[b1_ana] Fwd: TAC/iTAC resp.

Karl Slifer karl.slifer at unh.edu
Thu Jun 13 22:59:14 EDT 2013 

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Karl Slifer <karl.slifer at unh.edu>
Date: Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:58 PM
Subject: Re: [b1_ana] TAC/iTAC resp.
To: Dustin Keller <dustin at jlab.org>



Hi Dustin,


On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Dustin Keller <dustin at jlab.org> wrote:

> The 12% is for the total error with 10% from the target (hole burning).
> The 10% was already on the high end and combined with the other systematics
> it became 12%.  This difference is not really that important to me if you
> like 12% better.
>
> I think figure 2 a) is a bit detrimental.  This shows the combination
> of contributions but is really to big for what we want.  Why put
> it in?  2 b) is good.
>

JP suggested this, and we discussed at the last meeting:

0.355%/15 days/2 cycles per day = 1.2*10^{-4}  over a single 12 hour cycle.

It seems very convincing to me.



> As I mentioned in the e-mail the 0.1 mm holes in the cups design was
> just an order of magnitude.  After checking today its actually 0.35 mm,
> I would like to change the number there.
>
> OK


>
> Unless I'm looking at the wrong version the note in Ref. 14 does not
> address the parity violating asymmetries they were asking about.
> However when I looked into this I did see that they were very much
> negligible but only in regard to the paper they mentioned.  In addition
> the Ref. 14 points out issues around additional components to the asymmetry
> that may bring up more questions than answers.  (ie the final expression
> in Eq. 9. of Ref. 14).
>

OK

thanks,

 Karl

>
> dustin
>
>
> On Thu, 13 Jun 2013, Karl Slifer wrote:
>
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Attached please find a revision of Dustin's note.  Mostly I've just
> > front-loaded the document with what I think is the most important
> > information. So if possible, atleast take a look at the abstract and
> first
> > page.  The rest of the changes are pretty minor typo errors and slight
> > trimming of redundant discussions.  One concrete change is that I
> inflated
> > the estimate of relative uncertainty on Pzz with hole burning in the text
> > from 10% to 12% to better reflect what is shown in Fig. 1, and I simply
> > labeled the two projection plots as Pzz=20% and Pzz=30%, instead of
> > with/without hole burning.
> >
> > Note: we are still missing the "killer plot" from g2p or other low
> current
> > experiment to back up the pion yield plot from Transversity, but it looks
> > like that will take some time to obtain.
> >
> > I'm aiming to send the PAC reader response tonight, so please do try to
> > take a look beforehand, or let me know if you want more time.
> >
> > thanks much,
> >
> > -Karl
> >
> > ---
> > Karl J. Slifer
> > Assistant Professor
> > University of New Hampshire
> > Telephone : 603-722-0695
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Dustin Keller <dustin at jlab.org> wrote:
> >
> >> 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
> >>>>
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/b1_ana/attachments/20130613/d471d90f/attachment-0001.html

More information about the b1_ana mailing list