Data consistency check

I have taken our elastic data and compared them among each other. I plotted scattering angle, where I weighted each set with its relative elastic cross-section, calculated at the center of the acceptance. The 2GeV data at different angles are consistent, while we get too much 1GeV data and too little 3GeV data.

01.)

MCEEP simulation:

I am still working on the comparison of the simulation for H(e,e')p to the data. I still have some problems. However, I have found the missing factor 2. The problem was in the calculation of the density, which is then used for the Luminosity calculation. I learned that I need to be consistent and use the atomic Hydrogen mass (M = 1g/mol) not molecular mass (M = 2g/mol). What I did is use atomic mass for Luminosity calculation and molecular mass for density calculation. Solving this problem has brought me closer to the real cross-section.

I am now properly considering dead time, charge and PS factors. What I now see is reasonable (10 - 30%) agreement between the theory and the data. At this point I believe, that my main problem are the radiative and other losses, which simulation does not consider properly.

To get better agreement between the simulation and the data, I also had to adjust the spectrometer acceptances.

02.)

03.)

04.)

Run #3265 - singles (Difference is approx 10%)

05.)

06.)

07.)

08.)

09.)

10.)

11.)

Run #2814 - singles with MissingMass cut

When comparing 14.5deg run #2814 to the simulation, I get 30% difference in the number of counts. However, when making a cut on missing mass peak - to remove radiation tails - I get much better agreement (10%).

12.)

13.)

14.)

15.)

16.)

17.)

18.)

Run #3265 - coincidence events (Difference is approx 7%)

To get this results I had to modify the BigBite spectrometer acceptance. I reduced the BigBite phi acceptace to 1/2 of its original. Also, I had to do cuts on TgTh, because in real data, the acceptance is reduced on the upper edge.

19.)