[b1_ana] Awaiting approval

[Dustin Keller]

Though it should be smaller I do not think there is justification
of cutting dxi by two for this point.  So either we leave the statement
and numbers or remove to statement and keep the numbers.  Either is ok
with me.

dustin

On Mon, 10 Jun 2013, Elena Long wrote:

> "The time for each cycle for x = 0.15 are actually half as long so the value 
> of δAdzz would ultimately be significantly smaller than the estimate in 
> the table."
>
> Is it possible to get the updated number so that we don't need this 
> qualifier?
>
> Take care,
> Ellie
>
> Elena Long, Ph.D.
> Post Doctoral Research Associate
> University of New Hampshire
> elena.long at unh.edu
> ellie at jlab.org
> http://nuclear.unh.edu/~elong
> (603) 862-1962
>
> On Mon 10 Jun 2013 01:29:08 PM EDT, Dustin Keller wrote:
>> We would like to send the note along with the e-mail responses so if
>> everyone can take the time to look through the content and numbers
>> discussed in the note and give either an OK or specific suggestions
>> by the end of the day then we can respond by tomorrow.  Karl will polish
>> it up and make the finishing edits but if there are any changes to numbers
>> or content now is the time to let me know.
>> 
>> Plots will be updated soon
>> 
>> Thanks
>> dustin
>> _______________________________________________
>> b1_ana mailing list
>> b1_ana at jlab.org
>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/b1_ana
>