|
1
|
Richard:
|
|
2
|
|
|
3
|
Met with Carlos to discuss luminosity scan analysis differences.
|
|
4
|
Found Carlos was looking at ELREAL while Richard was looking at ELCEAN.
|
|
5
|
Results more consistent when both using ELREAL.
|
|
6
|
|
|
7
|
Showed luminosity scan fits with error bars, but something still looks not
|
|
8
|
quite right. Will use root next (using python right now) to see if fit
|
|
9
|
parameters/uncertainties look more reasonable.
|
|
10
|
|
|
11
|
Discussed next replay for 2018/2019 data - after offsets determined.
|
|
12
|
|
|
13
|
Ali:
|
|
14
|
|
|
15
|
Grabbed latest BPM calibration info from wiki:
|
|
16
|
https://hallcweb.jlab.org/wiki/index.php/BPM_calibration_information
|
|
17
|
|
|
18
|
Had some impact on peak positions, but not large.
|
|
19
|
|
|
20
|
BPM calibrations: will use Feb. 2019 values since data were taken in March.
|
|
21
|
For all Fall 2018 data, will use 8/29/2018 values.
|
|
22
|
|
|
23
|
Showed raster-y tests (changing sign) - we had it right to start with. Small
|
|
24
|
residual dependence on raster-y could be taken out by scaling the value of
|
|
25
|
raster-y. This could have impact on other resonstructed quantities though
|
|
26
|
(xptar, ztar) so we should be cautious about doing this.
|
|
27
|
DG note: perhaps we could just scale the relevant xtar-delta matrix element?
|
|
28
|
|
|
29
|
Vijay:
|
|
30
|
|
|
31
|
Question: Will raster-y issue be addressed before next replay? Yes - it should
|
|
32
|
be.
|
|
33
|
|
|
34
|
HMS calorimeter efficiency: getting rather low efficiency using production data
|
|
35
|
(0.95). Cherenkov cut is pretty low though (0.65 npe). Will re-do with
|
|
36
|
higher cut. Also will look at Heep data.
|
|
37
|
|
|
38
|
Nathan:
|
|
39
|
|
|
40
|
HMS Cherenkov calibration: fixed main issue from last week - was selecting wrong
|
|
41
|
timing peak. Now calibrations look reasonable - but, more random variation than
|
|
42
|
one would like. Julie suggests looking at 2 runs that have very different
|
|
43
|
calibration but were taken close together in time. Also, the fit range for
|
|
44
|
the single-photo electron peak might be too big.
|
|
45
|
|
|
46
|
Junaid:
|
|
47
|
|
|
48
|
HMS DC calibration. Added multiplicity cut and drift distance spectra look
|
|
49
|
good now (residuals also look good, but I think they were fine before).
|
|
50
|
DC calibrations will be done for each HMS (Q2,W, epsilon) setting.
|
|
51
|
|
|
52
|
SHMS is next.
|
|
53
|
|
|
54
|
Question at end of meeting from Ali: After determining offsets from Heep data,
|
|
55
|
should they ne included in simc? Yes - they represent real changes to the
|
|
56
|
spectrometer central angles and momenta which could impact average Q2, W, -t
|
|
57
|
etc.
|