Difference between revisions of "Monday, December 06, 2021"
From HallCWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
1. Sanity check of CaFe simulations using C12 low pmiss setting | 1. Sanity check of CaFe simulations using C12 low pmiss setting | ||
* Holly and I did simulations of 12C(e,e'p) using the same kinematics and spectrometer acceptance cuts. See [https://hallcweb.jlab.org/wiki/images/8/8c/CaFe_SIMC_sanityCheck.pdf CaFe SIMC Sanity Check] | * Holly and I did simulations of 12C(e,e'p) using the same kinematics and spectrometer acceptance cuts. See [https://hallcweb.jlab.org/wiki/images/8/8c/CaFe_SIMC_sanityCheck.pdf CaFe SIMC Sanity Check] | ||
| − | * From these results, comparisons look OK for the most part. There is a slight difference for the y_tar distribution in the HMS which seems to be related to smearing effects, but this is | + | * From these results, comparisons look OK for the most part. There is a slight difference for the y_tar distribution in the HMS which seems to be related to smearing effects, but this is on-going work, to try and figure out what is the cause, and which part of the SIMC code is this applied to. |
| − | on-going work, to try and figure out what is the cause, and which part of the SIMC code is this applied to. | ||
Revision as of 11:59, 6 December 2021
Discussion Topics
1. Sanity check of CaFe simulations using C12 low pmiss setting
- Holly and I did simulations of 12C(e,e'p) using the same kinematics and spectrometer acceptance cuts. See CaFe SIMC Sanity Check
- From these results, comparisons look OK for the most part. There is a slight difference for the y_tar distribution in the HMS which seems to be related to smearing effects, but this is on-going work, to try and figure out what is the cause, and which part of the SIMC code is this applied to.
