<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
<u><b>Narbe:</b></u> Redid dilution factors with the kinematics bins
James uses for his asymmetries. Compared averaged dilution factors to
check that things are consistent with energy, which they are. <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://hallcweb.jlab.org/experiments/sane/wiki/index.php/Kinematics#01.2F25.2F2012">https://hallcweb.jlab.org/experiments/sane/wiki/index.php/Kinematics#01.2F25.2F2012</a><br>
Double checking that the aluminum is being accounted for correctly.<br>
<br>
<br>
<u><b>Anusha:</b></u> Looking at NH3 data/MC for HMS with aluminum
contribution. This affects the scale factor(s) by ~4%. Sees ~2%
contribution at elastic peak. Things look reasonable.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://hallcweb.jlab.org/experiments/sane/wiki/index.php/Updates_on_01/25/2012-use_pf%3D60%25_and_add_Al_contribution">https://hallcweb.jlab.org/experiments/sane/wiki/index.php/Updates_on_01/25/2012-use_pf%3D60%25_and_add_Al_contribution</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<u><b>Luwani:</b></u> Looking at pi0 asymmetry with varying energy
cuts. They are always consistent with 0.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://hallcweb.jlab.org/experiments/sane/wiki/index.php/Average_Pi0_Asymmetry_with_Target_Polarization">https://hallcweb.jlab.org/experiments/sane/wiki/index.php/Average_Pi0_Asymmetry_with_Target_Polarization</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<u><b>Hovhannes:</b></u> Looking at pi0 contribution to data, for 5.9
perp. Divided data and MC in to 100 slices along the BigCal blocks.
Sees that the pi0s dominate at the lower energies (E'<1.3 GeV). For
data, pi0s are events with the cuts: 1 cluster & Cerenkov hit. The
agreement of data/MC gets better at higher energies (E'>1.3 GeV) and
at higher vertical black positions; basically in the Protvino blocks.
Things look worse at lower energies and lower vertical positions. This
is at least partly due to the Cerenkov efficiencies beign worse at the
lower mirrors. <br>
Sees a considerable amount of positrons.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://userweb.jlab.org/~bhovik/SANE/pos_perp5.9.ps">https://userweb.jlab.org/~bhovik/SANE/pos_perp5.9.ps</a><br>
Counts or (cross-sections for MC) vs. E'. Left plots are with
everything plotted together. Right plots are with data normalized to
MC, using the region 1.1 < E' < 1.5 GeV<br>
Color scheme goes as follows:<br>
black = data<br>
blue = electrons(MC)<br>
red = pi0s(MC)<br>
purple = electrons + pions (MC)<br>
Will look at this for the other energies/configurations.<br>
<br>
<br>
<u><b>James:</b></u> Redid asymmetries with the latest dilution
factors. The Q^2 dependence seems to be gone, but there is still a
W(invariant mass of final states) dependence at W > 2 GeV. This is
seen in the parallel and per asymmetries as well. Jonathan gets similar
results.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://hallcweb.jlab.org/experiments/sane/wiki/index.php/A1%2C_A2_and_Structure_Functions#Update_with_New_Dilution_Factors:_1.2F25.2F2012">https://hallcweb.jlab.org/experiments/sane/wiki/index.php/A1%2C_A2_and_Structure_Functions#Update_with_New_Dilution_Factors:_1.2F25.2F2012</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<u><b>Hoyoung (01/26/12):</b></u> Working on finishing the latest
packing fractions by checking details. Gets really large packing
fractions for some of the 4.7 perp loads (72213, 72247). Double checked
the C+He run (72377) used to scale these and it still seems to be
considerably different from rest; ~0.87, causing what seems to be an
overcorrection. <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://hallcweb.jlab.org/experiments/sane/wiki/index.php/Packing_Fraction_using_pol_hms_single">https://hallcweb.jlab.org/experiments/sane/wiki/index.php/Packing_Fraction_using_pol_hms_single</a><br>
Will compare NH3(data) rates of these with those with same kinematics
and loads/inserts (72278, 72281).<br>
<br>
<br>
The collaboration meeting will be February 27th at JLab. Oscar has sent
out a tentative agenda.<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 February 1 at 3:30pm (JLab time).<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>