[b1_ana] TAC/iTAC resp.

[Karl Slifer]

Hi Ellie, Dustin

Sorry this question is a bit late, but I would appreciate some
clarification on the plots in the most recent
technote<https://userweb.jlab.org/~dustin/work/b1_dir/Azz_response/Azz_response.pdf>


Please let me know if I have the following correct:

1) The plots in the technote show a systematic error that combines 6% total
relative uncertainty combined with the drift errors in table 1 of the
technote.

2)  The 6% relative systematic has been reduced from the 9.2% relative
error listed in table 3 of the submitted proposal.

3) The reduction comes from cutting the polarimetry relative uncertainty
from 8% to 4%.

4) This is justified by using the expected uncertainty from line shape
fitting instead of TE.


And if this is all correct, I have a question: is claiming reduction of the
relative (non-drift) uncertainty from 9% to 6% (visually) worth it, since
it complicates the discussion, and I was under the impression that the
drift uncertainties dominated.

-Karl


---
Karl J. Slifer
Assistant Professor
University of New Hampshire
Telephone : 603-722-0695


On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 4:17 PM, Long, Elena <Elena.Long at unh.edu> wrote:

> My apologizes, the Pzz_40_* files have Rel. Sys=6%.
>
> Take care,
> Ellie
>
> Elena Long, Ph.D.
> Post Doctoral Research Associate
> University of New Hampshire
> elena.long at unh.edu
> ellie at jlab.org
> (603) 862-1962
> http://nuclear.unh.edu/~elong
>
> On Wed 05 Jun 2013 04:11:34 PM EDT, Elena Long wrote:
> > Good afternoon,
> >
> > I've attached *.eps plots using the drift uncertainties listed in
> > Table 1 of the ITAC response. They are included as a weighted average
> > to each x bin, where the bins have been collected across multiple
> > spectrometer settings. Pzz_20_* files are with Pzz=0.2 and Rel.
> > Sys=12%, Pzz_40_* files are with Pzz=0.4 and Rel. Sys=9%. *_bars_*
> > show the uncertainties on the points and *_bands_* splits the
> > systematics into a band underneath the estimates.
> >
> > Take care,
> > Ellie
> >
> > On Wed 05 Jun 2013 02:31:44 PM EDT, Dustin Keller wrote:
> >>
> >> Yes I'm ok with using as much or as little as we all decide
> >> I guess we can determine what to keep next meeting.
> >>
> >> dustin
> >>
> >> On Wed, 5 Jun 2013, O. A. Rondon wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> 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
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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
> >> --
> >> Elena Long, Ph.D.
> >> Post Doctoral Research Associate
> >> University of New Hampshire
> >> elena.long at unh.edu
> >> ellie at jlab.org
> >> (603) 862-1962
> >> http://nuclear.unh.edu/~elong
>
> _______________________________________________
> b1_ana mailing list
> b1_ana at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/b1_ana
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/b1_ana/attachments/20130613/abe9cd7a/attachment-0001.html