[b1_ana] draft V3

Sun May 5 18:59:48 EDT 2013

Hi Simonetta,

Thanks, I'll add this to the motivation.  If you send a longer version I'll
also update.

-Karl

On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 6:03 PM, Simonetta Liuti
<sl4y at cms.mail.virginia.edu>wrote:

> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130505/539c4b60/attachment.html 