<html>
<head>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
The attached table and figure (and the Excel spreadsheet it comes
from) shows a comparison between the field/current ratio (at pole
center) from the data and from Tosca. Since your spreadsheet gives
the current only in "PPM", I have adjusted the ratios to make them
agree at 1.5 T. The consistency at 0.75 T, 1.5 T and 1.7 T looks
quite good. (I have connected the measured points by straight line
segments to make it easier to see where they are.) <br>
Measured ratio (P1) Tosca ratio<br>
0.75 T 2.0867 2.085 (average
of 0.6 and 0.9 T)<br>
1.50 T 2.0307 2.0311<br>
1.70 T 1.8461 1.8582<br>
This is important in case we have to interpolate between the maps to
run at an excitation other than 1.5 T.<br>
<br>
The measurements at 0.1 T and 0.0536 T are way off the curve. Since
the Hall probes and the NMR agree, the only sensible explanation is
an offset in the power supply reading. Does anyone have a
calibration of the current reading? As long as we have the NMR
probe, I guess the current is not important.<br>
<br>
Dan<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:2132315862.2236727.1389972652886.JavaMail.root@jlab.org" type="cite">
<div>
<div>
<div class="moz-signature"> -- <br>
<font color="#ff0000"><i>Daniel Sober<br>
Professor<br>
Physics Department<br>
The Catholic University of America<br>
Washington, DC 20064<br>
Phone: (202) 319-5856, -5315<br>
E-mail: <a href="mailto:sober@cua.edu">sober@cua.edu</a></i></font><br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<font color="#ff0000"><i>Daniel Sober<br>
Professor<br>
Physics Department<br>
The Catholic University of America<br>
Washington, DC 20064<br>
Phone: (202) 319-5856, -5315<br>
E-mail: <a href="mailto:sober@cua.edu">sober@cua.edu</a></i></font><br>
</div>
</body>
</html>