[Rgc] RGC-analysis meeting tomorrow (Tuesday)

[kayleigh at jlab.org]

Hi Sebastian, RG-C

Thank you for this clarification, yes I did also do the same thing as you
and checked all logbook entries for the outliers, and was aware of the
spin dance, I mentioned the zero degree Wein angle in the meeting
(admitting that I wasnt 100% sure of its definition, and asked for
clarification) and that it was changed to 60 degrees after these two runs,
I apologise if I wasn't clear in my talk but I had performed these checks
and agreed at the time and now that we can discount these runs.

I widened the limit to +/- 0.3 as per your and Timothy's suggestion and
there are more runs involved that truly show these spin dance runs as
outliers as I have attached here. This also brings my estimate for the
polarisation back to close to 83%.

I will add this to my slides and results to upload to the wiki, is there
an agenda for yesterdays meeting available yet?

Best,
Kayleigh





 Dear RGC-ers,
>
> relating to Kayleigh’s presentation today, I looked up the logbook
> entries around the time those 2 “suspiciously low polarization” Moller
> runs were taken:
> <https://logbooks.jlab.org/entry/4007425>
> logbooks.jlab.org<https://logbooks.jlab.org/entry/4007425>
> [X]<https://logbooks.jlab.org/entry/4007425>
>
> Turns out they were taken during a SPIN DANCE! So, the 0 degree Wien angle
> is CORRECT and was done on purpose to understand the machine tune and
> optimize the longitudinal polarization for all halls. SO: we can totally
> ignore those runs. As I said, we could relax the limit on the beam charge
> asymmetry a little (e.g., to +/- 0.4% instead) so we get a few more runs
> and then look again at the entire summer period for only those runs that
> meet that criterion as well as having at most 2% statistical
> uncertainties. I hope that this would give us a clearer picture after we
> remove all of the spin dance runs referenced in above logbook entry (or,
> even better, any other systematic studies or periods of malfunctioning
> Moller referred to in relevant logbook entries).
>
> In general, as I said before, if there are outliers or otherwise
> suspicious results from Moller runs, we should really look at the logbook
> - not just for the Moller runs themselves, but also shift summaries
> encompassing the time they were taken, and maybe even daily RC reports.
> All I did was go to the HallB logbook “HBLOG”, select the time frame
> of interest (summer 2022) and searched on the word “Moller” anywhere
> within the logs. So it’s not really THAT cumbersome to do…
>
> - Sebastian
>
> On Feb 26, 2024, at 9:25 AM, Silvia Niccolai via Rgc <rgc at jlab.org>
> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
> tomorrow (Tuesday) we'll have our weekly RGC-analysis meeting, at 8:30AM,
> zoom link: https://jlab-org.zoomgov.com/j/1601890334
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rgc mailing list
> Rgc at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/rgc
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Summer2022_Good_Moller_INCLUDING_spin_dance.png
Type: image/png
Size: 49424 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/rgc/attachments/20240228/42a1dfc1/attachment-0001.png>