[b1_ana] TAC/iTAC resp.

[Dustin Keller]

see below,

On Thu, 13 Jun 2013, Karl Slifer wrote:

> 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.
There are two plots.  One, without hole-burning should show a 6% relative
with drift in table 1.  The one with hole-burning should show a 12% 
relative with 2/3 of the drift listed in table 1.

> 2)  The 6% relative systematic has been reduced from the 9.2% relative
> error listed in table 3 of the submitted proposal.
For no hole-burning that is ture.

>
> 3) The reduction comes from cutting the polarimetry relative uncertainty
> from 8% to 4%.
This reduction is for no hole burning but increases a bit with 
hole-burning when using 10% relative insead of 4%.

>
> 4) This is justified by using the expected uncertainty from line shape
> fitting instead of TE.
Yes as stated in the note from line shape fitting combined with cold NMR.
>
>
> 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.

Drift is reduced as well for the hole-burning cases.  Drift is dominate
close to the zero axis but for some of our point in higher x if we assume
kumano like parameterization the relative can become more dominate.  The 
point of the two plots is to show that with hole burning there is a
reduction of drift but that the increase from the relative uncertainty
still is not disadvantageous.

give me a call for more detail
434-924-6799
thanks
dustin


>
> -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
>>
>