Run1 - January 2015

From Ciswikidb
Jump to: navigation, search
CEBAF_MeV_Mott_Polarimeter

Mott Run 1 was performed January 13-19 with physics energy KE=5.0 MeV

Mott Run 1 Journal - Our online summary of the experiment with many useful links

Mott Run1 Target Thickness Study

Run1 January Analysis Documents

Matt's Campaign Strategy Notes from 5/1/2015 meeting

Measure Asymmetry vs Target Thickness

  • Take data at 5 MeV/c (done)
  • Measure the thickness of companion foils, our x-axis error bar (Mamun finished with measurements, Marcy completing analysis)
  • Assess mott spectra and assign sensible cuts, energy and time (Joe working on this now)
  • Using the cut guidance from above, analyze our runs and create the Asym vs Target Thickness plot, with statistical error bars in Y and error bars in foil thickness from step 1b (Daniel to work on this soon, with Joe's help. Batch runs favored)


How to assign Systematic Error?

  • Review our results, hopefully we find Asymmetry was relatively insensitive to the things we varied. Still a bit vague to me, how to assign a systematic error. (Daniel will analyze and summarize results from systematic studies, group should brainstorm to assign the value)


Extrapolate asymmetry to Zero Thickness, determine single atom Mott Asymmetry

  • What is a sensible functional form to fit data? GEANT model will tell us this. (Marty working on this now). Assign a systematic error to the extrapolation.
  • Use our fit result of Mott Asymmetry at zero thickness and Xavier’s theoretical prediction of Sherman function to calculate beam polarization, what is the error on the theoretical prediction? (Charlie working on this now, Joe mentions this might already be on wiki)


Assign a polarization value to our beam: Pol = P ± Stat ± Syst ± Theory

  • Joe makes the point, Asym vs Thickness at different energies can provide more confidence (in Syst uncertainty) that our functional form fit is credible.
  • A good fit obtained for all tested beam energies, with each fit indicating the same beam polarization, like Michael did, would be a powerful validation of our "model" (could take more data in summer, Riad cautions, better to assess Run1 first)

Riad favors asymmetry measurements using low-Z target material, as providing more impact for Theory