[b1_ana] draft V3

Sun May 5 15:53:25 EDT 2013

Good afternoon,

I had a number of mostly minor comments on the proposal, which I've included below. Along with them comes a few questions:
In 2 The Proposed Experiment (page 19), first paragraph, do we want the x range to be the central values we're measuring or also include the x range we're average over? If the former, then it should be 0.16 < x < 0.49. If the latter, then it should be 0.09 < x < 0.58.

Figure 7: I don't have the colors or legend of the different models -- is this something you'd like back in? I think the coloring I would argue against, since what we want to emphasize "pops" more without it. However, I leave this to the collaboration. Relatedly, I'm currently plotting b1 vs x. As Patricia noted, our error bars (as well as HERMES) would look drastically smaller if we plotted x*b1 vs x. Which method is preferred?

Table 4 (page 24) -- Does this need to be updated since we're looking at 30 days instead of 28?

Take care,
Ellie

And now, my comments.
---------------------------------------------------

Forward, second paragraph (page 4): "…sensitivity of the integrated counts in each states…" to "…sensitivity of the integrated counts in each state…"

Figure 4 (page 14), the left plot looks extremely light when viewed on the iPad, but looks fine on my Mac. My guess is it's fine, but I don't have my printed copy available and just wanted to double-check that it will look fine printed. If not, I can darken the lines a bit. Figure 6 (both plots) do the same thing.

Table 2 (page 19) maybe should be re-captioned to read "Expected uncertainties in Azz and b1."

In 2 The Proposed Experiment (page 19), first paragraph, do we want the x range to be the central values we're measuring or also include the x range we're average over? If the former, then it should be 0.16 < x < 0.49. If the latter, then it should be 0.09 < x < 0.58.

In 2 The Proposed Experiment (page 19), second paragraph, the dilution factor being used is 0.95*f_ideal = 0.285. Also our luminosity comes out to 1.57x10^35/cm^2*s -- Using 2 is probably fine, I don't know how many digits we want in it. Also the HMS omega acceptance we've been using is 5.6 msr, not 6.5. In the last sentence, the projected uncertainties are shown in Table 2, the kinematics of the spectrometers in Table 1.

Figure 7: I don't have the colors or legend of the different models -- is this something you'd like back in? I think the coloring I would argue against, since what we want to emphasize "pops" more without it. However, I leave this to the collaboration. Relatedly, I'm currently plotting b1 vs x. As Patricia noted, our error bars (as well as HERMES) would look drastically smaller if we plotted x*b1 vs x. Which method is preferred?

Figure 7 (again): We don't have a black band representing systematic uncertainty, the plots I made only show statistical. 

In 2.1 Experimental Method (page 22), paragraph 5 (top line of page 22), there is an extra "and" in "…number of deuterium nuclei in the target and and…" In the same paragraph, a super minor question is whether ND3 and LHe should be italicized or not. In the following paragraph, just after Equation 22, we should say R_T is the total rate since we're no longer using R_D in Equation 22.

In Time dependent factors (page 23), paragraph 4, it reads "The signal with noise ratio suppression…" when it should read "The signal to noise ratio suppression…"

Table 4 (page 24) -- Does this need to be updated since we're looking at 30 days instead of 28?

In 2.2 Polarized Target (page 24), first paragraph, do we want to mention that it's an ND3 target?

Figures 10 (page 25) and 11 (page 26) -- Is the GeN mentioned the neutron electric form factor? If so, it's normally written G_E^n. If it's not, I apologize for pointing it out.

In 2.2.1 Polarization Analysis (page 27), paragraph 5 (first full paragraph on page 27), if LHe and ND3 on page 22 are italicized than ND3 and LiD here should be as well. It also has GeN, similar to Figures 10 and 11. Another super-minor point, in the last paragraph in the section (page 27, second full paragraph) 'hole-burning'. should be written as "hole-burning." (according to my husband who majored in English)

In 2.2.2 Depolarizing the Target, first paragraph (page 27), a comma should be inserted after "To move from polarized to unpolarized measurements" and another one should be added in the second paragraph after "To minimize [a] systematic effect over time"

In 2.2.3 Rendering Dilution Factor, first paragraph (page 27), a comma should be inserted after "To derive the dilution factor" In the line following it, the and should be removed from "…measured, and neglecting the small contribution…"

In Equation 33, the second line has "…3sigma(1+2AzzPzz/2))pf + …" -- should that 2 before Azz be there? I think it's an extra factor that doesn't continue with the rest of the derivation.

In 3 Summary, first paragraph (page 28), "We request 28 days of procution…" should be changed to "We request 30 days of production…" The comma in "…using a longitudinally polarized deuteron target, together with…" should be removed. In the second paragraph, the comma in "…to the tensor quark polarization, and allow a test of…" should be removed.

On May 4, 2013, at 6:47 PM, Karl Slifer <karl.slifer at unh.edu> wrote:

> 
> Hi All,
> 
> I've posted the updated draft at
> 
> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/59933793/tensor_b1_v03.pdf
> 
> There is some lagtime for implementation, but I think this reflects pretty well where our discussion was about 24 hours ago.  However, we still need:
> 
> -updated rates/kin plots from Ellie or Patricia and values for the table
> 
> -some consensus on how to address Steve's comments.  
> 
> It seems we have three options with time running short.
> 
> 1) List all possible factors that drift with time and atleast sketch a plan to deal with them.
> 
> 2) go back to difference of counts.
> 
> 3) Cancel submission and work on this for next PAC. 
> 
> I lean to the first, Oscar leans to the second.  I'd very much like to find some consensus on this.  Am I the only one still nerding it up in front of my computer on this beautiful spring day?     
> 
> -Karl
> 
> PS : If anyone makes suggestions for changes I would very much appreciate that they be in a form that I can put into the document quickly.  
> 
> ---
> 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

--------------------------------------------
Elena Long, Ph.D.
Post Doctoral Research Associate
University of New Hampshire
elena.long at unh.edu
ellie at jlab.org
(603) 862-1962

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/b1_ana/attachments/20130505/b6b1846d/attachment-0001.html 