[b1_ana] draft proposal v02

[Oscar Rondon-Aramayo]

Comments on this section:

1. need to state or explicitly write, that dQ and depsilon, but especially
dQ, are relative quantities, e.g. dQ is really dimensionless dQ/Q.
Otherwise, the product Q(1+dQ) would have mixed units.

2. the product dQ*de is second order, can be neglected, but dQ and de have
the same sign, so dXi = dQ + de (typo at top of p. 2)

3. since dQ really means dQ/Q, etc. dXi is exactly what I have in the
difference of counts eq. (20), i.e.

dXi = (dQ/Q + de/e).

4. If we take dXi= 1E-4, we have dAzz(drift) =  2E-4/.27/.2 = 3.7E-3

5. Since HERMES total Azz(x=0.45) error = +/- 7E-3,
it seems we would halve their error.

6. What we'd need to confirm is whether dQ/Q, de/e each drift less than 
0.01% in 20 hours.

Cheers,

Oscar







On Sun, 5 May 2013 03:03:51 -0400 (EDT)
  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
>>>
>>