[b1_ana] TAC/iTAC resp.

[Karl Slifer]

Hi Oscar,



On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 7:47 PM, O. A. Rondon <or at virginia.edu> wrote:

> Hi Karl,
>
> On p. 6, top paragraph,
>
> "Each cycle is independent and are irrelevant" =>
> "Each cycle is independent and changes that happen at the end of the
> cycle are irrelevant"
>
> OK


> P. 8, last parag. of sec. 1.2.6
> "...HMS. The affects on the .." =>
> "...HMS. The effects on the .."
>
> OK



> On the write-up about extra asymmetries, it would be good to have in
> [14] the estimated values for A_EW = 8E-5*Q^2 [E155x], and some number
> for A_V^d, which I estimated as A_V^d(Q^2=0.8, x=0.56) ~ 7E-4,
> unmitigated. It can be made negligible by combining +Pz with -Pz data,
> or with Pz ~ 0.
>
> If we are not very confident about A_V^d at the moment, I would agree
> with Dustin to just mention the beam-helicity A_PV being A_EW(Q^2< 5) <
> ~ 4e-4 \cite[P. Anthony et al., E155x, Phys.Lett.B553:18,2003], and what
> Wally said about a target-only A_PV.
>
> In the mean time, Ellie could try getting a better estimate for A_V^d
> using the formula and figures on F_{LT}^{1-1} from Arenhoevel. But we
> need to be aware that A_V^d (Pz-only electromagnetic asymmetry, may
> contribute at high x).
>
>
 I'll update the paragraph in the response with this information, and
remove the citation to the PV technote.  If we get further questions on PV,
we'll have to update.


thanks,

-Karl


Cheers,
>
> Oscar
>
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Oscar
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/b0082804/attachment.html