<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
<u><b>Anusha:</b></u> 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.<br>
Scaling the meson exchange current contribution in F1F209 (MEC2009)
seems to improve the data/MC agreement. <br>
The W plots at the bottom of the page go as:<br>
left panels: normalizing accordingly to <i>inelastic</i> region<br>
right panels: normalizing accordingly to <i>elastic</i> region<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="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">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</a><br>
Will try this for NH3<br>
<br>
<br>
<u><b>Narbe:</b></u> Posted a draft of his talk for the Hall C Users'
meeting in January. This focuses on the HMS inclusive analysis.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://userweb.jlab.org/~narbe/SANE/talks/SANEHallCWinter2011.pdf">https://userweb.jlab.org/~narbe/SANE/talks/SANEHallCWinter2011.pdf</a><br>
<br>
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. <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://userweb.jlab.org/~narbe/SANE/analysis/kinematics/binning/121911/v2/">https://userweb.jlab.org/~narbe/SANE/analysis/kinematics/binning/121911/v2/</a><br>
<br>
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).<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://userweb.jlab.org/~narbe/SANE/analysis/kinematics/acceptance/122111/">https://userweb.jlab.org/~narbe/SANE/analysis/kinematics/acceptance/122111/</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<u><b>Hoyoung (12/22/211):</b></u> Determined packing fractions for
parallel data with updated/corrected HMS replay and MC. The pf's are
lower than before. <br>
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. <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://hallcweb.jlab.org/experiments/sane/wiki/index.php/Packing_Fractions_Tables">https://hallcweb.jlab.org/experiments/sane/wiki/index.php/Packing_Fractions_Tables</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 4th 2012 at 10am (JLab time).<br>
<br>
<font color="#990000"><i><b>Everyone have a wonderful Christmas and
fruitful New Years!</b></i></font><br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>