<div dir="ltr"><br><div>Hi all,</div><div><br></div><div>I believe this has been verified by Oscar, and Patricia is also working to double check. Assuming it is verified, this factor of 2 impacts the decisions we made yesterday (namely to move some of the high-x time to the low x points). So I think we need to reevaluate. I see a few options:</div>
<div><br></div><div>1) move some of the time back to x=0.45</div><div><br></div><div>2) reduce from 3 to 2 points.</div><div><br></div><div>3) Vary the x=0.45 point a bit to see if we can find another "sweet spot" statistically that is not exactly the same as Hermes, but still close. </div>
<div><br></div><div>4) show this plot as an example of what we can achieve with modest improvement in tensor polarization (Pzz=0.2), along with another plot that shows the expectation for more optimistic improvement (Pzz = 0.5 or 0.3)</div>
<div><br></div><div>thoughts, other suggestions?</div><div><br></div><div>-Karl </div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><br></div>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Elena Long <<a href="mailto:ellie@jlab.org">ellie@jlab.org</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Good afternoon,<br>
<br>
I've re-run the statistics using the method we decided on yesterday.
The results can be seen here:
<a href="https://hallcweb.jlab.org/wiki/index.php/Elong-13-05-01-Azz-Method-2#Plots_with_using_Azz_Method_2_Calculations">https://hallcweb.jlab.org/wiki/index.php/Elong-13-05-01-Azz-Method-2#Plots_with_using_Azz_Method_2_Calculations</a><br>
<br>
Please note that they have grown by a factor of two compared to the
previous assumption, where we had both positive and negative
polarization. The calculations for the new method are formalized in
<a href="https://hallcweb.jlab.org/wiki/index.php/Elong-13-05-01-Azz-Method-2#Azz_Formalism_-_Method_2">https://hallcweb.jlab.org/wiki/index.php/Elong-13-05-01-Azz-Method-2#Azz_Formalism_-_Method_2</a><br>
<br>
Oscar has been mentioning that the code was missing a sqrt(2), which
was true. The other sqrt(2) on top of it comes from the assumption
before equation 25, which brings the total uncertainty a factor of
two larger than was projected with the old method.<br>
<br>
Take care,<br>
Ellie<font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
<pre cols="72">--
Elena Long, Ph.D.
Post Doctoral Research Associate
University of New Hampshire
<a href="mailto:elena.long@unh.edu">elena.long@unh.edu</a>
<a href="mailto:ellie@jlab.org">ellie@jlab.org</a>
<a href="http://nuclear.unh.edu/~elong">http://nuclear.unh.edu/~elong</a>
<a href="tel:%28603%29%20862-1962">(603) 862-1962</a></pre>
</font></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
b1_ana mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:b1_ana@jlab.org">b1_ana@jlab.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/b1_ana">https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/b1_ana</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>