[b1_ana] TAC/iTAC resp.

[O. A. Rondon]

Hi Dustin,

Minor comment: collaboration spelling.

One comment Don made is that a 7-8 pages response to a two pages report
 seems a bit too long. I tend to agree that we should do some condensing.

Also I think the bulk of section 3 would be better separated as an
addendum. I think at the response level we should concentrate on
justifying 20% Pzz. I believe Karl said that Chris was comfortable with it.

One way to attain the desired level would be to use a 6.5 T coil (simple
solenoid is cheapest, and it would work fine with longitudinal field). I
do think we should mention that a new target should be seriously
considered, since the CLAS coils were just a stopgap solution for an
experiment that needed both para and perp field.

Cheers,

Oscar




Dustin Keller wrote:
> Edits have been made to the TAC/iTAC resp. with the
> updated version at
> https://userweb.jlab.org/~dustin/work/b1_dir/Azz_response/
> 
> additional edits and suggestions are welcome.
> 
> dustin
> 
> On Mon, 3 Jun 2013, Dustin Keller wrote:
> 
>> The working rough draft of the TAC/iTAC response is at
>> https://userweb.jlab.org/~dustin/work/b1_dir/Azz_response/
>>
>> we may need considerable altering, editing, and condensing
>> but all the information is there.
>>
>> dustin
>> _______________________________________________
>> b1_ana mailing list
>> b1_ana at jlab.org
>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/b1_ana
>>
> _______________________________________________
> b1_ana mailing list
> b1_ana at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/b1_ana
>