[b1_ana] draft V3

Sun May 5 16:56:09 EDT 2013

Hi,

On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Elena Long <ellie at jlab.org> wrote:

> 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.
>
>
ok, I've updated to the former.

> 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?
>
>
It's fine without color, but let me know which curve is which and I'll add
it to the caption.  (However, the 2 curves for Azz have same style.)

Table 4 (page 24) -- Does this need to be updated since we're looking at 30
> days instead of 28?
>
>
 The diff between 28 and 30 on the overhead is small.

> 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…"
>
> ok

> 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.
>
>
yes, these plots are stolen from some old publications.  Please do whatever
you can to improve.

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

> 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.
>
> ok, fixed

> 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.
>
>
ok, I removed the text.  We'll need a plot with syst on eventually.

> 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.
>

ok, fixed

>
> 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…"
>

ok, fixed

>
> Table 4 (page 24) -- Does this need to be updated since we're looking at
> 30 days instead of 28?
>
> nope, unless someone has updated estimates

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

> 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.
>
> yes.  but we usually call E08-027 "g2p" for example

> 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)
>
> ok

> 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"
>
> ok

> 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…"
>
> ok

> 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.
>
> I'm not sure.

> 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.
>
>
ok

thanks for the careful read,

-Karl

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130505/7e997700/attachment-0001.html 