<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><br></div><div>Yes I agree with Oscar. By using N/2 instead of N in the equation means that we are going to spend Time/2 on unpolarized target and Time/2 on polarized target.</div><div><br></div><div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Optima; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Patricia<br><br>-- <br>Patricia SOLVIGNON<br>Staff Scientist<br>Jefferson Lab<br><br>Current address : <br>Jefferson Lab<br>Suite 6, MS. 12H4 Room C121 (Cebaf Center)<br>12000 Jefferson Avenue Office: (757)-269-6933<br>Newport News, VA 23606</div>
</div>
<br><div><div>On May 2, 2013, at 2:15 PM, "O. A. Rondon" <<a href="mailto:or@virginia.edu">or@virginia.edu</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">Hi,<br><br>I think that the errors don't change, if N = Np + Nu. What changes is<br>the time, which it would then be the sum of Np time plus Nu time. It's<br>like this:<br><br>eq. (25b) dAzz = 2/sqrt(N) = 2/sqrt(2*Nu) = sqrt(2/Nu)<br><br>the error is the same, but of course, it takes twice as long to collect<br>Nu + Np, than just Nu or Np.<br><br>In summary, other than the extra sqrt(2) in the numerator, all numbers<br>should be the same.<br><br>Cheers,<br><br>Oscar<br><br>Dustin Keller wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite">Hi Elena,<br>why before eq 25 you use Np=Nu=N/2, why not just have<br>Np=Nu=N?<br><br>On Thu, 2 May 2013, Elena Long wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite">Good afternoon,<br><br>I've re-run the statistics using the method we decided on yesterday. The <br>results can be seen here: <br><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 <br>assumption, where we had both positive and negative polarization. The <br>calculations for the new method are formalized in <br>https://hallcweb.jlab.org/wiki/index.php/Elong-13-05-01-Azz-Method-2#Azz_Formalism_-_Method_2<br><br>Oscar has been mentioning that the code was missing a sqrt(2), which was <br>true. The other sqrt(2) on top of it comes from the assumption before <br>equation 25, which brings the total uncertainty a factor of two larger than <br>was projected with the old method.<br><br>Take care,<br>Ellie<br><br>-- <br>Elena Long, Ph.D.<br>Post Doctoral Research Associate<br>University of New Hampshire<br>elena.long@unh.edu<br>ellie@jlab.org<br>http://nuclear.unh.edu/~elong<br>(603) 862-1962<br><br><br></blockquote>_______________________________________________<br>b1_ana mailing list<br><a href="mailto:b1_ana@jlab.org">b1_ana@jlab.org</a><br>https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/b1_ana<br><br></blockquote><br>_______________________________________________<br>b1_ana mailing list<br><a href="mailto:b1_ana@jlab.org">b1_ana@jlab.org</a><br>https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/b1_ana<br></blockquote></div><br></body></html>