Difference between revisions of "TransverseAnalysisMeeting July 7 2020"

From PREX Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 41: Line 41:
== Present ==
== Present ==
Cameron C, Caryn P, David A, Devi A, Paul K, Robert R, Ryan R, Weibin Z, Mark D, Dustin M,  
Cameron C, Caryn P, David A, Devi A, Paul K, Robert R, Ryan R, Weibin Z, Mark D, Dustin M, Ciprian G, KK
'''Can't make it:'''
'''Can't make it:'''
Kent P,  
Kent P,  
[[Category:AT Meetings]]
[[Category:AT Meetings]]

Latest revision as of 16:13, 7 July 2020

Back to Main Page >> Transverse Analysis Meetings

previous meeting << >> next meeting

Logistic information

 BlueJeans calling instructions:
 Bluejeans link: https://bluejeans.com/494002155


  1. Data overview: Ciprian gglSheet
    • CG: live sheet which shows the current values and extraction calculation for the An
  2. PREX2 AT runs update: Ryan
    • RyR: respin 2 values are ready.
  3. CREX AT runs update: Weibin & Robert
    • WZ: there was an error in my last calculation. Fixed now and values are consistent between minirun and multiplet values
    • WZ: A couple differences remain
    • WZ: Ca40: minirun average vs multiplet average shows some central value difference, but that is due most likely to the fit (the mul-plots are fit results). KK: we should think about if these differences are reasonable considering the different weighting
  4. Q2 data: Ryan
    • KK: we don't need to quote a An-hat; so Q2 will just be the x position for the data point. We can quote just the first digit (second digit will not matter for the plot).
    • RyR: Averages are not weighted
    1. PREX
      • RyR: for the Q2 uncertainty I used the RMS; The averages
      • DM: there are not huge differences from recoil energy loss and collisional loss (in the target). We will followup on radiative losses.
      • KK: expected to see Ca40 higher than C1% like it's in the RHRS. The LHRS results are a bit confusing. The difference between C1% and Pb should be easy to calculate.
    2. CREX:
      • RyR: Pb is slightly larger than Ca. KK: we need to make sure that the ratios are consistent with the radiation lengths (Ca ~6% , Pb ~10%?). DM: the detectors were tuned for Ca/Pb and the other targets may have the elastic peak moved
  5. Polarimetry results: Weibin
    • PREX MD: we actually had a difference between polarization states (HWP IN/OUT). How are we taking care of that? CG: maybe a large uncertainty
    • CREX WZ: two values; the second one is a week later (we may want to exclude).
  6. Detector non-lineary: Devi & Robert haplog4170
    • DA: detailed discussion in a later meeting. For the AT (Pb and Ca) we can use slide 8 numbers in brackets. DM: this is just for the PMTs (we still have the PITA issue that we presented before). KK: for the PITA scan problem we may want to quote a larger systematic error for this result. These results are DDs so the BCM non-linearity drops out.
    • DA: slide 10 -> values for C1%
    • KK: the proposal is to assigne a 0.3% systematic and not make a correction.
    • DA: for the CREX values I only show the US detectors. Everything is close to 0.
  7. Target contamination: Robert and Weibin
    • KK: systematic for Ca40 correction is very small due to the values being so close.

0.2% of Ca44 .. should be mentioned

  1. Signs between different polarimeters/DAQs:
    • RoR: Almost completed analysis of the spin tracking through CEBAF. Will update haplog


Cameron C, Caryn P, David A, Devi A, Paul K, Robert R, Ryan R, Weibin Z, Mark D, Dustin M, Ciprian G, KK

Can't make it: Kent P,