[Sane-analysis] Minutes of December 21 2011 Meeting

[Narbe Kalantarians]

_*Anusha:*_ Gave update on her effort towards improving the HMS MC. 
Comparing data/MC for Carbon and data to models. Btw, the blue points 
are from Peter Bosted's FF model.
Scaling the meson exchange current contribution in F1F209 (MEC2009) 
seems to improve the data/MC agreement.
The W plots at the bottom of the page go as:
left panels: normalizing accordingly to /inelastic/ region
right panels: normalizing accordingly to /elastic/ region
https://hallcweb.jlab.org/experiments/sane/wiki/index.php/Updates_on_12/21/2011-C/Use_Arrington_et._al_parame._and_scaling_up_MEC%2C_Form_Factor
Will try this for NH3


_*Narbe:*_ Posted a draft of his talk for the Hall C Users' meeting in 
January. This focuses on the HMS inclusive analysis.
https://userweb.jlab.org/~narbe/SANE/talks/SANEHallCWinter2011.pdf

Generated kinematic binning tables for combining the 2 beam energies. 
This involved taking out the lower scattering-theta angles (~< 31 deg), 
in accordance with the acceptance BETA block cuts, and dropping 
overlapping bins corresponding to 4.7 GeV in favor of those  of 5.9 GeV, 
because the bins for 5.9 GeV have resolution more comparable to the data.
https://userweb.jlab.org/~narbe/SANE/analysis/kinematics/binning/121911/v2/

Looking at dependence of acceptance BETA block cuts on reconstructed 
energy and angles. Doing this for 4.7 GeV parallel and perp 
configurations. This is with the MC and similar work on data is in 
progress. The block cuts can be seen more for the case of parallel , 
since its acceptance includes the blocks near the beam. These are 
suppressed for perp due to the coil. Looking at reconstructed energy vs 
angle it can be seen that the dependence of energy to angle would be 
similar for the 2 fields with a lower cut on energy (~> 1.0+ GeV).
https://userweb.jlab.org/~narbe/SANE/analysis/kinematics/acceptance/122111/


_*Hoyoung (12/22/211):*_ Determined packing fractions for parallel data 
with updated/corrected HMS replay and MC. The pf's are lower than before.
But, the differences seen for same target-material loads with varying 
kinematic settings remain. At this point it seems that for these cases 
the best thing to do will be to take the average of these pf's, simlar 
to what was done for RSS, which had similar occurrences.
https://hallcweb.jlab.org/experiments/sane/wiki/index.php/Packing_Fractions_Tables


As always, please let me know if I missed anything or if I made any 
mistake(s).

Next meeting will be January 4th 2012 at 10am (JLab time).

/*Everyone have a wonderful Christmas and fruitful New Years!*/


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/sane-analysis/attachments/20111222/755b279c/attachment.html