Difference between revisions of "2018 Mott Paper Working Area"
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
*[[Data Analysis Working Area]] | *[[Data Analysis Working Area]] | ||
| − | + | ==Draft Punchlist== | |
| − | ==Punchlist== | ||
=== Request #1 === | === Request #1 === | ||
Revision as of 08:57, 2 November 2018
General Links/Documents
- Back to Mott Homepage CEBAF_MeV_Mott_Polarimeter
- Up-to-date Tech Notes, Paper Articles, etc. : Archived Documents
- Most recent draft of Phys. Rev. C Paper : File:PhysRevCPaper placeholder.pdf
- Run 1
- Online Analysis Spreadsheet : media:run1database.ods
- Asymmetry vs Foil Thickness Full Analysis Spreadsheet : media:06.01.17_Run1_ARC+Dilution.ods
- Run 2
- Online Analysis Spreadsheet : Media:Run2RawData.ods
- Asymmetry vs Foil Thickness Full Analysis Spreadsheet : media:06.01.17_Run2_ARC+Dilution.ods
Draft Punchlist
Request #1
We measured dependence of electronic dead time on the beam current at five different average beam currents from 0.245-4.1 uA on a 1um foil. He'd like a plot showing the five data points vs. beam current with their individual uncertainties, and then the average with it's uncertainty band.
Request #2
We measured dependence of the physics asymmetry on the position of the beam on the target foil from two target foils: 0.225um and 1um. For each foil we measured 7 asymmetries (one at center and six others away from center). The details are described in the systematics TN on the wiki. He'd like a plot showing the measured physics asymmetries (weighted average of IN/OUT) vs. radial distance from the center (instead of using x/y values shown in the TN), and then the average with it's uncertainty band, for the two target foils.
- Asymmetry vs Beam Position from Nominal (radially)
Request #3
Recreate Michael's Paper's Plot
- Remaking of Figure 6: media:Au_targetMSteigerwald.gif. The lines are a fit ( asym = a / (1.0 + alpha . d) ). On the original figure, the lines were his calculations.
