[b1_ana] draft proposal v02

[Karl Slifer]

Hi Dustin,

In my opinion, its pretty good. I think the subscripts on Q and varepsilon
in equation 1 are switched, but otherwise you pretty clearly summarize the
effects we're concerned about.  I don't think it should be an appendix, but
inserted into the main text.

I still have to carefully read Oscar's last email (9:53 pm yesterday), but
it looks like he has numerically estimated and justified some of the
contributions. So the challenge is to combine these two discussions.  I'll
start on that.

-Karl






On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 3:03 AM, Dustin Keller <dustin at jlab.org> wrote:

> here is what i was thinking, let me know if we want to add something
> like this and we can clean it up a bit and add some details.
>
> dustin
>
>
> On Sun, 5 May 2013, Karl Slifer wrote:
>
>  Hi Oscar,
>>
>> I modified this eq as you suggested to show the explicit dependence on Q
>> and e.
>>
>> -Karl
>>
>>
>> [image: Inline image 3]
>>
>> ---
>> Karl J. Slifer
>> Assistant Professor
>> University of New Hampshire
>> Telephone : 603-722-0695
>>
>>
>> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 9:38 PM, Oscar Rondon-Aramayo <
>> or at cms.mail.virginia.edu> wrote:
>>
>>  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
>>>>
>>>
>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>> b1_ana mailing list
>>> b1_ana at jlab.org
>>> https://mailman.jlab.org/**mailman/listinfo/b1_ana<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/20130505/ba98a954/attachment.html