<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
<u><b>Hoyoung (Dec 21):</b></u> Looking into runs which gave
unexplainable different packing fractions from same target material
load; 72828 and 72957. Checked slow raster (x and y) distributions for
these and they looked similar. So this didn't provide any smoking gun. <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.jlab.org/~hykang/pf/recent/">http://www.jlab.org/~hykang/pf/recent/</a><br>
Preparing radiative corrections code provided by Karl Slifer (used for
RSS) to use with HMS data. Will input latest CLAS fit results from
Sebastian into this.<br>
Will provide some slides to James giving updates on the
packing-fractions/dilution-factors and (parallel) HMS asymmetries for
the Hall C meeting in January.<br>
<br>
<br>
<u><b>James</b></u>: Looked at physics and measured asymmetries using
kinematic bin tables generated by Narbe. For physics asymmetries added
corrections for charge normalization, livetime, polarizations, and toy
dilution factor that uses 2 measured packing fractions as input. The
asymmetries look reasonable but the higher <Q^2> bin (5[GeV^2])
seems to have very low statistics. <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://hallcweb.jlab.org/experiments/sane/wiki/index.php/Binned_Asymmetries#Physics_Asymmetries.2C_Para_and_Perp:_12.2F22.2F2010">https://hallcweb.jlab.org/experiments/sane/wiki/index.php/Binned_Asymmetries#Physics_Asymmetries.2C_Para_and_Perp:_12.2F22.2F2010</a> <br>
Posted draft of talk for Hall C meeting.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://twist.phys.virginia.edu/~jdm2z/sane/hallcwinter2011/HallCWinter2011.pdf">http://twist.phys.virginia.edu/~jdm2z/sane/hallcwinter2011/HallCWinter2011.pdf</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<u><b>Anusha:</b></u> Obtained preliminary packing-fraction/dilution
from NH3 data. Used a 4th order polynormial fit region in W
surrounding elastic peak (0.7< W <1.1[GeV]) on the MC, which is
composed of only He and N, to get the background. Subtracted the P4 fit
function from the NH3 Data (Data-MC) to get the ratio with the NH3 Data
((Data-MC)/Data). Minimizes background dilution by using a scale factor
(dat/MC for 0.8<W<0.9[GeV]). Got a scaling factor of 1.3, which
is high, but got background dilution to about 0. This might be fro mthe
data being spread more in lower W than the MC.
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://hallcweb.jlab.org/experiments/sane/wiki/index.php/MC_with_NH3">https://hallcweb.jlab.org/experiments/sane/wiki/index.php/MC_with_NH3</a><br>
Working on xptar vs W correlation with azimuthal correction similar to
RSS. Will try broadening MC peak by transporting B-field to forward
region.<br>
<br>
<br>
<u><b>Jon:</b></u> Looked some more at Cerenkov timing. Looked at TDC
peaks, binned based on the sum64 row and column that was triggered for
that event. The peaks for each row and column were then fit for each
run. Hovhannes mentioned that the replay code has been updated
considerably since then and some of the cuts used might be obsolete
because of new corrections in the replay. The whole procedure is well
detailed on his wiki page post.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://hallcweb.jlab.org/experiments/sane/wiki/index.php/JrmCerTiming">https://hallcweb.jlab.org/experiments/sane/wiki/index.php/JrmCerTiming</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<u><b>Luwani:</b></u> Found the bug in his code for the energy
distributions that was causing the multiple counting for photons and
(effectively) neutral pions. <br>
<br>
<br>
<u><b>Narbe:</b></u> Per the effort to understand what B-field
direction to use for the analysis, looked at HMS data for runs where
this discrepancy was first seen (perp data). Rechecked some Carbon runs
around this period and looked at distributions, comparing data and MC
(black and red curves, respectively). Run 72436 looks the worst
(probably bad chambers) and then 72505. The data plots for xptar vs
yptar show a smaller region than what is seen with the MC. Anusha will
make similar plots. <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://twist.phys.virginia.edu/~narbe/SANE/analysis/CCHe/?C=M;O=D">http://twist.phys.virginia.edu/~narbe/SANE/analysis/CCHe/?C=M;O=D</a><br>
Asked Hoyoung to see how packing fractions might be affected for 5.9GeV
(parallel) data by decreasing size of slow raster for the data (~0.8cm
radius). The slow raster around that time was larger; 1.4cm radius,
compared to 1.0cm radius.<br>
Looked some more at cluster position distributions with GEANT-MC. Tried
not using threshold energy cuts for the BigCal blocks. The gap seem in
the region where the blocks are supposed to change is still there.
Found that it's from the reconstructed energy (possibly) not
registering for that region. Still looking into it. <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://twist.phys.virginia.edu/~narbe/SANE/analysis/GEANT/acceptance/v5/5.25/?C=M;O=D">http://twist.phys.virginia.edu/~narbe/SANE/analysis/GEANT/acceptance/v5/5.25/?C=M;O=D</a><br>
<br>
<br>
As always, please let me know if I missed anything or if I made any
mistake(s).<br>
<br>
Next meeting will be January 5, 2011, where we will do practice runs
for the students' talks for the Hall C meeting.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>