[b1_ana] Fwd: Independent Technical Advisory Report

[Narbe Kalantarians]

Hi Oscar,

Let me take a look at this. I'll try to have something by Monday.

Narbe


On 05/30/2013 08:05 PM, O. A. Rondon wrote:
> For fixed total time on the floor, we gain sqrt(n) by having shorter,
> more frequent cycles, at the cost of increased polarization build
> up/removal overhead that takes away from data statistics.
>
> If there is no anneal between, say pairs of 5+5 hour cycles, the price
> is that the second pair will have worse Pzz. If there is an anneal after
> each pair of cycles for each target, the price is the anneal's overhead.
>
> I suggest we give Dustin's question a quantitative answer, by
> calculating the total error, with the drift error decreasing as sqrt(n)
> cycles but the statistical error increasing as t_beam = t_total -
> t_overhead, with t_overhead = the sum on table 4 of the proposal,
> suitably adjusted by n.
>
> And I also suggest reducing P_zz for a second cycle with the same target
> without an intervening anneal by, say 5% absolute(?).
>
> Someone (Narbe, Ellie, .. ?) could make this optimization in a
> spreadsheet, where one can change the number of cycles and the anneal
> frequency.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Oscar
>
> Dustin Keller wrote:
>> Yes I would like to reach a consensus on the best that we can do
>> via ~sqrt(N).  ei. what is the final word on number of cycles
>> per point.  Anneal are likely not necessary at the 6 hour point
>> but we do loose time by having to repolarize twice as much.
>>
>> dustin
>>
>> On Thu, 30 May 2013, O. A. Rondon wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> b1_ana mailing list
> b1_ana at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/b1_ana