[b1_ana] Fwd: Independent Technical Advisory Report

[O. A. Rondon]

Hi Karl,

I posted a draft of my comments about the pf and target length. All are
welcome to read/comment, etc.

The LaTex and pdf files are here (name tac-itac*)
http://twist.phys.virginia.edu/~or/b1/?C=M;O=D

It bears repeating that the uncertainties in Azz due to time dependent
systematics are per cycle period. They will be further reduced in the
error of the mean Azz for each x point  by the square root of the ~ 10
cycles per point. Otherwise, nothing would be gained by repeated
measurements. At least that is what I understand from Bevington's text
on errors.

So the error bands based on dA_zz(xi) = 3.7E-3 are actually too
pessimistic. A realistic error would be 1/2 to 1/3 of that for the
combined data per x point, considering that the 3.7 factor might be a
bit bigger.

Cheers,

Oscar

Karl Slifer wrote:
> A more pessimistic read by the iTAC.
> 
> -Karl
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Susan Brown <sbrown at jlab.org>
> Date: Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:23 PM
> Subject: Independent Technical Advisory Report
> To: Karl Slifer <karl.slifer at unh.edu>
> 
> 
> Dear Dr. Slifer,
> 
> Attached please find a copy of the Independent Technical Advisory report
> for your PAC submission.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Susan
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> b1_ana mailing list
> b1_ana at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/b1_ana