[b1_ana] draft proposal v02

[Oscar Rondon-Aramayo]

Hi,

To further remove any confusion about our method and its errors, I suggest 
that instead of writing eq. (19) in terms of charge normalized, efficiency 
corrected counts, we display the charges and efficiencies explicitly, and 
use raw counts. Although we stated the kind of counts we are using in that 
eq. just above it, it seems Steve missed it.

Per eqs. (32) and (33) in the appendix 2.2.3, this means just moving Q's and 
epsilons to the l.h.sides, since N1 and N are indeed raw counts there, and 
don't make any approximations, like Q1 ~ Q, etc.

Then, the l.h.s. of eq. (34) would be

(Q/Q1)*(e/e1)*(N1/N) and

eq. (19) becomes

  Azz =  2/(f*Pzz)*[(Q/Q1)*(e/e1)*(N1/N) - 1]

where it's evident that Q's and e's are normalizations or scale factors, 
just like f and Pzz, and change the text above the equation to say raw 
counts, not normalized and corrected ones.

I don't see any other way to make it any clearer.

And, of course, we need to emphasize somewhere that the statistical error is 
always based on the RAW counts.

Cheers,

Oscar



On Fri, 3 May 2013 17:43:55 -0400
  Karl Slifer <karl.slifer at unh.edu> wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I got a ton of comments, and I think I've implemented them all.  I think
> the most substantial pertain to the following: (equation numbers refer to
> the attached draft)
> 
> Eq 17 and 19: Azz expressed as ratio - 1 as suggested by Oscar
> 
> Eq 22 : Total time expressed in terms of R_T as noted by Patricia and
> concurred by Ellie and Oscar.
> 
> Page 23 Charge determination systematic : modified to reflect Oscar and
> JP's suggestions
> 
> There were a lot more, so please double check that your suggestions have
> been satisfactorily included.
> 
> The overhead and target sections are still in progress.  Anyone have time
> to help with that?
> 
> thanks,
> 
> Karl
> 
> 
> ---
> Karl J. Slifer
> Assistant Professor
> University of New Hampshire
> Telephone : 603-722-0695