[Halld-tagger] Fwd: polarization update

Mon Mar 14 08:43:58 EDT 2016

Mike, Nathan, and all,

I whole-heartedly agree with Curtis. Anything in the logbook is for our
internal consumption only, and represents a snapshot of where we are at any
particular moment as we move forward toward understanding our systematics.
Thank you for sharing what you have, I think it is helpful.

-Richard Jones

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 8:34 AM, Curtis A. Meyer <cmeyer at cmu.edu> wrote:

> Hi Everyone -
>
>   I just wanted to comment that there has been spectacular progress on all
> fronts in
> understanding the degree of linear polarization. Everyone involved has
> done a
> fantastic job in getting preliminary results out as quickly as possible,
> and the entire
> collaboration is thrilled to see that within errors, all the methods that
> we have report
> consistent (preliminary) results. We now know that our diamonds are
> producing
> coherent bremsstrahlung and appear quite consistent with our predictions.
> This
> work is something we should all be very proud of.
>
>    We also fully understand that none of these results are final. But the
> fact that people
> are able to get us preliminary results is crucial to our moving forward. I
> also feel that
> without the apparent redundancy that we have, most of us would not be
> nearly as
> comfortable as we are now.
>
>    Curtis
> ---------
> Curtis A. Meyer MCS Associate Dean for Faculty and Graduate Affairs
> Wean:    (412) 268-2745 Professor of Physics
> Doherty: (412) 268-3090 Carnegie Mellon University
> Fax:         (412) 681-0648 Pittsburgh, PA 15213
> curtis.meyer at cmu.edu http://www.curtismeyer.com/
>
>
>
> On Mar 14, 2016, at 8:17 AM, Nathan Sparks <nsparks at jlab.org> wrote:
>
> The reported degree of polarization from the TPOL is a rough estimate,
> based on the information I had available at the time.
> I have no reason to believe it is not in the right ballpark, and it was
> not presented as a final result.
>
> -Nathan
>
> On Mar 14, 2016, at 7:48 AM, dugger at jlab.org wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> The reported polarizations for the polarimeter are not correct. It was too
> early for the degree of polarization to have been reported.
>
> Take care,
> Michael
>
> Message from Ken regarding comparison between different methods for beam
> polarization estimation.
> -forwarded by Richard Jones
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Ken Livingston <Kenneth.Livingston at glasgow.ac.uk>
> Date: Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 6:35 AM
> Subject: Re: polarization update
> To: Justin Stevens <jrsteven at jlab.org>, Nathan Sparks <nsparks at jlab.org>,
> Richard Jones <richard.t.jones at uconn.edu>
>
>
> Hi Justin,
> That a very nice study. It's exactly what's needed. If we believe the
> photon asymmetry for the rho in this energy range is really 1, and are
> convinced that it's very cleanly extracted signal, that's the best
> polarimiter we can have. It has an event rate that's better than the
> triple
> polarimiter and doesn't need an analysing power,  and it does not need all
> the vaguely known parameters that are required to match the enhancement
> with a coherent brem calculation.
>
> For the 20 um radiator it's also good to see that, as we'd expect, the
> shape of the enhancement (and hence polarization) is much better with
> collimated data rather than raw scalers. The similarity between the
> polarization for the 20um and 50um is borne out by Nathan's studies
> although the energy range is different (8-9GeV).
>
> It looks like both your studies are assuming that Ppara = Pperp.
> I got the impression from the raw spectra that this might not be true for
> the 20um diamond. It would be good to check this out.
> A quick and check would come from using the more complicated fit function
> I
> sent you earlier, where the flux ratio and pol ratio are free parameters.
>
> From this, you could plot the pol ratio as a function of E_gammma, as you
>
> have for Sigma.
>
> My "phenomenological fit" is clearly not as phenomenal as I'd hoped. It
> doesn't cope with the ~200MeV spread in the coherent edge for the 20um
> diamond. I believed it would. It can fit almost any enhancement, but is
> not
> much use if it doesn't get the corresponsing polarization correct.  Either
> I've made a silly assumption somewhere, screwed up the algebra or screwed
> up the code. Maybe all three together - although it generally gives good
> agreement when used to extract asymmetries and compare with previous
> measurements.
>
> I'll need to scrutinise it as soon as I get time.
>
>
> Regards,
> Ken
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 11/03/16 17:06, Justin Stevens wrote:
>
> FYI, from this mornings meeting: rho and TPOL asymmetries comparing 20
> and
> 50 um diamonds.
>
> https://logbooks.jlab.org/entry/3390212
> https://logbooks.jlab.org/entry/3390218
>
>
>
> --
> =======================================================
> Ken Livingston
>
> Dept. of Physics & Astronomy,        Tel: +44 141 330 6428
> University of Glasgow,               Fax: +44 141 330 5889
> Glasgow G12 8QQ.
> Scotland. UK.
> =======================================================
> _______________________________________________
> Halld-tagger mailing list
> Halld-tagger at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/halld-tagger
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Halld-tagger mailing list
> Halld-tagger at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/halld-tagger
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Halld-tagger mailing list
> Halld-tagger at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/halld-tagger
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Halld-tagger mailing list
> Halld-tagger at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/halld-tagger
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/halld-tagger/attachments/20160314/660c33ba/attachment.html>