[b1_ana] draft V3

Sun May 5 18:03:50 EDT 2013

Hi All,
please find attached my short description. Please let me know if you would need a longer version
Simonetta

On Sun, 5 May 2013 16:56:09 -0400
 Karl Slifer <karl.slifer at unh.edu> wrote:
>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
>>
>>

**************************************************************
**************************************************************
Prof. Simonetta Liuti                     telephone (434) 982-2087
Department of Physics               FAX       (434) 924-4576
University of Virginia              home      (434) 973 9593
382 McCormick Rd.
PO Box 400714
Charlottesville, VA 22904-4714

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: b1_2sentence.tex
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 1538 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/b1_ana/attachments/20130505/82ced4de/attachment.obj 