Difference between revisions of "Run1 - January 2015"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
== Matt's Campaign Strategy Notes from 5/1/2015 meeting == | == Matt's Campaign Strategy Notes from 5/1/2015 meeting == | ||
| − | Measure Asymmetry vs Target Thickness | + | #Measure Asymmetry vs Target Thickness |
* Take data at 5 MeV/c (done) | * 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) | * Measure the thickness of companion foils, our x-axis error bar (Mamun finished with measurements, Marcy completing analysis) | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
* 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) | * 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? | + | #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) | * 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 Sherman Function | + | #Extrapolate asymmetry to Zero Thickness, determine single atom Sherman Function |
* What is a sensible functional form to fit data? GEANT model will tell us this. (Marty working on this now) | * What is a sensible functional form to fit data? GEANT model will tell us this. (Marty working on this now) | ||
* Compare our fit result at zero thickness to Xavier’s theoretical prediction, what is the error on the theoretical prediction? (Charlie working on this now, Joe mentions this might already be on wiki) | * Compare our fit result at zero thickness to Xavier’s theoretical prediction, 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 = X +/- Y +/- Z | + | #Assign a polarization value to our beam: Pol = X +/- Y +/- Z |
| − | Joe makes the point, Asym vs Thickness at different energies can provide more confidence 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) | + | #Joe makes the point, Asym vs Thickness at different energies can provide more confidence 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 | + | #Riad favors asymmetry measurements using low-Z target material, as providing more impact for Theory |
Revision as of 05:13, 2 May 2015
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 Analysis Documents
- element locations media:Run1_Beamlines.pdf
- MBH3D00H/V are in reality MAD3D00H/V and use MAD field maps media:MAD_FMAP.pdf
- chronology in different formats media:run1summary.txt, media:run1summary.docx, media:run1summary.pdf
- on-line summary spreadsheets media:run1database.ods, media:run1database.xlsx
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 Sherman Function
- What is a sensible functional form to fit data? GEANT model will tell us this. (Marty working on this now)
- Compare our fit result at zero thickness to Xavier’s theoretical prediction, 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 = X +/- Y +/- Z
- Joe makes the point, Asym vs Thickness at different energies can provide more confidence 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