Below please find the messages and new figures which Ralph Dollan sent out on Dc. 20 and Dec. 21, 2007 as a web page, with links to the figures.
(The Mail server rejects messages which it finds too long (over 10000 characters, including attachments).)
Happy Holidays to all, and a happy, healthy and successful New Year 2008!
Ralph Dollan's Message of Dec.20 :

Hi Kirk,
attached are some remastered figures: I changed fonts, scales etc. and increased the artificial offset of the 160A electron and positron point.
- 2007-12-20-rd-pol2011.eps pol2011 - polarization plot
- 2007-12-20-rd-pol2011b.eps pol2011b - the same without superscripts (as Peter proposed)
- 2007-12-20-rd-pol2011_dark.eps
- 2007-12-20-rd-pol2011b_dark.eps pol2011_dark, pol2011b_dark - the same as the figures above, but the errorbands of the expected polarization are a bit darker for better visibility
- 2007-12-20-rd-asym2011.eps
- 2007-12-20-rd-asym2011b.eps asym2011, asym2011b - the pure asymmetries
- 2007-12-20-rd-asymmetries_140_2.eps asymmetries_140_2 - the single asymmetries of the 140A point
- 2007-12-20-rd-pol_and_asyms2011.eps pol_and_asym2011 - the polarization plot combined with the asymmetry plot

In addition here are some comments to version 7.4.
- on P2,C1,L3: it says "... were separated in an analyzing magnet D2..."
D2 in Fig.1 is not the analyzer magnet but the spectrometer. Since the analyzer magnet is a solenoid and the "separator" Dipoles, we should not mix these.
It's also not consistent with the description in the caption of figure 1.
- P2,C2,L49: " measure the longitudinal polarization of the photons..." The photons are circularly polarized.
- P3,C1,L2: do we want to mention the sixth spectrometer energy since we don't show the results of the 150A point?
- P3,C1,L10: 150A -> 160A
- Table1: here the asymmetries are given in percent and the polarization values and the analyzing power in absolute numbers, what brings the asymmetries and the polarization to the same order of magnitude- is this intendet?
Do we want to state an error for the analyzing power?
If you need more/other changes in the figures or other input, please let me know.
Best regards

Ralph Dollan's Message of Dec.21 :

Hi Kirk, here are some polished figures:
- 2007-12-21-rd-PhotonNumberHelicity19b.eps PhotonNumberHelicity19b - the undulator spectrum relabeled
- 2007-12-21-rd-pol2112_dark.eps pol2122_dark - the polarization plot relabeled
- 2007-12-21-rd-central_csi_160Ecsi.eps
- 2007-12-21-rd-central_csi_160Edep.eps
- 2007-12-21-rd-central_csi_160E.eps central_csi_160 - the energy deposition in better quality(3 times with different x axis title...)
- 2007-12-21-rd-asymmetries_140_2_b.eps asymmetries_140_2_b.eps - the single asymmetries relabeled

Concerning the analysis: Eq. 24 describes the background subtraction in general, were n_s,b are the number of undulator-on/off events or beam pulses or triggers. In a "normal" cycle this number is after cuts etc. in the order of <1500. Technically, the background subtraction and the normalization is done (has to be done - we have to combine the correct signal-background pairs from the CsI and the silicon counter) in one go according to eq. 31-33 in the Appendix A.5.
We found out, that it is equivalent
- to normalize to the photon flux and correct with the asymmetry measured in P1
- or directly normalize to P1
The number of positrons does not enter here - we are using the un-calibrated readings from the P1 counter for the normalization/correction.
I hope, this explanation helps. Up to which detail do we want to describe the analysis, do we want to come up with formulas...?
Best regards

p.s. I wish everybody Merry Christmas and a happy new Year...!

(PDT or GMT-8h) by Achim W. Weidemann.

For comments or questions on this page, or this project, please send e-mail to: achimNOSPAM@SLAC.Stanford.EDU(remove NOSPAM)