apr 2010, Robert Fersch wrote:




  This email is a response to a request by Sebastian for
  information
  relevant to dilution factors; I'm posting it to the EG1 group to
  make it
  available to whoever might need it.

  Answers below pertain to the 12 sets of data in sequential order
  in EG1b
  as follows:

  1: 1.6in
  2: 1.6out
  3: 5.76out
  4: 5.73out
  5: 5.7in
  6: 2.3in
  7: 5.6in
  8: 1.7out
  9: 2.5out
  10: 2.5in
  11: 4.2in
  12: 4.2out


  Final plots of ALL relevant quantities (dilution factors, raw asymmetries, A_||, etc.) are archived online
  at

  http://www.jlab.org/Hall-B/secure/eg1/EG2000/fersch/diagnostic_histos/

  which is offline at

  /u/site/www/html/Hall-B/secure/eg1/EG2000/fersch/diagnostic_histos

  The README file explains the organization of the vast numbers of plots; the dilution factors themselves
  are plotted both against W and Q^2 in NH3_W/120/ ; NH3_Q2/120/ ; ND3_W/120/ and ND3_Q2/120/ .


>>  
>> Here's the information as addressed:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010, Sebastian Kuhn wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Rob,
>>>
>>> for some reason all kinds of analyses are presently grappling
>> with dilution
>>> factor issues. I was wondering whether you can help us with
>> one specific
>>> question: Can you provide us with a COMPLETE table of the
>> extracted target
>>> length L,
>
  L and "statistical" error from models:

  1	1.90272   0.00383681
  2	1.85267   0.00638954
  3	1.82395   0.00466245
  4	1.86957   0.00296175
  5	1.94808   0.00657901
  6	1.7717    0.00354486
  7	1.77768   0.00643883
  8	1.87409   0.00212571
  9	1.85551   0.00227562
  10	1.91712   0.00709403
  11	1.9967    0.00775213
  12	2.05122   0.00224023
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> the packing fraction l_A, 
>

  including the statistical error to the fit again (from radiated models 
again):

  NH3:

  1	0.627922   0.000196819
  2	0.65194    0.000562829
  3	0.606612   0.000278876
  4	0.567217   0.00025683
  5	0.559154   0.000569131
  6	0.627058   0.000261019
  7	0.559557   0.000488719
  8	0.551446   0.000222252
  9	0.56942    0.00017625
  11	0.593839   0.000422786
  12	0.596738   0.0001507

  ND3:

  1	0.68649    0.000199225
  2	0.675489   0.000524592
  3	0.723237   0.000305603
  4	0.570284   0.000249905
  5	0.589663   0.000558826
  7	0.604908   0.000470047
  8	0.626241   0.000223394
  9	0.63143    0.000175169
  10	0.597433   0.000381051
  11	0.597861   0.000408581
  12	0.613027   0.000139086
>
>
>
>
> the required correction for different
>>> radiation length 
>
  Correction for different radiation length was calculated using Peter's unpolarized radiative corrections and depends only on beam energy;
  this is an array that varies in both W and Q^2.  The 41x300 array tables (representing the standard CLAS EG1 bins, with the first bin corresponding to Q^2 or W = 0) can be found
  offline at /home/fersch/eg1b/analysis/asymmetry/

  under the filenames

  MTcorr1.606GeV.txt
  MTcorr1.723GeV.txt
  MTcorr2.286GeV.txt
  MTcorr2.561GeV.txt
  MTcorr4.238GeV.txt
  MTcorr5.615GeV.txt
  MTcorr5.725GeV.txt
  MTcorr5.743GeV.txt

  These arrays represent numbers that should be MULTIPLIED by the number of counts in the empty target before making any comparisons to other target counts,
if you want radiative corrections accounted for.




  and for FC loss (at lower beam energies) for 

  I read the FC loss from a table; these are beam energy and target
  dependent. They are the same values Ralph Minehart has listed at

  http://www.jlab.org/Hall-B/secure/eg1/EG2000/minehart/monitors/summary.txt

  In each case I divide the Faraday Cup counts by the list number under the AVG column. The run-by-run table of values I use is included offline at

  /home/fersch/eg1b/runinfo/runinfo.txt



>
>> ALL run groups 
>>> (both NH3 and ND3, separately for each beam energy and torus
>> polarity)? I
>>> know that most of that information is in your thesis, but it
>> is not clearly
>>> labeled by target type (NH3 vs. ND3) and not all combinations
>> of beam
>>> energies and torus polarities are shown in all cases...
>>>
>>> Thanks so much - Sebastian
>>>
>>
>
  I think that covers everything requested;

  Rob Fersch