Difference between revisions of "Elong-15-03-26"
(→t20) |
|||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
[[Image:2015-03-26-t20.png|600px]] | [[Image:2015-03-26-t20.png|600px]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | I had been working on the [[Elong-15-02-26 | parameterization of the A and B form factors]], but was having difficulty finding elastic cross section data to compare the results to. Looking at the Shutz76 data (E_beam=6.519 GeV, theta=8 deg, Q^2~0.8 GeV^2), the paramterized FFs were coming up orders of magnitude short from the data, whereas Bosted did a much better job. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | [[Image:2015-03-27-ff-check.png|600px]] | ||
Revision as of 11:59, 27 March 2015
11 GeV Beam
Based on discussions with Mark and Gerry, I redid the rates using a differently-binned 11 GeV bin to increase nu and <math>W_{NN}^2= 2\nu m_D+m_D^2 -Q^2</math>, as there was concern about the curves not being valid for low nu~0.5 GeV. W was replaced with W_NN, and the dotted line shows <math>W_{NN}=m_D+50</math> MeV.
t20
Using the Bosted code, I calculated first preliminary estimates for t20 using existing kinematics (although the 8.8 GeV kinematic was replaced with the above 11 GeV), utilizing 35 days of beam time.
I had been working on the parameterization of the A and B form factors, but was having difficulty finding elastic cross section data to compare the results to. Looking at the Shutz76 data (E_beam=6.519 GeV, theta=8 deg, Q^2~0.8 GeV^2), the paramterized FFs were coming up orders of magnitude short from the data, whereas Bosted did a much better job.
