|
1
|
Sept 7/23 PionLT/KaonLT Analysis Meeting Notes
|
|
2
|
----------------------------------------------
|
|
3
|
(Notes by GH & AH)
|
|
4
|
|
|
5
|
Today: KaonLT will be discussed first
|
|
6
|
|
|
7
|
Please remember to post your slides at:
|
|
8
|
https://redmine.jlab.org/projects/kltexp/wiki/Kaon_LT_Meetings
|
|
9
|
|
|
10
|
Present
|
|
11
|
-------
|
|
12
|
Regina - Garth Huber, Nathan Heinrich, Abdennacer Hamdi, Vijay Kumar, Alicia
|
|
13
|
Postuma
|
|
14
|
CSULA - Konrad Aniol
|
|
15
|
CUA - Richard Trotta, Tanja Horn
|
|
16
|
JLab - Dave Gaskell
|
|
17
|
|
|
18
|
Vijay Updates
|
|
19
|
-------------
|
|
20
|
Continuation of SHMS Hodoscope vs. Run number and vs. trigger rate studies
|
|
21
|
- hodoscope 4 has much lower efficiencies than the other planes
|
|
22
|
- most 3/4 planes have efficiency greater than 97%
|
|
23
|
- Garth: check the drop of efficient with respect to momentum (especially at
|
|
24
|
low momentum)
|
|
25
|
|
|
26
|
Next steps
|
|
27
|
- luminosity study, has started working on scripts
|
|
28
|
|
|
29
|
Richard Updates
|
|
30
|
---------------
|
|
31
|
Luminosity scan follow-up from last week
|
|
32
|
- relative yields vs current looks flatter for Carbon than LH2
|
|
33
|
- doing weighted linear fits now (including error bars)
|
|
34
|
- Carbon Normalized Yield vs Current:
|
|
35
|
(0.17% +/- 4.3%)/100uA
|
|
36
|
- LH2 Normalized Yield vs Current:
|
|
37
|
(7.90% +/- 1.8%)/100uA
|
|
38
|
- discussion on "linear regression plots of boiling factor vs current"
|
|
39
|
- these gave different results, but we think that's due to a
|
|
40
|
misinterpretation of the text in CarlosY's thesis
|
|
41
|
- concluded that the boiling in Carbon is negligible, and no additional
|
|
42
|
corrections to the data are required
|
|
43
|
- the 7.9%/100uA factor above should be applied to LH2 data on a run-by-run
|
|
44
|
basis, depending on the average current for each run
|
|
45
|
- errors in the boiling factor will also have to be propagated, including
|
|
46
|
also the uncertainty in the BCM calibration
|
|
47
|
|
|
48
|
Kinematic plots per t-bin
|
|
49
|
- Fortran average kin script is working now
|
|
50
|
|
|
51
|
Nathan Updates
|
|
52
|
--------------
|
|
53
|
Hodoscope calibrations
|
|
54
|
- we thought they were done, but apparently Jacob never pushed his calibs to
|
|
55
|
GitHub, so all of the other detector calibrations done to date used online
|
|
56
|
hodo calib parameters
|
|
57
|
- not only will the hodoscope calibrations have to be done/re-checked, but this
|
|
58
|
also means (unfortunately) that other detectors (particularly drift chambers)
|
|
59
|
will have to be rechecked
|
|
60
|
- although a setback, it's good this was caught before we got too much further
|
|
61
|
in the analysis!
|
|
62
|
|
|
63
|
- located Jacob's scripts and calib files in his working area on the ifarm
|
|
64
|
- SHMS hodo calibs are running now
|
|
65
|
- HMS: fighting some script issues
|
|
66
|
- hoping that 3 time-walk calibs, a new one each time the hodoscopes were
|
|
67
|
turned off, will be sufficient
|
|
68
|
- VP calib will be done once per beam energy (not sure what VP stands for,
|
|
69
|
though)
|
|
70
|
|
|
71
|
NPS Run Coordinator duties
|
|
72
|
- Nathan will do Jan 31-Feb 7/2024
|
|
73
|
|
|
74
|
Alicia Updates
|
|
75
|
--------------
|
|
76
|
Q2-dependence of sigma_LT'/sigma_0 at fixed xB=0.415, 0.245
|
|
77
|
- displayed next to CLAS-6,12 data
|
|
78
|
- raw data only, no scaling applied to constant t or xB
|
|
79
|
- Q2-dependence at each xB looks fairly flat within scatter of data
|
|
80
|
- probably need to do a t-interpolation of data to a fixed value (right now
|
|
81
|
just have data within a specific t-range)
|
|
82
|
|
|
83
|
- Alicia: It would be nice to have a model to compare the data to, will run
|
|
84
|
PARTONS
|
|
85
|
|
|
86
|
Garth Offset Studies
|
|
87
|
--------------------
|
|
88
|
Out-of-Plane
|
|
89
|
- following procedure on pages 105-106 of Tanja's thesis
|
|
90
|
- obtained BPM-y and SHMS,HMS Matrix Element info from Richard to compute phi
|
|
91
|
offsets
|
|
92
|
- out-of-plane study reveals large out of plane offsets, probably unphysical
|
|
93
|
- DaveG suggests to check the reverse of the Y-axis, i.e. Pp/Pe instead of
|
|
94
|
Pe/Pp, as the figure in the thesis might be mis-labeled
|
|
95
|
|
|
96
|
In-Plane
|
|
97
|
- received preliminary info from Richard for 6191, 8209, 10585 MeV Heep Coin
|
|
98
|
data
|
|
99
|
- tried a global fit of in-plane offsets for 8 beam energies, and compared
|
|
100
|
results to last week's fit for 5 beam energies
|
|
101
|
- angle and momenta offsets are generally comparable, although residuals are
|
|
102
|
significantly larger for some higher beam energy data
|
|
103
|
- probably have to let HMS momentum offset float for settings where P>5 GeV/c
|
|
104
|
- waiting for Richard final data before continuing study of in-plane offsets
|
|
105
|
|
|
106
|
Next Meeting
|
|
107
|
------------
|
|
108
|
- NOTE THE NEW TIME AND ZOOM CONNECTION INFO!
|
|
109
|
- Tues Sept 12 @ 15:00 Eastern/13:00 Regina/12:00 Pacific
|
|
110
|
- PionLT will go first
|
|
111
|
|
|
112
|
- we will use this time until the end of October, when USA goes off daylight
|
|
113
|
savings time
|
|
114
|
- until then, we have to be sure to let Nathan to go earlier, as he has to
|
|
115
|
leave for TA work no later than 14:15 Regina time
|
|
116
|
|
|
117
|
|