[b1_ana] draft V05

[Dustin Keller]

Just to be clear it is not an error that is reported it is the
absolute drift in the observable which seemed to be what steve was
asking about.  But there is a statement about the uncertainty
decreasing with the number of cycles below eq. 30.

dustin

On Sun, 5 May 2013, Jian-ping Chen wrote:

> Hi, Karl,
>
> I agree with Oscar that the error due to drift should be divided by
> number of pairs.
> 2nd paragraph after eq(30) on page 26,
> " All of these types of variation as can be realized both during the
> experiment though
> monitoring as well as..."
> --> "All of these types of variation can be controlled and minimized
> during the experiment
> through carefully monitoring as well as..."
>
> Cheers.
>
> Jian-ping
>
> On 5/5/2013 11:44 PM, Oscar Rondon-Aramayo wrote:
>> Hi Karl,
>>
>> Just above eq. 29, "from g2p/gep exp." need to  change delta epsilon to
>> delta Q.
>>
>> After eq. (30), if the 3.7E-3 drift error per cycle is averaged over 10
>> cycles, it would be reduced by 1/sqrt(10), to 1E-3. I would mention this,
>> instead of shortening the cycle period, which increases the overhead.
>>
>> For the run plan, we should do a cycle period optimization, based on
>> overhead vs number of cycles.
>>
>> It looks good.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Oscar
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 5 May 2013 23:08:56 -0400
>>    Karl Slifer <karl.slifer at unh.edu> wrote:
>>> Attached please find the latest draft.  Thanks Dustin for the latest
>>> updates to the systematic discussion.  If anyone is still up, please run
>>> some fresh eyes over section 2.
>> _______________________________________________
>> b1_ana mailing list
>> b1_ana at jlab.org
>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/b1_ana
>
> _______________________________________________
> b1_ana mailing list
> b1_ana at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/b1_ana
>